link to part 1:

link to part 2:

link to part 3:

As for the testimony against HSR… it appeared that Vranich was confident and sounded like he knew what he was talking about. But 'sounded' is the key word.

So, I was prompted last night to pull out that Due Diligence Report to examine the data for myself. I don't mean the executive summary… b/c that thing says the same thing in each segment, provides no data and only opinion on this or that.

Since many of the arguments against the merit-worthiness of the CHSRA plan relies on ridership projects, including as a business model, GHG reductions, and so forth, I zoomed to that part of the report to see what it had to say.

And what I found… absolutely zero original work!

The entire argument about ridership rests on comparisons to earlier projections and other systems. There is zero original work having any substance. And the argument is very verbose, and seems to want to convince the reader with its volume of argument. It's not objective at all and it's too difficult to take at face value, if at all.

If Vranich truly has applicable experience in rail projects, he should know that the Due Diligence report should forward projections originating from appropriate methodologies and planning work. Instead, only a number is forwarded with no dialogue about where his numbers come from.

Credibility with me is not zero, it's negative.

Btw, I have ridership projections too! I should forward them to appropriate authorities…. after all, if Vranich thinks his have merit, mine must too!

If the report cannot treat ridership projections with its proper due, then how can readers accept other arguments elsewhere in the report?

And, although Vranich made his way into the room with the Senate T&H Committee with such a baseless report, I can understand how. He's attached at the hip with the anti-tax Jarvis group…. and the Senate meeting was put together at Ashburns request, likely. Ashburn was probably the one that invited him too, no doubt.

David Schonbrunn *opposes* high speed rail. He does not want to see this project built. That much needs to be made clear here.

You can find the blue-colored link to the podcast file of the debate, near the bottom of the HSR page on our website:

http://transdef.org/HSR/HSR.html

If you need a more detailed analysis of what is wrong with the work of the High-Speed Rail Authority, there is a blue link at the bottom of the same web page to testimony delivered yesterday to the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee by High-Speed Rail expert Joseph Vranich. He concluded by calling for the dissolution of the Authority.

BTW, it was no surprise that the bond measure is on the ballot this November. HSRA could have spent its funds last year on a business plan, rather than on PR in preparation for the election. How much did all those gee-whiz animations cost?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEkWWZOXA68

The budget deficit is not difficult to close from a policy standpoint. Or even from a political standpoint. The problem is the 2/3 rule and the Republican obstructionists.

Away from the fight on Prop 1A we are working VERY hard to resolve that problem. A measure will be on the special election ballot in the spring to eliminate the 2/3 rule. Dems are close to winning a 2/3 majority in the Legislature in just over a week’s time.

In any case, the budget deficit is not a permanent feature of life here. It is a problem deliberately created by Republicans precisely to kill government funded projects like this. If we kill HSR because of the budget problem we are doing exactly what folks like Ashburn and Tom McClintock want.

I disagree. This is the fallacy of perfect being the enemy of good enough. Yes, the lack of an updated business plan is a negative. Don’t believe me? Then who here would claim delivery of an updated business plan would not be a positive?

They pretty much explain everything in the FAQs section. Why they chose Pacheco over Altamont, how many people will ride the trains, how fast it would be, etc. If you don’t accept that info, you won’t accept the business plan.

The business plan will still be incomplete by your standards. It won’t tell you how they are going to build the system in Menlo Park. It won’t tell you how they intend to get over Tehachapi. It’s too early in the game to know these things. I don’t think you even want a business plan.

Again, voting yes on this bond measure is telling State of California that the Authority needs to be properly funded in order to carry out the process of designing and building a high speed train. I would not expect them to know everything about this complex project at this point.

I’m sure when more extensive engineering and design work is done (after the bond measure passes of course), they’ll find problems, and discover solutions. Costs will go up, sure. After all, this isn’t the 1800s where you can round up Chinese people and tell them to build a railroad.