Why does Heathrow need an HSR stop? It already has mainline rail and metro service.

The following letter was printed in the PA Daily News on Sat. Feb 13th. Since it comes from a person with authority, it should be noted with more than usual consideration.

=========
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Rail ridership estimates were ’faked’ to hoodwink public

Dear Editor: As the retired manager of long range transit planning at the Southern California Association of Governments, until 2008 I had to deal regularly with the California High Speed Rail Authority. It is, without a doubt, the most dysfunctional and possibly corrupt transportation agency in the state, possibly the nation. It is unprofessional, mismanaged and not accountable to the Legislature or the taxpayers who will have to pay off the bonds.

Those of us who have studied high-speed rail systems, including ridership estimates, operational costs and fare structures, immediately knew that these numbers were faked, and this nonsense of a “typo” is an obvious lie. The results produced and the lack of transparency on the purported estimation methodology (until now) generated astounding and impossible results. It is now increasingly apparent that these ridership estimates were faked to deliberately and willfully to hoodwink the public.

And these deliberately faked results were used in subsequent policy and environmental documents, rendering those findings meaning-less, at a cost of millions of dollars willfully and fraudulently taken from the taxpayers to pay for these results.

Over the last couple of years I’ve worked with several international firms that have done high-speed rail private investment projects around the world and were interested in possible opportunities in California. I note that these people were not fooled by these clearly ludicrous modeling estimates, and are now even less inclined to make any private investments in the authority.

I support high-speed rail and now serve on several non-profit transit and rail advocacy and educational boards that support a responsible, well-planned, cost-effective, high-speed rail component as part of our California system of high-speed, intercity and regional rail services.

However, no one should be fooled into thinking that the incompetent and possibly crooked crew at the California High Speed Rail Authority will deliver a carefully designed and cost-effective high-speed rail system for California under the current dubious authority management team or the apparently equally dubious oversight of the current authority board.

Bob Huddy, Pasadena

Bob Huddy is a person who HAD authority with SCAG. (Such an unfortunate acronym).

I saw nothing in his letter to disprove that the “typo” wasn’t a typo.

SCAG’s idea of high speed rail transport is maglev to connect the airports in southern CA. And I note that Cambridge did the ridership studies for SCAG’s maglev program. Are their numbers faked, too?

One of the things I’ve learned is that the only reason someone uses the word “clearly” and “obviously” when writing a persuasive paper is when that person has no convincing facts to back him up. If something was “clear” or “obvious” there would be no need to convince the other party.

“Those of us who have studied high-speed rail systems … immediately knew that these numbers were faked”. So, SNCF has agreed the numbers were faked? Didn’t they come up with numbers that were very similar to CHSRA’s numbers?

There is a fascinating and even-handed lecture about HSR by the chief engineer for the new British project. Everybody interested in HSR, for and against, should watch it… even die-hard HSR experts might learn something new.

There’s a very good explanation of where and where not to build stations (centers vs. outskirts) as often debated here.

I’m pretty sure this gentleman would chuckle at our plans here in California. (Transbay mess. 220 mph through downtown Fresno on a 20 km viaduct 20 meters in the sky. Downtown Gilroy station. etc.)

Of course, large parts of East Anglia would be “trashed” by a rise in sea level induced by global warming, and even the Thames Barrier might be in trouble, so you have to place such statements in context. Still, it’s an indication of the battles that lie ahead outside the cities.

English people in general feel fairly protective of the remaining areas of traditional and scenic countryside, and anything that’s perceived as “trashing” the Chilterns is going to get a lot of opposition from far more people than just the locals. That said , if the UK could manage to fund 12 miles of deep-bore tunnel to preserve the pristine scenic beauty of East London, they can probably come up with a solution that minimizes the impact of HS2.

As for center city stations in Birmingham, and Edinburgh, these cities already have relatively central stations. I suspect a line of track would be replaced/upgraded and the central stations utilized for HSR, as well as regular railroads.

Glasgow and Manchester are concerns; they have central stations but they are terminals, and not through stations.

http://www.facebook.com/friends/?id=1652331324 (You do have to sign in).

To all,

The correspondence was published without my permission or contact by those news organizations requesting my permission to publish any such “Letter to the Editor”. I have asked for a full retraction and apology to me for this unprofessional and irresponsible action on the part of this news organization. However, the problems unearthed continue to point to complete incompetence in the way this modeling that was performed, consistent with the continuing record of gross mismanagement of this very important project, which I happen to support.

As to some of the uninformed comments above, I was not involved in MagLev planning, and do support investment in high speed rail for California. As to uninformed people who make judgements of intent, based on lists of people on social networking sites as confirmation of their bizarre conspiracy theories, I can only say, get a life

Good question Spokker-The Legislature should pass SB 409, while it has been watered down, it still contains some basic oversight and coordination language so that we can make this project work. I would also urge the legislature to consider adding an independent peer review process to assure adequate professional oversight. Another good idea I heard today at the Hearings in LA would be to have a real Secretary of Transportation, instead of BTH, which would report directly to the Governor and Legislature with oversight and accountability integrating all of our conflicting and competing Rail programs.

The fundamental concept of HSR is good, the project mismanagement we have repeatedly experienced is not. Taxpayers expect responsibility and accountability. And, California deserves a well planned, affordable, and realistic high speed rail system, which I absolutely support.

Too bad Matthew F. who is apparently afraid to use his real name while attacking me with his bizarre conspiracy theories. I do know Mr. Tolmach, I also know Mark Pisano, I also know Bob Poole at the Reason Foundation, it doesn’t mean I agree with or support their positions. So yes, as far as I can tell, your juvenile and speculative conspiracy theories are just that.

The route choice issue is a red herring. The route choice should consider the impacts and benefits of alternatives, but that component is ultimately a policy judgement. However, routing choices can and do affect distance, time, and operational performance criteria. Obviously, longer routes will require more track, structures, and resultant costs. But, longer routes which may also serve more travelers, by connecting more centers, may also lead to more benefits to offset those costs. The underlying problem with the planning has been a lack of effective analysis of those tradeoffs, and associated costs.

The planning for such a “system” should be based upon a well demonstrated purpose and need, this aspect of the planning has been done poorly on this project, thus far. A second problem is dictating the technical performance parameters “a priori” without having done the fundamental analysis of the costs and benefits of those parameters. Are the travel time savings and resultant additional riders worth the marginal cost? At what point are you just spending more money for that performance, and not getting any additional benefit from that more costly performance? The recent modeling scandal is yet another example of that failure in basic analysis, which leads to erroneous and unsustainable assumptions being used to plan and design the ultimate project.

To those who think that if you are critical of irresponsible or incompetent planning you are somehow against high speed rail, I can only say hogwash. Allegiance to a worthy and worthwhile project is not a justification for covering up poor management, poor planning, and dubious leadership. That would be just plain foolishness and/or would show a complete lack of ethical values. We need to fix this program to make sure that taxpayers are protected, expectations are real, the system we build works to meet the needs of Californian’s, and that it is economically sustainable. That is what we were promised, that is what we should insist upon.

All very good arguments in principle, but I don’t agree with the meat of it. I don’t feel the ridership estimates are inaccurate to the point of calling the financial viability of the system into doubt, and I have yet to see credible arguments from parties, neutral or otherwise, to that effect.

You’ve got a start – you’ve alleged a few problems. Now it’s time to come in and fill it out with your evidence. Not diatribes about “poor management, poor planning, and dubious leadership” – cite documents, studies done by other projects for comparison, survey data. Put up or shut up.

It’s much easier to make unfounded allegations. But you’re not going to convince anyone around here unless you start offering some data.

Matthew,

If all you can accuse me of is making arguments for using principles and well established planning methods. How much economic or transportation modeling have you done? I was recently asked to look at the evidence that came to light about these modeling findings, and thus far, it is apparent that the methodology was fatally flawed. Whether this analysis was the result of incompetence or malfeasance is irrelevant, it still exposes this organization to additional legal threats, delays, and was a gross waste of the public resources used. That is poor management at best, and unethical behaviour at worst.

Based upon my experience, it is my opinion, from what has been revealed thus far, that these estimates would fundamentally affect all subsequent technical and financial analysis that is derived from them. The modeling results which contain admitted significant errors, whether from “typos” or malfeasance, do appear to be so fundamental that they would bring into question any subsequent financial analysis or planning base upon them.

The trip costs are now prohibitively high, and yet we saw little or none of the deflection of ridership that we would expect based on most knowledge of price elasticity. The “typo” was an order of magnitude error apparent to anyone familiar with these techniques and familiar with similar analysis of other projects, and currently operating systems. The validation methodologies are now under scrutiny and on first appearance appear to be highly dubious. I am awaiting additional information on this, but the use of limited stated preference survey methodologies is not good practice, when significant empirical data sources are available.

As other commentor’s have noted, this is not the only problem, or concerns raised by slip shod planning, but this one is a glaring example of potential ethical malfeasance. This project needs independent peer review, as these repeated problems are costly, wasteful of public resources, and do more to hurt this project than any of the “rail haters”.

How many more teachers, firemen, or policimen should we lay off to pay to do this incompetent work over, and over, and over, and over again? How many times have we paid for a “business plan” only to find out it was improperly done? How many transit busses, light rail or commuter trains will we have to be cut to pay for the cost of the lawyers when the Southern California cities join the Northern California cities in the lawsuits over this mismanaged project?

I support high speed rail. I have a record of supporting the bond issue. I was on the team that lobbied for high speed rail as part of the stimulus program. I have a clear and well established record of supporting rail passenger and transit improvements for over forty years. That doesn’t mean I will remain silent when I see incompetence and waste of public resources out of some false political correctness. That would be unethical and unprofessional on my part. And worse, allowing this project to continue with this level of poor planning, incompetent management, and lack of oversight is guaranteed “not” give us an affordable or effective high speed rail passenger system.

How dare I criticize Comrade Stalin? Or raise questions about the litany of issues this project has raised?

Your childish insults and tone show your true character, and your comments are not worthy of any further reply.

Have a good day.

Your insulting tone says pretty much what anyone really needs to know about you. I don’t think there is anything I can say that is of any real interest to you, anyway. So have a nice day.

To those who recognize these serious problems at CHSRA and are working to resolve them, I say thank you. To those who fealty to this project, no matter the questions raised, is based on some type of “true believer” or “political correctness” mentaility, there’s really not much I can do for you. If you’re just another nose at the public trough it probably doesn’t mean much either, unless you are eating the seed corn, and doing your best to kill public confidence in the project by these kind of stunts.

If you actually support high speed rail, and not some endless trough to be slopped with taxpayer dollars, then you understand that immediate and fundamental reform is required. If not, then nothing I say would matter anyhow.

As more information is dragged, kicking and screaming, from this agency that can be analyzed, I am sure that many of those who seem to know something on this site, will be able to offer better insights, constructive criticism, and recommend ways to fix this mess. What we have seen thus far, does not pass the smell test, as another poster rightly noted.

I guess that is is why I am in such bipartisan “bad company” as folks as diverse as Bob Huff and Alan Lowenthal in raising fundamental questions on this important issue of basic public accountability.

Matthew is absolutely correct about you Bob Huddy. You dance around and do not provide anything to back up your stance, then point the finger back at an individual who is asking for backup data by saying he is insulting. Another dance.

Please provide links or concrete data for your accusations so the rest of us can understand your side of the story?

Dozens of pointless insults? Now, I even stand accused of delivering real and successful projects? How many rail or tranist projects, studies, or policies have you worked on that were successfully delivered?

I think that others on here have done a more than adequate job in earlier posts on posting the specific errors in the calculations, and the specific multipliers used that contained these order of magnitude errors. So my reposting that now admitted error does nothing to enhance or refute the issues I’ve raised. That type of error is simply unacceptable, and, at least to me, yet another example of repeated incompetence.

What is it that will make you two happy, now that even the CHSRA admits these errors in the results and says they were a result of “typos”? I suspect nothing, as you seem to feel this is level of error is an acceptable professional practice? When we get the validation methodology in more detail there will be more to comment on. They don’t seem to want to be too forthcoming, so that may take a while.

You two are now boring me with your insults and you really have no other agenda, except your ad hominen attacks, and have no real defense for the errors, that even CHSRA has publicly admitted to.

So when you have a professional and/or ethical defense, for your apparent view, as to why people should be allowed to continue to use analysis they now admit was significantly in error, to plan a 40 to 80 billion dollar project, risking public funds, you make that case?

That sounds pretty unacceptable to me, but maybe you two can show me how using tainted analysis is a good thing?

who knew a coefficient was so important. Is all this really necessary? Why can’t we just built this based on common sense?

There’s lot of people. And lots more on the way. The people need to go places. Trains are very good at that. = build the train and make sure it goes where the people are who are going to use it.

There. Study complete.