CHSRA Releases Draft Revisions To 2009 Business Plan
In advance of tomorrow’s CHSRA Board Meeting in San José, which I sadly will not be able to attend, the Authority has released a draft addendum to the 2009 Business Plan. The draft addendum tackles many of the questions and concerns raised by both legislative staff and the Legislative Analyst’s Office in their review of the 2009 Business Plan, including:
• Revenue guarantees
• Ridership (Cambridge Systematics and UC Davis are undertaking a full review, and UC Berkeley will provide independent peer review)
• More detail on project timelines
• Defense of station boardings and of federal funding assumptions
And much more.
Reading the document, it is truly disturbing to see how uninformed the legislative staff comments were on the 2009 Business Plan. It’s one thing to accuse the Authority of not having its ducks in a row, but quite another for legislative staff to show such a clear lack of information and understanding about how HSR works. The Authority’s draft addendum explains such obvious things as the fact that the California HSR system isn’t projected to have nearly the ridership of the Shinkansens, or that it is perfectly logical to project a higher ridership than the TGV Sud-Est because the California HSR system serves areas with a greater population.
The draft addendum also deals very effectively with some of the LAO’s equally uninformed criticisms, explaining that the projected federal funding level of $1.4 billion per year is entirely reasonable and that though there is a risk it will not materialize on time, that all signs indicate a robust level of federal funding is in the offing.
They also clarify that private funding isn’t likely to arrive until 2015, once private investors are confident that there will be a significant level of state and federal funding. Back in 2008 we were told by the Authority that private investors wanted to see 75% or so of the project funded by state and federal sources, and that seems to hold true here in 2010.
The whole document is worth reading, but it shows that the Authority is moving quickly to address the LAO and legislature’s questions regarding the 2009 Business Plan, and has become a very responsive public agency. This is exactly what we should be seeing from the Authority, and they deserve credit for producing this effective and timely response.
I appreciated the clear explanations for the varying ridership of phase 1 stations. The high ridership for Anaheim make a lot of sense based on their explanation. I know I would not want to drive to downtown LA or take a taxi there, if I lived in Orange, Riverside or San Bernardino counties, though Metrolink would work. And I can see lots of ridership at Merced due to transfers from increased San Joaquin Amtrak service from Sacramento, Stockton and Modesto, and the smaller towns between Merced and Fresno.
Haha they cited info from Demographia to defend their ridership forecasts. That’s Wendell Cox. Awesome.
TomW Reply:
April 8th, 2010 at 6:26 am
Oh please let Cox come out and say the ridership forecasts are based on bad data…
Alon Levy Reply:
April 8th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Demographia has pretty solid numbers on sizes of urban areas, at least in the US. It’s a bit like the Tax Foundation – it has a few redeeming features, in between the polemical trash. (I say “a bit” because overall Demographia is much more dominated by polemic than the Tax Foundation.)
It’s good to see some valid (and trvial) concerns being addressed. It shows the Authority is listening to critical comments and taking them on board. I also think the Authority should provide information with absolutly no prior knowledge assumed. Most posters on this blog have a lot of knowledge of the issues, and we tend to forget that many people (including legislative staff and governemtn figures) do not.
What, so THIS board meeting, of ALL board meetings, is not being televised???