Independent Peer Review Says HSR Ridership Numbers Are Sound
Reporters in California, as is the case around the country, are trained to find controversy and build their stories around it. This is especially true of anything involving government. When government gets something right, it never gets the kind of attention that allegations of government wrongdoing receive.
This plays itself out in high speed rail reporting with the media asserting that the system’s ridership projections are flawed. In order to address these concerns, the California High Speed Rail Authority put together a peer review panel to examine those projections. Late last week they made their final report – and it concludes that the projections are sound:
We are satisfied with the documentation presented in Cambridge Systematics, and conclude that it demonstrates that the model produces results that are reasonable and within expected ranges for the current environmental planning and Business Plan applications of the model. We were very pleased with the content, quality and quantity of the information.
The reviewers were particularly pleased that the questions they asked of the Authority and Cambridge Systematics in their interim report have been answered to their satisfaction:
We identified two areas of concern about documentation in Section 3 of our first report. In some instances documentation was incomplete or missing. In other cases key information needed to interpret previous model validation work was not found. CS resolved both issues over the past three months. In addition, CS has re-validated the current model using more recent socioeconomic, travel survey, and traffic count data. The review of this newer data has largely alleviated our concerns with previous gaps of documentation on this subject.
In other words, contrary to allegations from HSR critics that the Authority and/or Cambridge Systematics weren’t being up front about all the data, CS provided everything the reviewers needed to conduct a complete assessment of the projections.
The peer review panel also noted that CS is undertaking work to update several elements of the ridership projections, which are based on data collected in 2000 and 2005. Updating this data is a good thing, and will only strengthen the case for passenger rail, since rail ridership has soared since 2005. Here’s what CS is planning to do:
Two important inputs identified for the re-validation work were analyses of the 10 percent sam- ple of air passenger tickets and an Internet panel survey of long distance journeys. The former is being processed by Geoffrey Gosling as part of his work, while the latter will be performed by Harris Interactive to specifications developed by the CS team.
Two other possible sources of data were identified, although bureaucratic hurdles limit their usefulness:
Two other sources of data – retrospective travel surveys and an upcoming California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) statewide travel survey – represent other possible sources of infor- mation to support model development. Again, undertaking a retrospective survey simply is not feasible within the scope of the current work, while the Authority does not appear to be able to influence the design, sampling frame, or other details of the Caltrans survey. While the Harris poll data will provide very useful immediate input to the model upgrade, comparison to the results of the Caltrans statewide travel survey, as soon as it becomes available, will provide addi- tional useful information for the modeling work as well as an additional check on the Harris poll results.
In short, the peer review panel believes the ridership projections are useful and that the Authority and CS are doing the right kind of work to ensure the projections are refined and updated with the latest available data – and that the panel is confident in the progress and initial results of that work.
This peer review report is a strong vote of confidence in the high speed rail ridership projections. From there, we can infer that decisions based on those projections, such as routes and business plans, are themselves reasonable based on the data.
Will HSR opponents such as Senator Alan Lowenthal, who has constantly derided the ridership projects despite having no basis to do so, admit their errors? Will the same reporters who have repeated the charge that the ridership projections are flawed correct the story and give this report the same attention and ink they gave to critics of the projections?
Heh, I don’t think so either. Which is why it’s important that we get the word out there ourselves, including on this blog.
This is great. But yeah too bad we are not going to hear a thing about this in the news. And naysayers like Morris and Elizabeth will just dismiss it since CAHSR organized it.
joe Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
The models can and should be be improved which means – uncertainty; and questions; and, gosh can’t we just slow down and get this right?
VBobier Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Not to mention Syno of course.
BTW, How does the Peer Review report’s finding jibe with the Berkeley review of the ridership model?
Jack Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Berkeley never said the model was flawed, merley questioned some assumptions and then CAARD ran with a story about how the model was purposley flawed to show high ridership despite proven examples from every country in the world with HSR.
But oh yeah, it’s different here, no one rides trains, Californians love their cars.
Peter Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Unless my memory is failing me, CARRD didn’t make a statement like that. They, wisely, tend to shy away from making statements like that that could come back and bite them. They take a more subtle approach than that.
I don’t believe their motives are what they claim them to be, but I do respect the fact that they do make fact-based criticisms. The fact that others pick up on their criticisms and blow them out of proportion is, while likely intended, a side-effect.
joe Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
UCB did write that some model methodology was flawed, wrong even, and referenced a 2009 paper.
Jack Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Oh yeah, and there was a typo in the study. Something else deniers ran with…
joe Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Indeed. If one uses the current literature and tries to recreate a published model from the written documentation, there will be typos and errors; even configuration management issues if you get the model by request.
Yes it would be nice if the model was available but no, it is not practical for the CAHSRA to address every laypersons’ interpretation.
I am worried the model is heavily car based- simplifying assumption is most riders will drive to the station – I think model artifact going to FORCE car centric station designs and massive parking like Milbrae BART.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
It’s a much, much more thorough review of the model.
joe Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Thanks for the reply.
I looked over the draft correspondence between Berkeley and the Contractor and was surprised at the back-and-forth; Berkeley wrote some, IMHO, sensational statements which were challenged and retracted in the final assessment.
Apparently the Peer Review was not tasked to address the Berkeley assessment.
My opinion is UC Berkeley did an assessment from an academic perspective which is why the pragmatic oriented Peer Review didn’t restate Berkeley’s criticisms. i.e. “Hey what about incorporating these awesome 2009 research findings?”
Whether UCB jumps back into the mix or let this go will be interesting.
Next move by the NIMBYs: accuse the Independent Peer Review Panel of bias.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Nah, they’ll probably come up with 47 different concerns about how it’s not being done right.
VBobier Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Or even of waste and fraud…
Drunk Engineer Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
As noted before, the concerns of Peninsula “Nimby’s” were outside the scope of what the Peer Review was permitted to study. Peer Review was not to look into the Altamont vs. Pacheco controversy. Indeed, the report punts on the issue of the Headway parameter (i.e. the variable used to depress Altamont alternative), saying that would take too long to study.
joe Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
First you have to give credit to the Peer Review group for staying focused.
Second, why would any obvious bias, a parameter, that depresses the Altamont ridership take too long to study? Seriously. It wouldn’t if it were really that obvious.
Lastly, NIMBYS: The Altamont Alignment might appeal to a PAMPA NIMBY but that alignment runs trains across the bay to connect near poorer sections of Menlo Park and on to Redwood City. Any NIMBY or town N of Antherton, like Belmont, would not be appeased.
Ridership will depend, to a great deal, on how the little details are implemented. Will stations be easy to get to and get around in? Will they be crowded? Will the areas near the stations be enjoyable places to be? In this context, it might be good to have an extra station on the peninsula and in LA, so that stations are closer to homes, are less crowded, and have reduced traffic impact on local communities. It doesn’t help to save a few minutes on the train, if getting to the train is a miserable hassle you never want to repeat.
I worry that the transbay terminal will be a madhouse, like Chicago Union Station where I live. Having a few stations available for BART transfer might save the transbay terminal from this fate.
Reading about places like Palo Alto bothers me. Palo Alto is going to drive away half of the potential ridership from Stanford, and the nearby research parks. If a place like Hanford, being in the middle of nowhere, is going to restrict parking, a lot of potential riders are going to drive instead.
The writers on this blog pay great attention to detail. The points they discuss might seem insignificant, but they will make or break HSR.
joe Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
Peter;
If the assumption, as I understand it, is riders will drive to the station then the solution is parking – lots of parking near each station. If it’s like a BART station park-and-ride I’m worried. That’s not enjoyable nor a good destination. My Chicago experiences, oak park and La Grange/Hinsdale METRA there is parking but it’s spread along the track and not a massive sea of cars. Also, we walked to ride.
HSR’s apparent car centric mandate also scares away Palo Alto which would have to build 6,000 parking spaces in city center. HSR said it can be done at locations like the stanford shopping center. I think it’s likely they’ll pass wit that requirement.
A transfer in San Jose with rapid electrified Caltrain to Palo Alto/Stanford might substitute for a HSR station – or transfer a few miles North in Redwood City south to Palo Alto. Caltrain is what I think will spread the load if the transfers are easy.
Walter Reply:
September 7th, 2011 at 11:37 am
No one will ride the trains if the stations are too crowded? I smell Yogi Berra.
From last July, 2010.
California High Speed Rail Authority: Ridership Challenge/Funny Numbers for Pacheco vs. Altamont
http://www.examiner.com/transportation-policy-in-san-francisco/california-high-speed-rail-authority-ridership-challenge-funny-numbers-for-pacheco-vs-altamont
Dangerous?
And
http://www.examiner.com/transportation-policy-in-san-francisco/california-high-speed-rail-ridership-revenue-model-deemed-unreliable
California High Speed Rail Ridership/Revenue Model- Deemed Unreliable
Wow.
Finally
Donk Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
Good investigation reporting. Too bad the press doesn’t know how to do this.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 7th, 2011 at 6:49 am
Kathy Hamilton isn’t an investigative reporter. She is essentially my equivalent on the anti-HSR side. Which is fine, nothing wrong with it, but something to keep in mind. Her interviewing Elizabeth Alexis would be like me interviewing Roelof van Ark.
Eric M Reply:
September 7th, 2011 at 7:52 am
And the fact she lives a couple of doors down from Morris Brown, both of whom live very close to the Caltrain right of way.
Peter Reply:
September 7th, 2011 at 8:02 am
No worries, I doubt they ever talk. :P
joe Reply:
September 7th, 2011 at 8:24 am
Well she stacked the deck. Her experts concluded something very different from the Peer Review panel.
Peter Reply:
September 7th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Her “experts” are the members of her group, nothing more.
Donk Reply:
September 7th, 2011 at 8:34 am
I was simply referring to joe digging up this old article as “investigative reporting”.
Jack Reply:
September 7th, 2011 at 9:24 am
Thanks Joe, I thought I was going crazy. I knew CAARD had ran to every media organization that would listen with this.
joe Reply:
September 7th, 2011 at 10:32 am
“completely nonsensical, non-logical and dangerous results.”
So far, has any other unbiased, I-Not-a-NIMBY, reviewer concurred that the ridership model produces “Dangerous results”? .
Off topic, but perhaps of interest; a new station called Hyllie, at a town called Malmo in Sweden. Of particular note for me is how the overhead wires are light and almost disappear in the photos at platform level:
http://inhabitat.com/station-hyllie-hovers-like-a-ufo-over-malmo-train-tracks-with-tractor-beam-daylighting-portals/
What California town would this be most appropriate in?
Notice how the first comment to this post is not from an HSR hater? Interesting..
So this report was made public a week ago? And still nobody has picked it up aside from Robert? Did CARRD even post this to their website?
Jack Reply:
September 7th, 2011 at 9:25 am
Why would they, it’s counterproductive to there mission to destroy HSR in America.
Bad news for PB foamers. Californians oppose stimulus but, curiously, favor ideological rigidity even if it means gridlock:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-poll-economy-20110906,0,7074574.story?obref=obinsite
I wonder when buyers’ remorse over hsr will finally percolate up in the San Joaquin Valley. I mean they get their exorbitant neo-99 emiinent-domained ROW amidst much acrimony and of course mit stilts all over the place. And guess what happens when operations finally begin many moons from now?
Trains are pretty fast and comfortable but:
The aerials are much uglier and noisier then advertised
Ticket prices remain high because urban mass transit fights losing their operating subsidies to hsr.
Patronage does not meet expectations by a significant margin
Militant unions have been voted in and threaten strikes. Private operator ready to bail
Patronage projections are inherently “happy clappy”. They are not worth the paper they are written on. Remember BART to SFO?
And now for something entirely different and probably somewhat boffo. Could the Tejon line be eligible to be in STRACNET? And does being in STRACNET make any funds available? Just asking those who are much more knowledgeable than me.
William Reply:
September 7th, 2011 at 11:44 am
blah blah blah…
William Reply:
September 7th, 2011 at 11:52 am
@Synonymouse,
I don’t think anyone, including Engineers at any large engineering firm such as PB, HNTB, and LTK, are ought to get anybody.
You can question a project’s execution, but you cannot question people’s intent. Why do you think you are more of experts than professional engineers at these engineering firms? Maybe they are working under rules that you don’t know or choose to ignore?
synonymouse Reply:
September 7th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
BART broad gauge was a diabolically malicious imposition by Bechtel. Ditto for calls for PAMPA aerials and signature brutalism in general. These guys can’t be trusted.
Peter Reply:
September 7th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
AHAHAHAHA!
Of course, it was the Anti-Christ himself who imposed broad gauge on the Bay Area, in order to accelerate the coming of His Dominion.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 7th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
First they have to get to Stockton. … then the world.
joe Reply:
September 7th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
synonymouse, it’s ELIZA Modified to respond about bay area rail topics: BART and High Speed Rail
His source code is here:
http://www.atariarchives.org/bigcomputergames/showpage.php?page=22
“Will the same reporters who have repeated the charge that the ridership projections are flawed correct the story and give this report the same attention and ink they gave to critics of the projections?”
You ought to e-mail them asking for them to comment for this blog. See what their response is.
Jack Reply:
September 7th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
*crickets*
Anti high-speed rail group to hold workshops
VBobier Reply:
September 7th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
*crickets*
joe Reply:
September 7th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Hilarious that conservation allies with subsidized agriculture to protect the status quo.
I kind-a wish we’d bypass Kings County – run a long straight track and start putting state infrastructure and jobs elsewhere – where they will not impact Kings county framland.
I expect a fight over the Pacheco EIR and probably opponents realize Kings County is firewall for the ARRA funding. Got to force CA to give back 3.5 B in ARRA to stop HSR.
Meanwhile high unemployment, something HSR construction would alleviate, is motivating our president and Congress to gut EPA regulations.
More ozone.
Awesome. Planning and Conservation League. Awesome Gary Patton.
Patronage projections are about as useless as political polls. Utterly vacuous but useful as propaganda.
Transport interests with relatively little physical plant, certainly in relation to a fixed guideway system like a railway, like airlines and bus companies can try out a market by inaugurating service. This is the only sound way to verify patronage potential. If it pans out they can expand; if not they drop the service.
Gold-plated hsr does not enjoy that option. The only guaranteed market that merits spending that kind of money is LA to SF. The Valley could very well turn out to be a “dry hole” insofar as paying traffic is concerned. Not worth the risk. And the dummies did not even serve Sac, which has the most potential in the CV.
It is pretty ridiculous that Elizabeth or any of the other members of CARRD have not even commented on this post. They watch like hawks for all of the negative posts. I thought they would at least be somewhat reasonable and consider this report.