Galgiani: LAO “Unqualified” to Analyze HSR
The Legislative Analyst’s Office is rapidly losing credibility in Sacramento, thanks to its uninformed attack on the high speed rail project. Rather than provide neutral, impartial, and informed analysis, the LAO has instead decided to launch a highly politicized effort to intervene in the Legislature’s policy-making role in order to undermine a voter-approved project.
Late last week Assemblymember Cathleen Galgiani put out a strong statement criticizing the LAO for being “unqualified to provide a comprehensive analysis of this complex project”:
The statements by the LAO indicate that they are unqualified to provide a comprehensive analysis of this complex project which the state has been working on for 15 years. They either haven’t read or do not comprehend the California High Speed Rail Bond Act, the federal ARRA funding criteria, or the Peer Review Committee report. Proposition 1A designated a highly qualified Peer Review Committee as the appropriate and qualified body to assess California’s High Speed Rail project as it progresses. The Peer Review committee, not the LAO, was authorized by the legislature and the voters for that purpose.
As we know, the Peer Review Committee has been providing active oversight of the project. Peer review also played a key role in refining and validating the HSR ridership numbers. The LAO does not appear to have anyone on staff expert in HSR projects, and therefore is flying blind when it comes to analysis of it and its impacts.
Additionally, the LAO also does not seem to have read the Business Plan released by the High Speed Rail Authority a month ago which lays out the phased and blended approach that will provide passenger service between population centers sooner and the full high speed rail system later.
It is obvious that the LAO has other motives in providing a very biased position on the High Speed Rail project to the Legislature. The LAO never showed any interest in the project until after the initial construction segment winner was chosen. Their report is fraught with inaccurate and misleading information, irrational opinions and faulty conclusions. It raises the question of whose agenda they are promoting.
This is pretty damning stuff, given that the LAO’s job is to provide informed analysis to the legislature. Galgiani is essentially saying that the LAO is not doing their jobs. By prioritizing a policy agenda over informed analysis, the LAO is letting down the people it serves – the 120 members of the state legislature.
Galgiani also tells us what happened to her questions for the LAO she asked back in May – she was apparently stonewalled:
Last May I wrote a letter to the LAO in response to their initial report on the High Speed Rail project, making a public records request to find out who requested the report and who they had consulted in developing the report. I also pointed out the many flaws and inaccuracy included in that report.
The response I received from the LAO basically indicated that they did not need to give me that information. I will continue to demand some transparency from the LAO regarding who requested their analysis of the project.
I do know from questioning the LAO that they never consulted with the Federal Railroad Administration, any of the high speed rail systems in Europe or Asia or anyone who had ever actually been instrumental in the development and construction of a high speed rail system.
This is shocking. The LAO’s job is to answer legislators’ questions and provide the legislators with the information they need. For the LAO to refuse to do so shows they are now acting outside their intended role and are undermining the work of the democratically elected representatives of the people.
Under Mac Taylor’s leadership, the LAO is trying to claim a policy role for itself that it has no right to hold, and doing so without the knowledge base to even get that right.
The LAO ought to return to its role of being a neutral and informed voice on issues before the legislature – otherwise it is going to destroy its credibility and perhaps even the office itself.
Big Oil.
The biased LAO report ignores the taxes (revenue) that will be generated with the infusion of billions of dollars worth of construction into the CV and state.
The biased LAO report ignores the total net positive impact of the increase of employment and the decrease of unemployment.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Nice try. Mac Taylor has 30-years of experience tracking California tax revenue and program expenditures.
joe Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Nice try. Marc taylor’s experience doesn’t excuse his bias not is it a pass to blow off a Legislature’s request to explain the reasoning behind the LAO’s findings.
Out of curiosity, is it known whether or not Cathleen Galgiani, the LAO, or other members of the legislature and the CHSRA read this weblog, and also Clem’s as well? It seems that the opinions and materials provided by this and Clem’s site would provide plenty of additional and secondary information in addition to that provided by “official” sources.
Of course, whether these people let us know they read this stuff, and whether they actually use it, could be a different matter.
It would be quite sad if this resource weren’t used, out of vanity or whatever. It seems to me that the people here, some from both sides of the HSR argument, represent the best of citizen participation and “civilian” knowledge that is supposed to be what makes democracy work.
neville snark Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 3:29 am
I’ll say.
James Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 11:40 am
They roam the state to listen to harping nimbys, but will not pick up a keyboard to access the considered suggestions on these two blogs. The silence by anybody with any connection to the HSR technical staff or political ‘decision’ makers has been deafening.
thatbruce Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
No.
Anyone who is a regular commentator on this and other blogs should formally send in their ideas/complaints to the CAHSRA’s defined process if they want to feel like they are being part of the process. Ranting on these blogs isn’t going to change how they do stuff.
Peter Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Agreed. Public process is just that. Public. Public hearings and public process. What happens right here is not public process.
James Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
I recall the heavy lifters on these blogs have input to the CAHSR process many times. On the other hand, political ‘decision’ makers are free to do their own research or have a staffer do it. These blogs are not hard to find. Robert’s posts are up front and Clem makes his past comments easy to find.
Robert,
There is the Independent Peer Review Committee that was established by AB3034 that is headed by Will Kempton (http://www.cahsrprg.com/). This is the one that Galgiani is referring to – and Will Kempton, by the way, said at the meeting he thinks the Funding Plan isn’t legal. Galgiani fails to mention that part in her Op/Ed. This committee is UNPAID
The Ridership Peer Review Group is the group established by Van Ark to review the ridership information. It is headed by Frank Koppelman. There is no website for this group as they have signed Confidentiality Agreements and can only talk directly to the Authority. Two of the five members of the Ridership Peer Review Group were the original reviewers of the model that Berkeley said was “unusable” (so in essence, they are reviewing their own work yet again). This group gets paid up to $400 an hour per person and their first report cost the state almost $200,000. We have no way of knowing whether any of the people in this group have worked or are currently working for either PB or CS in any capacity on other projects. When you’re getting paid up to $400 an hour – you are a consultant – not an Peer Review that can truly, independently, review the ridership information.
Eric M Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
And of coarse, if the numbers don’t come out to your liking, it’s wrong?
VBobier Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
But of course.
Eric M Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 8:53 am
my bad, spelling error. LOL
VBobier Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
Wouldn’t working as a Consultant and for someone else be a conflict of interest? I’d think It would be and that to be a consultant It would be a requirement to not be working for someone else. And one should not be accused without undeniable evidence of conflict of interest.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 3:36 am
It depends. In academia, the way they’ve decided to handle it is to make working as a regular employee a conflict of interest and working as a consultant not a conflict since it in theory involves less attachment to one company. As a result, professors with outside interests sometimes reclassify themselves as consultants – problem solved.
The main farce is that departments care about conflicts of interest in inverse proportion to how much of an interest conflict problem they have. A professor just emailed me to let me know formally about some stock investment that could potentially lead to a conflict of interest regarding cryptography, which isn’t even my field. This is how it’s done in math. In the biomedical sciences, I’ve heard that about half of the articles that clear peer-review are sponsored by the companies making the drugs and are worthless except as advertisements. There, people don’t care about interest conflicts as much.
morris brown Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Koppelman is supposed to testify tomorrow at the joint T&H / HSR Select committee meeting (10AM Monday Dec 5th)
On YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqcVpn-BLO4
you can view a 1 hour presentation he gave with a colleague on Ridership modeling.
After watching this, I come away thinking you might just as well throw darts at a board with ridership numbers; where ever the dart sticks, that number is probably as reliable as the numbers these studies will produce. It is no wonder their forecasts are so often so completely off base. (VTA, Bart to the Airport, etc.)
In his presentation he even mentions that Peer reviewers should be independent and should be hired early in the process of developing a ridership forecast. Neither of those qualifiers seem to have been met with this ridership peer review group. Nadia is absolutely right that the Peer review of the ridership model is flawed.
Furthermore, the idea that millions have been given to Cambridge for this study, and that the model itself is a “black box”, with Cambridge owns and which cannot be examined by outside parties should be totally un-acceptable.
BTW, not only the LAO thinks the funding plan does not comply with Prop 1A, Will Kempton stated he didn’t have confidence in the funding plan either.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
If they were throwing darts at a board, then the numbers would sometimes be wildly high, sometimes wildly, low and occasionally Just Right.
You could explain that away as being due to “incompetence”.
Instead what we see in the real world is that the “predictions” produced for PBQD and allies are uniformly and consistently and grossly proven to over reality, without fail.
The only way to explain that away is “strategic misrepresentation”, also known as “systematic and deliberate fraud”. There is no alternative that fits the data.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 3:12 am
But nationally, this is exactly what we see. Most new light rail lines in the last 20 years have met or slightly exceeded expectations. A small number, including the VTA, came far, far short.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 9:02 am
But in California, it is exactly what we see.
A reminder: PBQD was directly responsible for the ridership “projections” of the BART extension to Millbrae. It is today carrying less than one half of “predictions”, and the construction cost was over twice the “estimate” which was used to eliminate non-PBQD/Bechtel-duopoly-controlled alternatives. (Same goes for the costs of all the other northern Caliufonia BART extensions promoted by PB; use fraudulent costs to eliminate alternatives, then double your money.)
The evidence is unambiguous. The same people who were right about PB’s ridership and cost fraud in the 1990s are being proven correct about the 50 times larger PB fraud in the 2010s.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 8:23 am
The problem with your assertion is that you sound exactly like John Perkins in “Diary of an Economic Hit Man”… even though he fabricated demand for infrastructure in the developing world…it was still born out because of the massive infusion of foreign investment in said locales.
Most people are not civil engineers and they do not have the wherewithal to notice what sort of decisions are lucrative to the contractor. (And by extension, many civil engineers would not be able to tell either because they are not as politically or economically astute.)
Still, the fact is that high profile decisions are not how the game is played. It’s the smaller, seemingly innocuous ones that add up to the big bucks. So far, although I understand the suspicions about “stilts”, “Tejon” and “berms” the only real smoking gun I’ve seen is this Avenue 24 wye.
And even then, I’ve seen little evidence as to how stuff like this would affect ridership. Light rail systems in Phoenix and L.A. blew through their ridership targets like nothing when their systems opened.
A high speed rail system is going to happen, and what critics have to realize is that if they are successful in attacking the Authority and its legitimacy, the critics are going to be the ones running it…and will have to have substantive alternatives as well as criticism.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 9:03 am
Well well well.
synonymouse Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 9:59 am
Existing patterns of use and existing operational practice(routes and schedules, for instance)can predict give some reasonable of idea of the “success” of a rail upgrade. Ergo I can tell you with decent certainty that if you build subway-surface on Geary it will be enjoy a very large ridership. The key question is how much more patronage than with the existing #38 diesel bus. It means contrasting more comfortable railcars and faster times in the subway with longer distances between passenger stops on the surface and pedestrian difficulties getting to those stops. Then you have to compare the likelihood of service disruptions – diesel buses are more maneuverable than streetcars but Muni’s militant bus drivers are probably more reckless than most. Clearly not an exact science but at least connected on some level to reality rather than throwing darts at a board.
Now with SMART on the other hand I can predict witjh confidence that it will be a failure. We don’t need no stinking projections. Bugatti doodlebugs, ancient ROW with all sorts of curves and congested grade crossings, and doesn’t even begin to reach the areas where the ridership exists. Add to that a commute in longterm decline due to disappearance of jobs and certain competition with existing bus services for what little subsidy monies that remain you have a prescription for disappointment. Plus no magnet attractions on route – the $1 bil Rohnert Park casino is still sitting on Moonbeam’s desk, for all we know.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Could you explain why the Avenue 24 wye is such an obvious smoking gun?
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
It goes back to an argument I was having with Peter over the weekend. In effect, after looking at the recommendation, I noticed that the Avenue 24 wye looked disturbing like the wye that BART rumbles on beneath downtown Oakland. The wye, which if you ask me, is the single biggest operational problems they have.
Peter said that in fact it wasn’t small at all… (as other options would be larger) and that it would be more than satisfactory for a train going 140 mph since it was 100,000 feet in size. Effectively, however, that means that overpasses will be used to enhance capacity. But given the dominance of the SF-LA route that means that capacity will be less on the Merced to Fresno route, and even more constrained on the SF to Merced side.
In other words, the system will require sooner or later another option to take passengers north from SF to Sacramento…the wye won’t be sufficient….
Alon Levy Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Ah. No, Peter is right on that one. Just because both BART and HSR have wyes means nothing; after all, they’re also both railroads. Modern HSR turnouts do not constrain capacity, because they do not slow trains down much. Normally, the straight direction has no speed limit, and the diverging direction has a high speed limit, often higher than 125 mph.
Overpasses are used not just “to enhance capacity.” They’re just your standard grade separations, only this time the separation is between two rail lines in opposing directions. Like modern rapid transit, HSR is designed without any flat junctions with opposing traffic, both for capacity reasons and to prevent scheduling constraints.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Sorry, I had to truncate my earlier comment because of a request:
Here’s what I calculated. At 140 mph you travel roughly 2.3 miles per minute. 138 miles per second. Now, the turning radius is 10,000 feet, which is 1.9 miles. That means that the trains will take 50 seconds to cross the wye. [1.9/2.3 *60.]
But that also means that for those 50 seconds, it can be the only train in the wye. (Not because there won’t be grade separations, but because there’s no time to stop…) At 10,000 you can’t build a siding long enough to route traffic around… so what that means is that SF to LA will be elevated and merged with an ascendant connection from Merced to cross the UP Line. Then, the SF – Merced spur will be limited to only those intervals that do not disrupt the other two. As demand grows, it will necessitate an alternate route.
My guess is, and I will expand on this, is that MTC and BART are trying to ensure that HSR doesn’t undercut their business expanding into the CV by limiting the utility of passengers south of Sacramento and north of the wye by taking HSR instead of ACE+BART….
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
You see demand, in the next century or so, for more than 8 trains an hour to San Francisco and 4 an hour to Sacramento?
Peter Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Your math is wrong, too. Turn radius ≠ distance traveled.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Tom, everything you’ve written is nonsense, sorry.
In any case, the wye is completely useless as Bay Area to Sacramento travel is utterly uncompetitive and stupid given the Los Banos route. The wye won’t be used for revenue service. (It’s brought to you by the very same people who brought you the far worse than useless BART wye north of Millbrae.) The handful of SJ-Merced/Modesto/Stockton via Los Banos travellers who aren’t smart enough to know to drive a direct route can easily be accommodated by a transfer in Fresno — it’s not as if anybody’s time matters when being mis-routed via Los Banos.
A wye east of Tracy makes perfect operational and network sense. One south of Merced is just an exercise in cost inflation.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Marginally useful for Sacramento to San Jose, Navel of the Universe, Center of the Galaxy etc. and intermediate points. There’s not going to be a lot of Merced-Gllroy traffic but accommodating it along with isn’t terribly expensive either.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Again, I’m not pretending to have an engineering degree… I’m actually agreeing with you, Richard.
The wye is deliberately being located in a place that would make it obsolete for SF to Sac travel. That means that Bay Area bound passengers are stuck taking ACE to BART to get into the City.
As for the math, it’s somewhat umm… impossible to reckon why if on all the preliminary diagrams the wye would encompass miles and miles would the new proposal have it be so compact and simple? Sure, there’s the standard “PB is evil, and stupid” line…but I don’t think that’s really true. Plus, no one has said if there are any operational sacrifices to doing this, other than adding one minute onto the travel time between Fresno and Sacramento….
Peter Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
As Richard said, SF-Merced/Sac travel is ALREADY obsolete with Pacheco. Maybe 1 train per hour, if any.
You’re going to have to place a wye somewhere, and if you’re building Pacheco, then the Fegundes location is as good as any. There are three reasons for placing it there: less track miles to build, less environmental impact (partly due to less track miles being built), and the only operational sacrifice is Merced-Fresno travel time due to somewhat decreased speeds and a very small increase in distance.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Tom, you’re not actually agreeing with Richard. What you’re saying is that the existence of a wye constrains capacity, and it does not. I don’t know where you get the idea that only one train can be in the wye at the time, when wyes are double-tracked. Look up a track diagram of a TGV wye (for examples near Paris, go to the RER/Transilien map – and observe that one wye is everywhere-to-everywhere, while one has a sharp curve in a direction that’s not very useful). There’s an enormous difference between saying that Pacheco has a problem coming from the alignment choice, and saying that the wye is a problem.
On top of this, you seem to be assuming that an SF-to-Merced train should be able to use the wye at the same time as an SF-to-LA train. This is of course impossible, not because of the wye but because they’re coming from the same line at the SF end. The same is true for similar same-direction cases. Two trains can’t occupy the same physical position at the same time, on or off the wye. And in opposite directions, there will be no grade crossings anyway so it’s a moot point.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Alon,
That’s not what I’m saying either. Look at the technical details and answer this question? Does shrinking the wye eliminate the ability of a northbound train from Fresno to Merced, a southbound train from SF to LA, and a westbound train from Merced to SJ all share the wye simultaneously if it’s not double tracked?
(Don’t analyze the question…just look at the diagram and tell me if it is physically possible…)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Which diagram? if there every was a link to a diagram it’s been lost in the mists of multiple replies to the thread with the link it.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
Like Adirondacker, I haven’t seen the wye diagram, but if it’s anything like the LGV wyes (for which I just gave you a convenient diagram link – look toward the east of the RER map), it’s double-tracked, and those three trains can all cross the wye simultaneously.
Joey Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Tom: first of all, the wye will be double tracked. Second of all, yes, all three of those could share it without conflict. Reverse all the directions and it will still work even though paths cross (because of flyovers).
Peter Reply:
December 6th, 2011 at 4:21 am
@ Alon Levy and adirondacker12800
It’s around page 92 of this document. I think Tom isn’t getting the fact that this is a three-dimensional wye.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 6th, 2011 at 7:43 am
Peter,
I get the three dimensional aspect. But what this thread started out with is my statement that the wye design on page of 92 and other viaducts between Palmdale and San Jose are the biggest constraint to expanding the service without incurring a lot of new costs.
I know this because I looked at (out of pure curiosity) BART’s design in Oakland and the East Bay and I found much of the same problem. Because they had to use viaducts and freeway construction (and tunnels) the transbay tunnel is actually underused . Richmond-Fremont trains effectively block one extra train from crossing the wye or the tunnel at peak times .
Problem is, the enhancements to expand this are are expensive because they are not at grade in the middle of an open field like… oh I dunno the 24th avenue wye. That’s what I’m curious to know. Why would you build up using more viaducts and other structures that are going to be harder to upgrade in the future if you aren’t planning obselence…
I also suspect that this is not an accident politically. I think that BART really wants more suburban expansion and to do that…needs to kill competition for the Altamont Corridor Express serving Modesto and Merced. (And Tracy and Stockton, before BART gets there…)
But most of the other “conspiracy theories” I see floating around here are just plain ridiculous.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 6th, 2011 at 10:23 am
Tom, all wyes involve grade separation. And it’s kind of weird that you’re on the one hand haranguing about the structures (which are in fact quite mild) and on the other hand complaining about capacity (which is not going to be a constraint).
Peter Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
From the staff recommendation to choose the hybrid alternative, I believe that choosing said alternative would only increase travel times between Merced and Fresno by one minute. I really don’t see what your issue is with it.
Peter Baldo Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
The Capitol Corridor trains currently running take about 2 hr for Oakland-Sacramento, which is about what HSR will accomplish. Upgrading the Capitol Corridor is the best way to achieve more capacity and quicker travel between the Bay Area and the Sacramento area.
HSR is going to be great for everybody travelling North-South, and for going from the coast to the valley. Tradeoffs had to be made, and choosing Pacheco Pass assured that HSR would not be the best choice for SF – Sacramento travelers.
Clem Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
No, HSR routing via Altamont is the best way to achieve more capacity and quick travel between the Bay Area and Sacramento area.
The Capitol Corridor is a circuitous, slow, winding joke of a route, and Altamont HSR would make it instantly obsolete. You could send a little diesel doodlebug (eBART!) to serve the towns in between.
Howard Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
People will take express CHSR trains from SF & SJ to Sac via Pacheco because it is faster than Capitols. One can take a one seat ride from San Francisco to Sacramento with only one stop in San Jose verses many stops on BART, transfer to Capitols in Richmond, then take slow windy Capitols with lots of stops to Sacramento. Capacity will be limited on Capitols because it will always be a freight train priority route, and it would be extremely difficult to widen and speed up the windy section between Richmond and Martinez. People will use CHSR express trains between San Francisco and San Jose to Sacramento via Pacheco Pass because a competitive high speed Altamont will not be built until many years after CHSR Phase 2 extension is finished. Capitols will only be used for Oakland to Sacramento trips and to the small cities in between (Martinez, Fairfield and Davis).
Clem Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
In other words, people will use a shitty option because the other options are shittier still. Way to spend a hundred billion.
ComradeFrana Reply:
December 6th, 2011 at 6:32 am
@Howard:
Or they will, you know, drive there.
John Bacon Reply:
December 6th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
The shortest practical BART connection Between San Francisco and Sacramento totals approximately 90 miles through the Pittsburg Station across the 0.6 mile Broad Slough between Mallard and Chipps Islands and then along the Sacramento Northern Railway right-of-way to Sacramento. The express train running time between SF’s Embarcadero Station and Sacramento would be between 85 and 90 minutes. Skipping 6 Pittsburg Branch stations would permit a 45 minute Embarcadero to Pittsburg run time (Current all-stop schedules call for a 51 minute running time.), 19 minutes across 38 miles along a sparsely populated section of the Sacramento River Delta, and 12 minutes over the remaining 9 miles mostly at the Sacramento end gives an 86 minute BART SF-Sacramento running time.
The CHSR Authority SF to Sacramento run time estimates have varied between 100 and 125 minutes over 278 miles. The great circle distance between those two cities is 75 miles.
Joey Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
You would likely have to sink a few billion $ into the CC to get any meaningful time savings. Altamont, by comparison, gets you fast service at ZERO additional cost compared to Phase 2 CAHSR (actually less cost because you save money on track between Chowchilla and Manteca). To quantify, that’s about 1:15 SF-Sac and 1:00 SJ-Sac, the latter being nearly impossible via any other route (I added about 10 minutes to the official express numbers for intermediate stops). And don’t try to complain about the Dumbarton crossing. The CHSRA itself predicted that Bay Area-CV via Altamont would be only $300m more than Pacheco with the high bridge or $700m more with a Dumbarton tunnel – a cost which is more than made up for elsewhere (as I have mentioned).
Reality Check Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Tradeoffs-shmadeoffs! Choosing HSR via Altamont will make SF-Sacramento much faster AND make SF-LA faster too — all the while saving on Phase II costs and route miles to Sacramento, avoiding the PAMPA core and lots of other operational and construction problems by getting HSR off the southern half of Caltrain’s ROW.
VBobier Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Question is: Can You prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Peter Reply:
December 7th, 2011 at 3:57 am
“Can You prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt?”
It already has been. Read some on caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com.
There are only two reasons why Altamont isn’t the clear favorite: Expected NIMBY opposition in Fremont, Pleasanton, and Livermore, and the fact that San Jose would not be on the mainline. The first issue shouldn’t be decisive, because the opposition would likely be similar to that on the Peninsula. The second might be more problematic, but at the same time San Jose would get better Caltrain service.
All in all, I’m starting to lean towards favoring Altamont, if only to avoid the incredible expense currently planned for getting to Diridon.
joe Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Nadia, I’m disappointed. A Peer Review Group reviews and advises ways HSR can improve the project. The project already has Independent peer reviews; this advisory group is a useful the management tool to improve internal oversight of the project.
Nadia Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
First, a few corrections. 1) the Independent Peer Review committee has NOT reviewed the ridership information – and thus has not opined on the matter. 2) the lawsuit result merely showed that the judge thought the Authority met the requirement under the law (which is minimal) – it did NOT uphold that their findings were correct – the law doesn’t allow a judge to decide between experts.
We absolutely support overseeing contractors – but more importantly we think we should be gettign rid of them in favor of doing a ridership study with the State as the client.
A true ridership peer review would mean that the group would look at the model and determined whether this is an appropriate model to forecast the decisions the Authority must make on this project.
Instead, Van Ark directed the Peer Review group to simply enhance the existing model (they were never directed to decide whether the model was appropriate). You can see this in the presentation Van Ark gave to the group at their first meeting: http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/2011_01_10_Ridership_Peer_Review_first_meeting1.pdf
It is not a Peer Review when you tell them what their answer ought to be.
That is a huge waste of time and money – since the real question is whether what they are using is usable or not (and we know what Berkeley said).
Second, at their rate of payment, where is the incentive for them to make appropriate criticisms of the model? The longer they meet, the more questions they ask, the more they get paid – and yet, they will never answer the fundamental question.
None of their meetings are public, we have no idea if any of them are conflicted and they can’t talk to anyone but the Authority.
And, to add to it, PB re-hired Cambridge Systematics on a $4 million no-bid contract even though Berkeley had already said their work was “unusable”. Why not have an open bid? Why not have the State as the client instead of PB? Why not have public meetings? Why not ensure the folks selected aren’t working or haven’t worked for any other firms to instill confidence (given the great suspicion which already abounds given the wild swings in ridership numbers.)
joe Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
I can’t find where Robert or the State Representative claimed an Independent Review. The point is the LAO hasn’t any expertise to base their findings.
Secondly, it is not uncommon form a peer review group to a manager run a technical project and it is not uncommon for the manager to set a scope and even DICTATE (OMG) what the peers are to review.
The NSF does not allow Peer Review to tell the over seeing program office the project should be defunded and money spent elsewhere. That is NOT how Peer Reviews are chartered run and it is not how HSR is run.
Again. the LAO hasn’t any Peer Review findings – just the LAO’s own lame analysis and interpretation – LAO is not qualified.
LAO will not answer questions about their advice on HSR – CARRD could careless that this government org does not respond to a Gov rep because the LAO agrees with CARRD. If CARRD was natural it would demand the LAO explain themselves.
This attack is 100% recycled from climate science deniers. The science community has an financial incentive to continue to ask questions and get grants funded. This kind of attack began in the 70′s with with soot pollution, acid rain and now climate change. Experts are conflicted because they are experts.
CARRD must demand the LAO answer the Reps’ questions.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 1:48 am
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
CARDD must demand the Emperor Norton answer the serious allegations of Senator Joseph McCarthy!
Zeppo Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 10:44 am
It seems particularly petty for *you* to question the independence of another group.I wonder if you think you should be paid $400 per hour as well? Anyway, you’re obviously reading that presentation differently from me. Could you highlight exactly which parts of it you are objecting to?
From the Legislative Analyst’s Office November29, 2011report considering The HSRA 2012 Draft Business and Funding Plan which says: “…the
high-speed train system would have the capacity to carry 116
million passengers per year but their highest forecasted ridership
is significantly less than that amount—44 million rides per year
(roughly 40 percent less than capacity).”
Roughly indeed−44 million rides per year is 62% less than a 116 million per year capacity. The LAO opinion looks more favorable to the for the CHSR project than the data presented would suggest.
OT
More fun for everyone. We have posted detailed spreadsheets from the ridership forecasts on our site: http://www.calhsr.com/resources/ridership-forecast/
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 8:42 am
Um, would you care to be a bit more trenchant in your analysis by comparing this forecast to actual data for San Joaquins, air service and car trips?
The only glaring, cigar-dropping revelation here is that someone forgot to tell the forecasters that while Merced might actually be the highest demand location for the IOS… the way it looks is that it’s going to be nearly impossible to get to with the current track design. Not all passengers are going to enjoy the idea of doubling back in Fresno to visit Yosemite, the UC system, and the like….
Eric M Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 9:01 am
You post new info on your site , yet fail to change “Days since…The Authority asked to update its 2009 project cost estimate”. Ironic.
Peter Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 9:32 am
Yeah, that’s not a new issue with them. Supposedly it’s hard to change (barely muffled laughter).
Elizabeth Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 11:51 am
This time it is purpose ly left up as we are still waiting on a public records request for la to san diego.
Peter Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Isn’t work on that segment frozen? Why would they have updated numbers for that?
Elizabeth Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
They have numbers from the work on the alternatives. We think a realistic dollar figure would help in thinking about the value of improving lossan.
Walter Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
“Days since the Authority asked to update its 2009 project cost estimate.” That’s absurdly disingenuous. I’d be more mad except that anyone who knows anything about the project will be aware that the obvious interpretation of this is demonstrably false.
Eric M Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Then why don’t you specifically state that segment instead of being deceptive?
Eric M Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
And actually, when you click on the link, your (CARRD) summary of issues and costs specifically talks about the SF-LA segment. This has nothing to do with the LA-SD segment. So there again, caught lying about your true intentions.
Mike Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 10:59 am
Thanks, first I’ve seen of these detailed data. On a very quick skim, I see that the forecast isn’t relying on a tremendously large number of induced trips (generally ranging from 0% to 5% of HSR trips), but rather expects that most (~85%) HSR riders on the IOS would be diverted from car. So is it possible to benchmark the Authority’s underlying forecast of 2030 car trips? I’d imagine that Caltrans would have some sort of pre-existing statewide transportation model, right?
The other thing that jumps out is that IOS ridership is almost entirely end-to-end. I get why the model would assume that (for IOS South) San Fernando is the biggest ridership station, by why are something like 85% of trips going to Merced? Are travelers from Sacramento and the Bay Area supposedly driving or taking a bus to Merced, then catching HSR to San Fernando, then connecting again to get to LA? Sorry I’m playing catch-up here, but surely this question has been put to the Authority, right? What’s the explanation?
Mike Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 11:21 am
Hmm, looking a little more into the “Source of HSR Travel” tab ….
Taking all trips originating in the SCAG region, about half are going to San Joaquin Valley destinations and one quarter to Bay Area destinations. Huh. Hard to believe that many Bay Area bound SCAG travelers are really going to want to go to Merced and then take a bus. And the half of SCAG travelers who are going to San Joaquin Valley destinations …. why are these trips so monumentally weighted towards Merced? Take out those who are going to Merced only so that they can continue on to the Bay Area, and Merced ridership is STILL several orders of magnitude heavier than Fresno or Bakersfield …. what’s up with that?
I’m not asking just so that someone can say “they cooked the model.” I’m hoping that someone has actually heard an explanation for what the Authority thinks passengers are going to do. Sure would be nice if the Authority would release a narrative description of ridership, otherwise we’re just left here looking at (and maybe misinterpreting) numbers that on their face look implausible.
VBobier Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
It sounds like Merced is a Junction more than anything else.
Mike Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Would you mind to explain that point more fully? I don’t get it.
VBobier Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Meaning Merced is not a destination in and of Itself, It’s the mid point between destinations, like SF to Sac or Sac to Bakersfield, like that.
VBobier Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Like is Mentioned Here(Rail Junction wiki).
Mike Reply:
December 6th, 2011 at 8:55 am
I’m not sure that would explain the ridership numbers, though. blankslate (posts below) has the numbers for trips originating in the SCAG region and having final destination (not final HSR station, but actual end of the traveler’s trip) in Merced/Stockton/Manteca/Ceres, and it’s six times more passengers than travelers from SCAG to Fresno region or Bakersfield region. Maybe that makes sense if you know the actual communities, but it doesn’t feel right to me. Nor does the idea of a large number of IOS South trips originating/terminating in the Bay Area.
Peter Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
IIRC, there are also a large number of Merced travelers who are continuing on to Sacramento in the model.
blankslate Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Yes there are, but not enough for it to make sense. I parsed it out, with some effort since they are on different tabs and one measurement is in riders/day while the other is millions of riders/year.
The “Major Market 2010$” tab indicates the following numbers of passengers that would use LA Basin to Merced for longer trips:
LA Basin-Sacramento – 0.9 million/year – 2,466/day
LA Basin-Bay Area – 2.4 million/year – 6,575/day
San Diego-Bay Area – 0.1 million/year – 274/day
“LA Basin” consists of two stations- Palmdale and San Fernando Bus Center. Going back to the first tab, the model assumes a combined 25,412 riders per day from those two stations to Merced. But only 9,315 of those will be continuing to Sacramento or the Bay Area. 16,097 per day are just going to Merced – that’s more than six times the number going to Fresno! Granted, Merced will also be a connection point for Modesto, Stockton and a few other northern SJ Valley destinations, but that still doesn’t account for such a huge disparity.
@Mike – The connections will not all be made by bus. Merced will be a connection point for the San Joaquin train and perhaps an extended ACE service (they have aspirations to expand to Merced and Sacramento someday).
blankslate Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Also, LA stations to Merced continue to generate about 5 times as many riders as the same station to Fresno in Bay to Basin and full Phase 1…..
Mike Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
@blankslate, that’s what I’m talking about. What’s up with that?
Interesting that Merced continues to stand out even in the full Phase 1. This suggests that either there’s something unique about Merced that I’m not appreciating, or the model is totally f’d up.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
My understanding is the amtrak station is about a mile across town and they will rely on bus service from sac and sf
Donk Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 11:05 am
Of course they criticize the Peer Review committee, but are silent about the LAO.
“Days since…CARRD has says anything remotely positive about HSR” -Never
NIMBYs.
Donk Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 11:05 am
..has said..
Certainly OT but an article in Slate regarding the American Airlines bankruptcy has an interesting quote:
“there have been 189 airline bankruptcy filings in America since 1990.”
The article adds: “Cumulative earnings across the history of American passenger aviation are negative $33 billion.”
A lot of the criticism of HSR could probably be applied to the airline industry.
Full article is at:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/12/blame_jimmy_carter_for_all_the_airline_bankruptcies_or_better_yet_thank_him_.html
California high-speed rail authority spends millions to polish image
High-Speed Rail Authority spending millions on PR
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 6:33 am
It is welcome. FINALLY! Lack of info coming out on the project breeds utter ignorance. Folks sit at their comps and spin their observations recklessly and come to conclusions that make no sense.
Walter Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
I hate to lump you all together, but you’re different parts of the same machine that, on one hand, demands more meetings, public comment periods and forecasts, and on the other, decries the project for overspending on consulting and public relations. The Peninsula crowd’s guise of neutrality is awfully paltry when they are, in effect, making demands that criticize their other demands.
Peter Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Are you saying that if there is evidence of graft involved, we should just overlook it because we like the project?
Walter Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Not at all. I’m all for oversight, transparency and watching the dollars–probably to a greater degree than we’re getting now. I just shake my head when I see people simultaneously advocate for these things in the name of good governance while decrying them in the name of waste.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
[citation needed]
Walter Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
CARRD: “Whatever we decide to build should give us the biggest ‘bang for the buck.’ ” CARRD expresses uneasiness about cost escalations and their potential impacts on the project’s scope. Source: http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CARRD_Capital_Cost_Estimates-v1-2.pdf
CARRD states that they “encourage civic engagement” and “believe local communities should be partners in designing transportation projects.” Presumably, this includes the Authority allocating additional resources to public outreach. Source: http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CARRD_Capital_Cost_Estimates-v1-2.pdf
As you may have noticed, the two sources are actually the same source. It’s a one-plus-page statement on CARRD’s updated cost estimates. I’ll be the first to admit that the gist of the post is accurate. CARRD tries to show its work whenever possible–they’re certainly not making stuff up. But that doesn’t excuse their tendency to attack the project on any convenient grounds (even inconsistent ones) under the guise of “concern” and “building it right.” I have my share of criticism for the project. Why doesn’t CARRD have any praise at all?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
This might help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#Concern_troll
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Most interesting theory you have there. So the way to design cost effective projects is to not do design, thereby saving big bucks. And therefore … a witch! Burn her!
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Walter, what you’re missing is that not all costs are of equal magnitude. You’re not the only person who does so; anti-rail zealots love to trot out lists of cost components so that they can claim each project will cost more than all the rest.
In particular, outreach is nearly free. What it normally does is trade time for money. France is not a low-construction cost country, and yet, by slowing down the HSR construction process relative to Japan or Korea or especially Spain, SNCF/RFF achieves low costs by ensuring to pick out the optimal, least controversial alignment, and working land swap and buyout deals with landowners to avoid lawsuits.
Walter Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
You’re absolutely correct. A town hall meeting costs less than an unnecessary aerial.
But some of the criticism is directed at exactly this type of expenditure. Regardless of the actual merits of the arguments, when I read commentary to the effect of “X million has already been spent and no tracks have been laid” coming out of the same set of mouths as “What happened to our public comment period?,” I see a desire to undermine the project’s progress by any available means. Because it is so hard to tell whether this bunch wants more or less time and money poured into public outreach, I (cynically) assume they don’t really care which it is, so long as the Authority can’t win for losing. I fully admit to disappointment by synecdoche with a slew of forces on the Peninsula that come of as nearly distinguishable.
joe Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Walter;
HSR opponents demand accountability for any favorable review or report but fall silent when the LAO refuses to answer a Representative’s questions: who asked for their study and what experts were consulted.
Opponents question the ethics and infer a conflict of interest for peer review panels funded by the rail authority. They cite the Berkeley ITS report, which criticized HSR ridership estimates as evidence the peer review findings are not credible. Yet the Berkeley team was funded the rail authority and that study was undertaken for HSR opponent, Senator Lowenthal.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
I doubt the criticism has been about the expense of outreach. What I’ve heard is criticism of the cost of preliminary engineering. Engineering costs much less than actual construction, but much more than a town hall.
Off topic, but perhaps of interest here:
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/12/05/innovative-financing-points-the-way-ahead-for-a-rail-project-in-charlotte/
http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2011/12/north-structure-during-construction.html
More wonderful press coverage on the money trough that is part of the Authority’s passing out the funds.
Railroad.net , a very pro HSR source has this:
http://www.railroad.net/questionable-spending-for-the-high-speed-rail-authoirty-408.html
and Sign On San Diego adds this:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/dec/04/pr-work-embedded-rail-engineering-contracts/
How about 2000 words Robert, defending the Authority on this issue?
Eric M Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 9:11 am
And yet you complained when the rail authority requested more money from the state in the beginning so they could hire more people for oversight.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 9:20 am
It’s predictable. Complain that they aren’t spending enough time or money or both on environmental/outreach and then when they spend time or money on environmental/outreach complain that it’s taking too long or costs too much or both.
VBobier Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Yeah, some people will never be happy.
Message to Congress, “American’s are tired of lack of progress in Washington. Lots of American’s are especially tired of Republican’s lopsided over-use of the word “No” “.
Just wanted to vent a bit on my trip to work on a train.
VBobier Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
It’s called making President Obama a 1 time President, So they obstruct. And then there are those who think both sides are at fault cause what they they want(not Republicans in this case) , they can’t get, so they want to do another worthless sit down strike to send a worthless message(think 2010 mid term elections again, but in Nov 2012), which only helps and encourage Republican wingnuts.
VBobier Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Problem is some radical Democrats want something and then go and pout like 3 yr olds(think 2010 mid term elections again, but in Nov 2012), Democrats would need consensus, but may not always get that, People want things, but are not willing to talk or email their Democratic reps, I can see why people wouldn’t want to call or email a Republican rep, as Republicans don’t listen, unless It’s what they want to hear, Democrats at least listened the last time I called, Republicans didn’t want to and said If I wanted changes, any changes wouldn’t help Me, so why bother calling Repugs? They broke their oath of office as far as I’m concerned and they aren’t the Republican Party of My Dad and Grandpas time, their crazy lunatics.
A bit off topic but I’m very impressed with this news. Amtrak is now offering Wi-Fi® on California routes via AmtrakConnect. And it’s FREE according to their website.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am/Layout&cid=1246044330724&WT.mc_t=CaliWiFi_GREM&WT.mc_n=WiFiPage&WT.mc_r=365
Donk Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 11:08 am
I saw a commercial on tv about this. I would say I’m impressed, but they are like 5 years behind. I thought wifi would be obsolete by the time they offered it on their trains.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
4G/LTE is good up until about 100 MPH, after that you have to start thinking about some other method. WiFi or something like it will be around forever. The stationary people don’t need to hog frequencies being used by mobile people.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
So, a telecom guru as well?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Instead of streaming video from your home entertainment center computer in the parlor to your smart TV in the rumpus room you are going to get two LTE accounts and squirt HDTV through the local cell tower? Assuming you can get an LTE signal in the basement where your rumpus room is….
Alon Levy Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
I don’t think I’ve ever had my cellphone stop working south of East Greenwich, at 125 mph.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
They have it on the Regional, too. It doesn’t work on my computer.
Alan F Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Wi-Fi was officially added by the end of October to the NE Regionals and all other trains in the east that have Amfleet I coach and café cars (Keystone, Empire, Carolinian. Vermonter, etc). The unofficial reports are that the mid-West corridor trains will get the next large roll-out of WiFi early to middle of next year.
This will leave the long distance trains as the last hold-outs for WiFi. No news on when Amtrak will upgrade them for WiFi; could be delayed due to tight budgets.
I used the WiFi on the NE Regionals over the Thanksgiving period. Was rather sluggish, but the trains were full, so was potentially was sharing the WiFi link to the cell phone system with up to 500 people.
Off topic, but perhaps of interest–a particularly expensive multi-car wreck in Japan; involved were eight Ferraris, a Lamborghini and two Mercedes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAtelRZCFWc&feature=g-logo
Wonder what the insurance claims will run to?
News Update:
Ch 2 KTVU 5:00 news – Exclusive KTVU Field Research Poll (no link yet on their website)
“Public seems to want to put the brakes on controversial HSR project”
Do you want another vote on HSR?
64% in Favor
30% opposed
If that happened, would you reject the bond package?
Yes 59%
No 31%
Mark DiCamillo of Field Research Group
“If there were a re-vote, it’s chances of passage given this poll are not very good”
Of those who voted YES in 2008, if they had to vote today:
53% would still vote Yes
37% would now vote No
10% undecided
Margin of error is 4.4 + or -
Peter Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Cool, let’s just pack up and let the state die. Sounds good to me.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
I really feel bad for Nadia and Elizabeth. If they kill HSR then nothing can stop BART’s Ring the Bay. I’m sure Palo Alto won’t lose any of its charm with a giant concrete edifice rivaling the Pont du Gard running through it….
synonymouse Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
The “NIMBYS” have little or nothing to do with Ring the Bay. That would be MTC, Heminger, Kopp, Amalgamated, way more powerful guys than “deniers”. The kind of guys who can kill TBT tunnels and divert the money to BART and get a medal.
Progress, baby, duorail style
Tony d. Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
And here we go…
Tony d. Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Can we also at least vote for a regional approach to transit vs just killing off Prop. 1A?
Donk Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Still waiting for you to say ONE remotely positive thing about HSR, you know since you say you are not against the project.
Donk Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
BTU, I am sure that KTVU (??) has a very rigorous polling process. The fact that you are posting this really hurts your credibility. We all know the local 5pm news really is where it all happens. Was there also a baby panda sighting?
Nadia Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
The poll was done by Field Research Group – not KTVU.
Nadia Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
video is currently available here: http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/ktvu-top-videos/lHw/
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
The story about new police officers in Oakland was vaguely interesting and then the story about teh hotel and the museum was boring, I stopped watching when the story about gifts came up.
Your link doesn’t link to where you expected it to unless you meant to lead people to a story about the Oakland police.
Must be trying having a photographic memory – so that you can post detailed information from a television news story, without there being a video to reference.
Rick Rong Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
It’s one of many videos on KTVU’s site. You just have to scroll through them until you find the one that says “PALO ALTO: Field poll shows . . . ” I have watched it and the data reported in Nadia’s posting is an accurate statement of the results as reported by KTVU. However, a better link to the video may be the following:
http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/palo-alto-field-poll-shows-growing-opposition-for/vFRKg/
This link should take you directly to the video.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Thanks for finding it.
You just have to scroll through them
No I don’t and no you shouldn’t have to. If someone is truly concerned about doing things right they don’t post bad links.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
What’s Field Research Group’s general track record on election polls, esp. ballot props?
Nadia Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
From their website:
The Field Poll – The Field (California) Poll has operated continuously since 1947 as an independent and non-partisan media-sponsored public opinion news service.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
That’s… not what I was looking for. I’m more interested in their track record at predicting elections correctly. Something like Nate Silver’s pollster rating.
Nadia Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
http://www.field.com/fieldpoll/candidates.html
Rick Rong Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
The Field Poll has been cited by this blog itself. See Robert Cruikshank’s posting:
http://cahsr.blogspot.com/2008/11/field-poll-shows-narrow-lead-for-1a.html
where the results of a Field Poll taken shortly before the November 2008 election were discussed. The poll showed the bond measure (Proposition 1A) leading by a small margin. The results of the Field Poll as set forth in Cruikshank’s posting showed 47% in favor, 42% opposed, and 11% undecided. The actual vote as reported by the Secretary of State was 52.7% in favor, 47.3% opposed: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/7_votes_for_against.pdf. That particular web page does not indicate how many voters chose not to cast a vote on Proposition 1A. You can judge for yourself as to the accuracy of the Field Poll as taken just before the election. Robert Cruikshank has noted that the Field Poll is “widely considered the most accurate poll here in California by political scientists and analysts.” (http://www.cahsrblog.com/2008/07/field-polls-confirms-large-prop-1-lead/)
joe Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
KTVU 2 is FOX. Fox news viewers are poorer informed than people who do not follow the news.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
I wouldn’t take this too seriously, but Joe does seem to have people who can back up his claim:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/22/374434/fox-news-viewers-misinformed-study-jon-stewart/
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
That is funny. FOX news has viewers that ARE LESS informed than THOSE THAT DO NOT watch the news. Wow. It is like, watch FOX and you become dumber.
Michael Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
KTVU is usually the least sensational of the Bay Area news stations. Just because they are a Fox affiliate doesn’t mean that they are crazies like the national Fox news.
joe Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Fox lies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIHkpMtJ0dI
Alan Reply:
December 6th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
KTVU is probably the best TV news organization in the Bay Area, and was so long before Rupert conceived of his network. The fact that KTVU gets its primetime programming and some sports from Fox has no bearing on its local news coverage. I don’t recall seeing any Fox influence on KTVU’s news.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Here’s the key:
“Of those who voted YES in 2008, if they had to vote today:
53% would still vote Yes
37% would now vote No
10% undecided”
Which produces about the same outcome as 2008.
Bring it on.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Oh, wait, I get it, this is of those who voted YES.
Still. I’m not afraid to fight this battle for California’s future.
synonymouse Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Gimme a break with the “Bring it on” stuff. Easy to say when it is clear no re-vote is in the offing because corporate California is leaning on the business oriented Republicans to lay off. Pure pork for the patronage machine, pure pork for labor, pure pork for corps linked to the GOP. What’s not to like?
“battle for California’s future”? Save that gem of hyperbole for when open city really starts to turn ugly and the state is dead broke. Check out the piles of “rifiuti” on the streets of Napoli you can see on tgr campania. Vision of our camorrista future.