First up: the California High Speed Rail Authority reports that the coefficient that got the HSR critics all riled up was a typo:

What appeared to be a glaring flaw in the state’s bullet train ridership forecasts was actually a “typographical error,” an official said Wednesday.

A key number in the ridership model released last week should have read 0.0179, not 0.179, said Jeff Barker, deputy director of the California-High Speed Rail Authority. The mistake was in a document explaining the model, not in the model itself, he added.

Typos like that can make a pretty big difference, and not just in Brazil. But the Authority is saying that the model was perfectly fine; the explanation had an error that is easy to make. Once again, another attack on the HSR ridership models has come up empty. Keep in mind that these attacks are all based on one of two assumptions: that nobody rides passenger trains in America (which we know is wrong) and that any time government makes an error, it proves the whole project in question is totally flawed and should be abandoned (which is just plain ridiculous).

We can expect the HSR critics to try again to find their magic bullet. Anyone want to start a pool on what the next hair-on-fire allegation will be?

Next up: The CHSRA is going to study the “hybrid” option of stopping HSR trains at San José and forcing SF-bound riders to transfer to Caltrain, or even running HSR trains over existing Caltrain tracks at a slower speed, French-style:

Spaethling said the agency will also consider investigating what he called a “hybrid” model. This could entail having passengers switch from a high speed train to Caltrain, or having the high speed trains proceed on existing Caltrain tracks at lower speeds.

These options will not be included in the new alternatives analysis, but would be considered in a later document, he said.

I get why they’re going to study this – it’s been requested by some in the public. But forcing a transfer to Caltrain is an extremely bad idea. It would destroy ridership by making the trip much longer as well as less desirable. Caltrain is a commuter railroad with no on-board services (food/drink, bathrooms, luggage racks). And we know that transfers usually reduce ridership anyway.

Further, it may be illegal. Prop 1A makes it very clear that SF Transbay Terminal is the legally-required terminus of the system. The Attorney General’s office already said 4th and King can’t be the terminus and one would assume that would mean SJ Diridon can’t be the terminus either.

As to the French-style “send HSR up the Peninsula more slowly on existing track,” well, that is worth exploring I suppose if it’ll mollify the HSR critics, but it’s almost certainly not going to pan out in terms of ridership and finances.

I’m not really concerned about the hybrid study, since I’m confident it will reveal that the existing plan, of sending bullet trains over grade-separated tracks through the Peninsula to SF, is still the best idea from a ridership and financial perspective. And I am very pleased to see that once again, an attack on the HSR project has been turned back. Critics will need a lot more than a typo to slow this train down.