Honorable Mayor and members of the Menlo Park City Council:

Where to begin? The Almanac of Feb. 27 features a terrific and fair discussion of the California High Speed Train. Also, some references to grade separations. It's one of the most comprehensive articles on these subjects in the Bay Area press.

On the last page it also presents two points of view from other writers. One point of view is from Jim Bigelow who has a desk at the Menlo Park Chamber of Commerce. The other one is from me.

In my case, the Almanac indicated my residence, which in the past has been used to discredit my position due to the proximity of my residence to the Caltrain tracks. But, in that case, it is also fair to ask where Jim Bigelow lives, where he works, and for that matter, what he does for a living.

Mr. Bigelow neither lives or works in Menlo Park and therefore is not qualified to speak for our city. Furthermore, as a housing and transportation consultant, he has a financial axe to grind and therefore is an eager promoter of high-density housing, grade separations and all things rail, low and high speed. If, as we predict, the devastation caused by rail expansion is destructive in downtown Menlo Park, Mr. Bigelow will not be adversely affected. Indeed, it could be profitable.

Rory Brown's well-written article raises many issues and presents many of the "facts" repeatedly quoted by the rail promoters, as well as many in the press who merely parrot these numbers from the High Speed Rail press releases as if they were absolute truth.

Which they aren't.

For example, the Almanac presents two numbers in two separate places for the project's costs; $30 billion to run the system from SF to LA, and $43 billion to extend it to Sacramento and San Diego. Well, no. The $40 billion to "under $50 billion" that is frequently quoted really applies only to the SF to LA initial construction. Diridon and Kopp both have said that only after that first stage is operational and becomes profitable will they take the profits to build the Sacramento and San Diego portions. To be fair, there has been a lot of contradiction about these "facts" from one article to another. Many of the numbers seem to fluctuate depending on where you have seen them.

Let's look again at some of the major infrastructure projects around the world in the last 25 years and note that cost over-runs have tripled, quadrupled and more. The most prominent is the Boston Big Dig, now complete after fifteen years and with cost over-runs, which began with $5 billion and ended up costing over $15 billion.

The Eurotunnel, with its high-speed rail, initially was to cost less than $9 billion and carry 16 million passengers annually. Again, after almost 20 years and claims of huge success, the trains are carrying 9 million passengers, not 16 million, cost have exceeded $16 billion and they are still restructuring their debts, having flirted with bankruptcy several times in the past.

Why would it be any different with this high speed train project, especially since it is Parsons Brinckerhoff, the lead contractor of Boston Big Dig notoriety, which has been chosen to lead California's entry into the race to have the world's largest public boondoggle project?

They promise up to $4 billion in annual revenues. They promise 119,000,000 riders per year. They promise ticket costs to be $50. Were these train promoters sick the day they had arithmetic in school? Where do these nonsensical numbers come from? How do they manage to keep reality out of their conference rooms?

"It should be emphasized that 119,000,000 passengers / year equals 325,000 passengers per day. At 800 passengers per train (fully loaded) that equals 407 trains / day. On a 10 hour day that's 40 trains per hour, or close to 1 per minute." Thanks for that calculation, Morris Brown. That's an arithmetic lesson these high-speed guys need to take over in math class.

Here's a good one: Quentin Kopp says, "I'm mystified. Up and down the state, getting grade separations without having to pay for them is considered a big benefit." Oh, Judge Kopp, where did you get the idea that we all wouldn't be paying dearly for them? Bonds are not free money, Judge Kopp. They are a mortgage we can't afford. The taxpayers of this state will be paying for the interest and then the principle on these loans for generations. That's money that won't be available to buy us what we really need, like for medical plans, education, levee construction, and infrastructure repair, rather than this luxury train that we don't need, but you, Judge Kopp, want so badly.

Another quotation in the Almanac article again reveals much more than the rail promoters realize. Mr. Leavitt, the CHSRA deputy director, states: "Yes, the current state of the economy is a hurdle, but we believe that building this system is a way to strengthen California's economy for today and for the future."

Thank you, Mr. Leavitt, for seeking to help the state out of its fiscal crisis by building a high speed luxury train, by borrowing $40 billion more to add to the state's growing deficit, and won't be able to repay without raising taxes. Borrowing and spending our way out of our economic crisis like this one is like throwing gasoline on a fire.

Finally, there is another little box of interesting information, also written by Rory Brown. In it is a discussion of how the CHSRA will borrow private funds to supplement the state bond issue. The mandate, apparently, is to borrow $10 billion to match the state bond issue. You have to believe in the tooth fairy to believe that investors are going to see profits from this train. Amtrak, anyone? In the interview, Mr. Kopp says: "I know, I know, I was skeptical at first too." He goes on to say, "It's an unusual system, but we're confident that it will work."

Don't we all find that re-assuring? I know I do!

Martin Engel
2.26.08

--
-- 








**********************

Martin Engel
1621 Stone Pine Lane
Menlo Park, CA 94025
650:323-1670
martinengel@earthlink.net


**********************