From: Martin Engel <martinengel_at_(domain_name_was_removed)>
Date: Tue Apr 08 2008 - 17:23:57 PDT

Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council of Menlo Park:

I'm commenting on this editorial article from The Examiner today, Rail backers Showing the Money, not because it is true, but because it is false.

The editorial makes statements concluding with "according to the state's High-Speed Rail Authority." Other statements are preceded with "The rail authority estimated that." That appears to be the sole source of the editor's information. In short, the Examiner knows only what the High Speed Rail Authority tells them in their press releases. That is lazy journalism and misleading for the readers. Where are the fact checkers when you need them?

Apropos the erroneous title of the editorial, so far, no one has shown anyone "the money." The first paragraph of the editorial cites "60 or so" international investors. The second paragraph raises the number of investors to 80. Where did those other 20 come from? And, who are these "investors?" Representatives of railway systems and construction firms are included. Are they there to invest, or are they promoting and seeking business from the CHSRA? In these meetings, they sit across the table from men who will have $9.95 billion dollars to spend on letting contracts to build a railroad train.

The next paragraph cites the number $42 billion for the costs of construction of the HSR system. That number joins other numbers in other papers ranging from $37 billion to $50 billion in their various news articles. In other words, the number is a guess -- made up -- and you may be sure it will be only one third of the actual costs if the train is ever built to completion. Is it that a billion dollars is the new million and that accuracy doesn't matter so much?

The editorial identifies the currently anticipated bond issue for $9.95 billion. It also calls for $10 billion in private investments and a matching $9 billion in federal grants (read: earmarks). That comes to $28.5 billion. We seem to be $13.5 billion short. Oh, well. Santa will bring it, because the rail authority always tells the truth.

The editor states that the Governor "has indicated he would likely veto any such legislation not including public-private partnership." The fact is; there is no legislation to veto at this time. The bond measure itself is now on the ballot. It cannot be "vetoed." AB3034, an amendment to the bond measure, which is now only at the beginning of the legislative process, does not actually require such match funding, but only encourages it. If it ever comes to his desk, will the Governor veto it? I think not.

The "recent poll" referred to in the next paragraph was paid for by the CHSRA and consists of 800 people who were probably asked asked whether they would love such a train. What's not to love? You can be sure that they weren't asked if each of them, and every other Californian, was willing to personally pay $3000. to build it, however. (That's how many tax dollars will be spent from each of us.) As we all know, poll outcomes are totally dependent upon the questions and how they are asked.

Furthermore, polling 800 people in a state of 30 million adults is nonsense no matter what the questions are. The number of people included in the margin of error is way larger than the actual number polled. The CHSRA bought a poll to tell them what they wanted to hear. What is difficult to understand is why the Examiner did not challenge this.

Although Quentin Kopp and Rod Diridon have taken great pains to tell the California voters that NO TAX DOLLARS will be required to build or operate this train, we learn that "The other half (remember that missing $28.5 billion?) would have to come from other funding, possibly including a new sales tax." How's that? A new sales tax? Wait, you said. . . . . .

We are told that riding these "silent, clean, electric-powered trains" will cost $55 for a one-way ticket to LA. (What are they selling, vacuum cleaners?) That's in 2030, 22 years from now. Can you predict the cost of anything 22 years from now? And, if that number isn't silly enough, the authority claims that they will carry 100 million annual passengers, and make up to $3.9 billion in annual revenues. 100 million passengers? Actually, in their web site they have the temerity to claim 117 million passengers. That's more than one third the entire population of the United States! Attention, America, you better start getting in line right now!

By the way, the population of California, now 38 million, may go as high as 50 million by 2050. Or, not. Every man woman and child in California in 2050 will have to ride this train twice a year.

I don't even want to get into the issue about reducing oil consumption in California by one billion gallons per year. Based on what? Those 100 million drivers no longer going to LA from SF in their Hummers? It would seem that the rail authority, and the media that parrot them, are enamored of numbers in the millions and billions. So, it would seem that it's not their accuracy, but their order of magnitude that is meant to impress.

Oh, yes, that last sentence. No one, including this editor, has yet explained how the train, running from SF to LA, will ease "our transportation bottlenecks" in the Bay Area. That the high-speed rail authority spouts these fantasy "facts" so blithely is shameless. But for the Examiner, a respectable newspaper, to mindlessly repeat them is reprehensible.

Martin

---

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/message/37968 Published Monday, April 7, 2008, by the San Francisco Examiner

Editorial

Rail backers showing the money

Do 60 or so international investors know something special about the business revenue potential of California's proposed high-speed rail system that would carry riders between the Bay Area and Southern California in two and a half hours? Apparently so, according to the state's High-Speed Rail Authority.

Authority board members and their finance team, coordinated by Wall Street's Lehman Brothers, met last week with about 80 investors representing railway systems, construction firms and financiers worldwide. The serious interest from private finance sources was called "very encouraging" by Assemblymember Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, and "amazingly good" by rail authority Executive Director Mehdi Morshed.

At this point in the long-postponed development of the $42 billion train system, approximately $10 billion in private investments must be obtained before the 700-mile high-speed network is built. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has indicated he would likely veto any such legislation not including public-private partnership.

A recent poll said 58 percent of Californians support the scheduled November measure authorizing the state to issue a $9.95 billion bond for the first phase of the high-speed railway. This funding would trigger a matching $9 billion federal grant. So with private investment included, more than half of the project's cost would be covered.

The other half would have to come from other funding, possibly including a new sales tax. By law, state money cannot be spent for these projects unless matching funds from elsewhere are contributed.

The promise is that silent, clean, electric-powered trains would travel up to 220 mph and cost $55 for a one-way, two-and-a-half-hour trip between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Bullet trains would link all of the state's major population centers -- Sacramento, the Bay Area, Central Valley, Los Angeles, Southern California's Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego.

High-speed rail transit is also expected to be a major environmental improvement over gas-guzzling and polluting airliners or automobiles. The rail authority estimated that its trains would lower statewide oil consumption by 1.1 billion gallons per year and reduce annual CO2 emissions by 12.4 billion pounds.

But all those potential high-finance backers must be particularly interested in bankrolling high-speed rail because they find the authority's projections of 100 million annual passengers and $2.6 billion to $3.9 billion yearly revenues by 2030 to be reasonable and believable. After all, bullet-train travel is highly successful in Japan and Europe.

The Examiner is not quick to recommend additional bond debt for California, especially during budgetary hard times such as now. We will have to see how the high-speed railway funding package adds up in November. However, with the nonstop growth of California's population and ever-worsening gridlock on the state's roads and airports, it does seem as if bullet trains could be an important factor in easing our transportation bottlenecks.

-- 








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

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


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


-- 








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

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


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

Received on Tue Apr 8 17:24:12 2008