For those that don't understand the implication of the story below, someone at the CAHSR tinkered with the ridership numbers in a big way. As some may know, with the numbers being gamed, any Private Investor in NOT going to invest. With the state requiring a business plan that shows that the project doesn't need public subsidy and the data below showing that not to be true, that means no Private Investors. It also means that the application given the Federal Government was faulty and the Feds could hold or pull the $2.2 billion grant. I am a supporter of High Speed Rail, but I don't support or shield those who deceive the public. You will being seeing more about this in the major newspapers later this week. This is not good:

California High Speed Rail- ridership data proven faulty, could risk state and fed funding

from examiner.com -- Saturday, February 6, 2009

It was discovered yesterday that the highly criticized ridership numbers in the California High Speed Rail Authority’s (CHSRA) newest business plan are also not valid. Elizabeth Alexis, co-founder of Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD), requested back up data from the company that prepared the estimate, Cambridge Systematic (CS), so she could analyze the methods and model of the ridership study; and in doing so made the discovery.

This is different from the question about the high ridership numbers. The newest findings are about the mathematical formulas and logic behind the numbers and how they were applied.

Example: Would a business traveler be willing to take a train if the schedule changed from once an hour to every thirty minutes, even if train took more than twice as long as before? The formula used in all the ridership forecasts says yes. This results in higher ridership numbers used by HSR.

The ridership study was ordered and paid for by the Metropolitan Transit (MTC)* who in turn hired Cambridge. In a letter dated January 29, 2010, CS stated MTC chose not to update the model even though key data had changed. See CARRD’s website for more details.

Alexis said, "If the data had not been hidden from the public view, standard industry practices would have invalidated the results years ago." She also stated in a state Senate meeting, January 19th that the study was being used by Stanford University students as a lesson in what not to do.

"What we do know is there are lots of questions to be asked and answered," said Alexis, a trained economist.

Why are these numbers so important? Several reasons:
1. The numbers are the basis for state-wide environmental studies
2. It determines the routes for the train system
3. It is essential in measuring if the system is profitable, required by law
4. It justifies the construction of HSR by demonstrating sufficient ridership to attract private investment

Though any part of the state could have incorrect numbers and conclusions, of particular interest is the San Francisco Bay area and the analysis of Pacheco Pass vs. Altamont. The numbers look funny.

In March 2007 Cambridge forecast ridership at 65 million interregional passengers via Pacheco and 69 million via Altamont. Then in August 2007 Cambridge released their final forecast and they have 70 million via Pacheco and 65 million via Altamont.

As a bit of history, Altamont was hailed as the best route by environmentalists and by many cities in the state. It was the front runner as a route for the Bay area. Then inexplicably after 2000, Altamont dropped off the radar screen. Using Pacheco makes San Jose’s Diridon station a major hub since all trains will come through that station. The station is named after current HSRA board member, Rod Diridon.

Unfortunately last month, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) did not restrict or block funding for the High Speed Rail project despite a scathing report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and massive public outcry concerning the poor quality of the newest business plan. And now we have evidence of faulty ridership data.

Rather than the JLBC being required to vote in a public meeting granting the funding, it was only necessary for the JLBC to do nothing. Without a directive to the State Finance Department, the money flows freely so it will be June until the funding question for High Speed Rail will resurface.

Perhaps with flaws disclosed on the Ridership Survey, JLBC may reconsider their passive acceptance to fund HSR.

Perhaps basing the state environmental work on faulty data will stall the stimulus funds award.
Perhaps someone will come to their senses.

*both Rod Diridon and Judge Quentin Kopp served on the MTC.