LETTER CARRD SENT TO THE AUTHORITY TODAY

In 2011, CARRD became frustrated with the California High Speed Rail Authority’s unwillingness to comply with basic provisions of California’s open government laws, which were made part of the State Constitution in 2004.  We sent this letter to the board. The board followed our recommendations, including the establishment of policies for complying with the Public Records Act as per State law, and we began to receive documents on a timely basis… until the beginning of this year.

There have been a series of requests that were routinely met in the past, such as the monthly reports produced by Parsons Brinckerhoff which are a specific deliverable in their contract, that began to be denied for reasons that we had already established with the Authority were not valid and not consistent with the Authority’s own policies.

Recently, we requested a number of documents regarding the bidding process. Significant changes to the process were made without board approval or even notification. Warranty provisions were changed from 7 years to 2 years only weeks before bids were due. The Authority’s CEO made statements in a letter to the Legislature which, at best, are misleading.

The Authority is contemplating the issuance of the first construction contract for a $68 billion project. Serious questions have been raised about the integrity of the bidding process and the unauthorized and improper exercise of authority by officials. Additional public scrutiny, not obfuscation, is called for in situations like these.  This is why we have open government.

On April 18th, we requested the “Questions and Answers” that were provided to the bidders during the RFP process. “Questions and Answers” are a standard part of almost any RFP process that is conducted by a government entity, from small towns to the Federal government and are specifically made public DURING the process to ensure a level playing field for bidders.  We have strongly suggested that these should be posted on the Authority’s website, along with the other RFP documents.

After first telling us that we would receive these records, the Authority changed their mind today. Not only do their actions violate the letter and spirit of the California Public Records Act, they appear to violate the provisions of the bidding process. Bidders were promised that questions and answers would be posted on the Authority’s website.

The Authority  must post these on their website immediately.  They should not include the bidders names but they should include the questioners assessment of how significant the issued raised is. This would allow the public to assess whether the claims made that changes were not material are credible.

Here are a number of agreements that CHSRA has reached with the freight companies”

March 2011 Preliminary agreement with BNSF

May  2011  Preliminary agreement with Union Pacific

April 2012  Expense reimbursement agreement with Union Pacific

July 2012  Additional agreement with Union Pacific, CHSRA, Capital Corridor and San Joaquin Corridor about additional passenger rail service and about maybe not suing over the Merced-Fresno EIR

Instead of including the monies in the general budget bill, the Legislature is using a “trailer bill” (the latest language is here). They have taken a completely unrelated bill, gutted the language and replaced it with a funding appropriation for high speed rail and various conditions on the expenditures.

The most significant thing to point out is that Prop 1A was $9 billion for high speed rail and a separate $950 million for “connectivity funds.” The language makes it clear that if ANY of the bond money for the Central Valley is not approved, then NONE of the connectivity money is available. So if the plan sinks, it takes everyone down with it.

Those of you who have been following the news probably know by now that there was a rumored Plan B floating around. (See Fresno Bee: ). The latest language seems to be BOTH Plan A and Plan B.

The rough breakdown is:

- $2.6 billion for the Central Valley (combined with $3.3 billion of federal funding)

- $0.8 billion of connectivity funds, sprinkled around the segments

- $1.1 billion of “bookends” funding

TOTAL: $4.5 billion Prop 1A + $3.3 federal = $7.8 billion.

Serious questions have been raised about whether or not the appropriations would be legal under the many requirements in the original bond measure. Two State Senators requested an opinion from the legislature’s lawyers.

CARRD has obtained a copy of the Legislative Counsel’s opinion that looks at the legality of the “blended system” and starting construction in the Central Valley.

Readers have described the 21 pages of convoluted language as “squishy”, which means that it does not come to any firm conclusions. Is it legal? It depends on the facts and on how key portions of the law are interpreted.

Three important points:

1) The conclusions rely heavily on assertions of the facts by the Authority that the Legislative Counsel cautions it cannot verify.

CARRD raised the issue of the travel time requirements of Prop 1A and Leg Counsel touched upon this issue in their opinion (starting on pg 6). The Authority is claiming the blended system can meet the 2hr 40 min requirements (even thought the LTK study done by Caltrain conflicts with that analysis) and Leg Counsel took them at their word. If that turns out to be factually inaccurate and in fact would take longer, then the proposed plan would not meet the requirements of Prop 1A.

2) Many of the projects in the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Southern California probably don’t qualify for Prop 1A bond funding. Promises to legally allocate Prop 1A money to the region may be empty ones.

3) Prop 1A required a Funding plan which the Authority certified in November 2011, but Leg Counsel confirms CARRD’s analysis that their plan does not comply with the law because the environmental work was not completed.

The most significant change in the Authority’s revised Business Plan was the adoption of a “blended” system. The good news was that it could be less impactful to communities and be cheaper to construct. The bad news was that it would further compromise travel times between San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Travel times, not travel speeds, are the single most important determinant of market share for a high speed rail system.

Previous decisions to travel along the east side of the Central Valley, instead of the I-5 corridor, and a significant detour to Palmdale had already lengthened the route  by more than 80 miles, mandating high travel speeds through many communities.

The state bond measure mandates a travel time between San Francisco’s Transbay Terminal and Los Angeles Union Station of 2 hours 40 minutes. This time was  important; previous ridership studies had determined that a rail system would need to be that fast to compete with air travel.

CARRD has followed the project closely for the past 3 ½ years. Authority consultants have produced detailed analysis after detailed analysis of how minor changes to the route would impact travel times. With no stops at all, the calculations showed that the Authority could make the time requirement for the full system with not a second to spare.

In March, Caltrain released the final results of a study assessing the feasibility of a blended system. There was a way to fit high speed rail trains into a blended schedule, but the travel times would suffer. In the best case, trains would take about 20 minutes more than previously assumed to get from San Francisco to San Jose.

Even if Caltrain and high speed rail trains were to reach the same maximum speed, Caltrain makes many local stops over the 50 mile corridor. This means the average speed between Caltrain and high speed rail would differ substantially. This limits the capacity of the corridor and the travel times for high speed rail trains.

We were surprised to see no mention of the impact of the blended system on travel times in the business plan. We were even more surprised to see a presentation at the April board meeting that claimed the blended system would deliver  a 2 hour 40 minute travel time.  Not only did this defy logic, but the ridership report supporting the business plan showed that the fastest scheduled trains were going to take 3 hours, which would be consistent with the results from the Caltrain study.

On April 18^th, CARRD testified at an Assembly hearing on High Speed Rail about the inconsistencies in the travel times and asked for substantiation of the 2 hour 40 minute travel time assertion and presented copies documenting the discrepancies to the committee and to California High Speed Rail board members.

The Authority declined to provide any analysis backing up the claim that had been made at their board meeting.

Kathy Hamilton of the San Francisco Examiner who witnessed the altercation at the committee meeting immediately made a Public Records Request for the documents used to derive the travel times in the board presentation. By law, the Authority should respond within 10 calendar days.

On May 31, 2012 (43 days later), Ms. Hamilton received the following response:

“The answer is that no document exists. These were verbal assertions based on skill, experience, and optimism and so Dan Richard went with the expertise of the engineers offering these assertions. I have been informed that a memo is in the process of being drafted on this very issue and I will provide that to you as soon as its complete.”

At this point, not all the facts have emerged but there are some  questions.

• What is the travel time for regularly scheduled San Francisco to Los Angeles trains under the blended system?
• Who made the decision to include a 2hour 40 minute travel time for the blended plan in the Board presentation?
• Has Parsons Brinckerhoff done any analysis on the travel times for the blended system?
• Where did the 3 hour travel time in the ridership forecasts come from?  Traditionally, the train schedules for alternatives have been supplied by Parsons Brinckerhoff.
• When presented with evidence that indicated the 2 hour 40 minute travel time might not be correct, what action did board members take?

Original CHSRA referenced in our reports

Slide from Board Meeting Asserting Travel Time for Blended System

Schedules and conclusion of Caltrain’s blended system analysis

CARRD article about discrepancy between schedule in ridership report and board presentation

http://www.calhsr.com/uncategorized/can-the-hsra-meet-their-240-travel-time-promise/

Full Caltrain Final Blended Operations Analysis report

http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/Final-Caltrain-California+HSR+Blended+Operations+Analysis.pdf

CEQA was discussed (4:14:00).  In response to Sen. Simitian’s question, “Is there going to be a proposal in the foreseeable future to provide some sort of environmental adjustment in an effort to accommodate the project, and if so, will I be hearing about it now and not after budget actions have been taken?” HSRA Chair Dan Richard said, “It’s possible. It will depend on the outcome of the discussions that we have with the environmental community.”

Video: http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=374

MP4 video: http://media-05.granicus.com:443/ondemand/calchannel/calchannel_604aa0a5-fccd-4dc6-b869-21b56f2fdf67.mp4

MP3 audio: http://media-05.granicus.com:443/ondemand/calchannel/calchannel_604aa0a5-fccd-4dc6-b869-21b56f2fdf67.mp3

The OCTA Board also discussed high-speed rail at their board meeting on Monday, May 14. Their discussion revolved around the lack of a credible funding source and whether the state should accept the limited federal funds which dictate a poorly located initial operating segment which does not provide connectivity compared to filling the Bakersfield-Southern California gap. They agreed unanimously to draft a letter to the appropriate authorities which captures their discussion.

CARRD transcribed this important meeting; their thought-provoking discussion is a must-read.

Transcript: http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/OCTA-Board-Transcript-5-14-2012.pdf

Audio: http://octa.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=417

HSR agenda item #27 starts at 1:49:30.

For reference, the Governor’s May Revise budget for the HSRA can be found at http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/Revised/StateAgencyBudgets/2000/2665/department.html.

However, in the supporting documents for the Revised Business Plan, the travel time was demonstrated to be 3 hours for the same Phase 1 Blended conditions.

We have two points to make: first, that these travel times are unrealistic given the route and project specifics as described in the Revised Business Plan – meeting Prop 1A’s travel time requirements will be challenging if not impossible under this revised plan. Second, that the Board and the public are given a different set of ‘facts’ from the supporting analyses is disturbing.

The graphics might be hard to see, so here’s CARRD’s one-pager on this problem. 

If you want to understand why sharing tracks for 50 miles with a local rail service that makes frequent stops could affect travel times, look at the Caltrain Blended Plan study available here.

CARRD has been urging the Authority to release this information since last week and in an email to the Authority, we wrote in part:

“This plan is going to a board vote in less than 48 hours, yet presumably board members – and certainly the public – do not have access to these important additional materials. Without them it is impossible to accurately evaluate the Business Plan. We reiterate our concern about the board voting on a multi-billion dollar project without access to supporting information. It is difficult to have confidence in their vote under these conditions.

There is also the obvious transparency problem of not making these materials available to the public in a timely manner. CARRD has repeatedly made this request to you and to the Chair and select board members, and cc’d our state reps. It is troublesome that we find ourselves continuously in this role of asking for a minimum level of transparency that should need no prodding. The board’s rushed vote with incomplete data is equally disturbing. ”

While we await the release of these key documents, here are some initial thoughts on the business plan.

CARRD initial thoughts on Revised 2012 HSR Business Plan – Where’s the Beef?

We look forward to seeing how public input was incorporated to the plan.

Given the media reports on apparent substantive changes, CARRD is recommending that the Authority consider issuing a second draft plan to give both the public and the Peer Review Group a chance to review the changes and offer their insights.  

We think it is prudent to take an extra month or two on a 100 year project to get this right.

See our letter to the board here. 

The full report is available at: http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2011-504.pdf

We recommend reading the long version (always!) as it provides much greater insight into the problems resulting from too many consultants and not enough staff that CARRD has been highlighting for years.

Also, don’t miss the NY Times piece called Room for Debate.

The NY Times poses the question: Does California need a high speed rail line, ultimately connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles? Can the state afford it?

There are 6 different perspectives, including CARRD’s. Be sure to read them all!

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/26/does-california-need-high-speed-rail

Our message said:

“We are writing to urge the Board to defer a decision until additional analyses on these issues are provided: