CHSRA-Apologist Website Dumps on LA Times

Robert Cruickshank, a leading (paid?) apologist for the California High-Speed Rail Authority, wrote a blog post trashing the LA Times SNCF story and its reporter, which generated hundreds of comments, including many suggesting that the I-5 route deserved a closer look. TRANSDEF posted this comment:

Robert’s take-down of the messenger (LAT) misses the point entirely. SNCF presented a proposal in conjunction with a U.S. investment bank that was willing to finance the entire LA-SF line. This was a project that made enough business sense to them–it minimized costs while optimally serving the primary market–that they were willing to accept full ridership risk.

Had the Authority been seriously committed to building its project, it would have conducted a bidding process, hired an international consortium, and would now be using the ARRA funds to build an I-5 alignment.

For reasons that appear contrary to the public interest, The Authority covered up this offer in its 2012 Business Plan, instead insisting that no private capital would be willing to invest until the first high-speed line showed a profit. In other words, the entire plan is based on a lie. It calls for the State to take on the full cost of building a line to LA, without any private money and without a prayer of any additional federal support.

The $6 billion Central Valley project approved last week by the Legislature exposes the State to unlimited operating losses, and worse yet, no way forward to a statewide system. That’s just what a take-the-money-and-run scam would look like.

Go ahead and rant all you want. I can’t see how you can call yourself an HSR advocate if you'd rather have 130 miles of unconnected track in the Central Valley than a working HSR system.