Freelance Journalist Picks Up Secret HSR Story
What I learned today about SNCF and
California HSR
By Stephen Smith, on July 10th,
2012
If you’ve been following me on Twitter, you’ll know
that I spent this afternoon on the phone with folks
in California, looking into the recent SNCF-CHSRA
bombshell. To summarize: SNCF, the highly experienced
French national high-speed rail operator, apparently
had a plan for California’s HSR network, but was
turned off by the highly politicized routing. Namely,
they wanted to make a straight shot from LA to San
Francisco by running along the flat, government-owned
I-5 corridor with spurs out to the eastern Central
Valley, whereas the California High Speed Rail
Authority (CHSRA) and state politicians wanted the
main line to go through every little town in the
Central Valley, directly. Now, all of this wouldn’t
be a scandal, except for the fact that nobody at SNCF
ever mentioned it to the public or the media.
That’s what the LA Times reported, but David
Schonbrunn, a pro-HSR, anti-CHSRA activist, says
there’s more to the story – SNCF not only advocated
I-5, but they actually had private investors lined
up! Here’s his letter
to the LAT.
I talked to David on the phone. He stuck by the story
and said there was indeed a “secret meeting” between
SNCF and CHSRA where such issues were discussed, and
then I spoke to someone else – someone intimately
knowledgeable about the SNCF side of things, who’s
been quoted in the media before, but who requested
anonymity – who confirmed David’s version of events.
However, he said that CHSRA was so dismissive of
SNCF’s plan that no formal proposal was ever
requested or made, which tells me that there
unfortunately may not be any written documents to
request/FOIA from the CHSRA.
As to the identity of the private backers, my source
wouldn’t go into specifics, but did hint that they
were major, major US banks offering to fund the
venture, and that they had experience funding SNCF
projects in the past. But again, no formal proposal
was ever made, since the CHSRA refused to consider
the only alignment – I-5 – that private backers felt
was financially viable. (When I pushed him on which
banks offered to finance SNCF’s California plan, he
downplayed the importance of the identity of the
individual would-be investor, saying that it was a
plan that would have had no problem attracting
private capital, given SNCF’s past expertise and
proven good judgment.)
Some have been dismissive of the LAT’s SNCF story
because of a PDF leaked to Yonah Freemark in 2009 in
which SNCF specifically gave its approval to the
CHSRA’s more circuitous route following Highway 99
through Bakersfield, Fresno, etc. In response to
this, my source said that that document was very
preliminary and was intended only for the FRA, and
was in fact drafted before SNCF established SNCF
America. In other words, it was nothing close to
their ultimate proposal, and the I-5 proposal that
the LAT cites was the most recent and most serious
one. (Indeed, it appears that SNCF America wasn’t
created until 2010, a year after that PDF leaked,
lending credence to my source’s claim that it was
much more preliminary than the one cited yesterday by
the LAT.)
So, what does all this mean? It means that the CHSRA
very well might have been offered private funding for
the plan, but turned it down because it didn’t
fulfill desired political objectives of going through
towns in the Central Valley onto the main trunk line
(again: SNCF’s I-5 proposal would have connected
Bakersfield, Fresno, etc., just through spurs rather
than the main line, not on every single LA-SF trip).
This would be okay if the CHSRA was public about it,
but they stand accused – by the LAT and by David
Schonbrunn – of covering it up. (Obviously it would
also have been in Parsons Brinckerhoff’s interest to
ditch the SNCF plan, and of course there are many
people who have been employed both at PB and CHSRA.)
I’ve reached out to SNCF America for an official
comment but my call wasn’t returned today (I’ll
update if I hear later). I didn’t bother to try to
contact CHSRA – if they wouldn’t talk to the LA Times
about a well-sourced claim, I’m sure they won’t talk
to some freelance reporter about anonymously sourced
accusations appearing on blogs.
But I know for a fact that there are other reporters
more experienced than I am on the case, and I’m sure
it’s only a matter of time before the truth comes
out. But so far, it ain’t lookin’ good for the CHSRA.
If you know more about any of this, even if it’s off
the record, please don’t hesitate to contact me –
[email protected]