 Our debate panel will be trying to persuade you to change your mind on the proposition. And I'm briefly going to describe the high-speed rail system in just two slides. And I'm going to ask you to vote on your initial position. Then following the debate, we'll pull you again to see if you've changed your mind. The winner will be the team that's persuaded the greatest number of you to change to their position. So keep your voting screen handy for the initial poll question. But before I have you vote, allow me to provide you with a little background. I'm losing my place here. There we go. The high-speed rail project is a publicly funded electric train that's being built in two phases. Phase one will enable passengers to travel between San Francisco and Los Angeles at speeds of over 200 miles per hour in less than three hours by the year 2033. Phase two will extend the system to Sacramento and through the inland empire to San Diego. And when completed will include 24 stations. And as what often seems to be the case for these large projects, the estimated costs have soared since the initial estimates were made. The estimate for completion of phase one is between $63 and $98 billion. The cost for phase two has yet to be determined and construction is underway. However, there is some uncertainty about whether the project will be completed. This is an important and timely topic to all of us here in California. Should the project continue? Is it worth the investment? Will we realize the projected benefits and how long will it take? Let's go ahead and activate the poll question two and put that up again and you'll all see there. It's ready. I'm ready for you. It's time for you to vote. The resolution for today's debate is resolved. Should California continue to build its proposed high-speed rail system? Many of you have already formed an opinion. This group will try and change your mind or at least not to lose your support. However, you can also be undecided to start with and perhaps that will win. They will win over your undecided vote. The winners are those who change the most votes to their side. Please continue to vote on the resolution while I introduce our panelists. Gentlemen, would you please come up to the stage? I'm going to ask if that's so kind. Go right ahead. Pro one, pro two, con one, con two. That way the microphones will understand. They are trying to con people. There's a little competitiveness in this group. Lenny Mendenche is the chair of the High-Speed Rail Authority and director of Governor Newsom's Office of Business and Economic Development and he is to my immediate left. Dan Richard, former chair of the High-Speed Rail Authority, is next to him. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. These are the protagonists. Oh, good. The antagonists are Dan Schneer, abjunct professor, USC's Annenberg School of Communications, UC Berkeley Institute of Government Studies. I'm sorry I introduced him out of order. That's Mr. Schneer at the end. And Steve Wesley, founder and managing director of the Wesley Group and the former controller of the state of California. Gentlemen, thank you all for being here. So panelists, here's the format for our Oxford style debate. We're going to hear an opening statement for speaker one for the motion and then an opening statement by speaker one against the motion. You will each have three minutes. Followed by an opening statement by speakers two and four, the motion and speaker two against the motion, also three minutes. I will then pose the questions to each of you, the piercing questions. You take it wherever you want. The closing statements of each speaker will be in the same order, however it will be two minutes each. And then we're going to conclude with a second vote of the resolution to see who won the debate. But first, we need to see where the audience stands on the resolution. Let's see how you voted. Will you close the poll and show the results? Now, I can't see them except to look. All right, so it looks like the vast majority, if I'm reading that correctly, are for the proposition. About 55% and we still have about how many percent undecided? 25 undecided. So, you know what you're up against, you know where you stand. It would seem to me that it looks as if it's the pros team to lose here. You're welcome. Remember, it's the votes that change that count, okay? So, Andrew, would you put slide seven back up for us? I haven't gotten to slide seven. There's for the resolution and against the resolution. California continue to build its proposed high-speed rail system. We'll go ahead and leave that one up. Let's see. It puts three minutes on the clock. We've got that timer ready. Debater's ready. Remember, we'll ask you to suspend if you succeed your time. Let's hear from our first debate. Excellent. Ready to go? Thank you, Jeff, and thank you for the overview of the project. It's great to be here at this Robert Barron University on the first day of summer and to talk about the next generation of California's innovation. California has long been a leader in innovation, bold action, and tackling projects that everyone else thought was impossible, whether it's the California waterways, the state highway system, the master plan of California, BART, even the Golden Gate Bridge in the middle of the Great Depression. People said it couldn't be done, yet California persevered and built projects that are prime examples of the benefits that we see through when we think boldly and have a vision about what's possible. I have been following the High Speed Rail project at a high level for years with my following and my footsteps of my friend, Dan, to my left here, but when I became chairman of the board of directors, it really struck me about how acutely aware the benefits of High Speed Rail are for the state of California. It holds fundamental economic and environmental promise for the hardworking men and women of California. The Central Valley, where 119 miles are under active construction today, is an area rich with roots in history. I grew up in Turlock, California, in a dairy farm, and I contest to the importance and economic benefit that High Speed Rail can bring to the center part of the state, a part of the state that is often overlooked, flown over, driven through, or frankly just ignored. To those that say that this project is something that is not important to California and doesn't matter to those of us who grew up in the center part of the state is frankly insulting. Ensuring that we all are connected is essential to the California dream. It has been and always will be. The authority has been in construction since 2015, putting more than 2,600 men and women to work building that first stage of rail. Bridges, viaducts, grade separations, and other civic works are underway today. When voters approved Prop 1A in 2008, they asked that we commence this construction than we are. In a state of California that's the size of California, High Speed Rail service will have huge impact. Travel times between the Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin will be reduced from 12 hours by conventional rail or 7 to 8 hours by car on a good day to less than 3 hours by high speed rail. The service promises to link California's major economic and population centers to the cities of Central California, to the coastal of Northern and Southern California. Already today, substantial effort is underway and substantial job creation is being evidenced where the construction is underway in the Central Valley. Only 14% of the job growth in the Central Valley since construction has started are attributable to the High Speed Rail and more than 50% of the job growth in Fresno County is because of the construction at this early part. Thank you to continue to support your wisdom in saying this is a great project. Thank you. Two seconds. That was pretty good. It's all right. Clapping is good. All right. I think the first for the opposition and that would be Mr. Wesley. Thank you, Jeff. Let's be honest. We'd all love to have High Speed Rail in California. In 2008, the legislature put Prop 1 on the ballot promising five things. First, High Speed Rail would only cost $45 billion to bill. It would be up and running by 2020, that's in six months, providing hourly service between San Francisco and LA. It would be faster and cheaper than the airlines. It would make a profit its first year of operation. It would have 39 million passengers per year by completion. I'd take that deal in a minute. And so would most of you. Surprisingly, so did the voters. Unfortunately, it's not real. None of those things happen. And that's the problem with High Speed Rail. It costs too much and it doesn't live up to the hype. So here are the four problems with High Speed Rail. First, it costs too much to build. In the 1990s, proponents projected it would cost $33 billion. In 2008, they said it would be $45 billion. Today, projecting $66 billion. You see a pattern? I think it's going to cost well over $100 billion. And that won't be completed for a decade, if not two. Second, it would cost too much to operate. The proponents say it's going to be profitable in the first year. But of the 1800, public transit systems in the United States, only 2% are profitable. And those are the ones in the densest population areas. Simply put, California doesn't have the population density to make statewide High Speed Rail profitable. High Speed Rail not only costs too much up front, but it will likely leave the state with ongoing operating expenses for decades. Third, it's the wrong technology. There's a revolution occurring right now in autonomous vehicles, platooning vehicles, new hyperloop technology. Commit ourselves now to invest $100 billion. And what is essentially the same high speed train technology that Japanese pired near 60 years ago? Short-sighted. Fourth, high speed rail crowds outspending for other more important priorities. Is it worth taking $100 billion away? Public education? Low income housing? Health care? I don't think so. If we were going to spend $100 billion on any sort of transportation project, which we shouldn't, wouldn't it be smarter to solve inner city congestion where the majority of Californians spend their lives stuck in Riddlock? Let me close with a quote from none other than Governor Newsom. The project, and I quote, is currently planned, would cost too much and take too long. There's been too little oversight, not enough transparency. Right now, there simply isn't a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to LA. I wish there were. Hope you'll vote no on this initiative. Thank you, Mr. Wesley, for the proposition. Mr. Richard. Thank you. First, I think we ought to change the rules. If the two guys who successfully ran this thing can't at least maintain the 55%, I think we win. So that should be the way it should go. Changing the rules, Dan. You know, in 2008, the voters did approve Prop 1A. And oftentimes, people ask the question, as is being asked today, why should we build a high-speed rail, or should we build high-speed rail? But really, I submit, with all due respect to the question today, it's the wrong starting point. The right starting point is to ask what kind of future we're going to have in this state. And keep in mind that we continue to grow, even as the growth rate has slowed a little bit, we're on our way to 50 million people. In essence, the population of the state of New York is going to pick up and move to California over the next three to four decades. Now, our job is to make sure it's not actual New Yorkers, but I mean, that's the challenge that we're dealing with here. So how do you accommodate that kind of growth and also maintain, not only maintain the lifestyle that we have now, but to have a sustainable future? This is an energy conference. Just about everybody in this room realizes that for the state to meet its climate goals, we can no longer just look to the electricity sector, because we've cleaned that up. Almost 50% of our carbon emissions are coming from where? Transportation. The future of California has to be about electrification of the transportation system. And while my friend Steve Wesley might want to sit in an autonomous vehicle for seven hours from LA to San Francisco, I suspect most of you wouldn't. And a high-speed train is not only a conveyance for that, but in fact, if you look at the way the program is being delivered in California today, it is part of a broader statewide rail modernization that is investing in BART, investing in Caltrain, investing in similar systems in Southern California. High-speed rail is the backbone of a broader rail modernization program where the state's rail plan anticipates that 40% of all trips by 2040 should happen on some form of rail. Oh, it costs more than people thought it would. Yes, that's true. But here's the thing that people forget. If you don't build a modern rail system, what you're going to be looking at is a future that has 4,300 lane miles of additional freeways, five new airport runway complexes, 115 airport gates at a cost estimated and confirmed by the GAO of somewhere between $140 and $170 billion. So this is the most cost-effective, most environmentally sustainable and intelligent thing that we can be doing. Thank you. Well done. Thank you, Mr. Richard. And for the opposition, Mr. Schnurr. I too would like a high-speed rail system that would whisk me from the Bay Area to Los Angeles in less than three hours. I would also like to start at center for the Golden State Warriors next season. Let's agree that neither one of those things is going to happen. Our debate today should not be about what we want, what we wish for, but rather what we can actually achieve. What Dan and Lenny are talking about, if you listen carefully, is a train that goes from Bakersfield to Merced. That's all Governor Newsom has signed off on. The cost is still just expensive daydreaming. But how much better? How much better to redirect all this time and money and effort into electronic regional transit systems that can improve and enhance urban suburban commuting within our largest metropolitan areas? Ask yourself two questions. First, how often do I need to get from here to San Francisco or San Jose? Second question, how often do I get to Bakersfield and Merced? Unless your answer is the latter, then consider that spending all those taxpayer dollars on a better, faster, cleaner, and more convenient regional system might make a little bit more sense. Now there are three main arguments for high-speed rail. Let's talk about each quickly. One, faster travel times. Yes, between Bakersfield and Merced. But for the Bay Area, for Southern California, for Sacramento, nothing is going to change. As we've just determined, there's a much greater unmet need for increased transit within metropolitan areas than creating a need in between them. Second, job creation. A regional transit system or a series of regional transit systems who would create at least as many jobs in the state's largest markets and in the more sparsely populated Central Valley and almost certainly more economic growth given access to much larger rider pools that exist in the Bay Area and Southern California. And third, environmental protection. I'll refer you to a University of California Berkeley study. I can cite that here today, Jeff. That's okay? Sure. A University of California study in 2010, which estimated the construction of the entire high-speed rail project would generate 9.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and would therefore take a carbon-neutral high-speed rail 71 years to offset its own construction-related greenhouse gas emissions. At that point, I will be 138 years old. I don't know where I'll be then or what I'll be doing, but I'm confident one of my top priorities will not be on how to get from Bakersfield and Merced. So I'll conclude with one traffic to my friends, Dan and Lenny. One question. Tell us how a train somewhere in the Central Valley is going to improve our commute from Palo Alto to San Francisco. Or is it really just a great white rail? Back to you, Ahab. Thank you. All right. Please. All right, gentlemen. Well done. The gauntlet's been thrown. So we have about 25 or 30 minutes. We'll see if we can get into some of these issues. Let me turn to the pros first. And of course, my job is to try and make sure each of you get the chance to respond somewhat equally, if not fairly. And if any of you go a little bit too long, I will let you know. But, you know, the price tag of this project is just soaring as the opposition has pointed out. Now estimates are as much as $98 billion, which has more than doubled since construction began. And where will we be when this is completed, is the question the opposition asks. At what point does the project cost become unacceptable? You want to start? Well, I think that in any economic sense, it becomes unacceptable when it becomes higher than the alternative costs. And the problem is that the things that we would have to do to maintain the same level of transportation efficiency cost two to three times as much. There are also ways to bring down the cost. One of the things that I think is really important to understand if you're asking the overall question of should we have a project like this is that we've made amazing progress with this program under the worst possible funding circumstances. You shouldn't build something like this in dribs and drabs and pieces. And if there were a more sustainable funding source, the cost would definitely come down. Having to do pay as you go is one of the things that stretches out the time and increases the cost. So I guess I would urge you to try to separate some of the cost expansion questions from the question of the overall benefit of the program because my hope is that by the time the next administration comes along, we may have some more permanent funding mechanisms that allow us to do things like financing and so forth to do that. Can I just say one quick thing to my friend Dan Schnur? I served for 12 years on the BART board. You want to know what the first BART line was? Conquered to Pleasant Hill. Everybody here like BART? You always start with some piece somewhere and basically it probably could be accused of being a train to nowhere. So whether it's in the Central Valley now or not, that is not the high-speed rail program we're talking about. It's a sequencing question. I know Steve wants to talk to the finances, but if I can just answer my friend. I think you should. Sequencing implies a second sequence. When Governor Newsom gave his state-of-the-state address this year, February 12, 2019, paragraphs 41 through 43, he said we could not afford to do a Los Angeles to San Francisco rail and therefore Bakersfield to Merced was the length of what he was willing to commit to. I'm all for sequential building as long as you build on that first sequence. All right, thank you. Going back to the point, let's hear from the opposition on the arguments you heard. Two points on the financial part. Folks, I used to be the chief financial officer for the state of California. We don't have money for this. Let me be clear, $210 billion budget. That's a lot. What people forget is 70% is already spoken for every year between K through 12 education, UCs, CSUs, and healthcare. There's a small piece of the pie that is left. And if you spent $5 or $10 billion a year on this for the next two decades, you crowd a lot of that out. That is the fundamental problem here. Dan also said, and we funded this under the most difficult circumstances. Folks, if you follow the market last nine years, up and to the right, this is as good as it gets. If we go into recession, it's going to be about how much we're cutting schools, how much we cut our healthcare. This project will be an asterisk. Last point, and I have to respond to it. Dan said, maybe Westley would sit in an autonomous vehicle for eight hours. I run a venture firm. We invest in mobility for the future. If you try to develop transportation systems looking in the rear view mirror, you'll get to the wrong place. There will be autonomous vehicles in the very near future, and they won't take eight hours to get to Southern California. They're likely to take four or five because of platooning technology. It changes things radically, and you don't have to subscribe to the old-world view that transportation from one end of the state requires being on old train tracks. We can do better, and I think it's California entrepreneurs from this valley that are going to create that new future. Let's not build a costly dinosaur in the meantime. Mr. Medonsha? So, a couple of things. First of all, I 100% agree with my friend, Dan Schner. There is zero chance that he will be playing for the Golden State Warriors. It's just that box. Even with Clay out. You're not tall enough and your jump shot's horrible, Dan. I also have a deep appreciation for my friend, Steve Wesley's investing experience. In fact, in full disclosure, I'm an investor in his fund, and I think it's a terrific opportunity to invest in alternative mobility solutions. We need all of the above. It's a false trade-off. It's like saying we don't need to invest in the next generation of mobile infrastructure. We don't need the internet. We don't need that much, and that's all fine. This is a core infrastructure that can enable mobility to happen in a way that is extremely efficient investment. I'd also quarrel with my friend, Steve, who understands math and understands balance sheets versus income statements. It's not appropriate to compare infrastructure investments, which are capital expenditure, none of which are funded through the general fund, to an expenditure that is an investment for the longer term. It's funded through a combination of bond funds, federal grants, and cap and trade funding. And, as my friend Dan said, when we have an administration who understands the importance of infrastructure, and by administration we're talking about Washington, D.C., California administration understands the importance of investing in infrastructure, we will have a federal partner who has, as the federal partner has in the past, viewed infrastructure investment and collaborating with the state of California is something that's a great thing to do. And the next stage of investment that will complete the entire infrastructure will have to include ongoing state investment. It will include local investment as local voters have shown many times their enthusiasm investing locally, both in the Bay Area and in Southern California. And it will need to include private investment. All of that will come when we demonstrate and make possible a vision that we can start by doing places where we can build and demonstrate the pace and scale of that in the Central Valley of California. And for those of us who say it's a bridge to nowhere, just find that train to nowhere in the Central Valley. I find that insulting to the people where all of the growth and the future of California is in the center part of the state to say it's all fine. We'll just invest in the Bay Area in Southern California and that part of the states that could be the poorest state in the country for an independent state, it doesn't matter. That's insulting. I know we'd like to continue on this subject. I'm going to try and move us to another. Maybe we'll get to about four of them as we go here. Excuse me. The oppositions. You had a right the first time. Historically gentlemen, big projects have produced big benefits oftentimes much bigger than we ever thought they would. I'm thinking about the electric grid throughout this country that really boosted this economy and has for over 100 years. The interstate freeway system, the rail freight system, interstate pipelines. In California we've got the water system that this state wouldn't be what it is today if we hadn't made those early investments. And of course the education system at what are those other schools? Yes, the UC schools. Tremendous education system. And this has really enabled California's sustained population and economic growth. Yet every one of these mega projects has had its detractors, its naysayers like yourselves. Aren't you going to regret arguing against this high speed rail project sometime in the future gentlemen? Maybe you have said you're in favor, but is it just the cost or is there more to it? So let me take the first crack at this. First, again I've been the Chief Financial Officer of the State of California. Every project you see it's likened to either the Louisiana Purchase or the Golden Gate Bridge. They don't all work like that folks, trust me. The question is this Golden Gate Bridge or the Hindenburg? The wrong technology at the wrong time. I would just say and Jeff, you asked the question and it is it is extraordinarily expensive. I ran through the numbers. This would crowd out a certain good size portion of the budget. We're about to go into a recession. That's going to make it doubly hard. The question really is because I'm all in favor of smart infrastructure for the future. Is this the plan we should be building for the future? And I think what Dan said is correct. You start out solving the problem in the inner cities where most of the traffic is now. And when you think about the end to end solutions do we want to look at a faster train or should we be looking at something different? I am here to tell you there's a revolution in new technologies. We would be far smarter with better results lower investment looking like the Hyperloop autonomous vehicles, platooning of vehicles and trucks. It is all going to change. Going back to trains in the 1960s is not the solution for California. Gentlemen, for the proposition you can handle that one. Well although my friend Steve Wesley is a brilliant investor in technology I spent five years at NASA as a kid so I'm not taking a back seat on the technology question and I want to address that right now I'll ignore Hyperloop which is more hype than loop but I think the onion had it right when they said Elon Musk proposes a system that will be powered by the screams of its passengers when grandma can pull three G's we'll have Hyperloop. But let's talk about technology for a second. First of all if the Chinese aren't exactly taking a back seat to the rest of the world in terms of technology what are the Chinese investing in 25,000 kilometers of high speed rail. They have a high speed rail line that runs the equivalent distance of Seattle to San Diego. So they're certainly putting down a marker on that. Secondly I get tired of hearing this argument about how this is old technology. This is old technology in the way that a Tesla's old technology a Tesla has four rubber tires runs on fixed guideways and you say no no that's crazy a Tesla's not like a 57 Chevy a Tesla has an aerodynamic design it's got an advanced electric propulsion system it's computer controlled the first bullet train the Shinkansen in Japan in 1964 went 135 miles an hour the sixth generation Japanese trains go 235 miles an hour how are they different from an Amtrak train oh they have an aerodynamic design they have a modern electric propulsion system and they have computer controls this is a highly advanced technology that many countries around the world are staking their futures on and I give nothing to the argument that somehow this is an old school technology this is a high tech and advancing program and so I just want to dispense with that argument short retort I think before we compare the Chinese high speed rail system to the one we're talking about here first we should compare two countries forms of government and I would agree that with a totalitarian authoritarian dictatorship we could displace all those central valley retailers and farmers and small business people with no problem whatsoever but the tens of millions of dollars of unanticipated costs of lawsuits of economic displacement of right-away disputes are one of the many many things that has moved us from the kind of high speed rail that Steve talked about a little bit earlier to the morass we're in now what I'd say to you Jeff just quickly is I think you framed with all due respect by the way have you noticed that the phrase my friend leads to a very unfriendly response just like the phrase with all due respect that there was no respect at all anymore only for the argument I think you got the question wrong it's not about thinking big and wanting to accomplish extraordinary transformational things it's about which extraordinary transformational things do accomplish and what Steve and I are both saying is we all want to revolutionize transportation in California we think the smartest most impactful way to do it for all of you is to do it within the state's major metro areas rather than duplicating what Southwest Airlines is already doing to move us from Burbank to San Jose and back thank you I'd like to try another question and I'll turn to Mr. Madansha on this one the argument was made by the opposition the project I'm sorry I'm reading the wrong one with a recent change in governors Sacramento seems to have gone from vigorous to somewhat ambiguous at best like any major project that takes decades to complete won't the lack of an executive champion doom this project I think that's a complete misread of what the governor said and what we have been saying consistently the governor wholeheartedly supports high speed rail and he wants to do it in a way that my friends Dan and Steve would support which is fiscally responsibly and in building blocks we can't spend ahead of the money that we have so we are building in a place where we have right away and we can demonstrate that which is in the important part of the Central Valley while we are doing the environmental clearance on both ends in the Bay Area and in Southern California so when that's in place then the next level of resource can be raised both locally at the state level federally and the private sector to build out and connect those regions so the governor has said wholeheartedly he is completely behind this and he wants to do it in a way that's responsible transparent and accountable which is what we are doing hey he put Lenny in charge so I mean that tells you something there's a bad judgment there's an old saying in politics a gaffe is when a politician accidentally says what he's really thinking and what Gavin Newsom said in his first speech as governor this year was the following quote let's be real the project is currently planned would cost too much and take too long which I admit that I interpreted to mean that the project would cost too much and take too long governor then said right now there simply isn't a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego let alone from San Francisco to LA which again I took to mean that there simply isn't a path to get from San Francisco to LA and to their credit smart people like Lenny Mndonka and Dan Richard that's even better than friends by the way smart people Lenny grabbed the governor as he was coming off the stage after the state of the state address and said you just to horribly mix a transportation metaphor through high speed rail under the bus you need to clarify the next day that Merced to Bakersfield is what we'll do over the next 18 years between now and 2030 and then some days some way in the future Luke Skywalker and Han Solo will complete the LA to San Francisco portion alright thank you Mr. Wesley I'm going to turn to you let's go with an argument that was put forward by the proponents the fact that the future growth regions of this state happen to be in the Central Valley and the Inland Empire which are without really any significant north-south transportation links are you going to ignore them what alternative do you provide are you going to suggest as an alternative to high speed rail so tell me how you're addressing this issue two points the Central Valley is incredibly important to the future of the state I've spent a lot of time there it is important I used to serve on the board of UC Merced we need to invest in the Central Valley but that doesn't mean we need to run high speed rail through the Central Valley in a costly transportation scheme if you look at where is population going globally it's going to the urban areas that is just a fact and so if you're thinking where do we spend our limited transportation dollars I agree strongly with Mr. Schnur you spend them in the major urban areas of this state one other point I just want to respond to to Dan's comment earlier saying hey the Chinese are no pikers here they're putting down a lot of electric rail Dan Schnur is absolutely right in a dictatorship you can do whatever the heck you want we have to assemble we've already assembled 1400 parcels we get this state to state we still have 400 to go there's no assurance we'll ever get those other 400 left last point to Dan is the Chinese are already moving to Maglav this project is going to take at least 20 to 30 years I grew up in Silicon Valley I work with entrepreneurs and I'm here to tell you well before 20 to 30 years we're going to be moving far beyond the current electric train transport of 2019 and I'd hate to spend 100 billion dollars on the wrong toy Mr. Richard well a couple things first of all on this question of should it be a statewide north south thing versus regional that is a legitimate public policy question how's that that's even better than smart it's a legitimate public policy question I think that what we've shown certainly when I was there it's been continued with my successor is that it is a choice we don't have to make we need to do both and by the way somebody mentioned airlines you know who one of the biggest proponents of high speed rail is San Francisco airport and LA world airports why Southwest doesn't want to fly you between Burbank and Oakland they want to fly you from Burbank to Baltimore they want to go with a European model where these short haul trips of 600 miles are done by rail that is where the rest of the world is going that's where we should be going but let's say something else about the growth in the urban areas which by the way I agree with my friend Lenny that there's a lot of elitism here about leaving the Central Valley behind I'm a Northern California guy spent a lot of time down there and I defended starting in the Central Valley but forget that here in the Bay Area Google is putting in a 25,000 person campus where at the Deridon station which is going to serve high speed rail, Caltrain and so forth where those 25,000 people going to live you can't get across San Jose in an hour and a half it's an hour it's a 52 minute trip from Madeira to that point so the opportunity to connect the Central Valley and the Silicon Valley which is the fundamental bedrock of the first piece of high speed rail is going to be massively important to maintain the economic vitality of this region that's one of the things that we need to do gentlemen this is great but we only have time to maybe sneak in one more topic the proponents brought this up and that is this project is being put forward as a major contributor in meeting California's greenhouse gas reduction goals so is it going to accomplish this and to what extent let's start with the pros well first of all you need to look at one thing it has been the high speed rail program is offsetting every every pound of carbon dioxide emissions of the construction during construction so it's not going to be a net negative and it's two things that you get with this kind of a rail modernization program because it's not just high speed rail it's high speed rail and regional rail that's what the state is pursuing here you get the benefits of attacking the 50% of greenhouse gas emissions that are in the transportation sector but you get something else too with good land use you get sustainable growth we can't just take people to the central valley and have them go out and buy five acre ranchettes this has to be part and parcel of an overall strategic approach to the state's sustainable future that says that we can build communities that are sustainable and connect our mega regions with high speed rail and transportation systems and Mary Nichols the head of EPA has said that is the reason that she supported the allocation of cap and trade dollars which are going to pay for high speed rail and it's in ARB's strategic plan for carbon reductions that high speed rail is an essential piece of it for the opposition the fact that we are using our cap and trade revenues that are specifically earmarked for greenhouse gas emissions to build a train to be as a fundamental violation of the rights of every Californian who wants to create a better and safer and more environmentally conscious future for our children our grandchildren cap and trade was passed with a very specific idea that would be used to impose financial burden on the state's biggest polluters to help save our environment for the next week in California the governor and legislature decided to use some of that money in lieu of a state water tax under the tortured reasoning that people without clean water would have to drive to the store to get bottled water and that would increase our greenhouse gas emissions this project is once it's in place it's in control until then the studies show that it's going to take decades to offset the environmental costs of construction lastly remember that this study was done in 2010 since then advances in alternative technology for electric vehicles and other more carbon efficient transportation have increased tremendously thanks to Tesla that's so much thanks to government let's save our planet first and then let's build a train gentlemen thank you is there either side willing to concede any ground to the other except for the opposition saying that they're both in favor of high speed rail at the beginning of the debate we conceded that Dan is not going to play basketball there you go alright now on to closing remarks two minutes each we're going to begin with the first proponent and we're going to alternate as we did at the beginning you feel free to stand if you wish two minutes I will remain seated because there's no need to intimidate our opponents anymore than we already have intellectually just like to conclude with three thoughts number one our opponents and they're con, they're definitely con are trying to create a false tradeoff we need deep more substantial investment in our urban corridors we need more housing where the jobs are being created in this part of the state and in Southern California we need more jobs created where people are coming from in the center part of the state and we need an infrastructure that connects those those are not tradeoffs those are simultaneous investments that Californians have been willing to make they've made it through the passing of the proposition that put high speed rail in the ballot and passing Prop 1A to reinvest in our local activity they have done it in Southern California with tens of billions of dollars in investment in infrastructure in Los Angeles and we're likely to have another measure on the ballot that will be a mega measure to support investment in the Bay Area those are false choices, yes and we can do both California needs local investment and we need infrastructure that connects them secondly, I continue to be amused when people in Silicon Valley need to connect to the Central Valley have you driven over the Altamont lately in the morning? Two or three hours of people sitting by themselves in a car polluting the environment ruining the their family lives and creating an unsustainable environment where we've got people living in one place two hours away and sitting in a car to get to a job to earn slightly over minimum wage that's not sustainable what we need is a more visionary view about what California can be where we have Silicon Valley but the Valley of Silicon Valley connected to Central Valley and finally I'd like to ask a question of the audience how many of you have been on a high speed rail in Japan, in China in Spain, in France that's great I'm delighted why can't we have that in California we look forward to it nice, very nice very good Mr. Wesley for the opposition the other side's made a good case I don't want to thank them for it but the fact remains high speed rail is too expensive and it doesn't live up to the hype now we've heard a number of things we've heard the feds will come to the rescue and pay for it, I doubt it I think Donald Trump is more likely to bail out North Korea than to help California with high speed rail we've heard that it will make a profit from year one look, if million passengers show up it might but what if it doesn't what if we get half that many remember 98% of the 800 public transit systems in the United States lose money this system could be a drag on the budget for years and that means crowding out things we care about third, is high speed rail California's number one priority if it's your number one, go with it do we really want to crowd out spending on homeless relief for student loans for high speed rail and if we did spend that extra 100 billion which we shouldn't wouldn't you rather spend it on fixing congestion in the Bay Area in Los Angeles where most of the people in state are moving rather than by Celia Bakersfield or Modesto or would be wise to wait for a new, better and more cost effective alternatives would you rather bet on Caltrans or Elon Musk to come up with the right system for the future my biggest concern is what happens if we go into a recession like most economists I believe the next 6 to 18 months we're going into a recession and the reality is we have 231 billion in unfunded pension liabilities today that we're on the hook to pay if we go into a recession state revenues could easily shrink by a third we're just gonna pay for the high speed rail then and I think one thing we can all agree on I think the governor's right the project it's currently planned would cost too much and take too long there simply isn't a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego let alone from San Francisco to LA I wish there were simply put it's a matter of priorities high speed rail is too expensive up to the hype thank you Mr. Richard for the proposition before turning to my closing I just want to say that Steve Wesley and I have known each other for 40 years so we really are friends Jason Cribs but his last remarks reminded me of the immortal words of Mayor Richard J. Daly from Chicago that together we shall rise to higher and higher platitudes with all due respect my friend Dan thank you so there's two things I want to say in closing first of all we can make the substantive arguments about high speed rail and by the way one thing we didn't get to talk about is that around the world and the 16 nations that have built high speed rail in every case once the capital is expended these systems generate positive cash flows so this is not something it's going to tear into the general fund and we've confirmed that again and again and again but it's not like BART because those are regional transportation systems that require subsidies these compete against airlines intercity the economics are fundamentally different and that's documented all over the place but here's where I want to end up Lenny Mendenza started out by citing some of the great things that California has achieved over the generations the state water project the master plan for the state university system BART you want to know what they all had in common they passed by one vote in 2012 we passed high speed rail in the state senate by one vote anybody sorry that we built BART anybody sorry that we built the university system these things were all controversial and by the way we also built the world's largest hydroelectric system privately owned the world's privately owned geothermal system this is what we do in California and I'll just end with this on July 1st 1862 Abraham Lincoln signed the transcontinental railroad act now think about what happened then the union hadn't won a single major battle in the civil war at that point it was the darkest days in the history of the country and yet our government invested in two things transportation the first thing was the land grant college act transportation and education infrastructure physically and infrastructure for the mind this is what we do in California this is what we need to do thank you and in closing against the proposition Mr. Schneer before I get started I have to acknowledge a weakness not only in my own argument but in this conversation some of us inadvertently I think have framed this as a battle between the Bay Area and Southern California on one hand and the Central Valley on the other and that's not the case like Lenny my friend I want to help the Central Valley's transportation needs too because it is the greatest potential engine of economic growth for California in the decades going forward but let's take a look at it in the last two years California has raised its gas tax by almost 20 cents a gallon Californians now pay $1 more for a gallon of gasoline than the national average if you leave in Los Angeles like I do or in a heavily populated urban area like most of you it might not be that much of a big of a deal but for those residents of the Central Valley who will help lead California to its next period of economic growth that's debilitating there are $130 billion worth of unmet transportation needs in California those will not be filled for decades as long as we're spending $100 million plus on this train from Merceda Bakersfield five years ago the USC LA Times poll asked Californians do you want the chance to vote again on this speed rail and 70% of the respondents said yes they do so let's imagine that ballot measure today based on what we know now versus what we knew in 2008 the initiative would read as follows quote should we spend tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to build a train to run from Bakersfield to Merceda that would take money away from greenhouse gas reduction projects and require taxpayer subsidies to remain related to the Bay Area but then again it might not we really can't tell you please vote yes I voted for Proposition 1A in 2008 not sure I'd vote for that initiative I don't think you should either thank you very much so hold your applause for these gentlemen we're going to thank them momentarily but right now we need to know have any minds been changed who won the vote Andrew would you please bring up the question and I'd like y'all to go ahead if you would open the voting Patricia please take out your devices again and vote read all the options to make sure you vote correctly we're not voting another time while the votes are being tallied I have just a few logistical instructions for the next set of panels they will begin shortly at 110 and I'm sorry that we've run over a couple of minutes here I really feel terrible I've offended any of my fellow organizers the PG&E bankruptcy and managing renewables on the grid panels just head that way however if you want to see a great panel on achieving corporate clean energy goals with a complete panel of women moderated by a woman stay right here if you're that's Mariana Grossman's panel if you're moving to another room ask that you please clean up a little bit remember to take your belongings if you're not moving you have a few minutes before the next panel begins keep voting I'm going to be closing the voting momentarily what's the number up on the right hand corner we're in good shape on a personal note I have to tell you I've been associated with the Silicon Valley Energy Summit since 2001 and I see some others here as well who have been involved for a long time I'm thinking of my friend Joe Desmond I think this is very likely the best group of speakers and topics we've ever had I can tell you that the organizing committee put a great deal of thought and effort into this year and they've gotten some recognition but I'd like to ask you to join me in thanking the real person and her team behind organizing this event making it so successful every year she doesn't do it for the money she does it for love Jim Sweeney's wife Susan Sweeney if you'd please that Susan are you here I asked her to be here there she is and of course the countless the countless people volunteers and others that work on this we appreciate it very much so it's time panelists you've done an incredible job we are so fortunate to have you here winner lose what do you say audience please join me in thanking them for their expertise their humor and for their efforts in being here today all right if you will please close the polling and let's look at the results it stayed the same it would appear to me it would I'm challenged here I guess I have a microphone I've got to read these unchanged 61% changed to for the resolution 18% and changed to against the resolution 17% so it looks as though the pros have it by that much congratulations gentlemen one vote change there's no change to mine well done Jim thanks Jim you guys are wonderful and we're still all friends right we're still all friends