The Magic Bullet Theory Spawns Another Frivolous Lawsuit
Mere months after most of their claims against the HSR project were rejected by Judge Michael Kenny in Sacramento Superior Court, the cities of Menlo Park and Atherton are using an obscure legal maneuver to try and reopen that suit, as Mike Rosenberg reports:
The plaintiffs hope their motion, to be filed in Sacramento Superior Court within the next two weeks, will lead to a full trial that would include evidence discovery and witness testimony. Ultimately, they hope the suit will reverse the rail authority’s December 2007 decision to run its bullet train through the Peninsula instead of the East Bay….
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Oakland-based Stuart Flashman, said a “writ of error coram nobis,” while uncommon, can be used to reopen a case even after a judgment has been made, as long as previously unknown evidence comes to light after the case closes.
The plaintiffs claim a group of concerned Peninsula residents last week obtained documents from 2007 that show the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission may have hid parts of an independent study that showed less favorable ridership models. The residents, called Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design, circulated the data to city officials, who Flashman said were “furious” at the discovery.
That’s CARRD’s spin, though Rosenberg takes pains to try and present it neutrally – and correctly notes it is MTC and not the California High Speed Rail Authority that is at issue here. However, it’s unclear that anything was “hidden” – MTC and CHSRA divulged the data upon request, and these coefficients aren’t always included in the published reports. Further, the ridership models weren’t “less favorable” overall – the numbers merely flipped between the Altamont and Pacheco alignments. There is as of yet no evidence to suggest this was inaccurate or illegitimate, although HSR critics have been busy claiming that it was.
Rosenberg’s article continues:
Flashman, who has already begun drafting the motion, said the new data makes the ridership study the authority used to justify its route “fatally flawed, but none of us knew it.”
Flashman is just plain wrong here and is using the “magic bullet” to concoct a theory that the entire study is “fatally flawed.” Again, there is no such evidence this is the case. If the coefficient change was in error, then you simply recalculate the ridership and the fares accordingly. One error, whether deliberate or not, does not at all indicate that any of the rest of the study is flawed. It certainly creates a PR and political problem, but that’s not the same as an evidentiary problem.
Even if the specific element of the ridership numbers in question was flawed, it might not really matter for the EIR and therefore render the effort to reopen the lawsuit invalid:
But the claim, even if true, may not be enough. The ridership numbers may not have any impact on the rail line’s environmental impact, which is the only basis on which the judge could reopen the case.
In addition, this legal maneuver may not be something that the cities and TRANSDEF can actually pull off, as Rosenberg quoted Kopp, himself a retired Superior Court judge, saying the “writ of error coram nobis” was something he’d only seen used in criminal cases.
Rosenberg’s article is also noteworthy for his accurate portrayal of the outcome of the Menlo Park/Atherton lawsuit:
The plaintiffs last summer lost the majority of their suit, which they filed in Sacramento Superior Court in August 2008. They cited environmental laws in challenging the authority board’s certification of an early planning document that picked the Pacheco Pass as the Bay Area route instead of the Altamont Pass.
But Judge Michael Kenny did rule that two areas of the authority’s report needed more study: Vibration and track use from San Jose to Gilroy. The authority is redoing that work while it chugs along with more advanced planning.
Flashman went as far as to suggest a possible criminal fraud investigation against those at the MTC responsible for concealing ridership data, if in fact they did. But such an investigation would come from the attorney general’s office, which is also representing the rail authority in the lawsuit.
It’s not inconceivable that the Attorney General’s office would launch such an investigation, but it is also unlikely, since there is nothing to yet indicate any wrongdoing was done. Indeed, while the coefficient change does indeed “raise eyebrows,” as Brian Stanke put it, the change itself hasn’t been shown to have been an errant calculation.
Still, it’s clear that the cities of Menlo Park and Atherton aren’t done fighting the HSR project as it currently exists. Ironically enough, even if Altamont somehow rises from the dead and is again chosen as the primary HSR route, it will still cut through parts of Menlo Park. As it turns out, it’s the poorer neighborhoods that would have the trains in their backyards. Which raises questions of environmental justice, as wealthier residents seem happy to dump the problem in someone else’s lap. While I don’t think the trains would cause environmental harm to those neighborhoods, it would be a pretty obvious example of class-based NIMBYism.
Further, the Altamont alignment raises many of the same questions and controversies as the Pacheco alignment. Palo Alto might be relieved to not have the project in their community, but Fremont, Pleasanton and Livermore might not be so pleased to themselves become a dumping ground. There will be NIMBYs there who fight aspects of the project as well. And of course, without HSR funds, Caltrain’s electrification project will face a significant setback.
The Altamont alignment also creates environmental permitting issues through the Don Edwards wildlife refuge in and near the San Francisco Bay. It also potentially complicates the operations of the HSR system, with San Jose being served by a spur instead of being a prominent station on the mainline.
In any case, I am sure these questions will continue to be debated in the comments, and it’s a worthy discussion to have, even if there aren’t yet any conclusions that can be reached, especially since there’s a lot we still don’t know about the ridership questions CARRD has raised. Menlo Park and Atherton are awfully quick to use those questions as a basis for trying to reopen a lawsuit they already mostly lost. It’s a shame that instead of working to improve the project, they continue to prefer to try and undermine it with lawsuits that cost their governments and the state government more money at a time when neither can really afford it.
Note to readers: Apologies for the delayed approval of pending comments the last few days. Been in all-day meetings here in LA. Things will be back to normal starting tomorrow.
Does anyone know the statutes involved for bringing about a “writ of error coram nobis?” This tactic is not permitted in the Federal Courts for civil suits, but can be used for criminal suits. In the California courts, this tactic must meet a multi-step test before it can be used. I am trying find out the exact language, but does anyone know it?
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
It’s not statutory law, it’s from common law.
~another~ one? You mean like the one that just got the judge to order the EIR to be decertified – that frivolous one?
As was stated in a previous post, ‘merely flipped’ apparently (per Stanke’s estimates), means a 9 million per year swing in ridership, in favor of Pacheco, between the two versions (+5 Altamont, -4 Pacheco = 9 in favor of Pacheco). At $105 per ticket, that’s $945,000,000 ($945 MILLION) of revenue per year impact. I wouldn’t characterize that as ‘merely’.
Also, the article says “MTC may have…” not CHSRA, but frankly, who cares if it was MTC or CHSRA. Bottom line is that the BOARD of the CHSRA holds ultimate responsibility for that which they certify. Tough luck if they don’t know what they’re doing, or don’t have adequate controls beneath them – that’s the precise responsibility of a Board, Accountability CERTAINLY to understand what they’re certifying on a $43 BILLION project. The bottom line is, the integrity of the ridership study is at stake – the finger pointing is secondary. The real question is not WHO, but whether there is an integrity problem with the ridership study.
If the Board didn’t know about it (they’re innocent bystanders here I guess?) then they should be as interested as anybody in getting to the true numbers. Why wouldn’t they? Aren’t they interested in sound decision making for the good of the state and its citizens?
Lastly, this method “writ of error blah blah blah” may end up to be procedurally incorrect way of going about it (I have no idea), but a refusal of the judge to allow this procedure would say nothing about the merit of the case – it may just as well turn out that a city that hasn’t filed a case yet, could file a new case. Like Palo Alto, for example.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Yes, the one that was intended to force the Pacheco pass alignment choice to be reconsidered, that failed to do so. That one. The one that threw everything including the kitchen sink at the CHSRA, and was confidently predicted by HSR denialists would derail the whole process …
… and completely failed in its objective. That one.
Of course, it was a shotgun suit and two pellets hit, but of course, neither involved any serious damage.
Robert writes: …”another Frivolous Lawsuit ” …
Of course he wrote similar comments with regards the Atherton, Menlo Park et. al lawsuit, which has resulted in de-certification of the program level EIR. Hardly a Frivolous Lawsuit in the eyes of Judge Kenny. Apparently the Authority did not take the verdict without merit, since they did not appeal to a higher court.
What should be of interest is not only this attempt to have the EIR again reviewed with proper information , but the whole issue of why the ridership data was not properly validated and why such important quantitative information was not properly disclosed either to the voters for the Election 2008, or to the court during the EIR lawsuit.
A through investigation is warranted, and should not be opposed by either HSR supporters, or those opposed to this HSR project.
lyqwyd Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
It was frivolous in the eyes of rational people since all the claims with any real teeth were thrown out, and just a couple frivolous details were upheld. The EIR may have been decertified, but that doesn’t seem all that big a deal either, since they just get to update it and then re-certify, with minimal added expense, and no time lost.
Peter Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
And there is no reason why they would have appealed the judgment, since, as lyqwyd said, all they have to do is update the Program EIR (with information that they were getting through the Project EIR process anyway) and re-circulate and re-certify it. No big deal.
You know, I really get annoyed when Peninsula NIMBYs try to bring back Altamont. There are plenty of valid reasons to support Altamont, but these people clearly have a conflict of interests, and I don’t think they really care much about those reasons, except that maybe it will get HSR moved to someone else’s backyard.
IANAL (yet), but here’s what I found on writ of error coram nobis:
“The writ of coram nobis is granted only when three requirements are met. Petitioner must show that some fact existed which, without any fault or negligence on his part, was not presented to the court at the trial on the merits, and which if presented would have prevented the rendition of the judgment. Petitioner must also show that the newly discovered evidence does not go to the merits of issues tried; issues of fact, once adjudicated, even though incorrectly, cannot be reopened except on motion for new trial. Petitioner must show that the facts upon which he relies were not known to him and could not in the exercise of due diligence have been discovered by him at any time substantially earlier than the time of his motion for the writ.”
This is from the headnote on Lexis for People v. Trantow, 178 Cal. App. 3d 842 (2nd Dist, 1986)
HSRComingSoon Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
That precedent is also used in People v Ibanez (1999). I think the three needed requirements might hinder Atherton/Menlo Park, et al, in their quest since they must essentially prove fraud by the MTC/CAHSR in the prevention of the material to not be released. Since CARRD got the information so easily, that significantly cuts down that argument. Rather, it shows that the Petitioners originally did not do their diligence during the discovery process. Also, since the original matter dealt with the EIR, I would think the Court would challenge the petitioner to explain how this does not already go to the merits of the issues tried. If the petitioners lose, I would not be surprised if the Petitioners to ultimately seek to abandon the existing judgment and request a new trial on the EIR since this approach seems pretty uncertaint.
On a personal note, does anyone know if the Peer Review Committee saw the missing numbers, or if they did, then did they approve or disapprove of the changes? Just curious.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
I would not say that CARRD got this material easily. It was a culmination of a three month intensive dialogue on the ridership study.
Our understanding is that the peer review did not see the numbers. First, Cambridge says they were never on any piece of paper.
Second, they decided not to have the final peer review and they just contacted some people by email.
HSRComingSoon Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
You got the material without a court order or through a freedom of information act request, correct? That being said, would you be comfortable in sharing some of the issues in the “intensive dialogue” that led to the acquiring of the materials. By the way, thank you for supplying the information to the public, it has certainly helped with the general public discussion of this project.
Donk Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Good work CARRD. Thanks for trying to sabotage this great project for the rest of us in this state. I am down in LA and I have not yet met a single person (in LA at least) who is opposed to this project. Just build the goddamn thing and stop the bitching. Go fight the EIR for the 405 carpool lanes or the Caldecott tunnel or something.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 9:26 am
This is just what this group is doing and they know it and act like there working with the community to get HSR built in the best way
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
That is an interesting point. Freeways get widened all the time and nobody asks if it will attract enough drivers to make it financially viable, since California has apparently decided it’s happy to subsidize operating expenses of freeways. And while some freeway fights deservedly become epic battles, such as the fight over the I-105 Century Freeway, most freeway widening projects (which HSR on the Peninsula most closely resembles) proceed without this level of fuss.
Peter Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 8:48 am
It doesn’t matter that CARRD was not able to get the information “easily.” The point is that the plaintiffs likely did not do their due diligence. Especially given that the ridership numbers have been “challenged” forever, it would have made sense for the plaintiffs to subpoena the ridership studies in discovery. Therefore, it would likely be difficult to make the argument that the ridership information was “not known to [plaintiffs] and could not in the exercise of due diligence have been discovered by [plaintiffs] at any time substantially earlier than the time of his motion for the writ.”
Peter Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 8:51 am
They can’t file a Motion for a New Trial since you only get 15 days after the date of mailing of a notice of an entry of judgment. Obviously, 15 days have passed.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Good point.
Does anyone have the technical background to tell us what the they think this coefficient should be?
According to The Transit Coalition, the coefficient relates to the relative importance of train frequency:
“. The specific change is one that deals with how ridership reacts to a change in train frequency. Intuitively, we know that service headways are negatively correlated to ridership since riders generally do not like waiting for trains.
“The more time between trains, the less people use them. But how strong is that correlation? According to the allegations, Cambridge determined that the correlation coefficient was -0.003, but it was stealthily changed to -0.179, which means that higher headways would impact ridership 60 times as much. Another issue is the aspect of relative attractiveness of air versus HSR. Because the Altamont Pass alternative would split service between San Jose and San Francisco, the unpublished change in the coefficient penalized Altamont more and made Pacheco look better. ”
I think train frequency will be very important for certain potential passengers (such as people who might commute between San Francisco or San Jose from the northern Valley) and not so important to others (recreational travelers going long distances for long trips). Certainly, the lack of a direct HSR connection between San Jose and SF would greatly reduce ridership on the Penninsula and at San Jose, and the lower frequencies to both SF and San Jose would hurt short trips in the northern end of the system.
Do we know that the coefficient used was really wrong?
As someone concerned about the end of cheap petroleum, I expect HSR to outperform expectations for longer trips (since planes will be so expensive) and the shortest trips (since electric trains will be cheaper than gas or battery powered cars), so I think we will probably end up building the Altamont alignment as well, a decade later. But the Pacheco alignment will be of great benefit for the South Bay, including the communities that currently are expressing some opposition.
Clem Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 8:40 am
Specifically, Marshall’s found that the “same frequency coefficients” in the newer model have been increased to “implausible and invalid values.” Those values imply, for instance, that train riders would be as discouraged from riding the rail line if there were an extra hour between train departures as they would if the train trip were 9.94 hours. He called the implications of the updated coefficients “clearly ridiculous.”
More here…
Alon Levy Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 8:47 am
For the record: here is the CV of Norman Marshall, who’s quoted as saying the coefficients are ridiculous. I can’t tell whether it implies expertise on rail traffic issues or not. Any pointers?
BruceMcF Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 11:33 am
There’s no experience with intercity rail, though some of the “transit” may be some form of local rail systems. Has mostly worked on road projects (but of course that may just be the nature of the jobs on offer).
Jathnael Taylor Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Just to give you all a heads up, it looks as if Palo Alto online has been hacked..
So be careful when you click on Clem’s link.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 10:08 am
By the way: the reason I’m bringing up expertise is that if Marshall were not an expert, one could come up with multiple reasons why he’s making things up. For example, either he or the PA Online article seems to confuse correlation coefficients with regression coefficients. And linear correlation/regression sometimes gives numbers that are clearly wrong at the endpoints of the dataset. The coefficients can be plausible for the range of numbers CAHSR is interested in, while still breaking down as train frequency increases to an hour. When the relationship between two variables is not linear, this can happen very easily – try to come with a linear relationship between height and healthy weight, or ticket cost and ridership.
now we have the Altamonters and the Pachecoites .. its kind of like ancient greece, or iraq….
HSRComingSoon Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Or the Sharks and the Jets from the West Side Story.
Joey Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
In that case I’m founding the I-could-care-less-let’s-just-get-this-thing-built team. Honestly neither Altamont or Pacheco seem to have a decisive advantage for me, and prolonging this debate is only costing us precious time and money.
jimsf Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 12:10 am
anyway, im pretty confident that the project willmove forward as planned. any changes would delay it to the point of effectively killing it and there are too many people on board. the majority of californian voters couldn’t care less about co efficiants cuz they, like me, don’t even know what it means. What the average californian hears and thinks about it is ” oh well theres the corruption and incompetence and politics we are used too, but just tell me when its gonna be done”
the only people who actually care about any of this are the “i didnt get my way’ers” ( the altamonters) and the the ones who secretly want to kill the project.
joe blow doesn’t care. he just wants it done.
Peter Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 8:54 am
Don’t you mean Joe Plumber? Oh, but wait, he’d say he doesn’t want to pay any taxes (and he doesn’t).
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Totally agreed, Joey. Pacheco would have a decisive advantage for me, but I wouldn’t have minded had Altamont been chosen. My position was clear and consistent: pick one and be done with it. This ongoing rehashing of a done deal does none of us any good.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
You’ve obviously never wandered the decade long threads on almost any North American railfan site, about whether or not Penn Central was a good idea.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Indeed I have not. For good reason!
Alon Levy Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Meh. Penn Central is too recent. I’ve started arguments about whether the IND was a good idea.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
It’s not so much the age but the pointlessness of it. I picked the Penn Central because almost everybody who has rummaged around a bit has heard of the Penn Central. Want to go for age how about a round of alternatives for the B&P tunnel? …not for it’s replacements but what they could have built instead…
lyqwyd Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Same here, I prefer Pacheco, but would have been fine with Altamont. In my opinion they both had their advantages and disadvantages.
however it gets here, the main problem ( if you’re a supporter) with altamont is that it will mean no hsr to the bay area until 2030 or so if that… and its likely to kill the project altogher. Though socal may wind up with an lax-ana amusement park ride.
And the reaching continues…
“This just in! Concerned Peninsula resident and so-called transit advocates are calling for the entire high-speed rail project, approved by a vast majority of Bay Area and State voters, to be cancelled due to a spelling error in an independent study of Pacheco Pass vs. Altamont Pass. Stuart Flashman, attorney for the naysayers, claims that the number “2″ was maliciously mispelled “to” instead of “two.” Flashman and his cadres of obstructionists are outraged by the spelling error and are calling for the heads of all CAHSRA board members. At the very least, they believe the courts should put an end to the high-speed rail project and turn its back on the voters of California.”
How low will these NIMBY’s and obstructionists go in their quest to get their way? It’s quite obvious that they’re not really interested in the Altamont/Pacheco Pass decision as much as they would like to see no HSR whatsoever. I mean, making a decision re: Pacheco over Altamont was more than just ridership numbers. And for the umpteenth time, Altamont will one day have an HSR commuter overlay. If Peninsula residents were really interested in HSR coming through the Altamont, which it will one day, we wouldn’t be having this debate. Again, for them it’s about NO RAIL WHATSOEVER!
Oh well, keep reaching folks…
jimsf Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 12:15 am
most californians recognize these kinds of people for what they are, and are just rolling their eyes.
What must be done is to fight fire with fire. just as the dems need to suck it up and grow some, so do hsr supporters … who need to mount an all out campaign to pit these people against the the cities and towns who will benefit. A downright sleaze campaign where the people of fresno and merced and la, and others, get an earful about how these spoiled rich folks are trying to kill the jobs because they don’t want the trains to disturb their ambiance.
Pit one against the other. Remember the valley people have guns and pitchforks.
Missiondweller Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 9:24 am
I agree, we need a 529 that is pro-HSR to fund ads supporting CAHSR and shame the NIMBYS. I for one would be happy to donate.
As I’ve said previously, the message that should be sent is that HSR is happening and if they choose to focus on obstructing the project rather than participating and providing input, then they’ll just get what they get when its built anyway.
jimsf Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 10:21 am
I was hoping that this is what ca4 hsr would be doing. I’ll wait and see, I’m going to donate to anyone who goes for he throat.
morris brown Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 5:55 am
Tony D.
Please give a link to the report or article where this information you write here can be found. I have been searching for this information, but unable to find any reference to this.
If Tony D. is unable to provide substance to what he has written here, I request Robert remove his post.
Joey Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 6:28 am
Never heard of sarcasm?
AndyDuncan Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Seems to be quite a sarchasm here.
HSRforCali Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 7:03 am
Dude, seriously? If you want Robert to remove something as little as that, then all of your comments should be deleted as well.
Peter Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Chill, morris, the world isn’t about to end.
jimsf Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 10:24 am
the story about the “to” is just a joke then? lol, good one. I thought it was true. I mean its not so hard to imagine with these folks.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
I do hope Tony D explains the source of the quote. The comment is confusing and hard to understand without it.
Tony D. Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
My apologies Robert; the “News flash!” was a joke (sarcasm). I was just trying to highlight how low these obstructionists will go to try and stop the project.
Roger Christensen Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 10:41 am
There are similarties here to last week’s adoption of LA’s FEIR for the Culver City to Santa Monica segment of the Exposition Light Rail project. One city councilman tried to delay the project by requesting a re-evaluation of Metro’s Grade Separation Policy. This after two decades of studies and refinements about 15,000 pages long. Fortunately this was quickly shot down with a County Supervisor reminding everyone that “to delay is to kill”. The NIMBY’s will sue anyway but they haven’t got a chance. Construction will start this year for 2015 completion.
Reality Check Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Tony D: The problem with your comments is that some of the key plaintiffs (such as California Rail Foundation, BayRail Alliance, TRANSDEF, and even PCL) are long-time and early HSR boosters. They’d tell you they’re not threatening HSR, the HSRA and its playing politics with the process is. The aforementioned plaintiffs all really do want HSR … via Altamont. The authority and its staffers had a huge fight with these HSR advocates when they ditched Altamont for Pacheco … so they can hardly be surprised they’re getting a big fight over this. The other plaintiffs (such as the cities) probably don’t really care about killing HSR as much as they care about getting if off the Caltrain corridor, or having it tunneled at the expense of others.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
They claim to be HSR boosters, but in practice many of those groups have bitterly fought the current project, and are willing to see it collapse despite this being the best chance the US has ever had to bring genuine bullet trains to this country.
They believe that the Altamont alignment is more important than actually getting HSR built. They also seem to believe, in spite of all the available evidence, that if this HSR project collapses, we can magically revive it and build a better train soon. This is of course absurd, but there it is.
One of the problems with some of the longtime rail advocates is that they have become SO focused on the details that they sometimes become willing to throw out good projects if the details aren’t right. For example, most of us would agree BART has been fouled up in certain ways, from the reliance on broad gauge stock that can’t be purchased off-the-shelf to using fixed elevated guideways that make express service essentially impossible.
But none of that makes BART worthless, and the Bay Area certainly wouldn’t have been better off had BART not been built. Certainly these projects should be built right, and we should fight to build them right, but there comes a point when “pushing to do it right” morphs into “I don’t like how it turned out, so let’s kill it.”
Tolmach and Flashman are out-and-out HSR opponents. PCL is a bit less rabid about it, but no less determined to stop HSR. As far as I am concerned, their actions prove they aren’t HSR boosters. One can support HSR while criticizing aspects of its implementation, but when you work to block the project, you lose the ability to claim to support it.
They have made the perfect the enemy of the good.
Tony D. Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Since you base your name on “Reality,” here’s a good dose for yah!: ALTAMONT WILL GET HIGH-SPEED RAIL! Via a commuter overlay that will one day be integrated with the rest of the HSR system. If these so-called “HSR” boosters were really interested in seeing rail over the Altmamont, we wouldn’t be talking about any of this B.S.! They should be working hard on the Altamont HSR commuter overlay concept, but they’re not. Some more reality? Pacheco Pass was chosen over Altamont as the primary route into the Bay Area a few years back; done, decided, game over! And an unfortunate error in supposed ridership numbers isn’t going to change that.
Look, so maybe Pacheco produces 65 million passengers yearly via HSR and Altamont 70 million. Well, both routes will get HSR in the future, albeit with the primary connector between the Bay Area and Southern California via Pacheco being built first (with Altamont HSR overlay coming later in the process). Two is better than one! Any more questions?
Peter Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Don’t forget about Dumbarton Rail hopefully to be built in the near future.
Matthew F. Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
There are two types of Pro-Altamont. One set wants Altamont because they believe it would bring access to more riders; the other set wants Altamont because it means the train would terminate in Oakland, and wouldn’t woosh past their trees in Atherton.
The former tends to be amenable to reason.
The latter….. not so much.
Peter Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
I’d rather have whooshing electric trains than roaring diesels on tracks shared with freight.
Tony D. Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
MF,
As a true high-speed rail booster (unlike BayRailAlliance and CRF), I’m ecstatic that we’ll one day have HSR through BOTH Pacheco and Altamont. Robert has stated in the past that the whole system won’t, or can’t, be built all at once (Rome in a day anyone?). It would be nice, but it’s not happening. So we’ll have Pacheco Pass at the outset, directly connecting LA, SJ and SF on the mainline, and Altamont Pass overlay at a later date. Why these “boosters” are fighting this arrangement is beyond me. Oh well…
EJ Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Wow, you’re sure good at promising deliverables when there’s no funding source even identified. If HSR is going to make money, it has to be done right, not based on a bunch of lies just so Rod D can get his fancy new station built.
Joey Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
I think that we both know, given the track record of HSR, that CAHSR will generate revenue regardless of whether Altamont or Pacheco is used.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
…and after they use the operating profits to build to Sacramento and San Diego they can use the operating profits to rebuild the Capitol Corrdor route and the ACE route and maybe out to Palm Springs/Indio….
lyqwyd Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 11:39 am
I though some of the prop 1a fund were going to be used for improvements that would be of benefit to the Altamont overlay. Am I mistaken?
BruceMcF Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 11:47 am
You forget that every single one of the alternative model runs in the argument result in the current alignment generating an operating surplus.
It is not a near thing, and the substantial questions are how quickly it will reach an operating surplus and how substantial the operating surplus will be.
On the one hand, even a 20% gain in potential operating revenue over the Altamont would not make it worthwhile to halt the current project and start over, because that puts that potential operatign surplus many more years out in the future.
However, on the one run of the model that is repeated by the HSR obstructionists, that is less than 8% more ridership, and since the average miles per trip of Altamont is lower, there might not even be any potential operating revenue gain even if that particular model run is dead on.
Roger Christensen Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Reality: Calif Rail Foundation consists of 3 people. Tolmach Tolmach and Tolmach. It’s a bogus org that Tolmach uses by siphoning off funds from the sister TRAC org.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Bingo. Something that ought to be more widely known.
One last thing: stop making such a big deal about the program EIR being de-certified! The two issues at hand, vibration and route from SJ to Gilroy, will be dealt with succesfully and the EIR will be re-certified. Easy, end of discussion!
I don’t understand why the CHSRA doesn’t commission a new ridership study. The numbers are over five years old, and HSR awareness has only grown more in the state. Surely a new study is warranted to secure the private financing we so desperately need. No capitalist is going to fork over dollars based on 5 year old disputed figures.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 10:13 am
One reason may be that until prop1A passed the Authority had a small budget and was at one point about to close down for the rest of the year
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Yep. People don’t understand or acknowledge how much the inconsistent funding really damaged the Authority’s ability to do the kind of work we needed. They’ve spent 2009 playing catch-up. None of that is their own fault – blame lies with Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state legislature.
Arthur Dent Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
That’s a lame excuse. The CHSRA had about 8-10 months notice that they’d be expected to prepare an updated Business Plan. They CHOSE to ignore this important part of operating their business in favor of marketing the project. It was an irresponsible decision, just one in a long line of others.
I can’t understand why HSR supporters make excuses for them. Wouldn’t the project have a greater chance of success (or survival) if supporters demanded that the Authority act more responsibly? Their poor performance is coming back to bite them. The public has a right to be upset – it’s the CHSRA’s own actions that are jeopardizing the project. Anyone who sticks by the Authority without exercising any semblance of objectivity is accelerating their demise.
The rush to blame people for raising serious, legitimate concerns is a dangerous form of support. The extremists are getting angry at anyone who points out that their beloved emperor has no clothes. To his great credit, spokker gets it. If you keep letting these old farts run around naked, the project really is doomed.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Are you referring to the 2008 business plan? The one ordered by a legislature that then proceeded to fail to pass a budget on time, meaning the CHSRA couldn’t pay its staff or consultants? Have YOU ever tried to produce a business plan without any money to do so?
The state legislature has no place criticizing the CHSRA’s business plan until they are able to get their own house in order.
We all want the CHSRA to succeed. Most HSR supporters realize there are better ways to do that rather than bashing them all the time and accusing them of manipulating the facts.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 11:51 am
What is the relevance of the “notice” that the CHSRA has when the legislature either fails to fund the preparation of the Business plan (2008) or through their general financial incompetence makes it impossible for the CHSRA to fund their operations (2009)?
It is a fairly lame excuse, I agree, in terms of your making excuses for the screwed up legislature of your screwed up state government in your perpetually financial crisis ridden state.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 10:47 am
I fully expect the state legislature to order new studies as a condition of getting their 2010-11 budget allocation. I wouldn’t oppose that, as long as it doesn’t blow up existing EIRs. The new ridership studies will almost certainly show higher numbers than studies relying on data from 2000 to 2007, before passenger rail ridership broke through earlier ceilings to reach a new and sustained level beginning in the summer of 2007 and continuing through to early 2010 at least.
Indeed, if new ridership studies bolster the financial case for HSR, it would be quite the irony given that it’s HSR critics who are pushing so hard to question the older numbers.
Jack Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
How much of the Pacheco/Altamont decision was predicated on ridership studies. I am sure it wasn’t just, well more people will ride Pacheco so Pacheco it is. I’d like to see exactly how they determined there decision. Did the assign points like with the PR firm?
I am surprised that a lawsuit can be based on ridership previsions, as if it were an exact science.
HSR is such a life changer, with so many variables interacting with each other that all you can really predict is minimum possible ridership.
What is unpredictable is the human element, and polls are no help. People don’t really know whether or not they will ride the trains. Their current answers are no indication of how they will behave ten years from now, when the trains are actually running.
Look at the example of Lille, a city in northern France:
it was a typical rust-belt city, on life support since all its industries had migrated to eastern Europe or China. Being appointed to a job there was considered a punishment.
When TGV Nord was planned, people said: “who in his right mind wants to go to Lille?” There was even a malicious joke: “with the TGV, they’ll leave Lille quicker, but who’s gonna ride the trains when they have all fled?”. Indeed, the polls for Lille were so low that the SNCF even thought of by-passing the town. Fortunately, the risk of going against the polls was taken. The TGV, Thalys and Eurostar have now transformed Lille into a vibrant city that even attracts, of all people, Parisians. HSR resurrected the city, which, as a consequence, increased ridership. An interface no expert had imagined
As for the NYMBYs and their lawsuits, I think they behave like soccer players facing a better team. Their only chance not to lose the match is to spoil the game. It’s mean and inelegant but it often works. Any time and money spent by the state on lawsuits means less track built. They are just trying to engineer the delays and cost overruns that may give the project a bad public image.
Jack Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
God I hope that is exactly what will happen for The CV. We’ll win this one like all the others with information. CHSRA has the funding now to do proper ridership studies and planning, eventually NIMBY’s won’t be able to poke holes in the research.
Matthew F. Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
That’s also one of my hopes for the project. When the Central Valley is a quick hop from everything the state has to offer, the brain-drain will decrease, and it’ll no longer be “the boondocks”.
I also have a warm & fuzzy vision that faster, more convenient travel throughout the state will have a unifying impact, easing the north/south political divide a lot of people feel.
Francis Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Word. I think that is a huge benefit to California which, to my knowledge, is the first time it has been brought up. The unifying aspect has political advantages far beyond HSR, it might help foster greater cooperation on issues such as water and power which will significantly grow in importance over the years.
The SanJose Mercu has a story that it was just a typo..of course the deniers say it does not matter!!!
Peter Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Nice. That should take the wind out of NIMBY sails.