Judge Tentatively Rules Against Atherton Request to Reopen Lawsuit
In a Sacramento courtroom today, Judge Michael Kenny indicated he intends to deny the request from the town of Atherton to reopen the Atherton v. CHSRA case the city mostly lost last year. According to a release sent out by the California High Speed Rail Authority:
In a tentative ruling issued today, Sacramento Superior Court judge Michael Kenny has indicated his intent to deny an attempt to re-open the Town of Atherton case. The Authority is complying with the November 2009 final judgment in the case. In May, the Town of Atherton and others petitioned the court to reopen the case. The Court’s tentative ruling today denies the petition. The Court will hear oral argument on August 20, 2010.
“We’re happy that the court has tentatively ruled that the petition fails to meet the standard for reopening a final judgment. The Authority has been committed to transparency in carrying out its environmental analysis and we will continue to work with and gather feedback from residents of the Peninsula and other interested groups,” said Authority CEO Roelof van Ark.
As we may recall, about a year ago Judge Kenny ruled against nearly every claim made by Atherton in their anti-HSR lawsuit, and the three points he did use to temporarily invalidate the EIR were addressed by the CHSRA, which is compliance with that ruling. Atherton and Menlo Park had hoped to reopen the suit based on claims that the ridership numbers for the Pacheco Pass alignment were flawed and therefore the EIR that they had filed suit against two years ago was invalid and therefore the case should be reopened. As indicated by the above report, Judge Kenny isn’t buying that argument.
Nor should he. There’s been no evidence whatsoever that the ridership numbers for the Pacheco alignment are flawed – all that have been leveled are accusations by HSR critics. The flawed Berkeley ITS study took issue with some of the methodological choices of the HSR ridership study, but did not prove any specific numbers were incorrect. Further, as we know, ridership was not the only basis for the Pacheco choice (nor should it have been).
As we know, a recent poll found that a clear majority of residents of the 21st Assembly District, including Menlo Park, support HSR. Menlo Park officials have not yet explained why they are spending taxpayer money to sue a project their constituents support.
Note: I promised that I’d have a post up today on HSR and the CA governor’s race. That’ll instead come tomorrow.
“Judge Michael Kenny indicated he intends to deny the request from the town of Atherton to reopen the Atherton v. CHSRA case ”
So who paid him off? Does this guy have connections to PB? Does he have a trainset? Check his basement.
I’m telling you, his inability to agree with my point of view means he’s corrupt!
Well, what happens to all the talk that the CHSRA board members should be indicted and that they are guilty fraud when a judge disagreed with almost every claim opponents made?
But I’m sure the next round of lawsuits will be just as successful!
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
At some point you’d think that residents would get sick of these cities wasting money on lawsuits…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Someone has to go to the city council meetings and ask to see the bill.
Spokker Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
They could spend the money on making the elevated structures look like a woodland critter paradise or whatever the fuck they think they have on the Peninsula.
jimsf Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
They have raccoons.
TomW Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 8:38 am
Spkker, there’s no need to swear to make your point.
Spokker Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
You’re right, but it’s more fun this way.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
We as California taxpayers needed to force these nimbys cities to pay the full cost of these lame actions after they are thrown out..At this point all they pay for is that nimby lawyer..
StevieB Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Their lawyer, Stuart Flashman, has said it is rare for the courts to void previous decisions. The lawsuit makes the news with no hope of success.
Peter Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
In other words, Stuart Flashman is playing the Captain Obvious card, essentially admitting that he knew he had no chance.
dfb Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Actually, because people support the project generally does not mean they support a specific alignment through their cities or the method of traversing the cities chosen by the Authority. I bet if you polled folks who live in Menlo Park and Atherton (or Palo Alto, which filed an amicus in support of the two cities), a majority would not think the suit a waste of money. After all, suits are filed for more reasons than to win and often are used to exact concessions from the other party.
Ken Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Basically it’s NIMBYism; people want it so long as it doesn’t affect their lives. Which is why I thought maximizing the use of pre-existing Interstate infrastructure to build upon HSR tracks might work, but I guess technology doesn’t allow that. :(
I don’t think there’s anyway out of this mess; these anti-HSR lawsuits and logjams will inevitable continue to happen every city and every neighborhood adding to more delays and cost overruns, with Republican and right wing drumbeats of “I told’ya so” already being heard. Lest when Meg Whitman wins the gubernatorial race, I’ll betcha she’s gonna kill this plan as soon as she takes office.
Bianca Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
I bet if you polled folks who live in Menlo Park and Atherton (or Palo Alto, which filed an amicus in support of the two cities), a majority would not think the suit a waste of money.
ahem:
“The San Mateo County Times has just reported on a poll done in April in the 21st Assembly District, including Palo Alto, Redwood City, and Menlo Park. The poll found that 77% of respondents still supported the project”
dfb Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 12:36 am
Bianca, I find your statement misleading, at best. First, the survey did not ask whether they supported their cities filing suit to get the Authority to bend to their wishes.
Second, two general questions were asked: 1) Do you support HSR? 2) Are you more or less inclined to support HSR knowing it will go through the peninsula. No question asked whether they were aware of the route it would take through the peninsula to qualify the second question asked, above.
via http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_15772908?nclick_check=1
“First, respondents were asked generally whether they supported or opposed the plan to build a high-speed rail line linking the major cities in California. Fifty-four percent said they strongly supported the plan, 23 percent somewhat supported the plan, 9 percent somewhat opposed it, 9 percent strongly opposed it and 5 percent didn’t have an opinion. [54+23=77%]
Then respondents were asked, “Does knowing that a portion of the high-speed train system will be built through the Peninsula make you more or less inclined to support building the high-speed rail system?”
Twenty-six percent said it made them much more inclined, 25 percent said somewhat more inclined, 24 percent said it made no difference, 11 percent were somewhat less inclined, 10 percent were much less inclined and 5 percent had no opinion.”
Third, 77% of respondents do not still support the project knowing it will go through the peninsula. Yes, 77% of the respondents said they supported HSR. But 21% of that group supports HSR less knowing it would go through the peninsula. There is a difference.
Fourth, the poll was only directed to registered Democrats, which are 47.46% of registered voters in the district. Republicans = 26.23% | other parties = 3.23% | Decline to State = 23.08% (in other words, 54% of voters were not targeted or sampled by the poll)
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/15day-prim-10/
Lastly, the survey was conducted before the latest flurry of reports about the options settled on by the Authority to study for the EIR/EIS.
Also, as the article mentioned: “Now, a lot of ink has been spilled since mid-April, and you have to figure the old Q Score of the California High-Speed Rail Authority has declined since the poll was conducted. For instance, the scathing state audit of the authority didn’t come out until later that month.”
Ken is right, this defines NIMBYism. We want this project, but put it over there and not in our community/neighborhood. NIMBYism has always and will always exist; it is human nature. You too would be a NIMBY if the project went through your neighborhood. I’m in Alhambra. I will sure fight plans to put HSR through my neighborhood because, as far as my neighbors and I are concerned, the better plan is to route the railway along the UP right of way through the cities of Industry and Commerce, where very, very few people live (and where we do not need to live with it 10 times an hour from 5am to midnight). And because there are quite a few of us living in Alhambra with legal degrees and/or whose children have legal degrees, our community will not go down with out a legal fight. :-)
Bianca Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 8:47 am
No question asked whether they were aware of the route it would take through the peninsula
Okay, so you live in Alhambra and made some assumptions about the situation on the Peninsula. You might think that people here in April 2010 didn’t know about the planned route. I live in Menlo Park. What you may not realize is that even before Prop 1A passed in November 2008 (with 61% here in support), a small group of people here have been making a lot of noise about this. Our city council voted to join litigation about the route in August 2008, before Prop 1A passed. Anyone here who has picked up a local paper anytime in the last two years would know about the route, because there is an article about it in just about every single issue. An enormous amount of ink has been spilled on this subject, since well before April 2010. Anyone in this area who has been paying enough attention to hear about HSR knows what the planned route is, which is why your criticism of the poll question isn’t really valid.
Also, as Robert’s blog post noted, the article got one detail slightly wrong. It wasn’t just Democrats who were polled:
The poll was not just of of Democrats – it was of Democrats and independents (known in California as “Decline to State” voters) who were planning to vote in the AD-21 Democratic primary on June 8.
What does that mean? I decided to do a little research to find out. According to the California Secretary of State’s office, Democrats and Decline to State voters represent 70% of the overall electorate in the 21st Assembly District.
Again, the poll actually asked both Democrats and Decline to State voters, who combined make up 70% of voters in the district.
You too would be a NIMBY if the project went through your neighborhood.
I live one-third of a mile from the tracks where HSR will run. I support this project. I want grade separations so that my children are not crossing active railroad tracks to get to the public library, the pool, or the main park in town. I hear the horns every time they blow. On a daily basis I have to stop and idle, waiting at a grade crossing for a train to pass. Furthermore, I have extended family in Los Angeles. Someone is coming up or going down to visit, or for work, on nearly a monthly basis. High Speed Rail is something my family will use.
Finally, you may not realize that the planned route on the Peninsula follows a currently active passenger rail corridor, one that today runs 100 commuter trains on weekdays, and has always had UP freight trains running through in the wee hours of the night. The rail corridor existed before the towns here did. And due to FRA requirements about grade crossings, of which there are many, very LOUD horns are blown at those grade crossings. Also, tragically, there have been a large number of pedestrian fatalities on the tracks in our area. High speed rail will bring grade separation, which will mean an end to the horns, and much improved safety for pedestrians, and those are things that a large majority of local residents support.
dfb Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Just because you live in an area or are aware of a general plan to bring it through a community does not mean you are aware of all the details or that you do not support your city’s lawsuit. I lived in Mountain View at the time the poll was taken and used Caltrain from time-to-time to make the trip to SF. I also heard the horns and remember when Caltrain moved the horns to comply with FRA regulations. I kept myself well aware of the plans but not all of my neighbors did. The folks I know in MP are like you and wish for grade separation but they do not want elevated trains either. :-)
I should note that your situation in Menlo Park is a far cry from ours in Alhambra. We do not deal with freight trains, or grade crossings on the proposed route. The Metrolink runs down the center of the freeway, mostly during commute hours. The UP line that does traverses Alhambra is also below-grade. The city helped pay to trench the rail line back in the 60′s and 70′s.
Bianca Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:02 am
Keep in mind that regardless of which alignment is used, Menlo Park has High Speed Rail running through it. The Pacheco Alignment would follow the Caltrain corridor. The Altamont alignment would run through a different area of Menlo Park, on a rail line that has been out of service since the 1980′s. So Menlo Park joined litigation that, if successful, would have resulted in HSR running through neighborhoods that have not seen trains at all for a generation, instead of having HSR running on the rail line that has been in constant use since the 1860′s. And it’s worth pointing out that there are more houses located along the disused rail line that Altamont would use, so the impacts would be experienced by a larger number of Menlo Park residents. Which really raises the question as to what on earth the Menlo Park city council was thinking by joining the litigation. Had the lawsuit succeeded in forcing a change in alignment from Pacheco to Altamont, the Menlo Park city council would simply have faced a different, and larger, group of angry residents at city council meetings. For Menlo Park, it’s not clear what the upside to such litigation is, unless the ultimate goal is to kill HSR altogether. And that goal is inconsistent with the level of support for the project in Menlo Park, first measured in November of 2008, then in April 2010, and again in June 2010.
It’s not a leap to suggest that if 77% of residents support something, joining litigation to kill it may not enjoy the support of one’s constituents.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 10:33 am
IM sick of it!! this is the resaon CEQA needs an overhaul..you get your change to prove your point and if you loose then the project goes on..
Hopefully this means the next lawsuit will be slapped down. The nail in the coffin of Altamont versus Pacheco should have been set in 16 years ago when the routes were first studied. Even then it concluded a more Southern Pass option would be best.
Evan Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Do you any more info on this? I’d love to read those original studies.
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
I read it off the online database Ebscohost from an article dating back to 1997. http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?9700106 Here is the reference. You would probably have to go to a library to find it.
Matthew Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
I was able to download the article by clicking on the “pdf” link from here. Could just be that my university library has a subscription, though: http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1997)123:1(1)
Spokker Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Evan, send me an email.
spokker@gmail.com
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 9:55 am
Evan, there were no such studies.
The original California HSR plan, being subject to minimal levels of rationality, entered the Bay Area via tha Altamont Pass.
The project as a whole was comatose, and in the meantime PBQD was actively shopping around its BART Fremont-San Jose-Santa Clara scam, having determined that free-spending temporary non-structural surpluses of the regional and state economy around the turn of the century were ideal for selling their wet dream cost is no object BART megaproject. (CHSR started stirring again around the same time for the same reasons.)
Once PB had local officialdom on board — in the form of the limitlessly corrupt and relentlessly BART contractor rewarding MTC staff, and in the form of San Jose’s political establishment — for its BART project, the next step was to kill off all potentially competing projects. That was done in short order.
Santa Clara County’s (ie San Jose proxy, ie PB proxy) representatives on the Caltrain and Altamont Commuter Express boards — Charlotte Powers and Jim Lawson in particular –, actively sought and succeed in killing off capital projects that would either improve Caltrain or reinstate Dumbarton service, voting against electrification plans when funds were available, and voting against free money from the State of California for Dumbarton (courtesy of rep Jackie Speier) because of instruction to send all political and capital to the BART scam. A Fremont-San Jose commuter rail project — that was fully funded and ready to go — was cancelled by VTA in favour of a 30 year distant, but infinitely more PBQD-profitable — BART line in the same corridor.
Meanwhile, the CHSR program — was likewise slowly becoming a going concern again. PBQD’s employees, acting perfectly economically rationally — determined that PBQD’s profits would be increased by many billions of dollars if the HSR program — whose alignments they were “evaluating” — in no way conflicted with or rendered 100% superfluous — the $10 billion (“officially” $4bn, but those were “BART bucks”, not real taxpayer money) BART boondoggle they were simultaneously developing and which was much further along in the political process.
So overnight PB’s good old boys determined that the new “preferred alignment” of HSR into the Bay Area would be one that had been discarded (for being more expensive, serving far fewer riders, etc) earlier. The first anybody outside the agencies heard about this was when PBQD trumped up a spanky new “Corridor Evaluation Report” at the beginning of 2000, when suddenly Altamont was off the table, no non-BART non-PBQD rail was allowed to be constructed between Fremont and San Jose, and all trains were to run via Los Banos.
And that’s the “study” you want. Good luck finding anything in it except strawmen and the corporation’s historically uniform systematic budgetary and ridership fraud.
They’d also done all of their political homework, soliciting and receiving endorsements from the boundlessly corrupt MTC, the cities along the routes, the cities not along the routes, the county CMAs and even the Caltrain board. Pretty impressive, in a makes-you-want-to-slit-our-wrists way. All of the turkeys passed resolutions in favour of Thanksgiving, almost overnight.
PBQD does a study that determines that PBQD and allied consultants will receive an extra $10 to $15 billion of public money (by the time redundant BART to Santa Clara and redundant “Altamont overlay” and redundant Redwood City-San Jose HSR and far worse than useless San Jose-Los Banos HSR are done) and produces a document that provides that outcome. Their usual go-to boy Quentin Kopp, who was so very useful in abstracting $2 billion from the public commonwealth and diverting it directly into the pockets of BART contractors in the 1990s, shows up again to front the new and even bigger scam. Quentin’s former chief of staff, now running the MTC, makes the new BART project the highest regional transportation capital priority, defunds Dumbarton rail which was approved by multiple popular votes in multiple counties as well as Bay Area region-wide, and ensures his board passes multiple resolutions in support of HSR via Los Banos.
Mission accomplished. Heckuva job.
Joey Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 10:23 am
A Fremont-San Jose commuter rail project — that was fully funded and ready to go — was cancelled by VTA
Wait, seriously? Is there any info available on this project?
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
http://www.bayrailalliance.org/caltrain_metro_east This would have made Caltrain Metro East, a project the Bay Rail Alliance vigorously pushed for instead of BART to San Jose.
Peter Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
But that was actually funded? I just thought that was pushed for by BayRail Alliance.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
No. What I’m talking about was a “commuter rail” thing that was part of the voter-approved Santa Clara County 1996 Measure B sales tax measure. It was pretty crapulent, as all “commuter rail” things are, and the routing and service were completely sandbagged by the consultants, but it would have been in service for nearly a decade at this point and it wasn’t BART so it had to die. The “Caltrain Metro East” proposal is infinitely superior to either Fremont-South Bay commuter rail
Here’s PBQD’s proxy, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, sticking a knife inwhat had been explicitly approved by and funded by their voters, in order to ensure that all funding went to PB and pals for BART sometime around 2040.
Here’s PBQD’s gal Charlotte Powers turning down free state money for Dumbarton rail because BART brooks no competition.
Here’s Quentin’s little buddy Steve “inexplicably not yet indicted” Heminger defunding the multiply (Santa Clara, San Mateo, and in all 9 Bay Area counties via Regional Measure 2) voter-approved Dumbarton in order to pork up his very very special pals over at BART.
Peter Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Your first link is broken.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
You get what you pay for from me.
Plus the sucktastic blog software has neither previewing nor editing functions enabled.
Try this (item 14, taken out of order as the highest priority agenda issue), not that you couldn’t have found it for yourself in less than 60 seconds, and not that it is incredibly informative in and of itself.
Evan Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 5:21 pm
@Richard: Thanks for the followup. I’m not pessesmistic about all of it, but maybe that’s my youthful optimism. Obviously a lot of things haven’t been done for 100% the right reasons, but I do believe that this state needs an HSR project.
@political_incorrectness/matthew: I wasn’t able to download the PDF there (says it costs $30), so if anyone has a link, let me know.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
16 years ago, the first studies had preferred route as Altamont, not Pacheco.
Of course, no mention of this anywhere on the CHSRA website. Winston Smith threw the studies all down the memory hole, at the Ministry of Truth.
Ken Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Look, let’s all get real here. We can continue to discuss things like these but you can’t deny from this Atherton/Palo Alto/Menlo Park fiasco that this is going to repeat itself at every CA city. No matter how much we point out, the truth of the matter is it will cause disruption to residents in these neighborhoods.
We need to change direction. How did the French, the Japanese, the Germans, the Spaniards, and the Chinese deal with these when they first started out? These guys didn’t build HSR over night, if it takes us this long to get anything done, they must’ve experienced stuff like these when they first started out too, right? But once they got it running, the public saw how good it was and many became more supportive. Are there anything we can learn from them, seek their advice how they managed to overcome these difficulties when they initially thought up of their HSR plans? Are there things we can incorporate them into our own high speed rail plan?
We can continue to discuss things like these, but we should not be afraid to ask help or seek advice from people who are more experienced in developing HSR than us. They probably have more efficient ways how to handle public relations or how to better present themselves at community meetings and public hearings. Or maybe it’s totally something different that we just haven’t thought up of yet.
Let’s stop the scientific or the polls numbers and the like for a sec and look at this problem from a different angle. Be more…political, more strategic in a marketing aspect. Going up in front of a crowd and saying “trains are coming, tough luck, pack your stuff and move out” or “trains coming, we’re gonna build it right between your communities, ’nuff said nothing you can do about it” is not going to garner any support.
Andre Peretti Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
CHSR is so different from what is done in other parts of the world that comparisons are pointless.
A TGV line going through 24 cities is unthinkable. France couldn’t afford it, even if it wanted to build it. Besides, the SNCF avoids lawsuits and eminent domain like the plague. They are bad publicity as the media generally side with David against Goliath.
Por this and other reasons, French HSR lines don’t cross cities or suburbs.
Another difference is that the engineers planning the routes have no links with any construction company and try to avoid costly solutions. Some posts (for example, Richard’s) seem to imply it is not always the case in California. Normally, there should be a bid with several construction companies competing to win it. Otherwise, you’re in the buider’s hands.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
The Japanese built the full Shinkansen from day one, passing through city centers. The French and Koreans leveraged their electrified standard-gauge network to allow building in stages: the TGV was first built only two thirds of the way from Lyon to Paris and ran on the legacy network for the remaining one third, and the KTX runs on legacy track between Daegu and Busan. Both the TGV and the KTX had expansion plans for the full line, once the initial segment was up and running.
The part about public relations is different. As Andre said, SNCF placates people by not running LGVs through cities; it also accepts suboptimal, cost-inflating routes when NIMBYs demand it and when other people are paying for it, for example with the LGV Provence. DB avoids running at high speed through city centers as well, and also tries to stick to freeway corridor. Korail makes all high-speed trains stop at the intermediate city center stations, skipping only exurban stations. The Japanese railroads design trains for minimum noise emissions, and emphasize connections to low-speed rail at most Shinkansen stations.
The problem as far as California is concerned is that many of the alternative solutions other countries have come up with don’t work for the local geography. The mountain passes are such that terminating the high-speed line short of LA or SF saves relatively little money; it would allow conserving some political capital, but this matters less, since CAHSR’s main obstacle right now is money, not local support. There are too many intermediate cities on the route for it to be feasible to stop at all of them; the only way to avoid noise is to either construct mitigations (which the HSRA is not doing – on the contrary, it plans on tall viaducts through Fresno and Bakersfield) or build exurban stations (which would require a greenfield right-of-way and have crap public transportation links to the city proper).
This move appears to clear the way for re-certification of the Bay Area – Central Valley program EIR, planned for the September board meeting. This re-certification will open a new 30-day window for CEQA lawsuits. In order to succeed, such lawsuits will have to be narrowly targeted to issues not previously litigated. The Atherton lawsuit, which included everything but the kitchen sink, doesn’t seem to leave much to work with…
Also remember that lawsuits are the intended mechanism for enforcing CEQA. Everyone should fully expect that each EIR that this agency will certify will be answered by one or more lawsuits, especially now that the opposition is fully spun up.
jimsf Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
the opposition is fully spun up
There are polls and there are polls.
http://www.morganhilltimes.com/opinion/268058-letters-positive-feelings-and-renewed-energy-will-find-way-into-classrooms
A June 2010 Gilroy Community Pulse Survey: “Should California abandon or press on with the High Speed Rail Project? 1,546 voters, indicates 78 percent “abandon” and 22 percent “press on.”
dave Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
What did they survey people after they left the CHSRA Gilroy meetings?
Peter Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Then again, there are poles and there are poles.
I doubt that a poll based on how many people decide to click on a link from a news website is a legitimate indicator, especially based on the journalistic quality, or lack thereof, of the Gilroy Dispatch. Their “methodology” would make for an entertaining read.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Both poles are classic beauties, but I want the second one! Hubba, hubba! (But don’t tell my wife I said that!)
HSRforCali Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Well Morris, you could either accept the fact that Californians want HSR, or you could just keep living in denial world.
synonymouse Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
If your polls are correct why did they kill the water bond issue when the “polls” said the majority supported it?
The PCC is naive and doomed to defeat if they think they can get anything remotely approaching anything but a total screwing from the political machine behind the CHSRA. The PA liberals will have to join with the Socal Reaganites and find the money for gathering revote signatures. There is no other alternative to stopping the Embarcadero Freeway redux they want to shove down the Peninsula’s throat. It will take nothing less than another citizen uprising like the one that brought about Prop.13.
Ken Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Well, let’s be realistic here for a second.
Is it true that HSR is going to cost us money? Yes.
Is it true that HSR is going to end up with more lawsuits and endless meetings every city by city, every neighborhood by neighborhood? Yes.
Is it true that our state is bankrupt? Yes.
Is it true that we can’t afford it now? Yes.
Is it true that you wouldn’t want HSR dividing up communities and neighborhood? Yes.
Is it true that it’s precisely why we need HSR for future growth? Yes.
Is it true we need jobs? Yes.
Is it true that HSR is a great way to jump start jobs here in California? Yes.
Is it true that people in CA want HSR? Yes.
Is it true that when looking for the public interest over individual interest, HSR makes darn good sense? Yes.
Now, in what ways can these two opposing sides work together? We can’t rely on public or federal grants forever. We need private partnership to get things rolling. What ways can this be done?
Are there any pre-existing infrastructure like the Interstate that can be considered to build upon HSR without disrupting communities and neighborhoods? To what way can we maximize the use of this to keep costs low? It may not work as a whole due to technological restriction of HSR, but there could be better alternatives to utilizing the pre-existing Interstate more than building everything from scratch. The Japanese are experts at digging tunnels through their mountaineous terrains and seismically active regions are great with coming up with practical alternatives. They’ve built lots of infrastructure in third world countries and sarcasm aside, CA is becoming a third world country, we desperately need help. Can CA look to the Japanese for help in infrastructure consulting?
dfb Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 12:42 am
Ken, two issues with using the interstate system:
1) It is not straight. Most of our interstates curve quite often. Too many curves and you slow it down to the point it ends up like the VTA light rail from Mountain View to San Jose – much slower than other options.
2) Using an interstate still requires an exclusive right of way, often requiring lanes to be taken by HSR. Any lane taken in an urban surburban setting is likely to lead Caltrans to expand the footprint of that interstate.
I think it’s time HSR advocate groups create their own real lobby group to handle lawsuits like this on behalf of CAHSR. We need to create a lobby that is strong, if not stronger to silence out critics like these and mass a big war chest for legal activities.
What are the chances of asking Siemens, JR, Talgo, and even pro-HSR US carriers like JetBlue to get onboard to create a true private-public partnership interest group? One good thing about the recent US Supreme Court decision to allow foreign investors to lobby in Congress that Obama was against is that it can also work against Republicans and right-wingers original intentions in forms of HSR advocacy.
dfb Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 12:55 am
You lack standing to sue on behalf of or defend the state (the Authority) in a suit.
Californians continue to support high speed rail in spite of some of the negativity floating around because Californians are generally “progressive” by nature, in that, they just expect and assume that we are suppose to be different from, and ahead of, the rest of the country on things in general. Its an underlying vibe that has just always been. I think the average person here is so used to the both the “big plans/escalating costs” scenarios, and the “nimby/political” scenarios, which come with every undertaking, that they don’t pay much attention but just assume that “it will get done eventually and probably at high cost, but in the end it will be a pretty cool thing to have and we will use it…. and then be able to continue being ahead of the rest of the country, cuz this is California.” Its just a natural expectation. Most people hear, but brush aside all the controversy.
synonymouse Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Lest all ye hsr foamers yuck it up at Hill’s suggestion that a re-vote is in order, don’t be so certain that it can’t happen here.
#1 State politicians have a track record of sending contentious issues back to the voters. The hsr has become increasingly controversial, and not just with the areas to be run through but also in the very large regions which get no service but have to pay for it. It isn’t just Reaganites and Tea-Partyers who are disenchanted but the less politically inclined have been stirred up as well. Pro and con are possibly in a dead heat – pols like to avoid making a call when it looks to be a lose-lose proposition no matter which way it goes. Safer to let the voters decide.
#2 There’s a lot of money to be made in a high profile ballot issue. Large sums will be spent on media and polls, etc.
#3 The “big dogs” won’t lose out in any case. One form of hsr will be built in any case and a certain engineering will be still be around to make it so.
#4 The opposition is not going away – ever. People are still pissed off about urban removal that occurred in the Fillmore district of SF 55 years ago. Trying to divide and conquer, like placating Atherton because Whitman lives there, won’t play well with the other affluent burgs, or for that matter in the poorer ones like Redwood City. Like the Embarcardero Freeway of yor the CHSRA aerials on the Peninsula will be hated 24/7 in perpetuity. When they actually get to construction I think civil disobedience is likely.
#5 The water bond issue fiasco makes a case for delay. Methinks we are already in the double-dip and a triple dip in likely when the Republicans re-impose Reaganite fiscal frugality on the federal level. Remember the first few years of RR(early 80′s) were marked by s major recession. An hsr re-vote would provide a decent political excuse for delaying spending money we don’t have anyway.
#6 Governor Whitman would be able to translate her opposition to the hsr gracefully into reality by asking for a vote of confidence yea or nay before committing to spending so many billions when the state is in such financial disarray. There may not even be a state budget yet at the time of the election so financial worries will be foremost in the voters’ consciousness.
OT, but HUGE.
The Bay Area to Central Valley HST Revised Final Program EIR is available here.
Peter Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
And … *drumroll*
Beginning on page 215 of Volume I:
If anyone is surprised about this result, I have legal fees from the Atherton v. CHSRA that I need paid.
Caelestor Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Hasn’t this been discussed for over a decade now? This announcement is really not going to change the opinions of anyone who already had a position on the whole debate.
Peter Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Of course it’s not surprising, except to those delusionals who thought that somehow the quite minor changes to the EIR would lead to the selection of the Altamont Pass. Look up some of the comments when the opinion was issued in Atherton v. CHSRA, such as here, here, and here.
Beating a dead horse: The Altamont Pass will also have a HSR-commuter overlay. Along with the Pacheco Pass primary route into the Bay Area, Altamont HSR overlay will give us all the proverbial “best of both worlds.” Not that it matters, but why do opponents/NIMBY’s keep ignoring this reality as if it were one or the other? Oh well.
Elizabeth Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 9:30 am
Yes, the Altamont pass would work for both commuter and high speed rail purposes. There are many reasons why it should and probably will be eventually built. The problem that many people have, including the EPA, is that there is no reason to incur the capital and environmental costs of building through both mountain passes.
Joey Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 11:54 am
Yeah. I’m still convinced that the Pacheco Pass offers marginally better Bay Area to SoCal service (at least for people on the West and South sides of the bay), but given the necessity of the Altamont Overlay, as well as the benefits to intercity service (decent service to Sacramento, additional population), building both routes seems wasteful.
Peter Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Much cheaper way to improve service to Sacramento would be to upgrade and electrify the Capitol Corridor.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Either of them land you in Oakland if you are headed to San Francisco. I hear they are building a spectacular bus terminal there. They can all get on the bus in Emeryville.
Joey Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 7:01 pm
I doubt you’d be able to get the Capital Corridor to an hour or less (what SF-SAC would be via Altamont) without building a full HSR line along the route, at which point you’re building three HSR routes into the Bay Area when you could be building one. Believe me, it would be cool to see, but given the financial realities of … well, reality, it probably makes sense to go with just one.
Caelestor Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Altamont’s greatest advantage is imo the free upgrading of ACE service. Shame that Fremont isn’t really too interested.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Ah yes. Over $700 million has been sunk into that black hole of UPRR and Amtrak welfare and what we have to show for it is …
But trust us! Just fork over another $5 billion and we’ll bring it up to 1950s standards! And maybe, if UP lets us, on a good day we’ll run more than one train an hour, and have it average more than 40mph, and have it arrive within a half hour of schedule more often than not. Maybe. But fork over! Because obviously/i> this well exercised course of action is “much cheaper”.
Peter Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Oh, go pound smugness, you arrogant frak.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 10:01 am
Because the Altamont overlay is just an academic exercise. There will be no money for it. The Authority isn’t serious about building it. Even if there were an argument for building both routes, the Altamont should at least have higher priority, as the East Bay has more than an order of magnitude greater population than Los Banos.
Moreover, Elizabeth understates the huge opportunity cost. Altamont provides a new transbay crossing, taking pressure off the overloaded BART transbay tube.
Peter Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 10:21 am
“as the East Bay has more than an order of magnitude greater population than Los Banos.”
That statement is misleading as hell. You know damn well there will be no station in Los Banos.
Joey Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 11:44 am
To be fair, a location with a station will generate more ridership than a location with none. But a more accurate statement would have been “the east bay has more population than Gilroy”