Palmdale Sues to Block Grapevine Study
After threatening to file a lawsuit to stop the California High Speed Rail Authority from studying a possible Grapevine/I-5 alignment, the City of Palmdale this week carried out the threat, suing the California High Speed Rail Authority in federal court:
The city’s federal lawsuit argues that the rail authority may not use federal grants and state bond money to revisit an earlier announced decision to build an alignment through Palmdale.
“The people of California approved the passage of Proposition 1A bond funds for the high speed rail project that specifically listed Palmdale as one of the stops on the route and the federal grant does not allow for this Grapevine alignment restudy,” City Attorney Matthew Ditzhazy wrote in a news release.
City Manager Steve Williams added that Palmdale has invested money, time and energy to ensure that the Palmdale route — which would include a bullet train station — becomes a reality.
Palmdale is quite correct that AB 3034, which became Prop 1A, lists their city as part of the HSR route:
the Legislature may appropriate funds described in paragraph (1) in the annual Budget Act, to be expended for any of the following high-speed train corridors:
(A) Sacramento to Stockton to Fresno.
(B) San Francisco Transbay Terminal to San Jose to Fresno.
(C) Oakland to San Jose.
(D) Fresno to Bakersfield to Palmdale to Los Angeles Union
Station.
(E) Los Angeles Union Station to Riverside to San Diego.
(F) Los Angeles Union Station to Anaheim to Irvine.
(G) Merced to Stockton to Oakland and San Francisco via the
Altamont Corridor.
Palmdale’s suit is a response to the Authority’s decision to study the Grapevine route, and the Bakersfield Californian article sheds some light on the Authority’s reasoning for that decision:
But more recently, authority engineers found that the Antelope Valley alternative was going to entail unexpected and significant construction challenges between Palmdale and Sylmar, such as siphoning the California Aqueduct or altering a dam at Lake Palmdale and more tunneling than expected.
Those are pretty significant challenges. Of course, the Grapevine/I-5 route might have similar challenges, perhaps around the Castaic Lake area, so who knows which one is actually better. It may be worth the look, though.
Does Palmdale’s suit have merit? Hard to say. The wording of Prop 1A is clear, but it’s not unchangeable. There might well be good policy reasons for changing that segment.
The courts will decide the question of legal merit. But I am concerned about the precedent of making route decisions via the courts. Route decisions, whether large or small, ought to be made on the basis of constructability, ridership, and cost. A study of the Grapevine alignment may help determine which route is the best one on those merits.
While I have always supported the Palmdale alignment, and rejected the notion that it’s out of the way or somehow illegitimate, I am hesitant to agree that it should be preserved via the courts. I fully understand where Palmdale is coming from here, and it’s great that they are fighting for a station, rather than some cities that seem to want to lash themselves to oil and the failed 20th century. We’ll see whether the courts are the best way for Palmdale to make its case.
I don’t think AB 3034 says Palmdale has to be a stop – it merely says that one of the corridors that can be funded from the bonds must pass *through* it.
Also, if HSR is so bad, why would a city sue at the mere suggestion it might not be on the route?
synonymouse Reply:
July 8th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Palmdale wants gold-plated rapid transit to LA, but paid for primarily by the State’s taxpayers, rather than as a regional project. Perhaps the CHSRA should be financed by user districts, like BART, rather than by statewide taxpayers, many of whom are many miles from hsr and will never use it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 8th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
The people living in Palmdale pay state taxes. They pay Federal taxes too. Go down that the road of “why should State ( or Federal ) taxpayers pay for Palmdale” the people in Palmdale are then free to go down the road of “why should Palmdale pay for Eureka”
Beta Magellan Reply:
July 8th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
A few months ago (when this was first broached), I think Clem (or someone similar) brought up that even though a Palmdale alignment was projected to carry more passengers than a Grapevine one, much of that would come from LA-Palmdale trips (so even though a Grapevine alignment would have fewer riders, the induced demand from quicker to Bakersfield and points beyond could bring in higher revenue than a Palmdale route, since passengers traveling further buy more expensive—obviously this needs to be studied), so I it’s probably somewhere in CHSRA’s documents that much of the traffic would be more-or-less local.
There’s definitely nothing wrong with having the state fund local transit, but that isn’t the point of CHSR, as Brown’s veto made clear (unless if it involves simultaneously making major changes to an existing transit line, as with Caltrain, ACE and Metrolink).
Elizabeth Reply:
July 8th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
The one time it was actually studied (the Charles River study), the Grapevine alignment had more riders because the improvement in time trumped the Palmdale riders.
Peter Reply:
July 9th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
I wonder what would happen if they included riders for DesertXpress in the equation…
jimsf Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Palmdale doesn’t want gold plated commute serivce to la. Palmdale wants good intra state connections to the whole state. Currently they can only drive.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
But but Real Americans(tm) drive everywhere, even when they are mowing the lawn. They don’t fly because why would a Real American(tm) want to go some place like New York City a place filled with Unreal Americans. … except maybe if they they have a show on Fox or maybe to see Donald Trump on their summer vacation that’s not a campaign tour. or Miami or Chicago or San Francisco or Denver or…..
jimsf Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
real americans(tm) do visit sf, and its funny to watch them gradually loosen their hairbuns and unclutch their peals. by the time they leave they have a little extra bounce in their step and swish in their caboose. I like to think we are reprocessing real americans(tm) one tourist at a time.
jimsf Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
This has been pointed out before but seems to be forever overlooked and forgotten. The point of HSR is to connect as many parts of the state – and the states largest and fastest growing cities and regions, to as many of the state’s other largest, or fastest growing cities and regions.. Its not about sf to la quickly. Its about creating a basic high speed spine of a statewide transit network.
it connects the bay area, the sacramento valley, the san joaquin valley, the high desert the la basin the inland empire and san diego with each other. People from Riverside will be able to get quickly to fresno. People from sacrmento can get quickly to the high desert, people from san diego can get quickly to the inland empire, people in the south bay can get to la, people in fresno can get to damn near 90 percent of the states population in a couple of hours in any direction. Thats why the map works. Its a political creation because politics is about people. People are going to these places. I ticket them everyday to these places. They just want to cut some time off their trips. hsr will do that. Why is this so hard for some of you to understand? probably because you have some other personal or political agenda.
BruceMcF Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
If someone is addicted to getting into online arguments, a nice, oversimplified position is far superior to getting pointless arguments started than a realistic, not-oversimplified position.
And yes, for others there is only one specific outcome that they care about, and so they will argue any side of another other issue in the mix if they think it favors the one specific outcome they care about.
Palmdale could well get a silver-plated commuter line to LA by fighting for express bypass investments in the Antelope Valley line to connect to the HSR corridor further southeast … as part of the California Rail Plan called for by the Gov. to spend the complementary rail bond funds … but then they only get the commute to LA from it, they don’t get the direct connections to points north.
jimsf Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
If you take the hsr map as it exists. ad altamont overly. ccjpa upgradesc, surfliner and central coast upgrades, and improve service sac- redding (hsr ext) and north coast and coachella valley. You get the entire state sufficiently covered.
move some san joqauin service up to redding as hsr will provide new service to sjq.
increase thruway service to north coast/101
extend metrolink to coachella valley.
connect ccjpa to surliner at salinas.
eventually replace stanard sac rdd rail with future sac rdd hsr (phase three)
you get complete comprehensive coverage with the exception of modoc and mammoth. ( sorry modoc and mammoth but you are just to difficult)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
extend metrolink to coachella valley.
Extend HSR to Phoenix and then you can get to PS for those weekend um um events.. much faster.
synonymouse Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Yes California hsr is entirely about getting from the Bay Area to the Los Angeles region. That’s where the population with the money is to defray the operating costs.
jimsf Reply:
July 11th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
synonymouse Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 10:49 pmCalifornia hsr is entirely about getting from the Bay Area to the Los Angeles region. That’s where the population with the money is to defray the operating costs.
No. Its not about that. Its about connecting the state’s regions together so that a good 90 percent of the states population excluding the far north, has fast insta regional access as I explained. its has nothing to do with where the money is. Its about creating a good public transport core upon which to build.
When cities along the high speed corridor see that charging stations are added along the corridor for chevy volts and other new hybrid and electric cars, and that a stable new revenue source is being started, a cooperative spirit may emerge as charging stations would create small incremental revenues for both the high speed line and for the area in which they are located. The area around the Grapevine would be ideal for those wishing to travel by hybrid car to “get over the hump” into Castiac and the LA Basin. Conduit could be run from near the 99 corridor to I-5 and Buttonwillow and the Tracy Triangle near the Bay Area. We need to begin to realize where we are going with all of this in the future. It is an exciting time to build out the new lithium ion battery manufacture within our borders in Michigan, and to lead the way for the rest of the country: to bring back that “can do” effort and reduce NIMBY.
This is why I’ve been worried about the US’s first greenfield HSR project being in California—the demographics and travel market might be great, but the geology and politics are terrible. This is geology and politics combined in one angry, quaking mess.
That said, this is good example of legislative over-determination. I’m not sure in TomW’s argument holds water—the issue isn’t whether Palmdale should have a stop but whether the alignment should go anywhere near Palmdale—but the language of the bill seems too specify that a LA-Bakersfield segment has to go through, with no apparent exit for rising costs or less-than-expected travel markets or anything like that (similarly you have to go through San Jose to get to Fresno, but that’s another story…).
Jon Reply:
July 8th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Correct- if you’re going to go through Palmdale you may as well build a station. The issue is whether to go through Palmdale at all.
James McDonald Reply:
July 8th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Palmdale has long been planning to be the transportation hub for Antelope Valley. The Metrolink already stops there, the MTA buses go to and from Santa Clarita and the area also has the Palmdale Regional Airport if it should re-open for service in the future. Also proposed is the DesertXpress to Victorville to Las Vegas, but that is far in the future as of now. I wish they could have a stop in Lancaster, but with the train traveling so fast and Palmdale only 8 miles away, that will never happen. I only dream of a stop near the southeast corner of Avenue J and Sierra Highway. They have some desert land there that has never been built upon. I think the Lancaster Metrolink Station would be too crowded for another stop. Okay now that you have read my imaginary ranting, let’s get serious.
This California High Speed Rail train is absolutely necessary for Rosamond, Lancaster and Palmdale. Our area is always thought of as the toilet bowl of Los Angeles County and television episodes only think of us as “the place where they bury all the dead bodies”. The High Speed Rail would definaetly be a “people mover” and boost our economy.
Off topic, and I confess to being in a rush, but these two items look interesting, and one looks like fun!
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/08/264306/reduce-the-debt-by-selling-congressional-parking-lots/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+matthewyglesias+%28Matthew+Yglesias%29
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/08/263783/beijingshanghai-hsr-link-leads-to-175-drop-in-airfare/
The original study does include an alternative route to Palmdate through or near Grapevine/I-5:
Page 4 of the Original Alignment Study
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/d43ec27c-3b97-4131-b74b-8b2ad25081d2.pdf
Off topic but might be interesting to some people.
http://www.sdmts.com/streetcarstudy.asp
“The San Diego Metropolitan Transit System began work in March 2011 on a study to evaluate the feasibility of reconnecting Balboa Park, the San Diego Zoo and Downtown San Diego through a fixed-guideway, electrified streetcar line.”
Another non-sense project that only benefits the tourists. I always use public transit to Balboa Park by using Bus line 7. Those are extremely comfortable Electric buses that only take 5 minutes to drive from City College transit station all the way up to the park. And the frequency is more than satisfying.
So, why do we have to build this? There are so many other places that need light rail. How can we make sure that the cities get some brains and build public transit systems that cater to residents and frequent commuters NOT tourists and the rich?
Emma Reply:
July 8th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Here is Bus line 7
http://www.busexplorer.com/PHP/MidPage.php?id=3294
egk Reply:
July 8th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
maybe, emma, because the bus line is at capacity (it sure looks like it, with buses every few minutes at rush hour) and a streetcar is a lower operating cost alternative to running so many buses? Among the most efficient things that a streetcar can do is replace at-capacity bus lines.
Mad Park Reply:
July 9th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
That bus is NOT electric as you state above, but CNG fired.
Emma Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Okay. My bad. I could swear they said something about the buses being electric hybrids. They are ridiculously quiet for natural gas vehicles and lack any vibrations. We do have some CNG-Electric Hybrids in our line up.
jimsf Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
The San Diego visitor industry is the third largest industry in San Diego County, employing approximately 152,300 San Diegans. It is one of the top five leisure vacation destinations in the U.S. and a top 10 business destination as measured by visitor-days. Visitors spend $7 billion annually at thousands of businesses in the County. This equates to $16 Billion in economic impact for the region, and thus a very important piece of the economic health of the region
you better take good care of them or san francisco is going to steal them from you and your city will wind up broke.
jimsf Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
THey are probably looking at the huge success of the f line in sf. In its relatively short lifespan. The F line has become the back bone of tourist tranist in sf. The tourists are aware already aware of it by the time the arrive in town. They refer to it more than they refer to the cable cars. It connect the castro/union square/ferry building market/cruise terminal/pier 39/fishermans wharf/ the cannery, and ghiradelli. It runs from 6am to 1am. to mostly standing room and overflow capacity. Im sure San diego is just thinking they can duplicate that success. The city is expanding the streetcar service to the ballpark soon as well. and maybe someday to the ggbridge vie the old tracks and fort mason tunnel.
jimsf Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Emma, tourism is a huge part of the san diego economy. Of course tourists should be catered too. Its an investment in the industry. San Diego has to compete with the rest of californias cities for the tourist dollar.
Emma Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Yes. But it would be smarter to build a meaningful light rail line that connects true urban areas like Hillcrest, North Park and University Heights. Those are the people who would frequently use public transit to downtown and increase ridership. You would also allow tourists to explore these beautiful areas.
jimsf Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
I was there last year and if I remember correctly the zoo is in hillcrest and balboa park is adjacent no? We went to the zoo and had lunch in hillcrest. same place yes?
Matthew B. Reply:
July 11th, 2011 at 1:16 am
Not really. The zoo is in Balboa Park, and Hillcrest is to the north. Not really walking distance. I think it could be a good idea to start with a streetcar to Balboa Park and then extend it north to Hillcrest. Balboa park is extremely important to San Diego. It’s like Central park, except isolated from the city by a freeway. I’ve long thought some kind of rail transit to connect downtown to the parks numerous museums and the zoo makes a lot of sense, but it shouldn’t end there.
Spokker Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Looking at the feasibility study, it suggests it would be a small part of a future streetcar network, and they are judging possible rolling stock based on whether it could be integrated into the current network. Those places could see streetcars someday.
Spokker Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
We go to San Diego and rode the trolley around downtown. We probably would not visit as much as we do if not for its passable transit system, as opposed to destinations that have anemic transit.
We have taken bus 7 to Balboa Park. Coming back one night from the zoo, the bus was an hour late and we missed our train, forcing us to spend over one hundred dollars to spend the night in San Diego and take the next train in the morning. Our cat went without a meal that night.
If there is a demand for a trolley to Balboa Park, then great. In my experience, electric rail tends to have greater reliability than buses. If they manage to integrate it with the existing lines, then even better. A one-seat ride from Santa Fe Depot to Balboa Park would be great.
Emma Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
I created a proposal for a Trolley that would increase ridership by 25% and benefit tourism.
http://tinyurl.com/MTSredline-proposal
It would connect the most walkable and most populous areas of San Diego. But what is even more important, it would solve the “hole” many experience in our public transit system. Note I made this map with Google Maps and not all connections are drawn correctly because some sections would run underground. The destinations are possible stations based on how wide the streets are, how hilly they are and whether they are close to business, residential areas, and transit hubs.
I was thinking about a tunnel and underground stations from 6th Ave to El Cajon Blvd. Another tunnel would have to be built between station “L” and “M” in case the hilly area would be too challenging. The line would terminate at Lemon Grove station where it meets the Orange line.
This is why I support such a line. it would meet 3 different societies in San Diego. The first is around Downtown and Hillcrest (A-F). The Second is in City Heights (F-L). The third group is in (M-S). I’m just a layman, but I have been using public transit since I moved here and I’ve noticed that MTS continues to ignore the people who would really use public transit in favor of tourists and rich people who want to have a nice ride during the weekend.
Midcoast is a waste. The streetcar to Balboa Park is a waste. Station “B” is an incredibly beautiful, and less crowded entrance to Balboa Park that gets too often neglected. One of the Balboa shuttle buses could take people to the center of the Park in 1-2 minutes.
Emma Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Just a bit of wishful thinking from my side. We all know that representatives tend to choose the worse and easy proposal over the cost-effective, time-consuming one.
Spokker Reply:
July 11th, 2011 at 1:47 am
Well, you would know San Diego better than I.
Is this possibly because DesertXpress hasn’t had any movement lately? To me, the Palmdale station doesn’t make as much sense without it.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 9th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Nope, although it’s a good guess.
Palmdale filed the lawsuit because Los Angeles told them too. Spring Street wants Palmdale to become something more than just a suburb of L.A. and HSR makes that possible. But I’d bet San Jose, San Francisco et. al are just as eager to see Palmdale win in this regard because it because it kills several birds with one stone.
But, as Robert hints, it’s not the greatest strategy. For one, it’s going to take a long time to resolve and will be used more as a hammer over people’s heads…secondly there’s always the potential that the courts invalidate parts of 1A…and then just imagine where we end up.
BruceMcF Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
They picked Palmdale because they are the major center past the pass that beat the Tejon pass for construction risk. But working through the detailed alignment in the section between Palmdale and Sylmar, the passes themselves might not dominate the decision. Not having worked through the Tejon Pass at that level of detail, they don’t know whether or not there are offsetting problems in the Tejon alignment toward Sylmar that leave the comparison as when they first made it.
jimsf Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
THey could always just follow the i 5 on the surface but im assuming the grades wouldn’t allow for very high speeds and would result in no time savings over palmdale. Of course the high desert is one of the “californias” a region unto itself with a pop. over 500k and being on the way between socal and norcal and considering the future dx vegas connection, clearly merits service. There just isn’t any question at this point.
A technical and terminological question: What is a boondoggle?
Osman Reply:
July 9th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
basically any infrastructure project that the conservative tea party populace of the United States does not agree with due to poorly perceived threats on their way of life, particularly if cars and highways are not somehow part of the equation.
Beta Magellan Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 8:37 am
So, projects like SunRail and the Oakland Airport connector don’t count? They sure as hell look like boondoggles to me.
Owen Evans Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
The meaning of the word boondoggle should be culled back to only a type of key chain. I HATE when it is used in a political context. It’s one of the most ridiculous words in American English. Call something “wasteful,” “unnecessary,” “grandiose,” whatever you want, but please don’t use that ridiculous word boondoggle.
jimsf Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
can we use dunebuggy instead?
Neville Snark Reply:
July 11th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
I hereby designate this as the funniest reply.
BruceMcF Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
What IS it, or what ends up getting CALLED it?
A boondoggle is where private interests persuade the public to spend money lining private pockets on projects of dubious value. For example, the Defense Industry, the Private Prison Industry, the Private Charter School Industry, the tax subsidies to the salaries of hedge fund speculators, the subsidies to oil companies, which are the most profitable companies in the entire world and least need subsidies to keep doing what they are doing, the auto highway construction industry, to name some obvious massive examples.
Basically, the whole massive herd of yellow bellied surplus suckers that bog down the US economy like an elk in the north countrybeing killed by a cloud of bloodsucking black flies.
As to what gets CALLED a boondoggle, it would be some lesser example or else something that’s only a boondoggle when seen squinting through ideological blinders, which often serves to distract attention from the real massive scale boondoggles.
Arthur Dent Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
I would guess that the people who use the term boondoggle believe CA’s HSR fits BruceMcF’s definition.
Kinda like how those who use NIMBY genuinely believe that anyone raising concerns voice them out of backyard protectionism. Let’s say it: the Peer Review Group are a bunch of NIMBYs!
Peter Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
“Kinda like how those who use NIMBY genuinely believe that anyone raising concerns voice them out of backyard protectionism.”
I find it interesting that those who raise these types of concerns all pretty much sound alike, and are unable to come up with their own arguments against the project, and instead have to repeat the same talking points fed to them by others…
Elizabeth Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
That is one explanation. Another is that these really are concerns and nothing seems to being done with them.
I read the letter as a clear warning that the peer review committee will not greenlight the bond money unless they are dealt with.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
“Another is that these really are concerns and nothing seems to being done with them.”
That certainly is not obvious from the behavior of many complainers. If somebody has actual concerns, one expects them to consistently voice those concerns, and in a reasonably direct and clear manner, and engage in dialogue about those points if responded to.
But most of those identified as NIMBYs don’t seem to be doing that. Rather they seem to (1) randomly veer from vague talking point to vague talking point (the “laundry-list” approach — when you don’t have any really solid points, try a lot of flimsy ones instead), (2) use emotional and loaded language, and (3) respond to any attempt at dialogue by changing the subject or screaming louder. All these things are classic signs of a FUD campaign.
If it looks like FUD, and quacks like FUD, well …
Peter Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Not to mention that a lot of the “concerned” people DO in fact live very close to where the HSR line is going to go…
Spokker Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
No doubt there would be NIMBYs in any scenario. So now how do you discount Will Kempton?
Peter Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Note the disclaimer: “a lot”, not “all”.
I don’t know Will Kempton or his position on the project (just that he’s the CEO of OCTA). If he has some arguments that haven’t been fed to him by Reason or similar ilk, I’m willing to listen.
Spokker Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/voiceofoc.org/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/5/73/573212d0-a8a9-11e0-a024-001cc4c002e0/4e15c930aceca.pdf.pdf
This is the position of the peer review group headed by Will Kempton. The Obama administration’s literal punting of what was supposed to be a focus on their transportation policy, high speed rail, really did a number on this project. You see, starting in the Central Valley was great when the Obama administration was talking about appropriations each year for high speed rail. Now that they said screw it to appease Republicans, future funding is in considerable doubt in the current political and economic climate.
And what was the mantra, private money won’t flow until federal money does? Since the business plan is so heavily optimistic about private investment, it’s likely that no money will flow now.
So now the focus is this, and it’s this whether you really like it or not and it will be imposed on you by reality and not by any one person or group, that the project will be legislatively fixed so that money flows to its best, most positive use. That probably won’t be building an un-electrified corridor in the Central Valley.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
future funding is in considerable doubt in the current political and economic climate.
Yes running on “we are gonna cut Grandma’s Social Security and Medicare so she has to move in with YOU” is surely a winning strategy. That along with “we have to cut taxes on rich people even more”
Spokker Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Funding has already been cut. The 2011 budget cut HSR funding and rescinded almost half a billion from 2010′s HSR funding.
Whatever the Republicans are doing is working.
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
BART to San Jose and Livermore, the OAC, BART to Anitoch. I-405 Spelvuda Pass widening. That would meet the true definition of boondoggle.
Projects such as San Diego road widening would probably fit under the better choices could be made category, unless you view those projects from all growth should be in transit and not growing road capacity due to the negative externalities, then they can be considered boondoggles.
Reality Check Reply:
July 11th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Wikipedia has a nice boondoggle entry.
in technical terms (according to wikipedia), it is a policy that wastes time and money, but is still pursued for a myriad of reasons, usually political.
makes you wonder though…because the “boondoggle” crowd usually wastes time and money, are they boondoggles themselves?
I’ve heard of the bad commutes when a major arterial was under construction for lane widening, and I think a positive discussion could include charging stations for the new hybrids and cars such as the chevy volt. Folks living within a 40 mile range of the station could park their vehicles at the charging station and with a car sharing situation like zip car or city car share, such as what we have here in San Francisco, could mean that a person in the Antelope Valley area could travel to Anaheim or San Diego emissions free. Ticket discounts on the train, plus revenue from these magnet charge/park lots could bring in stable added revenue to the system and could be symbiotic with train ticketing. I do agree that a side benefit of the new rail right of way could eventually be expanded for a commute service whereby local commute trains could pass between the less frequent high speed express line. Once we see how much change is coming with autos and the lithium ion battery, we could see a complementary system set up where the power lines set up for the high speed train could also be used as trunk lines for charging stations. A feeder go to the Grapevine where the 99 and I-5 meet, so that charge/park areas help hybrid motorists, get “over the hump” and new services could develop here such as what we now see at the large Union 76 truck stops near Interstate exits.
If Palmdale and Tejon cost the same, I would choose Palmdale due to the good future connection from LA AND SF to Las Vegas, without having to tame the difficult Cajon Pass. HSR from LA to LV via San Bernadino – Cajon Pass – Victoriville is also much slower for trips starting in Northern California, where you could otherwise go from Bakersfield – Mojave or Palmdale – Las Vegas.
However, if it turns at that the Tejon pass route would be 50% less cost than Palmdale and twice as fast to build, I would support changing the alignment, and using some of the money of connecting rail to upgrade the Metrolink line to Palmdale.
If needed, the legislature could pass a law changing that part of Prop 1A, right? Or at worst we could vote on a new proposition with a clearer alignment, and add on a stable funding source while we are at it. As long as gas prices stay near $4 a gallon, I think another proposition would pass.
Given that this is just a feasibility study, not even an alternatives analysis, I would wager that Palmdale’s suit is not ripe (premature) and will get thrown out.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 11th, 2011 at 12:37 am
Actually, you would think that if the courts were going to dismiss the case it would be due to Palmdale’s standing to be able to file a claim. But that’s just it. The cities want to know what rights they have if saying “we had a deal!!!” to the Authority doesn’t work in future disputes…
Half the front page of the Sunday Fresno bee was a HSR article
High-speed spending for rail project raises eyebrows
http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/07/09/2459234/high-speed-spending-for-rail-project.html
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Well, that is the cost of wanting a project to go slow and delaying multiple times.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
So … PB and fellow mafiosi allied consultants have sucked down SIX HUNDRED AND THIRTY MILLION TAX DOLLARS so far, without a single shovel of dirt being turned, and yet … somehow … this is all due to a couple of uppity women (oh, sorry, that would be “denialist NIMBYs”, of course) in Palo Alto holding back the wheel of progress?
Are you insane?
Cui bono?
I mean, like, dude, like FOLLOW THE MONEY. And stuff, you know.
I bet Parsons’ billing department people and executive staff are just gnashing their teeth in pure frustration about the slow progress, miserable contentious sandbagged decision making, and immense, unprecedented, eye-watering overheads of this project.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
I’m sure there’s scores of apparatchiks and toadies at PB just chomping at the bit to re-re-study Altamont and half a bevy or two to re-restudy Tejon….
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Ah yes, Adirondacker12800: the individual who didn’t even know where to find Milpitas.
Hey, that qualifies you for a job in PB’s ridership estimation consultancy! You’ll be right at home.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Please stop with the personal attacks Richard.
Spokker Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
He is attacking adirondacker’s qualifications by pointing out past mistakes, a perfectly valid approach.
A similar thing is happening to the high speed rail board, but perhaps you’d like to ask the peer review group to stop trolling.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
No it’s not, it’s an attempt to divert attention from adiron’s point (which was actually a pretty good response to Richard’s original snark).
If evaluating said point somehow required us to depend on adiron’s “authority,” then yes, attacking that authority would be valid — but it doesn’t.
Spokker Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
He’s saying that he’s stupid. What don’t you get about that?
Miles Bader Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
What adiron said does not depend on his intelligence or knowledge for its validity. So attacking adiron while completely ignoring what he said, serves no purpose in the discussion.
Ok, maybe Richard just likes insulting people and throws in random insults even if they contribute nothing — but nonetheless, it’s still not a “valid approach,” as it doesn’t address the statement it was in response to, and indeed just serves to derail the discussion.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
It wasn’t a good response. You’d have to be completely blind to not know that PB has a very direct financial interest in not re-studying Altamont, ever.
Gee ….. $10 billion of construction pork on one hand versus a few million of environmental work on the other. Need to think about that … Math is hard! Decision, decisions…
Perhaps a hypothetical lack of awareness of the difference between a billion and a million could account for some Adirondacker’s evaluative shortcomings. But one doesn’t need that: a demonstrated repeated complete ignorance of Bay Area geography and demographics seems to account adequately.
Spokker Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
“What adiron said does not depend on his intelligence or knowledge for its validity.”
As far as Mlynarik is concerned, it does. He thinks adirondacker is a stupid person that says or repeats stupid things.
“Ok, maybe Richard just likes insulting people and throws in random insults even if they contribute nothing”
It also contributes nothing to argue with me about his insults. If one were concerned with contributing something, perhaps to society, they would do well to refrain from posting on blogs in the first place.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
At least Adirondacker generally gets his links right.
(Sorry, I had to say it.)
Spokker Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
True. For a guy who rants about the design of web pages at the drop of a hat, he sure screwed up those simple links.
Clem Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Cue rant about the lack of a preview/edit feature…
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 11th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
It embarrasses me every time, don’t worry about that. I hate it, and it’s rude to readers.
Unless better compensated (like those who are paid to produce defective web sites ostenstibly for public use) I am not willing to spend the extra 5 minutes or so per pointless recreational comment on this pointless blog carefully checking formatting, especially since the mechanism more-or-less readily available (a bweb rowser) does not parse and display formatting the same way as WordPress input anyway.
It is however fairly easy for others to mitigate this, and always has been, but I can’t effect it (or affect it, for that matter.)
?q=site:wordpress.org preview plugin
(Cross my fingers that that one worked.)
Never providing links and just spouting fact-free idiocy (Redwood City is in Milpitas! You forgot the Dumbarton Crossing! All choo choo projects are cheaper, delivered faster, and carry more riders than anybody projected! PBQD is your friend! Everybody loves ground level airliners zooming past their back door! We have the world’s best experts at work on this! 220mph or bust! A Dumbarton tunnel is unpossible! The Monterey travel market is massive! Transfers kill all ridership! Trains can’t be expected to run on time! Public infrastructure should only ever have at most one use!) is an exceedingly popular alternative to risking occasionally broken HTML formatting.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 11th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut,_copy,_and_paste
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
How do the trains get from Fremont to San Jose if there isn’t a bridge to Redwood City?
Alon Levy Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
The ROW they’re giving away to BART.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
So the Milpitas station on the BART line isn’t going to be in Milpitas? Hmmm….
Joe C. Reply:
July 11th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
There’s still a good alignment available for Fremont-SJ. Look up “CalTrain Metro East” for some maps. Its basic alignment is part of the planning process for the Fremont-SJ section of Altamont “Overlay.”
It would have an intermodal at Warm Springs BART, use former SP corridor down to Great Mall/VTA light rail, then go west as an aerial in the median Montague Expy/Trimble Rd across I-880, intermodal at N First St VTA light rail, then either go into SJC for an airport station and continue to Diridon, or just continue southwest and rejoin CalTrain RoW to access to Santa Clara CalTrain on the way to Diridon.
The concept has been around since the since 90s when Fremont-SJ “rapid transit” proposals were discussed. Of course it was ignored/sandbagged in favor of the BART extension that costs far more and serves far less.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 11th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Let Me Google That For You.
(Won’t help our challenged Upstate NY hick, but perhaps others will glean something.)
There’s more than one route. CHSRA never for a microsecond (for the obvious PBQD-profiteering fraud-abetting reasons) even considered the simplest, cheapest, most direct, publicly owned, most beneficial rail corridor, but instead dreams up various strawmen “alternatives”.
For my part, I’m increasingly of the opinion that, as PBQD and fellow mafiosi demand as of right the pork associated with a tunnel under the “city” of San José (The Capital of Silicon Valley!) — and there is no doubt that what they want they will get –, then they should build a bigger and thus more expensive (hooray!) tunnel, with longer (400m platforms) and hence more expensive stations (hooray!)., and run standard gauge double deck trains from Santa Clara, under Diridon Hyperdimensional, under Santa Clara Street past the Brasilia of “downtown” San Jose, to the magnificent TOD-tastifc San Jose Flea Market.
Palmdale’s legal case seems not that strong if based just on the language of Prop 1A. Robert quoted only in part, from Streets & Highway Code 2704.04(b)(3). But note the previous paragraph at 2704.04(b)(2):
“As adopted by the authority in May 2007, Phase 1 of the high-speed train project is the corridor of the high-speed train system between San Francisco Transbay Terminal and Los Angeles Union Station and Anaheim.”
Nothing about Palmdale in there.
Now back to 2704.04(b)(3), which offers an ALTERNATIVE to the designated Phase 1, saying that if certain conditions are met that the Authority can ask the Legislature to fund one of the listed segments INSTEAD of the designated Phase 1.
This is pretty clunky language, but I don’t read it as providing a firm commitment to a route that goes through Palmdale.
I wrote about this Grapevine route and what I think Palmdale/Lancaster should do instead on my tj blog. http://tj.jtusz.com/blog Article titled “Three Technologies Once Again” and “Highway to Hell Desert Corridor”.
Peter Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 9:43 am
Oh please. Evacuated tube?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
At least it will be quick when the partial vacuum fails and the train hurtling along at 3,000 MPH slams into the side of the tube. Not to mention evacuated tube is for continental or transoceanic distances. It would barely be up to speed on a SF-LA route before it had to begin decelerating. Unless you want to splatter passengers all over the interior…