Media Reacts to Jerry Brown’s HSR Advocacy
In the weeks since Governor Jerry Brown gave his vote of confidence to the high speed rail project, the governor’s strong support has renewed the project’s momentum. One clear example of this was Thursday’s move by a key Assembly committee to effectively kill Sen. Alan Lowenthal’s anti-HSR bill.
Now the media is beginning to react. In typical fashion, the Contra Costa Times and its affiliated papers once again attacked the project, proving that they won’t let facts get in the way of their longstanding hostility to high speed rail:
It would not be surprising if the cost of the complete rail project rose north of $100 billion. No wonder the Legislative Analyst’s Office advised against Brown’s request for $185 million to keep the project alive.
Even with large subsidies, ridership is not apt to be anywhere near what is needed to keep fares competitive with airlines, even with higher fuel prices.
None of this is true. But the bigger point is that the Contra Costa Times and the other Bay Area News Group papers are in no position to be criticizing HSR as being a boondoggle when they themselves are facing collapse. This week BANG announced massive layoffs and the elimination of the 137-year old Oakland Tribune name (all BANG papers on the I-880 corridor will be named the “East Bay Tribune”). It’s not at all clear to me that “The Times,” as the Contra Costa Times is soon to be known, actually knows what a viable and lasting business model looks like. Hemorrhaging red ink and shrinking their news operations, the BANG papers are a classic example of how American institutions are in collapse through a combination of wealth extraction by elites and an unwillingness to think big again and innovate.
A much more nuanced and useful examination of Gov. Brown’s approach to HSR comes in today’s Sacramento Bee editorial titled Brown must be bold to bolster high speed rail:
the governor can play a pivotal role in helping high-speed rail overcome its multiple hurdles. As he is well aware, this train network could help reduce future air pollution, stimulate economic development and make generations of Californians proud.
To make that happen, Brown will need to be tough and bold – not just with the project’s opponents but with the California High Speed Rail Authority’s board and staff, the Obama administration and members of Congress. More than anything, the governor needs to help elevate the level of confidence in this project. The biggest current enemy of high-speed rail is the perception that it will never happen.
I think the Bee is right to say this, especially the last line. Californians still are confident in HSR, and poll after poll shows that confidence hasn’t ebbed. Still, I’d agree that a perception that HSR is just pie-in-the-sky dreaming, something that isn’t real, is a problem for the project. When it becomes seen as real and as valuable, it’s easier to solve the various problems that this project, like any major project, faces. If HSR is seen as something that will never happen, then that belief can easily become self-fulfilling prophecy as the political willingness to solve problems will evaporate.
That being said, I’m not sure I agree with the Bee’s proposed solutions:
Both of these appointees are likely to take a hard look at the business plan the authority is scheduled to release next month. This plan will include new cost estimates and a peer-reviewed analysis of ridership projections, and it will need to be credible.
How is “credible” defined? Keep in mind that HSR is globally successful and has no problem attracting lots of riders. The problem here is that HSR critics will claim ANY projection that shows anything other than low ridership is flawed and untrustworthy, because a refusal to accept that Californians will ride trains is a core belief of HSR critics.
The governor also must use his clout in Washington. The Obama administration understandably wants its stimulus money to produce jobs now. Yet that goal must be reconciled with its desire to fund high-speed rail projects that are properly planned, not hastily thrown together.
I’m not sure what they’re arguing here, although it could be setting up a claim that the Central Valley is the wrong place to build. If so, they would be wrong. The most important part of the HSR project is the segments between the populated areas in Northern and Southern California. Both the Bay Area and LA have decent rail systems, which could be improved but at least offer options for regional travel. The missing link is between San José and LA. And the Central Valley is the key to this, as is tunneling under the Pacheco and Tehachapi passes.
If the goal is to build high speed rail that links the state, then the Central Valley is a logical place to begin. It is probably even the best place to begin. You can complete the missing links and continue to downtown SF and downtown LA at slower speeds over existing track while you work on making the much more expensive and contentious upgrades to those urban tracks.
If the Bee is arguing that the stimulus deadlines be extended, I’m not really seeing the case for that either. The Central Valley EIR/EIS process is proceeding on a reasonable schedule. Nothing is being rushed, but neither does it make any sense to drag this out much longer. It’s been nearly 30 years since the first HSR proposal in California, and nearly 3 years since voters approved the project and some of its funding. People reasonably expect to see some action. If we were in the middle of an economic boom, some delay might be acceptable. But we’re in the middle of the worst economic crisis in 60 years. We don’t have the luxury of waiting around forever.
Overall the Bee’s editorial shows support for HSR and a recognition that, despite what critics like “The Times” say, the HSR project is here to stay. Gov. Brown is right to continue working to improve the project, and I have no doubt he intends to do exactly that. But the goal right now should be to start the Central Valley segment as soon as is reasonably possible, and to start working on funding the crucial extensions to San José and LA. More on that, and the upcoming business plan, tomorrow.
Again Robert:
Why don’t you tell the whole story!
The Senate Appropriations “held under submission” Galgiani’s AB-145 also. That is the one you want and so does the Authority.
And you quote from the Contra Costa Times”
” It would not be surprising if the cost of the complete rail project rose north of $100 billion. No wonder the Legislative Analyst’s Office advised against Brown’s request for $185 million to keep the project alive.
Even with large subsidies, ridership is not apt to be anywhere near what is needed to keep fares competitive with airlines, even with higher fuel prices.”
and you then write:
“None of this is true.”
What world are you living in Robert!?: This is exactly what the LAO recommended; but not followed by the legislature.
As far as delaying the starting of construction of the project beyond Sept of 2012, lots of luck there. That deadline is hard wired into the ARRA funding; do you or anyone believe that congress could be convinced to change that deadline, because that is what it will take, and the Authority knows that full well.
You now seem resigned to what was shown at the board meeting last Thursday. Looking to stretch construction from 10 to 15 years, looking for 3.5 to 4 billion per year to keep it going from the Feds.
As was laid out last Thursday, “what the Feds presently available in funds” and “what programs are even on the books are not adequate”. “what is needed is a huge new program” to secure the needed funding.
That is not about to happen, at least not in the next 6 years. Indeed, loss of HSR funds now is the name of the game. If the Authority can’t navigate though the upcoming lawsuits and other hurdles that are upcoming and start building by Sept 2012, the $3 billion in ARRA funds will be rescinded and they won’t be coming back. LaHood’s nightmare; but who knows how long he will be around.
VBobier Reply:
August 27th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Well for one I’m glad AB-145 will be held, As I see no point in doing this.
J. Wong Reply:
August 27th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
“If the Authority can’t navigate though the upcoming lawsuits and other hurdles that are upcoming and start building by Sept 2012, the $3 billion in ARRA funds will be rescinded and they won’t be coming back.”
You can only hope, Morris. Once construction starts, you’ll know you’ve lost, and HSR will be coming up the Peninsula to SF.
morris brown Reply:
August 27th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
” … coming us the Peninsula to SF. ”
And just where are the funds for that gong to come from?
Robert seems to indicate he is going to give us that answer tomorrow.
he writes
“But the goal right now should be to start the Central Valley segment as soon as is reasonably possible, and to start working on funding the crucial extensions to San José and LA. More on that, and the upcoming business plan, tomorrow.”
I guess all those expected GHG rebates must be the answer. (or maybe it is Lynn Schenk’s proposition that local sources provide the needed funds to start a LA to San Diego section — I guess without any other funds. )
The video of last Thursday’s meeting in on the Authority’s website.
joe Reply:
August 27th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Really Morris, even the Peer Review Panel and PAMPA Reps knows HSR will run along Caltrain’s ROW.
We just disagree about how soon a full build will be needed.
joe Reply:
August 27th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Since ARRA project has to have stand alone value, the PAMPA lawsuit wouldn’t matter.
BUT
It would be political suicide for PAMPA’s lawsuit to cost CA 3.5 B in ARRA funding.
PAMPA is entitled to sue and to the consequences of a vindictive state executive and legislative government.
Nathanael Reply:
August 29th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
I suspect that PAMPA NIMBYs don’t really believe they can kill HSR, they just hope to make sure the state government decides they’re such a pain that LA gets HSR before SF. SF will suffer the consequences if they can succeed.
Right now CAHSR needed the most is not money, but a strong leadership and a shot of confidence from the State Government.
Gov. Brown can show his leadership by pushing for a comprehensive review of CPUC rail regulations, and specify a direction for new rules on rail electrification and HSR do not presently exist. The would help CAHSRA cut through regulation red-tapes, and reduce planning costs due to over-designs just to satisfy out-dated regulations.
morris brown Reply:
August 27th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
The needed regulations do not exist and are the dark secret as to why the Authority is insisting on starting construction on only an Initial Construction Segment (ICS), essentially a length of tracks that satisfies the FEDS “independent utility” requirements.
ICS certainly does not (even by their own admission) meet the “usable segment” definition as defined in AB-3034/ Prop 1A. Prop 1A demands full funding be in place, before construction can start, to build “usable segments”, not ICS segments to be upgraded later.
William Reply:
August 27th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
The CAHSRA is most likely tasked with writing regulations and standards for all future California HSR projects, and right now it is specifying parameters base on European and Japanese practices. This is also why start building the Central Valley section (ICS) makes senses, as to test out paper standard on actual track and station structures, and to refine for future sections.
The ICS has independent utilization for Amtrak California, even if IOS is not completed yet. This has been pointed out by many other people.
Risenmessiah Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 1:09 am
Not just that, but if the operator doesn’t have equipment that can reach 220 mph, it’s arguable whether the usable segment even needs to be electrified.
Max Wyss Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 2:32 am
Well, you better electrify when you want to be faster than 110 mph, particularly if you operate obese USAn vehicles. It has been shown that maximum speeds above 120, maybe 140 mph can not be reached economically using internal combustion engines.
BruceMcF Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Maximum speeds of 125mph are reached on a regular basis using diesel engines. Of course, the track, signals, etc. in place must be able to accommodate 220mph trains, but that is a capacity requirement on a usable segment, not a service requirement.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
It’s feasible; it’s not desirable in a world where oil is not free.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
An option that should be explored as an interim solution while they string catenary. Doesn’t mean they should exercise it but someone should get out the sharp pencils and see what the numbers are.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Okay, they should compare the NPV of delaying the small cost of electrification by a few years with the cost of procuring high-speed diesel locos, the higher operating costs, and the headaches involved in selling them on a very small market.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 29th, 2011 at 12:08 am
Yes, sharp pencils so when the foamers start pining for second generation Turboliners they can say “only if you are willing to pay $947.12 one way between Fresno and Bakersfield.” And whether letting the ROW gently age for a few years until they string catenary is cheaper than letting Amtrak run Viewliners on it .
Max Wyss Reply:
August 29th, 2011 at 4:31 am
I know that it is done; and I rode some of those trains, doing 125mph.
However, the trains coming to my mind are all lightweight sets, and the newer ones (ICE-TD) come along with a 700 kW (or so) diesel engine underneath EACH CAR.
The limits are kind of set…
And, despite the fact that all gas turbine experiments more or less end up as an economic failure, every now and then, someone comes up with a “high speed gas turbine locomotive”. Fact is that the gas turbine is rather economical at its rated power, but in railroad application, the prime mover spends most of the time at idle…
So, the question is indeed, how much can be saved by delaying the electrification by a year or two; there won’t be that much more time, because, assuming the “buy America” scheme will be in effect, a testing environment for high speed trains is needed (and high speed is beyond the scope of Pueblo).
It might actually be more economical to defer the signalling system, as there are developments in the queue which are worthwile “catching” (LTE-based systems; the current ERMTS is GSM-based). But then, a good signalling system is needed anyway (unless the preliminary operation is so pathetic that there is never more than 1 train on the line…)
morris brown Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 4:56 am
Risenmessiah:
I suggest your read Prop 1A and understand a bit before you write such nonsense.
This has been vetted here before; the whole project is based on being powered by electricity.
Risenmessiah Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 9:59 am
Nonesense????
The law doesn’t specify that the operator use electric train when the “IOS” or high speed rail track is complete. Instead, it insists the Authority build track that is “suitable and ready” for 220 mph trains that use electric locomotion.
However, there is no explicit requirement that any usable segment must be electrified or use electricity to power trains along it’s route prior to completion. This is important, because not all countries have that sort of technology yet. Hypothetically, the Authority is only tasked with building the infrastructure and then is not responsible if it cannot find an operator that can actually use the tracks for 220 mph service using electricity
BruceMcF Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 10:04 am
You mean by “vetted here before” that you have made the claim here before. You and Risenmessiah disagree with what “part” in part of a segment means. Since Risenmessiah’s reading is not explicitly ruled out by the Prop1A(2008) text, you need to provide some legal precedent that it has the more restrictive meaning you propose and not the more general meaning Risenmessiah assumes.
Risenmessiah Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Morris seems to continually struggle with Streets and Highways Code 2704.08(f):
In other words, the tracks don’t have to be exclusively used for HSR. They just need to be able to support whatever operator’s service has the wherewithal to provide. Moreover, CalTrain has sought to imply that this is why they need to be electrified so that it can be compatible with HSR. But that’s speculative. Metrolink can’t electrify that easily and it may very well use HSR tracks between Los Angeles and Anaheim. So can Amtrak’s San Joaquins.
Morris’ whole argument comes down to the meaning of Streets and Highways Code: 2704.08(c)(2)(I):
If that doesn’t include non-HSR service, someone ought to tell the guys at CalTrain….
Peter Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 7:38 am
“Prop 1A demands full funding be in place, before construction can start, to build “usable segments”, not ICS segments to be upgraded later.”
I suggest your [sic] read Prop 1A and understand a bit before you write such nonsense.
Again, quoting from AB3034:
The statute has to be read as a whole, not piecemeal, picking out only those provisions that support your argument. 2704.08(i) is most definitely part of that whole, and it speaks directly to the conditions you claim have to be met. Yes, they “have” to be met, but the Legislature is not prohibited from issuing bonds when all the conditions haven’t been met.
peninsula Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 7:55 am
The validity of bonds, once issued. ‘validity of bonds issued’ (i) doesn’t make it legal for for the bonds to be issued in the first place. Yes, if the legislature acts illegally, issues the bonds without the ab3034 conditions having been met, and assuming they are not subsequently stopped in these illegal actions by lawsuit, then the bonds would still have to be honored by the state of california. (i) says nothing about permission to ignore the conditions of prop 1A. The conditions are black and white, and it is the will of the voters that these conditions be met.
Peter Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 8:12 am
What do you think that’s going to mean for the proceeds from such bond sales? Will that money simply go into the General Fund? Highly unlikely. The more likely scenario will be that the money will go towards its intended purpose, namely construction of the ICS.
This is the safety valve built into AB3034.
peninsula Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 9:02 am
What proceeds? If the issuance of bonds is illegal and the legislature agrees to appropriate, the next step after that would be sale of bonds, by an unscrupulous Treasurer. Lawsuits will fly well before any bonds are sold. Or, Perhaps if the bonds do manage to get sold in a dark alley somewhere, proceeds created illicitly – then when the proceeds are tied up in court, and eventually found to be illegal – perhaps the proceeds that were held up in courts, will be used to pay back the bond holders and retire the bonds.
However, well before we get to the question of what to do with the illegal proceeds – This all presumes you have a whole lot of politicians with a stomach for stealing billions from tax payers, via illegal application of AB3034. And will they have a stomach for it? For what – to build HALF of a construction segment, with no HSR in sight? Some might expect them to follow the logical consequences of taking the short sighted route of illegally grabbing AB3034 bond funds now. They’ll have no HSR to show for it – Some Amtrak usable track? Hundreds or thousands of private property owners and businesses displaced for ???? Nothing to show for it – A 25 mile neon sign flashing BOONDOGGLE, TRAIN TO NOWHERE when they come to the bottom of the $6B pile of stolen money.
And plenty of fodder for the future that the politicians in charge can’t be trusted and that HSR is a scam.
You do realize that there will be future state and local tax payer funding needed, and most definitely future bond measures at the state and local levels, that would be required AFTER ab3034 is gone? The project is a 100B project, the rest of the money is going to have to come from somewhere. So stealing money now really would be like a teenager stealing a car for a joyride to school. REALLY short sighted, ignorant, truly lacking in the concept of consequences.
Risenmessiah Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 10:07 am
I’m confused. How is the outcome of the project likely to be any different that how the airlines operate now? There are taxes involved, but they do not subsidize carriers’ operations directly.
joe Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
We subsidize air travel – taxpayers gave billions in tax dollars directly to the airlines 10 years ago after 9/11 to keep them in business.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
And let’s recall the Essential Air Services subsidy, not real huge by Federal standards ($114 million per year), but with a per/passenger unit cost in some cases in the 4-digit range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service
William Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 11:44 am
You know what, this is called “circular reasoning”: A leads to B, B leads to C, and C leads to A, if C cannot be meet, then A is illegitimate as well. Sadly, this is false reasoning, and has no standing with any reasonable people or court of law.
CASHRA will have full funding when the legislature approves the funding plan, which also means the go-ahead for the State Treasurer to sell $3.6 Billion of bond because Federal government already granted $3.6 Billion for the CAHSR ICS.
joe Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
That card has been played.
What I find funny is the 100B figure (bogus) gets repeated over and over but it is not only out-there
but critics are socializing the 100B figure with the Public. When the CV segment comes in less, Epic-Win!
Maybe the people at CC Times would see things differently if saw this href=”http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=205242278980764848338.0004ab223e52369e94c0d” target=”_blank”>map.
Andrew Reply:
August 27th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
this amap
Andrew Reply:
August 27th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
ugh, take 3:
map
Paulus Magnus Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 9:10 am
A random railfan map? I don’t see how that’s supposed to make them more interested.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Terrible, terrible idea. Sorry.
BANG’s Oakland Tribune Editor can’t fathom why Gov Brown supports HSR.
Paul Krugman has a response.
Paul Krugman writes a good response to Arguments From Personal Incredulity
:
Krugman:
Robert,
SJ/SV Biz Journal stated yesterday that California would use the bonds approved in 2008 to fund the first phase. I interpreted this to mean for the central valley phase, fed money (biz journal stated $6 billion to date) would be used in conjunction with the $9 billion bonding capacity of prop 1A. That’s $15 billion for central valley phase 1. Is this interpretation of yesterdays news correct?
morris brown Reply:
August 27th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
Let me supply an answer here. If Robert disagrees he can respond.
That article is bogus; the author should be fired.
They presently have about $6.3 billion total available for the CV construction; a bit more than 1/2 from the feds and the rest from funds that would come from the floating of bonds authorized under Prop 1A
All Prop 1A construction funds, must be matched (1:1) or greater by other funds. Without getting into too many details, of the total $9 billion that can be floated under Prop 1A, some are being used by the present studies and other activities currently going on.
I would estimate that after funding the CV section, there might be left about 5.5 billion that could be available for further construction from Prop 1A bond funds. However, these funds must again be matched (1:1) or better by other funding sources. Right now there are no other sources.
So short answer, the have $6.3 billion now for construction in the CV valley. That is the current state of financing.
joe Reply:
August 27th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
“That article is bogus; the author should be fired.”
Ha ha ha. Is that how it works?
peninsula Reply:
August 27th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Morris, I agree that the article is wrong, but I disagree with your summary of the current funding situation: The Prop 1A portion of funds for the CV are not yet appropriated by the legislature and still depend on CHSRA submitting funding plans for a complete usable segment, showing source of ALL funds for the usable segment, showing all project level environmental clearances complete and ready for construction for the usable segment, showing revenue and ridership for the usable segment, the usable segment can be completed per the funding plan, etc. so forth (per AB3034). So, they don’t even have $6B yet, because they haven’t qualified for the Prop 1A funds yet.
morris brown Reply:
August 27th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Peninsula:
You are correct the requirements you state have not been met.
My reply was addressed to what the Authority is proposing to do, but as yet they have do not have approval. There is certinly no indication that the board will not approve this plan. Thus far the legislature seems to approve almost everything the Authority proposes, despite objections from the LAO etc.
Whether the courts will agree is a whole differetn matter and it will be litigated.
peninsula Reply:
August 27th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Morris, actually, they don’t even have 100% funding for the ICS yet. I don’t see how this qualifies for bond $ under Prop1A rules. If the legislature approves bond appropriations under these conditions, it would seem like this would be much easier target for lawsuit than EIR challenges.
Peter Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 7:32 am
“If the legislature approves bond appropriations under these conditions, it would seem like this would be much easier target for lawsuit than EIR challenges.”
That statement is bogus; the author should be fired.
Quoting from AB3034:
If the Legislature approves bond appropriations under these conditions, there’s nothing you can do to stop them!!!
peninsula Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 7:56 am
Its illegal and they’ll be sued. Obviously.
jim Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 9:47 am
Who will be sued? By whom? On what grounds? In what court? Seeking what remedy?
BruceMcF Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 10:12 am
Who has standing to sue is an important question.
The issue at question would be different interpretations of the legislation that the Assembly passed and which the voters of California voted on. If it is the Assembly itself making a particular interpretation, the issue of standing to sue is one point, and even if standing were established, the hurdle on proving your case that the Assembly misinterpreted its own language would be fairly high.
Its obvious that dedicated opponents of the project will try to proclaim the narrowest possible interpretation of the “usable segment” provision and the other sections and definitions it draws upon, but that does not automatically mean that there is a judge who will grant someone standing to test their legal theory, nor that their legal theory would win such a case if someone with standing brings the case.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 10:55 am
Take their argument to it’s absurd conclusion you can’t sell any bonds until you find a vendor who will instantaneously produce completed railroad with fully tested trains run by throughly trained crews. If it ever gets in front of a judge he’s going to carefully consider all the arguments and let the bond be sold.
…. buy tin foil futures if it’s ever gets that far, the milliners are going to be busy….
morris brown Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Bruce:
If you have seen the slide show and or listened to the presentation that was at the last board meeting, you would understand that the Authority is not claiming that what they propose to start construct starting next September is a “usable segment”. No, indeed they have “coined” the term (ICS) Initial Construction Segment, for what they sending out bid packages to accomplish, and for which they will be asking the legislature to provide funding from the floating of Prop 1A bonds.
My point is not even the Authority claims this initial limited funding will result in a “usable segment”.
joe Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
The Authority is neither denying or making any claim what-so-ever.
1) Federal ARRA funding has different criteria that Prop1A.
2) ICS is the term used in the procurement – so what?
VBobier Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 10:11 am
Good luck on that happening Peninsula, So far the lawsuits like this one have been swatted down fast, as they should be.
morris brown Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Peter:
I am not a lawyer — I don’t know if you are or not. However you have brought up this section of Prop 1A before. The section had been examined by more than one attorney, and in their opinion, this section is not relevant to this issue.
joe Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Sounds like you got what you paid for.
Walter Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
“That interpretation is bogus; the attorney should be fired.”
jim Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 11:40 am
This is the primary misconception. NEPA/CEQA are set up for citizen lawsuits. Judges are used to writing opinions which hold that some aspect was not sufficiently considered in an EIR and sending it back for a do-over. That’s how the executive is forced to take cognizance of citizens’ concerns. Bond issuance is very different. Is there any precedent, in California or anywhere else, of a judge enjoining issuance of a bond appropriated by the legislature and that the executive is willing to issue on suit by some random individual?
peninsula Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Ok that’s a good question – is there any precedent? Lets see Can citizens sue the state for failure to uphold, or violations of, voter approved propositions? Has it every happened before? hmmmm I wonder…
joe Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Apparently you’re not paying attention.
One major problem for Prop 8 supporters is finding a party with standing to sue and appeal the case.
TBD. Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
January 4, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the Imperial County appeal for lack of standing.
Prop 8 opponents sued on grounds the prop illegally discriminated:
In May 2009, the Alameda County Clerk-Registrar, Patrick O’Connell, denied Kristin Perry and Sandra Steir a marriage license because they are a same-sex couple.
Overturning Proposition 8 based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Walker concluded that California had no rational basis or vested interest in denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses.
Issuing Prop 1A bonds violates a constitutionally protect civil right and discriminates against a group ?
Peter Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
You’re conflating state and federal standing. There are some similarities, but there are also many differences.
For example, California offers taxpayers standing to prevent government waste (note, this is not waste in the general sense), whereas federal law does not.
joe Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
No, I am not conflating: I responded to the suggestion Prop 8 is an example of how Prop1A will be litigated.
The Prop 8 example shows the lawsuit and over turn required standing by both parties, one lacked standing.
Is you suggestion issuing Prop1A bonds will e litigated because it is waste of taxpayer money?
A lawsuit to 2nd guess the CAHSRA, Peer review panel, Legislature and Governor ? Lots of luck
Peter Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
That’s not what “waste” means in this sense.
In reviewing the statute I was referring to for standing in government waste situations again, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 526(a), it became apparent to me that it is not appropriate in this situation. 526(a) applies to “a county, town, city or city and county of the state”, not a state agency.
BruceMcF Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Waste in the sense of providing the utility for $10b’s less than the status quo means?
peninsula Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
The State Supreme court has agreed to hear the ‘standing’ issue in the Prop 8 case, so as far as I understand, its not yet decided. However, the case before the supreme court about ‘standing’ is whether ‘official backers’ have standing.
My question – do everyday citizens, voters, or tax payers have standing, when laws on the books are being broken? If no one has standing to sue when laws are being broken, why are there laws?
I’m also not talking about overturning Prop 1A. Im talking about the enforcement of the law on the books, as approved by voters and enacted by AB3034.
Lets look at it another way – lets say the legislature decides tomorrow that the best use of Prop1A bond funds would be tunneling the existing 2-track Caltrain tracks for 6 miles through Palo Alto. And some half-assed half-baked documentation was brought forth in support of that plan (regardless of its utter lack of compliance with Prop 1a), and legislature went ahead and accepted it. What kind of recourse would true HSR supporters have? Nothing? No recourse? “Nothing you can do about it.” ??? I kinda doubt it.
joe Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
1) Yes, I wrote the standing issue is TBD. Right now none exist, and the Prop 8 is overturned.
2) I have no expectation that Prop1A alone protects the project. Wikipedia says:
“A successful March 2004 regional transportation ballot measure included funding to rehabilitate the [Dumbarton] rail bridge for the commuter rail service, but in October 2008 the Metropolitan Transportation Commission transferred $91 million from this project to the BART Warm Springs Extension Project in Fremont.”
So HSR will happen because it has the gubbermint and pee-pol behind it.
BruceMcF Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Though note that when you say, “Im talking about the enforcement of the law on the books, as approved by voters and enacted by AB3034. “, you omitted, “and as interpreted by people dedicated to the blocking of the California HSR project”.
The confident assertion that the law as written is going to be / is being / has been broken is a fine element in a Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt campaign, but it takes a judge to say that the interpretation in question is legally valid. Just as opponents of the project asserted confidently that the Caltrain alignment EIR/EIS would get scotched by the court, when in the end the alignment selection went through unscathed and the EIR/EIS was only dinged for a couple of i’s undotted and t’s uncrossed.
Peter Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
My best bet is that citizen standing would have to be based on the same grounds as Morris Brown’s first lawsuit. IIRC, correct me if I’m wrong, Morris, that suit claimed standing based on prevention of waste by a government agency. [Note that the fact that that lawsuit was dismissed for lack of standing doesn't mean that another suit would be.]
joe Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
On what standing? He has none. Morris has to wait until the Legislature approves the Bonds and Governor signs the Bill or is over ridden and money is spent. Until then there isn’t any “waste”.
Then what? He’s going to sue and block HSR over a disagreement with executive and legislative branches of government.
Peter Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
See my above comment on 526a not being applicable here.
morris brown Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Peter:
This is my only comment to your post above where you wrote:
“[Note that the fact that that lawsuit was dismissed for lack of standing doesn't mean that another suit would be.]“
is that the lawsuit certainly was not dismissed for lack of standing . It was dismissed because the Judge said that the claim of waste could not be proved at that time, since our claim was (at that time) speculative.
Case # 34-2010-00075672 Superior Court of California, Co. of Sacramento)
Lawyers like to use the term “ripeness”. The case was dismissed because it was filed too early.
VBobier Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Yep, agreed Morris, that’s what I read too.
Peter Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
My bad, sorry.
The San Diego Tribune just printed this short letter.
If the Governor and every legislator who approves the funding, has to meet this requirement, this project would be gone immediately. It wouldn’t have even been put on the ballot.
=========
(Printed in the San Diego Trib)
Let’s cut through all the back-and-forth politics of high-speed rail. The answer is obvious. Since advocates of high-speed rail claim it is profitable and a wonderful investment for private investors, then by law every government official, manager and union worker involved in high-speed rail should place 100 percent of their personal investment and retirement portfolios into the project. I bet you won’t get one government official, advocate or union worker to accept that condition.
Patrick Kearns
Cardiff
Eric M Reply:
August 27th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
Grasping at straws Morris
VBobier Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 10:12 am
I think Morris just plain Sucks…
joe Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 11:27 am
Morris shot himself in the foot. It’s hilarious.
By law, HSR bonds are paid out of the State’s general fund.
The CA Constitution mandates all debt be paid, even if it means closing down every state office to find the funds and CA cannot go bankrupt.
So please let us invest public retirement portfolio’s in the State so Patrick Cardiff and Morris are Mandated by Law to pay us back every penny. If you don’t like it – move to Nevada.
Let’s get State money out of the Wall Street Casino.
VBobier Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Oh I don’t mind, but then It won’t bother Me at all.
Derek Reply:
August 27th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
No, placing all your eggs into one basket was never a sound investment strategy.
How about 20% instead?
Donk Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 12:19 am
Yeah, because people like you file lawsuits and put this profitable and wonderful investment at risk.
Robert writes:
“But the bigger point is that the Contra Costa Times and the other Bay Area News Group papers are in no position to be criticizing HSR as being a boondoggle when they themselves are facing collapse” He rambles on…..
What in the world the financial problems of print media not only in the Bay area, or California, but all over the world has to do with the the financial viability of this and other HSR projects is beyond me.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 6:53 am
Morris, Morris, are you so naive to have never heard of the pot calling the kettle black? Or, if you follow the Good Book, to not recall that we admonished not to criticize another for a splinter in their eye when we may have a timber in our own?
Derek Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 7:45 am
Morris has a point. Robert’s argument was a “tu quoque”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
joe Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
If it was so what?
A tu quoque, if applicable, isn’t necessarily logically fallacious.
BANG’s run by Fiscal Scolds who can’t produce enough profit to maintain their business and lack the imagination to find a new business model BUT BANG has all the answers for the State of California’s economic troubles: Cut pensions, attack public workers, stop HSR and business as usual – i.e. do nothing.
Derek Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
A tu quoque is, because it’s a fallacy, logically fallacious by definition.
But “argument from fallacy” is also a fallacy.
joe Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
wikipedia says:
In many cases tu quoque arguments are used in a logically fallacious way, to draw a conclusion which is not supported by the premises of the argument.
Not all cases.
Derek Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
The argument was that an organization with money problems is unqualified to identify other organizations with money problems.
On the contrary, I think such an experienced organization is highly qualified to judge.
Of course, this still doesn’t mean they’re right.
Unrelated to this particular post.. but this is a link to inspiring HSR photography from Japan.
http://dornob.com/zoom-zoom-long-exposure-high-speed-rail-photography/
Gianny Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
WOW, WOnderful photography! In our beautiful state we can get better thought ;) once we have our system running.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Perhaps in a more traditional vein would be these photos from Railpictures; of note are some older images:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php
A considerable variety, including some good-looking pan shots, are here, in a general Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=shinkansen&hl=en&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=i-NaTtLpOsfE0AG5gOWTCQ&ved=0CEoQsAQ&biw=987&bih=627
This particular site is notable for a good sectional drawing of the Shinkansen’s elevated structure:
http://technicalstudies.youngester.com/2010/04/shinkansen.html
Enjoy.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Bah, bum link to Railpictures; try this:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?offset=0&where=search|-2|-2|-2||-2|Shinkansen|15|1||||||||-2|-2||-2|-2|||15|-2|-2||||||1||1||||&newdisplay=4
VBobier Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
This was the best that I could do:
railpictures.net search Shinkansen pics
I don’t know if this is what You were trying to do or if among the pics there You had a specific one in mind.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
That’s what I found, but I couldn’t get the link to come in nice and short and renamed as you have.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Well, the link works after a fashion; have to copy and paste.
One thing that was surprising was that there were relatively few Shinkansen images there. In contrast, there are over 700 of the TGV; again, to get this to work, you have to copy that long link and past it, at least as I can get it to work:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?offset=0&where=search|-2|-2|-2||-2|TGV|15|1||||||||-2|-2||-2|-2|||15|-2|-2||||||1||1||||&newdisplay=5
Spain’s AVE:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?offset=0&where=search|-2|-2|-2||-2|ave%20spain|15|1||||||||-2|-2||-2|-2|||15|-2|-2||||||1||1||||&newdisplay=4
Our own Acela:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?offset=0&where=search|-2|-2|-2||-2|acela|15|1||||||||-2|-2||-2|-2|||15|-2|-2||||||1||1||||&newdisplay=5
Enjoy.
VBobier Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Why copy and paste? Here’s some html help for Ya, Put this (if It shows up) after the end of your link add a name and then a closing statement like so . Oh and if My little help doesn’t show up completely, click on the link below and You’ll see a screen grab that I did.
Html Help
TGV pics
Spain’s AVE
Our own Acela
Enjoy.
I see what the problem is – it’s the Central Valley. It’s full of angry farmers and very few people. Clearly people who don’t need or deserve high speed rail. We need to think outside the box.
My solution is simple:
Extend Caltrain commuter rail (high speed) from San Francisco to Fresno Yosemite International Airport 188 miles. Bay Area wins!
Extend Metrolink commuter rail (high speed from Los Angeles Union Station to Palmdale International airport. 58 miles. Los Angeles wins!
Select airlines to operate a shuttle service between Fresno and Palmdale (half hour intervals 24/7. (about 200 miles) Private enterprise wins!
Better commuter services at both ends, no money wasted buying land for a clearly socialist utopian mass transportation scam in the Central Valley, more utilization of two obscure Central Valley airports, and lots of commercial aircraft provided by existing airlines to take advantage of this boondoggle. Lots of spare planes at Mojave airport.
Robert wrote “You can complete the missing links..at slower speed on existing track to downtown… L.A.” No you cannot. There are no tracks available for passenger trains from the south end of the Central Valley to Lancaster. That’s why the CV is the wrong place to start. It will be a classic stranded asset. The missing link in the state rail passenger system is from Bakersfield to the Antelope Valley, build there first and you’ll have something useful. Of course the most useful segment would be the LAUS run through tracks. Dozens of trains per day, immediate AQ and time benefits and astride the HSR route. What better?
In another post I had asked if it was true that Amtrak had gained market share at the expense of aircraft to the extent that the air market has actually shrunk. Well, I did some checking, and it is apparently true:
http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2010/12/acela-continues-to-gain-marketshare.html
Wonder what Reason, Cato, and the other anti-rail groups think of this?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
It doesn’t count. There are no Real Americans in NYC and the few Real Americans in DC would never want to go to NY.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 28th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
Except George Will. . .
trentbridge Reply:
August 29th, 2011 at 7:03 am
Privatize! It is morally wrong for a government sponsored entity to make a profit.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 29th, 2011 at 10:44 am
No, that’s what Mica think. What Reason, Cato, and the rest of the Kochtopus think is “No, it’s not happening…”
I have to question the Sac Bee’s assumption that “The biggest current enemy of high-speed rail is the perception that it will never happen.”
Personally, I think this has helped the project more than hurt it. To what degree, I cannot say, but if Burlingame is any indicator, according to the City’s polling, that would be about 70% of the population. What I have witnessed; the level of apathy amongst those who are not in favor of the project because they think the state can’t afford it, is rather large in my community. Because there is no money, they strongly believe that it will never happen and therefore they needn’t lift a finger. I hear it time and time again, especially from well educated, wealthy, business people, vc’s, fund managers, entrepeneurs, etc. The result is a susbstantial portion of the population that is opposed yet no one has ever heard from, and probably never will…until the digging starts in their back yard.
synonymouse Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 10:54 am
There is indeed a consensus amongst the fabled “silent majority” that there is no money for hsr. The CHSRA has been instrumental itself in fanning this skepticism by concocting a scheme that is so far removed from the one Joe Paycheck would design. The average citizen-voter would follow the path most used, the path of least resistance. That is of course Altamont-I-5-Tejon. Just stop John Q. Public in the street and ask him-her where you would put the hsr track. No brainer.
So when PB-CHSRA came up with detours and boondoggles on mass quantities of stilts instead the pall of unreality, implausibility and infeasibility dropped on the project immediately.
J. Wong Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 11:40 am
Yes, John Q. Public is who I would use to design and build my house, just any random person off the street is perfectly capable of engineering anything.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 12:22 pm
The average citizen-voter would follow the path most used,
So no you are advocating for Route 99 – the most used path?
synonymouse Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 1:33 pm
The most used path between the Bay Area and the LA region is most assuredly not 99.
Of course that is the route you would be forcing hsr travellers to take, putting the operation at a great disadvantage vis-a-vis air. dumb, especially since I-5 we already own. No need to pay for much greenfield.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Then why are they widening 99 to three and four lanes and leaving I-5 at two?
Elizabeth Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Local traffic (heavy) vs long distance traffic (light)
Peter Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 3:33 pm
What are you defining as local and long distance?
99 is heavily used from city to city in the CV. Which is going to be a serious portion of HSR ridership.
thatbruce Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 3:49 pm
In this context, local traffic is that starting or ending in the Central Valley. Most of that uses CA-99, because that’s where most of the people are.
Long distance traffic is that traversing the Central Valley, but not stopping their journeys (aside from fuel) in the Central Valley. Most of that uses I-5, because that’s where the Interstate was placed, and in comparison to the amount of traffic using CA-99, is on the light side. 2 lanes is enough.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 3:51 pm
His argument was “most used path” not “most used by people driving between the municipality of Los Angeles and the municipality of San Francisco, avoiding any contact with the cities in the Central Valeey at all costs and ignoring any intercity travel that occurs between the cities in the Central Valley”
synonymouse Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Your 99 ROW is a figment of PB’s imagination and the taxpayers’ purse. You will only wrench it away from its current owners at great cost and a great gnashing of teeth. I-5 can co-exist with hsr with a reasonable adjustment and cost. It is direct, fast and not that far removed from the 99 corridor. We are fortunate it is there. It is the only feasible alternative – had they unleashed a Sherman-like march to the sea along 99 instead of siting 5 to the west the ROW would not have been adequate today to accommodate hsr and leave room for freeway expansion. I-5 is the location that provides the room for both autos and hsr trains.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Um the same people who own the ROW for I-5 own the ROW for 99, the people of the state of California
synonymouse Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 7:42 pm
PB’s “99″ ROW is greenfield which will have to be eminent domained with great acrimony.
synonymouse Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Many engineering degrees are required for Indian broad gauge.
Ask yourself the question: how long is the average trip on 99. And then how long is the average trip on I-5.
Similarly locate the LA area freeway with the most lanes and again determine how much of that freeway’s traffic is local.
You have just made the highway lobby’s case that Californians love their cars, even for the shortest trips and we just have to accommodate them with more urban lanes.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 2:42 pm
99 is the main path between LA and the Central Valley and between the Central Valley and the Bay Area. It’s not only for local traffic.
The putative purpose of California hsr was to connect the two megalopolises with fast, direct service.
The CHSRA has instead resolved to dumb it down to a collection of standard gauge , ocs BART’s. Regional mass transit is not hsr, but the voting public was gullible enough to buy it without digging deeper. Yours truly included.
Tom McNamara Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Isn’t the Japanese model an extension of mass transit?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 3:48 pm
The purpose of the system is to connect the whole state together which is why eventually the system will have more than two terminii.
synonymouse Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Let’s see – LA Union Station, Santa Clarita, Bako, Tracy, Livermore, Sac. on new or rebuilt trackage. The upgraded San Joaquins and ACE’s would have their regular termini.
Eventually SFO via Dumbarton.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 7:44 pm
LA Union Station isn’t on I-5. Bakersfield isn’t on I-5. Fresno isn’t on I-5. Tracy isn’t on I-5. Livermore in’t on I-5. And SFO isn’t on I-5.
synonymouse Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 7:47 pm
But they are all on Tolmach’s route scheme, which does include the I-5 option.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 8:10 pm
And how many high speed rail systems has Mr. Tolmach built?
Alon Levy Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 8:00 pm
While we’re dreaming: LA, Santa Clarita, Bako, Fresno, Merced, Modesto, Tracy, Livermore, Oakland, SF. According to the EIR, a second tube saves 34 km over going through Dumbarton, which is exactly how much you save driving from LA to SF via I-5 vs. via SR 99 and Tejon. In other words, this option has the same length as I-5/Dumbarton; the difference is that it serves way more people. (And, to be fair, that it requires a second tube. But that’s not necessarily harder to construct than a Tejon alignment.)