Lawsuits Loom From Kings County HSR Opponents
In news that is neither shocking nor surprising, the Fresno Bee/California Watch report that Kings County HSR critics are determined to reroute the project even if they have to go to court to do it:
Even if state officials can scrape together the billions of dollars needed to fund California’s ambitious high-speed rail plans, lawsuits from local cities and opposition groups still could delay, divert or derail the project altogether….
In Kings County, lawyers already are preparing legal objections to a recently released draft environmental study. Local officials and residents say that if their complaints fall on deaf ears during the legally mandated public comment period, they are ready for a fight.
“Some higher authority needs to put a stop to this,” said Diana Peck, director of the Kings County Farm Bureau. “If we’ve gone through every single channel up the chain, then, of course, it’s going to end up in court.”
The crux of the battle is whether the route would follow the existing BNSF railroad corridor, or whether it would follow Highway 99. The 99 alignment would be significantly more expensive, as it would require overpasses to be rebuilt. And it too would require purchase of farmland for right of way.
The difference is that Highway 99 does not enter Kings County. (It comes really, really close just south of Kingsburg.) Kings County farmers are basically saying that Tulare County farmers should have to deal with it, that somehow 99 is a more legitimate “existing corridor” than the BNSF corridor:
Theo de Haan, who sits on the local farm bureau’s board, said much of the anger in Kings County stems from the perception that residents were tricked. “It was sold on the premise that they would follow existing corridors,” de Haan said, referring to the ballot language in voter-approved Proposition 1A.
Like many residents, de Haan assumed that “existing corridor” would be Highway 99. Then he found out the rail authority was planning an alignment that would snake through a mile of his dairy farm, take out the house his nephew lives in while managing the farm and then run through his son’s home in a nearby subdivision.
You don’t get to feel “tricked” if it’s your own fault that you weren’t paying attention and instead chose to believe whatever was convenient for you. It makes sense that a railroad would follow another railroad, especially when doing so is much more affordable for the taxpayers of California than going along Highway 99. And while some Kings County farmers may not wish to admit this, the California High Speed Rail Authority’s responsibility is not to the farmers, but to the people of the state as a whole.
Kings County’s strategy is clearly one of trying to drive up the cost of the HSR project. Yet they have not explained to the rest of the state why exactly it is that we should have to pay more in order to make them happy.
Of course, by going to court they never have to answer that question. The CEQA process helps produce such expensive outcomes because it privileges those who prefer to push costs onto someone else, even at the long-term expense of their own county. If the 99 corridor is eventually used, the station will go to Visalia and Hanford will be bypassed. Tulare County will reap the financial rewards, with Kings County getting a far smaller boost.
In any case, there seems little point in arguing with the Kings County Farm Bureau. Their determination to sue to get their way has been clear for some time. If they wish to go to court, that is their right. But it’s also the right of the rest of California to ask what the cost will be, and whether it is worth paying.
An updated version of the
THE FINANCIAL RISKS OF CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSEDHIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECT
has been released:
http://www.cc-hsr.org/assets/pdf/2011FRR.pdf
The sub-title:
A Project Consuming $700,000 Each Working Day In The Confident Hope Of A Miracle
is so accurate and entertaining.
Here we have 67 pages with over 200 footnotes of references, which should be required reading of everyone who wishes to understand the project.
And BTW, this was not from the Reason Foundation but the work of three highly qualified non-paid professionals. Look at their credentials.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 12:15 am
None of which are applicable to railroad construction or operations.
Oh, and hey, a blatant lie on page 28 that I found while briefly scrolling through.
Ignoring for a moment that they make an operational profit and are not subsidized thus:
Rome-Milan is 91 euros or $124.5 at current exchange rates for a Tuesday train according to Trenitalia’s website. On the other hand, with a same day return, the total price is apparently only 99 euros.
The next three available trains for Paris-Lyon start at $97 and several are available Tuesday at that price according to RailEurope.com. Voyages-sncf.com prices it at 44.9 euros for lowest fare, which is $61.43 at current exchange rates.
Madrid-Barcelona is 117.60 euros according to Renfe, or $160.93 at today’s exchange rate.
Boston-Washington is $183 but Amtrak gouges on the Acela which starts at business class.
Berlin-Frankfurt is 113 euros, $154.63 by bahn.com
JR East cites 13,750 yen for Tokyo to Shin-Osaka, $173 at current exchange rates.
As I’ve noted before, the cited fares are highly misleading and generally fraudulent uses of statistics. They are also no reason to suggest that CAHSRA’s fare structure will not be sufficient to cover its costs.
This article, which I just came across, suggests that the track maintenance costs which I’ve assigned CAHSR in my example are too high by more than an order of magnitude. Following the $2.04 per train mile with Class 6 track example, marginal operating costs are just $2,543.02 for the notional train, which is now raking in money hand over fist.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 12:32 am
Page 9 At 1,390 track-kilometers between LA and SF for a double tracked system, that’s 41,700,000 euros or 57.12 million USD per year. Assuming only twenty trains per day, on average, between LA and SF and the notional train I mentioned would be responsible for $7,825 in MOW costs, $18 per train-mile (about half that of Paris-Lyon tolls), and making a rather fair operating profit.
synonymouse Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 12:34 am
Of course the CHSRA operation will require a subsidy, just like BART, which it resembles in so many ways. Wait until the TWU or Amalgamated demands parity with the prison guards’ 8 weeks of annual vacation.
Meantime Mike Pechner did an op-ed in the San Rafael paper calling for SMART dumping the doodlebugs. Good idea but fat chance.
http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_18904854
VBobier Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 9:25 am
Trains have always carried more people mile per mile than any airliner built Syno, the faster a train is the more passengers It can carry, trains carry people/freight in Bulk, planes are on a starvation diet due to weight, speed and airport restrictions on aircraft size.
On maintenance airports get subsidized, should they be privatized? You betcha, in a heart beat. Oh what airlines then would have to pay more and airlines would become unaffordable and unprofitable? Oh too bad, so sad…
Then the playing field would be even.
synonymouse Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 10:18 am
I have no problem with privatizing “maintenance airports”. Go for it.
Peter Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 10:22 am
Mike Pechner’s “solution” is to run bilevel California Cars pulled by full-sized FRA dinosaurs instead of to using fuel-efficient DMUs. I don’t have the fuel burn numbers in front of me, but running a two-car single-level DMU is going to be a LOT cheaper than running a monster locomotive plus two bi-level commuter cars.
He also doesn’t get the fact that for any new system level boarding is going to be required by ADA. That wouldn’t work with either California Cars or any of the other common US commuter cars, while at the same time getting rid of gauntlet tracks.
In the meantime, what the hell does that have to do with the topic being discussed in this thread, anyway? Why didn’t you start a new thread on this topic?
synonymouse Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 11:05 am
Standard equipment will be a lot easier to resell. Also locomotives will fare a lot better in collisions at the many, very busy grade crossings on this route.
The SMART scheme is marginal and will have to be re-thought once the true level of red ink is there for the voters to see.
Peter Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 11:29 am
“Also locomotives will fare a lot better in collisions at the many, very busy grade crossings on this route.”
Citation to justify this claim? Are you planning on having locomotives at both ends of the trains? How is is this claim justified given that the SCOA trains will incorporate both CEM as well as comply with FRA crashworthiness requirements?
Eric M Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 11:39 am
He just makes shit up like he always does. He hears negative stuff in the news, then post it here like he knows what he is talking about. Case in point, he takes Richards negative remarks about the CAHSR project, and tries to spin it off as his own making COMPLETE NONSENSE.
synonymouse is just a mocking bird, plain and simple
Peter Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 11:45 am
I enjoy calling him out on his outlandish claims.
I’ve come to the conclusion that he is an old-school railfan. One who likes big, heavy diesel locomotives pulling long freight trains. Nostalgia and all that.
I’m still trying to figure out how this figures in with his obsession with base tunnels, but I’ll get to the bottom of it.
synonymouse Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
I never did care for diesels but they will do better in a collision with a truck. Those doodlebugs will be taking damage like Muni buses. Many of the intersections are jammed with vehicles and very tight, as they date from another century and not the 20th. There will be blood.
Peter Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
I don’t care what happens to Muni buses. They are completely irrelevant. We are talking here about FRA-compliant trains, not buses.
The DMUs you deride as “doodlebugs” will be built to full FRA compliance. How much stronger can they be built? How will they hold up any less well than a Bombardier bi-level, an Amfleet or a Comet?
Additionally, they will incorporate crash energy management. Trains with CEM have a long track record of safely (for the train and passengers) dealing with grade crossing accidents.
Your claim is completely unjustified.
synonymouse Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
A truck plowing into a doodlebug will cause a lot more expensive body damage that it would to a diesel locomotive.
The diesel will be much more intimidating when it come to convincing that Marin yuppie in his beemer to not try to outrun the train.
Peter Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
That’s just stupid. Just ask the passengers of the Amtrak train that got t-boned by a truck recently.
Also, how does the fact that the locomotive will take less damage than a DMU help the passengers, who are NOT riding in the locomotive?
If anything, your unjustified argument improves the case to use DMUs, because a DMU will be heavier and more resistant to damage than a passenger car, similar to a locomotive.
People intent on running a crossing gate don’t know or care what’s bearing down on them. How would they even see it?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
The only difference between a locomotive hitting a car and a DMU hitting a car would be the length of the debris trail the car leaves along the track.
Jon Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
I’ve come to the conclusion that he is an old-school railfan.
You got it. He hates BART because it’s broad gauge, which is an anathema to old-school railfans. Basically he wants everything built now to look just like it was in the past, and uses tin-foil hat conspiracy theories to explain why HSR is currently being planned differently.
I’m still trying to figure out how this figures in with his obsession with base tunnels, but I’ll get to the bottom of it.
I think the “no Palmdale detour” stuff is to do with the routing of the old Southern Pacific trains.
synonymouse Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Most of SMART’s collisions will be at the head end. The locomotive will be far cheaper to repair than the doodlebug. The passenger car end of push-pull is indeed more vulnerable – strengthen it as much as possible and put non-humans at that end – bikes, etc.
The Erie RR’s conversion back to standard gauge from 6 ft. gauge ended the broad gauge fad, except for cretins at Bechtel.
The Santa Fe had the right idea at Tejon, just not enough money. If it hadn’t been for the railroad boom – made possible by a monopoly killed by autos and airplanes by 1910 – the Tehachapi Loop might not ever have been built. I suggest it would be the Santa Fe that would be interested in buying this route off the CHSRA. No class 1 will touch Borden to Corcoran, maybe not even for free. But they don’t have another entree into LA, especially one that will be fast and all-weather.
If the Swiss can run freight and passenger thru 40 miles base tunnels we can do likewise at Tejon.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 10:55 am
I think we should just bolt a 6 inch steel plate to the leading end of cab cars. That will solve the problem, right?
Peter Reply:
September 21st, 2011 at 7:32 am
Why is it that cost of repairing damage to the trains is the most important factor to you? Is it because it’s the only disadvantage you can come up with for using DMUs versus locomotive-hauled trains?
We should be worried about preservation of life, not lower costs of repairs.
Germany just experienced a grade-crossing accident of a Regional Express train going 71 mph. No fatalities, and only 21 or so injuries (the number has dropped significantly since reporting began) resulted. The train was a UIC-compliant DMU, quite similar to the DMUs SMART will be using and that you claim are unsafe.
Joey Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Also locomotives will fare a lot better in collisions at the many, very busy grade crossings on this route.
Maybe, but the passenger cars behind them won’t. At least if Metrolink’s crash is anything to go by.
synonymouse Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
SMART’s trains would only consist of a couple of passenger cars. Passenger loads are apt of be very light, especially since it won’t even get to Larkspur, let along Marin City.
The Rohnert Park casino would draw some traffic if Moonbeam ever moves it along.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
any of the other common US commuter cars
The most common US commuter car is the MTAs M7/M7a. Grand Central and Penn Station have level boarding. So do most of the suburban stations the LIRR and Metro North serve. Comet variants are probably the most common unpowered commuter car. They serve Penn Station and Grand Central. Most common not-single level is NJTransit’s multilevels. They serve Penn Station. And Union Station in New Haven where M8s a variant of M7s run. And 30th Street Station in Philadelphia where Silverliners run. And Penn Station in Baltimore where MARC runs who knows what to Union Station in DC where NJTranist multilevels come and go now and then. Metra Electric has level boarding. Level boarding for US commuter cars is very very very common.
Peter Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Yes, high platform level boarding is common. The guy who argued in the newspaper for “standard” equipment also made the claim that they then wouldn’t need the high platforms SMART is planning on for level boarding.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
High platforms are insane and costly for SMART.
FRA equipment is insane and costly for SMART.
Grotesquely overweight one-off sheltered workshop manufactured equipment is insane for SMART.
These sub-moronic decisions are due to LTK Engineering Services. The same people who suck down cash from Caltrain. The same people who SMART subsequently awarded contracts to “design” the Special Unique American Needs retarded DMUs that LTK declared were necessary.
America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals. We’ll show the rest of the world! USA USA USA USA USA USA!
Peter Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Nothing like a rational discussion about anything remotely related to PB or LTK to set off a spittle-flining Mlynarix rant.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
I must have missed the bit where those outstanding engineering analysts “Peter” and “synonymouse” were having a “rational discussion”.
jimsf Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
I don’t think richard is even an american. who cares what he has to say. he probably blogging from some foreign country
synonymouse Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
The foreign country referred to is recognizably the Bay Area, mondo bizarro.
I would guess that Richard, like this rank armchair engineering analyst, has experienced just one toooo many outrage by our favorite engineering consultancy.
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 6:43 am
Same old trick: always selecting worst case for the means of transport you hate, like comparing the highest train fares to the lowest airline fares.
Concerning the TGV, fares are not proportional to distances. You don’t find on Paris-Lyon the bargain fares offered on longer corridors where airline competition exists. This makes Paris-Lyon the TGV’s cash cow.
The company which will operate CHSR might offer lower fares than the TGV because it wouldn’t have to bear the same costs, like:
- having to subsidize all the loss-making lines SNCF has a legacy obligation to run.
- paying high tolls as a contribution to construction and financial costs.
- legacy union privileges dating from the time SNCF was state-run and politically impossible to abolish.
ericmarseille Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 7:19 am
One week ago I booked a two-way trip Marseille-Paris for next monday 26th.
I looked at the cheapest fares left in my time bracket
First leg : €53.90 = $74
Secong leg : €55.00 = $76
480 miles, and return, total 960 miles, for $150 ; less than 16 cents a mile.
And yet SNCF’s HSR margin is so important they prefer to hide it in their general “voyages” Division.
The highest priced trips that day were in the order of €65-70, approx. 20cts a mile.
By the way : I booked the first leg with IDTGV (you print your nominative ticket at home on your printer, then you present it + an I.D. card to the control before boarding : super efficient and relaxing), I asked my ticket to be mailed home for free on the second leg (no IDTGV available), and received them just as expected.
Donk Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 12:54 am
You know what is more pathetic than being obsessed with choo choo trains? Spending every waking hour of the the day, obsessed, searching out obscure internet articles and trying to fight a losing battle against HSR. There are lot of things in life that are much more important to worry about.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 3:21 am
I’m sorry, but anyone who thinks Paris-Lyon is $115 doesn’t understand anything about TGV pricing.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 9:37 am
Anyone who thinks Boston to DC is $196 doesn’t understand Amtrak pricing. For amusement I picked two Tuedays in October and checked prices. $70 one way on a Regional or 140 roundtrip. . . not that many people use Amtrak, on Acela or Regionals, to go from Boston to DC. It takes too long….
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 10:47 am
“I’m sorry, but anyone who thinks Paris-Lyon is $115 doesn’t understand anything about TGV pricing”
That’s the case for many elderly computer-illiterate people. Fortunately, they generally have grandchildren who know where to click on the SNCF website.
Eric M Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 8:28 am
And here is the real story of getting a flight on Southwest vs HSR.
Leaving San Francisco to Los Angeles this Thursday, 9-22. Cheapest price is $330 round trip!!!
Go away Morris with your fear mongering
Andrew Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 10:28 am
Above and beyond everyone’s points about the pricing, hsr wins out on comfort and convenience. I usually take bullet trains even when there’s a somewhat cheaper (or somewhat faster) flight.
Arthur Dent Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Suppose you’re all right about the pricing. Plugging in the lowest train fares posted doesn’t change much. The average fare drops from $184 to as low as $137, which is still considerably greater than the HSRA’s voter approved fares or 2009 estimated fares. The point of the report Morris linked to is that even at those higher fares, subsidies are still required. (Paulus’ link which attempts to prove that subsidies are not required is to a blog post with no supporting documents written by……Paulus.)
By using the lower fares the financial picture becomes less bleak, but still not viable. You can replace words like a fourth to a third and values like $.44/mile to $.33/mile in the analysis. Even so, the HSRA will be challenged to operate in the black.
The report cited a letter by the Director General of the International Union of Railways which inadvertently supports the position that the HSRA will have a tough time meeting the “no subsidies” requirement of the law. I tend to believe the IUR over a blogger with no citations, but that’s just me.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
No. $0.33/mi is not the operating cost; it’s an operating revenue, which has to pay not only operating costs but also huge depreciation charges.
Judge dismisses Palmdale Lawsuit against the CHSRA
Not at all surprising.
From the Sac Bee, last 2 paragraphs.
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/19/3920476/lawsuits-threaten-to-delay-or.html
synonymouse Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 11:08 am
September, 2017? That’s plenty of time to get Tejon drilling underway.
synonymouse Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
There is a interesting remark imbedded at the end of this California Watch article:
To wit: [the CHSRA] “is legally obligated to study all possible routes”. One would assume this could and would include Altamont.
More budget shenanigans with HSR bond funds.
At the last minute AB-615 (B. Lowenthal), was gutted and amended to allow $4 million of Prop 1A funds to go to LA to San Diego (a Phase II) project. Surely this was from pressure being exerted by Director Lynn Schenk, who has been unrelenting in trying to get LA – San Diego pushed ahead for development.
The bill is now awaiting Brown’s signature.
The comment was made that it was an error to not include this Phase II project in the original budget request. Hardly accurate. The omission was intentional.
Prop 1A, 2704.04 clearly states that bond funds shall be expended (only if) they would would not
have an adverse impact on the construction of Phase 1″
As we all know, now and into the foreseeable future, funding for just Phase 1 is problematic. How can the legislature go about sending funds on Phase 2? PB and friends again laughing all the way to the bank.
synonymouse Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
When did PB-Bechtel-dba’s ever lose?
In Norcal MTC has its moles in place to similarly divert hsr funds to BART. Not so easy but there will come the opportune moment.