What the Judge Actually Decided This Week in the Atherton Cases
A well-informed population is essential to the proper functioning of a democratic society. Unfortunately, if all you read this week regarding Judge Michael Kenny’s latest decision in the Atherton cases was Mike Rosenberg’s Mercury News article, you would be significantly ill-informed about what the ruling actually held and what it actually means for the California high speed rail project:
Once again, a judge on Thursday ordered the state to scrap its plans to zip high-speed trains from Gilroy to San Jose and up the Peninsula, saying officials failed to show how the massive route would harm local traffic and homes.
This is, at best, a shockingly misleading lede. Judge Kenny did not order the California High Speed Rail Authority to do anything of the sort. In fact, he upheld substantial portions of the project planning documents, including the ridership analysis. What Judge Kenny did say was that the Authority’s analysis of traffic impacts on Monterey Highway south of San Jose was inadequate and that the EIR needed to address those issues. But he did not say that the entire plan to use the Peninsula and the South Bay should be “scrapped.”
I don’t know how Rosenberg, who knows this project and the issues quite well, came up with something that misleading. Let’s take a closer look at what actually happened in court on Thursday.
There were two rulings handed down in Judge Kenny’s Sacramento Superior Court – Stuart Flashman has them both up on his TRANSDEF site. The cases are known as “Atherton I” and “Atherton II.”
A quick summary of Atherton I:
• CHSRA did not adequately address traffic impacts of Monterey Highway.
• CHSRA did adequately address safety impacts of placing high speed tracks between Monterey Highway and the Union Pacific line.
• CHSRA does not have to reexamine noise and vibration issues for a four track Peninsula alignment.
• CHSRA properly deferred some analysis to project-level EIR and improperly deferred some other analysis.
• “Substantial evidence supports Cambridge Systematics’ ridership model and Respondent’s reliance on the ridership model.”
I want to delve into some detail on that last bit, because it’s pretty damn important. HSR critics and opponents have been running around the state for the last year or so claiming that the system’s ridership numbers are flawed based on the Berkeley ITS report. Some are still making these claims even after the independent peer review said the ridership numbers are sound.
Now Judge Kenny has weighed in on the side of the CHSRA, which in an ideal world would finally end the criticisms of the ridership analysis once and for all:
In the event of the inevitable CEQA “battle of the experts,” as is present here, it is important to note that “[d]isagreements among experts do not make an EIR inadequate.” (Eureka Citizens for Responsible Gov’t v. City of Eureka (2007)) “When experts in a subject area dispute the conclusions reached by other experts whose studies were used in drafting the EIR, the EIR need only summarize the main points of disagreement and explain the agency’s reasons for accepting one set of judgements instead of another.” (Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003)) “Technical perfection is not required; we look not for an exhaustive analysis, but for accuracy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.” (Eureka Citizens, supra)….
Cambridge Systematics’ analysis is clearly not inadequate or unsupported and Respondent reasonably relied on Cambridge Systematics’ conclusions in approving the ridership model after extensive debate regarding ITS’s criticisms of the model. Respondent’s thorough explanation regarding its selection is contained in the record.
The court included a discussion of the disputed “headway coefficient” that Elizabeth Alexis originally claimed as a kind of smoking gun showing the Pacheco route was flawed and should not have picked – and the court utterly rejected the challenges to the EIR on that basis.
I would like to believe this will be the end of criticisms of the ridership model, but I know it won’t be, because as long as people continue to believe “nobody will ride trains in California” then truthiness will trump evidence and court rulings.
So let’s look at Atherton II:
• CHSRA was right to reject the “Setec Ferroviaire” proposal for an Altamont alignment, based on “substantial evidence”
• CHSRA properly responded to public comments on the Revised Final Program EIR.
• CHSRA was not required to recirculate the EIR based on most of the reasons the petitioners claimed, except where it involved Monterey Highway.
• CHSRA’s biological impacts findings are supported by substantial evidence.
• CHSRA “did not precommit to the approval of the Revised Final Program EIR in violation of CEQA”
What does this exactly mean for the EIR? Judge Kenny will rule on that later. But it’s likely that he’ll ask the CHSRA to address the Monterey Highway issues and resubmit the EIR. It’s not a substantial issue and actually resembles the minor technical changes that Judge Kenny ordered in 2009 in the first Atherton ruling – which is a parallel Mike Rosenberg acknowledges in his article:
The same thing has happened before. The cities first sued in August 2008, and a year later Kenny ordered the rail authority to rescind the route and redo some of its planning. By September 2010, the rail authority had completed the extra studies and reapproved the same route, a decision that triggered the most recent lawsuit.
Which makes Rosenberg’s opening lines as quoted at the beginning of this post even more incredible. The plans to follow a route in the Peninsula and the South Bay aren’t scrapped – this is one part of an ongoing legal battle that, overall, the CHSRA continues to win.
A better article is by Gennady Sheyner at Palo Alto Online who writes:
Kenny’s latest ruling means the rail authority now has to go back for more revisions — a process that could further extend the timeline for a project whose estimated price tag now stands at $98.5 billion.
That’s a fair point and one I would see as accurate. Maybe Mike Rosenberg was simply writing link bait, but he could take some lessons from Sheyner on how to get this particular part of the HSR story right.
What does this mean for the project overall? Not much. Monterey Highway is not a heavily used route, and the CHSRA traffic impact analysis will not likely show anything that would blow up the route from San José to Gilroy. I expect that the project route will proceed as before.
More importantly, the attack on the HSR ridership analysis should now be at an end. With the peer review report and now Judge Kenny’s ruling, the ridership analysis can no longer be credibly challenged. We know that the usual suspects will keep trying, of course.
The HSR project will attract more of these nuisance lawsuits as the project continues. One cannot build a piece of infrastructure (or pretty much anything of substance, even an infill housing development) without having to face lawsuits from opponents under the cover of CEQA. Millions, perhaps billions of dollars each year are wasted on CEQA lawsuits and compliance.
California absolutely needs a comprehensive, statewide environmental planning regulatory framework. It’s not clear to me that CEQA is meeting that need, not as it currently is written. A law that is used by NIMBYs to promote sprawl and stop environmentally friendly, climate friendly development is not doing anything to protect the state’s environmental quality.
CEQA reform is therefore a top priority for California in the 21st century. I wrote up some thoughts on that back in November 2009. This lawsuit alone won’t produce change, but it does continue to build the case for reform.
Why does Rosenberg come up with misleading lines? Because he’s a piece of crap who acts as the blow horn for peninsula NIMBYS. I’ve emailed Mike many times asking why he keeps reporting the way he does; alas no response. Thank God for this blog and the truth. And how about this Flashman a$$hole who threatens to keep filing suit? Hopefully they all rot you know where!
By the way Robert, the $98 billion figure is being thrown around a lot lately. But since much of that 98 will 1) presumably consist of private and federal funds and 2) is in 2033 dollars, how much is California really looking at in terms of 2033 cost? (Just California bonds and taxes)
Clem Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
The $98 billion figure is in YOE (Year Of Expenditure) dollars. That means the nominal value of expenses as they are expended year-by-year over the entire time span of the project. These are NOT 2033 dollars.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
And because Clem didn’t mention it, the YOE cost is about 65 billion if put in real 2011 dollars.
Clem Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
2010 dollars.
HSR impacts to traffic along Monterey Highway should be minimal.
Previously, the plan for South San Jose included developing along Monterey Highway in the Coyote Valley. Cisco was planning to move to a new campus and kick off development approximately the size of Redwood City/ Mountain view. Not any more.
Given Monterey Highway/101 was replaced by the current freeway and the area MH services is underdeveloped, I can’t see how traffic along that route is going to be impacted by HSR.
The CHSRA and its consultants have likely already anticipated the Monterey Highway issue. I believe that’s partly why the Draft 2012 Business Plan and the supporting cost change memo describe an increase of 21 to 25 miles of viaduct (above and beyond viaduct sections that were previously planned) in the San Jose – Merced section alone. The money quote is on page 10 of the cost increase memo:
They are already planning stilt-a-rail along Monterey Highway, and that’s how they will put this issue to bed.
Robert, there is an important distinction between (a) siding with the CHSRA and (b) not taking sides. The judge did (b) and not (a) as far as ridership and the SETEC issue are concerned. He basically said the CHSRA met the requirements as narrowly defined by CEQA and that he wasn’t going to weigh in on a “disagreement among experts”.
joe Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Robert wrote: “In fact, he upheld substantial portions of the project planning documents, including the ridership analysis.”
Clem,
The judge’s decision to not arbitrate a “disagreement among experts” isn’t being neutral. The Judge sided with CHSRA. CHSRA met the requirements defined by CEQA.
Clem Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
By siding with the CHSRA he did not agree with any of their analysis, their ridership models, or their rejection of the SETEC alignment. By siding with the CHSRA the judge didn’t touch any of those things with a ten foot pole. This is a very important distinction that I am merely pointing out.
StevieB Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
The court will not substitute their conclusive judgement for that of the legally appointed representative of the people embodied by the California High Speed Rail authority. The court ruled that the discussion of the analysis is sufficient to make a decision.
Clem Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Yup.
Peter Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Clem, complaining that someone follows the letter of the law is like complaining that someone drives his car at the speed limit. You may think that the limit should be higher or lower, but accusing that person of following the law is misplaced. If you don’t like the requirements of the law, the lawmakers are the correct targets for your complaints.
Clem Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
I’m not complaining, in case that wasn’t clear.
Peter Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Sorry, I must have misinterpreted your wording.
Robert,
You are missing the key implications.
1) Approval of the program level EIR will have to be rescinded. There will have to be a new version o f the draft circulated, comment taken, a final eir, comments and then approval. Judging by the time this took last time, this gives final approval in September and ROD/ NOD in October.
2) Merced to Fresno specifically tiers off both the 2005 program EIR and this EIR. While the Authority was allowed to start project work with a rescinded EIR, it is hard to imagine that they will be allowed to approve the EIR before the program level has a ROD/ NOD. This adds six months of delay. You cannot start ROW acquisition until this is in place.
3) There will likely be new legal ground broken as to what steps can be taken in Merced – Fresno EIR prior to finalizing the EIR. This is very uncommon to be still litigating a program EIR while moving towards finish line on a project EIR that tiers from it. Calling all environmental lawyers – do you know of any precedents?
4) The delays may be moot as there are increasing murmurs that the Authority has been clearing the wrong project anyway. They should be looking at the ICS, along with the potential impacts of Amtrak service on the ICS. The current EIRs act as if the ICS does not exist.
5) Stop giving the authority a free ride. CEQA is set up to give an agency the benefit of the doubt. An EIR is all about disclosure. (This is similar to how financial firms are regulated – Goldman Sachs is in trouble because they didn’t tell their clients they were screwing them, not for the actual money they caused the clients to lose). The Authority didn’t even bother to do the bare minimum, which would have gotten them off the hook. As Clem says, the issues raised about the problems with the Authority’s original plan for SJ to Gilroy are very real -so real that they are either looking at stilts or going through farmland on the other side of 101 and a station in the middle of a field.
Peter Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
1) Yes. *Shrug*
2) Not necessarily. If you will recall from the order in the first Atherton case, the reason why the Authority was allowed to continue with project level work on SF-SJ and SJ-Merced was that these were mere studies. They were not putting shovels in the ground yet, and there was no threat to the environment. That’s putting it in non-lawyer-speak.
Similarly, here, there is no plan to put any shovels in the ground in an area that will be affected by the Program EIR. They are planning to build on the route of the Merced-Fresno Project EIR, but not on any part of that route that overlaps with the Program EIR.
3) Not a clue, I would have to do some research (unlimited access to Westlaw and Lexis is great). I’ll look into it tomorrow, it’s an interesting question. However, see the discussion above, in that the portion of the Merced-Fresno EIR in question doesn’t REALLY “tier” off of the Bay Area-CV Program EIR.
4) That’s because the ICS is just what its name is: Initial Construction Section. It’s not a section that anyone is planning on running Amtrak trains on. That’s just a backup for if nothing else ever gets built.
5) “the issues raised about the problems with the Authority’s original plan for SJ to Gilroy are very real -so real that they are either looking at stilts or going through farmland on the other side of 101 and a station in the middle of a field.”
You are correct that an EIR is all about disclosure. However, the rest of your argument is disturbingly off-base: comparing the Authority’s failure to discuss a single issue in the EIR (a relatively minor administrative failure) to Goldman Sachs’ systematic defrauding of its investors (CRIMINAL activity). Nice one.
The increase in cost that Clem discusses is actually irrelevant for the purpose of CEQA. All that matters is that the Authority discuss the impacts and how they will be mitigated. Which they will take care of in the next Program EIR.
Clem Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
I pretty much agree with Peter. The EIR update will be a plug-and-chug affair, with the litigants running out of ground to stand on.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
The Authority’s current plans are to start buying properties as soon as they had a cleared EIR in hand and doing ROW immediately (utilities etc). I think all of this got pushed back to October earliest.
Clem Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
So they’ll start with Fresno – Bakersfield? In any event, the project EIRs are bound to be mired in lawsuits as well. In that respect, the program EIR is way ahead.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
That one is delayed too because the Authority told the EPA to get lost with their west Hanford idea and then the EPA did not get lost.
Clem Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Did not know about that agency pissing match. In my opinion, that whole section should be revised anyway to skirt Bako to the West and shoot straight down into the Grapevine.
synonymouse Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
Sounds good to me. Except I’d belay new hsr trackage at Bako and build the racetrack to the Bay Area and Sac instead. Upgraded San Joaquins adequate for the time being for Fresno and the lilke.
Peter Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 6:36 am
No.
What upgrade to the San Joaquins? Do you know of some super-secret fully funded plan to upgrade the San Joaquins to 110 mph that we don’t know of? THERE’S NOTHING ELSE IN THE PIPELINE, FOAMER DREAMS NOTWITHSTANDING!!!
Alon Levy Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 11:23 am
How close can you get to downtown Bakersfield while skirting it to the west? In Fresno most sprawl is to the east, so you can get 5-10 km without touching the built-up area, but in Bakersfield it’s the opposite, and the edge of the urban area is nearly 20 km away from downtown.
Andrew Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Yes, the last thing we should do is set off even more sprawl by locating hsr stations on the outskirts of valley cities that desperately need infill. There’s a perfect approach to central Bakersfield from the SE that is also nicely lined up with the Grapevine. If we can’t build through the middle of Bakersfield, God help us.
Joey Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Andrew: given the very large cost of building a 200 mph alignment through downtowns (including impact mitigation, etc), it might make more sense to just assure that zoning laws prevent sprawl. Alternately you could build a station loop (not that much extra track for Fresno, a lot for Bakersfield), or accept a slow restriction of 150 mph for express trains, which would probably only cost a couple of minutes.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Don’t worry, these edge-of-town stations don’t promote sprawl – they just get less ridership.
schrodinger Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
I was looking at that the other day. It looks like the station would have to be 12 miles west of downtown on Highway 58, which is not a freeway. Looks like about a 20 minute drive.
If you must serve downtown, you could leave the high speed track, slow down to 70 mph, and reach a downtown station over existing infrastructure. That assumes that existing infrastructure is electrified and that freight train traffic doesn’t get in the way.
The other option I was thinking of was building a replacement freight line around the outside of Bakersfield, and then taking over the existing freight tracks for passengers. You would have to build a new freight yard as well, but the freight railroads might welcome the opportunity to build a Joliet Logistics style facility if CAHSR partly paid for it.
Joey Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
schrodinger: if freight traffic wouldn’t get in the way, there wouldn’t be existing infrastructure. All of the primary routes through Bakersfield are UP or BNSF mainlines. In general, the concept of “existing infrastructure” doesn’t work in California.
StevieB Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Analysis of traffic that was planned for the project level EIR the judge ruled should instead be included in the program level EIR. The Bay Area to Central Valley program EIR will be modified to include the analysis, that was already planned to be done for the project EIR, and will be circulated and recertified. There is no intent to fail to disclose the impact.
thatbruce Reply:
November 14th, 2011 at 11:53 am
@Elizabeth:
2) … You cannot start ROW acquisition until this is in place.
I’ve seen some other California projects where most of the land for various proposed ROWs had been acquired well before the required EIRs had been completed. The agency then sold off the unused ROWs after the completion of the project.
Peter Reply:
November 14th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
I never considered that point. It makes a lot of sense. You don’t need an EIR to purchase property. Not even a government entity needs an EIR to do so. It would be like any other land transaction.
In contrast, an EIR is required in order to begin construction because that is an actual change to the environment.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 14th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Recently? With Fed $? With a specific project in mind?
Elizabeth Reply:
November 14th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Without one of the various specific exemptions that get added to CEQA?
There are definitely circumstances that allow property to be bought without full EIR but I don’t think this is one them. The local school district just bought a piece of land adjacent to an existing school and they still had to be compliant with CEQA before doing so.
If you have a specific project that you have already determined will require a full EIR and there is no statuatory exemption, I think you wait until ROD/ NOD.
datacruncher Reply:
November 14th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Looks like Caltrans has an entire section of its ROW manual devoted to what it calls Hardship (owner needs to sell now) or Corridor Preservation (before new construction/development raises the land value) purchases. It also discusses the process for completing them pre-environmental clearance.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/row/rowman/manual/ch5.pdf
I only skimmed a couple of pages (better for someone with real estate knowledge to review it and comment since this is not my field).
But I do see the doc includes steps involving the FHWA even pre-enviromental clearance.
Something similiar might apply to HSR. But as I said its not my field.
thatbruce Reply:
November 14th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
‘Corridor Preservation’ was the term I was looking for, thanks.
@Elizabeth: Caltrans is the public body that I’m aware of that has purchased land prior to going through the EIR/CEQA process. I’m not aware of the source of funds that were used however. Beyond erecting fences to keep out trespassers, nothing was done to the land prior to the completion of the EIR process.
Sorry, but not even close.
Yes, the CAHSRA is like Goldman Sachs screwing their clients. This ridiculous comparison demonstrates yet again that CARRD is a anything but a neutral, unbiased watchdog.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
I am comparing the CEQA process to the regulatory regime of financial firms. The CEQA standard is not that you are right but that you tried. This current system is not working very well for anyone.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
The NEPA and CEQA requirements have been defined over the past few decades in a very painful drawn out process. If you don’t like the process talk to you legislators. It’s not within the scope of the CAHSR to change the process. If they don’t follow the existing process there would be yet another lawsuit about how they didn’t follow the defined process.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Back to my original point. There is a well defined process, with low standards, that the Authority for the second time in a row did not follow. It is not confidence inspiring.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
“The CEQA standard is not that you are right but that you tried. ”
They tried, they failed. That’s the process. If you don’t like it talk to your legislator.
StevieB Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
The Authority decided to produce program EIR and project EIR as a way to organize the report. The court ruled that traffic analysis should be included in the program EIR instead of in the project EIR as planned by the Authority. There is not a well defined algorithm for what is in a program EIR or project EIR. The traffic analysis that was already planned by the Authority for the more detailed project EIRs will now be included in the all-encompassing Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR.
Peter Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 11:38 am
Actually, what we will see in the Program EIR will be a traffic analysis limited to the Preferred Program Alignment, not one discussing the alignments likely to come out of the Project EIR.
joe Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Again, parallels between the CAHSRA and the failed banking system, Leman Bros, Goldman Sachs isn’t a reasonable nor fair. It’s propaganda.
These firms have little if any regulation enforced.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-sec-citi-argue-case-for-285m-settlement-20111107,0,2224379.story
Tens of billions or more lost and we tax payers bailed them out and no one is held accountable – yes that’s about on par with the CAHSRA and its obviously biased ridership model, oops the ridership model passed review.
Peter Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 6:26 am
“The CEQA standard is not that you are right but that you tried.”
Ummm, no. The standard is that you came up with something that you can back up with facts and a reasonable analysis.
CEQA is set up to give an agency the benefit of the doubt. An EIR is all about disclosure.
*************
CEQA is there to scew you out of a project, give excuses for people to oppose your project and drive up cost. Make no mistake, the CEQA process is driving at lease a couple billion in hidden costs for this thing.
Peter Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
One of the purposes of CEQA is to make sure the communities affected by a project don’t get screwed by horrific environmental impacts by requiring mitigation. We would have a lot more truly BAD projects if CEQA and NEPA didn’t keep planners and politicians in check. The fact that mitigation is required is a price worth paying.
I’ll just leave this here.
http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_19273015
StevieB Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Are you advocating raising the tax on gasoline to pay for the deficient transportation funds?
Derek Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
We could shut down lanes, roads, and bridges as needed until we can afford the cost of maintaining what’s left.
Peter Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
It would make people understand the true costs of maintaining our infrastructure. While at the same time strangling the economy. Not the best idea.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Depends on where. If they shut down some of the freeways in Providence, the city will become a lot more livable.
Derek Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Let’s shut down only the infrastructure that provides the least benefit to the economy for the cost of maintaining it.
Peter Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Soooo, rural roads to tiny villages?
Derek Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
If it’s a 4-lane road to a tiny village that provides less in economic benefits than it costs to maintain the road, change it to a 2-lane road, or a 1-lane road.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Oddly enough, a 50 km/h two-laner through a rural area is just basic mobility. The worst roads are the freeways to nowhere of the kind Fresno is building, or very wide freeways through urban areas. Roads are a low-capacity form of transportation; if you need 18 lanes or however many they’re building in Orange County and the Houston suburbs, you should look into public transportation. Will improve air quality, too.
Spokker Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
The Santa Ana freeway, 500 feet wide in some places, is severely congested in the middle of Saturday and Sunday afternoons. The carpool lane is at a standstill as well. When we want to go down to central OC we either take surface streets or just don’t go. We would have taken the light rail had it been built.
Derek Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Congestion, just like any other shortage, means the price “is set below the going rate determined by supply and demand”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_shortage
When we set the price below market equilibrium, we create a shortage, and we throw away money. Is it any wonder why we have traffic congestion and budget problems?
Spokker Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Quite right, but it doesn’t really matter. Attempts to charge the market price to use I-5 will be opposed by groups who believe it will create a two-class system of road users. They envision the rich speeding past the poor surface street users on their own luxury 12-lane highway.
And there are those who believe that charging the market price will be a form of double taxation. “We already pay for the freeway and we have to pay again?” You paid for the freeway but you didn’t pay enough, obviously.
I think the most true thing ever said about most anything is, “You get what you pay for.”
joe Reply:
November 14th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
“Congestion, just like any other shortage, means the price “is set below the going rate determined by supply and demand””
Congestion also means, with equal truth, the price of alternatives is too high. Cut the cost of a monthly transit pass, add service.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 14th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
That’s not really true. If all transportation is free, then all transportation will be congested, unless it’s massively overbuilt.
Spokker Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
I was about a year old when this was published.
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-05-31/local/me-14691_1_santa-ana
“A plan to relieve traffic congestion on the Santa Ana Freeway is likely to displace 346 homes and introduce 30-foot-high guideways for express buses but will mean thousands of new jobs and relief for motorists, according to an environmental review of the proposal.”
What express buses?
Here was the transit component of the plan: “- Provide at least two trains a day for commuter service, in addition to Amtrak’s existing seven-train-per-day service between Los Angeles and San Diego.”
Hahaha.
It would be interesting to see the post-freeway widening analysis. Does one exist?
Spokker Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Goddamn. Where are the NIMBYs when freeways are built?
http://articles.latimes.com/1989-08-25/local/me-1139_1_freeway-expansion
“Ruth Medrano will lose her Anaheim home of 30 years when the Santa Ana Freeway behind her house is widened within the next four years. But, she said, giving up her home and selling her property to the state to make way for the project is all part of Orange County’s growth.
“This is progress. If the freeways have to be widened, they have to be widened,” Medrano said Thursday. “It’s like a bridge. You have to build one to get across water.”
Bitch can’t wait to lose her home. Man, how do you get people like Ruth in rail projects?
Alon Levy Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
Maybe she’s underwater. I doubt people with positive equity have the same “The bypass has got to be built and it is going to be built” attitude toward being eminent-domained at the bottom of the market.
synonymouse Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
How about population stabilization as a solution?
Spokker Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 12:35 am
Are you advocating raising the tax on gasoline to pay for the deficient population stabilization funds?
Peter Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
And how do you propose to do that?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 7:09 am
If you got rid of all the incompetent hacks like the current Authority, you could probably swing that shortfall into a major boost for rail and mass transit on the grounds of cost-effectiveness. On the other hand, with the folks doing things as they are now, anything is going to be overly expensive and of poor quality, which translates into negative PR and doing things more of the same.
joe Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 8:27 am
You think you can fire hacks and turn “a staggering $293.8 billion shortfall in road repair over the next decade” into a major boost for rail and mass transit? Hubris.
Best to spend now when costs for repairs are low and people need work. Focus on bridges, overpasses and roads used by buses so transit can operate efficiently.
Rail and mass transit doesn’t fix deferred maintenance. We’re going to have to pay to repair and pay to reduce use i.e. rail and bus.
synonymouse Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 11:14 am
When hacks produce dysfunctional dreck like the Muni Central Subway, yes, getting rid of them can indeed produce a “major boost for rail and mass transit”.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 11:21 am
Bear in mind, this pricetag of deferred maintenance is based on computations by the road-building industry, and only emerged once the federal government got into a spending mood in 2009. Beforehand, they said nothing about maintenance and repairs and just wanted their gradual expansions. It’s no different from how Amtrak fired David Gunn in 2005 for prioritizing state of good repair over profitability on paper and then cried deferred maintenance in 2009.
joe Reply:
November 14th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Alon;
The National Academies wrote about infrastructure and price tag of deferred costs back in 1984.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=561&page=1
Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure (1984)
I don’t know about Gunn’s circumstances.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 14th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
The Gunn history is that in the early 2000s, Amtrak still clung to the fantasy of becoming profitable with the Acela. Since the Acela bombed (FRA, etc.), it needed to defer maintenance to improve its financial stats. Then-CEO David Gunn opposed that measure and wanted to do proper maintenance, and when the Congressional monkey squad complained about Amtrak subsidies, he shot back asking about airline subsidies.
The road industry thing I’m talking about is a more recent issue – it’s how as soon as the Obama administration mulled over a stimulus, the civil engineers came out and talked about how they needed $4 trillion to fix America’s infrastructure, $4 trillion they did not seem to need in 2007.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 14th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Amtrak being profitable isn’t Amtrak’s fantasy, it’s the fantasy of people who think Dagny Taggart should be running things. The civil engineers have been pointing out the deferred maintenance forever.
” There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 14th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Yes, and in 2005, Amtrak’s management made a decision to pretend to be profitable. Then came 2009 and the tune changed. Maybe the same civil engineers who warned about deferred maintenance then are also pissed about high construction costs now – who knows?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 14th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
You may have noticed that the executive who appoints the manager and the managers changed over the years. Promoting the agenda of the executive is one of the jobs managers perform.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. Jefferson would be pleased with Robert Cruickshank for his attempts to point out misleading information.
I don’t disagree that Jerry Brown could do us all a favor by working as hard on CEQA reform as pension reform. But that being said, there’s an important issue that few people realize.
California is a code-based system of laws. (Most other states do not have separate codices for statutes.) One solution is to effectively destroy the Constitution itself, and replace some of the current statutes with administrative law instead. This would accelerate the speed in which hyper technical material could be decided, especially because there would be little dispute on facts.
However, most other countries that use code-based system do not rely on lawyers to present evidence, leaving that to the judge. It is possible that instead of using administrative courts, California could designate different types of courts to handle such cases.
In other news, we have more evidence of increasing weirdness from the Repugnant Ones:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/08/363599/the-war-on-the-epa-just-got-really-really-weird/
What has happened to the Republican Party? As Garrison Keillor once commented, the Republicans might be a bit nasty, “splashing mud on the populace as they drove by in their Packards,” but they earned respect for understanding a balance sheet and the costs of things. They would have once been considered a useful check on keeping spending under control. But what we’ve been seeing in the last 30 years, and increasingly in the last few is, well. . .crazy. . .
A single source, what can be called “vendor lock” by the technicals here, is not a good thing. We do need at least two viable political parties here for balance, and personally, I think we could use at least one or two more. But when we supposedly have two, and one is acting insane, you have to wonder why this is so. . .and be a bit worried about it. . .
Gary Patton’s comment on the TRANSDEF website is spin worthy of the Bush White House. He somehow finds a significant victory in a ruling on a few technical points, where the actual decsions make clear that he and his co-counsel did a very poor job.
I think it’s becoming obvious that the opponents are running out of arguments. All they have left are fairly minor technical issues, which should be disposed of without a tremendous amount of effort. So the court wants the information on Monterey Highway now. Fine. It would have to be done at some point; doing it now prevents the NIMBY’s from litigating it at the project level.
It’s also obvious, having read both decisions, that the court is running out of patience with the petitioners, and particularly the sloppy work of their counsel. There are numerous places in the decisions where the court points out that the petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof, and in some instances, to present any evidence at all to prove their argument. That clearly is a failure of petitioners’ counsel. There was even one instance where the court stated that the petitioners simply cited a section of the record, and expected the court to figure out for itself which part of the record proved the petitioners’ argument. The court flatly refused to do so, in no uncertain terms. The judge was obviously writing with judicial restraint, but his impatience with petitioners and their lawyers was quite clear.
The HSR opponents are grasping at straws. They know it, their lawyers know it, and most importantly, the court knows it.
StevieB Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 11:37 am
If the goal is to use the environmental reporting to protect the environment then the lawsuits are a failure. If the goal is to delay the project in order to drive up costs and erode public support then the lawsuits are a partial success as costs have gone up.
I think the lawsuit was difficult. That the plaintiffs found fault in South County doesn’t bode well for PAMPA taxpayers. It seems the EIR within their respective cities, the alignment and the design, are within the law.
What outcome are city residents expecting from their participation?
HSR opponents appear like a type of grifter that works off public projects. If that’s the case, it explains their awesome spin and victory dance.
Now to get Kings County to pay into the cause.