# CA State Judge Rules Against CAHSR



## Blackwolf

Not a good day today for the future of California's High-Speed Rail project.



> A Sacramento Superior Court judge on Monday ordered the agency building California’s high-speed rail system to rescind its original funding plan, a decision that figures to halt state bond funding for the $68 billion project until a new plan is put in place.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/11/25/5945785/sacramento-judge-delivers-setback.html#storylink=cpy


http://www.sacbee.com/2013/11/25/5945785/sacramento-judge-delivers-setback.html

There is some discussion and professional doubt on what this means, exactly, or even if this Judge has the legal power to force the halt to bond sales. This stems from the authority to issue bonds lying with the State Legislature alone; having to submit this power from an elected body to a Judge (even a Federal one) would be setting a new precedence that might not be a good one.

Either way, you can bet lawyers on both sides of the issue are working feverishly on what may come next. If CAHSRA has to draft up a brand-new, from scratch funding plan, you can bet we have just been set back another two years. :angry:


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

> Diridon said the validation ruling will allow seven possible challenges to the bonds to go ahead separately rather than in one case. The validation opponents include the plaintiffs in the funding case – Hanford area grower John Tos, homeowner Aaron Fukuda and Kings County. Others were the Kings County Water District and *Citizens for California High-Speed Rail Accountability*, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association,* Union Pacific Railroad*, Eugene Voiland, Kern County and the Free Will Baptist Church.
> 
> Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/11/25/5945785/sacramento-judge-delivers-setback.html#storylink=cpy


Question: Taking these cases to court costs a lot in legal fees, how did the "Plaintiffs" come up with this money? Is UP putting money against CAHSRA? Who puts the money behind the "Citizens for CHSRA Accountability"? To me that sounds like a shadowy PAC that a few millionaires or a company or two play around with. Same thing with the "Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association" is that basically a mini-Cato Institute? Seems like one of those places that just puts out bad data and propaganda to poo-poo any public project that doesn't directly line the pockets of big business.

I'd also like to know where the California and/or local Chamber(s) of Commerce stand on the issue.


----------



## tp49

It was a state court judge who made the ruling, not a federal judge. Maybe the title could be changed to reflect this?


----------



## AlanB

tp49 said:


> It was a state court judge who made the ruling, not a federal judge. Maybe the title could be changed to reflect this?


Done!


----------



## CHamilton

The California HSR Blog posted their take on the ruling.

Judge Makes Unfavorable Ruling – But What Does It Mean For Project?


----------



## CHamilton

From Bloomberg:

California High-Speed Rail Bond Sale Rejected by Judge


----------



## George Harris

It seems like the anti's have an unlimited source of funds. *That* is what should be investigated.


----------



## tp49

I'm sure CalHSR is working on the Notice of Appeal as we speak and they'll take their chances in appellate review. Will be interesting to see how the Court of Appeal rules.


----------



## Andrew

If the CAHSR does not get built, can some of the money provided by the Obama Administration go instead to the Northeast Corridor, such as for the Gateway Project?


----------



## AlanB

If the CA money were to go someplace else, which is a long ways from happening, it wouldn't go to Gateway. Gateway isn't shovel ready and won't be for years. It could however go to the Portal Bridge replacement project which is almost ready to go.

Not saying that it would go there, but some money just might go there.


----------



## Andrew

How likely is that to occur?


----------



## AlanB

Andrew said:


> How likely is that to occur?


What?


----------



## Andrew

CAHSR Money gets redistributed to Amtrak's Northeast Corridor?


----------



## AlanB

Maybe a 5% chance at present is my guess.


----------



## PRR 60

Maybe it could be used for the Gateway Project! 

Upon further review, maybe not. Rats.


----------



## GG-1

PRR 60 said:


> Maybe it could be used for the Gateway Project!
> 
> Upon further review, maybe not. Rats.


Gibbs Slap

Aloha


----------



## CHamilton

The California High Speed Rail Blog says

High Speed Rail’s Not Dead Yet

Despite the flippant opening, the post is quite a detailed analysis of the history and status of the project. Whether or not you agree with their viewpoint, it's worth reading.


----------



## Paulus

All of this is a self-inflicted injury by the Authority insisting on incompetence and corruption for the contractors. Hopefully some degree of sanity (there are a few signs of it) will result in private investment showing up (and preferably taking over).


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Paulus said:


> All of this is a self-inflicted injury by the Authority insisting on incompetence and corruption for the contractors. Hopefully some degree of sanity (there are a few signs of it) will result in private investment showing up (and preferably taking over).


What serious private investment that isn't already on the table?

Hand CAHSR over to the private sector and you can take that shovel and bury the project. They'll milk as much as they can out of it and wait until it fades away, then cancel it and the media will call it a failure from the start, thrusting blame to the government.


----------



## Blackwolf

Sacramento Bee editorial piece: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/11/27/5949729/editorial-high-speed-rail-proceeds.html


----------



## tp49

Dan Walters who covers the Capitol for the Sac Bee also had a piece in today's paper about the CaHSR court decision: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/11/26/5949966/dan-walters-california-bullet.html


----------



## Daniel

What are the chances that the state legislature now appropriates the $2.7 billion matching funds from its own budget?


----------



## CHamilton

Is Cap-and-Trade California HSR’s Savior?

HIGH SPEED RAIL DECISION: VICTORY FOR RULE OF LAW


----------



## CHamilton

California Bullet-Train Contract Imperiled by Regulators


> The California High-Speed Rail Authority, the only bullet-train builder in the U.S., may have to renegotiate a $1 billion construction contract after a federal regulator refused to grant early approval for a 114-mile segment.


----------



## Shawn Ryu

RIP CA HSR

No way around it. America does not want HSR.

So disillusioned by people and the government of this country. All about them, never about the good of the country.


----------



## CHamilton

California High-Speed Rail Officials Say Plan is On Schedule




> California high-speed rail officials sought to allay concerns about the future of the project Thursday after a series of legal and regulatory rulings that appear to jeopardize some parts of the $68 billion plan.
> 
> Despite the recent setbacks, they said engineering work and state hiring are on pace and that construction will begin in the new year using federal money.
> 
> At a meeting of the board that oversees the California High-Speed Rail Authority, board members voted in closed session to start work on a new request for blanket approval from the courts to sell $8.6 billion in voter-approved bonds, after a Sacramento County judge denied such a request last week.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Cap-and-trade is a massive fraud, will do no benefit from the environment and only lines the pockets of polluters.

Sadly American railroads forgot that they owe their existance to massive land subsidized grants (including 1,000,000 acres completely free under Lincoln) and, unless they wish to rescind their ROWs to the First Nations, should invest HSR.


----------



## AlanB

ALC Rail Writer said:


> Sadly American railroads forgot that they owe their existance to massive land subsidized grants (including 1,000,000 acres completely free under Lincoln) and, unless they wish to rescind their ROWs to the First Nations, should invest HSR.


The Fed marked those land grants paid in full after WW II to thank the RR's for their war efforts in WW I & WW II.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

AlanB said:


> ALC Rail Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly American railroads forgot that they owe their existance to massive land subsidized grants (including 1,000,000 acres completely free under Lincoln) and, unless they wish to rescind their ROWs to the First Nations, should invest HSR.
> 
> 
> 
> The Fed marked those land grants paid in full after WW II to thank the RR's for their war efforts in WW I & WW II.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact that their literal foundation was a combination of subsidies, giveaways, and political favors. I'd argue that requires a moral obligation to continue to provide service to the people. Their foundation is also the result of much backbreaking work by our ancestors who were underpaid, underfed and generally mistreated (hence 1877 and the unionization, and the subsequent violence against unions) further entitles the people to modern passanger transport on these lines for as long as these lines exist.

One could also consider HSR investment a way of making up for carbon emissions as well. While HSR and all techno-fixes are not solutions to the climate's problems, it is an intermediary step.


----------



## Trogdor

ALC Rail Writer said:


> Doesn't change the fact that their literal foundation was a combination of subsidies, giveaways, and political favors. I'd argue that requires a moral obligation to continue to provide service to the people. Their foundation is also the result of much backbreaking work by our ancestors who were underpaid, underfed and generally mistreated (hence 1877 and the unionization, and the subsequent violence against unions) further entitles the people to modern passanger transport on these lines for as long as these lines exist.


If you're going to make that claim, then you basically have to make that claim about virtually every other industry that exists in the United States, including right up to the present day. Even today you have large corporations making large profits while underpaying and mistreating those that work for them.

If you're going to say that the railroads' options are build HSR, or rescind their rights of way to the first nations/Native Americans, then why should even HSR absolve them of the duty to give back the land to the folks that were here long ago? For that matter, why shouldn't virtually all land on the North American continent be given back to them?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Trogdor said:


> ALC Rail Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't change the fact that their literal foundation was a combination of subsidies, giveaways, and political favors. I'd argue that requires a moral obligation to continue to provide service to the people. Their foundation is also the result of much backbreaking work by our ancestors who were underpaid, underfed and generally mistreated (hence 1877 and the unionization, and the subsequent violence against unions) further entitles the people to modern passanger transport on these lines for as long as these lines exist.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to make that claim, then you basically have to make that claim about virtually every other industry that exists in the United States, including right up to the present day. Even today you have large corporations making large profits while underpaying and mistreating those that work for them.
> 
> If you're going to say that the railroads' options are build HSR, or rescind their rights of way to the first nations/Native Americans, then why should even HSR absolve them of the duty to give back the land to the folks that were here long ago? For that matter, why shouldn't virtually all land on the North American continent be given back to them?
Click to expand...

I do make that claim. I wouldn't be naive as to think only large corporations/companies/monied interest of the past engaged in systemic fraud, corruption and general thuggery and that modern ones are beneficent entities. In fact I contend the opposite is true, that things are becomming more perverse. The state of labor and pollution in Asia today is proof that things as they are cannot continue.

My belief stands that a buisness which owes its existence to the resources of a people (including natives, immigrants, labor etc) they have a fundamental obligation to return a major portion of their profits back over to the people. So no I do not believe that the railroad industry can summarily dismiss the debt it incurred through legislation or action on the part of the central bank... It may be integrated legalized fraud, corruption and abuse but it is what it is and will require some form of retribution, at least if you want to be ethical about it.

The ethical thing for the railroads to do is to invest in producing more, faster passanger service in North America. I don't pretend that this is a practical, since practical is synonymous with profitable, but it is what should be happening.


----------



## Trogdor

ALC Rail Writer said:


> The ethical thing for the railroads to do is to invest in producing more, faster passanger service in North America. I don't pretend that this is a practical, since practical is synonymous with profitable, but it is what should be happening.


But why is that more ethical than just giving the land back?


----------



## Anderson

Trogdor said:


> ALC Rail Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ethical thing for the railroads to do is to invest in producing more, faster passanger service in North America. I don't pretend that this is a practical, since practical is synonymous with profitable, but it is what should be happening.
> 
> 
> 
> But why is that more ethical than just giving the land back?
Click to expand...

Though it's situational, I think you could seriously argue that providing a service that would make more developed areas accessible from reservations and vice-versa would have a greater benefit to the tribes. Given that the value of a lot of that land isn't very great (you have a lot of land that's really only grazing land, for example), doing something to increase the value and/or quality of life on the existing land would likely be of greater benefit than returning "more of the same" land to them.

There's also a point of practicality...a lot of the initial land grants have changed hands, some multiple times, so a lot of the land isn't even the railroads' to return anyway.


----------



## Tokkyu40

Shawn Ryu said:


> RIP CA HSR
> 
> No way around it. America does not want HSR.
> 
> So disillusioned by people and the government of this country. All about them, never about the good of the country.


Even in California, after all the negative political work by Wendell Cox and his friends, the majority of Californians would vote for HSR again. Americans want high speed rail. Politicians and special interests don't.

We pay for rail because transportation is the life blood of any economy, unless you want to run the 21st century from horse back. Government has a duty to provide for public safety (the army and the courts) and economic growth to pay for public safety (transportation infrastructure).

The rail project could be done a lot smarter, but the people with a mindset to do it are fighting to kill it because it might compete with highway subsidies. Apparently, the purpose of politics is to make it difficult to run the country.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Trogdor said:


> ALC Rail Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ethical thing for the railroads to do is to invest in producing more, faster passanger service in North America. I don't pretend that this is a practical, since practical is synonymous with profitable, but it is what should be happening.
> 
> 
> 
> But why is that more ethical than just giving the land back?
Click to expand...

Anderson makes several good points. I'll add my own reasons:

My approach to this is similar to my view on Isreal and Palestine, you can't change the future you can only try and coexist in the now. What form that coexistance takes (the domination of one and subordination or the other, or with both as equals or anything non zero-sum) is up to the parties. Generally speaking it is impractical to ask 300 million Americans (many of whom now share a small percentage of NA ancestory) to return to countries that they would be considered "foreigners" in. More land grants are necesary, we need to do more to recognize the nations, but more importantly we need to be more honest about our history and our economic policies in considering how to restructure the country for the 21st Century. Those who do not learn their history, after all...

That being said my original threat to give the land back was semi-sarcastic, though I think it would achieve that effect.

More on-topic the Class I freight railroads have been the benefactor of many government (the alleged people's body) programs and in return the public has gotten a wonderful freight-rail system and crap for passanger rail, even though there is an obvious demand for it (even if it is a niche market in the LD sector). I don't think it is unreasonable to demand these companies get out of the way of HSR development, even if it is under penalty of land reclaimation lol...

As I said neither practical nor probable, but ethical.


----------



## Andrew

Will or won't the CAHSR get built?


----------



## Trogdor

Andrew said:


> Will or won't the CAHSR get built?


Maybe.


----------



## Ryan

Trogdor said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will or won't the CAHSR get built?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
There is a 100% chance of it maybe getting built.


----------



## Trogdor

I think the real question is, will it get built before or after phase 3 of the gateway project.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

What constitutes being "built"? They may get around to laying that first bit of track, that might satsify enough people.


----------



## Tokkyu40

> ALC Rail Writer:"More on-topic the Class I freight railroads have been the benefactor of many government (the alleged people's body) programs and in return the public has gotten a wonderful freight-rail system and crap for passenger rail, even though there is an obvious demand for it (even if it is a niche market in the LD sector)."


Not so much "niche" as "underdeveloped". There is enough demand turned away on the LA - San Antonio route to justify a daily train instead of a thrice-weakly. (Yes, I spelled that right. I'm not impressed by the level of service)

But if you run daily then the schedule will meet more people's needs. Enough to run a second train each day, serving those markets where trains run at inconvenient or impossible times. How many people want to catch a train at 2:00 am?

Theres no way of knowing what the final market level is until we first meet the existing demands.


----------



## jis

The existing demand is at what fare level? Of course there could be huge demand if everyone was offered a free ride. OTOH, I suspect the demand would probably be miniscule if fares were set at a level that would cover all costs. The question is of finding the optimum fare level such that there is reasonable demand at least to fill one train and to have source of funding to cover the difference as a starter.

Arguments about desirability of the service and the desirability of the costs being covered by various government or other sources are good ones to have. But none of that changes the basic elasticity of demand based on cost of service.


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> The existing demand is at what fare level? Of course there could be huge demand if everyone was offered a free ride. OTOH, I suspect the demand would probably be miniscule if fares were set at a level that would cover all costs. The question is of finding the optimum fare level such that there is reasonable demand at least to fill one train and to have source of funding to cover the difference as a starter.
> 
> Arguments about desirability of the service and the desirability of the costs being covered by various government or other sources are good ones to have. But none of that changes the basic elasticity of demand based on cost of service.


 Furthermore, you have to take into account changing demographics. The overall population is growing, and it is not growing at an equal rate across all areas, but certain areas are seeing much more growth than others. Look at places like Houston for example, that have gone from being provincial backwaters some 40 years ago to boom cities today, with population up something like 10-fold. Yet this development seems to have caught the planners unaware. Houses were built over acres and acres of what was once farmland, and extra lanes tacked onto highways. That's the sort of planning that works in small towns and works in medium towns but fails to scale for a big metropolis. It feels as if small town politicians are trying to run a big city. Such cities are feeling more and more that they are not really able to become world class cities if they don't start taking transportation planning more seriously. Just because some rail route was abandoned because it was unwanted and underutilized some 40 or 50 years ago, one should not assume that it would still be unwanted and unitilized if put back today. Demand is growing in places where not very long ago it didn't exist. You can of course debate who should pay to meet that demand. Can the private sector do it unaided? If subsidies and support are required, how much and from where? What is the appropriate timescale for realization? But these discussions are secondary to recognizing that demand exists and a serious debate needs to be opened.


----------



## Daniel

So any word on whether the FRA may pull back the federal funds for the project, considering the trial result?


----------



## Nathanael

Diridion quite accurately referred to this nonsense as "filibustering".

These rulings aren't going to have any effect whatsoever; they are "Come back with some more pieces of paper" rulings, not substantive rulings against the project.


----------



## Nathanael

Daniel said:


> So any word on whether the FRA may pull back the federal funds for the project, considering the trial result?


Zero chance. Unless someone with an anti-California bias has the ear of Foxx, which I don't think is the case.


----------



## Nathanael

Daniel said:


> What are the chances that the state legislature now appropriates the $2.7 billion matching funds from its own budget?


High. More likely is that the legislature will amend Prop 1A to remove the various requirements which are holding up the bond issuance and spending -- after all, *the legislature can do that*.


----------



## Paulus

Nathanael said:


> Daniel said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are the chances that the state legislature now appropriates the $2.7 billion matching funds from its own budget?
> 
> 
> 
> High. More likely is that the legislature will amend Prop 1A to remove the various requirements which are holding up the bond issuance and spending -- after all, *the legislature can do that*.
Click to expand...

Not without resubmitting it to the voters as I recall.


----------



## leemell

Gov. Brown in his budget to be released this Friday is going to propose using Cap and Trade income to support the CAHSR initially at $250M a year.This was reported in LA Times article. Cap and Trade funds available are expect to increase in subsequent years. This will probably help the CAHSR satisfy the Fresno Judge.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

From Politico's Morning Transportation Report of 1/17/14:



> As promised, T&I rail panel Chairman Jeff Denham and a number of Golden State Republicans have introduced legislation blocking federal funds for the high-speed rail project until the state shows it has the matching money. A judge recently blocked the sale of billions of dollars in bonds that the state was going to use as a match for the federal stimulus dollars - $180 million is due in April. Other top California GOPers on the bill include Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon and Oversight Chair Darrell Issa.



Here is a link to Denham's legislation.


----------



## Tokkyu40

jis said:


> The existing demand is at what fare level? Of course there could be huge demand if everyone was offered a free ride. OTOH, I suspect the demand would probably be miniscule if fares were set at a level that would cover all costs...


When long distance routes have been cut in the past to reduce costs the losses have increased. This indicates that, regardless of Amtrak's lack of serious accounting, the long distance trains already cover their own costs and return a profit. But we aren't running enough trains to cover the overhead of maintenance heavy routes like the NEC. Since the demand is already there for more trains at the current prices, maybe something should be done to improve service to meet existing demand.

Independent analysis claims that if the train is allowed to be built from Fresno to LA the HSR will cover all the operating costs. I expect it to be at least as successful as other HSR projects if permitted.

California is now talking about borrowing the budget surplus to keep the construction moving. It would be rather humorous if the activist judge tried to kill the train by blocking the sale of bonds and the line was finished before they were sold.


----------



## tp49

I think the characterization of the judge as an activist judge is unfair, uncalled for and outright incorrect. CalHSR needs to stop sidestepping the requirements of the ballot measure that was passed in order to float the bonds to fund HSR in the first place. It would be advantageous for CalHSR to get their act together.

Additionally, the state has appealed the judge's decision straight to the California Supreme Court.

http://www.news10.net/news/california/article/269406/430/California-high-court-asked-about-high-speed-rail-case

We'll see what they have to say on the judge's ruling.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

tp49 said:


> I think the characterization of the judge as an activist judge is unfair, uncalled for and outright incorrect.


When the paperwork is done we'll know if this is activist judge or not. Either he'll get out of the way or he won't.


----------



## tp49

Devil's Advocate said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the characterization of the judge as an activist judge is unfair, uncalled for and outright incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> When the paperwork is done we'll know if this is activist judge or not. Either he'll get out of the way or he won't.
Click to expand...

Just because you do not like a decision does not make it judicial activism. Judicial activism is defined as where a judge allows their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decision. I don't see that in this case. What I do see is an HSR agency that needs to follow the requirements of the bond issue we the voters of California passed in 2008. I support HSR but I also think they need to follow the legal framework required by the ballot measure. However, we'll see what (if anything as they can deny the petition for review) Cal Supreme has to say about it.


----------



## leemell

The CAHSR blog said this about the ruling and appeal.

"In short, because the first funding plan was designed to inform the Legislature when they debated whether to release the bond funds – which they did in July 2012 – that funding plan doesn’t have to be revised since it’s no longer needed. The Authority is already updating its business plan, including the financing plan, for future purposes and that will likely address questions of future federal funding. But that shouldn’t invalidate bond sales because, as Judge Kenny found, the Legislature already authorized it, was free to do so, and that authorization is not rescinded."


----------



## Anderson

*sighs*
I know some of this is Monday-morning quarterbacking, but:
(1) It seems that the initial proposition may have simply been unfulfillable, at least as things have played out. While an LA-SF service seems likely to be profitable, one focused in the Central Valley without a BFD-LAX connection is a lot more problematic. Requiring the intermediate steps to be profitable was probably a non-starter.
(2) This was, of course, compounded by the decision to start "somewhere" in the Central Valley. We've spent about four years now watching as they hemmed and hawed about which section(s) of the line to build first, as a disaster of a business plan had to be thrown out, etc. The main problem here is that adding that line might add slots BFD-EMY/SAC, and it might improve travel times, but it's likely to do very little for tapping into the LA-SF market that is ultimately the key here. The bus transfer won't cut it, either.

To comply with the terms of the referendum in terms of profitability, the only way is likely to get access from BFD-LAX. Now, it might be plausible to do only the Central Valley segments as a starter if you could somehow "do a deal" to run a bunch of trains through to LAX via Tehachapi. The odds of that seem slim to non-existent, however (you'd probably be looking at a few billion for the access rights).

In short, the problem is ultimately that CAHSR is being forced to comply with a borderline impossible mandate. If the Feds were helping out on getting from Palmdale to Bakersfield (the worst part of the gap), that would be one thing. But no money seems to be forthcoming on that front now.

Edit: And it doesn't seem like more money is really available from the state of California, either, considering the financial situation there.


----------



## leemell

Actually, California's financial situation was quite good for last year and next year looks better. That is why Gov. Brown has added a "rainy day" fund to his budget for $1.6B to start next year with more added in subsequent years. In addition, it is balanced, despite additional spending over prior years.


----------



## Anderson

leemell said:


> Actually, California's financial situation was quite good for last year and next year looks better. That is why Gov. Brown has added a "rainy day" fund to his budget for $1.6B to start next year with more added in subsequent years. In addition, it is balanced, despite additional spending over prior years.


Really? That's a change from previous years...I'm used to the last 10-15 years of "the sky is falling" coming from out of there. I wonder...if the state were to commit a large block of "supplemental" funding to the HSR programme, would that be enough to kill off the "lack of funding sources" argument over the plan? And as a supplement to that, how much opposition would there be to such funding? From what I can tell, almost all the resistance is coming from the GOP, but given the math in the legislature (i.e. the GOP's irrelevance therein, the Dems having 55/80 in the House and 29/40 in the Senate) it would seem at least possible that the Dems could jam something through.


----------



## Tokkyu40

It's very much changed from former years, yes. The improving economy and rising real estate prices have increased revenues enough that we've achieved a surplus this year.
I can see the legislature using the surplus to fund some long term low interest loans to run a single track line over Tehachapi to make the connection in to the LA area and start running trains, then expand the line as the customer base picks up.
Independent auditors claim that there should be enough traffic to make Fresno-Burbank a profitable segment.


----------



## Guest

RyanS said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will or won't the CAHSR get built?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> There is a 100% chance of it maybe getting built.
Click to expand...

CA will need some means of getting people around when the highways turn into parking lots in metro areas. One double-track rail line can carry as many people per hour as a ten-lane expressway. How many voters would want a super-highway like that in their back yard? Cost per mile to build HSR is also less than an all-new highway.


----------



## Anderson

I can actually buy that. Fresno (or Bakersfield) would allow a San Joaquin transfer (or a "toaster pop" if your equipment can attach a diesel locomotive and run at the diesel's full speed...I'd assume an EMD-125...if you even electrify the line for now). Burbank can easily be set up for a Metrolink/Surfliner transfer to get downtown (though I stand by the benefits of getting into LAUS). I guess it's really just a matter of getting a connection between Bakersfield and Palmdale in some form and going from there.



Tokkyu40 said:


> It's very much changed from former years, yes. The improving economy and rising real estate prices have increased revenues enough that we've achieved a surplus this year.
> I can see the legislature using the surplus to fund some long term low interest loans to run a single track line over Tehachapi to make the connection in to the LA area and start running trains, then expand the line as the customer base picks up.
> Independent auditors claim that there should be enough traffic to make Fresno-Burbank a profitable segment.


----------



## Tokkyu40

It looks like Burbank is being built up as the new transportation hub for the area, so it's being sold as the natural first terminal. After the other end reaches Frisco it will be time to finalize the route to San Diego.
Of course, by that time I'll have retired and will be in Oklahoma complaining that the commuter line from OKC stops in Tulsa.


----------



## Anderson

This question is only partly serious, but given all the problems with the 1A authorization, why doesn't the state simply not use that money (or not use it now) and issue less restricted bonds as an end-run? I suspect the prospecti would be almost identical between two bond issues, but issuing "fresh" bonds and signaling an intent not to use the 1A money would seem to get around all the problems that pot of money has had.


----------



## Blackwolf

The California State Supreme Court has declined to take the case as desired by the Pro-HSR State government, but has instead ordered the lower Appellate court to hear the case.

http://www.kcra.com/news/appellate-court-will-hear-highspeed-rail-case/-/11797728/24184070/-/7yv9s2/-/index.html


----------



## Paulus

Anderson said:


> This question is only partly serious, but given all the problems with the 1A authorization, why doesn't the state simply not use that money (or not use it now) and issue less restricted bonds as an end-run? I suspect the prospecti would be almost identical between two bond issues, but issuing "fresh" bonds and signaling an intent not to use the 1A money would seem to get around all the problems that pot of money has had.


Bond measures require voter authorization.


----------



## leemell

Blackwolf said:


> The California State Supreme Court has declined to take the case as desired by the Pro-HSR State government, but has instead ordered the lower Appellate court to hear the case.
> 
> http://www.kcra.com/news/appellate-court-will-hear-highspeed-rail-case/-/11797728/24184070/-/7yv9s2/-/index.html


But the court is forcing a expedited hearing. Written arguments must be submitted to the Appellate Court by Feb. 10th. That is very fast for a court case.


----------



## Paulus

leemell said:


> Blackwolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> The California State Supreme Court has declined to take the case as desired by the Pro-HSR State government, but has instead ordered the lower Appellate court to hear the case.
> 
> http://www.kcra.com/news/appellate-court-will-hear-highspeed-rail-case/-/11797728/24184070/-/7yv9s2/-/index.html
> 
> 
> 
> But the court is forcing a expedited hearing. Written arguments must be submitted to the Appellate Court by Feb. 10th. That is very fast for a court case.
Click to expand...

It's an expedited hearing of whether they'll hear the case I believe.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Every country has the same problem with endless red tape we do. That's why no other country on earth has built any high speed rail over the last half century. Wasn't that the story someone was posting yesterday about Texas? Seems to be just as applicable here.


----------



## leemell

Nah, it is a review. From the LA Times:

In a brief order signed by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, the state high court transferred a challenge to the rulings by Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration to the intermediate Court of Appeal in Sacramento and ordered written arguments to be completed by Feb. 10.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority asked the state Supreme Court late Friday to block the rulings by March 1, warning they could indefinitely delay construction of the rail project between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

The court, meeting in closed session, declined to put the rulings on hold pending review, but ordered an expedited review that is likely to result in a swift ruling.


----------



## GG-1

Aloha

On Friday A friend gave me a copy of the January 25 edition of "Construction Equipment Guide because there was an article on CHSR.

After reading the article I did an internet search of their article. Here is the search page http://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/pages/archives/?textfield=Bullet%20train Some good reading there.


----------



## beautifulplanet

Positive news for California High-Speed Rail:

Calif. high-speed rail given funding extension
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2014/02/23/2941256/high-speed-rail-given-extension.html#storylink=cpy

or here at Los Angeles Times

Federal authorities give bullet train agency more time to raise cash

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bullet-train-extension-20140221,0,142691.story#axzz2uAFaiP3K

It may seem like if in the following the courts make decisions that reject previous anti-rail rulings, and if the legislature approves the 250$ million for high-speed rail out of the Cap-and-Trade funds, then everything looks quite good for the whole project to proceed quickly.


----------



## CHamilton

Bakersfield City Council to sue to stop high-speed rail plan



> Nineteen months after authorizing a lawsuit against the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the Bakersfield City Council reaffirmed that plan late Wednesday, authorizing the city attorney to sue to stop the multibillion-dollar bullet train.
> 
> "The City Council reaffirmed its directive of 2012 and authorized the City Attorney to file a (California Environmental Quality Act) lawsuit in connection with the EIR/EIS on the Fresno-to-Bakersfield alignment certified recently by the high-speed rail authority," City Attorney Ginny Gennaro said.
> 
> The council's vote, Gennaro said, was 6-1 to sue.
> 
> At issue are the environmental impact report and environmental impact statement for the project, which the CHSRA board approved unanimously May 7.


----------



## neroden

I hope the frivolous lawsuit by Bakersfield will be thrown out and that Bakersfield will be forced to pay the CHSRA's costs.


----------



## CHamilton

State argues right to sell high-speed rail bonds


> SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Two lower court rulings that have complicated efforts to begin construction on California's $68 billion high-speed rail system are premature and should be overturned, attorneys for the state argued before an appellate court panel Friday.
> 
> The arguments come after Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny ruled that the bullet train project no longer complies with the promises made to voters when they approved selling nearly $10 billion in bonds in 2008. Kenny's rulings last November invalidated the sale of $8.6 billion in state bonds and required the state to write a new funding plan.
> 
> The lawsuits filed by Kings County and landowners there are premature because the state is not yet seeking to spend any of the bond money and only the state Legislature can determine whether there was enough detail in the funding plan, Deputy Attorney General Ross Moody told a three-judge panel of the California 3rd District Court of Appeal.


----------



## leemell

This article in the LA Times tells of the Judges actions at the arguments yesterday in the Court of Appeals.

"Appeals court has tough questions for plaintiffs in bullet-train suit"


----------



## beautifulplanet

One of the many current legal disputes was decided in favor of the California High-Speed Rail Authority - it can start carrying out soil work now:

High speed rail wins Kings County court case
By John Lindt
2:29 p.m. PDT May 23, 2014

http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/story/news/local/2014/05/23/high-speed-rail-wins-kings-county-court-case/9507667/


----------



## Blackwolf

*BREAKING NEWS*

"California High-Speed Rail Prevails in Third Appellate District Court of Appeals"



> Substantial legal questions loom in the trial court as to whether the high-speed rail project the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) seeks to build is the project approved by the voters in 2008. Substantial financial and environmental questions remain to be answered by the Authority in the final funding plan the voters required for each corridor or usable segment of the project. (Sts. & Hy. Code, § 2704.08, subd. (d).)1
> 
> But those questions are not before us in these validation and mandamus proceedings.
> 
> The scope of our decision is quite narrow. Applying time-honored principles of statutory construction, separation of powers, and the availability of extraordinary writ relief, we conclude:
> 
> 1. Contrary to the trial court’s determination, the High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee properly found that issuance of bonds for the project was necessary or desirable.
> 
> 2. The preliminary section 2704.08, subdivision © funding plan was intended to provide guidance to the Legislature in acting on the Authority’s appropriation request. Because the Legislature appropriated bond proceeds following receipt of the preliminary funding plan approved by the Authority, the preliminary funding plan has served its purpose. A writ of mandamus will not lie to compel the idle act of rescinding and redoing it.
> 
> *We therefore will issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to enter judgment validating the authorization of the bond issuance for purposes of the 2008 voter approved Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act. (Bond Act)*


http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C075668.PDF


----------



## afigg

San Jose Mercury News article on the court decision: California high-speed rail project wins big in appellate court ruling. Lawsuits from opponents of the CA HSR project will continue, but it does not appear that they will be able to block the sale of $8.6 billion in bonds to fund the early stages of the HSR project. Unlikely IMO that the state Supreme Court would overturn the appellate court. Excerpt:



> SACRAMENTO -- In a huge victory for Gov. Jerry Brown, a panel of appellate court judges Thursday gave its blessing to the state's bullet train funding plan, paving the way for California to sell $8.6 billion in bonds it needs to construct the controversial San Francisco-to-Los Angeles rail line.
> 
> Opponents of the train had argued that the state needed to show how it would pay for the $68 billion project before it begins construction -- and with only a fraction of that funding in hand, doing so would have been impossible.
> 
> A Sacramento Superior Court judge late last year shocked high-speed rail officials when he ruled in favor of Kings County farmers and residents who had filed suit against the state to stop the bullet train. But in a unanimous decision issued late Thursday afternoon, the 3rd District Court of Appeal's three-judge panel ordered Judge Michael Kinney to vacate his decision.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

It'll pay for it via taxes and bonds. What were they hoping for, a money tree?


----------



## Paulus

Green Maned Lion said:


> It'll pay for it via taxes and bonds. What were they hoping for, a money tree?


Having outside funds and a somewhat realistic funding plan was a legal requirement of the bond measure in order for them to be sold.


----------



## CHamilton

The California HSR Blog's take on the above ruling.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

They have outside funds from the Feds. A realistic funding plan in this country for long term projects involves kicking the can down the road. Hoping for sustained funding dedicated from ANYWHERE is unrealistic. We don't have a realistic financial system- realistic funding over $10b for anything useful (not, for instance, Ford class aircraft carriers or Littoral Combat Ships) just doesn't exist.

The time honored model for building useful infrastructure was created by Robert Moses. You get the shovel in the ground and start digging with whatever money you can find. You use the very mechanism that requires this (no business sense in the government) to exploit the fact that politicians don't understand the fallacy of sunk cost to keep the project going under its own bloated weight.

It's an awful and overpriced way to do it. But if you want the project built, it's the only 'realistic' way to do it.


----------

