# Does CAHSR Plan Conform to Prop 1A?



## Ben (Feb 19, 2013)

Does the current CAHSR plan conform to the mandates in Proposition 1A (http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/pdf-guide/suppl-complete-guide.pdf)? There is a lawsuit by Kings County that will be heard in May which claims that the current plan violates several mandates in Prop 1A, including the running time, 200 mph trains, and usable segment. For those knowledgeable about this matter, how do you think the judge will rule on this case?


----------



## Anderson (Feb 19, 2013)

I'd need to see a relatively neutral analysis of the case itself. The main thing that seems to be at issue is how the phases are set up: If I'm guessing right, the "blended operation" at the ends of the route (San Jose-San Francisco in particular) may run afoul of the required times, and there may be an issue with not getting into LAUS. The useable segment bit seems to be pretty dubious other than not reaching LAUS on the first attempt. The strongest argument that they'll have is probably that the state is at a very real risk of getting _something_ running LA-SF that is a bit slower and then more or less throwing up their hands and saying "oops" on the travel times.

To be fair, that's what I sort of expect: They'll timetable 2:40 at some point, but it will be like some of the "fantasy timetables" for the Acelas and Metroliners and get phased back with a shrug. It also seems quite possible that they'll have one or two trains per day at the required speeds and everything else will operate a lot more slowly.


----------



## CHamilton (Feb 19, 2013)

Discussion of this and other lawsuits, from the supporters' point of view, may be found at the California High Speed Rail Blog.


----------



## leemell (Feb 19, 2013)

The LA Times reported a couple of days ago (I don't have the reference), that the CAHSR project has been given the go ahead to start acquiring the ROW properties.


----------



## Ben (Feb 20, 2013)

So how do you think the judge (Michael Kenny) will rule on this matter?


----------



## CHamilton (Mar 20, 2013)

Quentin Kopp Slams Blended Plan, Calls It Violation of Prop 1A


> Yesterday the California High Speed Rail Authority voted to approve the “blended plan” that includes funding for Caltrain modernization and electrification in exchange for HSR trains being able to use those tracks in the interim before more tracks are added. Vice-Chair Lynn Schenk raised concerns about the “blended plan” earlier this month the first time it had come up for a vote.
> 
> Now we learn she isn’t alone in her concern. Former CHSRA board chairman and longtime HSR supporter Quentin Kopp has slammed the blended plan in a court filing, claiming that it violates Prop 1A:



Read the whole article. For those of who haven't been following this issue closely, it gives a good overview of the issues, and the writer's opinons of the court outcomes.


----------



## Nathanael (Apr 7, 2013)

My prediction: It will be concluded that any "violations" of Prop 1A are *not relevant to the Central Valley design* and therefore do not justify issuance of an injunction against Central Valley work.

Because, after all, that is true. The bits where the plans are questionable have nothing to do with the bits where the construction is actually starting.


----------



## leemell (Apr 7, 2013)

The remaining lawsuit was filed by Madera and Merced Counties these grounds. About 4 days ago Madera county dropped out and basically told Merced county that this was an unneeded lawsuit and groundless. Merced is still in.


----------

