Judge Declines to Block CAHSR Construction

[CHamilton]

Judge Declines to Block HSR Construction – For Now

Judge Michael Kenny made his long awaited ruling in the case brought by Central Valley high speed rail opponents – and it’s not good. Judge Kenny finds that the California High Speed Rail Authority violated Proposition 1A by not identifying all the funds needed to construct the Initial Operating Segment and by not getting all environmental clearances completed. Judge Kenny is not blocking HSR construction, however, but that issue is not yet settled.

The full article, at a pro-HSR blog, is worth reading, since it sounds like a very complicated ruling.

 

[Daniel]

Here is another summary of the ruling by the Fresno Bee: http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/08/16/3445675/judges-ruling-could-bring-valleys.html. This lawsuit has a chance to stop the project. If Prop 1A funds cannot be used, would the $3.3 in federal funding be redistributed?

 

[CHamilton]

I had trouble getting to the Fresno Bee story -- it might be limited by a firewall. Here's a reprint of the same story: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/16/199632/court-finds-californias-high-speed.html

Here's an AP story. http://www.mercurynews.com/california-high-speed-rail/ci_23880351/judge-california-high-speed-rail-violates-initiative.html

 

[CHamilton]

HSR Needs to Be Built, Not Restarted
California High Speed Rail Blog

...


Revisiting or restarting the HSR project doesn’t mean there will be a perfect alternative chosen. Every project has its tradeoffs. We could risk billions on trying to build a maglev or even a hyperloop. We could run the trains down Interstate 5 and bypass the Valley cities entirely – an incredibly bad idea that wouldn’t save very much money and cost a lot in lost ridership and revenue, but we could do that too if we liked. Any number of other options could be chosen, but those too would have their price in terms of dollars as well as impacts. Each choice might make someone happy but would make someone else unhappy.

It’s also hard to envision critics suddenly changing their tune. They objected when the cost was pegged at $33 billion in 2008 and it’s unlikely any system connecting SF to LA could ever be built for less. They object when the tracks are routed away from farmland through city centers and object when the tracks are routed away from cities through farmland. They object when the tracks are elevated and object when the tracks are at-grade and object to the cost of below-grade solutions.

HSR critics and opponents are not usually driven by a desire to see a different HSR project. They tend to be driven by a desire to not see HSR at all. It’s not something they believe is important and so they see it as something that is expendable, money they believe is being wasted on something unimportant and that should be redirected to something they like.

Since changes to the project won’t appease critics and opponents, and since they’ll likely never be willing to spend the billions it will take to connect SF to LA with high speed rail, the focus ought to instead be on doing what it takes to get this particular HSR project complete. In the absence of Congressional action, California needs to be finding ways to fund the project itself, or at least reduce the amount of federal funds it seeks in the next few years. Developing those solutions ought to be the focus of attention now, not a futile effort to appease the unappeasable.

 

[Steve4031]

Well that about sums it up. Maybe the NIMBYs will get lost.

 

[Blackwolf]

HSR Needs to Be Built, Not Restarted
California High Speed Rail Blog

...


Revisiting or restarting the HSR project doesn’t mean there will be a perfect alternative chosen. Every project has its tradeoffs. We could risk billions on trying to build a maglev or even a hyperloop. We could run the trains down Interstate 5 and bypass the Valley cities entirely – an incredibly bad idea that wouldn’t save very much money and cost a lot in lost ridership and revenue, but we could do that too if we liked. Any number of other options could be chosen, but those too would have their price in terms of dollars as well as impacts. Each choice might make someone happy but would make someone else unhappy.

It’s also hard to envision critics suddenly changing their tune. They objected when the cost was pegged at $33 billion in 2008 and it’s unlikely any system connecting SF to LA could ever be built for less. They object when the tracks are routed away from farmland through city centers and object when the tracks are routed away from cities through farmland. They object when the tracks are elevated and object when the tracks are at-grade and object to the cost of below-grade solutions.

HSR critics and opponents are not usually driven by a desire to see a different HSR project. They tend to be driven by a desire to not see HSR at all. It’s not something they believe is important and so they see it as something that is expendable, money they believe is being wasted on something unimportant and that should be redirected to something they like.

Since changes to the project won’t appease critics and opponents, and since they’ll likely never be willing to spend the billions it will take to connect SF to LA with high speed rail, the focus ought to instead be on doing what it takes to get this particular HSR project complete. In the absence of Congressional action, California needs to be finding ways to fund the project itself, or at least reduce the amount of federal funds it seeks in the next few years. Developing those solutions ought to be the focus of attention now, not a futile effort to appease the unappeasable.

I could not have spoken it better. Very well said.