CA State Judge Rules Against CAHSR

[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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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 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]

Will or won't the CAHSR get built?

Maybe.

 

[Ryan]

Will or won't the CAHSR get built?

Maybe.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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*.

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.