CA State Judge Rules Against CAHSR

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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."
 
*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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
Will or won't the CAHSR get built?
Maybe.
Agreed.
There is a 100% chance of it maybe getting built.
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
It's an expedited hearing of whether they'll hear the case I believe.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I hope the frivolous lawsuit by Bakersfield will be thrown out and that Bakersfield will be forced to pay the CHSRA's costs.
 
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.
 
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"
 
Back
Top