If you have any interest in this subject, folks, you just have to read this one for yourselves. Trust u.
We haven’t had much to say about our aborning “Bullet Train” and the plans therefor because there hasn’t been much news in that department lately. But the Los Angeles Times of October 21, 2016, at p. B1, Bullet Train’s Capacity Could be Downsized, informs us that we are about to get less bang for our buck. Quoting:
The California bullet train authority has told its design engineers that the future [railroad] system would have shorter trains and smaller station platforms reducing the capacity of individual trains by roughly 50% and potentially the capacity of the entire Los Angeles-to-San Francisco route.
This dispatch says nothing about the — to us — obvious consequence that smaller trains means smaller passenger capacity and therefore lower revenues. Yes?
To borrow Kurt Vonnegut’s favorite line, “and so it goes.”
We haven’t had much to say lately about the California “bullet train” that is planned to run between Los Angeles, and San Francisco in the sweet bye and bye because there hasn’t been much news. Now there is. Today’s Los Angeles Times has an item that is worth noting. Ralph Vartabedian, Bullet Train May Miss Deadline, Jan.28, 2016, p. B 1. Not much for us to say, except to quote the first paragraph of the LA Times story:
“California bullet train could take longer than to build than previously estimated and its ultimate cost is difficult to predict, the head of the high-speed rail authority told state legislators Wednesday.”
This is a good one folks. Another conflict over the California high-speed railroad seems to be developing. Proponents of the railroad argue that future development in the Central Valley will occur near railroad stations, and thus will inhibit sprawl and slow consumption of farm land. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that the railroad will stimulate development, but not necessarily near stations, and therefore will encourage sprawl and consumption of farmland. They point to the experience in France (which has an extensive network of operating high-speed trains) where this has happened.
We don’t take either position, since we lack the gift of prophecy, and your faithful servant is a follower of Yogi Berra who famously said that prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.
In the meantime, a development of 2,432 homes is going up just north of Bakersfield, with projected home prices starting at $250,000, which in Southern California borders on giveaway.
To get the whole story read Ralph Vartabedian, Railing Against Urban Sprawl, L.A. Times, Feb. 24, 2015, at p. A1 (above the fold).
Today’s California newspapers report breathlessly that — ta,da! — work is starting on the delayed bullet train. Ralph Vartabeian, Work Starting on the Bullet Train, L.A. Times, Jan. 5, 2015, p. 1A (above the fold). But before you get all in an uproar and rush out to buy some California Choo-Choo bonds, be advised that nothing has been done yet, and the foo-foo of which Mr. Vartabedian writes will be more in the nature of a ground-breaking ceremony, rather that the start of actual construction. Mr. Vartabedian who impresses us as a knowledgeable dude, adds this:
“But the milestone marked by Tuesday’s ground-breaking ceremony also will serve as a reminder of the enormous financial, technical and political risks still faced by the Los Angeles-to-San Francisco project.
Rail officials haven’t yet lined up the funds needed to complete the initial system over the next 14 years. Construction is starting two years later than the state had promised. Acquisition of private property is going slower than expected. And they have yet to finalize legal agreements with two of the nation’s most powerful private freight railroads that are concerned about how a bullet train network will affect their operations.
To say nothing of the fact that Congress is in the process of being taken over by Republicans who — it says here — are likely to be considerably more inhibited in giving away the federal taxpayers’ money to California to help fund Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown’s California Choo-Choo.
We hear that the California High Speed Rail Authority has finally gotten around to adopting resolutions of public necessity to begin acquiring some three dozen parcels of property for high-speed railroad rights-of-way. Click on http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/12/12/4283181/state-oks-condemnation-for-37.html?sp=/99/406/ So you’d think that everything regarding the right of way and projected rolling stock is all copacetic. Not quite.
It turns out that there is an intramural donnybrook going on as to what kind of rolling stock is to be used and where. One faction wants the high-speed electric trains to run on their own, dedicated special rights of way, while the other wants them to share rights of way (at least in some stretches) with regular, diesel-powered trains. But “the cost of installing an electrical system, buying new electric cars and operating a mixed system of electric and diesel trains is unknown.”
You can read all about this in today’s L.A. Times, in an article by Ralph Vartabedian, Bullet Train to L.A. Poses Issues, Dec. 14, 2014, at p. AA 1.
Our favorite item to come out of this latest kerfuffle is the dispatch that came out in a legislative committee hearing, that “bullet train doors would be 25 inches [that’s over two feet] higher than existing train doors on California’s cars in the Bay Area, where blended service is being planned.” So the high-speed cars could not use the same platforms as the existing trains.
So when will all that wonderful stuff come to pass? Oh, about 2028, or about a 15 years from now, reports the Times. The train is supposed to be operating then between Burbank and Modesto, even though nobody we know contemplates much travel between those two metropolises. And what will it all cost then? We fear that not even God is able to predict that, but being the cynical sort we tend to be when it comes to government projects, there is a distinct possibility that by then California will be broke, so it all may be academic.
“. . . [T]he state has yet to start full-blown, sustained construction of permanent structures — including bridges, tracks and train stations — at least partly because it lacks most of Central Valley land needed for an initial 29-mile segment that will pass through Fresno. The state has acquired 71 of 526 parcels needed for the segment, about 13% of the total, according to figures provided by the California High-Speed Rail Authority.” Ralph Vartabedian, Lack of Land Slows Work on California Bullet Train Project, Los Angeles Times. Aug. 13, 2014.
This passage pretty much speaks for itself, but it and the rest of the article may be misleading to lay readers unacquainted with the law and practices of eminent domain. It quotes the former chief executive of the project that “acquiring land for transportation typically involves property owners trying to squeeze the state for the highest possible value.” That is nonsense.
The idea that individual farmers in the Central Valley can “squeeze” the state is absurd on its face. Indeed, the history of eminent domain is a history of undercompensation of landowners. That is why owners who refuse the state’s offers and litigate value — whether before judges or juries — usually make out better than the ones who accept the state’s offers.
As for that nonsense about farmers “squeezing” the state for the taken land’s highest value, the “highest price” is what California law sets as the measure of just compensation that has to be paid when land is taken by eminent domain. Don’t take our word for it. Check out the California Code of Civil Procedure that provides explicitly in section1263.320 (a) that just compensation is the highest price that the subject property would fetch in a voluntary, private sale transaction between a willing but unpressured seller and a willing but unpressured buyer, both fully aware of the subject property’s good and bad features, including its highest and best use.
Why does the law say that? Because in a voluntary transaction the seller can take his sweet time in marketing the property until he finds a buyer willing to pay top dollar. An eminent domain action deprives him of that ability, so the law provides him with the “highest” price that he could have obtained in a voluntary transaction.
Moreover, the state has the power of taking the property before compensation is finally determined, so owners cannot “squeeze” the condemnor.
We haven’t seen the Court of Appeal opinion yet, but according the LA Times the California Court of Appeal has reversed the trial court’s decision enjoining proceeding with the “bullet train” project. As best as we can figure out, the reason for the reversal was the appellate court’s conclusion that preliminary expenditures (such as the ones being challenged) are OK, with the final budget yet to be determined.
The case is California High-Speed Rail Authority et al. v. The Superior Court of Sacramento County, Ct. App. No. C075668.
A recent headline tells the tale; U.S. House Votes to Stop Funding California High-Speed Rail, by Allen Young, Silicone Valley Business Journal, June 11, 2014. To get the story click on http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/06/11/u-s-house-votes-to-stop-funding-california-high.html?ana=rss_sjo_tabo&page=all
The take-away paragraph is:
“The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation Tuesday to stop federal funding for high-speed rail in California.
“The action is largely ceremonial, however, as the California High-Speed Rail Authority has not requested additional federal funding this year above the stimulus grants the agency is already spending.”
There hasn’t been much to report lately about California’s proposed “bullet train” between Los Angeles and San Francisco. But a dispatch in today’s Los Angele Times avers that the projected cost, has just been increased by one billion dollars.
So let’s review the bidding, as it were. First, California voters were snookered into approving at the polls the issuance of some $9 billion in bonds for that railway, because that’s what their government leaders told them this project would cost. But the first cut of the projected budget took that figure up to over 100 billion. Whereupon our Governor threw a fit, and the projected figure came down t o something like $67 billion. Now it’s up another billion.
So to paraphrase the expression of the late Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen: “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.”
In the meantime everything on the project is in suspended animation until the state Court of Appeal reviews the decision of a trial judge who stopped the project pending completion of this litigation.
So stay tuned.