That lawsuit won’t have any legs, I agree that they shouldn’t try sharing tracks with conventional trains nor subsidizing their track work with HSR money but that was probably a short-lived concession to keep cost estimates down, and I doubt a judge will rule on the timing issue before it is built.
Quentin Kopp is a retired judge, and familiar with Proposition 1A and the HSR plan. He thinks the lawsuit does “have legs.” What makes you so confident it does not?
I am a Political Economist by trade but when I was starting out taught several courses about the US judicial system. It is just my opinion, but I do not see a judge countenancing such an argument. First is the issue of standing (how will you be harmed by a difference of a few MPH at the very beginning) but more importantly, the intent of the opponents is to stop HSR from being built, not to quibble about timing long before it is built, and judges do not like disingenuousness nor to be used.
The CAHSR plan calls or a dedicated HSR line parallel to the Palmdale-LA Union Station line. The “non-electrification” issue is a distortion. The plan allows the San Joaquin Service to use the new line in the interim between the time the track is completed and start-up of electrified HSR service. If blending the San Jose-SF service does not do undue harm, is there a real problem? It seems that the major problem might have been promising money to BART, Muni, etc.
Seems reasonable. In Germany even the dedicated HSR tracks blend into regular track approaching major cities, with only some loss of overall time and a great savings in acquiring land. However, those urban approach tracks still allow fairly high speeds, at least that was my impression when riding.
Gee — I cannot believe the smoke that is occurring over the Bakersfield - Merced segment being first to be built. No one has attempted to look at the operational side so here is one possible way.
If The HSR line between those 2 stops is contracted properly the full line trackage should be ready within 6 months of the first section of this segment completed. Then the San Joaquins could use that trackage using the new locos that AMTRAK is going to order capable of 125 MPH. The 5 intermediate stops at ~~ 169 miles probably would be timed at 2;30 vs the present 3;00 +. That is considering some slow orders for CAT installation. If no installation probably 2;15.
Once all CAT in place on this segment then testing and initial service useage can start. 1st if the 100 road miles LAX - BFD starts train service then the 2;20 + bus trip will become what was the desert wind’s timing. Whatever is started after all trips (bus & possible train ) to BFD arrive the San Joaquin service could start with the diesel going non-stop to Merced ( MCD ) ( 170 miles ) and a HSR train could make all the stops and both meet again at Merced. The diesel would make it non-stop in ~ 90 minutes which the HSR train could match with its stops. That cuts san joaquins trip times by 90 minutes. LAX - SACRAMENTO ( 7;00 ) / Oakland ( 7;10 ). Not great but better than the Starlight. Intermediate stops outside of BFD - MCD would also benefit from this 1;30 savings.
The HSR train sets get a break in period and any problems can be solved before commiting to regular service.
Once the HSR units are proven then non stop HSR can be initiated BFD - MCD and the diesel units can make the 5 intermediate stops and connect with 1ST AT BFD and a second hsr train at MCD.
When the next section is complete then connections can be planned at BFD and whatever location thereby reducing travel time more.
Until th
It has been a while since I saw the lawsuit, but I seem to recall there was in there than the speed of the trains. There are also other lawsuits.
As for this theoretical judge, if a judge were to look at a lawsuit and determine the plaintiff’s suit has merit but dismisses it because of the plaintiff’s motivation, that judge should be more concerned with his/her perversion of the law than the plaintiff;s motivation.