Passenger Trains > CA HSR: Dismissal of Lawsuit Likely Today

A judge said Tuesday that he intends to reject the latest court challenge to California's $64 billion high-speed rail project, ruling that recent changes fall within what voters approved in 2008.

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Raymond Cadei said in a tentative order that he expects to dismiss the lawsuit by Kings County and other opponents targeting the plan to eventually link Los Angeles and San Francisco with a bullet train.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article146741759.html#storylink=cpy

Good news...boy, some big bucks must be backing these lawsuits.....oil/highway interests....Koch brothers.....

It's all good. No worries.

Fortunately, someone had the foresight to build a transcontinental railroad in the 1860s, and the Golden Gate Bridge in the years after 1918. Even Boston's "big dig" has turned out well by most accounts -- removal of an antiquated ugly elevated highway, and construction of new tunnels and bridges and the MBTA Silver Line. CA high-speed rail has been approved by the voters, the Legislature, the Governor, and now the courts -- more approvals than the average big project.

bluesboyst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good news...boy, some big bucks must be backing
> these lawsuits.....oil/highway interests....Koch
> brothers.....

You can include subsidized farmers and subsidized airlines as well!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/17 12:58 by railwaybaron.

Not so sure about the poolitics of "the highway interests".  At least some of those guys are big time construction and engineering contractors, who will also be bidders for the construction of HSR.

Have firms like this been openly opposing HSR in California?  The tunneling guys must be looking at the challenges of boring through the San Andreas fault and drooling.  Big challenges bring big bucks.

march_hare Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not so sure about the poolitics of "the highway
> interests".  At least some of those guys are big
> time construction and engineering contractors,
> who will also be bidders for the construction of
> HSR.
>
> Have firms like this been openly opposing HSR in
> California?  The tunneling guys must be looking
> at the challenges of boring through the San
> Andreas fault and drooling.  Big challenges
> bring big bucks.

I have to agree with you. The "highway interests" like projects of this nature: construction contractors building things.

And the "highway lobby" is not what it once was -- it's rather difficult for them to push through an increase in the gas tax on the state or federal level -- money that largely would roll into their pockets.

No, you don't understand CAHSR did not "buy" a judge, since they both work for the same concern. For instance, if POTUS rents Mar-a-Largo ("Mexican" for Ocean on a Lake) to the US Government, so it can host him because it's the "Winter White House" (don't go there in Summer--!muy caliente!), he isn't "buying" someone in the gov't. because he is the gov't! Now about CAHSR never making any $$$, that's what they told Stephenson about the first railroad (no, not the B&O--god had pulled-off another creation on a different continent.) And, that's what they told Sarnoff about television after he ripped it off from the inventor and Bell (another questionable Canuk) about the telephone, etc., etc., etc.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/17 22:26 by railwaybaron.

For the price they could consider moving Bakersfield closer to Central California. That would let them combine police and fire with maybe Fresno or Clovis as well.

The Transcontinental RR was a major construction project for it's day. The Crédit Mobilier was very creative for it's time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A9dit_Mobilier_of_America_scandal

bluesboyst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good news...boy, some big bucks must be backing
> these lawsuits.....oil/highway interests....Koch
> brothers.....

None of those interests are listed in the lawsuit. There's a better article from the home state (California, instead of Florida) which lists the key names involved in the lawsuit.

People who know how to do real research instead of drinking the Kool Aid know the rest of the story:

But the judge left open some grounds for continuing the suit on the constitutionality issue, rejecting the rail authority’s argument that the Legislature has the power to materially change the meaning of the bond act.