State sues everyone in high-speed rail case

March 28, 2013

high speed railIn an effort to head off future lawsuits challenging California’s planned high-speed rail project, state officials have filed a civil case against “all persons interested.” (San Jose Mercury News)

The move is intended to validate $8.6 billion in voter-approved bonds for constructions of the rail line hoped to eventually link northern and southern California.

The “against everyone” lawsuit is considered a preemptive endeavor to offset the possibility of endless individual lawsuits in the future. It will also provide a high level of security for future bond buyers, according to state lawyers. An obscure California law allows this kind of litigation intended to deal with all legal issues under one single lawsuit.

The high-speed rail is this state’s most ambitious project ever with an approximated end price of $68 billion, and it has attracted legions of opposition. Rather than deal with one legal challenge after another, state officials have chosen this route.

Bids were received from contractors last month for construction of the initial 30-mile segment of the rail system, stretching from Madera to Bakersfield.

According to plans, the trains will travel at 220 miles an hour, promising a San Francisco-to-Los Angeles journey of about two hours.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is nothing more than a union job creation boondoggle. Cost will go up by 10 times. Train will be limited to 35 MPH to save stupid people who can’t figure out how a train crossing works and yellow elbowed skinks. Why do people vote for stupid crap like this?

There is no IQ test required to vote. Perhaps someone should pass a bill so requiring.

actually this is part of a long range global reality, a russian consortium has broached a plan to tunnel under the bering straight for a link between asia and north america! would it not be a fabulous thing to take a train to china or berlin from slo. If the smart people have their way we will have this if the stupid people have their way we will have this, later.

btw it is later than you think

This line is hysterical; “According to plans, the trains will travel at 220 miles an hour, promising a San Francisco-to-Los Angeles journey of about two hours.”, what about the 10 hrs worth of stops along the way! Or maybe the train is only for the people of LA and San Francisco to enjoy?

I would imagine that there would only be about 5-10 stops of about 5-10 min. each (totaling an hour.?) Of course this assumes the TSA is not involved. (If so, triple that.) I am basing that on what I’ve heard of similar trains running in Japan and France.

I am more concerned about the cost efficiency of the project even if it is designed intelligently. The legal battles and costs of getting the land and solving other use conflicts will likely triple in cost. If the tickets aren’t heavily subsidized, it won’t draw many people as even air flights will be substantially cheaper. If they are heavily subsidized, guess who pays? (It won’t just be the people living along the line.)

Should we all take note from our State and now sue “all interested parties” in our own “preemptive endeavors towards any and all litigation that might bring us into court as a plaintiff in both our businesses and personal lives?

A white elephant on rails.

that would be faster

like the Eiffel Tower.

Could you expand on that statement with some references/links?

Sorry, this was intended to be a reply to kayaknut’s comment below.

There is something wrong with this strategy, taxpayer funded litigation to squelch any taxpayer that disagrees. This may morph into other government abuses of the legal system, their version of SLAPP suits funded by you at their discretion.

The high-speed rail is this state’s most ambitious ever with an end price of $68 million, and it has attracted legions of opposition. Rather

Shouldn’t that be billions?

What a joke and a huge waste of money……..

Does John Q citizen want this?

Voter approved bonds, so yes majority of John Q citizens said yes. NOW DON’T mistake that because I stated this I agree. I HATE BONDS!! Just repling to your question.

Actually what voters approved and what is being proposed now are two different projects, with two totally different price tags

..and that NEVER happens with government and propositions and/or bonds…

Those damn so called

Progressives are at it again!

Likely political and financial bungling aside, how is a high-speed rail system bad for California? Let’s assume that it’s not a disaster and we have an efficient, functioning system in place. We would see reduced freeway congestion, cheaper regional airfares, environmental benefits, and it could act as a springboard for other like projects in the future, leading to additional travel options for most state residents.