4 ms·
> They lost. So why did it still cost us $400 million? Did the article provide a direct answer to this? I see the $20M delay payments to contractors and the ri
by danans 4mo ago
> They lost. So why did it still cost us $400 million?
Did the article provide a direct answer to this? I see the $20M delay payments to contractors and the rise of labor costs cited, but is that all?
- AdamJacobMuller 4mo agoIt did not. In fact the article comes dangerously close to admitting that there is correlation without correlation, it opens with: > Here is the short version. In 2012, Caltrain budgeted its electrification project — the backbone of the Peninsula's transit future and a prerequisite for high-speed rail to ever reach San Francisco — at roughly $1.5 billion. By 2017 that number had ballooned to $1.9 billion. In between, the Town of Atherton sued. While I don't agree with what Atherton did here (in general, I did not look at the specifics), you have to be fairly negligent to think you're going to build something in California without a massive legal headache. This is a legislative problem which it sounds like, for this narrow case, the legislature actually solved (shockingly to me). I find it hard to blame the residents of the city for exercising their rights.
- danans 4mo ago> This is a legislative problem which it sounds like, for this narrow case, the legislature actually solved (shockingly to me). I find it hard to blame the residents of the city for exercising their rights. Filing frivolous lawsuits is also a right but we don't withhold our criticism of that practice. What Atherton did seems like the wealthy person's equivalent of that, down to it being dismissed. Legal? yes. Cynical and amoral, also yes.
- AdamJacobMuller 4mo agoI agree, and I do not take issue with the general complaint (frivolous lawsuits) I am merely pointing out that your ire should be directed more at the legislature not at the people.
- em-bee 4mo agoyou have to be fairly negligent to think you're going to build something in California without a massive legal headache that's not fair. the question was: did the legal headache cause the budget-overrun. predictable or not, your response does not show that it didn't.
- AdamJacobMuller 4mo agoNeither did the article and they are journalists, I'm just an internet commentator.
- decimalenough 4mo agoThe article's somewhat dubious argument is that the 2012 budget estimate was $1.5B, the actual cost by 2017 was $1.9B, and the $400M difference was caused entirely by Atherton's law suit. Which is obviously a bit sus, because the actual lawsuit froze everything for only around 18 months from Feb 2015 to Sep 2016.
- Drunk_Engineer 4mo agoThe CBOSS fiasco, which added $200 million in costs, certainly can't be blamed on Atherton.
- em-bee 4mo agothere was also a delay in the decision for funding until may 2017. that's another 8 months. but then we don't know when that decision would have been made originally.
- queenkjuul 4mo agoReasonable to think agencies involved would wait for the outcome of the lawsuit to act, no? So those 3 years in limbo were likely also attributable.
- jeremyjh 4mo agoNo. It says the direct payments created other funding gaps that caused further delays that added costs, but provides no information about what those were, much less any evidence that they are due only to this lawsuit.
- mslate 4mo agoFrom the article's first source: https://calelectricrail.org/how-environmental-law-holds-back-cleaner-better-rail-part-2-atherton-vs-caltrain-electrification/ https://calelectricrail.org/how-environmental-law-holds-back...