Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/35384844/HSR-15-Motion-for-Discovery
Timestamp: 2017-04-25 20:08:15
Document Index: 384738225

Matched Legal Cases: ['§6103', '§2016', '§2017', '§2017', '§21167', '§1094', '§1473', '§2019', '§1054', '§2016']

HSR 15 -Motion for Discovery | Coram Nobis
ScribdBrowseInterestsPolitics & Current AffairsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthFictionHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryScience & TechBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinHSR 15 -Motion for DiscoveryUploaded by Stuart M. FlashmanCoram NobisDiscovery (Law)WritMotion In United States LawHabeas Corpus0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: motion asking court to authorize discovery in coram nobis proceedings agaist high-speed rail authorityView Moremotion asking court to authorize discovery in coram nobis proceedings agaist high-speed rail authorityCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content1 2 3 4 5 6LAW OFFICES OF STUART M. FLASHMAN STUART M. FLASHMAN (SBN 148396) 5626 Ocean View Drive Oakland, CA 94618-1533 TEL/FAX (510) 652-5373 e-mail: stu@stuflash.com Attorney for Petitioners and Plaintiffs Town of Atherton et al. (Exempt from filing fees – Gov. Code §6103)
Filed via fax 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 20, 2010, at 9:00 AM or as soon thereafter as 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 the matter may be heard in Department 31 of the above-entitled Court, located at the 720 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California, Petitioners and Plaintiffs Town of Atherton, et al. (“Petitioners”), will move the Court for an order authorizing Petitioners to take discovery and shortening the time for Respondent California High-Speed Rail Authority (“Respondent”) to respond to the initial set of discovery requests. This motion is made on the grounds that, unless the Court decides to summarily grant or deny the Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis currently before the Court, discovery will be
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO TOWN OF ATHERTON et al., Petitioners and Plaintiffs v. CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY, a public entity, and DOES 1-20, Respondents and Defendants
No. 34-2008-80000022 filed 8/8/08
Judge Assigned for All Purposes: HONORABLE MICHAEL P. KENNY Department: 31 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAKE DISCOVERY AND TO SHORTEN TIME FOR RESPONSES; SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF STUART FLASHMAN Date: August 20, 2010 Time: 9:00 AM Dept. 31 Judge: Hon. Michael P. Kenny
TO ALL PARTIES OF RECORD HEREIN AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
necessary in order for Petitioners to adequately present their case before the Court. An order shortening time is requested in order to expedite the resolution of this matter, and because Respondent was served with the first set of discovery requests more than a month before the hearing date and should not need the full statutory period to respond to these requests. This motion is based on this Notice, the attached supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the attached supporting declaration of Stuart M. Flashman, the attached Exhibits A through D, the complete files of this case, and on any evidence or argument which the Court may entertain at the hearing on this motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.04, the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. To receive the tentative ruling, call the department in which the matter is to be heard at 448-8239 (Department 53) or 448- 8234 (Department 54). If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held. The text of the tenative ruling may also be accessed at the Court’s website: http://www.saccourt.com/courtrooms/trulings/dept31view.asp. SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION This motion seeks authorization for discovery by Petitioners Town of Atherton et al. in connection with the Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis now pending before the Court. This motion is necessary because Petitioners have served discovery requests on Respondent, but Respondent has refused to comply, asserting that the Civil Discovery Act (Code of Civil Procedure §§2016 et seq.) is inapplicable because a final judgment has already been entered in the case. Petitioners therefore seek the Court’s explicit order authorizing discovery. In addition, because Respondent was served with the initial set of discovery requests more than a month prior to this hearing, Petitioners seek an order shortening time to expedite resolution of this matter. STATEMENT OF FACTS Many of the salient facts underlying this motion have been set forth in the Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis filed in this case. Briefly, a final judgment against Respondent was
2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
entered in this case on November 3, 2009. In February of 2010, after the period for appeal had expired, certain previously hidden facts were brought to Petitioners’ attention. These facts indicated that crucial evidence had been withheld from Petitioners and the public. This evidence bore on the credibility and validity of the ridership and revenue modeling data contained in the Environmental Impact Report that was the subject of the case. (Declaration of Stuart Flashman in Support of Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis [hereinafter, “Flashman Dec.”] ¶¶ 2-4.) Petitioners’ legal counsel immediately brought the matter to the attention of opposing counsel, who promised to look into it. (Id. at ¶6.) In the meantime, Petitioners sought to substantiate the allegations that had been made and to clarify the significance of the withheld evidence. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-15.) Petitioners were able to confirm the accuracy of the allegations based on documentation obtained through California Public Record Act requests1. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-15.). Petitioners also verified the significance of the withheld evidence based on an independent consultant’s evaluation. (Declaration of Norman Marshall in Support of Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis, ¶ 5.) Based on the substantiation of the veracity and significance of the information, Petitioners filed the Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis (“Petition”) now before the Court and set the matter for hearing. Upon learning that Respondent intended to oppose the petition, Petitioners realized that it would be important to gain a better understanding of the facts and contentions involved in the Petition than was possible through the limited scope of Public Record Act requests. In addition, Respondent indicated that it would not file a responsive pleading to the Petition, thus eliminating such a pleading as a source of information. On July 6, 2010, Petitioner Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund served on Respondent, by mail and electronic mail, a set of discovery requests consisting of a set of form interrogatories, a set of twelve requests for admissions, and a set of fifteen specially prepared interrogatories. (Exhibit A to Supporting Declaration of Stuart Flashman.) On July 12, 2010, Petitioner’s counsel received via electronic mail a “meet and confer” letter from counsel for Respondent indicating that Respondent did not intend to respond to the discovery requests.
Because the case was no longer pending before the Court, discovery was not available. (Code of Civil Procedure §2017.010; Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 728, 732.)
3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
(Exhibit B to Supporting Declaration of Stuart Flashman.) On July 16, 2010, after conferring with the client, Counsel for Petitioners sent a responding letter proposing a compromise solution to the dispute, namely that responses would not be due until ten days after the hearing scheduled for August 20th, and only if the matter remained pending at that time. (Exhibit C to Supporting Declaration of Stuart Flashman.) On July 21, 2010, Petitioners received a response from counsel for Respondent, rejecting Petitioner’s offer and indicating that Respondent still refused to respond to the discovery requests pending the results of the hearing on August 20th and further action by the Court. (Exhibit D to Supporting Declaration of Stuart Flashman.) After discussion of the situation with counsel, Petitioners determined to file this motion to bring the issue before the Court for resolution. ARGUMENT I. DISCOVERY SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE PENDING PETITION. A petition for writ of error coram nobis is a venerable common law legal procedure. While it is not addressed by any California statute, California case law has gradually defined most of its parameters. (See, e.g., People v Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078.) However, as should be evident from review of the correspondence relating to this motion, neither Petitioners nor Respondent has been able to find any published cased clarifying the availability of discovery in a trial court coram nobis proceeding. Respondent takes the position that once final judgment has been entered, the case is no longer pending before the court, and no discovery is allowed until and unless the court determines to grant the writ petition and vacate the final judgment. (See ¶¶ 2 and 3 of Exhibit B.) Petitioners contend, however, that such would contrary to the intent of the Civil Discovery Act, especially because, under established procedure for a petition for writ of error coram nobis, the court is authorized to conduct a hearing, “like an ordinary trial,” including the presentation of evidence and the calling of witnesses. (People v. Shipman (1965) 62 Cal.2d 226, 230-231.) A. ONCE A HEARING HAS BEEN SET, THE PETITION IS A MATTER PENDING BEFORE THE COURT, AND THE CIVIL DISCOVERY ACT APPLIES.
Code of Civil Procedure §2017.010 provides: Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant
4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Respondent argues that once a final judgment has been entered, the matter is no longer pending, and will not be pending unless the court orders the judgment vacate. Respondent cites as supporting authority Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Superior Court (“DFEH”)(1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 728, 732. In fact, that case runs directly against Respondent’s position. In DFEH, an action had been brought against an employer for violation of a settlement agreement on claims of discrimination and sexual harassment. Summary judgment was granted against the employer, and judgment was entered ordering the employer to pay $19,000 to the victim. (Id. at 730.) However, the employer did not follow through on paying the judgment. Without filing any motion, DFEH sought discovery against the employer to determine facts related to the non-payment. (Id. at 731.) The employer raised objections, and DFEH filed a motion to compel. The trial court denied the motion, and the court of appeal affirmed. The court noted that while discovery would be proper after the filing of a motion for contempt, without such a motion, there was nothing pending before the court upon which to based discovery requests. (Id. at 732.) Here, once judgment was entered, the case was no longer pending and no discovery could be had. (See fn.1, on p.3 of this brief.) However, with the filing of the coram nobis petition and the setting of the matter for hearing, the petition was properly pending before this Court, analogous to if DFEH had first filed a motion for contempt prior to its discovery requests2. Thus, the situation here is fundamentally different than that in DFEH, and by filing the petition and setting the matter for hearing, Petitioners have done precisely what the court recommended in DFEH, and discovery should properly be allowed. B. DISCOVERY SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE CIVIL DISCOVERY ACT.
The purposes of the discovery statutes are "to assist the parties and the trier of fact in ascertaining the truth; to encourage settlement by educating the parties as to the strengths of their claims and defenses; to expedite and facilitate preparation and It should be noted that in DFEH, the court’s recommended procedure would allow discovery despite the entered judgment remaining intact.
5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
trial; to prevent delay; and to safeguard against surprise." (Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1294.) As the above quotation makes clear, the state’s discovery statutes, and specifically the Civil Discovery Act, were enacted to help the parties to litigation both prepare their cases for trial and understand the true facts underlying the litigation. In a coram nobis proceeding, and particularly one arising out of CEQA litigation, these purposes are particularly important. Most CEQA litigation, and specifically this litigation, is based on a certified administrative record. (Public Resources Code §21167.6.) As such, there is no pretrial discovery involved, and hence no opportunity to the plaintiffs to go beyond what is shown on the face of the administrative record. Normally, this is very appropriate. However, in the exceptional case where, through no fault of the plaintiff, evidence that should have been before the court was improperly excluded from the administrative process (See, Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5; Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 578), the plaintiff must be provided with the legal resources to ferret out the evidence required to prove its case, evidence that will, by definition, not be within the administrative record even though it may, in fact, be in the possession of the respondent agency. Without the ability to conduct discovery, it will be difficult if not impossible for Petitioners to ascertain the truth, learn the true strength of the claims and defenses, and safeguard against surprise when the petition is actually heard on the merits. This will be particularly true if the Court should decide that, because issues of credibility are involved, an actual court trial is needed. (See, e.g., In re Lawley (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1231, 1241 [in appellate habeas proceeding, special master is appointed to hold evidentiary hearing when issues of credibility are important].) For this reason as well, discovery should be provided for. C. DISCOVERY SHOULD BE ALLOWED BASED ON THE CLOSE ANALOGY BETWEEN CORAM NOBIS AND HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS.
As with the writ or error coram nobis, the writ of habeas corpus arose originally from the common law. However, in California, habeas corpus has now been codified in the Penal Code (§§1473 et seq.), and corresponding provisions incorporated into the California Rules of Court (Rule 4.550 et seq., Rule 8.380 et seq.). Even with the codification of habeas corpus in
6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
California, however, the right to discover has not, in most cases, been codified by statute3. (See, People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 et seq. for a general explication of California habeas corpus procedures.) However, the decisions of the California Supreme Court have made clear that once an order to show cause has issued, there is a right to discovery in a habeas corpus proceeding. “For other cases, in which the sentence imposed is less than death or life in prison without the possibility of parole, we are guided by the decisions of the California Supreme Court. The general rule is that discovery is available in a habeas proceeding once an order to show cause has issued.” (Board of Prison Terms v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1241.) While it might be argued that a habeas corpus proceeding is a criminal proceeding while the current coram nobis proceeding is civil, the California Supreme court has made clear that it considers a habeas corpus proceeding to be civil, rather than criminal, in nature. (In re Scott (2003) 29 Cal.4th 783, 815.) Indeed, the California Supreme Court has acknowledged to strong similarity between coram nobis and habeas corpus proceedings. (See. e.g., People v. Kim(2009) 35 Cal.4th 1978.) Thus the analogous right to discovery in a coram nobis proceeding, once the court has determined that a prima facia case has been made, should be provided. II. THE COURT SHOULD PROVIDE FOR EXPEDITED RESPONSES TO THE FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS. Ordinarily, discovery requests requiring a written response allow thirty days for the service of the response. This makes sense, because in addition to the time required to write the response, responses also require time for the gathering and analysis of the information and evidence required to make a complete response. However, under Code of Civil Procedure §2019.020(b), “on motion and for good cause shown, the court may establish the sequence and timing of discovery for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice.” In this case, it is obviously in all parties’, and the Court’s interest to have the petition resolved quickly. Respondent was served with the discovery requests more than thirty days prior to the hearing date on this motion. Respondent has therefore had more than adequate time to investigate and compile the information needed to provide responses to the requests. Petitioners
Penal Code §1054.9 provides a right of discovery even before the filing of the petition, but only in cases involving the death penalty or life imprisonment.
7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
therefore request that the Court order that Respondent provide responses to the requests within ten days from the date of the Court’s order on this motion. CONCLUSION Assuming that the Court determines that further proceedings are needed before ruling on the merits of the petition for writ of error coram nobis, Petitioners have the need to, and a right to, conduct reasonable discovery related to the issues raised by the petition. Petitioners therefore respectfully request that the motion be granted. DATE: July 29, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
Stuart M. Flashman Attorney for Petitioners Town of Atherton et al.
SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF STUART FLASHMAN I, STUART FLASHMAN, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in California. I am the attorney of record for
Petitioners Town of Atherton et al. in this case. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and am competent to testify as to them if called as a witness. 2. On July 6, 2010 I served a set of discovery requests on Respondent California High
Speed Rail Authority (“Respondent”) via mail and electronic mail. A true and correct copy of these discovery requests is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4. Only July 9, 2010, I received a telephone call from counsel for Respondent indicating
that Respondent objected to the discovery requests. Counsel for Respondent indicated that she would be sending me a “meet and confer” letter identifying in detail her objections. 3. On July 12, 2010 I received, via electronic mail, a letter from counsel for Respondent
designated as a further effort to meet and confer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2016.040. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
8 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
On July 16, 2010 I sent, via mail and electronic mail, a letter to counsel for Respondent
responding to her meeting confer letter. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 5. On July 21, 2010 I received, via electronic mail, a letter from counsel for Respondent responding to my letter of July 16th. A true and correct copy of that letter is attched hereto as Exhibit D. I have personal knowledge of the above facts, and I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 29, 2010 at Oakland, California.
9 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
LAW OFFICES OF STUART M. FLASHMAN STUART M. FLASHMAN (SBN 148396) 5626 Ocean View Drive Oakland, CA 94618-1533 TEL/FAX (510) 652-5373 e-mail: stu@stuflash.com Attorney for Petitioners and Plaintiffs
1 PETITIONER TRANSDEF’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET #1
Judge Assigned for All Purposes: HONORABLE MICHAEL P. KENNY Department: 31
PETITIONER TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES (Set No. One) Trial Date: August 20, 2010
PROPOUNDING PARTY: RESPONDING PARTY SET NUMBER
Petitioner Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund Respondent California High-Speed Rail Authority One
Petitioner Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund requests that Respondent California High-Speed Rail Authority answer the following specially prepared interrogatories, set No.1, under oath within 30 days from the date of service, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1. true. 2. 3. 1.
DEFINITIONS “AUTHORITY” means the California High-Speed Rail Authority, its
predecessors or successors in interest, employees, officers, directors, attorneys, agents and all other persons or entities otherwise subject to its control. 2. 3. “PROJECT” means the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train Project. “RIDERSHIP/REVENUE MODEL” means ALL models or model components
prepared in connection with the analysis of the PROJECT. 4. “MTC” means the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, its predecessors or
successors in interest, employees, officers, directors, attorneys, agents and all other persons or entities otherwise subject to its control. 5. “PB” means Parsons Brinckerhoff, its predecessors or successors in interest,
employees, officers, directors, attorneys, agents and all other persons or entities otherwise subject to its control.. 6. “PETITION” means the Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis filed by
Petitioners Town of Atherton et al against Respondent AUTHORITY. 7. “FEIR/EIS” means the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement for the PROJECT. INTERROGATORIES Identify each and every allegation in the PETITION which the AUTHORITY admits as
Identify each and every allegation in the PETITION which the AUTHORITY denies. For each allegation identified in your answer to Interrogatory Number 2, identify all of
the facts and evidence that support the AUTHORITY’s denial of the allegation. 4. Identify each and every allegation in the PETITION which the AUTHORITY denies
based on information and belief. 5. For each allegation identified in your answer to Interrogatory Number 4, explain the basis
for the AUTHORITY’s denial of the allegation.
2 PETITIONER TRANSDEF’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET #1
What was the date on which the AUTHORITY first learned that the ridership and
revenue information contained in the FEIR/EIS was not derived using the model information contained in the final Task 5a report, “Interregional Model System Development” prepared for the AUTHORITY .and MTC? 7. Between the years 2006 and 2008, was PB involved in the development or evaluation of
any REVENUE/RIDERSHIP MODEL related to the PROJECT? 8. If your answer to Interrogatory Number 7 was yes, identify the extent and nature of PB’s
involvement, including the names of all those involved. 9. If your answer to Interrogatory Number 7 was yes, identify all persons within the
AUTHORITY who were aware of PB’s involvement. 10. For each person identified in your answer to Interrogatory Number 9, explain the nature
of that person’s association with the work identified your answer to Interrogatory Number 8. 11. Identify all persons within the AUTHORITY involved in coordinating with MTC the
ridership/revenue modeling work associated with the PROJECT. 12. For each person identified in your answer to Interrogatory Number 11, explain their role
in coordinating the ridership/revenue modeling work with MTC. 13. Identify all person within the AUTHORITY involved in coordinating with Cambridge
Systematics, Inc. on the ridership/revenue modeling work associated with the PROJECT. 14. For each person identified in your answer to Interrogatory Number 13, explain their role
in coordinating the ridership/revenue modeling work with Cambridge Systematics. 15. State the name, address, telephone number, and relationship to the AUTHORITY of all
persons who prepared or assisted in preparing the responses to these interrogatories, and the interrogatories with which they assisted. (Do not include those who merely typed or reproduced the responses.) DATE: July 6, 2010
Stuart M. Flashman Attorney for Petitioner Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund
3 PETITIONER TRANSDEF’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET #1
TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Nick Brand George Mazur January 29, 2010 Final Coefficients and Constants in HSR Ridership & Revenue Model
The seven (7) attached tables provide the final coefficients and constants in the high-speed rail (HSR) ridership and revenue model, which was developed by Cambridge Systematics under contract to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). These tables supersede information presented in the Task 5a report (Interregional Model System Development), dated August 2006. The Task 5a report listed the model coefficients and constants as they existed after the preliminary estimation and calibration effort. As is normally the case, additional calibration and validation efforts led to changes in model structure, variables, and the values of coefficients and constants. These changes continued until the model structure was finalized in April 2007. There have been no changes to these model elements since April 2007. The client, MTC, elected not to update the Task 5a report nor to include the final coefficients and constants in the final project report.
5 5 5 1 2 S t r e e t , S u it e 1 6 0 0 O a k la n d , C A 9 4 6 0 7 tel 510 873 8700
w w w. c ams ys. c o m
fax 510 873 8701
Table 3.2. Trip Frequency Models - Long Trips
Business Coefficient t-stat -0.217 Constr 0.123 Constr Trip Purpose Commute Recreation Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat -0.217 Constr -0.217 Constr 0.123 Constr 0.123 Constr Other Coefficient t-stat -0.217 Constr 0.123 -0.424 -0.378 0.393 0.158 -0.915 4.080 3.685 4.676 0.372 3.899 -8.510 -9.840 Constr -2.0 -2.8 2.1 0.7 -2.2 Constr Constr Constr 2.4 Constr Constr Constr
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 22
Acronym regacc slogsum llogsum hhsizen onephh threephh medinc highinc missinc nocars carsltw wkrspps sacog sandag mtc nowkrs scag const1 const2
Definition Regional accessibility Short trip logsum Long trip logsum Household size One person household? (0/1) Three person household? (0/1) Medium income household? (0/1) High income household? (0/1) Missing income household? (0/1) (used for model estimation only) Zero car household? (0/1) Fewer autos than workers? (0/1) Workers / household size Resident in SACOG region? (0/1) Resident in SANDAG region? (0/1) Resident in MTC region? (0/1) No worker household? (0/1) Resident in SCAG region? (0/1) Constant for 1 trip Constant for 2 or more trips
-0.482 0.527 1.139 0.955 -0.412 0.537 0.234 -0.174 -0.683 -2.098 -0.274 -4.611 -5.247 1.5 3.0 2.3 -1.0 1.9 Constr Constr Constr -3.4 Constr Constr Constr 0.188 0.291 0.340 -0.457 1.274 0.011 -0.342 -1.421 -2.668 -0.948 -2.674 -4.110 0.8 1.1 1.1 -1.6 5.8 Constr Constr Constr -3.7 Constr Constr Constr -0.246 0.282 -0.922 1.807 1.286 3.002 1.571 -4.518 -6.081
-3.9 -1.3 1.3 -2.4 Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr
Table 3.3. Trip Frequency Models - Short Trips
Trip Purpose Business Commute Recreation Other Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat -0.176 Constr -0.176 Constr -0.176 Constr -0.176 Constr 0.262 Constr 0.262 Constr 0.262 Constr 0.262 Constr -0.136 -0.401 0.331 0.835 0.446 -0.947 1.153 -0.653 -0.121 -0.898 -0.863 -2.002 -4.614 -5.182 1.2 3.1 1.4 -2.4 5.0 Constr Constr Constr -2.5 Constr Constr Constr 1.045 1.523 0.696 -0.225 1.570 -0.816 -1.673 -2.216 -2.163 -2.406 -3.062 -3.890 6.0 8.6 3.4 -1.6 13.0 Constr Constr Constr -5.9 Constr Constr Constr 0.355 0.432 0.137 -1.270 -3.5 -2.6 2.5 2.8 0.8 -2.5
-2.365 -1.767 -1.834 -0.493 -0.879 -2.958 -3.864
Constr Constr Constr -4.8 Constr Constr Constr
-3.181 -1.157 -3.306 -0.467 -3.798 -4.575
Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr
Table 3.9. Destination Choice Models for Long Trips
Trip Purpose Business / Commute Recreation / Other Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat 0.053 -0.024 0.000 0.000 0.724 0.222 -0.010 -0.185 -0.112 -0.242 -0.255 -1.728 -0.685 0.476 -0.855 -0.144 -5.072 -0.108 -1.043 -0.134 -0.678 0.226 0.149 -0.847 -0.687 -0.710 0.800 -1.810 -2.945 0.096 -4.416 -3.831 -3.001 -1.123 1.142 -1.736 0.368 -1.123 -1.736 1.142 0.368 0.770 0.770 5.403 5.403 1.000 1.061 0.547 2.232 0.829 1.993 0.926 12.991 12.343 Constr -8.5 8.9 -8.0 6.7 2.0 -0.1 -1.5 -0.7 Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr 2.1 1.5 4.9 1.8 5.6 2.8 0.1 0.1 0.053 -0.031 0.000 0.000 0.810 0.607 -0.096 -0.029 -0.036 0.183 1.334 -0.839 -0.150 0.522 -0.094 0.547 -4.395 -0.375 -1.426 0.407 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 -6.400 3.632 -1.274 8.000 -6.400 -1.274 3.632 8.000 0.532 0.532 8.098 8.098 1.000 -0.041 -1.250 -0.163 -0.985 0.326 -0.933 -6.851 -0.836 Constr -11.7 10.8 -9.5 9.5 6.8 -0.8 -0.3 -0.3 Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr -0.1 -3.6 -0.4 -3.3 0.8 -2.4 -0.1 -1.4
Variable Acronym Definition Accessibility Variables 1 mlogsum Mode choice logsum 2 distance Distance (miles) 3 distsqu Distance squared 4 distcub Distance cubed Area Types 6 durban Urban destination? (0/1) 7 drural Rural destination? (0/1) 8 urburb Urban to urban movement? (0/1) 9 subsub Suburban to suburban movement? (0/1) 10 rurrur Rural to rural movement? (0/1) Destination District 41 AMBAG AMBAG 42 CC Central Coast 43 FN Far North 44 FM Fresno 45 Kern Kern 46 Merced Merced 47 SSJ S. San Joaquin 48 SACOG SACOG 49 SANDAG SANDAG 50 SJ San Joaquin 51 Stan Stanislaus 52 WSN W. Sierra Nevada 53 MTC Alameda 54 MTC Contra Costa 55 MTC Marin/Sonoma/Napa 56 MTC San Francisco 57 MTC San Mateo 58 MTC Santa Clara 59 MTC Solano 60 SCAG Los Angeles 61 SCAG Orange 62 SCAG Riverside 63 SCAG San Bernardino 64 SCAG Ventura 65 SCAG Destination district Regional Interactions 71 mtcscag MTC to SCAG 72 mtcsandag MTC to SANDAG 73 sacogscag SACOG to SCAG 74 sacogsand SACOG to SANDAG 75 scagmtc SCAG to MTC 76 scagsacog SCAG to SACOG 77 sandagmtc SANDAG to MTC 78 sandagsac SANDAG to SACOG 79 mtcsacog MTC to SACOG 80 sacogmtc SACOG to MTC SCAG to SANDAG 81 scagsandag 82 sandagscag SANDAG to SCAG Size Variables 0 L_S_M 101 loincret Retail employment - low income 102 loincsvc Service employment - low income 103 mdincret Retail employment - medium income 104 mdincsvc Service employment - medium income 105 hiincret Retail employment - high income 106 hiincsvc Service employment - high income 107 msincret Retail employment - missing income (model estimation only) 108 msincsvc Service employment - missing income (model estimation only)
Table 3.10. Destination Choice Models for Short Trips
Trip Purpose Business Commute Recreation Other Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat 0.332 -0.130 0.002 0.000 0.760 0.036 -0.499 0.253 -0.505 -0.245 -2.553 4.294 -0.441 0.274 -1.435 -0.008 -3.182 0.556 0.244 1.634 -0.275 0.265 0.118 -0.109 -0.010 -0.244 -0.218 -2.226 -3.617 -3.139 -3.764 -2.226 -3.072 Constr -3.7 2.3 -1.7 3.8 0.2 -1.6 1.1 -1.8 Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr 0.332 -0.130 0.001 0.000 0.872 0.126 -0.019 -0.055 -0.075 -5.730 -11.136 0.805 -7.272 -12.241 -7.268 -2.153 -13.230 0.474 -0.352 0.386 0.816 1.254 1.129 0.447 0.961 0.325 1.453 -9.274 -10.991 -1.875 -9.920 -9.274 -9.405 Constr -6.1 2.7 -1.8 7.4 1.1 -0.1 -0.4 -0.5 Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr 0.332 -0.166 0.001 0.000 0.502 0.081 -0.142 0.051 0.336 5.366 -4.168 11.121 2.226 -5.457 2.332 3.938 -3.518 4.412 4.894 5.284 1.601 2.294 2.831 0.878 1.288 2.296 1.525 4.265 2.931 -1.207 2.438 3.274 3.663 Constr -7.9 3.3 -1.2 3.8 0.6 -0.7 0.3 1.9 Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr 0.332 -0.104 0.001 0.000 0.419 0.190 0.457 -0.016 0.245 6.909 -0.469 15.867 4.798 -0.586 2.307 3.948 -2.171 4.915 4.152 4.601 2.174 2.311 1.166 1.140 1.588 2.010 2.398 4.549 2.665 -2.258 2.456 4.437 3.749 Constr -4.0 1.1 -0.3 2.3 1.1 1.9 -0.1 1.0 Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr
Variable Acronym Definition Accessibility Variables 1 mlogsum Mode choice logsum 2 distance Distance (miles) 3 distsqu Distance squared 4 distcub Distance cubed Area Types 6 durban Urban destination? (0/1) 7 drural Rural destination? (0/1) 8 urburb Urban to urban movement? (0/1) 9 subsub Suburban to suburban movement? (0/1) 10 rurrur Rural to rural movement? (0/1) Destination District 41 AMBAG AMBAG 42 CC Central Coast 43 FN Far North 44 FM Fresno 45 Kern Kern 46 Merced Merced 47 SSJ S. San Joaquin 48 SACOG SACOG 49 SANDAG SANDAG 50 SJ San Joaquin 51 Stan Stanislaus 52 WSN W. Sierra Nevada 53 MTC Alameda 54 MTC Contra Costa 55 MTC Marin/Sonoma/Napa 56 MTC San Francisco 57 MTC San Mateo 58 MTC Santa Clara 59 MTC Solano 60 SCAG Los Angeles 61 SCAG Orange 62 SCAG Riverside 63 SCAG San Bernardino 64 SCAG Ventura 65 SCAG Destination district Regional Interactions 71 mtcscag MTC to SCAG 72 mtcsandag MTC to SANDAG 73 sacogscag SACOG to SCAG 74 sacogsand SACOG to SANDAG 75 scagmtc SCAG to MTC 76 scagsacog SCAG to SACOG 77 sandagmtc SANDAG to MTC 78 sandagsac SANDAG to SACOG 79 mtcsacog MTC to SACOG 80 sacogmtc SACOG to MTC 81 scagsandag SCAG to SANDAG 82 sandagscag SANDAG to SCAG Size Variables 0 L_S_M 101 loincret Retail employment - low income 102 loincsvc Service employment - low income 103 mdincret Retail employment - medium income 104 mdincsvc Service employment - medium income 105 hiincret Retail employment - high income 106 hiincsvc Service employment - high income 107 msincret Retail employment - missing income (model estimation only) 108 msincsvc Service employment - missing income (model estimation only)
2.700 2.700 -1.079 -1.079 1.000 0.038 1.228 0.718 -0.057 3.146 1.002 0.567 -1.592
Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr 0.0 2.1 1.2 -0.1 3.1 0.9 0.6 -0.7
-0.467 -0.467 0.095 0.095 1.000 2.285 1.106 1.162 0.057 2.328 1.114 0.811 -0.249
Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr 3.7 1.7 4.1 0.2 6.1 2.9 1.3 -0.4
7.140 7.140 0.746 0.746 1.000 0.149 -2.674 -0.108 -0.716 -0.157 -1.778 0.630 -1.167
Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr 0.3 -1.0 -0.2 -2.0 -0.2 -1.4 0.8 -0.8
10.368 10.368 -2.362 -2.362 1.000 -10.195 -1.478 -11.112 -0.987 1.007 -1.002 0.286 -11.537
Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr 0.0 -2.4 0.0 -2.2 1.8 -0.8 0.4 -0.1
Table 3.12. Access Mode Choice Models
Long Trip Short Trip Coefficient / Constant Applied for Mode Business / Commute Recreation / Other Business Commute Recreation / Other Drive/ Rental Pick-up/ Park Car Drop-off Taxi Transit Walk Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat x x x x x x x x x x -0.060 -0.075 -0.014 -0.084 -0.147 -4.836 3.689 4.923 Constr Constr -2.5 -4.8 -6.4 -4.6 5.2 Constr -0.030 -0.120 -0.031 -0.070 -0.083 -1.807 1.727 4.356 Constr Constr -3.1 -3.8 -2.5 -1.9 2.4 Constr -0.040 -0.050 -0.041 -0.100 -1.469 3.313 4.166 Constr Constr -0.8 -2.9 -1.1 2.7 Constr -0.030 -0.100 Constr Constr -0.025 -0.100 -0.003 -0.014 -0.061 -3.345 3.271 3.232 Constr Constr -0.7 -2.4 -2.5 -3.6 4.2 Constr
Variable cronym Definition A Level of Service Coefficients 1 ivt In-vehicle time (minutes) 2 cost Cost ($) 4 aivt-pkup Pick-up/drop-off auto in-vehicle time (minutes) 5 adis-taxi Pick-up/drop-off auto distance (miles) 12 ovt Walk and wait time (minutes) 17 carused Car access to transit in transit access to main mode? (0/1) 21 railused Rail used to access main mode? (0/1) Constants 101 dp-acc Access constant 102 dp-egr Egress constant 103 dp-cvr To/from conventional rail? (0/1) 104 dp-hsr To/from high speed rail? (0/1) 105 dp-alone Traveling alone? (0/1) 106 dp-nocars Zero car household? (0/1) 107 dp-carsltw Fewer autos than workers? (0/1) 108 dp-lowinc Low income household? (0/1) 109 dp-hiinc High income household? (0/1) 110 dp-misinc Missing income household? (0/1) (for model estimation only) 111 dp-laxacc Access LAX airport? (0/1) 112 dp-sfoacc Access SFO airport? (0/1) 113 dp-oakacc Access OAK airport? (0/1) 114 dp-sjcacc Access SJC airport? (0/1) 115 dp-sanacc Access SAN airport? (0/1) 116 dp-buracc Access BUR airport? (0/1) 201 rc-acc Access constant 202 rc-egr Egress constant 203 rc-cvr To/from conventional rail? (0/1) 204 rc-hsr To/from high speed rail? (0/1) 205 rc-alone Traveling alone? (0/1) 206 rc-nocars Zero car household? (0/1) 207 rc-carsltw Fewer autos than workers? (0/1) 208 rc-lowinc Low income household? (0/1) 209 rc-hiinc High income household? (0/1) 211 rc-misinc Missing income household? (0/1) (for model estimation only) 301 sp-onephh One person household? (0/1) 302 sp-hhsize Household size 401 tx-acc Access constant 402 tx-egr Egress constant 403 tx-cvr To/from conventional rail? (0/1) 404 tx-hsr To/from high speed rail? (0/1) 405 tx-alone Traveling alone? (0/1) 406 tx-nocars Zero car household? (0/1) 407 tx-carsltw Fewer autos than workers? (0/1) 408 tx-lowinc Low income household? (0/1) 409 tx-hiinc High income household? (0/1) 411 tx-misinc Missing income household? (0/1) (for model estimation only) 501 tr-acc Access constant 502 tr-egr Egress constant 503 tr-cvr To/from conventional rail? (0/1) 504 tr-hsr To/from high speed rail? (0/1) 505 tr-alone Traveling alone? (0/1) 506 tr-nocars Zero car household? (0/1) 507 tr-carsltw Fewer autos than workers? (0/1) 508 tr-lowinc Low income household? (0/1) 509 tr-hiinc High income household? (0/1) 511 tr-misinc Missing income household? (0/1) (for model estimation only) 601 wk-acc Access constant 602 wk-egr Egress constant 603 wk-air To/from airport? (0/1) 98 mlogsum Logsum 99 hscale Scale on hypothetical choices Implied Value of Time Ratio OVT/IVT
-1.925 -1.547 -2.741 0.709 -3.128 -4.082 -2.2 -1.8 1.6 -3.8 -4.4 -1.903 -1.960 0.339 -1.275 -3.036 -1.479 -1.370 -5.000 -5.000
-3.0 -2.8 -2.8 1.4 -1.7 -2.6 -2.1 -2.3 Constr Constr -3.775 -2.017 -1.2 -1.9 -1.166 -0.493 -3.2 -1.6
-1.410 -5.547 -3.000
-2.3 Constr Constr
0.606 1.771 -2.827
2.9 Constr -2.6
0.478 -2.155 -2.265 -1.092 -0.877
2.8 Constr -2.4 -2.1 -1.8
0.672 -4.104
1.4 Constr
0.273 -0.024
2.6 Constr
-1.9 0.849 1.9 Constr 5.000 Constr 5.000 Constr 1.052 Constr
1.569 1.439 1.480 2.1 0.846
2.3 1.7 1.985 1.0 0.000 Constr Constr 2.6
5.000 -3.000 0.387 0.682 $48.00 2.45
Constr Constr 5.9 15.9
4.696 -2.634 0.451 1.000 $15.00 2.76
Constr -1.0 3.3 Constr
0.570 1.000
4.3 Constr
0.458 1.000
2.0 Constr
Constr Constr
$48.00 2.51
$15.00 2.43
Table 3.13. Egress Mode Choice Models
Long Trip Coefficient / Constant Applied for Mode Business / Commute Recreation / Other Drive/ Rental Pick-up/ Park Car Drop-off Taxi Transit Walk Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat x x x x x x x x x x -0.060 -0.075 -0.126 -0.139 Constr Constr -7.9 -6.2 -0.030 -0.120 -0.015 -0.052 -0.060 2.960 Constr Constr -3.9 -6.6 Constr 5.0 Business Short Trip Commute Recreation / Other t-stat Constr Constr -3.5 Constr 3.5
Variable Acronym Definition Level of Service Coefficients 1 ivt In-vehicle time (minutes) 2 cost Cost ($) 4 aivt-pkup Pick-up/drop-off auto in-vehicle time (minutes) 5 adis-taxi Pick-up/drop-off auto distance (miles) 12 ovt Walk and wait time (minutes) 17 carused Car access to transit in transit access to main mode? (0/1) 21 railused Rail used to access main mode? (0/1) Constants 101 dp-acc Access constant 102 dp-egr Egress constant 103 dp-cvr To/from conventional rail? (0/1) 104 dp-hsr To/from high speed rail? (0/1) 105 dp-alone Traveling alone? (0/1) 106 dp-nocars Zero car household? (0/1) 107 dp-carsltw Fewer autos than workers? (0/1) 108 dp-lowinc Low income household? (0/1) 109 dp-hiinc High income household? (0/1) 110 dp-misinc Missing income household? (0/1) (for model estimation only) 111 dp-laxacc Access LAX airport? (0/1) 112 dp-sfoacc Access SFO airport? (0/1) 113 dp-oakacc Access OAK airport? (0/1) 114 dp-sjcacc Access SJC airport? (0/1) 115 dp-sanacc Access SAN airport? (0/1) 116 dp-buracc Access BUR airport? (0/1) 201 rc-acc Access constant 202 rc-egr Egress constant 203 rc-cvr To/from conventional rail? (0/1) 204 rc-hsr To/from high speed rail? (0/1) 205 rc-alone Traveling alone? (0/1) 206 rc-nocars Zero car household? (0/1) 207 rc-carsltw Fewer autos than workers? (0/1) 208 rc-lowinc Low income household? (0/1) 209 rc-hiinc High income household? (0/1) 211 rc-misinc Missing income household? (0/1) (for model estimation only) 301 sp-onephh One person household? (0/1) 302 sp-hhsize Household size 401 tx-acc Access constant 402 tx-egr Egress constant 403 tx-cvr To/from conventional rail? (0/1) 404 tx-hsr To/from high speed rail? (0/1) 405 tx-alone Traveling alone? (0/1) 406 tx-nocars Zero car household? (0/1) 407 tx-carsltw Fewer autos than workers? (0/1) 408 tx-lowinc Low income household? (0/1) 409 tx-hiinc High income household? (0/1) 411 tx-misinc Missing income household? (0/1) (for model estimation only) 501 tr-acc Access constant 502 tr-egr Egress constant 503 tr-cvr To/from conventional rail? (0/1) 504 tr-hsr To/from high speed rail? (0/1) 505 tr-alone Traveling alone? (0/1) 506 tr-nocars Zero car household? (0/1) 507 tr-carsltw Fewer autos than workers? (0/1) 508 tr-lowinc Low income household? (0/1) 509 tr-hiinc High income household? (0/1) 511 tr-misinc Missing income household? (0/1) (for model estimation only) 601 wk-acc Access constant 602 wk-egr Egress constant 603 wk-air To/from airport? (0/1) 98 mlogsum Logsum 99 hscale Scale on hypothetical choices Implied Value of Time Ratio OVT/IVT
Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat Coefficient -0.040 -0.050 -0.230 -0.117 -5.118 Constr Constr -3.1 -3.1 -4.3 -0.030 -0.100 Constr Constr -0.025 -0.100 -0.096 -0.050 2.570
-0.075 -4.466
Constr -6.2
1.751 -9.490 -2.251
Constr -2.5 -1.8
5.979 -3.522
Constr -2.4
1.827 -1.176 -0.552 -2.588
Constr -3.1 -2.4 -4.7
0.974 5.000 2.507
2.8 Constr 3.6 -2.768 -4.6 1.055 Constr 4.653 Constr -1.425 Constr 5.000 Constr
-2.3 1.499 2.8
5.000 3.580 0.592
Constr 5.2 0.7
-3.655 1.830 1.032
Constr 2.8 1.9
1.9 -0.581 -1.1
5.000 -2.074 0.280 0.516
Constr -2.0 6.9 9.8
3.076 0.470 1.000
Constr 5.3 Constr
5.000 0.649 0.412
Constr 2.9 3.0
5.000 0.487 0.334
Constr 2.6 5.2
5.000 0.758 0.610
Constr 4.1 4.8
$48.00 2.32
$15.00 2.00
$48.00 2.92
$18.00 2.50
Table 3.15. Main Mode Choice Models
Long Trip Short Trip Coefficient / Constant Applied for Mode Business / Commute Recreation / Other Business Commute Recreation / Other High Speed Car Air Conv. Rail Rail Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x -0.017 -0.018 0.023 -0.179 0.136 0.171 -12.8 Constr Constr -191.0 3.4 3.9 -0.035 -0.011 0.005 -0.011 0.204 0.399 -18.5 -14.2 1.9 -14.7 3.7 7.1 -0.109 Constr -0.050 Constr 0.023 1.8 -0.050 -18.1 0.463 Constr -0.148 -11.3 -0.025 Constr 0.007 0.7 -0.025 -12.7 0.330 Constr 0.330 Constr -0.108 -0.014 0.004 -0.014 0.303 -8.1 -5.2 0.7 -8.4 3.4
Variable Acronym Definition Level of Service Coefficients 1 cost Cost ($) 2 time In-vehicle time (minutes) 3 reli Reliability (Percent on time) 4 freq Service headway (minutes) 5 accls Access mode choice logsum 6 egrls Egress mode choice logsum 7 accls<-5 Access mode choice logsum less than -5? (0/1) 8 egrls<-5 Egress mode choice logsum less than -5? (0/1) 9 freq>60 Service headway greater than 60 minutes? (0/1) 10 reli>90 Reliability greater than 90 percent? (0/1) Constants 104 c-group Traveling in a group? (0/1) 105 c-nocars Zero car household? (0/1) 106 c-carslt2 Fewer than 2 cars for household size greater than 1? (0/1) 107 c-hhsize Household size 108 c-hiinc High income household? (0/1) 200 a-const Mode constant 207 a-loinc Low income household? (0/1) 208 a-hiinc High income household? (0/1) 209 a-msinc Missing income household? (0/1) (for model estimation only) 210 a-group Traveling in a group? (0/1) 211 {lax-sfo} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 212 {sfo-lax} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 213 {lax-oak} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 214 {oak-lax} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 215 {lax-sjc} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 216 {sjc-lax} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 217 {lax-sac} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 218 {sac-lax} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 221 {bur-sfo} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 222 {sfo-bur} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 223 {bur-oak} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 224 {oak-bur} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 225 {bur-sjc} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 226 {sjc-bur} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 227 {bur-sac} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 228 {sac-bur} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 231 {ont-sfo} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 232 {sfo-ont} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 233 {ont-oak} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 234 {oak-ont} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 235 {ont-sjc} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 236 {sjc-ont} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 237 {ont-sac} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 238 {sac-ont} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 241 {sna-sfo} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 242 {sfo-sna} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 243 {sna-oak} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 244 {oak-sna} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 245 {sna-sjc} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 246 {sjc-sna} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 247 {sna-sac} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 248 {sac-sna} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 251 {san-sfo} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 252 {sfo-san} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 253 {san-oak} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 254 {oak-san} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 255 {san-sjc} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 256 {sjc-san} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 257 {san-sac} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 258 {sac-san} Airport interchange served? (0/1) 300 h-const Mode constant 307 h-loinc Low income household? (0/1) 308 h-hiinc High income household? (0/1) 309 h-msinc Missing income household? (0/1) (for model estimation only) 400 r-const Mode constant 407 r-loinc Low income household? (0/1) 408 r-hiinc High income household? (0/1) 409 r-msinc Missing income household? (0/1) (for model estimation only) 99 Theta0099 Nesting coefficient Implied Value of Time
1.430 -0.308 0.296
9.1 -2.3 4.4 -1.114 -1.232 -1.2 -2.3 -1.824 0.877 -1.180 -1.3 1.7 -1.6 -0.728 -2.3
0.182 -10.269 1.180 -0.356 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 4.151 5.363 2.032 4.145 3.757 5.000 5.602 1.421 5.000 5.000 2.233 2.269 3.263 5.000 5.907 3.787 4.652 2.409 -0.231 -2.852 4.348 2.963 3.571 -1.996 5.000 5.000 1.704 1.952 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.686 -6.757 1.147 -4.620 0.613 x 0.692 $63.64
1.2 Constr 4.6 -2.8 Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr 4.8 Constr 1.4 10.4
-4.683 Constr
-0.505 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 4.151 5.363 2.032 4.145 3.757 5.000 5.602 1.421 5.000 5.000 2.233 2.269 3.263 5.000 5.907 3.787 4.652 2.409 -0.231 -2.852 4.348 2.963 3.571 -1.996 5.000 5.000 1.704 1.952 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.686 -0.713
-3.7 Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr Constr
-7.530 Constr
-6.964 Constr
-5.685 Constr
1.272 Constr
-6.232 Constr
-7.126 Constr
-5.541 Constr
0.738 $18.45
0.516 Constr $27.60
0.420 $10.12
0.689 $7.95
PROOF OF SERVICE BY FAX AND ELECTRONIC MAIL I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Alameda County. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within above titled action. My business address is 5626 Ocean View Drive, Oakland, CA 94618-1533. On July 6, 2010, I served the within: PETITIONER TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES(Set No. One); PETITIONER TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND’S FORM INTERROGATORIES – GENERAL (Set No.1); and PETITIONER TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (Set No.1) on the party listed below by transmitting the same via a fax machine at the telephone number (510) 652-5373 to the telephone number listed below. The fax machine indicated that the fax was properly received, and a copy of the printed fax report is attached hereto.
Danae Aitchison, Deputy Attorney General (916) 327-2319 Danae.Aitchison@doj.ca.gov
In addition, on the above-same day, I also sent an electronic copy of the above-same document, converted to “pdf” format, as an e-mail attachment, to the above-same party at the e-mail address shown above, return receipt requested. A copy of that e-mail, showing the date and time of transmission, is also attached hereto. I, Stuart M. Flashman, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Oakland, California on July 6, 2010. Stuart M. Flashman
5626 Ocean View Drive Oakland, CA 94618-1533 (510) 652-5373 (voice & FAX) e-mail: stu@stuflash.com
July 16, 2010 Danae J. Aitcheson, Deputy Attorney General California Dept. of Justice 1300 I Street, Ste. 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 e-mail: Danae.Aitcheson@doj.ca.gov RE: Town of Atherton et al. v. California High-Speed Rail Authority, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2008-80000022
Dear Ms. Aitcheson, This letter responds to your “meet and confer” letter of July 12, 2010 regarding discovery in the above-referenced case. I must emphatically disagree with your claim that there is no right to discovery in a case that has been set for hearing on a petition for writ of error coram nobis. That should be obvious. I would certainly never have propounded or served discovery requests if I felt there was no basis for conducting discovery. While there may be no published California cases that explicitly confirm the right to discovery in a coram nobis proceeding, the case People v. Rosoto (1965) 62 Cal.2d 684 is instructive. In that case, the defendants, after conviction and entry of final judgment, filed petitions for both coram nobis and habeas corpus. (Id. at p.686.) The California Supreme Court specifically ordered the taking of evidence before a referee regarding factual issues raised by the petition. (Id.) While it is certainly true that in this case the Court could similarly set the contested factual issues for court trial, a major purpose of discovery is to allow factual issues to be determined efficiently without court involvement. (See, Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 253-254.) Failing to allow discovery would essentially throw all of the factual issues identified in the writ petition into the Court’s lap for resolution. Attempting to resolve or clarify the issues through discovery would comport with considerations of judicial economy. (See, Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1294.) Insofar as supporting California authority is concerned, the writ of error coram nobis, while considered a civil writ, has been applied in both civil and criminal cases, and indeed is far more common in the criminal law context. There is no difference in its application to civil or criminal cases, nor are the procedures different. With that as context, a coram nobis petition is considered similar to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Indeed, California courts have held repeatedly that in criminal cases a petition for writ of habeas corpus is now the proper remedy for issues that might formerly have been addressed by a petition for writ of error coram nobis. (e.g., People v. Adamson (1949) 34 Cal.2d 320, 327.) As with a petition for writ of error coram nobis, a petition for writ of habeas corpus is generally a post-judgment proceeding. While the mere filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus does not create a right to discovery, it is well established that once an order to show cause issues setting the matter for hearing, there is a right of discovery on issues relating to the petition (In re Scott (2003) 29 Cal.4th 783, 814), although the scope of discovery is determined on a case-by-case basis. (Id. at p. 813.) By analogy, a petition for writ of error coram nobis, once it states a prima facia case sufficiently to be set for hearing, also creates a right to discovery relating to the allegations of the petition.
Danae J. Aitcheson, Esq. 7/16/10 page 2 You suggest that the filing of a coram nobis petition does not cause the case to be “pending”. However, the court’s determination to set a hearing date, or in this case its determination not to accept your invitation to summarily dismiss the petition but instead to allow the hearing to go forward, just as with an order to show cause in a habeas corpus proceeding, does place the matter before the court. However, in the spirit of compromise and in the interest of not causing unnecessary motion practice, my client is willing to extend the time to respond to its discovery requests until ten days following the court hearing on August 20th, provided the following condition is agreed to by the Authority. If the court determines to deny the petition, no further response would be required from the Authority. If, however, the court determines to either grant the petition or to conduct further proceedings, the Authority would respond to the requests within ten days without raising further objections. Please let me know within five court days whether the Authority is willing to accept this proposal. Most sincerely,
Documents Similar To HSR 15 -Motion for DiscoverySkip carouselHSRA10a - Writ of MandateHSRA Petition-Ver 2HSRA14e - Flashman DeclarationHSRA14C - Marshall Declaration -CompleteHSRA14 - Petition Coram Nobis - With ExhibitsHSRA14B - Alexis Declaration - FinalHSRA10 - Final JudgmentHSRA14a - P and as for Petition Coram NobisShahram Lolatchy, Now & Then Dance Studio v. Arthur Murray, Inc., and George Theiss and Nicholas Theiss and Sam Costello, Shahram Lolatchy, Now & Then Dance Studio v. Arthur Murray, Inc., and George Theiss and Nicholas Theiss and Sam Costello, 816 F.2d 951, 4th Cir. (1987)Hofer et al v. Old Navy Inc. et al - Document No. 159514 Joint Status Report Regarding Proposed Discovery Completion Date 2AG Sam Olens Sanctions OrderOrderOpp to Mot for Sanctions RedactedOpposition to Motion to CompelMcIntosh v. Denver, City And Co, 78 F.3d 597, 10th Cir. (1996)Wells et al v. Equifax Information Services, LLC et al - Document No. 3Hofer et al v. Old Navy Inc. et al - Document No. 49Personnel FileDizinno et al v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc - Document No. 5Mango et al v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc - Document No. 5Novak v. Overture Services, Inc. et al - Document No. 69Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al - Document No. 265STEINBUCH v. CUTLER - Document No. 334:10-cv-01564 #126Short_Draft_2.docxErnest Stich and Miriam Stich v. United States, 730 F.2d 115, 3rd Cir. (1984)10556 Response to a Motion Kit-1 NJU.S.A.v DARREN HUFF (ED TN) - 138 - RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to Darren Wesley Huff Re 119 MOTION InTaylor et al v. Panico et al - Document No. 4Documents About Coram NobisSkip carouselJacinto Moises Carbonell-Desliz, A074 054 226 (BIA Jan. 13, 2014)United States v. Castro-Taveras, 1st Cir. (2016)Motion for Joey Langston to undue his guilty pleaDickey v. Allbaugh, 10th Cir. (2016)Bailey v. Duvauchelle, No. SCWC-14-0000883 (Haw. June 29, 2015)Mario Mendoza v. United States, 3rd Cir. (2012)Norman Rothman v. United States, 508 F.2d 648, 3rd Cir. (1975)Hubert Lukasz Gul, A055 902 141 (BIA May 29, 2013)Hysler v. Florida, 315 U.S. 411 (1942)Taylor v. Alabama, 335 U.S. 252 (1948)United States v. Cruz, A.F.C.C.A. (2015)Davis v. Roberts, 425 F.3d 830, 10th Cir. (2005)Embrey v. United States, 10th Cir. (2007)Rawlins v. State of Kansas, 10th Cir. (2013)Dallas Ford v. United States, 11th Cir. (2014)David L. Coulter v. Tommy Herring, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections W.P. Johnson, Warden, Holman Unit, 60 F.3d 1499, 11th Cir. (1995)James Allen v. State of Alabama, 728 F.2d 1384, 11th Cir. (1984)United States v. Dunbar, 212 F.2d 654, 2d Cir. (1954)United States Ex Rel. Charles Emerick v. Honorable Wilfred Denno, as Warden of Sing Sing Prison, Ossining, New York, 328 F.2d 309, 2d Cir. (1964)United States v. Cornelius Albert, 3rd Cir. (2015)In ReUnited States v. Temitope Akinsade, 4th Cir. (2012)Middleton Habeas Petition - MO opposition3:12-cv-30051 #151United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009)Marino v. Ragen, 332 U.S. 561 (1948)United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954)Lane v. Brown, 372 U.S. 477 (1963)Raymond Edward James v. United States, 459 U.S. 1044 (1982)Pickett's Heirs v. Legerwood, 32 U.S. 144 (1833)Documents About Discovery (Law)Skip carouselRP 2013 30FarrellTWIA lawsuit - 6th Amended PetitionK-Beech - Order &amp; Report &amp; Recommendation (Ordered 5-1-12)Birthday EvidenceJameswoods Doe Oppo10-19-16 Corgan Motion to Compel & Memo in Support OCRBoa Answer to Freddie Objection in Re Taylor Bean &amp; Whitaker Mortgage Corp.06-30-2014 Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary InjunctionKEYES v OBAMA - 57 - ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE FOR 10/5/2009 at 8:30 AMArthur J. Usher Disciplinary OpinionTracy Martin and Alicia Stanley DivorceCosby UnsealJudicial Watch v Dept of State Bundy Report Jail ConditionsBundy wants govt to ID informantsCourt Order Denying Motion Re iPhone 5 iPad 3"Bachelor" TV producers vs. "Reality Steve" LawsuitUnsealing Memo Cosby02-19-2016 ECF 182 U.S.A. v A. BUNDY et al - Joint Status Report Filed by Ryan PayneKEYES|BARNETT v OBAMA - 90 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration - Gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.90.0Justice Department Reply brief 7.29.16Getty Images v. MotamediDiscovery SentencingUber driver lawsuit settlementFirefly Systems v. Markusic v. Galactic - Virgin Galactic opposed motion to dismiss.pdfDiscovery to BentleyBG3181 Reforming FINRA David Burton February 2017Gov.uscourts.cacd.530652.7.0Spencer Collier objection to Rebekah Mason request