Millennium Tower 2016

While the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA), which is in charge of San Francisco’s new Transbay Transit Center, has already been named as a defendant in two lawsuits related to the sinking of the adjacent Millennium Tower, lawsuits which could further delay the delivery of train service to the Center, a number of other lawsuits are in the works.

And this week, the TJPA Board of Directors is slated to conference with legal counsel behind closed doors to discuss an additional five (5) potential lawsuits, up from four (4) last month.

29 thoughts on “Five More Transbay Transit Center Lawsuits in the Works”
    1. They’re still working on that. Gotta keep up that resistance to transit infrastructure and make sure it’s under the guise of something respectable!

  1. Not sure why people think suing the neighbors when their own foundation was built insufficiently is going to pan out. The building leaned and sank before the terminal was even started and apparently was not disclosed to condo buyers. Plus they lobbied for 40m to be spent to mitigate any damage to their building from terminal construction – and quite possibly that is helping the building from being even worse if no terminal was being built.

    Time to lop off about 15-20 floors to reduce the weight. There are some more sturdily-built condo buildings in the pipeline nearby…

  2. Spending billions for a bus station should get every politician involved tossed out of office. As far as I’m concerned, the ony way they can redeem themselves is to come up with the money immediately to get at least CalTrain into the terminal. It can be done–it’s a matter of priorities. Perhaps the city should borrow the money (bonds) and increase employee contributions for health care and pensions as part of the budget “fix” to help pay back the bonds. Shocking idea I know because every San Franciscan understands that city government is really just a giant make-work project for those lucky enough to get in on it, but this time–just once–maybe the public’s needs should come first.

    1. @BT, I think getting tossed out of office requires a lot of pressure put on those targeted for the tossing. And one way to do that is wide enough exposure of the problem to generate the volume of annoyance of the issue created by those folks.

      And maybe its starting to happen. The Millennium has been nation-wide news fro some time now. I noticed today that Business Insider just ran a piece on the TTC being one of the most expensive “bus stations” ever built in the US. If that drumbeat keeps growing, those involved with the TTC will start to feel that pressure.

    2. “…every San Franciscan understands that city government is really just a giant make-work project for those lucky enough to get in on it…”

      PLEASE do no speak for “every San Franciscan”. This comment is rude and inappropriate. Most of these jobs are necessary and required for the City to function, you just remember those that seem superfluous. The people who do these jobs have to put up with the rude public (yes I mean you) and accept lower pay than the private sector for slightly better benefits and a modest pension. It is really just too easy to throw public servants under the bus. Think before typing.

        1. Just because you say it, does not make it true. Have we learned nothing from this election cycle.

          I GUARANTEE you that the person recording your tax payment at City Hall or the hundreds of other jobs like that are not getting 90% pay at age 55 for the rest of their life.

      1. @justmyopinion: Actually there is little evidence that people who work for the City get paid less than they would in the private sector — indeed studies have showed that, in general, people moving into gov’t jobs get raises and that people who move out of gov’t get paid less. Obviously you work for the City, and are annoyed because you feel that you are a “public servant” and therefore above criticism. Most people figured out that was BS a long time ago. In the future, please actually listen to the legitimate complaints of the people paying your salary. Thanks.

    1. Actually I’d say there are many other questions

      What did TJPA know about the sinking?
      Which engineer(s) signed off on the MT’s design?
      When exactly did the MT start sinking? Before occupancy?
      What MT know about the sinking?
      At what rate is MT sinking? Has that rate changed over time?”


      I could go on. Many questions

  3. These lawsuits could go on for well over a decade – and that is not mentioning potential lawsuits from Peninsula residents opposed to HSR. So how long will litigation delay HSR coming to SF?

    If, that is, it ever comes to SF. This is all a perfect storm now – including the TJPA surely concerned about future litigation if there more issues.

    It’s a good bet HSR will end up coming up the East Bay as opposed to the Peninsula. And the TJPA can then fund a bus bridge from the Oakland terminus to the SF TTC. Further solidifying what may become the TTC’s ultimate claim to fame – as Business Insider notes – one of the most expensive bus stations in the world.

    1. Sorry, people in LA aren’t going to buy tix to Oakland. It’s SF to LA remember? The only way HSR goes up the East Bay is if they put a railroad across the Bay Bridge into the Grand Central TERMINAL of the West.

    2. The Amtrak San Joaquin train already terminates in Oakland, and many people from the Central Valley don’t take it because they are going to San Francisco, not Oakland… Amtrak needs to jump on the Bart rails before Oakland and just continue onto SF.

    3. The weakness of the East Bay HSR approach is that it skips the two largest cities in the Bay Area.

      1. There’s no reason hsr can’t go via San Jose. Upgrading the existing UPRR lines that are used by Amtrak Capitol Corridor would be way easier and cheaper than up the peninsula to SF.

        1. There have been many routes proposed for HSR but none of them go to both San Jose and Oakland. The East Bay option enters the Bay Area via the 580/680 corridor over the Altamont pass, completly skipping San Jose.

          So yeah, it is possible to route HSR via both SJ and Oakland (Amtrak does it today) but nobody seriously considers that a viable option.

    4. Dave, we told you last time, HSR is not going to end up in the East Bay without a State vote to change the routing. So you can forget that dream.

    5. The reasons may change, but your conclusion is always the same: HSR will end up in Oakland.

      The downtown extension is not just for HSR, it’s for Caltrain too. Each of those would justify it, so together they provide ample reason for the project to go ahead.

  4. People aren’t going to buy an LA to Oakland train ticket? Really? Plenty of SoCal folks already fly to the Bay Area through OAK for other Bay Area destinations -why would HSR be different?

    1. When people talk about how much time they can save by flying/taking HSR they don’t really plan on being stuck in traffic to get to where they are really going – right? If I fly into Oakland Monday morning, how long does it take to get to downtown San Jose?

      1. Heck, just the convenience of Transbay Caltrain makes it worthwhile. HSR is just icing on the cake.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *