Caltrain faces lawsuit over electrification: California’s high-speed rail support, environmental review questioned

The town of Atherton, the Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund and the Community Coalition on High-Speed Rail lodged the complaint against Caltrain in San Mateo County Superior Court.

It asks the court to order the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, which runs Caltrain, to revise a Final Environmental Impact Report, or FEIR, prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act for the planned electrification of 51 miles of track between San Francisco and San Jose.

The state law, known as CEQA, requires environmental impact reports on projects that could change the environment.

The suit also questions the role of high-speed rail as $600 million of the electrification cost will be paid by the California High-Speed Rail Authority because the two agencies are planning eventually to share the tracks.

The lawsuit claims that the report approved by the joint powers board Jan. 8 didn’t adequately study the project’s impact on traffic, station configurations, tree removal and electricity demand, or look at the effect of possible legal challenges to the rail authority’s use of state bond money for the project.

Already in the midst of planning, Caltrain issued a request for proposals last week for the design of its massive system upgrade aimed at keeping with increasing ridership and spokeswoman Jayme Ackemann said it will stay the course.

“There is some risk, but in this case we feel confident that we can continue forward with the work we’re doing without delays while we continue to address the merits of the lawsuit. We believe we will be able to successfully litigate this because we feel we have already addressed many of the issues raised by Atherton,” Ackemann said.

In its RFP, Caltrain specifies the chosen bidder must design a project that minimizes impacts to trees and address other issues raised by the communities along the corridor.

Atherton was the only one of the 17 cities and towns along the corridor to sue over the FEIR and Caltrain officials are disappointed it chose this route, Ackemann said.

Atherton City Manager George Rodericks said in a statement, “The town met with Caltrain in an attempt to reach commitment on a number of remaining issues. Caltrain’s response did not contain sufficient commitment to deter the town from a legal challenge to the FEIR.”

Caltrain officials have maintained the agency is federally regulated by the Surface Transportation Board therefore its plans for electrification are eligible for pre-exemption from CEQA. Ackemann said the agency is committed to the environmental review and mitigation process, however, officials previously said they reserved the right to assert pre-exemption in the case of a lawsuit.

Yet another suit challenging pre-exemption was filed against the Surface Transportation Board, which regulates the nation’s railroads, in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco Monday.

The lawsuit appeals a December ruling in which the Washington, D.C.-based board said that plans by the California High-Speed Rail Authority can’t be challenged under CEQA because the state law is preempted by federal law.

The board said by a 2-1 vote that people who claim the environmental review for Fresno-Bakersfield segment of the line was inadequate can’t use the state law to seek an injunction in the California court system that would stop construction on the project.

Kings County, Kern County and five civic groups claim in the lawsuit that the board’s decision was legally erroneous and violated the groups’ constitutional right to seek redress for their grievances.

“This is about whether California gets to protect its own environment for its own rail system,” said David Schonbrunn of the San Rafael-based Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund, one of the citizens’ groups participating in the case.

The Woodside-based Community Coalition on High-Speed Rail is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The 65-mile, $1.2 billion segment between Fresno and Bakersfield is the next in line for construction to begin and the rail authority certified a Final Environmental Impact Report on it in May 2014.

Work has already begun on a more northern 29-mile, $950 million segment from central Madera County to Fresno.

A spokesman for the Surface Transportation Board had no immediate comment on the lawsuit.

Rail authority spokeswoman Lisa Marie Alley said the agency is currently “seeking clarification” from a Sacramento County Superior Court judge on what the next steps should be in six lawsuits pending in that court, in view of the Transportation Surface Board ruling.

Those lawsuits challenge the adequacy of the FEIR approved by the authority under the CEQA law last year. A seventh lawsuit filed by the city of Bakersfield was settled by that city and the authority in December.

Oakland attorney Stuart Flashman, who represents Atherton and several groups in both lawsuits, said, “I think the High-Speed Rail Authority is being somewhat of a bully, saying, ‘We want things our way.’”

Ackemann contended Caltrain’s plans for electrification, while funded in part by high-speed rail, do not clear the way for the controversial state project.

“Our project has independent utility. … Whether high-speed rail ever comes to the region or when they ever come to the region, our project will have benefits that are immediate,” Ackemann said. “High-speed rail will have to clear their own environmental impact report before they can ever operate on our tracks so Atherton and any other community that has concerns about high-speed rail will have an opportunity to address high-speed rail’s use of our tracks when they go through their environmental process.”