Caltrain sues Verizon over utility easement

The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, which owns the commuter rail, filed the suit in San Mateo County Superior Court Wednesday against Verizon’s parent company MCImetro Access Transmission Services. While the two agencies have had a long-standing agreement to share portions of the corridor, Caltrain alleges that utility easement expired and it’s time for Verizon to pack its things and go.

“Despite there being no basis for Verizon’s continued presence on Caltrain’s property, and Caltrain’s repeated demand that Verizon relocate, Verizon refuses. Instead, hoping to leverage Caltrain’s well known need to access its own right-of-way because of fast approaching construction deadlines associated with the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project, Verizon demands the public reimburse it for its relocation,” Caltrain attorneys wrote in the lawsuit.

Caltrain’s $2 billion modernization program, which includes electrifying 51 miles of track between San Francisco and San Jose, has already suffered setbacks following a high-profile delay of a $647 million federal grant.

Earlier this year Caltrain allocated $20 million to keep already-awarded contracts with builders that included provisions it commence construction by a certain time or lose the agreed upon price. Now, Caltrain is asking the court to require Verizon cover the costs of any further delays on the electrification project resulting from the dispute over utility easements.

Since lining up the remaining funds and federal grant, Caltrain officials are ramping up efforts to proceed with construction slated to enable electric trains to ride the tracks by 2021.

This week isn’t the first time Caltrain has turned to the courts to keep its project moving forward, a number of eminent domain lawsuits have also been filed against property owners from whom the transit agency needs to purchase small strips of land in constrained areas of the corridor.

The lawsuit against Verizon is another example of Caltrain’s efforts to control the corridor through which it plans to install overhead contact systems and miles of wire needed to power the cleaner electric trains.

Verizon and Caltrain declined to comment citing the pending litigation.

According to documents filed with the court, the two entered into an agreement for Verizon to secure utility easements dating back to the 1990s that expired earlier this year. It also alleges Verizon has continued to benefit financially from the use of the equipment, despite failing to extend the contracts and being asked to remove the equipment such as utility poles and underground facilities like conduit, in segments stretching from San Mateo to Sunnyvale, according to the lawsuit.

In its lawsuit, Caltrain is asking the court to prohibit Verizon from using or entering the transit agency’s property for any reason other than to remove its aerial and underground facilities. It’s also asking the court to force Verizon to remove the equipment and to force it to give up any profits it received from using Caltrain’s property.

Caltrain has been meeting with the public to provide updates on the first stage of construction that will include relocation utilities, inspecting signals and communication equipment, and installing foundation for overhead contact system poles. That work is expected to begin in the next three months, according to Caltrain.

The infrastructure is expected to be installed and undergo a final system testing by 2020. Once it replaces all of its diesel trains with electrified ones in 2040, Caltrain is expected to increase daily ridership by 21 percent, take 619,000 vehicle miles off the Bay Area’s congested roads, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 176,000 metric tons of carbon monoxide every year, according to Caltrain.

The project received a bevy of support from local, state, federal and business representatives who lobbied for the project and the necessary funding from the Federal Transit Administration.

Supported by a joint powers agreement between Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco counties, the cash-strapped transit agency doesn’t have a dedicated funding source and often relies on other agencies for support.

samantha@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106

Twitter: @samantha_weigel