News

Court rulings gives big boost to high-speed rail

Judge rejects lawsuit from Central Valley that sought to stop controversial project

California's high-speed rail system surged past a major legal obstacle this week when a Sacramento Superior Court judge tossed out a long-simmering lawsuit from the Central Valley.

The 2011 suit by John Tos, Aaron Fukuda and the County of Kings, maintained that the proposed rail system violates the provisions of Proposition 1A, a 2008 bond measure that allocated $9.95 billion for the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles rail system.

By revising the design of the system so that high-speed rail will now share a set of tracks with Caltrain along the Peninsula, the agency has strayed from the plans that were presented to the voters before the 2008 vote, attorneys for the plaintiffs argued during a three-day hearing in Sacramento in February. The initial plan called for a four-track alignment between San Francisco and San Jose.

The change, the plaintiffs have argued, is significant because the blended system would undermine the rail system's ability to achieve the state-mandated goal of going from San Francisco to Los Angeles in two hours and 40 minutes. This would make the rail system ineligible for the bond funds and for federal funds, which are contingent on having state money being available.

In a judgment issued March 4, Judge Michael P. Kenny concurred that the California High Speed Rail Authority does not have sufficient evidence at this time to show that it can comply with all of the requirements of the 2008 bond. The authority, which is charged with building the $64 billion project, has not yet provided the analysis of the trip time from San Jose to the San Francisco Transbay Terminal (its analysis still relies on San Francisco's lone Caltrain station at 4th and King streets, which is about 1.3 miles south of Transbay Terminal), Kenny noted. Nor has it shown that it can achieve a five-minute headway (the amount of time between trains), as mandated by law.

However, Kenny wrote, the rail authority "may be able to accomplish these objectives at some point in the future." He called high-speed rail an "ongoing, dynamic, changing project" and concurred with a recent ruling from the state Court of Appeal, which found that because the project is in flux, it cannot determine whether the project would meet the requirements of the Bond Act.

"There is no evidence currently before the Court that the blended system will not comply with the Bond Act system requirements," Kenny wrote in his ruling. "Although Plaintiffs have raised compelling questions about potential future compliance, the Authority has not yet submitted a funding plan seeking to expend Bond Act funds. Thus, the issue of the project's compliance with the Bond Act is not ripe for review."

Without the necessary analysis, Kenny reasoned, it is premature to determine whether the proposed system would meet the requirements of the 2008 bond. There are, as of today, "still too many unknown variables, and in absence of a funding plan, too many assumption that must be made as to what the Authority's final decisions will be."

By denying the plaintiff's request that the project be halted, Kenny handed a massive victory to what has been a deeply divisive and controversial project. While supporters, including Gov. Jerry Brown and the Democratic majority in the Legislature, consistently laud high-speed rail as a much needed solution to ease traffic congestion, create jobs and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, critics have panned it as a "boondoggle" that has nowhere near the funds it needs to become a reality.

Palo Alto officials had initially supported the project but ultimately turned against it, passing in 2011 a unanimous resolution calling for the project's termination. At the time, residents and council members raised doubts about the system's financial projections, ridership estimates and proposed alignment, which initially called for four tracks, with an elevated berm in the middle for the new bullet train.

By shifting to the blended approach, which was first proposed by Peninsula lawmakers in 2012, the rail authority has helped qualm some of these anxieties. The project also picked up some momentum last month, when the rail authority released a new business plan showing the price tag dipping from $67.6 billion two years ago to $64.2 billion.

The new business plan also announced a major change of direction for the rail authority: Rather than launching construction of the line exclusively in Central Valley, the agency now plans to build the first operating segment between San Francisco and Bakersfield.

In presenting the business plan to the rail authority's board of director's Tuesday morning, rail authority CEO Jeff Morales called the new proposal "the game changer, in terms of delivering the program."

The business plan relies mostly on bond funds and on proceeds from the state's cap-and-trade program for building the first operating segment, between the Bay Area and Central Valley. Rail officials hope further improvements and expansions would be financed, at least in part, by private investments and federal contributions.

"For the first time, within available resources, we can actually project out to delivering an operating system," Morales told the board Tuesday.

The board voiced no major concerns Tuesday about the dramatic change of direction in the new business plan. Board member Daniel Curtin said he is "very excited about the new development," which he said would bring new economic opportunities to the two regions that would be connected by high-speed rail.

"We all see the economic pressures being put on the Bay Area by Silicon Valley," Curtin said. "This is a whole change in how that can be approached that, really to me, is the first signal of what high-speed rail will do for California."

Board Chair Dan Richard agreed and lauded the plan for laying out for the public "how we can build the system."

"What is really here, is the sense that we can build this now," Richard said.

Comments

6 people like this
Posted by Martin Engel
a resident of Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Mar 9, 2016 at 12:54 pm

This HSR project has always been driven by politics. (So, what else is new?) The Democrats support it, the Republicans oppose it. (In this case, some of us opposers have crossed party-lines.) What does that mean?

State justice systems typically reflect party lines as well. Said another way, in a blue state, the courts are "blue." In a red state, the justice system is "red" -- as we have seen repeatedly in the southern states. Judge Kenny will not and cannot stop this project unless there is some so egregious and unambiguous evidence against the rail authority that public opinion in California will rise up en masse against this project that even Jerry Brown would have to back down from his relentless support for it.

So? So it means that this HSR project will, during the entirety of Brown's tenure, stay afloat, improvising, kludging, and inventing business plans as it goes along, spending what the CHSRA can get their hands on, certainly unethically (including not telling the truth), perhaps illegally, but enjoying the judicial immunity of pursuing this boondoggle with impunity.

Stopping HSR will take a 'jooge' portion of the state population taking to the streets with torches and pitchforks, if you see what I mean. Is that likely to happen? I don't think so.


6 people like this
Posted by pogo
a resident of Woodside: other
on Mar 9, 2016 at 1:24 pm

pogo is a registered user.

"In a judgement issued March 4, Judge Michael P. Kenny concurred that the California High Speed Rail Authority does not have sufficient evidence at this time to show that it can comply with all of the requirements of the 2008."

So the HSR Authority can't prove that the new plan complies with the requirements of the initiative and the judge says that's okay? Seriously?

Only in California...


6 people like this
Posted by Surreal
a resident of Woodside: other
on Mar 9, 2016 at 6:13 pm

HSR is a surreal waste of precious resources. The plan doesn't resemble what was sold to voters. The number of citizens that will benefit from it IF (huge IF) it ever got completed in relation to the total state population is skewed as related to the expense. They have no idea how they will pay for it, the citizens now don't want it and yet they are going to plow forward anyway out of pure arrogance and a payoff to the political allies who backed it. I find the HSR situation to be representative of why we are seeing people across the country voting for Trump and Sanders against their otherwise better judgment. They are in rebellion against a government that is beholden to special interests and doesn't listen to the people.


4 people like this
Posted by Sung
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Mar 9, 2016 at 7:23 pm

Build it. Quit stalling.


4 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Mar 9, 2016 at 8:01 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

"Build it. Quit stalling."

Yes, please build the train to nowhere. GREAT idea. @@


Like this comment
Posted by Republican
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 9, 2016 at 8:51 pm

The fiscally responsible California party could stop it if enough California voters realized that the HSR is nothing but a payoff between Democratic Legislators and Union Interests. Meanwhile California Public schools (K-12) are now ranked 47th in the United States.

So tens of thousands of people will have their property rights vacated through this egregious misuse of eminent domain. When will the voters wise up?


4 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Mar 9, 2016 at 10:25 pm

I continue to enjoy posting this...

Boondoggle -

noun: work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value.

verb: waste money or time on unnecessary or questionable projects.


I can't wait to see the final price tag. I will be so over budget.....


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Mar 10, 2016 at 7:06 am

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

IF, and that's a big IF, it ever gets completed it will be well north of 100 billion.


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle

on Apr 26, 2017 at 1:28 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Babka bakery to open Thursday in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 10 comments | 6,279 views

Which Cocktail Has the Least Calories?
By Laura Stec | 15 comments | 1,921 views

UCSB's CCS program
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 984 views

Ten Tips for Teens and Young Adults to Survive a Dysfunctional Family
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 707 views