Caltrain
Electrification EIR Challenge
While admittedly an unexpected thing for
a transit advocacy organization to do, TRANSDEF joined the
Town of Atherton and the Community Coalition on High-Speed
Rail to file suit challenging Caltrain’s certification of
its Electrification EIR. Here’s the press release:
Oakland, CA, February 9, 2015 --A Peninsula city, an
environmental and transportation advocacy organization, and
a Peninsula community group today jointly filed suit
challenging the Environmental Impact Report for Caltrain’s
proposed electrification. The Town of Atherton was joined
by the Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund
(TRANSDEF) and the Community Coalition on High-Speed Rail
(CC-HSR).
The lawsuit filed today seeks to force the Peninsula
Corridor Joint Powers Board, the agency that runs Caltrain,
to acknowledge the impacts that its project, and the
closely-associated high-speed rail project, will have on
the San Francisco Peninsula. Among other things, the
lawsuit asserts that by 2040, Caltrain will not be able to
accommodate more passengers. Surplus capacity that would
otherwise be available to run more Caltrain trains would
instead be committed to HSR, The suit also alleges that the
project’s $600 million in Proposition 1A bond funds is
vulnerable to legal challenge, requiring serious
consideration of less-costly alternatives.
CC-HSR President Jim Janz, a former mayor of Atherton, said
“The petitioners in this lawsuit want Caltrain to study the
impacts, and to study the alternatives, before plunging
ahead. That is not only prudent policy-making, it’s what
the law requires.”
David Schonbrunn, President of Transportation Solutions
Defense and Education Fund added, "As transit advocates, we
know that combating climate change will require a major
increases in Caltrain ridership. The electrification
project would prevent that,"
George Rodericks, Atherton City Manager advised, “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.”
Petition challenging the EIR
Press
coverage of the filing
News-Almanac
Mercury News
Chronicle
TRANSDEF’s concerns had been expressed in its
scoping letter, its DEIR comment letter and attachments, and a policy letter to the Board, suggesting that the
Board’s eagerness to electrify had caused it to overlook
the grave limitation on future capacity caused by
sharing tracks with HSR. The letter suggests that HSR
via the Altamont route would allow a San Francisco HSR
connection that did not harm the Peninsula.
TRANSDEF suggested that using bi-mode diesel multiple units
(DEMUs), which can take power from an overhead catenary,
and switch to their onboard engines for sections without
catenary, was the perfect flexible solution for Caltrain,
which has been unable to fund a complete electrification
project for thirty years. The DEMU has adequate
acceleration to accomplish the upgraded schedule planned
for electric multiple units, and can be run from catenary
through the stations north of Redwood City, where the
shorter spacing between stations requires greater
acceleration. While the FEIR discussion of DEMUs acknowledged their
feasibility, the CEQA findings made by the Board determined that,
because they did not advance electrification for HSR,
they could not be considered.
TRANSDEF believes that completion of the Downtown Extension
to the Financial District should be a far higher priority
for Caltrain than electrification. The great increase in
ridership that would result would do far more to reduce GHG
emissions--not to mention congestion--than will
electrification. This is a situation in which CHSRA’s
politically driven planning has infected a sister agency,
distorting its priorities to the point where Caltrain will
be standing-room only in 2040.
Following the pattern set by CHSRA, Caltrain petitioned the STB for relief from this CEQA
enforcement action. That petition was denied, because, as a commuter railroad not
engaged in interstate commerce, Caltrain is not covered
by the same law.
Briefing
Petitioners’ Opening Brief
and Request for Judicial
Notice
Respondent’s Opposition
and Request for Judicial
Notice
Petitioners’ Reply Brief
The
Ruling
The Court issued its ruling on September 26, 2016, denying all
claims.