California High-Speed Rail Authority
Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 7:48pm PDT | Modified: Thursday, August 27, 2009, 6:45am
A Sacramento County Superior Court judge said Wednesday that portions of an environmental review of high-speed rail service will have to be rewritten, which might lead to delays in the project and loss of billions of dollars in state and federal funds.
Judge Michael P. Kenny ruled that the California High-Speed Rail Authority had failed to address concerns by Union Pacific Railroad about sharing its right-of-way in a stretch of the system further south, between San Jose and Gilroy, in its environmental review.
The ruling grew out of a lawsuit filed by the cities of Menlo Park and Atherton that challenged the adequacy of an environmental impact report conducted by the rail authority. Officials are meeting regularly with Union Pacific representatives to iron out any concerns they have about right-of-way issues between San Jose and Gilroy.
Rod Diridon, an authority board member and executive director of San Jose State University’s Mineta Transportation Institute, minimized the impact of Kenny’s 21-page ruling, saying it upheld most of the environmental study.
He added that rail authority members are waiting until a more detailed interpretation of the ruling is made available Thursday by the office of state Attorney General Jerry Brown.
However, he warned that delays caused by lawsuits could derail immediate plans for portions of the $45 billion, 800-mile high-speed rail network that would connect Southern California with the Bay Area and Sacramento.
“Losing even one month in our schedule in this region could cause us to lose federal stimulus funds, Proposition 1A state funds and up to $3 billion worth of badly needed jobs in our state,” Diridon said .
State officials seeking a portion of the $8 billion in stimulus funds must file by Oct. 2 of this year to be in the running.
High-speed rail opponents say Judge Kenny’s ruling means the rail authority will have to reconsider connecting the Bay Area to the system through Pacheco Pass.
Rail authority officials chose Pacheco Pass for the rail line instead of an alternative location, Altamont Pass between Livermore and Tracy.
“We are confident that a fair and complete analysis will demonstrate to the Authority that the Pacheco Pass route, with its lower ridership, lower revenue and its major impacts along the San Francisco Peninsula, is not the best choice,” David Schonbrunn, spokesman for the High-Speed Rail Litigation Coalition, said in a statement.
