After its June board meeting in Los Angeles, at which hundreds of concerned residents united in protest, the California High-Speed Rail Authority has done nothing to alleviate the concerns of residents throughout the region. While disappointing, the board’s nonaction comes as no surprise to those who have worked with the HSRA over the last year in an attempt to improve alignments and eliminate destructive routes. The segment from Palmdale to Burbank, which passes through the northeast San Fernando Valley, could have severe consequences to local communities. One of two proposed routes, SR-14, would bifurcate the city of San Fernando with a 20-foot-high wall and effectively create two separate communities. Furthermore, the route could force the city to the brink of bankruptcy by demolishing key sections of San Fernando’s downtown, eliminating up to 7 percent of the city’s annual budget and displacing dozens of businesses and hundreds of jobs. The alternative routes under consideration, the Eastern Routes (E1, E2 and E3), would travel from Palmdale to Burbank by tunneling under the Angeles National Forest and passing through the Foothill communities. While these routes avoid densely populated areas, they have their own shortcomings. Route E2 would give rise to tunnel openings in the quiet equestrian neighborhoods of Lakeview Terrace and Shadow Hills. The plan would call for a half-mile bridge over the Tujunga Wash, an environmentally sensitive area and would irreparably alter the landscape. Routes E1 and E3 could similarly disrupt homes and pose environmental and aesthetic degradation to the forest. In spite of repeated efforts by residents and businesses to address these concerns, the HSRA has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to work with affected communities. The city of San Fernando, for example, has provided the HSRA with a detailed study outlining the destruction caused by bifurcating San Fernando, but the HSRA has ignored the report and refused thus far to provide a response. The HSRA’s inability to address serious concerns on the local level points to even deeper problems at the state level. The HSRA has come under intense scrutiny lately as a result of mismanagement and negligence. In addition, the rail project faces a growing number of setbacks, especially with regards to funding. In 2008, when voters approved nearly $10 billion in funding for the high-speed rail project, state officials advertised the venture as a $33 billion investment in which the state, federal government and private investors would each pay a third. Shortly thereafter, the project’s official price tag ballooned to $68 billion. Some officials and industry experts expect a total cost of $90 billion or more. The misguided belief that private and federal money would advance the high-speed rail has succumbed to the grim reality that the entire cost might fall almost exclusively on California taxpayers. To make matters worse, the HSRA has failed to disclose these escalating costs to the public in a timely and transparent manner. Now, faced with a $16.3 billion funding shortfall for the first segment alone, the state must continue praying for angel investors or commit additional public funds to the project. The project faces other serious obstacles beyond funding. Opponents to the high-speed rail continue to challenge the project in court, arguing that the plan has deviated substantially from the preliminary plans approved by voters. Additionally, the HSRA has fallen behind key deadlines, which might cause it to rush through studies and planning that should take years, not months, to complete. Sensing public opposition to the project, the state has tried to accelerate construction before Gov. Jerry Brown’s term expires in 2018. His likely successor, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, has signaled reservations over the project and other Democrats could follow suit if Newsom wins the governorship. If the state truly valued the will of the people, it would halt construction of the high-speed line until officials complete environmental studies of all sections, finalize construction costs and give the public an opportunity to vote again on the project. As the HSRA continues studying alignments in the northeast San Fernando Valley, it must eliminate at-surface or elevated alignments (SR-14 and E2) and work with community leaders to explore alternate routes, including a direct route from Palmdale to Union Station in Los Angeles. The rail line has become a gross distortion of what optimistic California residents expected. The state can develop plans for reducing carbon emissions and enhancing public transportation in a smarter, more cost-effective way without the high-speed rail. Residents are most interested in projects that offer tangible benefits to their communities like infrastructure repairs, water conservation and local transportation. The high-speed project would spend our limited resources on a vanity project when there are necessities here at home. Joel Fajardo is mayor of the city of San Fernando.
