Central Valley Cities Continue Competition For HSR Maintenance Hub
Every so often this blog spends several days in a row focused on the latest HSR drama on the Peninsula. This is of necessity, since that’s where the most high-profile debates are taking place, and where most of the state’s HSR denialism and criticism are coming from, so it makes sense for us who support the project to focus there from time to time.
Of course, California HSR is a statewide project, and while cities like Menlo Park and Palo Alto feel they can afford to dismiss the desperate need for jobs in these hard times, other cities can’t. The San Joaquin Valley is one of the hardest hit places in the entire country by this severe recession, and so it’s no wonder that cities there are working hard to bring the HSR maintenance hub to their towns. Over 15 sites have been proposed for the hub, from Gilroy to Stockton and all the way down to Bakersfield.
The city of Fresno, led by Mayor Ashley Swearengin, is mounting one of the most assertive efforts to land the hub. She’s been busy rounding up support from other Valley mayors for a Fresno hub at the US Conference of Mayors meeting. Fresno’s hub would be located near American and Cedar streets by Highway 99. Mayor Swearengin’s support is matched by that of the Fresno Bee, which editorialized in favor of the Fresno hub today:
The Rail Authority calls the operation a “heavy maintenance facility,” but that description doesn’t tell the whole story. This facility will employ 1,500 people, including the rolling stock maintenance staff, train operators, central control supervisors, systemwide engineers and other staff.
It is quite simply the most important economic development project that Fresno County could hope to lure to our community.
That’s why the competition will be stiff, and Fresno County must have a first-class proposal every step of the way. No internal bickering. No local turf battles. We don’t need a repeat of Merced getting the University of California campus because Fresno did not have its act together.
In some of the previous Peninsula threads, local NIMBYs have been dismissing the need for jobs. Such people would be lucky if they were merely laughed out of the room in the San Joaquin Valley. Fresno’s unemployment rate is 17%, as is Modesto and Stockton. Merced’s rate is 20%. Fewer areas in the entire country have been hit harder by this economic crisis than the Valley. If Peninsula NIMBYs think those jobs aren’t necessary, that their concept of urban aesthetics is more important than helping solve the Valley’s unemployment crisis, they need to go to Fresno, Merced, and Stockton and tell people there that to their faces.
Speaking of Merced, support remains strong for using Castle Airport as the hub location:
The Castle site is the only area in the entire Valley that can truly be called an intermodel facility because it is connected to an adjacent airport and a future freeway.
The Atwater-Merced expressway currently in the planning stages already has an existing right of way which can be modified to allow high-speed trains to cross from one alignment to the other.
This property and the future freeway are controlled by a single-public ownership (Merced County).
The Castle site is also uniquely positioned to fly in heavy cargo, which will be necessary since the California High-Speed Rail Authority intends to build and maintain these trains at the site.
But the Castle Airport site works only if the BNSF alignment is used through the Merced area. Although Union Pacific has not exactly been playing nicely, the UPRR alignment is still an option, and while other sites are being considered in Merced, most local support, including from county officials, is coalescing behind Castle Airport.
Further north, the small town of Riverbank, just north of Modesto, is making a push to get an HSR station should the BNSF alignment be chosen instead of the UPRR alignment through central Modesto:
Riverbank City Council members Monday will review whether to challenge Modesto’s presumed lock on the only station between Stockton and Merced. If the council agrees, leaders would make Riverbank’s pitch at Thursday’s hearing.
“I think it’s very feasible, it would make a lot of sense and truly could be a regional hub not just for Riverbank but for the whole area,” Riverbank Mayor Virginia Madueño said….
Riverbank, which sprung up next to a railroad, finished a $9 million upgrade to its downtown four months ago and envisions shopping, offices, a plaza and maybe a sports complex on a former cannery site nearby. A depot on the line that used to serve the cannery could deposit passengers in the middle of the new development, officials say.
“Riverbank was the center of the railroad in Stanislaus County for a long, long time,” City Manager Rich Holmer said. “We want to see that continue.”
Madueño said passengers she’s picked up at Modesto’s Amtrak depot complain about its remote location. “They say it’s off the beaten path and there is nowhere they can walk to — no restaurants or shops, nothing.”
The current Modesto Amtrak station location is certainly not ideal. But from the perspective of Californians For High Speed Rail, the best solution here is a downtown Modesto station to put both Amtrak and HSR services in the city center.
As certain Peninsula cities decide to pursue a classist policy of favoring prosperous homeowners over unemployed workers, Central Valley cities have instead shown they understand what our predecessors understood 75 years ago: that for their communities to recover and thrive, infrastructure projects that bring both short-term and long-term jobs and value must be strongly supported. As of right now I’m completely agnostic on where the maintenance hub should go – but I’m pleased and excited to see the Valley working so hard to get it.
Plans of what this maintenance facility looks like are found here.
jimsf Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 12:32 am
Cool. but where do we find room for the san francisco yard?
Joey Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 6:54 am
*coughbrisbanecough*
Dave Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 8:29 am
Just south/west of Bayshore Caltrain station is the perfect spot, in Brisbane. It looks like their might have been a rail yard before for the SP, Google map it
Dave Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Yes, I’m very sure it used to be a rail yard for the SP since the spot has an abandoned train shed with an empty turntable for switching trains at the far left on the north end of the yard. It also has track lines in the earth even though the tracks are gone. Again I think this spot is good, although I don’t know if the size of this area will suite the area being proposed for the SF HSR yard.
Reality Check Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
@Dave
Of course, that big old rail yard in Brisbane was SP’s Bayshore Yard … here are some old photos:
1982 Aerial shot
Looking north across yard to toward tunnel 4 and Bayshore station
jimsf Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Oh yeah that is perfect. jobs for that area.
50Billion is a lot of jobs in a lot of industries besides building a HSR…
Rafael Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 8:35 am
And the trillions of dollars that will be spent on weapons systems and homeland security equipment that will prove almost entirely useless against determined terrorists could also fund a lot of jobs in a lot of industries.
HSR isn’t a jobs program first, that’s merely an important fringe benefit. California needs to invest in its transportation infrastructure in anticipation of future population growth to avoid near-permanent gridlock on certain roads and at certain airports. Prior to the financial crisis, the growth rate was around 600,000 a year thanks primarily to migration from other states and countries. Now, that number is reportedly down to around 100,000 but even this recession won’t last forever.
Note that new transportation infrastructure generates additional economic activity for decades, e.g. in housing construction, trade in goods, logistics etc. HSR will allow the Central Valley to diversify away from thirsty agriculture and attract a larger share of future population growth than would otherwise be possible. This will provide some relief for the already-crowded Bay Area and LA basin and, it will give businesses a chance to set up shop where the earthquakes aren’t.
I think you’re right about the need for jobs. Menlo & Palo Alto residents aren’t experiencing the recession the way the central valley is. Then again, these same people who enjoy their backyard pools probably don’t realize that valley agriculture has been hit hard by water shortages.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 24th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
See, I actually disagree here – many Menlo Park and Palo Alto residents ARE experiencing the recession in a severe way, even if fewer of them are suffering than their counterparts in the Valley. What their elected officials are saying, however, is “tough shit – we’re going to ignore the working-class in favor of prosperous homeowners.”
It’s just stunning to me, the open embrace of classism of the mayors of both cities. It’s also unnecessary – as the San Carlos presentation Thursday night explained, housing values near the berm and overpass have not been hurt by that above-grade project. There is very little reason to believe property values would be hurt in Menlo Park or Palo Alto, although many project critics and opponents are convinced they will be.
Of course, Palo Alto leadership also appears to not care as much about the death toll on the at-grade tracks either. You’d think that elected officials would place an extremely high priority on anything that would make the corridor safer and save lives.
Tom Reply:
January 24th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
That’s an unfair slap at the Peninsula mayors, Robert. First, implementing HSR will not, in an of itself, affect the horrible suicides in our community. You ought to mind your own business on an issue that is very troubling to these communities and has nothing to do with rail road tracks. There are many ways to take one’s life. So back off on that issue.
Second, elected officials are responding to what their residents are concerned about. They are concerned not only about property values but the whole character of the community. You can’t tell me that 200 trains a day whipping along on 20 ft high tracks and all the disruption necessary to get to that point is not of concern. It is a lot more than property values. And it has nothing to do with ignoring the working class. Hire people to build projects that will pay and that will be of lasting value to more people than the luxury of a high speed train.
Third, we don’t want what San Carlos has. It is a completely different situation on the rest of the Peninsula.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 8:45 am
Actually, it will. The presentation from Omar Ahmad on Thursday night showed that after San Carlos grade separated their line, incidents of trains hitting people dropped to ZERO. Sure, someone determined to commit suicide by throwing themselves in front of a train could find a way to climb onto the aerial structure, but it won’t exactly be easy. Besides, how many people commit suicide on BART’s aerial structures? Suicide is an opportunistic act. Reduce the opportunities, reduce the number of suicides. That simple.
As to what the electeds are responding to, many of the construction workers are their constituents too. What Menlo Park and Palo Alto’s mayors are saying is that those workers’ concerns and need for jobs takes a back seat to protecting the property values of a handful of people, that the needs of other homeowners who know their values won’t be hurt, and may even be increased, by aerial structures, who want affordable travel options, are also secondary to the small handful of outspoken critics. These elected officials are picking and choosing which residents’ concerns are seen as legitimate, and therefore choosing whose are seen as illegitimate.
Finally, you need to explain why you oppose what San Carlos has, and explain why it’s somehow “completely different.” Especially since Palo Alto already has several grade-separated crossings of the rail corridor.
Tom Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 9:58 am
The issue is the mental state of these kids. It’s not about whether there are train tracks available. Promoting HSR as a way to prevent suicides seems totally self serving and inappropriate.
Again, it’s not just about the homeowners and their property, though that is clearly important. It’s about what it does to the community. Perhaps you should come up to the area and superimpose a San Carlos berm throughout the Menlo, PA, Atherton area and at least double the width of the tracks that are there now. It will take out a main artery, it will place a large barrier between two sections of the cities, it will reduce park space in several communities, it will take out significant sections of neighborhoods, and it will be as ugly as sin…..among other things.
Finally, I find it hard to believe that anyone’s property values will be increase by having aerial structures around. Is HSR planning to put pretty pictures on them or billboards, the proceeds from which will go to the local residents?
Dan S. Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
I totally agree with Robert on this one. Suicide prevention is not a good reason to hang your hat on when defending the HSR project, because it’s just too emotional an issue. BUT, there is no question in my mind that grade-separating the tracks will cut suicides in Palo Alto on the tracks no *nearly* zero. I personally think every resident in Palo Alto should be seriously considering the benefit of a full grade separation for this reason alone.
Tom, I used to live in PA, and I disagree with basically all of your assumptions. There’s no reason these changes will separate the city more than it is already, I know of no instances where it will reduce park space, or take out any significant area out of neighborhoods at all (not sure what you’re referring to, actually), and with all the industrious and amazingly creative people in PA there’s no reason it will be ugly as sin. Have some more faith in the talents and high standards of your fellow citizens, I would say! And consider the needs of those of us who use the train.
Joey Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Take out a main artery HOW? All existing roads will be preserved … that’s the point of the aereal (though based on Clem’s analysis Palo Alto can be mostly at-grade.
And it will only be ugly as sin if you’re too busy fuming to participate in the CSS process.
A BART subway in PA would take care of any safety hazard with no blight.
Joey Reply:
January 24th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
A BART subway would also cost $15 billion for the entire peninsula corridor, would have no express trains, and would not allow a single-seat ride to destinations beyond San José.
Bianca Reply:
January 24th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
A BART subway in PA would connect Fresno, Bakersfield or Merced to LA or SF how? HSR is not just about the Peninsula, despite the attention it gets here. HSR is about connecting Northern and Southern California, and especially the bits in the middle to the big metro regions.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 9:23 am
It would connect them the same way it’s supposed to connect Livermore and San Jose – that is, with slow, all-stops runs on freeway alignments with minimal downtown service.
jimsf Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 12:26 am
So we are to completely redesign the bay area’s transit to satisfy the wishes of a handful of spoiled nimbys? I don’t think so. Did you bother to ask caltrain riders, who commute daily if they’d rather use bart? I assure you they would not. In fact, I wonder what the reaction would be towards PA if word gets out that PA wants to get rid of caltrain and replace it with bart.
The Peninsula has every right to be all about itself. It is a corollary of the doctrine of personal autonomy. Whatever you can get away with – starting with the Supreme Court.
California is divided against itself. It would fare better split.
Joey Reply:
January 24th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
“The Peninsula has every right to be all about itself.”
Sure, if they’re willing to pay for the cost and not screw over the rest of the state in the process.
And yes, people are selfish by nature. This is why we have a government.
Peter Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 9:59 am
Teabagger.
wu ming Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 10:01 am
what, split off a breakaway state of santa clara? even the rest of nor cal is playing tiny violins for the handful of property owners kicking up dust about the rail line that predates their bland suburbs. if it’s CA against a handful of cities, you guys aren’t going to win.
Peter Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 10:13 am
I will declare the Republic of San Jose. Everyone crossing my borders must pay a tax. Hey, that’s a good way to get rich real fast.
City-states are the wave of the future. Or wait, was it the Middle Ages?
Do not buy all the hype from Fresno just yet. The problems that I see with the Fresno site is the following. First, a Heavy Maintenance facility requires acess to a large amounts of power such as a large natural gas line and huge amounts of electricity. This current location does not immediately have the necessary infrastructure in place to get up and running quickly if it is indeed going to be used to build and test trains by 2012. Also because of the heavy industrial nature of a Maintenance facility how do the existing neigbors, farmers and homeowners feel about a loud heavy industrial use facillity in a current unincorporated area ?I know first hand that Heavy Maintenace facilities are extremely environmentally dirty sites due to the nature of welding, runnoff of water, soil contamanation etc. I cannot imagine the Farm Bureau signing off on a site currently zoned as Ag. What does that do to the property values of the AG land around it? Finally the $25 million dollar figure mentioned in the Fresno proposal is for land aquistion, my guess is the City of Fresno and the County do not own much or any of the land in there proposal. It is going to take a lot of time to acquire this land, do the entitlements and get $ 25 million in bond money that was approved for numerous Fresno County transporatation projects redirected immediately to High Speed rail. It is great that all the politicains in Fresno see the value of a Maintenace facility but the reality is the Fresno site has way to many moving parts and when this is examined more closely the location is not feasible or can be built quickly.
For me the Castle site is far superior to the proposed location in Fresno for the following reasons. First, since 2005 Castle has been the only site mentioned for the Havy Maintenace facility in all authority staff reports and maps. Second the 165 acre site which is currently zoned for heavy industrial use is valued at over $ 24 million dollars and is controlled by one property owner (Merced County) who in their proposal can immediately lease it to the authority for $ 1.00 a year. Third because the site was a former Brownfield site a permit to construct a heavy Maintenance facility was already approved by Merced County environmental health which means a shovel can hit the ground once papers are signed. (I believe no site in the valley can offer this) Also Castle power is supplied by MID (Private utility company) who have stated to the authority that they can supply power to this Heavy Maintenace facility at one third less than PG&E or Southern Edison. Lastly, the Castle site is no longer bound only by the BNSF alignment because of the proposed Atwater/Merced Expressway Merced County is allowing the authority to use the new freeway right of way which has already in the planning and predevolpment phase to get High Speed trains from the UPN over to the BNSF and vice versa. When looking at the maps for the various routes through Merced County AECOM has used a yellow line which shows a transition from one over to the next. This problem is now solved for the authority since these right of ways have already been acquired and this is now solves AECOM right away issues and saves the tax payers money and time .
In summary the Castle site can be open and ready far more quicly and less expensive than the Fresno proposal. And ultimately according to the Authority anything that saves the tax payers money and time is the goal of the Board. Only politics and hype can beat the Castle proposal.
jimsf Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 12:28 am
I like castle.
Rafael Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 9:21 am
The official project documentation for the Atwater-Merced Expressway is here. Page 3 of the presentation shows a map of where exactly the new road is supposed to run. Phase 1 will run virtually perpendicular to hwy 99/UPRR, which makes it unsuitable for anything but a spur out to Castle Airport. At 220mph, trains need curve radii of several miles.
I’ve long argued that in the long run, Castle Airport should be leveraged as an airport serving much of the Central Valley and also relieving both SJC and even SFO. Heavy air lift operations could commence fairly quickly, as BNSF already has a spur into the facility and most of the infrastructure for air traffic control already exists. One obvious immediate application would be as a base for firefighting jets serving multiple western states.
In due course, a passenger terminal could also be constructed. However, its success would depend primarily on securing a large catchment area, i.e. on siting an HSR station at Castle Airport, preferably on the main line from Sacramento down to Bakersfield and beyond.
If Castle Airport is to be used as a commercial airport, the HSR heavy maintenance facility could be sited in Fresno or elsewhere in a political quid pro quo.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 9:24 am
What does a train heading to the railyard need a turn radius of several miles?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
“What does a train heading to the railyard need a turn radius of several miles?”
To maximize line capacity. Trains diverging into the yard want to be running at line speed, or as close as feasible to it, before they take the diverge. Deceleration should be done on the connecting track to the yard, not on the mainline. Otherwise the slowing (= mixed speed) trains consume line capacity. Same deal for trains rejoining the main line traffic flow. Think of acceleration merging lanes on freeways on-/off-ramps.
What this tells you also is that siting maintenance in the middle of a field in the middle of nowhere in “flyover country” (hey, that describes San Francisco-San Jose also!) is a bad idea because it requires very high speed junctions and very high speed and very long connecting tracks for the very high speed approaching and departing trains. If a train needs to run out of service, consuming crew time and vast amounts of energy at 200+kmh just to go to a yard well, something is very very deficient with the skills and professionalism and experience of your rail planners.
In short: 130kmh yard turnouts: not unreasonable. 250kmh yard turnouts: insane.
jimsf Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 10:16 am
you could use a high speed switch further back, to a parallel straight track leading up to a sharper curve. I guess.
Peter Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 10:08 am
Yes, Rafael, if Castle was to be used as a commercial airport, then it might make sense to build the Heavy Maintenance Facility somewhere else. But it’s not, no one’s looking at using it for anything like that.
There are I believe two Supertankers in the U.S. One is a DC-10, and the other is a 747. Why do you want to base them at Castle? Because there is an airport there?
I personally think that Castle is never going to be a major passenger airport. The most I could see is it being used for freight.
jimsf Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
I see castle as being a good spot for air frieght and hsr facility. I can picture a combination where you have companies such as fed ex, ups, and dhl, flying their global packages ( those destined for california) for oevernight distribution via hsr during the non passenger hours. Rather than having trucks drive 200-300 miles, they could use hsr to distribute closer to desntinations and only use the trucks for the under 100 miles range from the nearest hsr station.
Peter Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
I do like that idea. Run high speed light freight at night.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
It doesn’t work that way. The packages are still in the air when they would have to be leaving the railroad station/airport. Next time you get an overnight package, track it.
Castle Expert Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Rafael that new map from MCAG is not set in stone, the right of way on this proposed freeway is wide enough to accomondate trains as well as Cars. However, you are correct there is no way the trains can use this to cross at High Speeds but the advantage of using differnent alignements gives the authority more bargining options with UP and also provides another alternate route for phase II of the project the Merced to Sacrament o phase.
wu ming Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 10:02 am
i like castle because it gets the line built just a little bit closer to sac.
wu ming Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 10:03 am
i like castle because it gets the line just a little bit closer to sac.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 11:57 am
There is some rubbish with what “Castle Expert” wrote regarding noise and pollution. Neither could be further from the truth.
Electrically powered train maintenance yards are quiet. There is no slow clickity clack of wheels over rails, no bangining of train couplres as they are coupled or uncouple, no yard whisltes either. Such noises are associated with old world history. Noises in a train yard today are largely the cleaning facilities… which are inside sheds/buildings. And the air blowers… which are also inside if properly designed. Beeping noises asociated with maintennace lifts too… but those are inside buildings too. These noises are non-existent beyond 100-200 feet, and especially relative to other ambiant noises…. such nearby freeways, wind blowing through trees, local streets, etc.
I have often been near the San Diego light-rail maintenance facility in downtown San Diego. You would think the place is always on vacation if you judged it be the noise being emmitted from the place!
Concerning pollution…. what pollution? The trains are electrically powered. There is less hazardous waste associated with a train yard than the nearby Jiffy Lube!
lyqwyd Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
good point, I work half a block from the light rail maintenance facility here in San Francisco, and have never been bothered by it. Far worse is the noise from the trucks driving by constantly. Same goes with the pollution, there’s always a light coat of diesel soot in the office, never noticed any problems with pollution from the light rail maintenance site.
Castle Expert Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Brandon, I do not disagree with you on the trains being electrically poweredand that the pollution and noise with these trains will be minimal. What I am talking about is with the Heavy Maintenace facility itself. The very nature of the name suggests that these trains will have to be maintained and serviced involving lubing the wheel bearings, pressure washing the machinery and most important these trains will need to serviced are similar to airplanes being built in large hangars requiring heavy welding and soldering is going to be necessary. Where do you think all the runoff from these sites goes? That is why it is imperative that a well suited site is picked which will be able to handle this run off. Remember this is not a light train maintenace facility but a heavy maintenace facility and possible test site. Totally different animal than anything we have ever seen built in the United States. I suggest to everyone goggle Heavy Maintenace facilities in Tawain.
Joey Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Theoretically, there should be no runoff from those activities. Theoretically…
NIMBY RAT..bulldozing Menlo Park and Much of Palo Alto would improve the SouthBay far more..really have you ever looked at that tacky housing stock .?? A total planned commuinty would be far nicer..even if it was Lyon development than the junk there now..The gall of you people to complain about that 140 year old railroad that you moved next to!
Shouldn’t the rail operator make this decision?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 8:39 am
Not necessarily. The Authority is right to set out the parameters under which the operator would run the system, and that would include the location of the primary maintenance hub. Such hubs are frequently located through competitive processes like this, where the public sector makes the decision based on a variety of factors.
For example, we don’t ask United and American to decide for us where the airports should be, although they have some input. The location of new airports tends to be driven by other concerns, including land use availability, local support or opposition, need for economic development, etc. We don’t bat an eye at these sorts of decisions for systems other than trains. Nor should we do so here.
As far as I can tell this will come down to Merced and Fresno. There’s not a great deal of distance between the two, and there is roughly the same land availability in each location. Either choice seems workable to me, although a closer assessment of the plans is worthwhile. It’s perfectly legitimate for the Authority to determine where the hub goes, just as they’ve determined where the route goes. If operators have any strong feelings on the matter, they can and will let the Authority know – otherwise I’m sure they’ll be happy no matter how this turns out.
Rafael Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 9:24 am
CHSRA is a planning body, not a rail operator. Just who will operate the HSR infrastructure, operate the trains and maintain the trains is not yet known. The contract could go to just one company that invests heavily in kind or in cash into the project or else, there could be multiple contracts that are put out to tender a couple of years before construction of the line is completed.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Actually, I agree with Elizabeth. Mostly.
I believe it is the responsibility of the CHSRA to identify and examine a range of sites. Seeking interest from local jurisdictions with regards to hosting, or siting, a site…. is a smart tactical decision. It generates buy-in to site selection and process.
The range of sites selected for examination should be sufficiently examined by CHSRA to provide a clear picture of the pros and cons of each. In my opinion, tops in the criteria should include site size and shape, scalability/expandaility, of site access to the right-of-way, and location relative to nearby urban centers for access purposes (employee and employer related). And, compatibility with adjacent land uses… although as I pointed out prior…. noise and pollution from the site would be non-existent.
I think it is up to CHSRA staff to evaluate and select a site for a recommendation to the CHSRA Board of Directors. However, I also believe CHSRA staff should seek input from experts in the field and/or possible operators. Perhasp CHSRA staff should arrange for a technical advisory committee to weigh-in on site selection matters.
All that said, I believe Fresno and Merced standing behind the belief that a maintenance facility will bring untold financial rewards, a panacea of wealth… is very over-stated. Maintenance facilities are large, but staffing levels do not correspond to size. Further, some staff members will be aboard trains and dispersed along the line…. and will not be local to step away for lunch at the local sandwich shop…. or will be working the line… far away from the maintenance site. Where is the local benefit… other than for creating a small increase in demand for housing or some services? CHSRA jobs benefits will be dispersed along entire line… and not solely at maintenance yard sites. imo.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
What Fresno and Merced cities understand is that anything that provides 1,500 ongoing, long-term, well-paid jobs is nothing to sneeze at in these times. Most Californians who do not live in, or who have not visited, the Central Valley do not know how desperate the jobs situation is there. They are not claiming it is a panacea. Instead they have said it will be a much-needed boost. There can be no arguing with that truth.
As to who chooses – well, are we going to let the operator determine whether there’s a tunnel on the Peninsula? I doubt Elizabeth would like that very much. Will we let them determine the routing? Where the stations go? Of course not.
The CHSRA decides what the system looks like, with input from potential operators already on contract to provide advice. The operator then implements it. There’s no need to put the cart before the horse.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
I am very supportive of jobs, including in the Central Valley. But, I believe I was spot-on with my description. Basically, CHSRA will be implementing a maintenance facility… granted, I suspect very much that potential operators or experts in the field will advise on best location for sites.
Something that I think the operators will play a larger role in…. what functions occur at each maintenance site. Heavy repairs and maintenence may not need to be provided at each location…. and could be consolidated at a single site to minimize costs. <— Only an example.
As an aside, I think 1,500 jobs is very high! For a single site… or if it included all the ancillary related jobs. Any details on the make-up of that number?
Dan S. Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Personally, while not knowing basically anything about the logistics of a rail yard, I think they should choose the location on a purely political basis to maximize statewide support for the project. Maybe there are good technical reasons to suggest one site as ideal, but I don’t want the ideal getting in the way of the good.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 26th, 2010 at 7:14 am
Well, I hope practicality or functionality plays a large role. I understand if politics plays a role, but I hope those considerations are secondary.
When I refer to functionality or practicality… I am speak to minimizing deadhead and employer/employee access to site. If a remote/non-functioning place is located… Californians will be paying the added operational costs forever. What those costs may be annually…. they’ll be nominal relative to the total operating cost, but THOSE costs will be over $1 billion a year! No?
So, a poorly placed maintenance yard(s) could add millions per year in annual operating costs…. all passed onto users. It’s all relative.
Yes.
Except the CHSRA “plan” is about maximizing cost and maximizing inefficiency, not about delivering service.
So purely political siting, based on sundry palm greasing action and on maximizing revenue (dead-head, out of service train-km) costs, and massively over-built to “accommodate” purely fictional service “plans” and travel “demand”, accords perfectly with the interests and past “decision” making of our PBQD masters.
A competent rail operator with interest in minimizing construction cost, minimizing fleet size, maximizing fleet availability, minimizing staff costs, and maximizing return on investment wouldn’t site its primary maintenance facilities as far as possible from the in-service termination points of its trains. (Even the British can get this much right: Eurostar maintenance is in Stratford, as close as feasible to the London terminus, not in a field somewhere in northern France. I guess they didn’t benefit from the expert planning skills of PBQD, Quentin Kopp and Rod Diridon.)
To do otherwise would be insane, after all. But it is perfectly in accordance with the cost maximization principles of the CHSRA consultant mafia.
Peter Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Peter Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
*Insert mouth froth here*
Another Important benefit of using castle, which is several miles north of merced actually, is that it shortens the amount needed to go to sac in phase 2. and adds 27 miles of track, and merced, to phase 1. BEtter to get it done now rather than later.
Fresno’s hub plan suggests robbing their local transportation fund tax ‘measure C’ to ‘lure’ the rail hub selection.
” come under fire from opponents who say funds from “the county’s half-cent transportation sales tax” measure being used as so-called “bait” to try to lure the rail service hub to Fresno County is completely inappropriate.”
In other words – JOBS AT ANY COST (even at the cost of OTHER LOCAL JOBS creating transportation projects that will be losing out)- while HSR robs from local county taxes that voters approved for other specifically listed local transportation needs (where HSR transportation hub was NOT one of them.) Fresno county tax payers just got screwed.
http://www.examiner.com/x-11410-Fresno-Green-Transportation-Examiner~y2009m12d20-Is-Fresnobased-highspeed-rail-yard-exactly-the-kind-of-project-that-Measure-C-should-fund?cid=channel-rss-Transportation
jimsf Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
So all the more reason to use merced.
Paul H. Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
It’s not “robbing” anything. It’s a local transportation fund. Guess what that half-cent transportation sales tax has done to Fresno? Made it the LEAST dense city in California. We are sprawled over 100 square miles with 500,000 people. It’s absurd. I say use Measure C to get the hub here, we need the jobs desperately. Our crime rate has spiked with this massive job loss, so I say get the most bang for your buck. This hub will easily get more jobs per dollar spent than any “road work” project that will just promote sprawl. USE MEASURE C FOR THE HUB.
synonymouse Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
The jobs issue is not so simple. What about the lost airline jobs? There is only so much demand and therefore roughly only so many jobs overall.
As to understaffing one way to hire more is to bring the compensation of the way overpaid back in line with everybody else.
Peter Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
That was the first and only comment of yours that made at least some sort of sense.
jimsf Reply:
January 26th, 2010 at 10:37 am
You won’t be cutting airline jobs because the airlines still have to absorb a share of the future growth as well as adjust their focus.
In other countries than the US the operator has a major role in the planning. In the Taiwan HSR, for instance, the SNCF (temporary operator) participated in designing the route.
Even more so France where the operator is the planner. The procedure is always the same:
2 years of preliminary public debates (an average of 500 debates). If no consensus can be found at this stage, the project is dropped, which happened for the Aix-Nice direct route.
2 years for determining a rough 1km-wide route.
2 years: more detailed studies. The route is narrowed to 500m.
2 years: public enquiry, ending with a report signed by all stakeholders and sent to the national assembly. If approved, the project receives permission to proceed, which is binding for all parties concerned. Eminent domain procedures become possible, but very rarely used because they invariably lead to lawsuits. Discreet overcompensation is generally preferred.
4 years: detailed route design. The ROW is narrowed from 500m to the final 85m. The financing is finalised and international bids are invited for construction and rolling stock.
5 years: construction.
1 year: tests.
These procedures may seem rigid and charmless, compared to Californian suspense, but they generally ensure that projects are terminated on time and within budget
4 years:
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
That’s an interesting model, but unfortunately CEQA doesn’t allow for it. CEQA is in desperate need of reform, of course.
And potential operators will have some input on the location of the hub and planning. But it’s not necessary for them to be centrally involved or make the final choices.
Andre Peretti Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
The last line of my post (“4 years:”) should be erased. I don’t know why it’s there…
Alon Levy Reply:
January 26th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Is the process shorter when the route follows established ROWs, such as highways and upgraded legacy rail lines?
Andre Peretti Reply:
January 26th, 2010 at 11:41 am
The duration of each phase is not mandatory. I just gave the average time it took for existing lines. For small projects the procedure is shorter. Sometimes the first phase (public debate) lasts more than two years. It did for the Aix-Nice direct spur, with a negative result.
CEQA would allow for a similiar plan, it just doesn’t mandate it.