Burbank Debates HSR Station Location
In the comments to yesterday’s post there was some discussion of the debate unfolding in Burbank over the placement of the proposed HSR station there. Let’s take a closer look.
Burbank is slated to get an HSR station and it will be built near downtown Burbank, which is located immediately to the east of Interstate 5. A good overview can be found in this blog post on the Examiner.com website, which is useful even though it has some obvious anti-HSR biases. The most important part is about the station location, which will include a relocated Burbank Metrolink station:
The Burbank Metrolink station is one of the busiest in the county, making the city a logical choice for Rail Authority planners. Other stops in the region would include Union Station downtown, and yet-to-be-constructed stations in Sylmar and Palmdale.
High-speed rail stations require 1400-foot platforms with straight tracks. This eliminates the site of the current Burbank Metrolink station as a possibility, due to a curve in the tracks there. The area must also be wide enough to accommodate six parallel tracks: two for Metrolink and other carriers, two for high-speed rail travel, and two for high-speed rail passenger platforms. CHSRA has identified two possible locations for such a station in Burbank:
1. Near Alameda Avenue, west of San Fernando Boulevard. This would be an elevated-track platform that would run above Alameda. The area surrounding the tracks is occupied by warehouses and small production companies, which would all be displaced if the state chooses this location.
2. A vacant lot just west of the 5 Freeway, between Magnolia Boulevard and Burbank Boulevard. A station here would sit below street level, but impacts plans to widen the freeway with carpool lanes through the area.
Regardless of which option is chosen, the Burbank Metrolink station will likely be relocated to the site of the high-speed rail station. Planners must also squeeze 2,000 parking spaces onto the site to accommodate the projected 5,000 riders per day that the Burbank station will service.
The city of Burbank staff report is neutral so far on the two options, though it seems they would prefer for the former location instead of the latter if pushed to decide right now. They also report that the CHSRA might be investigating a station further south than Alameda, further away from the downtown core. Here’s what staff had to say about that:
However, in discussions with the Authority’s consultant staff, City staff have learned that the Authority is pursuing an Alameda station location that is slightly different from the alternative discussed above. The Authority’s Alameda station would not be located near the Menasco property (north of Alameda) but would instead be located south of Alameda near the Glendale border near the existing Carmax and Home Depot developments. Staff believes that this southern location to the Alameda station would be a poor choice as it would exhibit all of the negative benefits of the southern station (traffic congestion, low-adjoining densities, distance from Downtown Burbank) with none of the positive benefits (catalyst for redevelopment of South San Fernando, potential surface connectivity to Downtown). Staff recommends that the City provide comments to the Authority that a southern station located south of Alameda Avenue would be unacceptable to the City.
I would agree with this assessment.
Some of the concerns raised by residents in Burbank are similar to those raised on the Peninsula, suggesting that the phenomenon of NIMBYism can be found across the state:
Some officials and community stakeholders took issue with the $3.2-billion price tag for the local section of the corridor, asking why the authority wouldn’t slow trains down to share tracks with Metrolink and freight operators, instead of building dedicated high-speed tracks.
“I still don’t quite understand why they are doing this in this area,” said Glendale City Councilwoman Laura Friedman, who suggested cutting off high-speed operations while trains move through urban centers. “Why don’t they start it in Palmdale?”
Of course, HSR can be built very effectively through Burbank and Glendale, following an existing rail corridor, and reaching speeds necessary to help make the trains successful and wean our state off of costly dependence on oil. Just as some Palo Alto NIMBYs want to end the trains in San Jose, apparently Laura Friedman wants to end the trains in Palmdale, which is actually more absurd (and just as illegal) than ending in San Jose.
The excellent article from the Burbank Leader explains there are some possible land use conflicts – the HSR corridor might encroach on a planned TOD project in Glendale, and other officials are worried about closing off streets, or the visual impact of aerial structures. Glendale is also worried about what will happen to its Metrolink station, built in 1923:
When Glendale City Council members raised concerns about the potential demolition of the commuter station, built in a Spanish colonial revival style in 1923, authority representatives responded with a possible compromise.
“You won’t lose that,” said Steven Ortmann, station planning manager for the authority. “Just move it.”
Coming up with a plan to adjust or relocate a historic station to accommodate the tracks will be a challenge, said Jano Baghdanian, Glendale’s traffic and transportation administrator.
“It’s not as simple as moving a street 10 or 15 feet,” he said.
Those are all legitimate issues to work out. The problem is that too often there is a “why does this have to happen?” mentality on the part of locals and city officials, who seem to think that the jobs aren’t needed, that we have no real need to think about a post-oil method of intercity travel that is sustainable and safe. Instead of treating this as an opportunity to improve their cities and plan around a 21st century form of travel, way too many people seem to think the solution is to paint the proposed solution as an enemy, a villain, something victimizing locals unfairly even though it was approved by a majority of state voters and is widely seen as a necessary part of our state’s future.
Some of the concerns from local residents are flatly absurd:
A below-grade corridor in Burbank would take the form of trenches. This design has residents worried about safety — preventing children, animals and others from falling in, accidentally or otherwise — and unsightly walls that may become targets of vandalism and graffiti.
The graffiti issue is legitimate, but the notion that people will just be able to walk up to a trench and fall in is ridiculous – there will be fencing and other safety measures taken to prevent that.
Ultimately one shouldn’t make too much of these issues in Burbank and Glendale – it’s a delicate, complex, sometimes difficult element of the very necessary work being done to get HSR planned and built. It would certainly help if there was more of a constructive attitude from everyone on the Burbank and Glendale councils, but that seems to be part of the problem with the CHSRA being an independent agency. If it were SCAG, for example, then members of the councils would have been part of the decision-making and planning all along, and would have had greater buy-in. CHSRA’s funding problems, no fault of their own, and their organizational structure meant it was more difficult to create that sort of ongoing buy-in over time. But it is starting to happen now, and I hope Burbank and Glendale, as with other cities like Palo Alto, will earnestly work to make HSR a success, instead of trying to stall and undermine the project.
More info can be found at the CARRD website.
Robert, have you seen this article? You’re quoted.
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/naranja-news/high-speed-train-may-demolish/
Joey Reply:
March 1st, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Not so much quoted as mentioned, and it doesn’t do a very good job of it anyway.
Why the heck would they even consider putting a station so close to Union station? That makes no sense. After Union station, the next stop should be no earlier than Santa Clarita/Valencia area. You don’t see Japanese Shinkansen stations that close together.
political_incorrectness Reply:
March 1st, 2010 at 10:42 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaido_shinkansen Not 100% true. Shingawa and Tokyo main station are 6.8 km apart. Shin Yokohama is around 16 miles out.
It’s kind of funny Robert, that all these cities in CA began as coal stops for the railroads, clustered around the depot only to be recalibrated by the automobile just long enough to see rail ascend again as the dominant force in California transportation and urban planning.
I’m gathering that Burbank’s decision has more to do with the fact that the locations closer to Alameda dovetail with current urban planning decisions and a focus on TOD. I envision that technically, Burbank does not want to combine Metrolink and HSR stations. It wants as many rail stations as possible because each of those will enable potentially more TOD projects exempt from CEQA under SB 375.
But here’s the thing… the location no one wants at the “vacant lot” is really the best choice by far. It’s separated from Burbank Town Center only by the freeway (something a pedestrian tunnel could fix.) This sounds tangential, but it’s really not. Some of the biggest malls and shopping centers in Europe and Japan are adjacent to major rail stations. This would be a great opportunity for Burbank if they embrace it.
elfling Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:10 pm
I agree, the vacant lot site has much to recommend it. I have worked in two offices within walking distance of the existing Metrolink station.
Another element to be added to the mix would the future proposed light rail line connecting Union Station to Burbank Airport. Not listed in Measure R and not on the front line of Long Range Plan projects but likely to appear down the road.
elfling Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Metrolink already has a station at Burbank airport, and that run ends at Union Station. What am I missing?
elfling Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Metrolink already connects Burbank Airport and Union Station.
Joey Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:28 pm
That doesn’t stop them from wanting light rail…
James Fujita Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 8:14 pm
in the future, transit planners are going to have to think more and more in terms of layers.
So, you have local bus service in a neighborhood, but maybe you still want trolleybuses or light rail or even subway to get around. And maybe even an express Metrolink line to get further. And yes, even an HSR stop for the longer trips….
It doesn’t really matter where they put the station. Not even in the long-range plan does Burbank get connecting rail transit. Burbank Airport, yes, but not Downtown Burbank. The incompetence of Greater LA’s transit plans dwarfs that of the Bay Area’s as presented by Richard; you’d think LA is trying to make HSR fail.
Rafael Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:30 am
The oil industry is still a significant economic factor in the LA basin. There are plenty of active derricks and pumpjacks in the area, many camouflaged to hide them from the general public. Typically, directional drilling is used to minimize the number of sites needed. However, residential housing has been constructed right next to some legacy installations that continue to operate in plain view – health and fire risks be damned.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Burbank already has rail transit, Metrolink.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:05 pm
It has slow, infrequent, diesel-only rail service, which doesn’t connect to much else. Caltrain has a much better notion of modernizing commuter rail to feed HSR.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 5:58 pm
You didn’t say it had bad rail transit you said they won’t be getting any. Lots of options to improve it as demand warrants. I suspect the grade separations and improved signals that will be in use after HSR upgrades the ROW will have some effect.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 10:29 pm
There are no plans for adding any connecting service, at all. The Metrolink grade separations are nice, but Metrolink has said nothing about expanding service, unlike Caltrain, which trumpets reduced travel times and higher frequencies.
Spokker Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Metrolink is currently in the process of contracting service.
Off topic, but Philip K. Howard said something directly relevant to CAHSR in his TED talk about America’s broken legal system:
“Well, actually there is a reason [why China and Europe have faster trains than America], environmental review has evolved into a process of no pebble left unturned for any major project taking the better part of a decade, then followed by years of litigation, by anybody who doesn’t like the project.”
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:26 am
Off-topic … and completely false. Typical tea party nutjob blather. The evil gubmint and environmentalists are conspiring to take away my guns using air control laws written by trial lawyers!
There are no environmental laws in Sweden, France, Germany, Norway, Austria, the Netherlands, … after all, right? They just point the laser guide beam to the next city, fire up the atomic-powered bulldozer-cum-track-laying machine, and build away, clapper rails, desert tortoises, garter snakes, and salt harvest mice be damned!
Marcus Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:49 am
Andrew has a valid point. Our review processes add significant hurdles to constructing large scale projects of any kind. This is not “nutjob blather”, but reality.
Marcus Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:52 am
To clarify, there’s a huge amount of middle ground between no regulation at all and our current process. Suggesting it should be modified should not be grounds of ad hominem attacks. The elements of it that are positive and lead to making projects better should be kept. The elements that just cause delays and increase costs should be scrapped.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:01 am
Where “reality” doesn’t apply anywhere else in the world. Even hinting that the USA’s dismal, energy-intensive transportation system and development pattern is due to environmentalists is 100% reliable indication of being a nutjob with no functioning connection to reality as commonly perceived here on Planet Earth. It sure as hell isn’t the Sierra Club — or the region’s, nation’s or planet’s environment — that profits from the system. Follow the money … unless that seems like, you know, effort or something.
Environmental law exists — to the limited and compromised and evaded and constantly eroded extent it does — for very good reasons. Do you enjoy breathing, drinking or eating by any chance?
Paying wages also adds significant cost to large projects. Let’s do away with that also.
Peter Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:24 am
I completely agree with your assessment that environmental regulation is not the cause of our current transportation system and development pattern, Richard. Also, if you look at the number and types of projects that were built PRIOR to NEPA and CEQA, you will most likely see that the earlier projects had MUCH worse social effects on especially racial minority neighborhoods and public property, specifically parks.
I would disagree with you that the environment does not profit from the regulatory system. It just does not profit equally everywhere. The air is much cleaner than it used to be in many areas. Many lakes that were dead from acid rain deposits have been brought back to life thanks to the acid rain cap & trade program. Those are just some of the examples.
It is true that many states allow industries to ignore and circumvent environmental regulations, but overall we are better off.
Marcus Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:21 am
I’m not talking about the whole system of environmental regulation, just the NEPA and Environmental Impact Statements. You’re constructing a strawman. Again, it’s all about trade-offs: As Peter pointed out, some truly horrific projects were build in the bad old days. I don’t think anyone wants to go back to tearing down whole neighborhoods at the whims of some unelected agency, but it is certainly possible to go too far in the other direction. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask, what part of the review is beneficial and what isn’t. In fact, it would be irresponsible not to do that.
Peter Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:54 am
I think that it simply appears in terms of very large projects that the environmental review process is out of control. I would argue that it is not out of control, but that it is simply a product of the massive scope of the project. IIRC, CAHSR is the largest public works project in US history. There are BOUND to be lawsuits arising from the project. And the bigger the project, the more lawsuits.
It’s not that the system is broken, the system is working the way it was designed to.
Note that the judge in the Atherton lawsuit did not stop the project. He didn’t even slow it down. He allowed the Project-level environmental planning to continue while the staff went back and fixed the Program EIR in terms of a few items.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Peter, I’ll let Andre give you all the gory details of how TGV construction works. But the Cliff Notes version is that design takes years and involves public discussion with all the relevant communities and stakeholders, in order to minimize NIMBYism. Even that doesn’t always work, and in one recent case, the NIMBYs in Provence scuttled the sensible route for HSR to Nice, forcing a much more tunnel-heavy and expensive route.
CAHSR isn’t even the largest project in nominal dollars. The Interstate system cost $100 billion in nominal dollars, or $425 billion in today’s dollars. Not even Wendell Cox thinks it’ll cost this much.
Peter Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:10 pm
I’m not saying their processes are identical, but that their environmental laws in that respect were modeled, not copied, on NEPA and CEQA.
I’ll back off from my earlier statement and change it to “largest infrastructure project in CA history.”
Andrew Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 6:36 pm
A teabagger? Seriously? I’m supporting this boondoggle of a choo-choo train, aren’t I?
I’m not arguing against environmental review, I don’t think that the CHSRA should be able to just bulldoze a path for the train. I don’t think that Mr. Howard was arguing that either. But when it takes decades to study every possible option and cater to the smallest minority self-interests, it would appear that the process is out of control.
Peter Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:39 am
I believe that both France and Germany have extensive environmental regulations similar to NEPA and CEQA (in fact modelled after them).
The reason why they have HSR and we don’t, is that they (a) they did not let their passenger rail network go to SHIT over decades time, requiring us to start from scratch, and (b) they started the planning and construction processes decades ago.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Contrary to what Americans think, eminent domain is hardly ever used in France when building railways. It would give the SNCF a bad image as the media always side with David, never with Goliath. The public enquiry and environmental study are the longest parts of any project, typically 8-10 years. Permission to proceed is only given if it has been approved by all stakeholders: archaeological department, regional representatives, town councils, environmental associations, land and home owners.
The public inquiry is very detailed and systematic. It includes private meetings with people whose property is particularly exposed. Little transpires of those arrangements, except when leaked to the press. When asked, the SNCF answers “we have to take account of the psychological trauma”.
Overcompensating owners has only been affordable because the existing lines avoid heavily built-up areas. It will not be possible for the Marseille-Nice coastline route, which has a lot of city sprawl and NIMBYs richer and richer as you get nearer to Cannes and Nice. Tunnels and bridges will be necessary. The cost is estimated at €17bn ($23bn) for 140 miles, which is far more expensive, mile for mile, than CHSR. So far, no-one wants to finance it, and nothing is planned to happen before 2020, if ever.
jimsf Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:06 am
Its true and its gotten worse over the decades. The latest things is the environmental nuts, spurred on by the money grubbing environmental lawyers, want to further hinder, even existing nuclear power plants by saying the warm water the put out ruins the ocean. It absurd. The amount of water they put out is about equal to to pssing in the mississippi river. Its meaningless. BUT, the lawyers get paid to file the case and thats how they line their pockets. They want billions in modifications made, the cost of which will of course be passed on to the already strapped working people who pay the bills. And they, and their followers, and the idiot politicians who don’t know better, will go along with it, even as they sit back and enjoy several hours a day worth of electric comfort provided by nuclear power plants. It does no good to propose something that can be as beneficial to industry and california’s economy as high speed rail, and then turn around and suck all the benefit right out of it before it even gets finished by making sure it takes twice as long to build at twice the price while people bicker about a mouse, (or whatever) Remember mice are rodents, I kill them when I find one and birds, have wings, they can fly to a different place. As for noise, wear ear plugs or turn up your ipod, or close the window.
Peter Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:14 am
So, Jim, the Clean Air Act, National Environmental Policy Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Superfund act, etc, were all passed to put money in lawyers’ pockets? Give me a break.
Yes, most of those acts allow plaintiffs to recover attorney fees. The reason for that is so that plaintiffs who could otherwise not afford to hire attorneys, namely poor, mostly racial minority communities or environmental groups with little resources could convince attorneys to take their cases. It was not a “money-grubbing” move, it was a recognition that otherwise legitimate cases would not be able to proceed.
jimsf Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:24 am
maybe to some extant, but the lawyers are behind it and the lawyers are the ones who benefit the most from it, and guess who pays for it, the consumer, as if its not hard enough to get by as it is. Where are my rights as a working person to not have to pay and pay and pay more out of my check every week for the results of this stuff. Every cost we pass on to business or government, comes right back on top of us and out of our monthly budgets. Of course there should be common sense and regulation, but far far too much of this is frivilous nonsense. Maybe you are made of money, but a lot of us aren’t. YOu can volunteer to pay the extra I guess if its so important.
Peter Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:28 am
Well, if the companies and government agencies did their homework and followed the regulations, then there would be less lawsuits and the costs would be less.
The lawyers may get some of the money, but the communities and the environmental groups get the benefits of the successful lawsuit. It’s not just about money.
Peter Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:34 am
Are environmental regulations tools that can be abused? Yes, of course they are, which is why the judiciary is there to act as a pressure relief valve to control the excess.
But blaming lawyers for the problem is ignoring the reasons for why the environmental acts were passed by Congress: abuses by companies that were unable to be addressed through the legal system at the time. People had no recourse.
jimsf Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:14 am
well I can no longer afford to pay and pay. hsr aside, Im voting no on everything else. cuts across the board, and whatever candidate will pull it off. We have the worlds 6/7/8th largest economy and the money just disappears into the ether. Layers and layers of non essential agencies who suck up the budget. Do you know our state has a “department of aging?” Now I always thought you you live, you age, you die, its pretty straight forward. but not in cali, we have a entire state department to assist with the process. I guess I should be expecting a call from them any time now so they can do whatever it is they do to make sure Im aging in the appropriate way. Perhaps I can take advantage of some kind of low interest face lift loan.
Peter Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:18 am
I agree that the initiative process has gone off its meds, with way too many initiatives that mandated expenditures but have no source of revenue to pay for them. THAT area is overrun with special interests (Can you say Mormon church?).
But that has nothing to do with the legal system in general and statutory environmental provisions in particular. The two are not connected in any way.
jimsf Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Peter Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:18 am
I agree that the initiative process has gone off its meds
okay that was good. 2 points lol.
jimsf Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:20 am
just take a look there’s about 350 official state agencies sucking up money that could be going directly to infrastructure investments, and other tangible items that would benefit us instead. go ahead and read the list. a long list of bullshit. at leas 150 of those could be eliminated. at least.
Peter Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:28 am
But that has nothing to do with the legal system and the environmental statutes you were complaining about.
You’ve gone to essentially arguing that all government is waste. Are you sure you’re not a teabagger?
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Growth in the number of attorney’s has been dramatic over the past 20 years. Ironically, much of their education has been publicly subsidized.
jimsf Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:11 pm
No Im pro labor democrat. YOu know the old school democrats, before the hippies took over.
elfling Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Local warm water gradients can have a dramatic effect. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.
jimsf Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:42 am
so. we need the electricity. the plankton will have to get over it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:21 pm
You need a train station between Beale and Main, the yuppies will have to get over it.
My big problem with trrenches is that there is always a subsection of the public who will throw stuff into it…
HSRforCali Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:04 am
Does that happen with the Alameda Corridor or San Gabriel trench? Those are actually examples to look at.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:05 am
There’s a rather basic and weak chain-link fence along the Alameda Corridor. No idea whether or not it leads to stuff being thrown into it. I’d hope that the fencing around an HSR trench would be higher and more sturdy.
Reality Check Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:23 am
Imagine how high and ugly that fencing would have to be to prevent bored idiots from lobbing a common brick over it and onto/into a passing train. With a 125 mph train, a falling brick (about 6 pounds) could be deadly to the train operator.
Clem Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:31 am
High-speed train windshields are certified to withstand a brick impact at far higher speeds. They’re similar to airplane windshields, which have to withstand bird strikes. (Cue joke about frozen chickens.)
jimsf Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:12 pm
I wondered how they made that zacky farms ground turkey that’s always such a good deal at the foodsco…
Peter Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:16 pm
That’s not from the windshield tests, but from the jet engine tests. That’s why it’s already partially cooked when you buy it.
Peter Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:31 am
You mean the way a falling brick could be just as deadly to the driver of a passing car?
Reality Check Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Yes, exactly that way. Every now and then, one hears of such incidents killing motorists or their passengers. I can remember a case in Germany involving stones being thrown from an overpass onto “die Autobahn” below.
Thanks Clem, I didn’t know HSR windshields could withstand brick impacts at 125 mph — let alone at “far higher speeds.” That’s impressive! However, 6 pound feathered bird wouldn’t be nearly as likely to penetrate/pierce as a much harder, denser and sharper brick …
Reality Check Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Oh, that reminds me … I remember a memorable bird strike while taking a demo ride around the Transrapid test track just outside Lathen, Germany, in the Fall of 2000. I cannot recall what our Geschwindigkeit was at that precise moment in the ride, but there was a muffled audible thump and some particles/objects flicked by just outside my window seat. We were informed it was a bird strike, so I gather the “particles” were feathers, etc. Nothing more than that.
Peter Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Yeah, there was a case when I lived in Germany of some stupid American Army Brat kids dropping heavy stones onto passing vehicles. I think they were charged with manslaughter.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:24 pm
They get charged with manslaughter in the US too.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 6:37 pm
I think the concern is over-stated. It is rare that moral people toss stuff over fences in places where there is high activity, particularly where their actions could cause a safety concern for many people.
On the other hand, suicides…. those peeps don’t care.
Never-the-less…. here’s a location next to BART in Concord. There is no sidewalk adjacent to the wall and fence; however, the tracks are in a trench. It looks much nicer than what is along the Alamedia corridor; however, that is largely an industrial area and Concord is more residential.
http://maps.google.com/maps?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS333US334&q=concord,+ca&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Concord,+CA&gl=us&ei=2MmNS934JpLasQPjtNW1CA&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ8gEwAA
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 6:39 pm
That was a lame attempt…. zoom into Port Chicago Hwy & Olivera Road…. southeast of the North Concord BART Station.
The idea of a Burbank Station and its location bring up several questions.
1. Why a Burbank Station which is so close to LA? There is already good MetroLink service to Burbank now. A person wishing to use the HSR could use MetroLink or drive to get to the nearest HRS station. Chatsworth or Santa Clarita should be the closet station to LA.
2. Why is there a ban on any kind of a curve at a HSR station? HSR stations in the rest of the world have stations on curves,
3. Why are there only 2 HSR tracks at the station? HSR stations normally have 4 tracks. 2 tracks for stopping trains and 2 tracks for high speed express trains passing through the station as is done on HSR in the rest of the world. Without local and express service either no intermediate cities would be served or 2 ½ hour service could not be meet.
4. HSR only requires a 30 foot wide right of way for 2 tracks weather at grade, elevated, or in a trench. It can be “shoe horned” in a lot tight spaces. As for people falling into the trench, it would be the same as a flood control channels that now run through the area.
5. Where HSR and MetroLink have stations they need to be at the same location for easy transfer between the two services.
6. Does the California HSR now have detailed routes and station locations available to see just how well they have done their homework and have the choices been for the best and fastest routing to serve the most riders or for political reasons?
Rafael Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:36 pm
ad 1. The stations in the LA basin are indeed fairly close together, but that’s because the population is spread out. There’s an operations argument to be made for eliminating the Burbank and Norwalk stations but ultimately, these decisions are always highly political.
ad 2. Between FRA, CPUC and the ADA, the maximum permissible gap between level platform and the train doors is smaller than in most other countries. The easiest way to meet this regulatory constraint is to avoid curved platforms if at all possible. Something like a 10000m curve shouldn’t be a problem, though. Separately, there’s a desire to build stations where there is plenty of easily procured land to either side for ease of construction and development of station environs (parking, access roads, bike paths, stops for connecting transit, walkways to adjacent commercial real estate).
ad 3. Wherever possible, CHSRA will in fact build secondary HSR stations with 2 platform plus 2 through tracks to support multiple service levels. It’s also possible to construct passing tracks in the open countryside, but that’s less desirable in terms of timetable development and day-to-day operations. The problem is that acquiring sufficient land for stations with 4 HSR tracks often requires more aggressive use of controversial eminent domain, especially if additional tracks and platforms for legacy services must also be accommodated. For a top speed of 220mph, HSR needs to use lightweight rolling stock that FRA wouldn’t allow on tracks that are also used by US-style super-heavy freight or conventional passenger trains.
ad 4. Shoehorning isn’t quite as easy as you make it sound, because you don’t need just 30 feet. You need that width in a ribbon many miles long, with severe constraints on maximum curvature and gradients. Ideally, this ribbon should be in or adjacent to an existing transportation corridor. Typically, the only viable candidates are legacy railroad, freeway and/or utility rights of way. If none is available, a greenfield ROW has to be acquired – if need be via eminent domain. That’s something CHSRA wants to avoid, because it can easily lead to years of litigation-related delays. Those would jack up nominal construction costs due to inflation and, generate opportunity costs for state and local economies. Finally, expect private investors to remain extremely cautious until CHSRA actually owns 100% of the land required to build the entire starter line (or at least commercially viable segments of it).
ad 5. CHSRA’s stated objective is to select station sites that will permit easy transfers to connecting legacy services such as Metrolink. In Burbank, that might involve relocating the Metrolink station to a site that can accommodate four platform plus two through tracks.
ad 6. The project is so complex it was split into two phases. The program phase, which is already FRA-certified except for the SF-Fresno section, defined the approximate route (including mountain crossings) and station locations. The project-level phase, which is ongoing throughout the network, nails down the details of exactly where the tracks and stations need to go, including the vertical alignments and associated structures. CHSRA expects to complete all of this planning work required under NEPA and CEQA by the 2011-2013 timeframe, depending on the network segment. LA-Anaheim will be the first, followed by SF-SJ and Merced-Fresno-Bakersfield. The other bits will follow toward the end of that range, especially the LA-San Diego and Merced-Sacramento segments.
Many commenters are convinced CHSRA caved to political pressure when it chose to route the tracks via Palmdale instead of a much shorter straight shot between Sylmar and Bakersfield. Unfortunately, trains are limited to about 3.5% gradient, so the straight shot would require extremely expensive and very deep tunnels with underground crossings of both the San Andreas and the Garlock faults. The Palmdale route involves shorter tunnels, fewer total miles of tunneling and lets CHSRA cross both of these faults at grade. Palmdale did lobby hard for its station, but in the end the longer route was chosen mostly because it presents fewer geological and technological hurdles.
elfling Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Burbank is a substantial center for business perhaps more than population (at ~ 100,000), it has an airport, and it has a lot of people traveling to and from. It’s a good choice for a stop. It’s about half an hour from downtown LA. The current metrolink station is walking distance to a whole set of high rises, a mall, restaurants, and high density residential. It is already a destination.
The Glendale HSR stop is more questionable. It is hidden in a back corner and is not so walking-accessible to the world around it. I would agree with the people who say it is beautiful and worth preserving. I only wish I had realized where it was when we first moved to Glendale.
For much of Glendale (population 250,000), the Burbank station would actually be more accessible than the Glendale station, which is near the Glendale-LA border. Burbank is also very accessible to the entire San Fernando Valley.
Santa Clarita is an hour from LA and practically in a different universe. It is more of a bedroom community and not so much a center of business or retail, either.
Another reason to have some of these stops is to spread out the need for parking. The last thing you want to do is to encourage people to drive into downtown LA/Union Station. There’s a (small) mountain pass that constricts travel between downtown LA and Burbank/Glendale, and the fewer people who have to traverse it unnecessarily, the better. A station like Burbank is much more accessible by car and better able to handle parking.
Andrew Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Burbank is fairly worthwhile. It would be a lot more worthwhile if the Red Line was extended there via Bob Hope Airport, creating an intermodal station between Metro, Metrolink, HSR, and perhaps the Surfliner.
What’s this crazy talk about a Glendale station? I’m not seeing it on the CHSRA website.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:25 pm
The CAHSR site does not list a station for Glendale. I think earlier comments were referring to that fact that its depot is in the right-of-way that the HSR intends to use. The Pacific Surfliner however, DOES stop at Glendale, but does not stop in downtown Burbank but rather the Burbank airport.
Now for all the talk about Metrolink, I actually think that the Burbank station makes sense regionally for other reasons:
1) It could provide a connection point for the Surfliner which would be very beneficial to southbound traffic eager to reach Ventura or Santa Barbara.
2) The “vacant lot” actually is the terminus of the abandoned rail right of way Metro used to develop the Orange Line in the Valley. However, the current MTA Long Range Plan instead lists a light rail from Burbank to Union Station that would effectively duplicate the HSR and Metrolink.
3) As stated earlier, Burbank already has a large shopping center adjacent to said “vacant lot” which could be provide a layover destination for travelers connecting to the HSR.
4) Don’t forget the studios. Sure the major ones are nowhere close to the proposed HSR station. But as a matter of profile, the state will want to make sure that HSR appears “connected” to that part of the state’s economy.
Joey Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Glendale was never on the table for HSR. Or if it was it was eliminated very early on. It’s way too close to LAUS to be an effective station.
elfling Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Hey, did my reply get eaten?
Short answers, in case it did:
- Burbank is about a half hour and one pass away from Los Angeles. People who live in Burbank might never go to LA. Burbank has many high rise buildings and is a significant center for business and business travel. Burbank near the metrolink station is a very walkable city, with restaurants, a mall, standalone shopping, lots of office space, and high density residential. Burbank is also very accessible to the entire San Fernando Valley. And, of course, there’s also the airport.
At the very least in LA, a stop in every separate valley the HSR passes through makes sense, because the traffic bottlenecks are all in the passes. You wouldn’t want to encourage people to drive into either LA or Santa Clarita to catch the train if they had to travel there from the San Fernando Valley, which is immense and fairly densely populated.
The graffiti issue is legitimate, but the notion that people will just be able to walk up to a trench and fall in is ridiculous – there will be fencing and other safety measures taken to prevent that.
The Los Angeles River has the same precautions. That’s why we never see any flood rescues.
Rafael Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:41 pm
HSR trains will be electric, so covering up an open trench section to create a subway tunnel would require fewer ventilation stations and emergency exits. Of course, concrete lids require adequate structural support and typically, deeper trenches. On the plus side, they can support grade separated cross roads, public spaces and/or low-rise development above the railroad tracks.
In other news, Jerry Brown has finally announced he is running for governor.
Adding to my comment:
If I still lived in Glendale (5 minutes by car from Amtrak Glendale) and I had to choose between getting on HSR via metrolink to Union Station, or getting on at Burbank, I’d most likely drive to Burbank.
Joey Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:06 pm
But if you go to LAUS you can catch any train you want, and there will be plenty of express trains that don’t stop at Burbank.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 1:02 am
First, I don’t think there will be that many express trains skipping Burbank, once service patterns have to conform to real life ridership numbers. And second, even if there are, the current plan is for 2-4 tph to serve Burbank, which is enough if you plan ahead.
Glendale’s station is lovely and I hope it can be preserved. I probably have a picture somewhere.
Roger Christensen Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:54 pm
The Glendale Station is where Fred MacMurray murdered and then restaged the death of Barbara Stanwick’s husband in the noir classic Double Indemnity.
jimsf Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:44 am
I love that movie! Stanwick was so awesome.