CHSRA Looking At Just One San Fernando Valley Station – At Burbank Airport
Last week we learned that the California High Speed Rail Authority is “strongly considering” a shift in the plans for stations in the San Fernando Valley. Instead of a station at Sylmar and one in downtown Burbank or downtown Glendale, there appears to be increasing momentum for just one station in the Valley, at the Burbank Airport:
High-speed rail representatives are strongly considering a stop near Bob Hope Airport as the sole San Fernando Valley station for the planned 800-mile system, local officials said.
Rail representatives early this year expressed a preference for station options in Burbank along the San Fernando Road corridor, either in the city’s downtown area or near Glendale, on Alameda Avenue. But after hearing public concerns about connectivity to the airport, the authority is instead considering a stop near Bob Hope, at Hollywood Way…
Authority representatives have also reacted to local concerns about station locations with a plan to choose one stop in the San Fernando Valley, rather than two, as was previously discussed, said Jano Baghdanian, Glendale’s traffic and transportation administrator.
Representatives have indicated that they would choose a stop between sites either in San Fernando or Slymar, or in Burbank, rather than placing two stops in the valley, officials said.
This is in response to the city of Burbank’s request that an airport stop be studied. You can see the proposed airport stop, and the two downtown stops that had been under discussion in previous months, on the map below:
View Burbank HSR in a larger map
The questions I asked in March still apply:
1. Is it better to have a station near downtown Burbank or near Burbank Airport? Downtown Burbank has some density, and could have more in the future, but is it a more compelling source of riders than the nearby airport? Is it worth moving the station nearer the airport at the expense of downtown?
2. Is Burbank Airport equipped to handle the ridership that HSR might bring? Burbank is already a popular option for people flying to points in downtown LA and nearby areas, as it’s easier to get there from Burbank than LAX. HSR service would be a huge advantage for Burbank, as LAX can never hope to have service to downtown LA as fast as an HSR link from Burbank. But Burbank isn’t a large airport and may not be able to handle a big increase in passengers. Then again, if HSR succeeds in grabbing most of the market share of the LA-SF corridor, then that would free some space at Burbank.
3. What happens to connections to Metrolink and Amtrak? Since the Burbank station is so close to Union Station, this might not be as big an issue. It would mean that people wanting to get to HSR from points westward on Metrolink (currently as far as Moorpark) and Amtrak (as far as Santa Barbara, maybe even San Luis Obispo) would have to go all the way to Union Station to transfer to a northbound HSR train.
The report in the Burbank Leader doesn’t indicate any answers to those questions. But it does suggest that Burbank officials seem to think, bizarrely, that downtown would be better off without HSR than with it:
The new options could mean that Burbank may not have a stop at all, a change that city officials may not consider a major loss because of the accompanying traffic and infrastructural impacts associated with adding another transportation hub to the area, Kriske said.
“I think its probably still mixed,” Kriske said. “I think there’s probably still some sentiment to question whether we want it at all even with the airport still being an option.”
I’m not sure I buy this. An HSR stop would bring a lot of travelers, commuters, and others to Burbank. It would enable Burbank to diversify its downtown, potentially landing conference facilities or other destinations that could leverage the HSR station. Burbank seems to think that the late 20th century conditions will persist indefinitely, which as we all know isn’t going to happen. Downtown Burbank will eventually regret moving the HSR station to the airport, although the city as a whole might not mind it if the airport station were to become a new hub of its own (and it’s difficult to see how that happens; TOD and airports aren’t exactly a great mix).
But this does raise an intriguing possibility. If the San Fernando Valley loses a station, that opens up a possibility for a new station somewhere else. The most likely possibility might well be Visalia/Hanford, which has been clamoring for a station for some time. It could also enable a two-station solution in central San Diego, with one at their airport (Lindbergh Field) and another downtown.
On the other hand, the San Fernando Valley, with a population of 1.76 million, would seem capable of supporting two stations. Without a Sylmar station, residents in the Santa Clarita area would be left without a convenient HSR station. Presumably a station could be added there later, although AB 3034 would have to be modified.
Without having taken a closer look at this proposal, it would seem to me that there needs to be a regional approach to the station location decision. It can’t just be driven by Burbank. The cities of Los Angeles, Glendale, Santa Clarita, and even little San Fernando, need to come together to discuss the region’s needs and consider the HSR station location in context of regional planning priorities.
The City of Burbank is making a nimbyish mistake.
That said, there are opportunities here. Hidden in Metro’s Long Range Plan are a couple of rail projects that are unfunded but likely to appear in a future update of the plan post Measure R unless they are excelerated.
1) Red Line extension from NoHo northeast to Bob Hope Metrolink Station.
2) Light rail downtown LA to Bob Hope Airport via Glendale and Burbank adjacent to Metrolink track.
The City of Burbank envisions the area near the Bob Hope Metrolink Station (Hollywood Way and Empire) as a transportation hub. Anticipating a future Red Line Station joined with bus service, Metrolink, light rail, and now maybe High Speed Rail — this could be the Valley’s Union Station.
If the West Hollywood extension of the Westside Subway is built to Hollywood and Highland, future HSR passengers could depart at Bob Hope Burbank and transfer to connecting rail service to Hollywood, West LA, downtown Burbank, Ventura County, etc.
As you stated, it would require a multi-agency regional effort.
AndyDuncan Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Sure except that this station would be a mile away from that transportation hub. It’s sort of like saying the Green line’s Aviation station counts as an LAX station. And the aviation station is closer than this one will be.
This is asinine and the worst possible option.
Matthew Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
One possible partial solution would be to further extend the red line to a new HSR station and/or add a Metrolink stop on the Lancaster line. Either way, intermodality is essential, and this plan would increase the future costs of that.
Why not keep the Sylmar station if the Burbank station is moved to the airport? Or why not also move the Sylmar station to Santa Clarita (in phase 1)? And if the San Fernando Valley with 1.8 million population only wants one station can the Sacramento metropolitan region with 2.1 million population get a second station, maybe in Elk Grove?
Rafael Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 6:53 am
Just north of Sylmar, the HSR alignment will veer east in a series of tunnels through Soledad Canyon. A station in Santa Clarita is infeasible given the decision in favor of routing the starter line via the Tehachapis. IMHO, the existing Metrolink service out to Lancaster will be abbreviated to Santa Clarita (Via Princessa) once HSR goes live, since it will become too expensive for SCRRA to maintain the wiggly old rail line through the Antelope Valley. That would free up funds to serve the northern San Fernando Valley more frequently. Service between Lancaster and Palmdale is on UPRR-owned track, it could be maintained if there’s enough demand.
IMHO, a station for Elk Grove isn’t likely, if only because Kings and Tulare counties are lobbying very hard for one east of Hanford. That’s too bad, since Elk Grove (pop. 150,000, cp. Palmdale) has plenty of readily available water to support population growth and, the Hanford/Visalia/Tulare region arguably doesn’t. The primary argument for HSR was that it would provide as much additional transportation capacity as several new runways plus 3000 new freeway lane-miles but at a fraction of the land use, construction cost and CO2 footprint. Well, if you want to keep the state from going bankrupt, that means voting NO on the $11b water bond in November and encouraging new arrivals to settle where the water is and the earthquakes aren’t, i.e. near Sacramento. The trick is to do so without nuking a lot of prime agricultural land, i.e. plan against wide roads and low-rise stand-alone housing.
Unfortunately, it might not be possible to construct any HSR tracks at all between south Stockton and downtown Sacramento unless UPRR decides to co-operate with CHSRA.
John McNary Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 7:35 am
Soledad Canyon is in Santa Clarita. A station would be more-logical there than in Sylmar.
And Metrolink still owns the old Southern Pacific ROW between Newhall and Ventura (Montalvo). Some day Metrolink trains could connect LA County to Ventura via the Santa Clara River Valley, with stops at Santa Paula, Fillmore, Newhall, etc.
And downtown Burbank is already a congested suburban mess. Adding thousands of commuters there makes no sense. Tying all the mass transit (Red & Orange lines) together with existing parking garages and transportation infrastructure at Bob Hope is by far the superior plan.
rafael Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 8:39 am
Zoom in on the Sylmar/Santa Clarita area of the Google Map of the route. The tracks will be in the CA-14 freeway corridor then continue south of it. There are significant stretches at grade and some aerials in that initial curve on the way to Palmdale. The one closest to “downtown” Santa Clarita would be at the Newhall Ave exit, but the horizontal and vertical alignment of the tracks in the area might have to be tweaked to support a station with (a) dead-straight 1/4 mi platform(s).
IMHO, though, siting a station directly at a rural freeway exit with very little level land for nearby parking doesn’t make any more sense than the plan of record, i.e. Sylmar Metrolink.
See my comment below for a way to implement a downtown Burbank station with transit connections to both Metro North Hollywood plus Bob Hope while minimizing motor vehicle traffic impacts. An HSR station on the wrong side of the airport would be next to useless.
Wrt to the old line in the CA-126 corridor (aka the other Santa Clara valley), the section between 126/Wolcott Way and Railroad Ave/Magic Mountain Pwy in Santa Clarita would have to be rebuilt. That corridor is very rural, though, and afaik there aren’t any plans to develop it sufficiently to justify Metrolink service at this time. If the rails were available, there might be a business case for re-routing Amtrak Pacific Surfliner so Metrolink can increase service frequency on its Ventura line via Simi Valley.
Tony D. Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 8:51 am
Hey Rafael,
There needs to be a “shift” in stations somewhere else as well: Downtown Merced to Castle Airport! ;o)
Rafael Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 9:11 am
As discussed offline, that “shift” is unlikely to happen as long as CHSRA tries to hew close to the UPRR right of way in the area. If they are forced to switch to BNSF, Merced county will need to re-evaluate where it wants its station.
Peter Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 9:22 am
With all due respect to Rafael, unless they do have to switch to BNSF, there is no reason to place Merced’s station at Castle. There is no real development there, and no airline service into the airport. No reason why anyone would be getting on or off there…
Rafael Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Agreed, siting an HSR station at Castle would only make sense IFF the HSR tracks end up in the BNSF corridor AND there is a realistic plan to actually use that former AFB for something that would generate ridership. Neither the hoped-for HMF nor the federal prison already there fit that bill (at least I hope so!)
The picture would change dramatically if the facility were developed, preferably as a commercial airport to serve the Central Valley and relieve SFO/SJC. The existing runway is probably long and strong enough to support both 747s and A380s. Building a passenger terminal with an integrated HSR station there is, however, a much bigger ball of wax and currently not on on any official radar (no pun intended).
elfling Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
On the Santa Clarita end, a Via Princessa stop is not a bad choice. No, this is not a station where people will get off and walk, but this would be a station where lots of people would drive to and board as the originating end of their round trip journey.
elfling Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
That said, I think Sylmar is a better choice for more people.
John McNary Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
There is no such thing as “downtown Santa Clarita.” SC is an amalgamation of several separate suburbs (Newhall, Valencia, Canyon Country, etc.) that themselves have no urban center.
Although wonks love to place HSR stations in downtowns, there are places like Gilroy, Burbank or Santa Clarita where that makes no sense.
Do we want a station where civic planners would like condos and Starbucks? Or do we want a train station where people will find it convenient to get to?
Matthew Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
John, one of the goals of rail infrastructure is to generate dense development that will efficiently make use of the station. Transit oriented development should be part of any good station plan, as well as adequate transit connections to the rest of the area. This does not preclude convenience for other station users.
Samsonian Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 10:01 am
A station in Santa Clarita is infeasible given the decision in favor of routing the starter line via the Tehachapis.
I think so too. It’s just too far north/northwest, and in a canyon to be to route to it, and put a full station there.
a station for Elk Grove isn’t likely…That’s too bad, since Elk Grove (pop. 150,000, cp. Palmdale) has plenty of readily available water to support population growth
Elk Grove probably does warrant its own station, it being big enough and far enough away from downtown Sacramento. On the bright side, if CHSRA can execute its Altamont and Merced-Sacramento plans, Elk Grove and a bunch of other communities along the line could get a regional HSR service from ACE. Of course, lack of money and UPRR cooperation is still a hold up.
The Bob Hope Metrolink station is on the rail corridor south of the airport. HSR will run in the rail corridor along San Fernando Rd, so its station would be a mile further north. Besides, it would be a very long way from the terminals, so “these boots were made for walking”.
The rail corridors join up near Burbank Blvd, just north of – drumroll please – the downtown station. Yes, an HSR station will generate demand for connecting transportation. That’s precisely why it’s important to ensure HSR is intermodal with existing transit, e.g. Amtrak and Metrolink. If and when possible and appropriate, those services can then be upgraded via longer and/or more frequent trains.
Note that Chandler Blvd used to be a rail corridor that’s been converted into a bike path. The North Hollywood station of the Red Line is at the intersection of Chandler and Lankershim.
Seems to me the smartest thing to do would be to site the HSR station directly across from Chandler, in the (apparently) undeveloped patch of land bordered by Burbank Blvd, I-5, Magnolia Blvd and Front St. and, to move the Amtrak/Metrolink platforms there as well. Include at least one pedestrian bridge across I-5 into the Media Center complex (cp. Oakland Coliseum BART walkway to the nearby ballpark, but fully enclosed rather than fenced)
Optionally, have Metro construct an elevated people mover directly above the Chandler bike path to link this HSR/Amtrak/Metrolink station to the North Hollywood station. Consider using unmanned cable car technology (cp. Caracas (Venezuela) and the Oakland Airport project) or else, Advanced Rapid Transit (cp. JFK AirTrain in NYC, Millenium Line in Vancouver BC). A single main track with passing tracks at stations should be sufficient.
Thanks to the pedestrian bridge across I-5, this people mover would also be useful to Metro customers headed for the Media Center rather than the HSR/Amtrak/Metrolink station.
In theory, this elevated people mover could be extended all the way to Burbank Terminal B by stacking it above the rail right of way. SCRRA owns that all the way out to Moorpark in Simi Valley, UPRR only has trackage rights in that section. However, that would mean curved platforms for the people mover station at the new transit hub. This isn’t a dealbreaker as articulated trainsets with short cars are readily available for this type of transit.
Instead of a rail-based people mover, Metro could choose to construct an elevated, dedicated road deck and use it to extend the existing Orange Line BRT route. Its buses are operated by drivers, probably assisted by magnets embedded the concrete. I reckon rail would actually be cheaper to build and operate. It would also deliver higher capacity per vehicle.
An easily accessible multi-story car park for this transit hub could be built on a site bordered by Chandler, N Victory and W Cypress across the river, accessed via foot bridges. The land is currently used by a building supply and a couple of other businesses, which would have to be relocated.
One problem is that Burbank Blvd doesn’t have an on-ramp for I-5 northbound, the nearest one is at Walnut Ave. Considering the traffic a new transit hub would attract, it might be wise to include a single-lane flyover over or – preferably, in this case – short tunnel under Burbank Blvd and I-5 to connect to this on-ramp while avoiding Walnut Ave itself. Individuals and buses could then take the Front/Verdugo exit off I-5 southbound, take a right, follow an already existing but unused one-way frontage road to the new transit hub and continue on to I-5 northbound via the new flyover/tunnel. A short section of the existing Front St. should become one-way southbound to improve local traffic flow. Optionally, a new single-lane bridge could connect Magnolia eastbound to the transit hub and I-5 northbound.
Connecting transportation arriving via I-5 northbound is already served via the Burbank Blvd exit, Front St and the Front/Verdugo on-ramp onto I-5 southbound.
MAP OF GORY DETAILS
Andrew Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 7:57 am
“The Bob Hope Metrolink station is on the rail corridor south of the airport. HSR will run in the rail corridor along San Fernando Rd, so its station would be a mile further north. Besides, it would be a very long way from the terminals, so ‘these boots were made for walking.’”
Which is why I said it was a stupid idea the last time it came up, and I haven’t changed my mind.
As usual, I like your thinking Rafael. However, there are a plans afoot to extend the Red Line to Bob Hope Airport. So instead of the peoplemover along Chandler, it might be better to update the plan and extend the Red Line to downtown Burbank via the airport.
rafael Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 9:05 am
The Red Line is a subway under Lankershim. It wouldn’t be possible to continue it above Chandler without losing the North Hollywood station, which is a non-starter.
What you’re suggesting is to extend the subway north via Tujunga and turning right at the rail right of way to reach Bob Hope, with the option to continue on to the HSR station (wherever that ends up). Fair enough, as long as you are willing to accept the higher per-mile cost of subway tunnels.
AndyDuncan Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 9:52 am
“What you’re suggesting is to extend the subway north via Tujunga and turning right at the rail right of way to reach Bob Hope, with the option to continue on to the HSR station (wherever that ends up)”
AFAIK that’s precisely Metro’s plan.
Rafael Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Yes, but note how it’s filed under “Strategic Unfunded Tier 2″ (p28 PDF). In other words, not likely to happen anytime soon. And by soon, I mean this side of 2030.
The 3.2 mi Oakland Airport Connector is a $492 million project based on modern unmanned cable car technology. A line connecting Metro North Hollywood to an HSR station in downtown Burbank would also need to be elevated, but it might well be a lot cheaper given that the Chandler ROW has been preserved via the bikeway, there’s no freeway to fly over, no airport charging through the nose for its land etc.
By contrast, measure R has $4.07 billion allocated to the project to extend Metro’s Purple Line out to Westwood. However, Metro has been hedging its bets about how many miles of tunnels that money will actually buy. The most direct route option under consideration works out to about 9 miles, implying a cost of around $450 million/mile. In North Hollywood, construction might well be cheaper, say $350 million/mile.
The above implies that a Red Line extension to Bob Hope and on to one of the alternative HSR station sites will be a lot more expensive than a strictly elevated people mover system. Note that the subway extension would probably have to run at or below grade where it crosses the flight paths at the end of the runways. Fortunately, there is space for an at-grade solution, at the expense of parking spaces.
MAP showing Red Line extension options vs. people mover/BRT extension.
Andrew Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Precisely. And it wouldn’t have to be entirely subway either, beyond Bob Hope it could run above ground. It’s even possible (though unlikely) for the Orange Line to be extended to downtown Burbank via Chandler.
Burbank could be the LA area’s version of Shinagawa Station, but like a pack of retards they want to put it out in a place with zero connectivity.
Matthew Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Wouldn’t it be much less expensive to place the HSR station at one of the two alternatives where a Metrolink stop already exists or can be placed. This would then provide connections to the airport and to a future extension of the red line. All this people mover technology sounds great, but is redundant if the station is placed well in the first place. Let’s make the best use of our limited transportation dollars.
Rafael Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
The cost of moving a couple of new Amtrak/Metrolink platforms is peanuts, absolutely peanuts, compared to the cost of the HSR project, a Red Line extension, a new people mover or similar. The only reason CHSRA’s plan of record calls for HSR stations to be co-located with the Sylmar and Downtown Burbank Metrolink stations is because that was the least intrusive placeholder option.
It would truly be penny-wise and pound-foolish to spend $35 billion on a starter line and then put the stations where connecting transportation capacity – especially transit perpendicular to the line – is totally inadequate and hard to expand or, in locations that won’t generate sufficient ridership because too few people live, work or shop within easy walking/transit distance.
James Fujita Reply:
May 28th, 2010 at 5:14 am
I like the comparison of Burbank = Shinagawa, if only because I’ve been there and remember the station well. So, CalHSR= Shinkansen, and Metrolink= Yamanote, other JR trains. I would guess you need a Burbank light rail line or subway= Keikyu, although Keikyu is private and nothing in L.A. is. Close enough to L.A. to be an alternative to Union Station, far enough to be useful.
BTW, the TOD at Shinagawa is inside the station, and a lot of the development around the station came afterward and is rather faceless when compared to the station itself….
Samsonian Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 11:16 am
I don’t know that much about SoCal transportation, but a Bob Hope HSR station along San Fernando Rd. makes little sense. It has no TOD potential, it’s far from the terminals, and it’s more a commuter/short-haul airport serving smaller commercial aircraft (i.e. competition), rather than a hub airport with transcontinental and international flights with large commercial aircraft (i.e. partner airlines).
The station should be in Downtown Burbank, along with one in Sylmar. As you said connecting transit needs to be improved, but I don’t think a people mover is the answer.
The Orange Line should be extended east along its former rail ROW to the Downtown Burbank rail station, and maybe into Glendale via Glenoaks Blvd. And on its western end, extended north along its former rail ROW to the Chatsworth rail station. Of course, it really needs to be converted from BRT to LRT.
I remember the LA Mayor wanting to extend the Red Line north to Sylmar. It makes some sense to serve Bob Hope with such an extension, but (assuming it stays a subway) it seems wasteful to turn the line that far east, then north along the existing rail ROW. It should at least serve another parallel corridor.
Peter Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 11:29 am
Would it be possible for communities to raise the funding for an HSR station themselves, without going over the 24 station limit?
Peter Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 11:31 am
That way they could avoid placing the station at the airport…
Joey Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 11:31 am
I think the 24 station limit only applies to stations built (designed?) with Prop 1A money…
Samsonian Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 11:44 am
I’m pretty sure the limit applies to stations the HSTs serve. If there are stations that are only served by regional EMUs on the HSR line, but skipped by actual HSTs, then it shouldn’t count.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Here’s the language in question:
So it’s not just Prop 1A money, but the system as a whole.
jim Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
This raises a question which comes up in several other contexts: the continuing effect of Prop 1A after the money has been spent.
Suppose over the next few years the Feds pony up maybe $15B, which together with the Prop 1A money gets a good deal of the system built, but leaves perhaps whole segments missing. Private money is sought to fill in the gaps. A source is found, but the funder says in order to invest, he will need more stations built, so as to attract the necessary ridership to make his investment worthwhile.
What happens? Does CHSRA have to turn this money down?
synonymouse Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Or more likely private investor would demand a more direct, faster route.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
Or the private investor, investing in a passenger railroad will want it to be where there are passengers.
Peter Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Not every thread on this blog is about Tehachapi.
Rafael Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
@ Robert -
IMHO, that’s a very literal reading of AB3034. If someone were to approach CHSRA with non-state funding for an additional station that would actually add significant ridership while putting curbs on sprawl, they ought to consider it. As long as there’s no negative impact on express HSR line haul times, I think that would be consistent with the spirit of the bill.
dejv Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Another questions:
- does this wording block possibility of TGV-like trains running partially on legacy network?
- if CAHSR and DX networks get indeed connected, are DX’s stations included in 24 limit?
(PS: Robert, did you get my e-mail?)
Rafael Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
@ dejv -
- be default, TGV-like trains (i.e. non-compliant rolling stock) must not share track with FRA-compliant trains (i.e. US-style super-duper-heavy freight trains, incl. freight=passengers) except when there is guaranteed time separation. This is FRA’s infamous and draconian “mixed traffic rule” and has nothing to do with AB3034.
If future regulation did permit mixed traffic, the legacy tracks would probably not be considered part of the HSR network. For now, the question is academic.
- same for DX network: stations on tracks connected to the California HSR network but not part of it probably don’t count toward the 24 station limit. Again, academic for now since DX has no concrete plans to integrate its network.
elfling Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
I like how your map has the Burbank essentials on it. IKEA, Picanha (yummy! I miss it!), the Burbank City Attorney, and Starbucks. :-)
Rafael Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Retail businesses come and go all the time. Rails are for (almost) ever. I’m not really concerned with whatever business Google Maps says happens to be at any given site in the Burbank Media Center. The only thing that matters is that there’s a whole area east of I-5 that is zoned for commercial use.
At the April BOD meeting it was announced during the AA preso for SF-SJ that since the HSRA will be doing BOTH TransBay and 4th and King – it now counts as two stops. Is it possible that reducing a stop is being more strongly considered simply b/c of the 24 stop limit in AB3034?
Rafael Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 7:37 am
Good grief. The Transbay Terminal is an object lesson in how to make a complete hash of things, especially since CHSRA is too braindead to use it appropriately. There is no operational requirement for HSR trains to dwell in downtown SF for more than a few minutes. None, cleaning can be done elsewhere.
It might be necessary to originate the first few southbound and terminate the last few northbound trains of each day at 4th & King for overnight stabling, but I’d rather see CHSRA acquire the old Brisbane yard and do a few deadhead runs. Alternatively, run a number of early morning trains from San Jose to SFTT (with passengers!) and a number of late evening trains from SFTT to SJ (again, revenue runs). Depending on demand patterns, some subset of trains could also simply run between SJ and SoCal to limit the number of trains that need to be stabled in or near SF. Just because the line connects SF to Anaheim doesn’t mean each and every train has to run the whole line.
In any event, nuking one of the 24 stations permitted by AB3034 to compensate for piss-poor planning in SF is unacceptable.
Clem Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 8:58 am
It sure will be entertaining to see the fireworks when the CHSRA starts objecting to this development in Brisbane. Get your hands off my rail yard !!
Rafael Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Nice pic of what the rail yard might look like, though it doesn’t quite line up with the Google Earth view. Would all of those tracks be for HSR? Has the soil already been remediated?
Note that in theory at least, it would be possible to sell the air rights above the tracks reserved for electric trains to a developer. Or, they could be used for the road portion of a regional transshipment terminal for high-value freight (mail, packages, perishable foodstuffs etc.) Of course, for that to work, there would have to be other such terminals elsewhere in the state, e.g. in Fresno and LA.
I like how the pic shows just two tracks leading into SF, i.e. toward the bottom of the frame. Between 4th & King and Bayshore, there’s really no good reason for any new tunnel tracks at all. HSR won’t be running at high speed in this stretch and Caltrain’s 22nd Street station isn’t so busy the service couldn’t survive closing to improve throughput. CHSRA insistence on new single-bore tunnels to either side of the Caltrain tracks is probably why they haven’t gone after the Brisbane yard yet – it would be hard to connect the northbound track. If they simply share the existing tunnel tracks with Caltrain, this problem does not arise. The two services have to integrate their timetables anyhow if they’re going to share the DTX tunnel into the Transbay Terminal. Might was well extend that all the way to Bayshore.
If either UPRR or the port of SF complain about plate H clearance or sharing tracks via guaranteed time separation at night, I reckon it’s time to invoke paragraph 8.3(c) of the 1991 contract with SP for the section north of Bayshore. If they relent, new slab track may be required in tunnel #4, especially if a gauntlet track is installed.
Perhaps the bigger question is what shape the old tunnel walls are in after 100 years, in particular wrt seismic safety. Any info on that? If the HSR project doesn’t pay for a retrofit, Caltrain may have to do so on its own before long.
AndyDuncan Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 9:55 am
“I like how the pic shows just two tracks leading into SF, i.e. toward the bottom of the frame. “
that appears to be simply authority’s reference diagram for a maintenance facility superimposed on the baylands. I think it’s pretty obvious that’s not a diagram of what they intend to build on that particular site.
Rafael Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 9:59 am
Afaik, CHSRA currently has no intention to build anything at all there. That’s precisely the problem!
Clem Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 10:03 am
That’s correct, I took their reference diagram and slapped it (to scale) into Google Earth. While it may not represent the exact configuration of the facility, it certainly gives you an idea of the size of the maintenance facility relative to the available land.
I don’t believe they’ve said anywhere that it would be built in Brisbane, but their siting criteria leave very little doubt about Brisbane being the only feasible candidate. This is likely being kept quiet to avoid another NIMBY storm.
AndyDuncan Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
And thank you for doing that, it’s definitely interesting to look at.
With regards to siting, Atherton would make a nice place for a yard ;-)
Reality Check Reply:
May 31st, 2010 at 11:28 am
Caltrain did a lengthy tunnel rehabilitation project some years ago. Here’s an excerpt from an
article mentioning it:
“The four tunnels between Caltrain’s San Francisco terminal and its Bayshore Station have withstood some of the Bay Area’s most fierce quakes. Built in 1906, the tunnels now require reinforcement, as the system changes and modernizes.
Each of Caltrain’s nearly 500 weekly trains must pass through all of these tunnels, making it critical that they be seismically sound. Caltrain construction crews are doing just that with this $8-million rehabilitation project, by reinforcing the tunnels with 3,400 cubic yards of shotcrete. In addition, the ceiling of one of the four tunnels is being treated with grout.
This critical project got underway in Summer 2004 and has proceeded without any delay to passenger service. Work on the tunnels is expected to be completed in June.”
Rafael Reply:
May 31st, 2010 at 11:59 am
Thanks for the pointer. If the tunnels are in a good state of repair, all the more reason to use them for HSR as well, even it that means closing the 22nd Street station. There are better ways to spend scarce HSR project dollars.
AndyDuncan Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 9:36 am
“At the April BOD meeting it was announced during the AA preso for SF-SJ that since the HSRA will be doing BOTH TransBay and 4th and King – it now counts as two stops. Is it possible that reducing a stop is being more strongly considered simply b/c of the 24 stop limit in AB3034?”
Exactly what I was thinking: “Well, they found their station to delete, and now they can blame it on the city of Burbank”.
[insert "Bob Hope Airport Station is a Joke" joke here]
They are looking at major changes in the route north of Burbank – something about tunneling throuh the Paicoma wash area. While expensive, the current routing is apparently looking very expensive once ALL the costs are looked at.
This may be precipitating discussion of dropping Sylmar station.
This was talked about during operations committee meeting last month. http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20100506115942_1001.MP3
Rafael Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Interesting, considering that crossing the high portion of San Gabriel mountains would cost an arm and a leg and introduce a slew of new environmental concerns regarding wildlife, wildfire risks etc. I don’t have time to listen to the whole MP3 file, could you point me to the approximate location in it where this is discussed?
Besides, why would they need to tunnel under a wash? Build an elevated structure over it, we’re not made of money.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
15:30 (if you download file and then listen you get timeframes)
Speakers – Richard Katz board member , Tony Daniels (English guy) PB, then Rod Diridon board member
Rafael Reply:
May 28th, 2010 at 12:44 am
Thx for the pointer. What I heard was that they’re looking at going up the wash (i.e. veering north-east just north of CA-118) because “the Disney property” along the originally planned route has a seismic fault line that would be difficult and expensive to tunnel through. One person – not sure who – present at the meeting is a lawyer who recused himself from the decision as Disney happens to be a client.
Trying to fill in the blanks, it’s possible the property they were referring to is the 56-acre Golden Oak Ranch development (map). That’s just speculation on my part, though, I could be barking up the wrong tree altogether. IFF the alignment details (please zoom in) published on CHSRA’s web site are still accurate, which may not be the case, the tracks would actually not run anywhere near that property at all.
There was no mention of tunneling under the wash itself, though there is a lot of residential housing close to it. Beyond the wash, they would then need to cross the Angeles National Forest covering the San Gabriel Mountains. Asked how he would get a permit for that, Tony Daniels replied that they would tunnel through them. No details were given, my best guess is that would take them across to the Sand Canyon Road area, which appears to be chock-full of high-end villas and golf courses. Staying east of that would imply additional tunneling toward the Soledad Sulphur Springs area. All told, hardly a cakewalk, politically or in engineering terms.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 28th, 2010 at 7:26 am
That was Katz who recused himself.
Nathanael Reply:
May 28th, 2010 at 12:35 am
OK, I get it. This is basically a more direct tunnel to Palmdale. I’m guessing it would be over the actual wash within the San Fernando valley, and then a straight tunnel under the National Forest, northeast through the mountains. Pretty decent idea. I don’t see environmental concerns with the tunnel, if it starts on either end of the forest and runs straight under it. It appears that the geology may be much more favorable for a nice long tunnel here.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 28th, 2010 at 12:53 am
Seems like PBQD didn’t have a realistic alignment north of where the 14 and 5 split. But because Disney announced they intend to develop their Golden Oak Ranch into a major filim studio, it’s now obvious that HSR can’t go that way. Following existing railbed probably would cut in the run time of the trains, so now there’s another option…and it’s the Southern California version of the Mont Blanc tunnel.
Still, I doubt Burbank suggested it’s Bob Hope terminal because it sought to help those passengers displaced by losing Sylmar. I think it has more to do with developing the airport and recognizing that most of the biggest companies in Burbank aren’t downtown but have headquarters too far too take advantage of HSR by foot or transit.
I agree with Rafael though, the site he mentions would be the best choice for a station, whether Burbank realizes it or not.
rafael Reply:
May 28th, 2010 at 3:46 am
(a) If the issue really is the Golden Oak Ranch, that would imply the alignment currently indicated on CHSRA’s published map has in fact moved south by a mile or so. At 56 acres, the plot in question is large but hardly huge.
(b) Disney has deeper pockets than most to defend itself against any attempts to acquire any part of that property via eminent domain or, to diminish its usefulness for shooting outdoor scenes for movies.
(c) Disney is a major employer in the state and no doubt a major campaign contributor for a number of SoCal politicians. Since any and all requests to actually appropriate prop 1A funds must still go through the state’s regular – and tortuous – budget process, this is surely a medium-term consideration for CHSRA.
(d) The reason quoted was actually a seismic fault in the area. The geology in the area is gnarly, getting out of the LA basin was always going to be one of the most difficult aspects of the entire project. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if additional problems (unstable rock strata, aquifers, pockets of natural gas – you name it) were discovered as the project becomes more mature.
(e) There was never any notion of using SCRRA’s existing winding railroad ROW through the Antelope Valley for HSR. It features a gentle gradient but there’s only one track and that is in active use for Metrolink’s Lancaster line. In theory, a series of short tunnels and culverts could be used to widen and rectify that right of way. In practical terms, constructing that would be nigh-on impossible unless Metrolink were willing to cancel the service long before the first HSR trains ever ran. Cue howls of protest from long-distance commuters along CA-14. In addition, the ROW runs right through a number of built-up areas where alignment rectification would require substantial eminent domain takings. Here be dragons.
(f) We don’t know any of the details at this point, but I seriously doubt the Paicoma wash alternative CHSRA is now looking at involves a base tunnel on par with the one through the Montblanc (nitpick: that’s actually a road tunnel. The base tunnel projects for mixed freight/passenger rail through the Swiss Alps are the St. Gotthard or Loetschberg.) More likely, this alternative would simply involve a different set of tunnels than the one that had previously been planned.
synonymouse Reply:
May 28th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Your Palmdale-Tehachapis detour is going to end up costing more than the Tejon bores.
Tolmach to the CHSRA board!
Peter Reply:
May 28th, 2010 at 11:27 am
What does that have to do with a station choice in the Burbank area. I’ll give you a hint: NOTHING.
Peter Reply:
May 28th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Also, Tolmach is only one person. Even if we entered the Twilight Zone and he got appointed to the Board (because he truly has the credentials to oversee a major infrastructure project, right?), he’d still have to convince the other Board members of his loonie positions.
Btw, I apologize for my above comment, they were in fact talking about tunneling, so your usual detour to the Tehachapis (pun intended) was not entirely inappropriate.
synonymouse Reply:
May 28th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
The proposed tunnel is in the general arena of the escape from LA and will add to the expense therefore the segue to Tejon, which is a superior alignment and may even be cheaper.
The seismic safety issue is a nervous nellie smokescreen for a corrupt LA powerplay. The whole region is replete with earthquake dangers. Tejon vatly enhances the viability of the hsr.
Maybe the people who live in the northern reaches of the LA basin will start bitching about losing their service due to these wretched Palmdale real estate developers. Those suckers are probably in the tank now due to the real estate collapse. Karma.
As someone who worked for many years in Beautiful Downtown Burbank, I think it is an ideal location for HSR. There are high rise office buildings, a substantial mall and entertainment hub with restaurants and theaters, and high rise apartment complexes within a very short distance. The only potential downside is trying to shoehorn in parking for an entire San Fernando Valley’s worth of demand. However, better to build a solution that envisions that not everyone would need to drive than to force one that requires that everyone does.
Rafael Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Exactly. Site HSR stations so they’re intermodal with existing, planned or at least feasible future local/regional connecting transit. Private cars + parking should be a secondary mode of connecting transportation, though they do need to be catered for without undue impact on local traffic patterns. In downtown Burbank, the rails are right next to a freeway so the focus should be on optimizing the flow of traffic off that, past the station and back on again in the opposite direction, preferably using secondary/frontage roads.
Matthew Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
There are parking lots at pretty much every Metrolink station on the line. People should park there and take a connecting train, or take public transportation door to door. Other options for getting to a station without parking are van or taxi services, bicycling, or walking.
Well, now Burbank gets to know how the Central Valley has been feeling about the high speed rail stations that have been proposed for Visalia/Hanford and Merced.
People seem to assume that anything but a downtown station will be transit-unfriendly, but is that necessarily the case? Wouldn’t local transit authorities be apt to adapt their routes and restructure their service to serve the airport if the station was built out at the airport rather than downtown? Wouldn’t they even be pressured to built new rail lines to serve the new station?
Wouldn’t the train station be likely to encourage growth no matter where it was placed?
In an area the size of the Valley, wouldn’t quite a few HSR passengers be arriving by car? Wouldn’t you want to have a good-sized parking lot as well as bus connections?
Am I talking about the San Joaquin Valley or the San Fernando Valley? Your guess is as good as mine…
Peter Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
One of the ideas for placing a station downtown is to get the passengers to within walking distance of their destinations. A greenfield station, for example, is not a good idea for the simple reason that it will encourage development that is not in combination with an urban densification. It may not be “sprawl” in the most direct sense, but it runs counter to the densification goals accompanying most major transit projects.
If it’s built at the airport, then yes, the local authorities would likely adjust their service patterns to serve the airport HSR station. However, there is very limited TOD that can be accomplished next to an airport (height limits, etc.).
Clem Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
On the other hand, sixty-foot viaducts that produce frequent 100 dB, sudden-onset sound events may not encourage dense urban development. Who wants to live next to that?
there is very limited TOD that can be accomplished next to an airport (height limits, etc.)
etc. = NOISE from airports. Then again, TOD near terminal 3 might be incredibly walkable.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Burbank isn’t going to get 100 dB or 60′ viaducts, so it’s a moot point. In this particular case, the insistence on an airport station is the SoCal equivalent of SSFF on the Peninsula.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
I believe the reference is to Fresno, Merced and Bakersfield
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
one of the options is to put it next to 99 not the quietest of places.
Nathanael Reply:
May 28th, 2010 at 12:36 am
Burbank’s getting a trench.
AndyDuncan Reply:
May 28th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Because without the HSR going through there, Bakersfield and Fresno can look forward to numerous TOD opportunities where people are flocking to live next to a noisy, heavily used freight line that goes right through an industrial district. It’s the new Bel Air!
Peter Reply:
May 28th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Yeah, there’s a reason why Fresno only has residential areas abutting two miles of tracks…
Those can easily be mitigated with transparent sound walls. And yes, they do exist and are in use in even here in the U.S.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 28th, 2010 at 11:27 am
220 mph cannot be easily mitigated. Apparently most of the noise once you get above a certain speed is low frequency which is much tougher than your run of the mill highway/ freight train noise/
Peter Reply:
May 28th, 2010 at 11:33 am
But it’s also less intrusive than high frequency noise.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 28th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
… balanced out by the startle effect
Peter Reply:
May 28th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Hence it comes out about to about even.
James Fujita Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
I’m opposed to greenfield stations, but at the same time, I’m not convinced that downtown is necessarily the best option at all times. When possible, go with downtown, but that’s not always possible.
In the case of a Hanford/Visalia, the downtown areas have been designed in such ways (narrow, crooked streets and surprisingly few usable ROWs) that geographically there just isn’t enough room to get HSR tracks through the middle of town without going underground or seriously tearing apart a large section of the area you’re trying to serve.
In the case of Visalia or Hanford, your best choice would be a “downtown adjacent” station that would allow the city to follow natural growth patterns without encouraging sprawl jumping the city boundaries.
In Visalia’s case, that would be near the airport, but not necessarily adjacent to the airport, so I’m not sure what the height restrictions would be. There’s already commercial development out in the airport area, so certainly there’s room for a HSR station/ hotel/ mall, in the style of most major Japanese stations.
Burbank is lucky that there is a ROW already used by commuter rail that is reasonably close to the freeway, the airport AND downtown.
And those parking spaces are useful, especially if one station is supposed to serve several communities.
flowmotion Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
A very good point, because in many cases the historic “downtown” is actually a very poor location for high density transit-oriented development. (Although I’m not sure of this case in Burbank.)
Another good example of this is the SF Peninsula communities. They have an almost fetishistic ideal about “local character”. Which means that even if HSR can defeat the NIMBY opposition to the project itself, the locals can and will stop any high-density planning efforts in their downtowns.
Meanwhile all of these communities are surrounded by 1970s office parks begging to be redeveloped. (If only there were right of way!)
HSR need to escape the nostalgia-driven Urban Planning 101 mentalities. Urban development in 2030 will have very little relevance to what the “center” was a century earlier.