Rift Developing over HSR Routing between Merced and Fresno. A Hybrid of Alternatives May Be a Solution.
As the alternative analysis process moves forward for the Merced-to-Fresno Section of the California High Speed Rail network, there appears to be a rift developing between Merced, Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties on one side, and the City of Madera on the other side. Merced, Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties generally support the A2 alignment that follows the UPRR corridor (shown in green in the map below). The City of Madera supports the A1 alignment, which swings east along the BNSF corridor (shown in red in the map below).
Existing A1/BNSF and A2/UPRR Alternative Alignments. Source: California High Speed Rail Authority (Merced-to-Fresno Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report).
At the May 6th Authority board meeting, several representatives from Madera spoke to express their opposition to the A2/UPRR alignment due to its impacts on development efforts. Diannah Thomas, a staff member of the Madera County Economic Development Commission, focused on a large new shopping center development named Madera Town Center (even though it will be located in a greenfield site way outside of downtown). She claimed that the proposed shopping center would be destroyed by the A2/UPRR alignment (though a look at Google Earth reveals a great deal of space at that location). A long-time resident of Madera and downtown business owner spoke about how the A2/UPRR alignment would negatively affect efforts underway to revitalize Madera’s downtown. Steve Mindt, a City of Madera councilmember, spoke in favor of the A1/BNSF alignment.
On the other side of the issue, John Pedrozo, Supervisor of Merced County spoke in favor of the A2/UPRR alignment. He also mentioned that the two counties to the north of Merced County, Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties, also support the A2/UPRR alignment. The main rationale he gave for the counties support of the A2/UPRR alignment was the negative impact of the A1/BNSF alignment on agriculture and the environment, including endangered species. He also mentioned longer travel times in his list of concerns, which would result from the dramatic swing to the east the A1/BNSF alignment takes north of the proposed wye junction in the vicinity of SR-152. (Note the tracks from the west approaching this wye junction will likely be located along Avenue 24 or Avenue 21). Support for the A2/UPRR alignment is also likely due to the fact that the City of Merced has already endorsed having the planned HSR station in their downtown along the UPRR corridor. A recent public meeting also indicates the strong support for the A2 alignment in Merced County.
The purpose of this post is to propose a possible solution to this emerging rift. A hybrid of the A1/BNSF and A2/UPRR alternatives may be worthy of consideration. The proposed hybrid alternative would utilize the A2/UPRR alignment north of the wye junction and the A1/BNSF alignment south of the wye junction. While the alignment of the tracks approaching the wye junction from the west could work either on the north side of SR-152 (Avenue 24) or the south side of SR-152 (Avenue 21), a southern alignment along Avenue 21 seems to have more support at this time. The map below illustrates the proposed hybrid alignment (shown as blue lines on the map).
Proposed Hybrid Alternative of A1/BNSF and A2/UPRR Alignments (Shown as Blue Lines). Source of underlying map: California High Speed Rail Authority (Merced-to-Fresno Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report).
This hybrid alternative would avoid most of the urbanized area of Madera, satisfying the local sentiment and potentially reducing costs associated with HSR construction in urban areas. Furthermore, south of the wye junction, the swing east is not very dramatic, which should avoid a significant time penalty. This hybrid alternative would also satisfy the supporters of the A2/UPRR alignment north of the wye and would avoid the dramatic swing to the east called for in the A1/BNSF alternative as well the associated environmental and farmland impacts.
Given all the possible benefits of such a hybrid approach, the Authority should fully examine such an alternative.
Daniel, this is a well thought out alternative. In fact some people in Merced have suggested a route similar to this but have not heard back from the authority staff. I think you will find that most everyone in Merced County and Madera County would like this alternative. However, I guarantee Chowchilla will hate this proposal because this knocks out the developer known as Kojima’s Maintenace facility proposal. Who is the sole person along with the Mayor of Chowchilla who our pushing A-1.
Daniel Krause Reply:
June 3rd, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Do you know where exactly where teh Kojima’s Maintenace facility proposal would be? Would it also be knocked out by the A2 alignment?
Joey Reply:
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:14 pm
You can see it on the map, east of Chowchilla along BNSF. It’s along the A1 alignment but not A2.
Daniel Krause Reply:
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Of course, now I see it. I wasn’t even thinking about that. I think it is pretty hard to justify such an eastward alignment just to access a maintenance facility.
Is there a station proposed for Madera?
Madera currently has a unforgivably horrible little beanfield station on the Amtrak San Joaquin. http://www.flickr.com/photos/22038157@N05/4514989321/
If there’s no HSR station planned, the hybrid route ought to work with no problem.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 3rd, 2010 at 9:06 pm
No. There’s a potential station, but it would run afoul of the 24 station limit. It’s too bad; it’s a decent place for Kodama runs to stop at.
Joey Reply:
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:14 pm
I don’t think anyone has actually proposed a station for Madera.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Sorry, I was thinking of Hanford.
Go ahead and make fun of coastal elitists who can’t tell the difference.
James Fujita Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 2:26 am
Kodama! There’s a great word.
I don’t know if people are fully aware of or understand the wonderful differences between Kodama, Hikari and Nozomi services (basically slow, fast and blur) or if they are aware of just how many intermediate stations there actually are on the Tokaido Shinkansen Line, many of which are served only by the Kodama Shinkansen.
Or, for that matter, if they are aware of the Tokaido Main Line, which is one step below Shinkansen level, but several levels above the San Joaquin.
I think the 24 station limit was created with good intentions (fear of sprawl), but it may have unintended consequences; namely of leaving communities such as Madera out.
The best a town such as Madera could hope for at this point would be the equivalent of the Tokaido Main Line — these slower trains even have orange and green stripes, very symbolically appropriate (citrus, farming) for the Central Valley!
Of course, that’s assuming that the funding for electrification was available, which is highly unlikely, given the trouble these communities have had just keeping basic services running.
Victor Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 8:31 am
Then maybe Prop1a’s station limit needs to be revised from 24 to 36 or to whatever serves the best interests of HSR.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/JR/200710-Tokaido-Sanyo-Shinkansen-graph.pdf
Alon Levy Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
I don’t think it was fear of sprawl that led to the 24 station limit. People should feel free to correct, but I believe that it was fear of having every small town blackmail the authority into giving it a station. The sprawl issue was addressed separately with a rule saying there can’t be any stop between Merced and Gilroy, banning a Los Banos station.
I know I like this hybrid, Hopefully everyone else will too.
I like it! I like the possibility it could have a faster travel time and go around Madera. Anyone have any suggestions on how to actually get the Authority to consider this option?
Wasn’t there a hybrid option eliminated in the AA. I like this proposal, how does it differ from the eliminated one?
Farther south —
Happy to see the East Hanford route has survived despite pushback from local ranchers.
@ Daniel Krause -
thanks for the post. Considering Madera may end up the only county along the route that won’t get a station, listening to what folks there want is a good idea. CHSRA has already eliminated the western bypass option from further consideration at their request.
However, the success of the project depends on actually securing a right of way. UPRR has made it crystal clear that it has no intention of co-operating anywhere in the state, this includes the Central Valley. Since it’s a major railroad, the state of California has no power of eminent domain over UPRR, only Congress does. It’s highly unlikely it would exercise that prerogative on behalf of California, with or without a filibuster in the Senate.
Therefore, even though just about everyone except Madera favors the A2 alignment, it’s far from clear that it’s really as realistic an option in downtown Fresno, Merced, Modesto, Stockton and Sacramento as CHSRA makes it seem. Where exactly are these tracks supposed to run in-between UPRR and CA-99? In some places, e.g. the huge N Weber yard in Fresno, there is point blank zero feet of lateral space between them. Elsewhere, there are numerous businesses and/or residences abutting the freight tracks. Are they going to acquire all of those, by eminent domain if need be? If so, wouldn’t that be even more disruptive than taking a small amount of land from farmers and building a number of overpasses to reconnect what remains?
Btw, minor nitpick: your hybrid proposal features a sharp kink in the line connecting Merced to Fresno. You need to make that a curve with a large radius, i.e. through some farmland.
Final note: if the communities between Merced and Fresno cannot sort out their differences, CHSRA might have to completely rethink its approach. There’s an old (abandoned?) SP right of way connecting Tracy to central Fresno via Los Banos, Firebaugh, Mendota and Kerman. The final section into Fresno is part of SJVR’s network and still active. I’m not advocating this route as it wouldn’t be useful for future traffic between Central Valley cities, plus Los Banos was explicitly excluded as a potential station site in AB3034. All I’m saying is that the individual cities need to look beyond the short-term ambitions of developer X, Y or Z. Rail lines exist for decades, even centuries. Think long term and think about how to align your local interests with those of the state of California.
This is dumb.
The UPRR/CA-99 corridor is clearly the best alignment for Merced-Fresno section. It serves the downtowns of the cities in question for the stopping trains, and it’s straight to allow for express run through as well. Madera is being short-sighted (not to mention NIMBY) by opposing the best alignment, which happens to run through their town.
I can sympathize, as there isn’t a station in offing. That is a shame, as Alon Levy noted above, it’s a good location for Kodama (all stop/local) HSR service given its distance from both Merced and Fresno. While they won’t be able to get a station with AB 3034/Prop 1A as it exists due to the 24 station cap, I’m confidant the cap will fall in time.
The history of HSR around the world has repeatedly shown that. Towns along the route fight it, after service goes live and the all the benefits are on display for all to see and experience, the unserved communities clamor for service.
It’s relatively cheap and easy to build an infill station when the time comes for it. A branch line on the other hand, not so much. If Madera is bypassed when HSR is built, it’s unlikely to ever receive service. They should think with their head, not their gut, and consider the long game.
Not to sound dramatic, but winning this fight could cost them the war.
Daniel Krause Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 8:57 am
The point about adding a infill station in Madera at a later date is a good one. The 24-station limit, while serving a purpose in the short-term, is now having the unintended consequence of causing cities like Madera to see no value of having HSR tracks run through their town. For towns that already have an Amtrak station in their downtowns, the problem is likely to be less significant, as I see Amtrak being slowly upgraded in the San Joaquin Valley overtime to serve as an efficient feeder system to HSR, negating the need for HSR infill stations. The key to making Amtrak a good feeder system is is to ensure there are 2-3 efficient Amtrack/HSR transfer stations. I would recommend tranfers stations in Merced, Fresno, and Bakersfield. Bakersfield is a going to happen, but in Merced and Fresno, the planned HSR stations are planned for the downtowns, while the Amtrak stations are outside of downtown along the BNSF line. This is problematic. Amtrak should move to where the HSR stations are going to be (and yes that will also be a pain because of UP but with track upgrades, there is precedence that it can be done). Though an upgraded Amtrak will likely never be have service levels comparable to the Tokaido Main Line James discusses above, it could be the service that connects all the smaller cities to the HSR service.
Anyway, back to Madera. The fact that their Amtrak station is outside of downtown is problematic. By resisting HSR now, they are making it very difficult to ever having a railway station downtown. However, given the myraid of challenges faced by the Authority, I also see value in minimizing conflict where it is relatively easy to do so. If conflict is strong everywhere, the chances of this project getting completed is very small. As I commented yesterday, I personally thinking solving the San Jose issue with the proposed 87/280 ‘compromise’ alignment may serve the project well. It may also be worth solving Madera’s opposition at this point to clear the way for the EIR/EIS to move forward expeditiously.
It might be possible in the future to have Amtrak serve Madera’s downtown. If Amtrak is moved to the UPRR corridor in Merced to connect with HSR, it might be possible to pay for new track capacity between Merced and Madera along UPRR. The other option is to build a huge TOD when the market recovers in the eastern part of Madera which would include the Amtrak Station and/or an HSR infill station.
As for UP, one has to wonder if there will ever be an effort to move the freight traffic out of the downtowns as Fresno was recently considering. Given the new economy, and as they cities develop and upgrade their downtowns over time, one can see there will evenutally be a push to to do this.
Samsonian Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
I see Amtrak being slowly upgraded in the San Joaquin Valley overtime to serve as an efficient feeder system to HSR, negating the need for HSR infill stations…Though an upgraded Amtrak will likely never be have service levels comparable to the Tokaido Main Line James discusses above, it could be the service that connects all the smaller cities to the HSR service.
I don’t see this happening.
You’re not kidding, Amtrak San Joaquins will never be anything like the Tokaido Main Line.
The market isn’t big enough for two separate passenger rail lines in the Central Valley. Especially when one is HSR line that will be operationally profitable, and the other is a slow train that needs operating subsidies.
Amtrak SJ gets most of its ridership from the main CV towns, not the small ones. I recall adirondacker pointing to the Amtrak/Amtrak California ridership information, showing that those small CV towns provides ~1000 riders/day. Once HSR is up, riders from the main CV towns will shift from Amtrak SJ to HSR, and the existing Amtrak SJ service is unlikely to be sustainable. It makes no sense to spend tens of millions for ~1000 riders/day.
The answer is some combination of routing HSR through the towns in question where practical (existing rail ROW), which would allow for regional rail EMU service for these towns by leveraging the HSR infrastructure. And, of course, local connecting transit consisting mostly of buses and potentially streetcar/light-rail to the neighboring HSR station.
By resisting HSR now, they are making it very difficult to ever having a railway station downtown.
That’s the main point I was making above. And it’s incredibly short sided on their part. Laws are easier to move than rail lines. At least they should be.
given the myraid of challenges faced by the Authority, I also see value in minimizing conflict where it is relatively easy to do so.
Giving on the things that shouldn’t be compromised (e.g. ideal routing), in the face of some NIMBYism, is another one of those short sided moves.
I personally thinking solving the San Jose issue with the proposed 87/280 ‘compromise’ alignment may serve the project well.
How does it serve the project well when it delivers no additional value for service (e.g. higher speeds), at higher cost than just using the CalTrain ROW in that section, and not delivering upgrades for that CalTrain section?
Quite the contrary, I see this as a negative. It sets bad precedents and will balloon costs going forward if all towns demand nonsense like that.
if there will ever be an effort to move the freight traffic out of the downtowns as Fresno was recently considering…as they cities develop and upgrade their downtowns over time, one can see there will evenutally be a push to to do this.
Unless the governments and their taxpayers in question, are willing spend the money, it won’t happen. And considering the costs could be in the billions, that’s very unlikely. Projects like the Alameda Corridor are unique in the country for a reason.
More realistically, governments should pursue grade separation of all the rail crossings in urban areas. Still expensive, but less so than building rail bypasses, and you can probably get taxpayers behind it. Unless they’re annoying NIMBYs like we’re seeing in Palo Alto.
James Fujita Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
I’m not sure what you have in mind for the San Joaquin Valley, but it’s fairly obvious that when Cal HSR gets up and running, Amtrak’s current San Joaquin service is going to have to be blown up, figuratively speaking of course.
There will be absolutely no need for the Los Angeles bus/train to Bay Area service to continue.
However, the existing service could be divided up, possibly with a commuter train from Fresno to surrounding communities such as Madera and Selma (if UP is agreeable, ha) or down to Hanford. Or further north in Stockton, which already has the ACE, so why not extend that down to Modesto?
People don’t currently take the San Joaquin for such purposes because the schedules and fares are more practical for leaving the Valley than for travel within the Valley. However, there should be more than enough demand for some sort of rail service in the Valley, either diesel or electric.
Even the Tokaido Main Line doesn’t try to compete with the Shinkansen, but instead serves commuters in the communities “in the middle” between Kanto and Kansai.
Nathanael Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
After HSR Phase I is constructed, the San Joaquin can have its Bay Area branch cut, but the Sacramento branch will be needed until HSR gets to Sacramento.
So redirect all the services to Sacramento, and retime them to meet HSR at Bakersfield, which will have a shared station (since Fresno won’t). Cut the Bakersfield-LA bus in favor of transfer tickets to HSR.
I can’t imagine any other reasonable option, actually.
When the Sacramento HSR gets built, I’m not sure Denair, Lodi, Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco alone will be worth retaining the San Joaquins for, but perhaps people will be sensible enough to build extra stations on the HSR route for local-trains-only at that point.
James Fujita Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 2:06 am
You’re making a broad assumption that the only sort of rail transit that the Central Valley needs, wants, deserves or requires will be long-distance: either HSR for escaping to the coast, or Amtrak for everywhere that HSR will not immediately serve.
I’m not entirely convinced that this is the case. The Valley is growing in population, and this growth will add to Cal HSR’s ridership, but it will also mean changes to LOCAL traffic as well.
Don’t just concentrate on the existing Amtrak services. Amtrak is ill-equipped for the sort of commuter rail service that the Valley might want, with stations in the wrong locations and trains at the wrong times for someone traveling daily to work or to college.
Even the Capitol Corridor’s schedule would represent a huge leap forward for the San Joaquin, but great leaps are sometimes needed.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 6:28 am
Except for Sacramento Central Valley cities aren’t big enough to support heavy rail. Light rail in separated ROWs maybe but not 5 car commuter trains, even if automobiles are banned.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
In most of the US, light rail is just a way of providing service that Europeans and Japanese call commuter rail without FRA interference.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 6:34 am
It makes no sense to spend tens of millions for ~1000 riders/day.
I’m not going to go do the arithmetic again. It was a 1000 a day including Hanford/Visalia/Tulare. Take that out and it got down to one three car train once a day. One three car train once a day isn’t worth it. Quadruple ridership and you are taking about two 5 or 6 car trains a day or four 4 car trains a day, still not worth it. It’s not frequent enough, people will shift to shuttle buses that run to the nearest HSR station. Buses can run much more frequently. Even with a stop or two along the way it’s going to be more popular than a conventional train could be.
James Fujita Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 8:58 am
And again I say you’re using THE WRONG SET OF NUMBERS. Those numbers are based on Amtrak, which is understandably lower.
It’s 1000 riders/day for the San Joaquin. That’s a train designed for long distance travel — from the Valley to Los Angeles, or from the Valley to the Bay Area, not intra-Valley travel. That’s a train that goes through Hanford and Denair instead of Visalia, Selma and Turlock and through beanfield Madera instead of downtown. The San Joaquin is very impractical for anyone going from Madera to Fresno or from Visalia or Selma to Fresno.
Using those numbers would be like saying the Inland Empire doesn’t deserve Metrolink based on the performance of the Southwest Chief and the Sunset Limited.
Put another way: We should all be thankful that the San Diegan didn’t go through Temecula and Escondido instead of Anaheim and Irvine, or we probably wouldn’t have Metrolink today.
(Speaking of the Inland Empire, the Valley is expected to have Inland Empire-sized growth during the next decade when Cal HSR seriously needs to start construction. So, any population figures for 2010 are liable to be wrong, too.)
Now, maybe the Valley doesn’t need heavy rail. Maybe it needs light rail lines radiating out from Fresno instead. The freeway medians between Fresno State (Clovis) and downtown Fresno practically scream to have a Green Line built.
Or Sprinter-type lines. Heck, even Tulare County has already studied light rail. The general consensus is “not quite yet” but the potential is there.
I could be wrong about the Valley. But, please don’t use the Amtrak numbers for your comparison. Let’s see what traffic patterns are like on Hwy. 99 or on Hwy. 41 or Hwy. 198 in 5-15 years. Let’s see what having HSR stations under construction in Fresno, Bakersfield, Merced does to fuel people’s imaginations.
We still have time to figure out if the Valley needs buses, BRT, LRT or heavy rail. Don’t make up your mind based on what the Valley looks like today, or based on what Amtrak looks like today, because those numbers are going to be totally wrong in the future. Don’t lowball the Valley.
Samsonian Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
I’m saying there’s no case for a separate, slow, parallel, intercity rail line through the CV independent of HSR, when HSR is running. I think that should be obvious to everyone.
If HSR is routed through some of those small towns along existing rail corridors, they could receive rail service from a regional operator. Which seems to be the plan with ACE in Bay Area-CV via Altamont and Merced-Sacramento. Check out these PDFs from CHSRA last month: Merced-Sac Initial Alternatives, Merced-Sac Map 1, Merced-Sac Map 2, Merced-Sac Map 3, Altamont Initial Alternatives, Altamont Map 1, Altamont Map 2, Altamont Map 3, Altamont Map 4, Altamont Map 5.
Maybe it needs light rail lines radiating out from Fresno instead.
No disagreement there. After HSR is built, towns like Bakersfield and Fresno should build LRT throughout their metro area. Although they have to rezone, or they’ll have a LRT system like San Jose’s.
But that’s part of local connecting transit with HSR stations, consisting of buses, LRT, and HRT, which is a good thing. That’s different from offering duplicative, money losing, intercity rail service parallel to HSR.
YesonHSR Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
The trains are state funded ..but even pro California wont run empty trains so if ridership drops that far Im sure will will see feeder buses…
O/T:
A joint venture between the LA chapters of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the American Planning Association, called RailLA is asking for submissions on how HSR should run through LA and how that should influence future development near stations. There is no requirement for professional qualifications, the objective is to capture early concepts rather than very detailed proposals, to create a forum to energize the (largely) silent majority in favor of HSR.
Submissions are due by July 13. There’s a $2500 purse for the top five entries – not a whole lot, but better than nothing.
http://railla.org/get-involved/call-for-ideas
If you’re going to do this hybrid make the cutover from UP to BNSF further south, within Fresno, to avoid the “double kink” effect.
Daniel Krause Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 11:12 am
I decided to just follow what the routing the Authority had already determined as a feasible from the transition from BNSF back to the UPRR. I would image a straight shot may not be feasible due to urban conditions in Fresno, though I have not examined such conditions in detail.