Kern and Fresno Counties Battle Over Maintenance Facility
Last week the Bakersfield Californian examined the “tug-of-war” over the maintenance facility being waged between Kern and Fresno counties. In Kern County, Shafter and Wasco are two of the contenders for the facility, whereas in Fresno County, the facility would be on the edge of Fresno itself.
The article examined some of the key differences in the proposals:
The strategies adopted by Fresno and Kern could hardly be more different. Fresno has succeeded in building community and political support, as well as putting up $25 million in public money to make its bid more attractive. Kern, on the other hand, has not yet launched a campaign to build public support for its bids.
The two counties’ specific site proposals contrast just as sharply. Fresno’s nearly 700-acre site is larger than either of Kern’s, though leaders here say the properties under consideration in Shafter and Wasco are technically superior for several reasons: Unlike Fresno’s proposed site, the two in Kern are fully zoned for industrial use, require no environmental remediation or demolition, and have fewer property owners and so fewer potential complications for real estate negotiations.
Kern County backers claim that this essentially nullifies the $25 million in sales tax funds that Fresno County officials have pledged to their facility site – that Fresno County would have to spend that money on site remediation, whereas the Shafter and Wasco sites don’t need that kind of spending.
On the other hand, Fresno County officials have already launched an extensive campaign to build public support for the hub, which hasn’t yet been done in Kern County. The Fresno County efforts, with Supervisor Henry Perea playing a key role, include their own website, Fresno Works, and other public outreach.
As we know, there are other locations in the running to host the hub, including the Castle Airport site in Merced County. So it’s not strictly a Kern vs. Fresno battle. Each has their merits, technical and otherwise. But the combination of aggressive efforts to win the hub, including the $25 million contribution, and its central location just might have Fresno in the lead.
To be clear, I’m neutral on this at for the time being, as is Californians For High Speed Rail. Studies still need to be done, and there’s no need to pronounce a winner right now. But if I were Merced and Kern Counties, I might consider stepping up their game. Merced County has also been working hard to win the facility, and can count the backing of important HSR supporter and local Assemblymember Cathleen Galgiani, among other key supporters. Kern County appears to have some advantages as well. And they have some time left to build up their outreach. But Fresno has been working this hard, and the local financial contribution might give them an edge – at least for the time being.
UPDATE: See the comment from “Castle Expert” in the comments section explaining from his or her perspective why Castle is a superior choice for the maintenance facility. Again, I’m neutral for now, but there are excellent points being made by all sides of the debate.
Go Fresno. Any city that will support a downtown stop and a route through town that is 60 feet in the air (with barely an eyebrow raised and nobody demanding a tunnel) is alright by me.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 26th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
Raises my eyebrows. Looking at the property tax maps the ROW is really really wide and surrounded by non residential uses. Why does it need to be up in the air?
James Fujita Reply:
July 27th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
I could be wrong, but I think the 60ft. thing is a side effect of the UP wanting to stay away from the HSR tracks and also highways 41 and 180 nearby, which HSR would have to cross.
It’s odd, but you could build the station the way that Kyoto Station was built (or re-built), as a multi-level building with elevated high speed rail above shops, stores and restaurants, and regular rail down below.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 27th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
They aren’t talking about just in the station or just in downtown they are talking about miles and miles of elevated track.
YesonHSR Reply:
July 27th, 2010 at 7:00 am
Unless the dear UP comes around the first section of HSR track in the Valley may very well be Fresno-Bakersfield along the BNSF and thats were the base needs to be. Its also right in the middle of the state system. I also like Merced ..and it will be either of those two and not Kern
Do not be fooled by the clever P.R. job that Fresno politicans have done in their request for the Heavy Maintenace facility. They do not have any money available to purchase the 700 acres from 72 different property owners as they stated in their HMF proposal. They also do not have any of the industrial entitlements completed or environemental permits We in the valley need to break ground for High Speed Rail soon. We need the jobs desperately! If you go on the Fresno Cog website you can see for your self that they do not currently have this money approved and they need to take public testimony and a vote from the tax payers of Fresno County for their proposal to even have a chance of materializing.
The Fresno site major flaw is —-unceratinity. What if the voters say no? What if the porperty owners say no? What if the property cannot get the entitlements and zone changes in on time? Remember the proposed Fresno site is in a rural setting next to ranchette type housing.
According to the HMF proposal that the Fresno Committee submitted to the authority board back in January 2010 they stated that they already had access to 25 million of their Measure C money readily available to be used for High Speed Rail land purchase for the HMF. But that statment in their report is not accurate. In fact this measure C money approved by the voters was approved for other transporation projects and cannot be used for any High Speed Rail projects. The mayor of Fresno was told this at a recent Cog hearing that is why Fresno is now having to go back to the voters and asking them to approve a new 19 million bond measure for High Speed rail. (What if this bond measure does not pass?)
Both Merced County and Kern County have exisiting spots ready to go. Merced in fact with Castle could have ground turned tomorrow and it would not cost the tax payers of this state one dime. Moreover, if you look at the criteria set-up by the HSR board the authority wants infill sites zoned for heavy industrial use and close to major transportation hubs. Again Castle is the only site adjacent to both a major runway and the new Atwater Merced Expressway. The only way Merced County loses the bid for the Heavy Maintenace Facility is by politics. Castle has been the preferred site by the HSR authoriy since 2003 and that was before Castle offered to lease the site for $ 1.00 a year.
Folks do not be fooled by all the glitiz! Both Castle and the Kern site our great locations ready to use. The Fresno proposal requires to many uncertainties. We in the valley need a heavy Maintenace facility site that can come online quickly and has the entitlements in place. Has anyone talked to the 72 property owners in Fresno and see if they want to sell? The proposal submitted by the city and County makes huges assumptions that it is only a matter of time before they get this money and voter approval. I beleive their poltiicans have not been honest with the authority board becasuse they are cashing checks that have no funding. The authority board already has enough controversy do they need to support a sight which might not ever get the funding? Remember Fresno County is a very conserative area will the votes their approve this?
I would rather see the authority go with a bird in the hand versus two in the bush and so would the tax payers of California. The Fresno site needs to be vetted by the authority and the general
public.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 27th, 2010 at 9:55 am
You make excellent points here. And I agree strongly that the Fresno site – as with the others – need to be fully vetted. That being said, Fresno does appear to have a stronger PR game, which makes a difference (whether it should or not).
Castle Airport also has a solid case to make for the maintenance facility, and I hope you guys are making it as strongly as you can.
Joey Reply:
July 27th, 2010 at 10:47 am
It’s more than politics. If the BNSF alignment is not chosen north of Merced, then Castle is way off the mainline.
Well I’d root for FNO but after reading the above… MCD makes more sense to me. Also as a northern Californian I’d prefer MCD or FNO over BFD by far. If MCD can be done most easily per Castle Experts comments… then go for it.
Jack Reply:
July 27th, 2010 at 7:38 am
While I love castle for his civic pride. The castle site has a number of flaws as well. There are no guarantees that Castle Airport will be revitalized by the HMF. If certain ROW are chosen the castle option is to far off the planned path.
Fresno’s just not going to loose this one. Castle can’t you be happy with UC Merced. It’s Fresno’s turn.
jimsf Reply:
July 27th, 2010 at 10:41 am
I see a big wwf smackdown between fno and mcd in the making….
Fresno probably has the better workforce and support for such a facility. If you build it mcd, people are going to commute from fno for those jobs anyway. How much skilled labor is there in mcd anyway? But I also agree that mcd would be good cuz it would give us that little bit of northern extension towards sac right up front.
PeakVT Reply:
July 27th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Fresno seems favored if for no reason other than it wouldn’t require any extra track to be built.
i hope it ends up in merced, if just because it makes the phase 2 sac extension that much shorter. the sooner i can boom down the valley down to LA in a couple of hours, the better.
High Speed Rail May Threaten Freight Rail Renaissance
YesonHSR Reply:
July 27th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Maby if they had not ripped out have the nations trackage they would be in better shape..50 years ago we had hundreds of passenger train a day all over these tracks and they seemed able to more than make it work…just UP arrogance out of the CEO mouth..and his Necon ways
Samsonian Reply:
July 28th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Did railroads kill your father? Because you really got it out for them.
I’m no defender of UP’s hostilities to passenger rail, but you’re misplacing where the blame lies. The federal government’s policies are the reason half the rail network no longer exists, passenger rail is in the shape it is, and why we don’t have high speed rail.
Why else would anyone rip out and destroy something that cost so much to build?
What happened to passenger rail, and the rail network as a whole, in this country, never happened in Asia or Europe. And when you realize that their railways where destroyed in WWII, it’s even more profound.
They had to rebuild their rail system, while we systematically took ours apart with a thousand cuts.
Californians still supportive of high-speed rail:
http://www.thebusinessjournal.com/transportation/5706-survey-reveals-interest-in-high-speed-rail
dave Reply:
July 27th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Doesn’t suprise me, most people support the project. The only reason we see all the opposition is because when someone dissagree’s with something of this size, they usually make the effort to attend these meetings. If you agree with the decision being made you don’t show up because you don’t have to, it’s taken care of. So that room filled with 100 people cramming a small break room at City Hall in whatever town, out of a total of 60K-100K tells you how little opposition their is. It’s mostly unecessary drama wich is what puts food on the table for newspapers staff.