The California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) published photo-simulations for the proposed train alignment in Bakersfield. Trains would run on a humongous elevated viaduct through neighborhoods in the northern half of the city. Highway planners used to build nightmares like this in the bad old days of 1960’s urban renewal. This is the same thing, the only difference being that there are rails and wires on top instead of asphalt and cars:
Here is another image:
At least there will be some awesome infill transit-oriented development around the new Bakersfield station, right? Sorry, but no — the station would be surrounded by a ridiculous amount of surface parking:
There is no rationale for these aerial structures. Note that the original plan (in 2005) was to put the station on the periphery and keep tracks more at ground-level. That would have greatly reduced costs and neighborhood impacts. Since everyone will be be driving to the station anyway — as evidenced by the huge parking — a peripheral station location would not impact ridership.
Locating suburban HSR stations on the periphery is also typical European practice. Sadly, some so-called experts are too clueless to figure that out.
[…] Bakersfield: CA High Speed Rail Poised To Make Same Blunders As Highway Builders (Systemic Failure) […]
“evidenced by the huge parking” – evidenced, or encouraged?
Agreed. Highly encouraged. CAHSR represents a great opportunity for all communities getting a station to rethink how they plan their zoning uses and develop urban, walkable areas that are so highly sought after nowadays. If those areas weren’t so sought after, ALL of them would not be so expensive right now.
Didn’t the city of Bakersfield ask for this alignment? I don’t think you should be blaming the HSR Authority for this one.
Also, the line closely follows the highway 99 freeway for the northern half, then it follows an existing freight rail alignment. The viaduct over the street is right next to a major freight rail line.
A route to the west of the city would be possible if an alignment close to I-5 had been chosen, but with the decision to include Palmdale in the proposition that we voted for, that’s not a good option now. This alignment is about 50 km from Shafter to the edge of the valley, compared to at least 60 km for an alignment around the south-western edge of the developed area. That route would also require a new greenfield alignment, meaning dozens or hundreds of land acquisitions required.
Without considering the politics, it might still be more economically efficient to bypass the city, trading the costs of the viaducts for the cost of land acquisition and the slightly longer trip time. But you can see why HSR is planning the direct route along the railways and highways on the north side of town when you consider the alternative.
Dictionary defines cahsr as boondoggle
The new route is much better than the environmentally cleared Hybrid alignment, but I agree that it doesn’t need to be elevated like this. The Hybrid route had a twelve-mile viaduct up to 100 feet tall, and this can’t be too far behind in terms of concrete wank-factor.
The European practice doesn’t have to deal with as many thousands of square miles of sprawl between the core and periphery.
Nonetheless, this does look like a monsterous freeway project, rather than future-oriented transportation
I think its high enough that you can pretend its not there.
It’s not quite the same thing as the giant highway viaducts thing. Freeways require, what, 1,000 feet widths? Presumably HSR doesn’t require more than 100 ft wide viaducts? That’s a significant difference, the difference between something that cuts off communities creating virtual walls between two halves, and, well, a bridge.
[…] California High Speed Rail Authority’s proposes a concrete “nightmare” in Bakersfield (Systemic Failure) […]
I can’t say this looks that bad, frankly.
This viaduct is high and narrow, so it won’t have the same claustrophobic effect that an underpass does. And Bakersfield is hot and sunny enough that blocking out the sun isn’t a bad thing.
Fresno was elevated in the original design and now it’s been brought mostly down to grade. Let’s hope Bakersfield gets the same treatment.
The video was produced from existing footage. That parking lot is already there! It isn’t what the Authority would ultimately build.
I’ve been to Europe and I have used their speed trains. The usual plan is for the train station to be near or at an airport and then for an regular train to take you into the city center. One of the problems with Bakersfield is that our city center is void of any attractions save for the civic auditorium. The speed train will help transform Bakersfield and bring it into the 21st century no matter what plan is chosen. Let’s stop the arguing and get busy with the construction.
Well I like the design. I love concrete and I am able to see the beauty in it as it provides transportation to the 21st Century. The reality of when something is not what you want you can’t find anything to like about it but find fault with it on every aspect. While we can waste more time and money hating and not building…meanwhile the rest of the world is moving. Being stuck on yesterday is unfortunate and sad that a community cannot get passed Kansas. Maybe I can be clearer in this by saying, “follow the yellow brick road”. High Speed Rail (to and from) is a great way to get there.
Why is no one viewing CAHSR in the context of the Acela? (Which, AFAIK, actually is profitable):
1. It will be used mostly by the wealthy.
2. It will be used almost entirely for medium-haul commuter trips (it will most likely always be faster and cheaper to fly between SFO and LAX).
3. The lack of heliports in the city of San Francisco make a large captive ridership, so long as it’s faster than driving.
4. You constantly need to balance cheapness, convenience, and speed. Dramatic flyovers simply for “commerce” reasons are a waste of funds.
Nothing is going to bring Bakersfield into the 21st century.