Staff of the California High Speed Rail Authority are recommending the board approve a west side alignment through Kings County with a”potential” station just west of Hanford. A report was released today. The board will hear the staff recommendation and testimony from interested parties at their April 4 meeting in Fresno. Kings County and its municipalities have stayed silent on the key choice that would route the 200 mph bullet train either to the east of Hanford or to the west of the city, each impacting farm properties in the way. Staff says the west alignment is $800 million less than the eastside route and has fewer impacts.
Disappointment In Tulare County
However, the City of Visalia and Tulare County Council of Governments have been strong supporters of a rail station on the eastside of Hanford with the city noting in a March 14 letter to the Authority that if the train system is built ”a station is necessary and warranted in the Kings County-Tulare County region,and ridership will be maximized by locating the station on the east side of Hanford.” The letter was signed by Mayor Amy Shuklian.
The Visalia letter points out that of the 1.12 million people that will be living in the two-county area by 2060 some 836,850 are projected to be living in Tulare County. The station should be as close as possible to the population centers to “maximize accessibility.” For Tulare County residents – a west of Hanford station near Armona would be a 10-mile plus round-trip further than a Hwy 43 and Hwy 198 site.
Visalia leaders plan to protest the staff recommendation April 4.
“If they do not approve a station, I would find it totally unacceptable” says Hanford City Manger Darrel Pyle. Without a stop Kings County would see all the impacts but none of the benefits of the state’s largest public works project. Kings Supervior Richard Valle says he has been told the staff of the CHSRA will back the plan to build the Corcoran Bypass around the town. He says he is hopeful rumors that the Amtrak station in Hanford and Corcoran will be saved will be discussed at the Fresno meeting this week.
Fewer Section 4(f) uses than the BNSF Alternative and fewer than all individual geographic alternatives.
Fewer effects on residences, commercial and industrial facilities, and community resources than the BNSF Alternative; effects vary by individual geographic alternative.
Fewer construction impacts such as noise, farmland, air quality, cultural resources, parks, than the BNSF Alternative; effects vary by individual geographic alternative.
Least constructability issues and lowest cost alternative (together with a similar alignment terminating with the Bakersfield South Alternative).
Takes only 1 minute longer than the BNSF Alternative between Fresno and Bakersfield, plus adds 1 minute to the Bakersfield to Palmdale segment related to the Bakersfield station.
The estimated cost of the Preferred Alternative is about $800 million less than the BNSF Alternative, and is the lowest cost alternative of all possible alternative combinations (together with a similar alignment terminating with the Bakersfield South Alternative). The Preferred Alternative bypasses the downtown areas of the cities of Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter and the unincorporated communities of Laton, Grangeville, Armona, and Allensworth, while also reducing the impacts in downtown Fresno and Bakersfield as compared to the BNSF alternative. Lastly, the Preferred Alternative minimizes constructability issues that can lead to delay and cost escalation.