By Mike Harris
As Merced debates where to support a future high-speed rail station, it is natural that the discussion reflects both economic priorities and the deep sense of place residents feel about downtown. Big infrastructure projects are not just technical decisions; they shape how a city grows for generations. But choices of this scale must ultimately rest on practicality, cost, and long-term economic stewardship, alongside those legitimate community aspirations.
When we step back and examine the available facts, the case for locating the high-speed rail station outside downtown Merced rather than in its urban core becomes not only reasonable, but responsible.
First, this approach aligns with how major regional transportation infrastructure is typically designed.
Like airports and other high-capacity transportation hubs, high-speed rail stations require significant space, flexible access, and room for future expansion. These conditions are far easier to accommodate outside dense urban cores. Forcing infrastructure of this scale into an already constrained downtown often introduces long-term congestion, displacement pressures, and operational limitations that are difficult and costly to undo.
The claim that locating the station in southeast Merced would significantly reduce downtown visitation overlooks how travelers actually move once they arrive. In most cities, visitors expect a short transfer between their arrival point and their final destination. Air travelers routinely land outside city centers, collect their luggage, and spend 15 minutes or more in a taxi or rideshare before reaching downtown. Rail travel is no different. It is common for rail stations to be located miles from a city’s core, with onward travel built into the trip.
This is not a theoretical concern. Regionally, Modesto provides a clear example: its Amtrak station is approximately six miles from downtown, yet downtown access is not defined by the station’s location alone. What matters is the quality of the connection between the two.
Second, the differences in cost and delivery timelines are substantial.
Current planning estimates indicate that placing the station outside the city could save on the order of hundreds of millions to roughly one billion dollars, while reducing construction timelines by two to three years. In an era when large infrastructure projects routinely face delays and cost overruns, choosing the option that is less complex, faster to deliver, and more fiscally disciplined should be viewed as a prudent course. Those savings represent real opportunity. They could be directed toward local transit connections, housing, or other community investments that deliver direct and lasting benefits to Merced residents.
Third, a downtown station alignment carries real fiscal risk for the city.
Seven of Merced’s ten highest sales-tax-producing businesses would be adversely affected by a downtown alignment due to prolonged construction disruption, altered traffic circulation, and reduced customer access during and after buildout. These businesses fund essential services such as public safety, street maintenance, and community programs. Undermining stable revenue sources in pursuit of speculative gains risks long-term budget impacts that could outweigh any short-term development activity associated with a downtown station.
Supporters of a downtown station are correct in noting that downtown Merced generates the highest revenue per acre in the city. That success should be celebrated. It also highlights an important limitation: downtown is largely built out, with growth constrained by existing development patterns, infrastructure capacity, and geography. Its ability to generate substantially more revenue is therefore limited.
Rather than overburdening an already successful but constrained area, a station located in southeast Merced offers something downtown cannot: room to grow incrementally. A new station area allows development to scale with demand over time, creating an additional economic center rather than redistributing activity from existing ones. That net-new growth is precisely what Merced needs to address long-standing citywide priorities such as street repair, sidewalk improvements, and better lighting.
This is not an argument against high-speed rail, nor is it an argument against downtown Merced. A station outside the downtown core must be paired with strong transit connections and land-use policies that continue to strengthen downtown as a destination, not leave it behind. Equitable access is not determined solely by proximity, but by reliable, frequent connections that serve residents regardless of neighborhood or car ownership.
The question before us is not whether Merced deserves high-speed rail. It does. The question is whether we will support the location that best serves residents, businesses, and taxpayers over the long term. A downtown station is an irreversible choice that concentrates risk in an already constrained area. A station outside downtown preserves flexibility, manages fiscal exposure, and allows Merced to grow in a way that is sustainable and resilient.
Practicality, fiscal responsibility, and long-term economic stewardship all point in the same direction.
Mike Harris is a member of the Merced City Council, representing District 3.