Buena Park’s HSR Concerns
As high speed rail planning proceeds along the proposed SF-LA-Anaheim route, more details become known, and more potential conflicts and obstacles appear. That’s an inevitable aspect of planning a project this significant and this big. It’s also an unfortunate side effect of the CHSRA having been a sparsely-funded agency for so many years, making it difficult to do persistent outreach to local governments. That’s not to say no contact was made – the CHSRA has often been in touch with local governments along the proposed route, many of which appear to have treated high speed rail as vaporware. Rather than assigning blame or fault, the best solution is for both the CHSRA and local governments to quickly identify possible conflicts and work intensively and openly to resolve them.
One such example can be found in Buena Park, which finally got a Metrolink station in 2007. Transit-oriented development is still being built at the station – it wasn’t completed at the time of the Google Maps satellite shot of the station below.
In recent weeks, Buena Park officials have learned that the CHSRA’s plans for building high speed rail along that corridor might require either the station or the transit-oriented development to be moved:
Mayor Art Brown spent years pushing for a commuter train station combined with nearby housing in his community. But as townhouses are being finished around the $14 million Metrolink station, he’s facing the prospect that California’s high-speed rail line may plow right through his beloved project.
“The only option they presented to us was either losing the condo units or losing our train station,” Brown said of an engineering presentation to city leaders last year….
“The idea that they would spend millions for a new station and remove it is a colossal waste of time and money,” said Mark Goldsmith, a resident of the “transit village” next to the Buena Park station.
Why yes, yes it is. It’s an unfortunate example of the lack of coherent, integrated transportation planning that happens in this state, where numerous local governments and agencies are conducting plans that don’t always match up. The CHSRA claims they had been in touch with city planning departments since 2005, so perhaps there was a point at which Buena Park learned of the HSR plans and said “screw it, let’s go ahead with these Metrolink Station/TOD plans anyway.” Or perhaps the CHSRA’s outreach was insufficient and Buena Park didn’t know the full details of what was being planned. In any case, it’s a rightly frustrating situation.
The LA-Anaheim Alternatives Analysis from June 2009 shows the issue (look on pages 60-61). The plan is to add HSR tracks just to the south of the current alignment, requiring 45 feet of ROW acquisition. That’s where the TOD in question is located.
The Buena Park Metrolink station can accommodate four tracks (there are currently two). But the Dedicated HST Alternative identified in the Alternatives Analysis involves six mainline tracks, two HSR-dedicated tracks and four for freight/Amtrak/Metrolink, between Redondo Junction and Fullerton Junction. Because of BNSF’s heavy usage of this corridor, the CHSRA and their consultants determined this was the necessary solution for HSR implementation. Hence the need for more tracks, and the conflict at Buena Park.
As the AP article makes clear, it’s not just Buena Park that is concerned:
Buena Park joined a coalition of gateway cities demanding a chance to evaluate all options and their potential impacts before moving into the environmental review process. The demand for better coordination was recently agreed upon in a memorandum of understanding with the authority.
“We’re not trying to be obstructionist NIMBY types, but it has to make sense to us,” said Ernie Garcia, city manager of Norwalk.
Which is sensible enough. Because of an apparent lack of coordinated planning for this portion of the LOSSAN corridor, these conflicts are there, and will have to be dealt with. It’s a good sign that these cities are avoiding the approach taken by their counterparts in the Bay Area – suing the Authority and giving fuel to anti-HSR, NIMBY sentiments. And if push came to shove, Buena Park’s mayor made clear he’d make way for HSR:
In Buena Park, Mayor Brown still could face his dilemma. But he said that if forced to choose, he would sacrifice the train station where his name is prominent on a plaque marking its opening.
“I would not take the homes away from those people,” he said. “They saved all their lives in some cases to buy a home with good transportation nearby.”
CHSRA deputy director Jeff Barker was quoted in the article pledging to work with Buena Park and the other “gateway cities” such as Norwalk and La Mirada (where my wife is from), and that pledge was reinforced in the memorandum of understanding recently signed between the cities and the CHSRA.
There’s every reason to believe that these conflicts, frustrating as they are, will be effectively resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. I’m not going to propose a solution myself, but it is good to see that the cities are adopting a constructive approach to these matters. Let’s hope that attitude is shared across the state so that high speed rail can get built on-time, on-budget, and in a way that meets the needs of Californians for generations to come.
Wouldn’t it be possible to take out the bridge that connects the two platforms and have HSR run on an aerial structure located in the middle of the ROW? The support columns could be placed on the sides of the platforms.
Victor Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Then how do people get across all 4+2 sets of tracks? If the Station has to go, It’s better to rebuild the station to be able accommodate 6 tracks instead of 4, than to go elevated as It looks like 45′ possibly can be squeezed out of the area to the North away from the Townhomes. I’d think the cost of building the elevated station and elevated HSR tracks there will cost more than merely rebuilding the station to handle 6 tracks instead of 4 at grade level(grade level being the same height as the existing tracks). So I don’t see a need in there 4 any elevation changes, Elsewhere It may be a different story depending on where the tracks need to go, As It’s like designing a scale model railroad, Only at full size, I once saw an N Scale(1/160 of an inch to the foot scale) model of the TGV go around a club layout in Alhambra CA(It’s in a former bowling alley building near the former SP Railroad Tracks in Alhambra) at full speed(the Throttle was wide open), with no derailments at full speed(It was commented that the scale TGV was possibly going at a faster scale speed than the real TGV, But still It was quite a sight to behold as It rapidly went zip, zip, zip), It would dive into one tunnel, emerge somewhere else down the line and then dive into another and repeat this feat over and over again and It traversed the whole bowling alley sized layout with ease, I had to actually try and keep up and watch from the visitors/engineers platform to see the train do this, It was very fast and that may be an understatement…
Andrew Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 5:41 am
It seems like they wouldn’t have to tear down the whole station, just redesign it a bit.
Victor Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 6:50 am
It would be cheaper to put the extra 2 tracks on the ground at grade level, Instead of in the air, Sure the station will have to be torn down either partly or all the way, And as to adding an elevated structure, It would cost more, So why bother, As there looks like there is enough land to the North of the tracks and to the North of the Townhomes.
I wish they could consolidate all the long distance freight on to one corridor through Southern California from the ports to colton crossing, Then grade separate, triple track and electrify. The UP/Alameda East corridor makes most sense since grade separation is underway already and it supports much less passenger traffic has no near plans for expanding it. I live 3 miles away from the nearest grade crossing (BNSF in Placentia/Fullerton) besides the no horn zone in Placentia, and I can hear those horns clear at night. I don’t know how Peninsula Nimby’s aren’t demanding grade separation to eliminate the horns.
Anyhow, slightly related since this would eliminate the need for 6 tracks, which seems absurd anyways.
Victor Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
I’d say since the UP is being a stubborn OX and the BNSF is being nice, I’d go with the BNSF, No need to get in a fight with someone who has deep pockets and lawyers up the wazoo, I say the heck with the UP and be nice to the BNSF who seems to be HSR friendly or at least more friendly than the UP is at any rate.
Victor Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 6:54 am
2 HSR Tracks
2 Transit/Metro Rail Tracks
2 Freight Tracks
So what’s absurd about 6 tracks?? Nothing, As they are wanting to separate the 3 types of traffic and all will benefit.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
The construction cost is what’s absurd. If the automobile is banned tomorrow, HSR, freight, and Metrolink will still not have enough traffic to justify more than 4 tracks. Even 2 may well be enough for the amount of traffic they’re envisioning.
Victor Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Construction costs are expensive for Freeways too last I looked and not very many are being built anymore as the cost of the land(ROW) has gone UP. I doubt the Automobile will ever be banned as there are places that passenger rail of any sort will never get to, I live in one of them and the nearest city with any passenger rail station would be Barstow CA and that’s about 12.5 miles away across the Desert one way(No one in their right mind would walk to there I might add, As It gets either too HOT or too COLD out here and there is no shelter in between). Besides anything worth doing is not going to be free or inexpensive(the interstate highways that We have today would cost billions if not trillions of dollars to construct If started from scratch like in our parents time today), The Days of cheap gasoline are over and will never return, Of course compared to the rest of the world our gas prices are cheap, But that may not always be so. So for travel over medium distances(up to 400 miles) HSR would be the way to go, Beyond that airlines, Short distance(less than 100 miles) for the moment by Automobile.
I need the Bloggers help. It is now confirmed that the rumor I heard about the negioating with
U.P. has broken down and that the HSR authority staff is going to be recomending using the BNSF corridor from San Jose to Merced and reviving route A-1 which was dropped over 3 months ago by the authority. After an extensive analysis by experts in Merced County we beleive that A-1 is not only environmentally sensitive but will add an additional 5 minutes of travel time as well as being one of the most expensive of the four routes. Moreover, if A-1 is selected because of the environmental and mitigation problems the valley would be in danger of not getting any ARRA funding. Does anyone have any ideas why the authority is giving up so quickly on negioating with Union Pacific? Or is the valley the sacrifical lamb since the authority needs cooperation of U.P. in San Jose. Finally, I personally believe if A-1 is broght back that could open up the Altamont talks all over again. I look forward to reading any comments this is by far the best source of information of any site regarding HSR,
Joey Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
When was it confirmed?
Castle Expert Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
It was confirmed today and notices will be mailed out to all property owners living along A-1
within the next couple of weeks.
wu ming Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 3:30 am
um, WHY do you believe that opening up A-1 would cause altamont to be opened up? if you’re going to drop something like that, please give us something tangible to chew on. ditto for the valley not getting ARRA funding. presumably if you’re making such claims you’ve got reasons for it, why not share it with the rest of us?
Castle Expert Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 8:16 am
A-1 was the first route of 4 the four routes which was dropped by the authority staff based on all the environemental permiting issues. Rotue A-1 also was dropped by HSR because it was the least environmentally sound and because it added time and was expensive. Now, because the authority cannot cut a deal with U.P. they are bringing back an alignment that goes out of its way to chew up every piece of prime AG dirt, run a wall down the middle of three cities in the valley and pave over sensitive wetlands. The majority of folks in Merced County and to the North support A-2 which runs along U.P. It uses an existing travel cooridor and has the least impacts to AG and wetlands. Not to mention it is cheaper and cuts down the travel time from LA to San Jose.
I am bringing back the Altamont argument because in the Central Valley, Altamont worked the best with the BNSF alignment. I am personally not a fan of Altamont for many reasons but if Authority staff is going to throw out alignments than resurrect them 3 months later that will undo there entire EIR/EIS process.
How does this jeopoardize the ARRA funding for the North Valley? Because if you want to take advantage of this stimulus money your segment must be ready to go by 2012. This will not be possible for the North Valley because now instead of dropping alternatives the staff is adding them back and we are running out of time. Now staff recomendation will be to study A-1 and A-4 that is two routes on two different alignements. We in the valley with 19% employment cannot afford to wait we want High Speed Rail now. We have done our homework and we know A-1 cannot possible come on line in time for ARRA funding and the money will be spent someone where else because someone from the authority threw in the towel and said U.P does not want to play ball. High Speed Rail is to valuable of project to start getting sloppy now or taking the path of least resistance.
Peter Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 8:42 am
I’m sorry, but at this point going with Altamont would delay the project even more than just switching Merced-Fresno alignments.
I would be more in favor of getting our Congressional delegation involved and see if they can maybe breath down UP’s neck. Maybe a combined carrot/stick approach.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 8:47 am
My thoughts exactly – Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer need to put pressure on UPRR to play ball.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 9:35 am
I wonder how high up in the UP managment this goes? CHSRA said 2.4 Billion is going to be spent on ROW and land purchases..Does the UP board or the CEO want to pass on maby close to a Billion dollars? they are going to work with the Midwest HSR project and thats on the same tracks..Why not here? I really dont think CHSRA is low balling them as getting UP on board would make the project work out far smoother and less hassel. The SJ-Girloy really is bizzare as its almost a branch line in traffic and even the valley is nothing like the Transcon routes..now there I can see them saying flat out no
Peter Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 9:36 am
I think it’s just an issue with CAHSR trains being non-FRA-compliant.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 10:14 am
True but HSR trains will have there own Row and Im sure if thats just the issue then a barrier would be included with the construction..its something more I think..maby they want a huge amount of money or its a red/blue thinking game..hard to belive but maby ..yet they are working with the midwest HSR on a route that has more UP traffic and will share the tracks??? They may just dislike the fact that CHSR planned this without first getting there ok..and now are going to be SOB about it. Companies have personalites too ..and UP is cocky and arrogant its a know fact .and if the Authority ticked them off I can see it
AndyDuncan Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 8:47 am
Page 16 of this presentation shows the different alternatives from Merced-Fresno.
Castle: what happened to A3? Also, there’s not 5-minutes of travel time difference between the alignments, more like one to two minutes. (see page 12 of the same proposal)
Peter Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 8:53 am
I think A3 was similar to A1 in terms of damage to ag land and increase in travel time, IIRC from the board meeting.
AndyDuncan Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 10:17 am
It’s in the doc I just posted, the ag impacts are listed as equivalent, but the travel time is shorter.
Peter Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Yeah, well, if UP won’t play ball, it may have to in fact end up being A3. A1 and A4 do not look like viable options.
mike Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Doesn’t A3 still involve UPRR ROW? Seems like it does between Athlone and Merced, unless you run it up the east side of Hwy 99 instead of the west side. But I’m still not sure how you’d make the transition from Hwy 99 to the BNSF ROW for getting through Merced.
Honestly, either A1 or A3 looks better than A2, which runs through downtown Madera (think costly grade separations and noise mitigation at 300+ kph) for no good reason at all. It’s also unclear to me why the construction costs for A4 are so much higher than for A3…
Re: farmland impacts. Last I checked Central Valley farmland was going for roughly $10,000/acre. Even if the “affected” farmland is 10 times greater than forecast by CHSRA (i.e., CHSRA gives very handsome compensation to every farmer whose land is bisected by the new HSR ROW), you’re still only talking about a total cost of $50 million for ROW acquisition. This is in comparison to a construction of $1,500 million to $2,000 million for this segment.
As on the Peninsula, it is much, much cheaper to just acquire the land at above-market costs than it is to build a fancy engineering solution that minimizes ROW acquisition.
HSRforCali Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 7:14 am
A3 appears to be the best. It has the fastest travel time and fewest community impacts. Besides, taking a little farmland will barely be noticeable in a region covered with it.
HSRforCali Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 7:28 am
Apparently it’s also the cheapest.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 10:39 am
A3 is the best..shortest time and cost ..down side needs farmland thou not alot
mike Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Farmland is basically the cheapest thing you could ever buy on this planet on a per-pound basis. Agriculture doesn’t make any money…hence the land is of virtually no value (see above).
YesonHSR Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 9:14 am
A3 looks the best ..faster and wide open , yes it goes thru open land..thou it only needs 700 acres and that is nothing really, That acreage is about the size of one of these new housing tracts! The amount of land HSR needs for ROW is really small compared to other needs and it something that needs pointed out..Im sure some of those farms it will run thru are larger than 700 acres..I knew someone that managed one out by Los Banos and they had 5000 acres!! selling a small 100 foot strip thru somethinge that large is nothing..more so when CHHSR will pay far more than anyone else for that land..As far as Altamont is even worse now that UP wont even bargin for somthing as low traffic as SJ-Giroy
Peter Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 9:21 am
I think the problem was not the amount of total land needed, but about severing farm plots and access for farm workers and vehicles. Changing the shape of a farm plot from round or square can make it a lot harder (time- and money-wise) to farm it. That was the main problem IIRC.
Victor Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Well there is always Emminent Domain if need be and the courts did, not too long ago
uphold Emminent Domain for use in Public Projects and the last time I looked, this is a
Public Project.
Peter Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Yeah, but eminent domain would not solve the severance and access problem, or the problems with farming plots that are not square or circular. A lot of that farmland would likely be abandoned.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
The Eurostar I rode on went thru all farm land once in France..I saw underpasses for the farms..This can be done here too ..there are also alot of large corporate type farms here so its not like a small famliy farm of 20-40 acres that will be crossed
Victor Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Underpasses as YesonHSR stated sounds like a solution, An area where I used to live when I was growing up has one of those, It was access to horse stables mainly and to the Los Angeles River, But still It was the only access to that particular area once the i710 Freeway(Long Beach Fwy) went through.
mike Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Again, it’s SOOOOOOOOO cheap just to buy these guys out, even if you pay well above market value. Acquiring ROW at a cost that more than fairly compensates the owners should be even more of a no-brainer here than it is on the Peninsula. But some would argue that CHSRA is might not be so interested in that because it doesn’t involve lucrative contracts for the construction industry….
Peter Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Did you watch the video of the December 2009 meeting (IIRC) where a number of farmers from the Central Valley explained why severing their property is a bad idea? Then come back and tell us how “just buying them out” is the best solution.
Clem Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
If they don’t like severing, then acquire the whole farm! It’s extremely cheap. Mike is right.
Many people don’t have a sense of proportion about costs on this project, with so many millions and billions zinging around. Even $100 million of farm land (that’s a lot of farm land, at ~$20k per acre) is a tiny tiny drop in the $40,000 million bucket of HSR.
Sometimes I wonder why the project is so hell-bent on following established UPRR and BNSF corridors in the central valley. In sparsely populated agricultural areas, why not carve an entirely new corridor wherever it’s convenient? (Oh, right, the sacrosanct downtown access…)
Peter Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
I didn’t mean “cheapest” solution, I meant “best.” A number of those farms were doing a lot more than just farming, not to mention the fact that they were in fact employing people.
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
It raises the valid question of why they aren’t trying to avoid towns in which they do not stop, though, like Turlock, Madera, etc.
mike Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 9:57 am
What exactly are these farms doing that is so high-value besides farming?
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 10:13 am
There will be farm (local access) underpasses.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
On the contrary: Altamont is more UP-dependent than Pacheco – it needs UP between Merced and Manteca and in the East Bay.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
At the risk of incurring Robert’s spittle, I’m going to suggest that the reason for the alignment change might not be Union Pacific at all, but a sincere desire by the Obama administration to help out BNSF.
As you might know, Warren Buffett recently bought BNSF. He did shortly after dropping serious coin into Goldman Sachs to avert a financial meltdown during the bank bailout. In return, I think Obama is going to help Buffett out by purchasing some of the unproductive segments of track owned by BNSF. You know, like A-1.
In fact, the more I dig into the subject…the more that you see that BNSF long before Buffett was involved was a crucial player in providing routes for Amtrak. So there could be a greater strategy also at play in areas like the Midwest in having public rail transit partner with BNSF exclusively.
Peter Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
? That’s seriously the weirdest thing I’ve read in a long time. So, your logic is that Obama (what say does he have over CHSRA, anyway) wants BNSF to succeed, so CHSRA spends a couple hundred million (note the “M”, not a “B”) to purchase ROW from BNSF. And that is supposed to be a grand gesture to Warn Buffett?
What are you smoking and where can I get some?
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
….it’s some crazy stuff man…got it at the same place I bought my tin foil hat…
In case others are wondering:
Warren Buffet owned part of BNSF, but recently he purchased the rest of their stock. So now BNSF is one of the companies owned by Berkshire Hathaway. There’s lots of speculation why Buffett did this, but I think it’s pretty clear he is moving towards (depending on how long he lives) to something not unlike vertical consolidation. He’s not alone in trying to control flow of goods, as opposed to simply producing them.
Now, it is public knowledge that Buffet back in 2008 dumped $5 billion into Goldman Sachs using preferred stock. But by the same token, the purchase of BNSF has cost Berkshire Hathaway its AAA credit rating. So, it’s likely that there will be “right-sizing” of the railroad to help cut costs.
Now if you were the Administration and you wanted a way to thank Buffett for saving Goldman Sachs from utter ruin, one way might be to buy something at a loss. Enter the A1 alignment, which isn’t part of Buffet’s grand plan to ship food to Asia (or God knows what else). By making enough sales, it’s likely that Buffett can get his credit rating back and all is right with the world.
But again, hear what I am saying: so far we haven’t seen any dollars for the new right of ways that will need to built…only acquiring or upgrading what someone already owns.
Peter Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
;)
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 9:49 am
SJ-Gilroy via Monterey Highway is perfectly reasonable, it’s just about as direct as the UP route, is in fact the same route most of the distance, and is not going to cause a problem.
The real problem is Merced-Fresno — this is the section where the UP route is essential for high speed running. If the UP ROW isn’t available CHSRA will simply have to seize a long row of properties adjacent to it, and it *doesn’t* have a convenient, wide Caltrans road right next to it for the entire length.
Peter Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 9:56 am
So SR-99 isn’t a nice road they could use? See my post at the bottom.
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 10:18 am
It’s pretty good and parallels the ROW *most* of the way but SR-99 has deviations in Madera and at the Chinchilla Airport where the UP ROW would have to be followed. (The deviation in the north of Fresno is near existing curves and multiple routes could be considered.) Then of course downtown Fresno is incredibly problematic and I can see absolutely no way of doing it without, at the very least, aerials over UP.
Peter Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 10:37 am
Well, since aerials are planned through Fresno, I don’t think that would be much of a problem. Madera would be a problem, but could that possibly be solved with aerials through there as well? Transition from at-grade to an aerial prior to crossing the river, then cut across to the UP ROW and stay on an aerial all the way until you reach the end of town, at which point you rejoin SR-99 and descend back to grade?
For a large portion of the run through Madera the alignment would be going through industrial areas. For the part where homes are within 200 feet (barely) of the ROW, you could build soundwalls.
How does that sound?
Of course, that would not solve the issue of building through Fresno, but it could minimize the impact to agricultural land. Compromises must be made.
This Buena Park example reinforces the question of whether entirely-dedicated HSR track is the right decision, especially on the short and not-very-high-speed L.A.-Anaheim segment. Track sharing should both significantly reduce right-of-way impacts and reduce capital costs.
Victor Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 7:00 am
Yes dedicated tracks are the way to go(Japan and Europe have done this and It works), Not being dedicated is just being cheap and slowed down by other traffic, So then It would not be HSR, It would be expensive transit and the deniers/nimbys would have a field day then.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Europe hasn’t done this at all: in the station approaches and through slow zones, high-speed trains there run on legacy track. The same is true in Korea. The only places where HSR is 100% separated from legacy track are those where they run on different gauges, including Japan, Taiwan, and Spain.
Spokker Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Does Europe and Asia have the FRA to deal with?
I heard that Europe’s freight trains aren’t nearly as heavy as ours.
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
As far as I know, the key thing about Europe (maybe Asia too) is that their railroad safety regulations focus more on crash avoidance than crash safety. So whatever regulations they have don’t prohibit the mixing of light and heavy trains on the same tracks.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
No, they don’t.
European freight trains are lightweight, but not all Asian freight trains are. My understanding of Chinese freight rail is that it works the same as American and Canadian freight rail, only with electrification. I’m willing to be corrected if I’m wrong, though.
dejv Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 1:39 am
European trains are indeed lightweight compared to American, but they’re still order of magnitude heavier than passenger trains – it doesn’t matter that much if 300t passenger train crashes into 2000t european freight or 10000t american freight. In both cases, they’re effectively crashing into rigid wall.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 8:48 am
Indeed it could reduce costs. There are two questions though: can they get an FRA waiver to do this, and will four tracks really be enough for all the passenger and freight traffic? The Alternatives Analysis suggests it won’t be, especially since BNSF plans to add a third track to help get traffic from the Port of LA-Long Beach to their Transcon line.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Passenger traffic on the HSR side would be at most 4 tph. On the Metrolink side, it’s currently 4 tph peak, with no plans of increase in traffic.
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Agreed. The real problem lies in the FRA-induced inability to mix HSR and ordinary passenger traffic. Pulling all of the Metrolink trains from LA to Anaheim onto the HSR tracks would not be a serious problem for HSR over this short distance with fairly slow running and a stub end (HSR is not continuing much further from Anaheim, only to Irvine, remember). While separate express and local passenger tracks are probably needed for San Diego-LA-Central Valley-SF/Sacramento, it’s overkill for Anaheim.
Five tracks two platforms? Sounds like it could fit comfortably, although the train station will need a little redesign.
They should reconsider Altamont as well as the entire San Joaquin Valley alignment.
wu ming Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 3:28 am
hey, do you see that blue “reply” link at the bottom of every post? please do us a favor and use it when you’re responding to someone. you’ve posted here long enough to know how to use the site.
Matthew F. Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 4:14 am
It is the way of trolls to believe their posts are more important than everyone else’s, and therefore should stand out as much as possible.
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 6:31 am
Do you have anything to say that you haven’t said, like, 100 times already? Some new information maybe?
Peter Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 8:46 am
You’re assuming that he actually posts “information.”
Jathnael Taylor Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Why?
I say just build it.
There seams to be an elephant in the room that is getting overlooked. Why is there a HSR dead end branch to Anaheim in the first place? With some of the best rail service in the country already between Los Angeles and Anaheim with additional service planned why would there be any need for this dead end branch? Whose idea was it, and what was the reasoning? Who are and how many people are going to use it?
There is no need for this HSR service. The few people who are going to Anaheim on HSR from the north can make a fast and easy transfer from HSR to MetroLink or Amtrak at Los Angeles.
Also much of the BNSF fright that is now on the Anaheim Los Angeles line will in the future be on the new Alameda East Corridor freeing up additional capacity.
So I ask again. “Why HSR service to Anaheim”? We all need to start NOW to STOP this unwanted and unneeded boondoggle and get our much needed HRS line built right from the start between Los Angeles and San Francisco with the Sacramento and San Diego extensions to follow.
Scott Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Perhaps so that people living in Northern California can travel to Orange County without having to use an airplane or transfer at LA Union Station?
Peter Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 10:06 am
Simplest reason? Because Prop 1A requires it. SF TBT to Anaheim is the route mandated by the voters of CA. Would they have mandated SF TBT-LAUS just as easily? Most likely. But that’s moot, given what the voter-approved wording actually is.
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 9:55 am
There seems to be some political power in Orange County which pushed to get Anaheim on the initial segment.
It is asinine. While there’s a good argument for some direct service from Anaheim to north-of-LA, there isn’t really an argument for exclusive HSR tracks — there’s an argument for designing tracks shared with Metrolink, like the tracks planned to be shared by Caltrain and HSR in the Peninsula.
Spokker Reply:
March 12th, 2010 at 1:13 am
“there’s an argument for designing tracks shared with Metrolink, like the tracks planned to be shared by Caltrain and HSR in the Peninsula.”
Well that’s off the table in the South. Work on denying Anaheim homeowners their tunnel.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 12th, 2010 at 1:52 am
The easiest way to kill the tunnel is kill the dedicated HSR tracks. Build two tracks with passing sidings at Norwalk. That way you could even do something radical like send HSR directly to Santa Ana and Irvine in Phase I. I don’t get why it’s an axiom that Anaheim needs direct service but everyone else in the metro area needs to transfer.
Joey Reply:
March 12th, 2010 at 8:31 am
Rumor has it the shared track configuration with CalTrain is more or less dead.
Dave Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
The same reason HSR is to run to the TBT in San Francisco instead of the disliked transfer to Caltrain at San Jose.
Peter Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Exactly. Either one would decrease ridership significantly.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Except for the fact that Anaheim isn’t SF and SJ isn’t LA… either most trains will terminate in LA, or the trains are going to run nearly empty south of LA. The projected 25,000 daily boardings at Anaheim, the most of any station other than SF, are complete fantasy.
I understand that this fact sounds superficially like the FUD spread by the end-it-at-SJ people on the Peninsula. But it doesn’t make it wrong. On the contrary – the FUD is made to sound like the more reasonable argument for ending at LA.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
ARTIC is almost smack in the center of Orange County, population 3 million. There are a lot of destinations in the area, from the Disneyland Resort to sporting events to the Anaheim Convention Center, and rail connections to beaches in South County.
In other words, there is potential for major ridership at an Anaheim HSR station. It makes perfect sense to include it in the system.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 12:13 am
It makes sense to run trains to Anaheim; it doesn’t make sense to build a tunnel for them.
Yes, Disneyland is a big destination. But it’s not as big you make it out to be. The closest thing to compare it to is Eurodisney’s TGV stop, which doesn’t get a lot of ridership.
To put things in perspective, the official projection of 25,000 is barely behind the actual ridership figure for Shin-Yokohama, which is 30,000. Yokohama is a city of 4 million, and important enough as a station that all trains stop there. Anaheim may be a lot of things, but it’s not Yokohama and it never will be.
Spokker Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 2:12 am
Agreed, no tunnel in Anaheim.
Spokker Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Because LA-Anaheim in 20 minutes sounds really good.
Currently Amtrak does LA-Anaheim in 39 minutes tops, though it’s usually around 45 minutes for me. Metrolink does it in 45-50 minutes.
With some major upgrades, LOSSAN could do 110 MPH between LA and Anaheim very easily. But this isn’t as easy as it sounds. It requires the LOSSAN people get their shit together and implement these upgrades. BNSF needs to finish the third mainline track project that’s been going on for a million years.
I’m ultimately against LA-Anaheim because LOSSAN could theoretically do it (but I don’t see it happening anytime soon). But if LA-Anaheim is built and LA-Anaheim in 20 minutes becomes a reality, I will learn to enjoy it very easily.
Roger Christensen Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Gosh, I hope there’s not an interim stop on Norwalk!
Spokker Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 2:11 am
I’m sure there will be some trains that stop in Norwalk and some that don’t, just like current conditions!
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Google “Mayor Anaheim” for the answer to your question.
I’m wouldn’t normally recommend this, but what would be the chance of simply building inside the median of SR-99? That would generally follow the A-2 alignment, and you could avoid the issue of UPRR’s consent. You would have to widen the road a bit at some locations and would likely have to rebuild a few overpasses, but it could probably be done with minimal disruption. Then transition to the aerial alignment as you approach Fresno…
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 10:28 am
As noted above there are some nasty multiple-reverse-curve deviations in SR-99. At Madera, the HSR could fly up on an aerial to keep going straight, I suppose. At the Chowchilla Airport, it would have to tunnel, presumably. And at Fresno I see absolutely no way to avoid UP ROW, however you do it (probably aerial).
It’s going to be A-3. If they can make it faster than the ramrod-straight A-2 (which seems bizarre to me, but that’s what they’re saying) they’ll have to choose it.
Peter Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Yeah, I see what you mean with the reverse curves. I was only looking south from SR152. Forgot that there was a spur northwards to Merced/Sacramento. Whoops.