Metro and OCTA Call on CHSRA To Study Track Sharing For LA-Anaheim Segment
In a letter dated March 23, 2010, the CEOs of Metro (Los Angeles County’s transportation agency) and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) called on the CHSRA to reexamine track sharing on the Los Angeles to Anaheim segment:
As you can see, the letter argues that shared use of the corridor would provide “coordinated and integrated” passenger rail service. But another key motivation is the language on the top of the second page regarding “reduced impacts upon the LOSSAN corridor communities” from LA to Anaheim by “not requiring viaducts, aerial structures and trenches” and creating “the opportunity to limit the number of required grade separations, resulting in reduced right-of-way impacts.”
The fact that the letter comes from both Metro and OCTA is significant, as both agencies carry a lot of weight both locally and with state government. This comes on the heels of criticism of the LA-Anaheim HSR segment plans by some local rail advocates, including RailPAC, who have argued that the proposed dedicated HSR tracks aren’t necessary and that the number of grade separations should be limited.
The Metro/OCTA request is not a time-waster like the “end it in San José” concept. Still, the CHSRA has studied this in previous EIRs, as the letter acknowledges, and concluded that the combined passenger and freight traffic on this segment necessitated the construction of HSR-specific tracks. It’s not quite clear what Metro/OCTA believe was missed or was in error with those previous studies, but they are asking that the Alternatives Analysis for the corridor, to be released on April 24, to be delayed in order to include a new look at a shared use of the corridor.
Metro/OCTA are also mindful of stimulus deadlines, so this does not appear to be a delaying tactic along the lines of what some Peninsula NIMBYs have proposed. No word yet on the CHSRA’s response. From my perspective, I would be interested to know more about Metro/OCTA’s perspective on the corridor and why they believe shared use should be revisited – and why they disagree with CHSRA’s earlier rejection of the concept.
UPDATE: Curt Pringle has responded to the Metro/OCTA letter, on behalf of the CHSRA. He thanked CEOs Leahy and Kempton for the letter and promised to put the issue on the April 8 CHSRA board meeting agenda.
I don’t see why track-sharing is such a bad idea. It’s far cheaper than building a dedicated HSR line (especially along the LAOSSAN) and is already done with the TGV lines. The money saved could be used for more important segments between LA and SJ where speed will be a key factor.
The FRA is the biggest obstacle in my eyes. But I support looking at the study again. Its dumb to build new tracks for 110 MPH operation, ESPECIALLY if the alternative would speed up the train I am on right now.
Spokker Reply:
March 26th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Dedicated tracks I mean.
HSRforCali Reply:
March 26th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Exactly, I oncly see the need to build dedicated tracks for trains traveling at least 150 mph.
However, I hope there isn’t too much NIMBY crap on this corridor no matter what they decide on. I hope the owners of the empty field and the pile of rubble I just passed don’t complain, that is.
jimsf Reply:
March 26th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
depends on if the pile of rubble has historic value.
Is hsr to run at only 110 in this segment? If so, then it seems it would save a bundle of money to not have to construct a separated viaduct.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 27th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Yeah, NIMBYism doesn’t quite seem to be an issue on this segment, with the possible and deeply ironic exception of Anaheim. When Buena Park officials made their criticisms of the plans, it wasn’t from a NIMBY perspective but from a practical perspective. They want HSR.
I’m very happy to see this letter. Track sharing makes a lot of sense, as I’ve previously commented, including significantly reducing the cost of LAUS-Anaheim.
Don’t forget that Art Leahy was head of OCTA before returning to Metro. During his time at OCTA they already began planning for half-hourly combined Metrolink + Amtrak service in the corridor, so adding HSR shouldn’t be that much of a stretch.
IIRC, trains aren’t going to be running full-speed through there anyway, so there’s no reason HSR can’t share tracks. The corridor should be fully grade-separated, though.
Hell, why doesn’t Metrolink make like Caltrain and work on electrifying the Orange County line?
HSRforCali Reply:
March 26th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Because most of their trains continue past Anaheim to Laguna Niguel and Oceanside. Given the length of this corridor, electrification would be too expensive.
jimsf Reply:
March 26th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
and the coastside folks in the OC would never allow catenary. ever.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 26th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Well then they will just have to change trains in Anaheim….
Andrew Reply:
March 26th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Bah. Well, I would settle for Metrolink rapid service between LAUS and Anaheim or Irvine.
The point is that it makes much more sense to upgrade the whole corridor than to build dedicated HSR tracks, especially when HSR isn’t going to be running at full-speed.
Nathanael Reply:
March 28th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
The entire Pacific Surfliner route has enough traffic to justify electrification. (Pacific Surfliner, Metrolink Orange County, San Diego Coaster). On top of that, the connected “91 Line” and “OC-91 Line” have enough traffic to justify electrification. There’s even enough *freight* traffic to justifiy electrification on this route, which is also the BNSF route to the Ports of LA and Long Beach. Better power from electric traction would justify continued electrification across Cajon Pass….
Really, there’s a solid justification for an electric district starting south of Barstow and covering all the BNSF and ex-Santa Fe lines in SoCal. But too many separate groups would benefit, none by enough to pay for the whole project.
I think the key to this is that CHSRA did the shared use corridor in July 2008, the FRA changed it’s policy on that in November 2009 and they want to see if they could qualify for shared use on that segment wich would save money, mitigate any damage or property takings, maybe stop the building of unecessary aerials, bridges, trenches. Makes sense to me.
Although I’m not sure, correct me if I’m wrong. This would require a transfer in Anaheim to HSR, or will Metrolink and Amtrak just use the same HSR tracks OR just the corridor (without seperation from HSR traffic) all the way to LAUS?
I still can’t get Los Angeles – Phoenix out of my head, and I just came across an article about Desertxpress breaking ground this year. I looked up the air corridor data for the involved cities*:
Phoenix – Los Angeles: 3.43 million annualized passengers
Phoenix – Las Vegas: 1.74 million
Phoenix – San Francisco: 1.64 million
Phoenix – San Diego: 1.44 million
Desertxpress will be built to (ultimately) connect to the CAHSR system. Corresponding air corridor data are*:
Las Vegas – Los Angeles: 3.73 million
Las Vegas – San Francisco: 2.55 million
So here’s a little map I made up to show my proposed extensions to the CA/Nevada network to include Phoenix:
http://img9.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=47262_586px_cahsr_mapsvg_copy1_122_581lo.jpg
*http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2009/1008_air_travel_tomer_puentes/1008_air_travel_report.pdf
Alon Levy Reply:
March 27th, 2010 at 1:43 am
3.43 million is too little for HSR. You want to be able to poach traffic from roads. For Phoenix-LA, high-speed rail could do that. For Phoenix-Vegas, it’s an expensive dream.
Matthew Reply:
March 28th, 2010 at 5:49 am
In terms of Phoenix-LA, you’d really be plugging into the entire network, including Phoenix – San Diego, etc. From the above numbers, that adds up to 8.25 million air passengers alone, not to mention all the traffic along I10 and I8. The line connecting the east-west Riverside-Phoenix connection with Las Vegas is admittedly much more speculative, but might be cost effective due to the fact that it’s a relatively short distance to connect Arizona and Vegas once you already have that line in place.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 28th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Phoenix-SF wouldn’t be that good of an HSR corridor – the travel time would approach 5 hours, at which point HSR has a small share of the air/rail market. On the comparable Tokyo-Fukuoka market, the Shinkansen has 9% of the air/rail market (link).
Joey Reply:
March 28th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
5 Hours? Las Vegas isn’t any farther from SF than San Diego is (along the chosen HSR routes). The time for SF-San Diego for CAHSR is pegged at about 4 hours, and I wouldn’t expect Las Vegas to take any longer (especially since a lot of the San Diego route is through urban areas). If DX built the tracks for 200 MPH (unlikely, but still), it might even take less time, say 3 hours.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 28th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
If I remember correctly, SF-LV would take about 3:30 through Mojave, assuming 300 km/h average speed between Mojave and LV.
But that’s not what I was talking about. SF-Phoenix would go through LAUS, so the total travel time would be SF-LA plus LA-Phoenix. Doing LA-Phoenix in 2 hours would be difficult, what with all the slowdowns in the LA Basin. With less aggressive scheduling, SF-Phoenix would take about 5 hours.
Joey Reply:
March 28th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Ah, misread. Yeah, you’re right, SF-Phoenix would be a long trip. Could be shorter if a HSR link was built through the Cajon Pass (not that that is going to happen), though it would probably still be at least 4 hours.
Nathanael Reply:
March 28th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Actually it would be a great corridor, but Phoenix-LA needs to run *direct* on a fresh new alignment. The existing alignments detour badly.
Nathanael Reply:
March 28th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Oh, you were saying people wouldn’t go from SF to Phoenix? You’re right.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 28th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Oh, I’m with you on LA-Phoenix being a great corridor. It might even make sense to run through-trains from SF or Sac to Phoenix, just like on the Tokaido-Sanyo Shinkansen. But those would be useful for intermediate trips; few people would ride all the way.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 28th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Really wishful thinking here.
Las Vegas is pretty easy to combine with CAHSR if you find a way to link Palmdale to Victorville. There’s no pesky river to cross and you can do it without hitting either the Cabazon or Cajor Passes. Arizona, now there’s a good one. A SF to PHX train isn’t going to get nearly the ridership of a SF to Vegas one. So the best argument is to have a SD to PHX train backtracking slightly through the OC/IE. That give Basin people access to it but not leave too many empty seats. Still, given how reliant all the Southern Desert cities are on rapidly diminishing water supplies…it might never be necessary to build into Arizona.
Nathanael Reply:
March 28th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Agreed — if you’re going to build to Phoenix, San Diego-Phoenix is really the way to go, as it probably gets more traffic than Phoenix-LA. Branch off the HSR line on the inland route from San Diego to LA.
However, I also agree to you that Arizona is going to end up depopulated, so it may not be a reasonable priority, unless it can be done *quickly*.
A reply letter has been posted by Curt Pringle on CHSRA web site and it will be brought up at the April board meeting
Robert, if you’re still doing posts refuting any old article, I’ve got a very long and nasty one for you. It has a big chunk on California.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/88960277.html
In light of the FRA decision, revisiting past decisions and re-look at the opportunity to run mixed traffic has merit.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 28th, 2010 at 1:06 am
What FRA decision?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 28th, 2010 at 8:55 am
They haven’t promulgated regulations if that’s what you mean. On the other hand from page 8 of the report the letter references ( I think it’s the report, unclear since there is no link, and page 8 of the report is on page 16 from the PDF’s point of view ) :
The advent of Positive Train Control (PTC), crash energy management, and other advances provides the United States with an opportunity to revise its safety approach in a manner that accelerates the development of high-speed rail while preserving and improving upon a strong safety regime. This will be a challenge for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) as it seeks to administer its critical safety responsibility and facilitate high-speed rail development. The systems approach required to ensure safety of new HSR corridors will necessitate consideration of additional changes in several regulations, including equipment, system safety, and collision and derailment prevention.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/rrdev/hsrstrategicplan.pdf
I’m sure there’s more, I can’t find them on the ‘net. . . ideally the kind of thing where Wyoming could order up something from Stadler, attach a cow catcher and a K5LA horn and start running it once the PTC is installed. . .
Alon Levy Reply:
March 28th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
I think the money quote comes just before the part you quote:
All I can say about that is, “Oh, God.”
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
March 29th, 2010 at 6:48 am
FTA issued a decision = FTA issued a Safety Strategy.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 29th, 2010 at 8:53 am
I figured that this is what you meant… I’m asking what exactly the decision was, or, better yet, if you have a link to it.
Wouldn’t it be ultra-super-awesome-kewl if somehow — I don’t know how, but bear with me for a minute — HSR and “commuter rail” (their term, not mine) could somehow share tracks and stations north of San Jose? I know, futuristic and counter-factual!
Forget it, I know: obviously having two completely separate and unequal and parallel systems is the only possible solution — we have it on the Expert Authority of the world class expert head of the Peninsula Rail Program, after all: their expert technical determination is that high speed trains and commuter rail can’t use the same platforms and of course there are going to be so very very very many high speed trains whizzing by each and every every hour that a little old pokey commuter trains could never hope to keep out of the way.
But, wow, if LA can dream these crazy dreams, then surely the Capital of Silicon Valley shouldn’t be outdone, should it? Maybe some sort of ARPA research project? Blue sly thinking!
OK, so it makes sense to have separate “slow freight” and “fast passenger” tracks.
Obviously Metrolink should be on the “fast passenger” tracks.
Wonder if they can figure out how to do that?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 29th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
It’s been figured out. Sometime before the one of the double tracked railroads decided to put in a third track. Definitely by the time they were building four track railroads.
how soon we forget. after several recent metrolink catastrophes, (forgive me i’ve lost count), i think the worst thing anyone could consider is sharing an hsr track with them. their safety record speaks loudly in opposition. i do find it amusing that leahy and kempton are trying to muster up some sibilance of justification for their compensation. this is obviously a little game of political paddy-cake. kempton ought to focus on fixing all the fubars that the octa committed when they raped the orange county taxpayers out of billions of dollars to fix the flow problems on the 5 freeway. 600MM for a car pool sky way over the 5/55 interchange that used by less than 10% of the traffic instead of adding the needed levels to alleviate the figure 8 races on all the transition lanes. the fact is that the 5/55 is the biggest problem there is with the orange crush. where are the smart streets they were supposed to install? L.A.’s handling of their own subway construction fiasco should negate any validity in leahy’s concern for cost. what i really want to know is who is going to get the money for the trains? has it been predetermined via campaign contribution that the work goes overseas or is siemens going to set up a plant here and import the workers?