CHSRA to Spend $30 Million On Station Acquisition and Design
The California High Speed Rail Authority today announced that it would spend $30 million in federal funding it won late last year to do station work around the state, with a strong emphasis on LA Union Station:
The California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) has taken a major step forward in its work to build a truly statewide system with its announcement today that more than $30 million in federal funding will be set aside for property acquisition and railway development in the Los Angeles area….
This money is included in the recent grant agreement with the FRA outlining the use of federal funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The grant agreement also includes $500,000 each for station design in Merced and Bakersfield and $4.5 million total for station area planning in Fresno, Visalia/Kings, Bakersfield, Merced, Palmdale, Gilroy and San Jose, among others.
The specific use of the funds is still being determined. However, officials from both the CHSRA and Metro indicate that some of the funds dedicated to Southern California may be used to acquire the Los Angeles Union Station property – the region’s primary transportation hub, where three high-speed rail segments will converge.
Using the funds to acquire the L.A. Union Station site creates independent benefit for existing transportation entities in the region. An L.A. Union Station revamp would improve operations and service for Metro light rail, Amtrak, Metrolink and the Metro bus system. An L.A. Union Station revamp would improve operations and service for Metro light rail, Amtrak, Metrolink and the Metro bus system.
In other words, it’s not yet clear exactly what these funds will buy, whether at Union Station or at the other stations. But every dollar helps, especially as cities across California struggle to balance their own budgets and face the possible loss of redevelopment funds under Governor Jerry Brown’s budget proposal.
The California HSR project rolls on. I sure hope President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao discussed HSR today in Washington, DC – we’ll need to keep the funding coming from somewhere, anywhere, to ensure the project opens on time and as planned.
Here’s some background on the potential LAUS sale.
Nathanael Reply:
January 19th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
This is good. It’s been an aberration (dating from the break-up of the Santa Fe Southern Pacific Corporation) that LA Union is owned by a non-transportation entity, and it’s been a major hazard for future transportation planning. This will also transform LA Union from a cost, where the MTA et al have to pay rent, into a profitable location for subletting retail space.
thatbruce Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Did SPSF actually exist beyond getting the large ‘denied’ stamp from the feds? (and repainting a few units, hence earning the moniker of Shouldn’t Paint So Fast).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
He’s probably talking about the subsidiary of the two that owned Union Station. The tenant railroads of a union station usually created a small railroad that ran the station and the tracks leading up to it. Otherwise it would have been Southern Pacific Station or Santa Fe station….
James Fujita Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
actually, Catellus WAS a result of the “Frito-Lay” merger. Southern Pacific and Santa Fe put their non-railroad investments together, then the railroad merger hit the wall. Catellus was spun off.
Nathanael Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 11:03 pm
Yep. I owned Southern Pacific stock at the time. Southern Pacific Corporation and Santa Fe Industries — the holding companies — merged, merging all the *non-railroad* stuff while waiting for approval of their *railroad subsidiaries*. When the railroad merger was refused, they sold off the SP railroad, then disgorged a pile of cash to the stockholders, then spun off Catellus with all the “leftover land” from both Santa Fe and Southern Pacific. (They also spun off “Santa Fe Gold” with a bunch of gold mines they owned…)
Catellus got all the old passenger stations because those weren’t considered to be useful to the freight hauler, in addition to lots of other “surplus land” (decommissioned railyards, extra-wide rights-of-way, hotels, offices, abandoned trackbed).
Nathanael Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 11:05 pm
As an aside, I was more than a little annoyed to end up with Santa Fe stock and no stake in Southern Pacific, having invested in Southern Pacific… The financial shenanigans were pretty extreme. I did make money off the disgorgements and spinoffs though, by selling at the right times.
James Fujita Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
while I do think this is a good idea, private ownership of Union Station hasn’t been a bad thing.
Under private ownership, we’ve seen the expansion of retail with the addition of Famima!! and others.
Metro’s subway stations have seen a distinct lack of retail…
More importantly, what’s the state of the LAUS through-tracks project?
Matthew Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 6:49 am
Certainly owning the property will advance that project significantly. One less entity to negotiate with.
RubberToe Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 8:55 am
Alon,
Not sure what the time frame is for doing the actual construction, but the technical description of the work to take place can be found in this thread where I pulled together several pictures from the environmental documents. The scope of the work is huge, they will basically be rebuilding the entire ground level track section of LAUS.
http://transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=highspeed&thread=116&page=5#16433
I have always loved the look of LAUS and hope HSR will enhance the great station. hopefully HSR can move into the closed ticket area and have a new seperate passage to the dedicated HSR platforms,so at this point buying into is good move for the authority
thatbruce Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
The LAUS station building is the gem. The transit plaza on the other side of the platforms is also good. The connecting pedestrian subway and platforms can be improved by a trio of bulldozers (that is to say, their current configuration is terrible).
Regarding the closed area (I assume you’re referring to the ex-Fred Harvey restaurant area at the front of the complex), I’d hope that it wouldn’t be the only entrance to the HSR platforms, as that would mean that connecting passengers would need to walk from the platforms to the front of the building then back to the platform area in order to catch the HSR service.
James Fujita Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
agree with Thatbruce. I wouldn’t want to do anything to meddle with the older part of the building, especially the waiting area, the old ticketing area or the surrounding courtyards; the city of Los Angeles would throw a fit.
the new Red Line station entrance, the new Amtrak ticketing area, the new Famima!! have all occurred in the area BEHIND the waiting room, and it would be less of a hassle to make changes back there. I suspect the East Portal could be changed with little outcry as well.
Aren’t there any matching funds required for this $30M?
Nathanael Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 10:25 am
The LACMTA is involved in the purchase. It is probably providing the matching funds for the CHSRA contribution. If any matching funds are needed — I wonder if this is coming from the HSR funding dedicated to local connecting service. It’s all a little unclear to me.
BruceMcF Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 11:44 am
It could well be ~ that is allocated to system by formula and if its eligible for some of the federal funding, using some of that formula funding as matching funds would be a good way to stretch those dollars.
Alan F Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
LAC MTA is probably putting up the lion’s share of the purchase funding. LA Union Station with 38 acres is going to sell for, any guess estimates, $100 million, $200 million? More? If CHSRA puts up around $30 million that gets them an ownership share and a seat at the table in deciding what is done to LA Union Station.
Good politics if nothing else. This gives Southern California and Metro a morsel while construction begins in the Central Valley. SF already got $400 million for their new Trans Bay Terminal.
Given the confluence of services there, it’s going to be an architect and urban planner’s wet dream trying to figure out how to incorporate everything.
Nathanael Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 11:25 am
Well, we can start making our fantasy designs now, eh? :-)
I think it’s quite feasible to use ground-level tracks for HSR if run-through is built for Metrolink as well as for HSR (four run-through tracks). Preferably the Metrolink run-through tracks from the south would connect to more than two station tracks; four would be good.
Risenmessiah Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
What I’d love to know about is the Gold Line stop that is at Union Station. Currently, I believe the Blue Line pulls into the same station as the Red at 7th and Figueroa. At LAUS though, the Gold Line stops with the other trains on top and you have to go below ground to connect to the Red Line. (You have to pass through the fare gate twice). It’d be nice to have a more integrated system, but that’s only the beginning. There’s the historic nature of Union Station (all those rules), then there’s a large parking lot underneath the east side of the tracks which adds possibilities.
And knowing our luck, beneath that are thousands of dead bodies which are going to have to be excavated…
Joey Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
The Blue Line (light rail) and the Red Line (metro) are on completely separate tracks and levels at 7th. I believe that the Blue Line tracks are below the Red Line, but I’m not sure about that.
StevieB Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
The Heavy Rail Red Line is on the lower level and the Light Rail Blue Line is on the upper underground level.
Joey Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
You’re correct, but the vertical configuration has little to do with the relative axel loads. I always found the term “heavy rail” misleading anyway because it’s only heavy compared to light rail (compared to most rail it’s quite light).
Spokker Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Here’s your integrated system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Connector_%28Los_Angeles_Metro%29
Gold Line travelers will not have to transfer to the Red/Purple Line at Union Station anymore once this thing is completed. They will have a one-seat ride into Downtown LA, not the edge of Downtown LA.
Eric M Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
That sure would give light rail riders a lot more options, when it gets connected to the Gold line. Los Angeles transit sure is comimg along nicely!
Eric M Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
I meant Gold connected to the Blue
Joey Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Conceptual Service Map, if you’re interested.
James Fujita Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
I would have mentioned the Regional Connector if Spokker hadn’t.
This will be a great project. There will still be plenty of transfers, but what subway system doesn’t have transfers? And neither the Gold to Red Line transfer at Union Station nor the Blue to Red transfer at 7th/ Metro is a bad one.
Risenmessiah Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 9:44 am
I’m not sure what the significance of the Downtown Connector is as far as HSR goes. I’m skeptical about the “blockbuster” impact of DC largely because Metro will probably use an existing and abandoned Los Angeles Railway tunnel under Bunker Hill. There are operational benefits for Metro if the Downtown Connector is built in terms of minimizing the number of rolling stock and personnel. That said, probably the optimal design for Union Station (cost notwithstanding) is to leave the diesel trains on top for obvious reasons. Below that would be an integrated stop for the Gold and Red Line. Then below that you would have the HSR depot. That way, Metro service would act as a complete feeder both for Metrolink and HSR.
thatbruce Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 11:33 am
I’m not sure what the significance of the Downtown Connector is as far as HSR goes.
The LA Regional Connector is one of those catalyst deals, by virtue of eliminating a seat transfer from the process of getting from Santa Monica or Long Beach to Union Station. That’s nothing to sneeze at.
I’m skeptical about the “blockbuster” impact of DC largely because Metro will probably use an existing and abandoned Los Angeles Railway tunnel under Bunker Hill.
You’re probably referring to the Pacific Electric Hollywood Subway, as I don’t think that LARy had a tunnel under Bunker Hill. Whether or not they use the remnants of that is immaterial; no transit has used that in 50 years.
There are operational benefits for Metro if the Downtown Connector is built in terms of minimizing the number of rolling stock and personnel.
Operational benefits in terms of not turning trains at a busy downtown station, but it wouldn’t magically reduce the amount of rolling stock required to maintain the current timetable.
That said, probably the optimal design for Union Station (cost notwithstanding) is to leave the diesel trains on top for obvious reasons. Below that would be an integrated stop for the Gold and Red Line. Then below that you would have the HSR depot.
Even a blank check has practical limits.
Anyway, you’ve got two orientations for platforms at LAUS, north/south (FRA, Gold Line, HSR) and east/west (Red Line), separated by a pedestrian level. That’s actually a fairly good model for passenger circulation, as it reduces the number of vertical changes to go between platforms, which your model does not. Of course, this assumes that your pedestrian level is relatively open (currently its not at LAUS, one can hope that it would be improved under new ownership).
You’ve also got two existing constraints on the vertical placement of the Gold Line, one being the existing viaduct that rises to the north of LAUS, and the 101 Freeway to the south, which is descending as it heads west (away from the river). These would make the relocation of the Gold Line platforms to be vertically closer to the existing Red Line platforms be extremely expensive.
Risenmessiah Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 12:19 am
I think you are missing the point here. The Downtown Connector will have to use the abandoned tunnel under Bunker Hill. I’m not aware of a way they can make it happen without it. That is significant because I don’t think it is four tracked. Thus, even though you get to increase the number of single seat rides on the system overall, you will actually lose capacity on each individual line itself.
See, if the Blue Line is run through DC to Pasadena, during that span both the Expo and Eastside Extension are cut off. Now, they could in effect pair a Blue Line run from Long Beach to Pasadena with a Expo Line run to East LA. But those ridership patterns won’t make it worth it in the end. You probably know this, but the Blue Line was supposed to continue to Pasadena and have a dedicated ROW through the DC. So of course Metro is going to say that investing resources in it will increase ridership. I’m not denying this, but I think the DC will not have a measurable impact on HSR ridership….
As for design issues, I’m not coming from a technical background when espousing them. I’m saying that Metro will have to feed simultaenously Metrolink, Surfliner/Daylight, and HSR passengers. The designs leaked by the Transit Coaltion are hideous and unrealistic. Why on earth would you put more tracks right next to Gateway Plaza and then build huge viaducts over the 101? I’m not saying digging is cheap, as this will probably the most expensive public works project in our lifetime (not HSR, the station redesign). But what I am saying is that it’s unlikely that Metrolink will feed HSR and equally unlikely that HSR will feed Metrolink. To that end, it’s best to make Metro’s own services the center of the new station, and not HSR….
bixnix Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 4:06 pm
No, it won’t be using any abandoned tunnels … because of the Expo line construction going on already, we already know that the DC will be combining Blue and Exp light rail onto a single right of way on Flower north of Washington. The planning for the DC has been consistent in that TBMs will be boring a new tunnel under Flower. The DC will then turn east under 2nd, probably with a cut-and-cover tunnel in this section. Blue and Expo trains will be sharing this new tunnel on the same two tracks. The DC will not be using any legacy tunnels. Additional ridership will come because of the additional stops (three or four) in presently unserved areas, as well as single seat rides from one side of downtown to the other.
Right now, if you’re going from Highland Park to say the LA Tech school on Washington, you need to take Gold, xfer to Red, then xfer to Blue. After the DC is complete, they’ll be running trains from Pasadena to LB … so it’ll be a single-seat ride, and therefore quicker than it is now.
As far as the viaducts over the 101, it’s because the 101 was built below the train tracks. Crossing over the 101 is the cheapest way of doing it. It’ll let trains proceed straight through LAUS rather than the U-turn they do now. According to the preliminary plans, new viaducts will be built for Metrolink as well as for Gold and HSR. It’ll clear up a bottleneck for Metrolink and HSR trains at LAUS and a straighter viaduct for Gold will probably add 10mph over the 101. It’s kind of a win-win for Metro, Metrolink, and HSR.
bixnix Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 12:39 pm
unless there’s a reason to build below ground, like the subway, let ‘s keep it above ground. We’re people damnit, not gophers! It’s pleasant enough at Union Station almost all year round.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 6:12 am
My sentiments as well, but I would suggest the better animal analogy would be that we are not moles!
Heck, we quit living in caves years ago. Why is it that so many people, including the Peninsula crowd, want to send us back into caves again?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 12:31 pm
While I’d rather not be in a tunnel there’s nothing wrong with them. THey have the same view that you have at night above ground….
James Fujita Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Putting Cal HSR at ground level at Union Station would be possible, but it would limit Metrolink’s expansion possibilities. I’d have the main exit for Cal HSR be from the East Portal end.
Union Station isn’t the biggest in the world and several of those tracks are taken up with the Pacific Surfliner, cross-country Amtrak and the Gold Line.
MGimbel Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
But there’s room for two additional platforms above the east portal.
Nathanael Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 11:24 pm
If FRA rules are relaxed and Metrolink considers electrification and switching to high platforms, eventually HSR at ground level could *help* Metrolink.
Of course, at this point I think LA will be an uninhabitable desert or a flooded extension of the sea before that happens, thanks to global warming, where the most accurate predictions get more dire every week. I’m glad I live near the Great Lakes.
synonymouse Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 1:51 am
Historically civil strife is a greater immediate danger for LA than any natural disaster, if you discount dams bursting due to graft, Jake. Hell the LaLa elite was so worried they let OJ walk on purpose.
I just came across this as well – bakersfield station
Off topic, and a kind-of nostalgia trip, although not the most pleasant one. This is a public relations film, sponsored by the Association of American Railroads (with this particular variant being edited for an Illinois audience), and presenting the problems this industry faced with subsidized road, air, and water competition, compounded by regulations that limited pricing freedom and also limited the railroads from branching out into what would now be called intermodal services.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRpHWdqigm8
Much has changed since this film was issued at least 50 years ago, particularly in the fact that the industry is largely deregulated now, but the game being rigged in favor of road transport remains so today.
Special to Alon Levy;
Latest rounds with Dillon; now awaiting results, but need to find flameproof underwear. . .
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/01/18/bike-lanes-create-twice-as-many-jobs-as-road-repair-work/comment-page-1/#comment-35349
Have fun.
D. P. Lubic
Alon Levy Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
zzz…
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
Hey, thanks for the shot over there anyway. . .nice to have some help.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
It’s okay, everyone there hates him. In the thread about Chinese HSR, the other anti-US-HSR commenter just ignored what he said and kept talking to the other commenters. (It’s too bad – there’s a comment I wanted to write about what peer review actually is, which I can’t publish yet because it’d feed the troll.)
OT – I ran across this info tonight. I hadn’t seen it mentioned in some of the earlier coverage of the Chinese visit to Fresno a few days ago.
“Part of the reason of the Chinese high-speed rail visit was to sign a memorandum of understanding with Fresno, similar to one they signed with the California High-Speed Rail Authority, saying lines of communication would be opened and the sharing of information would begin.”
http://www.businessstreetonline.com/news.php?ax=v&n=1&id=2&nid=2563
and a press release:
http://www.fresnoedc.com/news46.html
Technically the MOU was signed with the FresnoWorks coalition working for high speed rail and the HMF, not the city or county. But FresnoWorks includes govt agencies, private industry, labor unions, etc.
Kudos to the Fresno area for being aggressive and actively pursuing opportunities generated from the project. I don’t know of any other individual California region that has signed a MOU like this yet.
If they next get the rumored visits from the Germans, French, Spanish, etc. and also sign MOUs with those groups it possibly positions Fresno to be more than just the construction starting point no matter which group/country wins.
Fresno is being aggresive in looking to take a bigger role in HSR besides being just a station site. It will be interesting to see if they can convert their meetings and work into actual results.