OCTA Board Questions ARTIC Plans
See update below for more information on OCTA and ARTIC.
It may be 2011, but it’s still not Curt Pringle’s year. After stepping down from the OCTA Board of Directors in order to keep his seat on the California High Speed Rail Authority Board, several remaining board members turned on Pringle’s signature project, the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center – aka ARTIC. OCTA HSR opponents, led by right-wing Orange County supervisors Shawn Nelson and John Moorlach, are claiming that ARTIC is ineligible for Measure M funds and that the HSR project is a bad idea anyway. They’ve never been supportive of the project, but appear to be using Pringle’s departure to make their move:
Several board members of the Orange County Transportation Authority say they doubt that the so-called ARTIC station is eligible to receive about $99 million currently earmarked for the project from a county half-cent sales tax. They say the Measure M road and transit money should be used to pay for improving existing stations, not building new ones.
They also assert that if the state’s high-speed rail project is canceled because of money problems, it could turn the $184-million station into a white elephant. According to ARTIC’s environmental impact report, about 90% of the station’s train passengers would come from high-speed rail.
These are two separate issues, but are being linked by anti-HSR OCTA board members. The city of Anaheim’s director of public works, Natalie Meeks, said that the Measure M matter “has never been brought up before” and that legal counsel has ruled there is no conflict, and argued (correctly as far as I am concerned) that ARTIC is an improvement of the existing Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink station.
Here’s what the LA Times says about the language of Measure M, a 1/2 cent sales tax in Orange County originally approved in 1988 to widen freeways (and yes, that IS a subsidy for roads) and renewed in 2006:
According to its guidelines, Measure M established a competitive program for local governments to convert Metrolink stations into regional gateways that can accommodate high-speed trains. The three main objectives call for the improvement of existing stations, the expansion of transit options for regional travel and projects related to the initial segments of high-speed rail service where feasible.
My reading of that is ARTIC does qualify under Measure M rules, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see some HSR opponent litigate it anyway. But the critics have other arguments against the station:
If the tracks are shared, high-speed trains won’t travel much faster than conventional trains, which experts say can be improved to increase their speed.
“What is the point of doing high-speed rail when you can get the same performance with the equipment you now have?” said Moorlach, who added that he is looking forward to the funding debate. “There are some very compelling arguments.”
Pringle’s response was that the benefit to HSR from LA to Anaheim was avoiding a transfer at LA Union Station, instead offering a one-seat ride to any destination on the HSR system. Moorlach and Nelson rejected that too:
“They want a seamless link, but at what cost?” Nelson said. “Debt is a major state and national issue. If it costs a few billion just to avoid a transfer, it would be better to take a plane. It’s not efficient sometimes to accommodate everyone’s design.”
Unsurprisingly, this misses the point almost entirely. This is about much more than “avoiding a transfer” – HSR ridership is greatly boosted by a single-seat ride, as numerous studies have shown. Taking a plane isn’t going to be a viable or desirable option for a lot longer. And of course, this ignores the huge economic benefits that HSR will create for Anaheim and Orange County as a whole by enabling the rest of California to reach the region quickly and affordably and vice versa.
I’m guessing neither Nelson nor Moorlach really care about those benefits – and they probably don’t believe they’ll ever materialize, despite a mountain of evidence from around the globe. Still, this will be worth watching. Orange County needs to be part of the HSR system, and while there’s been controversy about the ARTIC design, it is still something that OC will be better off with than without.
UPDATE: An OCTA committee backed ARTIC and a plan to rewrite their guidelines to be able to use Measure M money for ARTIC. OCTA’s counsel told the committee that the courts “probably would not uphold using Measure M funds for ARTIC under the guidelines as currently written,” leading to the proposed changes to enable ARTIC to get funded.
Which studies?
And what other transit projects would you cancel to pay for your billion dollar 1-seat ride?
Spokker Reply:
January 13th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Gold Line Foothill Extension and BART to San Jose to name two.
Joey Reply:
January 13th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Perhaps we should qualify: a single-seat ride greatly boosts ridership when planners can’t conceive of concepts like cross-platform transfers.
And isn’t LA-Anaheim projected to cost quite a bit more than a billion dollars?
Spokker Reply:
January 13th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
“The L.A.-to-Anaheim leg of the bullet train is projected to cost about $4.5 billion if separate tracks are laid. ”
“A high-speed rail configuration that backers say could save up to $2 billion and greatly reduce demolition of homes and business across the heart of Southern California was revived Thursday by project officials.”
So it can be inferred that the shared track option would cost $2.5 billion.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/04/bullet-train-officials-agree-to-take-second-look-at-sharing-laanaheim-tracks.html
Alon Levy Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 5:39 am
I wouldn’t expect shared tracks to cost $2.5 billion even in New York City.
ARTIC in and of itself isn’t that important. It doesn’t need to be that extravagant. Throw some more platforms down next to the Amshack and you’ve got yourself a terminal.
I’m hoping that shared usage is feasible on this corridor so that Metrolink and Amtrak could benefit from being freed from BNSF’s transcon corridor.
James Fujita Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
ARTIC isn’t that important. I wouldn’t shed a tear if it got axed.
However, the existing station is no treasure, either. Calling it an Amshack acknowledges it as so. You’d think they could come up with something better than the Amshack that wouldn’t be as over-the-top as ARTIC.
Of course, this is Orange County’s Measure M funds that we are talking about, not Cal HSR funds. We should really let them decide what they want to spend their funds on.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Non-FRA Metrolink? Sure.
But why borrow the infinite pain and regulatory hell of involving Amtrak?
Keep the dino-trains segregated or you’re totally fucked — just look at the Caltrain corridor.
Spokker Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Keeping the dino-trains segregated is not politically feasible. The dedicated track alternative was objected to by the big bosses at LA Metro and OCTA. They sent a joint letter to the CHSRA asking that the shared track alternative be revisited. Where the shared track alternative had once been eliminated, it returned after that letter was sent. Apparently they have some power.
Non-FRA Metrolink might work if the high speed rail line were extended to Irvine, where most of the commuter ridership is. Irvine is the 3rd busiest station between LA and San Diego and it relies heavily on its huge park and ride lot. Transit service to that station is bare minimum, a few token shuttles here and there.
If the shared track option is not feasible I would support not doing LA-Anaheim at all. LOSSAN Corridor improvements, including the Union Station run-through tracks and timed transfers, could get this corridor up to speed.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
I freely admit my ignorance of all things LA Basin, but I see no reason that:
* ALL local service (Sylmar-)LAUS-Anaheim be provided by non-FRA non-dino Metrolink trains.
* (Non-FRA) LAUS-Metrolink share tracks only with non-FRA non-dino Metrolink
* Whatever non-local Metrolink or Amtrak dinosaurs remain remain segregated in freight FRA land.
A small thing this papers over is the possibility of having a short section in which one track through the “narrows” approaching Anaheim be time-segregated non-FRA/FRA using physical barriers (ie derails — FRA PTC explicitly allows this) should there really honestly truly be a need to run FRA trains in this short section at all I doubt it, myself given frequent (one person operation, remember, so you can run twice as many for lower cost) non-FRA Metrolink shuttle service in the corridor. This is about 3km of switchable shared track, with no intermediate stations, no intermediate turnouts, no nothing.
It’s insane for Metrolink to run dino-trains in this corridor at all, or for the “need” to accommodate an obsolete and unattractive Amtrak behemoth to drive station configuration, track configuration, number of tracks, and the regulatory (FRA hell) regime of the entire line.
Either dump the dinos entirely (always the best idea), or go for the very most limited and simplest and regulatory/technically achievable and most tightly constrained amount of “sharing” possible: which is solely in the section between La Palma Ave and Vermont Ave to the north of Anaheim station.
Kevin Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Amtrak runs the Pacific Surfliner through the ‘narrows’, which would still contribute a lot of non-FRA traffic even if Metrolink upgrades. And as long as PB is in charge, they’re going to let the fact that a token number of freight trains occasionally use the ‘narrows’ as well completely dictate corridor planning. Living right next to the tracks, I’m well aware of how infrequent freight service is on this section (usually a couple times a week, late late at night), but when I asked a PB guy at a workshop about discontinuing freight on the Anaheim leg, he scoffed at the idea, with a wan little smile that I could be so naive as to countenance severing this VITAL ECONOMIC LINK.
Spokker Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Metrolink just bought new FRA-compliant coaches and cab cars and they are being added to service as we speak. Almost the entire fleet is being replaced with the new Hyundai-Rotem rolling stock. I doubt the funding could be found to purchase non-FRA trains.
It’s just another bee in the bonnet of Southern California’s railroad clusterfuck. If they can’t even get the Peninsula right, I see no way they can get LA right.
Donk Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
I like Richard’s idea. Makes a lot of sense.
Also, they are finally now considering the possibility of running trains through LAUS, ie BUR-OC or OC-Ventura. With non-FRA trains they probably couldn’t run anything on the Ventura or SB lines, but they could run a Metrolink route from BUR-ANA once HSR is built. This would probably do well as a local service, especially when the run-thru tracks are in.
Spokker Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
The situation in Southern California is more complicated than that of the Peninsula. On the Peninsula, you have one line that operates between San Jose and San Francisco. In Southern California, lines radiate from Union Station in all directions. Lines then branch and combine, including heavy freight between LA and Fullerton (which is part of the transcon) and moderate freight elsewhere. Peninsula freight by comparison is non-existent. Freight access to customers must be preserved, especially between LA and Fullerton. Both the shared and dedicated track alternatives including expensive aerials that will have trains weaving West and East of the freight tracks.
It sounds to me as if Richard is advocating a dedicated track alternative. Then Metrolink can choose to purchase electric trains and operate service to their heart’s content. I like this idea, but it would require Metrolink to make another expensive purchase of new railcars when Metrolink had to squeeze railcars from a stone previously.
And even if Metrolink operates service on the dedicated high speed line, there is still pressure to serve stations not served by the high speed line in the same corridor. I personally don’t care, but I can already see the complaints about “wasteful duplicate service” between LA and Palmdale or LA-Anaheim. You also have trains that continue on to Riverside or Oceanside or Oxnard. I guess those would remain on the freight tracks under his plan. But I imagine the high speed lines would be flying over them.
This is one of the problems with the incremental upgrade idea. It is very difficult to upgrade incrementally from FRA nonsense.
The run-through idea is great and was championed by The Transit Coalition. The early idea I saw was to combine the San Bernardino and Antelope Valley Lines, and the Orange County and Ventura County lines. There’s also some talk about experimenting with express service.
Given that Anaheim is an hour to an hour and a half away from LAUS most of the time, dragging the line there makes sense. Building a rail cathedral in Anaheim makes as much sense as the $4b TBT.
Spokker Reply:
January 13th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
LAUS->Anaheim is 39 minutes via the Pacific Surfliner and 49 minutes via Metrolink.
Anaheim->LAUS is scheduled to take longer because of padding, but trains frequently arrive in LA around 10 minutes earlier than scheduled.
Reliability is generally okay. It could be better, of course.
Joey Reply:
January 13th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
So HSR would save about 20 minutes plus transfer time. Of course, speed and reliability improvements could be implemented without spending billions of dollars.
spokker Reply:
January 13th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Three tracks for freight (LA-Fullerton is part of the transcontinental corridor) and two for passenger service (this is LOSSAN after all) is not unreasonable.
BNSF would get all passenger trains but the Southwest Chief and the Metrolink 91 Line off its tracks. Passenger trains would not be competing with mile long freights.
The major hurdle is finding a way to do it all that pleases the FRA. Positive Train Control is probably a must, but even then it’s quite a stretch.
Paul Dyson Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 11:35 am
The HS plan would have only saved 5 minutes compared to building the LAUS run through tracks for Metrolink and Amtrak. The key, as others have stated, is to allow HSR trains to run through on shared tracks to permit through journeys. Of course if we spend all available funds on Taj Pringle and other monuments then we’ll never have enough for track to link them.
spokker Reply:
January 13th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Coupled with double tracking the LOSSAN corridor and tunneling through Miramar, the Pacific Surfliner could see ridership explode.
Joey Reply:
January 13th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
You know, as much as I am inclined to avoid tunneling in principal, if HSR, Surfliners, Coaster, Light Rail, and various buses all converge at UTC, it could become a very successful transit center.
David K Reply:
January 13th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
The tunnel through Miramar/UTC along with double tracking LOSSAN would do more than just expand ridership on the Surfliner, Coaster would also see huge increases. Maybe if they would do this , I-5 wouldnt need to be expanded to 14 lanes wide from La Jolla to Oceanside. Surely a 2.5 to 3 mile long tunnel would cost a lot less than the billions to expand the freeway.
Donk Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
There was some talk about the Miramar tunnel like 10 years ago. I think the LOSSAN corridor report did some preliminary research on this. It seems like most of the talk has been about the Del Mar bluffs and the San Juan and San Clemente by passes. But yeah, the Miramar tunnel would actually make the stretch between Solana Beach and San Diego viable, and add a huge destination in the UTC area.
But I don’t see any of this happening now that all the funds in CA will be spent on HSR.
James M. Reply:
January 15th, 2011 at 9:35 am
What is the “UTC area”?
Jim
Donk Reply:
January 13th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
How is that the TBT costs $4B and ARTIC costs $184M? If these numbers are correct, then you can buy more than two ARTICs for the cost of one TBT train box.
It is refreshing to see that ARTIC is almost completely covered by local funds. I bet San Jose Intergalactic will end up getting like $1B from the HSR pot, mostly to pay for the dome in the center of the building that is made from a scale model of Rod Diridon’s forehead and hairline.
Elizabeth Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 8:58 am
The numbers for ARTIC are not hard and fast. This is really how much money they have. The last numbers I saw (there may more recent ones) was $300 million something.
They also don’t actually include High Speed Rail. There was some issue with the nearby highway not being how it was drawn on paper so High Speed Rail would be nearby and connected by a pedestrian tunnel. This led HSR to want to move the station which then sent Pri vngle into tizzy when then led to Mehdi’s statements about him being confused as to whether Pringle was yelling as the Mayor of a city (in which case his complaints would be filed away) or as chair of the Board in which he could get his way.
Clem Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 9:21 am
$4B includes a $2.5B tunnel to connect TBT to the existing rail network. The TBT train box is $400M, which if denominated in pennies, would fill the train box about 1/10th of the way up.
TBT and ARTIC are two great examples of putting the cherry before the cake.
Dan Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
I’ve heard this figure expressed two ways — that $4B included the tunneling into/out of the TBT … .and that $4B only included the throat/intersection of tracks under the TBT. Could someone knowledgeable please clarify?
//thanks.
Clem Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
The transit center, including Phase 1 of the train box and a portion of the throat, costs $1.589 billion YOE dollars. The downtown extension tunnel, expansion of the train box and furnishing of the below-grade train station will cost another $2.596 billion YOE.
See here for funding plan. As you can see Phase 2 is mostly unfunded at this point, with $1.957 billion “To Be Determined”.
Rick Rong Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“How is that the TBT costs $4B and ARTIC costs $184M?”
The $184 Million figure, which may be out of date now, did not include HSR. The agreement proposed by Anaheim that was discussed at the May 2010 CHSRA board meeting cited a cost of $178.9 Million for ARTIC, but for the expanded station that would include HSR cited a figure of $380 Million. Anaheim apparently wanted CHSRA to put up $200 Million of that larger amount. The $200 Million was “exclusive of HST track, platform and rail infrastructure,” so the CHSRA would have to spend more than $200 Million for the complete package.
See: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6968
Rick Rong Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
The cost for ARTIC, $184 Million, does not include facilities for HSR. The MOU Anaheim proposed to the CHSRA put an increase in the cost of ARTIC of $200 Million, for a total of $380, to include HSR, and the proposed MOU would have required CHSRA to put up the $200 Million, which did not include “HST track, platform and rail infrastructure,” for which CHSRA would apparently have to invest additional sums. See the proposed MOU, item 4, Operations Committee agenda, for the May 2010 meeting.
They could save money by not doing that awful monorail to almost-Disneyland. Here’s my critique of the matter.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=207879727968876836065.000479e36cf92ac35486a&ll=33.805682,-117.893772&spn=0.040652,0.090895&t=h&z=14
Joey Reply:
January 13th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Have they settled on monorail?
spokker Reply:
January 13th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
It’s all but official.
They eliminated light rail, commuter rail (why were they even considering this? Haha) and streetcar.
Options carried forward are automated people mover, monorail, maglev (Not bloody likely), personal rapid transit and bus rapid transit.
Based on the two meetings I attended, they are leaning heavily toward monorail, that is, if they find the money to build it.
Donk Reply:
January 13th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Sweet, the people movers! Did anyone suggest using Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride cars for PRT? Now that would be awesome.
Donk Reply:
January 13th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Who is paying for this?
Spokker Reply:
January 13th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
$100 million in local sales tax. There is currently a spat over whether this is legal or not.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/01/transit-committee-backs-mega-station-in-anaheim-amid-questions-about-funding-and-high-speed-rail.html
I’m not sure where the rest would come from.
James Fujita Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
well gee, isn’t there a giant monolith corporation in town with swagbags of money which could potentially benefit from a rail link? we can at least sell them the naming rights.
Spokker Reply:
January 13th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
Oh, you mean the fixed guideway project. Renewed Measure M and Go Local programs. They are also competing for other state and federal funds. I imagine they would go after New Starts money but it’s a really shitty project.
synonymouse Reply:
January 13th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Monorail – now there’s a gadgetbahn from the 19th century.
PeakVT Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 8:42 am
That monorail route is awful. Either LRT or BRT running on the existing streets would provide much better service. I would run a bidirectional loop around Disney from the E-W line on Katella (West/Disneyland – W. Ball – S. Harbor) or make the whole thing a loop (E. Katella – West/Disneyland – W. Ball – S. Harbor – Disney Way – S. Anaheim – E. Cerritos – S. Douglas.)
Spokker Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
LRT is out because you can’t take lanes from cars in Orange County (even though Katella is planned to be widened anyway) and BRT isn’t sexy enough.
The OCTA canceled their rapid bus plan, the blue line in my map, and redirected the money to signal synchronization.
I’d see to see HSR hit Irvine eventually. It is the 4th busiest station in California. Anaheim is actually the 14th.
Off subject.
The Jan. 9, 2011, issue of the Dallas Morning News had an article on the severe drop in the number of passengers on short haul flights.
The article reports that:
In 1990, people flying on short-haul routes, 400 miles or less, made up nearly 34 percent of domestic passengers on U.S. airlines. In 2009, the last year for which full numbers are available, the percentage had dropped to 26.6 percent.
Many examples are given. One example was:
2.2 million passengers flew between Phoenix and Los Angeles in 1990, according to BTS data. By 2009, that had dropped to just under 1.3 million, a 41 percent drop
The complete article is at:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-shorthaul_09bus.ART0.State.Edition1.248a5e2.html
PeakVT Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 8:05 am
Interesting, though using 2009 numbers gives a somewhat misleading picture, because that year was the bottom of the deepest downturn since the 1930s.
O/T But as some here have questioned FL HSR based on America 2050 recent rankings of HSR routes, here is an after the fact clarification about FL HSR from America2050. They seem to be aware that their ranking methodology could give ammunition to HSR opponents to use against FL HSR. http://www.america2050.org/2011/01/why-and-how-floridas-high-speed-rail-line-must-be-built.html
OT – A Chinese rail delegation will be in Fresno on Saturday to meet with Fresno officials and PM consultants from CHSRA. The Chinese delegation includes representatives from the Ministry of Railways and China Railway Construction Corp. During the visit the Chinese will do a helicopter tour of the proposed Fresno HMF site.
http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/01/13/2232319/rail-plans-bring-chinese-officials.html
datacruncher Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
A little more info about the Chinese rail delegation’s meeting in Fresno on Saturday.
Fiona Ma will be there along with Fresno’s Assemblyman Henry Perea and other city/county officials.
This link has a little more info and a mp3 audio Q&A with Perea discussing several things related to the Saturday meeting and HSR in general.
http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=17370
Pringle was quite the local power broker a few years ago, but now that he no longer holds any local offices, it seems that all of his former ‘friends’ have pulled out their hidden knives.
As an Anaheim resident, they can dump ARTIC and keep the current Amshack (and stab Pringle in the back all they want), but I’m tired of all of the ‘fiscally responsible’ types who want to cut the single-seat ride from Orange County and terminate the system in LA. You’d think they’d learn from the sterling example of Orange County’s John Wayne Airport; I’m always stuck flying out of LAX or Ontario because JWA flights are either too expensive or lack the connections/timing I need, thanks to JWA’s intentionally hobbled schedule. Let’s give Orange County at least *one* long-range transportation option that doesn’t involve leaving the county first!
Some information about the dedicated and shared track alternatives for the LA-Anaheim section.
The dedicated alternative is expected to be 48% at-grade, 26% aerial. 16% of the corridor includes multiple options (i.e. Anaheim’s tunnel).
The shared track alternative is 49% at-grade and 35% aerial. Only 8% of the corridor has multiple design options (i.e. No Anaheim tunnel considered this time). Both have about the same amount of trenches for Fullerton airport, etc.
Spokker Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
This document includes a lot more information, including a track schematic, of how the shared track alternative might work: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8458
Looks like a giant clusterfuck to me.
I just realized something – the entire question of whether extending to Anaheim is important is going to be settled around 2013, when FLHSR opens and confirms or busts ridership projections based on tourist traffic. No point debating it now – just come up with the least costly alternative, do preliminary engineering, and wait for more real-world data to show how high the benefits are.
Just upgrade the entire corridor to 110/125 mph, share tracks, and be done with it.
Spokker Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
You have to convince those who fear an FRA behemoth smashing into a relatively lightweight electric train at 110 MPH.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Trains with modern, circa 1950, signaling systems don’t crash into each other.
Spokker Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
I’m not the one you have to convince.
Victor Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Yep, It’s the local folks who’ve had train crashes nearby that need to be convinced.
Joey Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
No, it’s the FRA you have to convince, locals having little to no say in these particular types of decisions. Chatsworth revealed that even an FRA-on-FRA collision can be devastating. The correct way to go, of course, is to avoid collisions altogether with PTC and stop hauling around those compliant monsters which cost a lot of time, fuel, and maintenance costs compared to lighter units.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
At the risk of becoming morbid, there was a pretty bad wreck at Chase, Md., in 1987 that may provide some insights into this discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Maryland_train_collision
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/1988/R88_14.pdf
Unrelated, but also of possible interest, a video clip of a derailment due to a washout, apparently from an event camera on the locomotive. Speed seems relatively low, but I would still be thankful that the locomotive stayed upright, and it seems there should have been no or minor injuries to the crew. It could easily have been worse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zuv3uVrcoio
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 15th, 2011 at 5:43 am
Came across this while looking up something else; enclosed as a reference item, but note that it is in French:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkNBPjxZSvc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT_yQWgUc4w&translated=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2T7kBFoXQw&translated=1
To be continued:
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 15th, 2011 at 5:45 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQsMh1svLuE&translated=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk2zn_0hTJU&translated=1
Id rather see LA – RIV than LA -ANA but there are so damn many people in the OC you gotta give em service.
Joey Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
There would be service, you just have to transfer. And making that transfer more efficient (i.e. cross-platform and timed) reduces the need for direct service. Of course, if you need a single-seat ride, that can also be done without breaking the bank (though it won’t be) and it certainly doesn’t have to be built right away, when there are more important segments to consider.
jimsf Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
I love the whole hsr plan routes and all, but in holy hell does everything single damn thing have to be so complicated. its just a train for gods sake! just build it and get it overwith. Im growing weary from every inch of this railroad having to be issue micromanaged!
jimsf Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
call up china. tell em to build the whole thing and in return we will give them the deed to nevada outright .. ( just don’t tell the nevadans)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Naw, make it Texas, and we’ll throw in the Bushes! (Yeah, bad joke, I know. . .)
Peter Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Nah, give ‘em Guam. Or Saipan. They’re closer to China.
Donk Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
I would rather give them Texas.
Peter Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Mississippi or Alabama
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Ho, ho, ho, ho! Thanks for seconding the motion, Donk!
I’ve had a thought on my mind for some time now. I notice we have plenty of fun around here, plenty of jokes (even some that are so bad they’re still funny, or at least I think so), but this bit of humor, and other entertaining bits (including my nostalgia trips), are nowhere to be found anywhere else, especially on the sites of our “loyal and disloyal opposition” (to borrow from Setty and Demery). Why, it seems as if the opposition doesn’t know history well, and even worse, doesn’t know how to laugh.
Any ideas as to why this is so?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
You know it’s a train, I know it’s a train, but so many others think it’s a socialist fire-dragon (most appropriate imagery with the potential Chinese involvement!)
Really, the problems come from fear of the “unknown,” or perhaps more appropriately, the “things you know that really aren’t so.” Trains are “noisy, dirty, and loud,” and are held to a double standard for this as much as for the financial side.
There was, and possibly still is, a private rail improvement project in South Bend, Indiana, that has NIMBY problems. The rail line in question is a spur of some length to Notre Dame, originally built in the 1920s or earlier to haul coal to the school’s private power and heating plant. This line wound up as part of Conrail, and a minor washout lead to service being suspended on this spur some years back. A transload facility was set up, and dump trucks now trundle through South Bend delivering the coal to the plant, which because of its loading configuration, requires the coal to be transferred to a couple of hopper cars that are isolated on the plant trackage to move the coal inside.
Some years back, a rail enthusiast with a bit of money made noises about purchasing the line to run a trolley excursion service, with a couple of museum-piece electric locomotives (such as are still running in Mason City, Ia. on the Iowa Traction) to handle the revived coal traffic. Gee, passenger service on a line that never had it, dusty, noisy, and smokey coal trucks taken out of downtown South Bend, and the coal moving behind quiet electric motors, and no tax money involved at all! Great deal, huh?
“Bah, humbug!” as far as the residents of the retirement homes along the line are concerned! (Yes, it’s the generational pattern again.) Those people raised so much noise they got the ear of the mayor of South Bend, and he brought up all sorts of political allies, and the project is very nearly dead, while those coal trucks are still dirtying up the town. Double standard indeed!
jimsf Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
fire-dragon- I like that for a name. very chinese astrology-ish
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
It’s my understanding (and perhaps some of greater Oriental knowledge can confirm or correct me on this) that the early steam trains of China in the 19th century were considered fire-dragons by people who had never seen them before. Supposedly American Indians said something similar as railroads stretched across the prairies, and preachers in the east and back in Great Britain thought them to be instruments of the devil, with the smoke and noise. And of course, how many of us, among them Andre Peretti, know steam engines as wonderful, seemingly alive “Big Iron Horses?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed2uVhNJ_JE
Of course, if you look at what some of the really early steam engines looked like, you can almost understand the fear. Looking at this example, and the way the steam comes from what might be a safety valve, one wonders why it doesn’t blow up. (At least I think it’s a safety valve, it doesn’t look like any safeties I’ve seen, it just looks more like a leaking cleanout door or something.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_Elephant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q9fKOHC_ck
No wonder farmers were scared of these things!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Farmers had good reason to be scared of them. They spewed live embers all over the place seting fire to lots of things including fields, barns….
Johnathan Reply:
January 14th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
The OC voted against the CenterLine light rail project, cut Metrolink service subsidies, construct new freeway lanes, and pushing for the not quite Disneyland monorail toy boondoggle.
San Gabriel Valley politicians instead fast-tracked the Gold Line Foothill, with Ontario eager to fund the extension to Ontario Airport.
And if Whittier Nimbys have their way against the Washington Blvd alternative, even the Gold Line Eastside would connect with Foothill at Ontario eventually.
The OC pretends they exist in their own world, we might as well build a wall, fence off all that traffic on the I-5 and CA-57.
Do we need to bring up the city of Orange, too?
James M. Reply:
January 15th, 2011 at 10:02 am
If the monorail went from the station to Downtown Disney (DD) and stopped at the convention center and a few other business places (hotels, malls,) this one monorail could remove quite a bit of traffic from our highways and streets. DD is a destination for many cars, as evidenced by the 10,000+ space parking structure, the largest in the United States at the time of construction. It would actually be a great tie-in to a visit to the Magic Kingdom.
Jim M.
Johnathan Reply:
January 15th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
According to current plans, the ARC (elevated monorail) would only have 3 stations: Triangle, Resort, and Convention.
ARC doesn’t even make it to Downtown Disney, unless you want to walk 1.5 miles from Resort Station or take another shuttle.
Line route available here:
http://aconnext.com/arc/
A BRT with dedicated lanes on Katella Ave. would provide more stops closer to destinations and total time savings for reduced walking.
It would also attract commuters, traveling businessmen, and weekend shoppers, not just for tourists.
I’m not opposed to an elevated monorail, but the tourist only route with limited use is the wrong approach for Anaheim.
Victor Reply:
January 16th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Yes Tourist only is not a good idea, But stops at Disneyland(Resort?) and at Knotts in addition to the other 3 would be a good idea, One would need to have Disney Corporations cooperation to build the station just outside the front gate where the tickets are sold or at least have a stop on Harbor Blvd outside of Disneyland.
Spokker Reply:
January 16th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
It wouldn’t just attract commuters, businessmen, weekend shoppers and tourists to Disneyland, but it would be useful for people who want nothing to do with Disneyland.
By tying it into the defunct rapid bus network, more people could actually benefit from this. Rapid buses on Harbor Blvd, St. College and Katella would transform mass transit in Orange County. Westminster is another candidate.
Local buses are important, but not everybody is traveling locally. Rapid Bus is great for getting two or three cities over.
Spokker Reply:
January 16th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
James, Downtown Disney is a destination for LOCAL cars and their drivers. Disneyland itself is now a local hang out for the Orange County crowd, and less of a world class destination. The resort caters to locals currently, though that may change once California Adventure 2.0 is completed in 2012.
Walter Sobchak Reply:
January 16th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Isn’t Disney planning another massive parking structure for the next expansion of the resort area, but holding back to see what happens with ARTIC? I can only imagine what traffic with another 5,000-10,000 space garage would look like down there; with the park visited by majority locals I’m surprised Disney hasn’t made a huge push for a real public transportation alternative (i.e. not a tourist monorail) just so they don’t have to waste their precious few acres left for more parking.
Way off topic but I am hoping that this group can give some background on this news for Fremont.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_17090320?nclick_check=1
I would love to hear what everybody has to say about this but my biggest question is whether UP has the same federal protections when buying new land as is the case with this 160 acre purchase next to the old NUMMI plant. Can they do whatever they want without City approval?
Just to clarify, Curt Pringle did not step down from the OCTA board to keep his seat on CAHSRA board. He served on OCTA as the mayor of Anaheim and he was termed out of office, which is why he is no longer on the OCTA board.
Bonds specifically for constructing California high-speed rail could be sold to investors if additional revenue streams were implemented and maglev technology was used (lower operating costs).
Given the amount of time required to construct the project, it could be funded over several years by monthly payments by those buying California high-speed rail bonds as part of their retirement investments.
$100/month * 48 months * 10,000,000 people = $48,000,000,000
High-speed rail could be made more attractive to consumers by using separate tracks for the entire line so the trains can operate at maximum speed reducing travel time making it competitive with in-state air travel (when you factor in the travel time to the airport and the wait time at the airport).
To be able to pay back investors, in addition to passenger fares, the company operating the high-speed rail line must come up with new revenue streams such as light cargo transport to ensure sufficient revenue is generated to repay investors.
High-speed rail could deliver light cargo using much less fuel than air transport which would make it attractive to companies like FedEx and UPS. High-speed rail operating at lower speeds by sharing lines with regular rail would not have the opportunity to contract with delivery companies like FedEx and UPS for same-day and overnight deliveries. Separate light cargo trains making fewer stops could travel ahead of passenger trains.
Operating costs can also be reduced by using maglev technology (NAMTI.org).
Johnathan Reply:
January 16th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
The best estimates on Maglev costs for a full line is Japan’s Chuo Shinkansen project, scheduled to begin construction on 2014.
JR Central’s 2009 estimates for Tokyo-Osaka Chuo Shinkansen line (272 mi.):
Maglev vs. Steel Wheels
Travel Time: 67 min. vs. 120 min.
Transportation Demand: 26 billion passenger-mile vs. 13.7 billion passenger-mile
Construction Cost: $101.7 billion vs. $77.1 billion
Annual Operating Cost: $3.7 billion vs. $2.1 billion
Annual Maintenance: $1.4 billion vs. $0.7 billion
Maglev in California would likely cost around $75 billion, double the operating costs, and operating losses due to high ticket prices. Maglev works in Japan only because the Tokaido Shinkansen route is indirect with fares already triple to what CAHSR might charge today. It also helps that JR Central plans to fund the entire maglev line with Tokaido Shinkansen profits.
Unless California gets to redirect all annual highway construction funding to HSR, maglev would have to wait for another day.
Useless Reply:
January 16th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Time saving between Maglev and a brand new 220 mph steel wheel bullet train wouldn’t be that great. Tokyo-Osaka corridor has a designed service speed limit of 168 mph, whereas a brand new corridor built today would be rated at 220 mph or higher.