Will It Take a Freeway to Bring DesertXpress to LA?
It would be no small irony if DesertXpress’s path from Victorville to Palmdale – and thus to downtown LA – were to be blazed by a freeway. But that might just be the answer, as the long-discussed proposal for a freeway along the Highway 18/138 corridor in the Antelope Valley is revived again:
The proposed High Desert Connector Corridor freeway would link the Antelope Valley (14) Freeway at Palmdale with Interstate 15 north of Cajon Pass.
It may also be used as a high-speed rail corridor for trains between the Southland and Las Vegas.
The proposed freeway would replace long stretches of existing California routes 138 and 18, which are two-lane roads across open desert with notoriously-high fatality rates…
The center median of the proposed freeway is a possible roadbed for the proposed “DesertXpress” high speed rail line that Las Vegas interests plan to build between Las Vegas and Southern California.
This proposal has been around at least as long as the concept of high speed rail in California (I remember seeing it as a dotted line on a 1984 Thomas Brothers map of Southern California). It would help solve the problem of how to get the DesertXpress train to Palmdale from Victorville, since the proposed freeway would connect those cities. It’s a lot easier to get environmental approvals if the tracks follow an existing corridor than if it were to blaze an entirely new trail.
The article notes that the California HSR project isn’t fully funded. That’s true. But neither is the proposed freeway. In fact, we don’t have a business plan for it. There’s no ridership projections (that I know of). Will it be subsidized like every other road in the state? Will it lose money? Where is the fear-mongering study from Alain Enthoven and his NIMBY allies?
Oh, wait, I forgot – freeways don’t have to be subjected to this analysis. Just trains.
This might be a good idea or it might not be. Seems worth exploring though. If you want to learn more about it, though, visit the Caltrans project page or drop by one of this week’s public meetings, all of which last from 6-8PM:
1. Lancaster (Los Angeles County) – Monday, April 11, 2011 at Lancaster City Hall – 44933 Fern Avenue, Lancaster, CA 93534.
2. Lake Los Angeles (Los Angeles County) – Tuesday, April 12, 2011 at Twin Lakes Community Church – 17213 Lake Los Angeles Avenue, Palmdale, CA 93591.
3. Apple Valley (San Bernardino County) – Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at the Apple Valley Council Chambers – 14955 Dale Evans Parkway, Apple Valley, CA 92307
* Live webcast of this meeting will be broadcast at http://www.ustream.tv/channel/metro-high-desert-corridor
4. Adelanto (San Bernardino County) – Thursday, April 14, 2011 at the Adelanto Community Center – 11555 Cortez Avenue, Adelanto, CA 92301
One slight problem: If the route goes along Palmdale Blvd into the Palmdale, the train will probably have to go north a bit towards the airport. This will pose an operational problem for trains heading out of LA, as they will either have to (1) go into Palmdale, then double-back a bit before heading towards Victorville, or (2) bypass the Palmdale stop and to straight to Victorville.
Maybe the “express” trains out of LA to Vegas will just bypass the Palmdale stop, and other trains will originate in Palmdale as cross-platform transfers for people coming both from LA and the CV/Bay.
David K Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
I think that before this is decided DesertXpress will have to decide (and negotiate with CAHSRA) if they want to run trains from Las Vegas to the Bay Area, or just to LA, with a cross-platform transfer at Palmdale with CAHSR trains from SF and Sacramento.
How important is a single seat ride to Las Vegas for those in the CV and Bay Area?
Caelestor Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
It’d be nice, but not necessary at the moment. What could really make DXP take off is if there’s a rail connection between LA and LV, which has a huge potential market (preferably via Mojave). Victorville is not going to cut it for people seeking convenience over time.
orulz Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 8:45 am
There could be direct trains to LV from both SF and LA, if there were a wye like the one proposed at Chowchilla. But Palmdale could only be served on one of those routes, depending on whether the wye is built north or south of Palmdale.
James M. in Irvine Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 9:12 am
I know the idea keeps being mentioned of DX running into LA via CAHSR trackage rights on this blog, but has anyone from DX mentioned it? Is CAHSR open to the idea ? Yes, it is done in europe, I just wanted to know where DX and CA stand on the idea….
Thanks
Jim
brandon from San Diego Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 10:44 am
I would think that for political reasons, that this idea should remain on the down-low.
I would like to see wye so that trains can go north or south after having originating in Las Vegas. Of course, DeserrtExpress should pay for it.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Yes, DX mentioned it as a Phase 2. I don’t remember if CHSRA has said anything.
Jon Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
If the route goes along Palmdale Blvd into the Palmdale…
If you look at the plans, the connection with Hwy 14/138 is just north of Avenue P-8, which is just north of the existing Palmdale Metrolink station. This would be compatible with the Palmdale Transportation Center station option but not the Palmdale West option. The wye would be tight but doable.
Why wouldn’t the train from San Francisco or Sacramento go all the way to Las Vegas?
James McDonald Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
The mountains are in the way.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Wait, what? The plan is to build HSR from SF to Palmdale, and from Palmdale to Vegas. Who died and placed mountains between adjacent tracks at Palmdale?
synonymouse Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
The Tehachapi Loop does have a strong east-west orientation; it was the route of the San Francisco Chief from the Bay Area to Chicago.
Joey Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 12:10 am
Because drawing a line between Mojave and Barstow is beyond the capabilities of a bureaucrat.
VBobier Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 9:47 am
DX is not going to Barstow, DX is going from Victorville to Primm and then on to Las Vegas, Ok?
I’m in favor of a freeway for truck and local auto traffic near the present day 18/138 highways, Which I remember as the proposed high desert bypass freeway, If DX gets to use the center of said freeway and if there is a Wye for DX to enter and leave Los Angeles on, If the CHSRA would go along with this, But I’m not sure that this will happen, As last I heard some in California see DX as a money drain heading into Las Vegas, Primm and Proper…
DX is tolerated so far by State Government as It so far is only proposed to end in Victorville, Not in Palmdale or Los Angeles via trackage rights…
Joey Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Barstow is on the route to Vegas, no matter which direction you’re coming from. That doesn’t mean there needs to be a stop there. A connection to Mojave would allow good trip times from both Northern California and Southern California. Also why would the state government have a problem with a private entity paying for the rights to use public infrastructure?
It’s funny how we always have money to move hills for highways, but not a dime for HSR.
One way to connect the two cities could be this one:
The Dutch Superbus
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/08/dutch-superbus-debut_n_846678.html
Just kidding.
Off topic, but interesting reading anyway–National Corridors’–James Repass’ “Destination Freedom:
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df3/df04112011.shtml
Of particular note, it looks like HSR can “kill jobs;” seems the performance of the Chinese HSR system has caused airlines to cancel orders for Airbus A-380s, and has limited the demand for the newest 747 variations to freighter variants.
What’s an airplane builder to do?
Alon Levy Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
An airplane builder is to be happy that the most profitable air traffic in the world is between the US and Europe. Not even the grandchildren of today’s Boeing and Airbus execs will live to see vactrains take that away.
VBobier Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 9:55 am
Cause of seafloor spreading(Plate Tectonics) and molten material, plus maybe crushing pressure, Vactrains may as well be a pipe dream, Cause I don’t think We can currently do that. So airlines will always be making airliners, Of course they might get bigger or more expensive or both…
Alon Levy Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
The idea is to place them 50-100 meters underwater, anchored to the seafloor with cables. It’s apparently technically feasible, just ungodly expensive.
Ben Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 4:30 am
Even with a very ambitious and strong commitment to high speed rail, commercial air travel is expected to see strong growth in China. According to Boeing’s 2010 market outlook for commercial aircraft, the some of the most robust growth will be Asia Pacific and within China. The most significant aircraft sales are expected to come from China.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/pdf/2010_Farnborough_Presentation.pdf
If you Google, China is undertaking a very expansive investment in new airport capacity, adding some like dozens of new airports.
Ken Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 11:23 am
Boeing can start making trains. Who says they can only build airplanes? They have brilliant people there working for them, and lots of aerodynamics on airplanes can be used to make bullet trains. Boing built hyper jet-foils called the Boeing 929, why not bring them along to make Boeing 8X8 (bullet trains) and such.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Maybe, but Boeing’s (or more properly Boeing-Vertol’s) experience in light rail cars was not particularly happy for anyone involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Standard_Light_Rail_Vehicle
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/lightrail.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9fHJOcEOr4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtto__LXZLc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n64duG73Sak&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcmyAZwf7oE&feature=related
Hopefully something was learned of the experience, notably that a rail environment is quite different from that of the ocean of the atmosphere.
swing hanger Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Boeing tried once to build a rail vehicle- the LRT streetcar. It was not a success. Building modern railcars is a lost art in the U.S. (i.e. it is more a function of knowhow/experience than just having talented engineers). If Boeing were to enter the railcar business, they would likely follow Bombardier’s (BYW another aerospace firm) example- acquire weaker European railcar firms.
swing hanger Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
BYW should be BTW…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Bombardier was a snowmobile company before they got into planes and trains.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Bombardier made good trains long before it acquired Adtranz. The R62A and R142 operate reliably. It’s Boeing that made lemons that make Ansaldo’s trains look good.
I think the the City of LA is behind this…trying to put more east bound traffic up north and through the High Desert than relying on a bottleneck on the 15. And if there’s more freeflowing traffic from L.A. to Victorville because of this free way it probably won’t help the linkage between DX and CAHSR.
Donk Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 12:20 am
The City of LA doesn’t give a rats ass about the Antelope Valley, except maybe for the airport. The only reason this is moving forward is because of the high death count and because LA County Supervisor Mike Antonovich has to support his constituency in this region.
Sure, it might take some cars off the road on the 210-15 route and move them onto the 14-Palmdale route – but you are giving LA officials too much credit by assuming that they would be thinking of the greater benefits of this route.
VBobier Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 9:59 am
Agreed, Except for the airport there which they’ve been trying to push for Years, The area isn’t all that close to the rest of LA County, It’s a wonder that the area hasn’t gone and become their own county.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
You have to remember that the Mayor of L.A. appoints 3 seats on the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s Board. The supervisors are another eight seats and five other cities (who all rotate except for Los Angeles) comprise the rest of the Board. If Antonovich supports this, you only need one or two more Board members to come along to get a majority.
The City wants this route because it needs more capacity for trucks leaving the port. Commuters are beginning to clog the 15 even outside of rush hour and this puts a lot of pressure on drivers heading east if they are distributing goods that will reach Chicago or New York. Doubling back from the 710, 210, 14, and then onto this thing would normally be too much of a time waster. But given the congestion in the I.E…..
This expressway, which I thought was originally supposed to be a tollway, is intended principally to facilitate goods movement to and from the ports without creating as much air pollution and traffic congestion in the basin.
I only support the project if it charges users.
So why is it always the freeway median in the USA? In the two actual HSR projects built along highways that I know of (Frankfurt-Cologne and Munich-Nuremberg) the rail line is on one side of the highway.
Peter Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 8:58 am
It probably makes it easier to build freeway exits and such.
VBobier Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 10:03 am
I’d have to agree on this, As everytime I’ve seen passenger rail near freeway traffic in the US here on the west coast at least, It’s been down the middle, Not on one side or the other, Like in Germany.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
That’s because the railroads were built first and the highways second. On newly built railroads, it’s more advantageous to put the rails on side of the road. It’s not just Germany that does this; it’s also the LGVs that follow autoroutes.
Peter Reply:
April 12th, 2011 at 9:32 am
DesertXpress is actually running by the side of I-15 for the vast majority of the route, according to the Plan & Profile Appendix to the Final EIS. After going through 140 of the 226 pages, the only section of “median” running that I saw was where the sides of the freeway split due to terrain and the tracks cut across and in between the sides of the freeway while traversing from one side to the other.
Those 4.5% grades are going to be interesting…
Is there a US (or international?) standard for HSR traction power that will ensure that DesertXPress and CHSRA trains can operate on each others tracks?
VBobier Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 10:06 am
So far, No, If they buy different trains, They won’t be compatible electrically, Unless both the CHSRA and DX settle on a common voltage and such.
Eric M Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 10:29 am
I believe they both are going to run on 25 kV at 60 Hz
VBobier Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 10:36 am
Well then there’s the issue of Pantograph(Rail) wiki height, Both must be the same I’d think or they may or may not be able to work on the same rail lines catenary.
VBobier Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 10:37 am
As in same height ability.
Eric M Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 11:28 am
You do realize pantographs move up and down and have a certain contact pressure whether its 6 inches above the carriage or 2 feet?
VBobier Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 11:53 am
Yes I do, But not all trains are the same height, If the pantograph can’t reach the catenary there would then be a problem.
Peter Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
The same train can run at different pantograph heights on the same trip. I believe the GG-1s used to run with their pantographs raised only 2 inches in the tunnels going into NY, but would have them raise at other locations along the route (Thank you, D.P. Lubic).
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
And thank you, Peter.
I’ve had this up before, but it sounds like it might be time to bring it out again–a documentary from 1983 on the last of these electric giants.
You can see the pantograph go from low to high in the first segment starting at about 0:32 as the big juicer comes out of the tunnels under the Hudson in New Jersey (note that this is a playlist, and the subsequent parts should come up automatically):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC6W0XEqOLw&playnext=1&list=PLA8FCDCD737F45EF9
Back a little earlier, to 1978, and Monmouth Junction, N.J., as GG-1s run past in both freight and passenger service.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BgPOhMec7k&feature=fvwrel
Finally, this is as corny as can be, but it’s fun anyway, the Pennsy PR film, “Wheels of Steel,” from 1951. And yes, you can see the pans work up and down, the place I spotted them here was at 1:31, on the moving motor in the background:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5fi9viZoTs
Enjoy.
Winston Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 10:35 am
Desertxpress is planning to run diesels last time I heard. However, if they were to electrify, I can’t imagine them using anything other than 25kV@60Hz which is as close to the world standard as is practical in the U.S. While it is possible to make things incompatable, it isn’t too likely that there will be a problem.
VBobier Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 10:47 am
As It says Here That may not be possible, As 149mph is the world record for a Diesel Engined train, Which means DX would not be able to reach their 150mph target consistently…
DX on this page Here shows an Electric Train, Not a Diesel-Electric, As It has a Pantograph on top…
So diesel ain’t happening on DX for HSR…
Winston Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 11:30 am
I’m glad they have finally come around to using electric power. It really is a better choice at those speeds. Hopefully they buy more or less off the shelf European equipment and CA does the same. Also one hopes that they choose similar loading gauges and signaling systems (there are lots of ways to screw up interoperability).
VBobier Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 11:54 am
Yeah that’s what I’ve read, ICE trains not being able to travel where the TGV goes, It can happen.
thatbruce Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Some of the holdup in cross-country certification of a given HST is political in nature, rather than technical.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
TGV and ICE both use the Gare de l’Est for Paris-Munich and Paris-Frankfurt. There is no loading gauge problem. The only real problem is mutual incompatibility between DB and SNCF managements.
Both trains can use French 25kv 50Hz and German 15kv 16 2/3 Hz.
Germany was the first country to electrify and chose a frequency of 16 2/3hz, which is exactly 1/3 of 50hz, in 1911. It requires very bulky transformers (the lower the frequency, the heavier the transformers).
The French did no better when they opted for 1.5kv DC, still in use for conventional trains.
Peter Reply:
April 12th, 2011 at 9:03 am
If you read the Final EIS on the FRA’s website, the Preferred Alternative for technology is EMU, not DMU.
Eric M Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 11:32 am
And most high speed train sets have transformers that can handle multiple voltage types in order to switch from one system to another in different countries/regions.
VBobier Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 11:56 am
If their built that way, If not, they won’t. Some use 25kV@50Hz and some use 3kV@50Hz I’ve read…
Peter Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
I’m pretty certain the two organizations will work that stuff out before anyone purchases trainsets. I’d be more worried about compatible loading gauge and platform heights.
Alan F Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
I would think the FRA and US DOT would also play a role in pushing them to adopt a common standard for the basic specs as part of a national effort to develop a HSR industrial base. Of course, they will both use standard gauge and 25KV@60 Hz. Yes, it will be the details of the track specifications, platform height, signals, operational standards that need to be worked out.
BTW, I think DX choose 150 mph in their EIS for one primary reason: that is the maximum speed the Amtrak Acela is authorized to run at by the FRA. So the requirements for 150 mph operation are established in the regulations and DX could point to Amtrak & the NEC for reference. If DX proposed a 300 kph/186 mph system, the EIS might have gotten held up while the FRA hashed out the exact regulations and testing requirements for >150 mph operation. Since DX is funding the EIS and work from private investors, their thinking may well be to list 150 mph speeds for now, while someone else, Amtrak, CA HSR, FL HSR (if it had not been killed), takes the lead on establishing the exact rules and procedures for approval for faster operating speeds.
With Amtrak working to get the Acela approved for 160 mph operation and if Amtrak gets the approval, then DX, after their EIS is officially approved, can point to Amtrak’s approval and say see, we meet or exceed all those requirements and get a mod to allow DX to run at 160 mph for Class 8 tracks. But a 180 or 220 mph system may be more than DX wants to spend. Will have to see how it all plays out over the next decade.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
No in their right mind builds new track at anything other than the frequency the community at large uses. They are both going to use 60Hz. Both very likely to use 25kV too.
VBobier Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
50Hz is what is used in Europe, Here It’s 60Hz…
Eric M Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Still not a big deal. The RMS is the same with both frequencies
VBobier Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
I know that, Some wondered why I said 50Hz instead of 60Hz, That’s why. Nothing more.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 12th, 2011 at 3:01 am
A transformer designed for 50Hz can be safely used for 60Hz but will be heavier than necessary.
On the other hand, a 60Hz transformer used with 50Hz will overheat and power will be lost.
The 60Hz frequency would theoretically allow a US train to be lighter than its European twin.
Eric M Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Please post where you have read the current model high speed trainsets current power requirements? You might not realize that 25kV 50Hz is single phase overhead power and is converted. That second number you posted might be the converted number.
VBobier Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
See the reply above.
Eric M Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Where is the reference?
Eric M Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Not the frequency of 50 or 60 Hz
Eric M Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Here is some good info too:
“Normal TGV trainsets travel at up to 320 km/h (200 mph) in commercial use. All TGVs are at least bi-current, which means that they can operate at 25 kV, 50 Hz AC on newer lines (including LGVs) and at 1.5 kV DC on older lines (such as the 1.5 kV lignes classiques that are common around Paris). Trains crossing the border into Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom must accommodate other voltages, requiring tri-current and quadri-current TGVs. TGVs have two pairs of pantographs, two for AC use and two for DC use. When passing between areas of different supply voltage, marker boards remind the driver to turn off power to the traction motors, lower the pantograph(s), adjust a switch to select the appropriate system, and raise the pantograph(s). Pantographs and pantograph height control are selected automatically based on the voltage system chosen by the driver. Once the train detects the correct supply, a dashboard indicator illuminates and the driver can switch on the traction motors. The train coasts across the boundary between sections.”
Off topic, but of interest, courtesy of Bruce McF:
http://www.progressiveblue.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=56E50809B217021D4C9931CC0C2CC35A?diaryId=6063
Why not just extend from Victorville to Bakersfield so people can connect there?
Just make the DX platform the opposite of the CAHSR at Bakersfield, time it so it departs five minutes upon arrival at Bakersfield and you get a nice transit.
People do this all the time when connecting planes at major hubs like DFW and ORD, why not do the same thing with HSR?
Eric M Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 11:36 am
Because Bakersfield is a lot farther away than Palmdale (which CHSR will stop at anyways) and would need to cross a mountain range.
I don’t see how this will be an attractive option for getting to Las Vegas, without going through the Cajon Pass.
Consider:
CAR: Two people in downtown LA want to be in Las Vegas by around 3pm. Las Vegas is 265 miles away. It’s easily done in 4.5 hours. They leave their house at 10am to be on the safe side. They drive straight into the hotel parking lot (free parking) and walk into the lobby. Total cost is $40 of gas. 5 hours.
TRAIN: Say a train is leaving Victorville at 1pm, which would arrive Vegas at 2:30, which would get them to their hotel by 3pm. Victorville is 85 miles away. If they miss the train their are screwed, so they have to leave early to account for traffic, parking at Victorville, getting a ticket, loading up and transferring luggage, etc. So they leave at — guess what — 10am. Total cost: $15 gas + $100 train fare + taxi or shuttle in Vegas. Time Savings: zero.
I am a fan of HSR, and typically support projects like this, but this one, I don’t know … without the train coming into LA via the Cajon Pass, this one seems DOA. The train station has to be within a predicatable driving distance, e.g. 20-30 minutes. Otherwise, you have to leave so early that you’ve lost the time you save by taking the train.
The time comparison for the 6 million people in Orange and San Diego Counties is even worse. Driving is overall quicker in those cases.
spokker Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Which is why this post is about connecting Victorville and Palmdale via rail, allowing LA-VEGAS service.
Andy Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
spokker, even with Palmdale, the same argument applies. You might save 30 minutes driving to Palmdale instead of Victorville, but it’s 30 more minutes of train travel and the train stopping in Victorville anyway. One may argue that there is Metrolink to Palmdale, but now you’re talking a total of over 3 hours on trains, plus two kinds of tickets and a transfer, plus parking at a Metrolink station — it’s just tough sell to the average Joe.
thatbruce Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
LA to Palmdale via CAHSRA: 27 minutes for 58 miles (CAHSRA website)
Palmdale to Victorville: 51 miles (CA-138/CA-18)
Victorville to Las Vegas via DX: 84 minutes for 186 miles (DX website)
Assuming that DX trains are operating to Palmdale at the same speed (avg 132mph), that’s 107 minutes between Palmdale and Las Vegas, plus the 27 minutes on the CAHSRA service, giving 134 minutes total (2hrs 14min).
Pad it up to 2hrs 30 min to allow for changing trains, and you’re still faster than driving, which is not always easily done in 4 hours 30 minutes due to the number of other people doing the same thing. Times of 8+ hours on I-15 between the Inland Empire (eg, I-15/I-10) and Las Vegas are common around weekends.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Why would they be changing trains? Some of the trains wouldn’t stop in Palmdale …..or Victorville.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Well…no….
DX is going to construct a new rail line from Victorville to Barstow (and then presumably onto Las Vegas). At this point, the CHSRA rail line will go nowhere but from Bakersfield to Palmdale, and then Los Angeles. Of course, for a price, I’m sure that DX could construct a right of way from Victorville to Palmdale and run a direct service to Los Angeles or even up north.
But that’s not the presumption most people on this blog hold…that in fact DX will be part of CAHSR. If that’s true then the Victorville to Barstow is useless and there would be a triangle shaped intersection that would allow south bound trains to head directly east along the 58 ROW. Northbound trains would connect north of the Palmdale station and the airport to all maximum intermodality.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
If they don’t build tracks between Palmdale and Victorville the cross platform transfer they all seem to drooling for is going to be very inconvenient. The platform would have to extraordinarily wide.
It’s not BART. Just because there’s a platform by the side of the tracks doesn’t mean the train has to stop. It’s not BART, just because DX owns the tracks doesn’t mean CAHRR’s operator can’t run trains over it or vice versa. Amtrak runs it’s trains over other company’s tracks every day. Every day other companies run trains over Amtrak’s tracks. Even odder things happen like Metro North crews operating NJTransit equipment over Amtrak’s track.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Um, right, but that’s not my point.
CHSRA isn’t going to build a connection between Victorville and Palmdale for DX… DX will have to do it on its own. DX wants to build a branch line as close to LA as possible. CHSRA wouldn’t want that, it would want something that uses less track than the dog leg through the High Desert. It’s undoubtedly true that the lines could switch operators. At issue is that CAHSR is going to rely on electrified service and DX is going to be a slower diesel one. It doesn’t make sense for CAHSR to run a slow service to Las Vegas….and it only makes sense for DX to do it during the times of highest ridership.
Joey Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
The tracks need not have a single operator. DX would buy trackage rights (that is, they would pay an operating fee) from wherever to LA and operate trains mixed with CAHSR trains (on an integrated timetable, of course). All signs point to DX using electric technology. And running all the way to LA would vastly increase DX’s ridership potential.
Spokker Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
If the CHSRA and the Desert Express people haven’t gotten together to compare notes and use the same standard off-the-shelf equipment, then these people are really as incompetent as Mylknkarik rants about.
Train leaves LA and gets to Palmdale on CHSRA tracks. Then it switches to the Palmdale-Victorville tracks. Then it hits the originally planned route.
This isn’t that complicated.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
But who owns and builds the tracks between Palmdale and Victorville? CHSRA can’t waste its money on such a project…and again even if it had spare cash…it would not want that alignment, it would want Mojave-Barstow-Palmdale.
Ultimately, DX is overjoyed that this highway would be built. It would get more people to take it’s train (or connecting bus to its service). The CAHSR operator would love to serve Vegas, but it has to be able to do it using electrification.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
If you are in Mojave and want to get to Palmdale or vice versa you go through Rosamond and Lancaster. Barstow wouldn’t have anything to do with it.
Joey Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
DX would own everything east of the CAHSR mainline. Is that so complicated?
And as I have previously mentioned, it is looking like DX is going to go with electric trains.
Spokker Reply:
April 12th, 2011 at 12:56 am
“CHSRA can’t waste its money on such a project”
They sure do waste money on plenty of other things. Linking up to Desert Express is a relatively sane investment compared to what they have going on right now.
egk Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Googlemaps says LA to Victorville takes 90 minutes. Why would you leave before 11am to get a 1pm train? DesertXpress will be running trains every 20 minutes. With all the extra capacity they will have (on the rail and in the train) they will be marketing their train as a show-up and ride system, so if you miss the 1pm, you hop on the 1:20.
Of course it’ll all be better when there is a rail link direct, but really, don’t make it out to be worse than it is.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
But consider when most people will be making their Vegas trips. If it’s a Friday (outbound) or a Sunday (inbound) suddenly you’re looking at a LOT more than 4.5 hours, and much of the delay comes along I-15 north of Victorville.
Semi-off topic: the take by the Infrastructurist and The Hill on Amtrak’s current ridership numbers:
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/04/11/rush-hour-read-amtrak-on-record-ridership-pace/#comments
http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/railroads/154661-amtrak-says-its-on-track-for-record-ridership
Semi-off topic:
http://www.review.net/section/detail/4-11-11-florida-rail-money-redirected/
According to this article, $300 Million of Florida’s $2.4 Billion has been relocated. California will get $22 million for the refurbishing of existing locomotives. Not sure which those are.
AlanF Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Boy, is that a poorly written and incorrect article. All of these projects are ones that were selected in the original stimulus grants announced last year, except for Washington state which is getting sone reallocated WI and Ohio funds. These were all announced in a press release put out by US DOT late last week. This was simply the announcement of the obligation and release of the funds to the projects. Takes a while to bid and negotiate the contracts and agreements. These are NOT new awards and have nothing to do with the applications for and the redistribution of the Florida HSR funds. With over $9 billion total in requests, will take a while to go through and score the applications.
The comments on those 2 websites are not exactly productive. :-/. The actual Amtrak press release with the ridership numbers for March and the first 6 months of the fiscal year for each train service can be found at http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobkey=id&blobwhere=1249224661906&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-disposition&blobheadervalue1=attachment;filename=Amtrak_ATK-11-046_17_Months_Ridership_Growth.pdf.
To make relevant to CA:
Pacific Surfliner +6.4% for the first 6 months
Capitol Corridor +8.8%
San Joaquin +3.4%
Amtrak total +5.9%
For those keeping track – our little auto-competitive Amtrak line from Lynchburg VA to DC (3:30 train or car) has now DOUBLED its ridership in two years (VA had planned to spend a couple million dollars in operating subsidies, but didn’t have to because ridership so exceeded projections).
As soon as the CA system can be time competitive with driving there will be an operating profit to be made.
Off topic, but it seems like nuclear is done for. Fukushima has been upgraded to a Chernobyl level disaster.
Can’t really argue with that as a pro-nuclear guy, so whatever happens happens.
Joey Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
The severity level has been increased to be on par with Chernobyl. The actual effects are still likely to be at least an order of magnitude less, at least judging from what I’ve read.
orulz Reply:
April 12th, 2011 at 7:18 am
The lack of a graphite fire sending clouds of highly radioactive smoke tens of thousands of feet up into the atmosphere will most likely prove Fukushima to have less long-term health impacts worldwide than Chernobyl.
I have 3 questions the really need to be addressed:
1. Why are tax payers being asked to pay for a way of getting people to the Casinos and entertainment venues in Las Vegas faster and easier? If this is such a great idea let the Casinos, Hotels etc. pay for this venture. After all it is for their profit not the general tax paying public. Let the people who will profit and who will be using it pay for it, or not build it.
2. Why is the California HSR going to Palmdale? This is a very long and expensive detour for just 1 stop? Why isn’t the line taking the much shorter direct route from Santa Clarita to Bakersfield?
3. Why are the containers going by highway from the port to an inland reloading center where there are then loaded onto trains instead of by container trains to the inland port for reloading? This is what the Alameda and the Alameda East Corridors were built for. This will save billions of gallons of fuel transporting the containers by truck and free up our freeways and highways. This can reduce the need to build additional highway for the trucks to carry containers throughout the Los Angeles Area. This railroad corridor could also be electrified to save even more fuel and help clean our air.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 12th, 2011 at 10:30 am
1. They aren’t.
2. Because there’s half a million people in greater Palmdale
3 They do. If the container is destined for those half million people in Palmdale it had to get there somehow. Or if it’s going from a distribution center in Fresno to a retail location in Las Vegas or San Bernandino…..
Joey Reply:
April 12th, 2011 at 10:34 am
2 is more because the the Tehachapi/Soledad Canyon route is much easier to build than the Grapevine route, which would be mostly base tunnels.
synonymouse Reply:
April 12th, 2011 at 10:54 am
@ Interurbans
Your first two points I have been belaboring for what seems now like an eternity. Of course LV worthies like Wynn and Adelson have no intention of paying for something they can have Reid deliver for free.
The Quantm Tejon route offers many advantages but suffers from NIH and is probably less expensive, a no-no for PB. I think perhaps it would be best if all federal money got cut and California had to pay for hsr alone. It would force a less wasteful and more thoughtful plan.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 12th, 2011 at 11:18 am
Digging tunnels is not less expensive than laying track on the ground.
synonymouse Reply:
April 12th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Apparently PB has most of their Loop upgrade on stilts and there is at least one 7 mile tunnel.
My interpretation the the Quantm plan has no tunnel longer than 6 miles and two tunnels breaching Tejon. And maybe 50 miles shorter depending on whether you dump Palmdale.
Eric M Reply:
April 12th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Source of your 7 mile tunnel accusation?
synonymouse Reply:
April 12th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Posting by Elizabeth a few weeks ago.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 12th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
my cousin’s best friend’s uncle daughter-in-law says there won’t be any stilts
The master plan for the high desert corridor is to create a bypass of Los Angeles city for trucks. They want to use HWY 138 between FWY 14 to FWY 5 for this. This is currently a two lane (one lane in each direction) highway. This means that the trucks will take the Tejon Pass to get from point A to point B. Meanwhile the trains will be traveling down the Tehachapi route. Either way HWY 138 between 14 and 5 is not ready for prime time by any means. I don’t see why the trucks just can’t use 58 to get to Bakersfield and then a little westbound connector can’t be built between Bakersfield and FWY 5. That way the truck route would be in sync with the train route.