|
Post by spokker on Jun 4, 2009 14:25:30 GMT -8
The relevant document is here. The relevant info is on page 43. Shared-track and mixed traffic have been screened out. The plan for dedicated HSR tracks is being carried forward for more study. Obviously, all these things are subject to NIMBYism, financial issues, and nuclear war and may change. Highlights: * Between Los Angeles and Fullerton they are planning six mainline tracks. Four for freight/Metrolink/Surfliner and two for HSR. Between Fullerton and Anaheim there will be four mainline tracks. Two for freight/Metrolink/Surfliner and two for HSR. It should be noted that freight on this Metrolink owned ROW is limited to 5-10 short locals per day. HSR trains will indeed be physically separated from the heavier trains. * The row between Anaheim and Fullerton has a 1.5 stretch that is 50 feet wide and will have be widened 35 feet, which will result in land takings affecting mostly industrial properties. A park and a few residences will be taken as well if the at-grade option is ultimately constructed. Eliminated from consideration was a cut and cover option and an aerial option. Along with the at-grade option, a deep tunnel option is being carried forward. * In Norwalk, building a station east of the existing Metrolink station would result in reduced speeds to approximately 60 MPH for trains that do not stop at Norwalk. That alternative was eliminated. The other two alternatives, no station and HST station north of existing station have no foreseen operation issues (i.e. slowdowns) and are being carried forward. * And the bit we are all probably most interested in. Eliminated from consideration is a deep tunnel HSR station beneath Union Station and a shallow trench HSR station on the west bank of the LA River. To be carried forward is an aerial HSR station above the existing platforms. It would have six tracks and three platforms.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 4, 2009 15:05:57 GMT -8
Aerial platforms over Union Station? Whoa. Would HSR access Union Station via the tracks from the long-dormant "run-through project"?
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jun 4, 2009 15:42:55 GMT -8
The CHSRA seems to be separating the run-through project studied by Caltrans and the FRA and the run-through tracks they are going to construct and use. Here is what HSR has to say about the run-through tracks.
It sounds to me like the CHSRA is building their own run-through tracks to their aerial station, designed in a way so that the other run-through tracks project can be constructed at a later date. Considering the option carried forward for more study is dedicated HSR tracks only, HSR run-through tracks will do nothing for Metrolink/Surfliner trains as long as they continue to be heavy FRA-compliant diesel trains.
Damn, I'm imagining what that would look like and, wow.
Here's some more info about the approach into LAUS.
A diagram of the thing is on page 88.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 17, 2009 12:46:34 GMT -8
I don't know how I managed not to notice this until now, but I did.
I have to say, these plans are quite impressive. I like them. Having elevated tracks at Union Station makes sense when you consider the space restrictions and the alternatives.
I don't think you would want a new station to be built just for CAHSR. Logically, you would want to be able to make transfers from Metrolink or from Metro Rail to CAHSR easily, and you would be able to do that better at Union Station.
At the same time, you don't want to mess with the classic station. While I admire the Japanese train system, I wouldn't want to do at Union Station what they did at Tokyo Station. I don't know the details of how they did it, but you can tell to look at it: they had a classic design with a lot of brickwork, but they also had limited space to expand the station. They essentially gutted the station, left the facade standing and modernized the station in the style of pretty much all Japanese train stations (i.e., lots of tracks, lots of shops, a department store, etc.).
(Note that I visited Japan several times before I realized that Tokyo Station even had a historic side to it. You arrive by subway or by train, you leave by train without even walking outside!)
You would never get away with that here, at least not to the oldest parts of the station. The east portal obviously lacks the historic heritage and could be tinkered with however they want.
There is a certain coolness factor to having high-speed trains and commuter trains side-by-side, like the Shinkansen and Yamanote trains in Tokyo, but obviously under the circumstances this would be impossible.
If I'm reading the documents correctly, it looks like there are many places where Metrolink trains and CAHSR tracks will be side-by-side, so future railfans will have plenty of opportunities to watch CAHSR speed past the slower trains....
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jun 17, 2009 15:36:08 GMT -8
this is amazing. god i hope this is not only a pipe dream
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jun 17, 2009 15:52:20 GMT -8
James, during the last board meeting the CHSRA heard a presentation of the Alternatives Analysis report from the engineers who worked on it.
They said that the aerial station above the current tracks would not be visible by people on the street looking at the front of Union Station on the Alameda St. side. That way, it would not impact the historical portion of Union Station.
I couldn't care less if it impacts Patsouras Plaza.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 18, 2009 2:07:29 GMT -8
James, during the last board meeting the CHSRA heard a presentation of the Alternatives Analysis report from the engineers who worked on it. They said that the aerial station above the current tracks would not be visible by people on the street looking at the front of Union Station on the Alameda St. side. That way, it would not impact the historical portion of Union Station. I'm not surprised. Honestly, you'd have to do a lot of damage to impact the historical portion of Union Station. Even the water building to the south and the apartments to the north don't significantly change the look and feel of the place. The front entrance is fairly large and impressive in its own right, and the tall ceilings mean that you can't easily see around or over it. The waiting room area also provides a buffer between the front of the structure and the existing tracks behind it (which are, of course, invisible when viewed from the perspective Alameda). Clearly, the elevated tracks represent the best possible compromise: they want to install more tracks than they currently have room for at the station. To make more room for tracks, you'd either have to expand horizontally (potentially knocking down some of the existing station - not very likely) or expand vertically, which is the direction that they are going. Like I said in my previous message, it makes sense to have the elevated tracks at Union Station. Hopefully, they would do something about the east portal, which always looked half-finished to me — as if they intended to have a second pedestrian corridor, above the tracks, in addition to the tunnel beneath. With elevated tracks, there would finally be a chance to "finish" the job. I'd love to see the architectural illustrations for a project like this.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jun 18, 2009 10:07:27 GMT -8
Honestly, you'd have to do a lot of damage to impact the historical portion of Union Station. Even the water building to the south and the apartments to the north don't significantly change the look and feel of the place. Link to Google Street View: tinyurl.com/llexvjPersonally, I think the architect of this building should be taken out and shot for designing a building that belongs in an suburban industrial track and placing it in front of one of L.A.'s greatest cultural landmarks. I don't know if there was an architectural review committee/board reviewing this project but if there was they were clearly asleep at the conference room table. It is not pedestrian friendly. They have built a cold three story wall along Alameda. Walking along the public street you feel like your walking in the back of building and like you as a pedestrian should not be there. It's uncomfortable, unwelcoming and unsightly. I know other buildings are not in keeping with the Mission revival theme of Union Station but this building takes the cake in terms of being out of place. It has more in common with a prison then the historic landmark it partially cuts off from view of the street. I have hated it since it's completion in 04 or 05. The apartments/condos on the opposite end of the lot are a huge missed opportunity for ground floor retail and amenities but at least they are visually appealing as a whole. The ground floor of these structures consist of a parking garage. A clearly automobile centric development in a location prime for pedestrian and public transportation activity. The project location is sandwiched between Union Station (Red, Purple, Gold, Amtrack, Metrolink and numerous bus lines) and the historic pedestrian friendly Olvera Street. Clearly the primeness of their locations completely failed the planners of this project by making the preponderance of their ground floor a place to store automobiles. :*S Fired all of them, they should be.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 18, 2009 14:09:53 GMT -8
well, admittedly, the new buildings aren't perfect. the walk from Little Tokyo north on Alameda to Union Station is just one architectural disaster after another. thank goodness the Eastside Gold Line is going to make that journey much easier.
but, if you're headed for Union Station, there is a sidewalk that cuts through so you don't have to walk on the Alameda street side. the bigger MWD HQ building is much better than the one in front.
and I do agree that the Union Station area could always use more shops or restaurants. I'm not sure where you would put them since Traxx and Union Bagel monopolize what little retail space you have inside the station itself.
perhaps when they add the elevated tracks, that is an issue that can be addressed.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jun 18, 2009 15:22:11 GMT -8
and I do agree that the Union Station area could always use more shops or restaurants. I'm not sure where you would put them since Traxx and Union Bagel monopolize what little retail space you have inside the station itself. perhaps when they add the elevated tracks, that is an issue that can be addressed. Well, converting the ground floor of of the condos to commercial and pushing limited parking to the area behind Union Station and the Gold Line tracks here: maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Union+Station,&sll=34.056603,-118.235099&sspn=0.000517,0.001218&ie=UTF8&t=h&radius=0.03&rq=1&ll=34.056563,-118.235153&spn=0.000544,0.001218&z=20 If I was king of Los Angeles and money wasn't a factor (which I am not and money is) I would combine the plaza to the east of Olvera St, the band shell to the south, the small park across the street and the parking in front of Union Station into a single park. I would make Los Angeles Street end on the south side of the 101 and make the Los Angeles Street 101 bridge into a large pedestrian plaza bridge thereby connecting the park, Olvera and Uniion to downtown L.A. in a simply awesome manner. I would then truncate the 101 onramp so it doesn't take up such a huge unnecessary footprint and finally put a green cap over a portion of Alameda to connect unify the whole thing. Alameda sits at the base of a hill so the cap doesn't involve lowering Alameda very much.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 19, 2009 2:45:30 GMT -8
I love your idea but I think we might be starting to get a little bit off track here.
what I will say is this: we can't too much about what has already been built in the area. one of the challenges that CAHSR will face (indeed, one of the challenges that ALL rail transit in California faces) is that we are building into neighborhoods that are largely developed and built out, and not necessarily built in such a way that it satisfies our desires.
however, I do think that CAHSR presents an opportunity to take what we have and play with it a little. San Francisco is going for a radical redesign with the new Transbay Terminal idea; we are a bit more constrained by what we already have.
even within these limits, however, I would hope that CAHSR would inspire some improvements to the station (sounds like an oxymoron, but I'm talking about the areas that people are less sentimental about).
it would be a shame if we decide we're ONLY going to build a high-speed line and don't take full advantage of the possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 19, 2009 14:43:25 GMT -8
Downtown needs several major changes. Connecting Union Station to Olvera Street (I should say, reconnecting them, given the area's history) would be a high priority for me, but unfortunately I don't see this happening any time soon.
Other priorities in Downtown include: (1) restoring the river, (2) capping the 101, (3) capping the 110, (4) redoing the Grand Avenue overpass (over 4th Street) as a scenic bridge.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 19, 2009 16:25:46 GMT -8
Downtown needs several major changes. Connecting Union Station to Olvera Street (I should say, reconnecting them, given the area's history) would be a high priority for me, but unfortunately I don't see this happening any time soon. Other priorities in Downtown include: (1) restoring the river, (2) capping the 101, (3) capping the 110, (4) redoing the Grand Avenue overpass (over 4th Street) as a scenic bridge. Not sure what you mean by connecting Union Station to Olvera Street? You go out the front door of Union Station and cross Alameda where there is a relatively new entryway to the Pueblo and you are there. Short of closing Alameda, which would be impossible not sure what else can be done in a major way. There can always be improved signage and sidewalks, but that is about it.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Aug 24, 2009 16:38:56 GMT -8
Tuesday, August 25, join us at the Transit Coalition Dinner meeting for a report on the progress of High Speed Rail from Anaheim to Los Angeles Union Station.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 25, 2009 12:32:40 GMT -8
Tuesday, August 25, join us at the Transit Coalition Dinner meeting for a report on the progress of High Speed Rail from Anaheim to Los Angeles Union Station. It is too bad I cannot attend these meetings. It would be interesting to know if there are any thoughts on the Anaheim to LA section being the first to get started under construction and if so when could it actually get started (sounds like 2012). I really think if this section could be up and running it would show the skeptics that HSR can work as it would be heavily used by commuters. Everyone thinks HSR is just to get people between SF and LA, but it isn't really that at all. On another note, I'd really like to see the MTA push for a Norwalk stop instead of the potential Fullerton stop. With Norwalk, we could eventually see a Green Line extension connecting here and then we would have a vital regional link set up. This isn't discussed enough at all.
|
|
|
Post by losangeles2319 on Aug 25, 2009 21:01:30 GMT -8
According to Metro.net, the station in-between Los Angeles and Anaheim is Norwalk. Is that just a suggestion then?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 25, 2009 22:24:21 GMT -8
According to Metro.net, the station in-between Los Angeles and Anaheim is Norwalk. Is that just a suggestion then? I think it will likely be Norwalk, but it is not set in stone.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Aug 25, 2009 22:42:57 GMT -8
Before the LA-Anaheim Alternatives Analysis report the setup that was put out there was a station at Norwalk and Anaheim.
However, the CHSRA has claimed that there was support for a Fullerton stop, but that it had many issues to be worked out first, and they are studying it more. After all, it's a historic station. The Fullerton Chamber of Commerce opposed a Fullerton stop by the way, per the old DerailHSR site which is now decommissioned.
Now it seems that the "battle" for a station is between Norwalk and Fullerton. The Anaheim stop is a done deal and won't change, of course, barring any major issues. After all, ARTIC is becoming a big deal.
I personally do not think Fullerton will be a stop. It's already pretty close to Anaheim. Shrug.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Aug 25, 2009 22:52:13 GMT -8
Anyway, that was some meeting. Combine some unsuspecting PR people, a hot room above a restaurant and a bunch of transit boosters and you've got a show.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 26, 2009 9:13:44 GMT -8
Spokker, I was at the meeting too. After the meeting I thought of a question that I should have asked the guy who was frothing at the mouth about the HSR plan being too expensive.
Q: Why is it that every other country that is building trains now is building high speed (i.e. >170mph) systems versus lower speed (i.e. <140mph) systems?
Maybe all those other countries are just stupid, and he realizes that and is trying to get us to see the light? I think the results from the ridership of the Spanish system speak for themselves, in terms of what ridership will be like in California if a similar system is built here.
Bart should have asked for a show of hands, and seen how many supported the current plan versus what the frothing guy was proposing.
RT
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Aug 26, 2009 11:43:33 GMT -8
The current plan isn't perfect, and the guy makes some very good points. I had a great conversation with him afterward.
But it's all about the incrementalist approach vs. the all-out bullet train approach. The TGV approach vs. the Shinkansen approach.
However, I just don't think we can do shared trackage with big, heavy freights/Metrolink/Surfliner and lightweight electric trains. In Europe the TGV shares track with other electric trains, right? I fear that if we did shared trackage here, we might end up with another Acela.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 26, 2009 14:33:12 GMT -8
In Europe the TGV shares track with other electric trains, right? I fear that if we did shared trackage here, we might end up with another Acela. I have a TGV video that I purchased quite awhile back. They showed the TGV running full speed from Paris to LeMans, and then on to other cities at slower speeds, with the final leg being to a small coastal city whose name I don't remember, at a leisurely 80mph. I surmised at the time that the TGV train just slowed down when it reached the portions of track that had not yet/ever been converted to high speed operation. Presumably, the tracks had already been there supporting lower speed service all along. It isn't clear to me if they used the same tracks for electrified freight or not. I believe the basic idea was that if the TGV trains could use the older tracks to complete a trip that would otherwise require a transfer, it made more sense to do it that way. Much more convenient for the passengers. A similar situation here doesn't pop into my head, since there is practically no pre-existing electrified older tracks in place. If Caltrain were already electrified from San Jose to SF, then the HSR could certainly then jump onto the existing tracks for the last part of the journey. The difference between there and the French situation is that SF is the primary destination, not some far flung fishing village. Maybe if the SMART train actually ran into SF, and was electrified, you could then run a couple HSRs per day all the way up to Cloverdale for those going there from SoCal. Then at some point in the distant future, well after the current system is complete, you would have the option of upgrading the tracks and catenary to run the HSR trains at full speed, since you already have the ROW and the stations present. Thats a lot of if's and mostly groundless speculation though The one part of what the guy was saying that I am in agreement with, is that given the cost of laying track, especially high speed track, you want to make the best use of both it and any legacy tracks still in place. Given the *tremendous* advances in communication technology and signaling, I see no reason to limit HSR trains to their own "sandbox", as long as you can insure that there are no accidents. If France can do it, so can we. The FRA rules might just have to be modified to reflect the current state of technology. But since there are practically no already existing tracks like I mentioned, its almost a moot point. RubberToe
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 27, 2009 11:33:14 GMT -8
I'm sorry I missed the meeting. It sounds like it was fun But seriously, I couldn't agree more with the previous posters. An incrementalist approach might work here IF you have the electrified tracks in place, IF you could get rid of the ancient FRA requirements... if, if, if, if! it's interesting to note that even in Japan, where they really did take a great leap forward when they built the Tokaido Shinkansen, that the government was already engaged in improving and electrifying all of the rail lines that weren't already electrified at the time that they were building their HSR. some lines were electrified way back in the 1920s and '30s (the private commuter lines were often early adopters) and some were electrified after the war. in some cases, they went straight from steam to electric... very few diesel trains to speak of anywhere, except for a few isolated pockets far from the urban core... the result is that the Yamanote or Chuo lines are completely separate from the Shinkansen, but they still accelerate like nobody's business. I would love to see something like that happen with Metrolink here, but with limited funds (and the FRA's "heavy=safe" rules), the top priority should really be CalHSR.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Apr 3, 2010 23:01:15 GMT -8
Looks like a bit more trouble for this segment of the project. You don't get Leahy, Katz and Kempton and the rest of the southern CA officials piling on, unless something is really bad.... ( Art Leahy audio added) Los Angeles Times: Sunday, April 4, 2010Bullet train plan under fire from local transit leadersRather than expanding and sharing existing lines, the California High-Speed Rail Authority wants to build its own, dedicated track. L.A. and O.C. officials say that would be too costly and disruptive.
By Dan Weikel and Rich Connell Staff Writers Transit executives from Los Angeles and Orange counties are pressing officials with the state's high-speed rail project to consider resurrecting a plan to share existing track between Anaheim and downtown L.A.'s Union Station. The idea was considered and discarded by the California High-Speed Rail Authority in 2008, but key local leaders now believe it could save up to $2 billion and avoid the need to condemn hundreds of homes and businesses. Bullet train officials have been pursuing the more costly and disruptive option of adding their own, exclusive tracks and widening sections of the 34-mile route through the region's dense industrial and residential core. The existing corridor is used by Metrolink and Amtrak passenger trains as well as freight carriers. The bid to revisit a simpler approach reflects growing concern about escalating costs, impacts on communities along the route and frustration with the state agency's planning process. In unusually blunt language, Art Leahy, chief executive of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, criticized the high-speed train project before a group of Southern California city and rail officials last month. "We are big-time unhappy with the conduct of the high-speed authority," Leahy told the officials who oversee the Los Angeles-to-San Diego train corridor. "I really can't understand their approach," he said. "In many cases they've ridden roughshod over the host of cities in Orange County and in Los Angeles. They have ignored input and there are assumptions that are just astonishing." Among other things, Leahy questioned designing the system to run trains every five minutes. "That's extraordinary," he said. And widening the corridor to add dedicated bullet train tracks could require taking out hundreds of homes in Anaheim alone, he noted. "I mean, just crazy stuff," he said, according to a recording of the session obtained by The Times. If the planning process does not become more rational, Leahy warned, "I don't think there is going to be a project." In a March 23 letter to the bullet train authority, and in an interview with The Times last week, Leahy was more measured, stressing the need for better coordination between state and local officials and more integration with existing rail services. The letter was also signed by Will Kempton, chief executive of the Orange County Transportation Authority. High-speed rail officials said they have sought comment from communities over the years and note that some conflict over decisions is to be expected on such a massive project. They say they continue to welcome suggestions and will consider the local officials' request and a more formal joint planning partnership at their meeting next week. A bullet train spokesman also noted that the shared-use option had been previously considered. "This obviously is something we studied for a long time," said Jeff Barker, the agency's deputy executive director. "At the time, it looked like we couldn't get enough train tracks in the corridor" for high-speed rail trains and all of the existing freight and passenger service. How the Los Angeles-Anaheim segment unfolds in terms of public and political acceptance, as well as cost and passenger service, is important because it will be one of the first and most heavily used legs of an eventual 800-mile system stretching from San Diego to San Francisco. Projections place the cost of the Anaheim to San Francisco first phase at about $45 billion, although critics say that is likely to rise. Trains would exceed 200 mph on some stretches, and planners say a trip between Los Angeles and San Francisco could take as little as two hours and 38 minutes. Trains in the Los Angeles-Anaheim corridor are likely to travel slower, but still shave 15 to 20 minutes off a comparable commuter rail trip. But as plans for expanding the corridor have advanced, and $2.25 billion in federal stimulus money has made the start of local construction likely in two years, the project has begun attracting intensified scrutiny. "Now having gotten an idea of the project's impacts, it has given us some pause," Kempton said in an interview. "It makes sense to take another look." Adding separate high-speed rail track, and potentially having to take hundreds of pieces of private property, has helped double cost projections for the L.A.-Anaheim segment to about $4.5 billion. The need for separate, dedicated tracks rests partly on ridership and train frequency assumptions, both of which are being increasingly questioned, even by some project supporters. Designing a system capable of running trains every few minutes is required by voter-approved state law, officials say. And Barker said his agency is confident in its ridership projections, noting that they are being reviewed by experts at UC Berkeley. Some critics worry that beginning with the L.A.-Anaheim segment will duplicate existing Metrolink and Amtrak service, both of which have the potential to go 110 mph if improvements are made. It "isn't practical," said Michael McGinley, who previously headed Metrolink's engineering department and has worked on the local high-speed rail project as a consultant. "The first $4 billion should not be spent on that little spur. It overlaps and competes with an existing service." Richard Katz, an influential Los Angeles transportation official who recently joined the high-speed rail board, is among those pressing less costly design models. "You've got to be realistic and take a hard look at what the demand is" between Los Angeles and Anaheim, said Katz, a former state Assembly leader who also sits on the MTA and Metrolink boards. Up to $2 billion might be trimmed from the local segment's costs by improving and sharing existing track wherever possible, Katz and Kempton said. Leahy, who sees great potential benefit in the bullet train project, said he is confident high-speed rail and other services can operate safely on shared track. The current bullet train plans would cause severe problems for seven cities, said Richard R. Powers of the Gateway Cities Council of Governments, a coalition of Los Angeles-area municipalities. He complained that the group's concerns have been largely ignored since 2004. A formal cooperation agreement was reached only recently, he said. "Now we have a constructive dialogue that we should have had years ago."
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Apr 5, 2010 21:06:33 GMT -8
Looks like a bit more trouble for this segment of the project. You don't get Leahy, Katz and Kempton and the rest of the southern CA officials piling on, unless something is really bad.... ( Art Leahy audio added) Los Angeles Times: Sunday, April 4, 2010Bullet train plan under fire from local transit leadersRather than expanding and sharing existing lines, the California High-Speed Rail Authority wants to build its own, dedicated track. L.A. and O.C. officials say that would be too costly and disruptive.
By Dan Weikel and Rich Connell Staff Writers Transit executives from Los Angeles and Orange counties are pressing officials with the state's high-speed rail project to consider resurrecting a plan to share existing track between Anaheim and downtown L.A.'s Union Station. The idea was considered and discarded by the California High-Speed Rail Authority in 2008, but key local leaders now believe it could save up to $2 billion and avoid the need to condemn hundreds of homes and businesses. Bullet train officials have been pursuing the more costly and disruptive option of adding their own, exclusive tracks and widening sections of the 34-mile route through the region's dense industrial and residential core. The existing corridor is used by Metrolink and Amtrak passenger trains as well as freight carriers. The bid to revisit a simpler approach reflects growing concern about escalating costs, impacts on communities along the route and frustration with the state agency's planning process. In unusually blunt language, Art Leahy, chief executive of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, criticized the high-speed train project before a group of Southern California city and rail officials last month. "We are big-time unhappy with the conduct of the high-speed authority," Leahy told the officials who oversee the Los Angeles-to-San Diego train corridor. "I really can't understand their approach," he said. "In many cases they've ridden roughshod over the host of cities in Orange County and in Los Angeles. They have ignored input and there are assumptions that are just astonishing." Among other things, Leahy questioned designing the system to run trains every five minutes. "That's extraordinary," he said. And widening the corridor to add dedicated bullet train tracks could require taking out hundreds of homes in Anaheim alone, he noted. "I mean, just crazy stuff," he said, according to a recording of the session obtained by The Times. If the planning process does not become more rational, Leahy warned, "I don't think there is going to be a project." In a March 23 letter to the bullet train authority, and in an interview with The Times last week, Leahy was more measured, stressing the need for better coordination between state and local officials and more integration with existing rail services. The letter was also signed by Will Kempton, chief executive of the Orange County Transportation Authority. High-speed rail officials said they have sought comment from communities over the years and note that some conflict over decisions is to be expected on such a massive project. They say they continue to welcome suggestions and will consider the local officials' request and a more formal joint planning partnership at their meeting next week. A bullet train spokesman also noted that the shared-use option had been previously considered. "This obviously is something we studied for a long time," said Jeff Barker, the agency's deputy executive director. "At the time, it looked like we couldn't get enough train tracks in the corridor" for high-speed rail trains and all of the existing freight and passenger service. How the Los Angeles-Anaheim segment unfolds in terms of public and political acceptance, as well as cost and passenger service, is important because it will be one of the first and most heavily used legs of an eventual 800-mile system stretching from San Diego to San Francisco. Projections place the cost of the Anaheim to San Francisco first phase at about $45 billion, although critics say that is likely to rise. Trains would exceed 200 mph on some stretches, and planners say a trip between Los Angeles and San Francisco could take as little as two hours and 38 minutes. Trains in the Los Angeles-Anaheim corridor are likely to travel slower, but still shave 15 to 20 minutes off a comparable commuter rail trip. But as plans for expanding the corridor have advanced, and $2.25 billion in federal stimulus money has made the start of local construction likely in two years, the project has begun attracting intensified scrutiny. "Now having gotten an idea of the project's impacts, it has given us some pause," Kempton said in an interview. "It makes sense to take another look." Adding separate high-speed rail track, and potentially having to take hundreds of pieces of private property, has helped double cost projections for the L.A.-Anaheim segment to about $4.5 billion. The need for separate, dedicated tracks rests partly on ridership and train frequency assumptions, both of which are being increasingly questioned, even by some project supporters. Designing a system capable of running trains every few minutes is required by voter-approved state law, officials say. And Barker said his agency is confident in its ridership projections, noting that they are being reviewed by experts at UC Berkeley. Some critics worry that beginning with the L.A.-Anaheim segment will duplicate existing Metrolink and Amtrak service, both of which have the potential to go 110 mph if improvements are made. It "isn't practical," said Michael McGinley, who previously headed Metrolink's engineering department and has worked on the local high-speed rail project as a consultant. "The first $4 billion should not be spent on that little spur. It overlaps and competes with an existing service." Richard Katz, an influential Los Angeles transportation official who recently joined the high-speed rail board, is among those pressing less costly design models. "You've got to be realistic and take a hard look at what the demand is" between Los Angeles and Anaheim, said Katz, a former state Assembly leader who also sits on the MTA and Metrolink boards. Up to $2 billion might be trimmed from the local segment's costs by improving and sharing existing track wherever possible, Katz and Kempton said. Leahy, who sees great potential benefit in the bullet train project, said he is confident high-speed rail and other services can operate safely on shared track. The current bullet train plans would cause severe problems for seven cities, said Richard R. Powers of the Gateway Cities Council of Governments, a coalition of Los Angeles-area municipalities. He complained that the group's concerns have been largely ignored since 2004. A formal cooperation agreement was reached only recently, he said. "Now we have a constructive dialogue that we should have had years ago." For those that want to hear what Art Leahy told the LOSSAN Board in just plain blunt language, The clip is here.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Apr 6, 2010 16:15:34 GMT -8
"Leahy, who sees great potential benefit in the bullet train project, said he is confident high-speed rail and other services can operate safely on shared track."
I thought that one of the primary obstacles to running the HSR trains on non-exclusive tracks was that they would need to be FRA compliant. Doesn't that mean heavy/slow i.e. Acela?
I spent a lot of time reading through the HSR blog by Cruickshank back when prop 1A was being debated. I have to say that this kind of "nickel-and-diming" this early in the project is exactly the kind of thing that will doom it to fail.
Gee, we can save $2 billion by using freight train tracks between LA and Anaheim. Maybe we can save even more by using freight train tracks between LA and Burbank too. Maybe we can save a few extra $ by leaving that one stretch of single track "as is" so we don't have to eminent domain 10 single family homes in city XYZ. After about 10 of these kinds of tradeoffs, you essentially have defeated the whole purpose of building the system to begin with, which is safe high speed service between Anaheim and SF. Or you have completely dropped the whole thing.
I'm not saying that $2 billion dollars is a trivial amount of money to spend, but I would rather see the system built right and cost more than build a system that is doomed to fail (i.e. low ridership due to poor planning choices).
Bart, you seem very skeptical of the current HSR implementation plan, if not California HSR in general. Can you point me to a post or article where you articulate exactly why it is that you have this position? I support the concept in general, and spent many hours putting up lawn signs around the city in support of prop 1A. If there is some fundamental reason why the current plan is completely off track I would like to be enlightened.
RT
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 7, 2010 18:18:47 GMT -8
I think California HSR could be a huge benefit to Caltrain, BART, Metrolink and Metro if built right. In Northern California, HSR will be building grade-separations for 4 tracks to serve both the long-distance, 125 mph high speed trains, and local 110 mph electric regional rail trains run by Caltrain. Unfortunately, the current plans have 2 tracks for CAHSR and 2 for caltrain; a better system would let the "express" tracks be shared by Caltrain limited-stop service. But at least Caltrain will be get an exclusive, grade-separated right-of-way, sufficient to run 2 dozen local-stop trains per hour if they want, and even more with limited-stop trains, if HSR will share their two tracks too. Freight trains would only run at night, when the passenger trains are not running, so light weight, fast trains can be used by CAHSR and Caltrain Her is Southern California, the LOSSAN corridor and the route from Palmadale to Union station are also shared with frequent freight trains currently, which makes things trickier. However, the last plans I saw called for the Metrolink / Freight tracks to be grade-separated by elevating or depressing the road the currently cross at grade, in most cases. So both the 2 new tracks for CAHSR and the current tracks would be grade-separated, for most of the route. Unfortunately, the section leaving Union Station, and another section just south of Downtown LA is too narrow, and HSR tracks would be elevated by themselves. But generally Metrolink trains would be separated from car traffic all the way to Anaheim. In Anaheim, the corridor is very narrow, and a few houses built in the 1980s right up to the track (stupid, stupid, stupid...) would lose backyards, and a couple would have to be torn down, along with several warehouses and businesses. The alternative is a very expensive tunnel (hence the doubling in cost estimates), to save a few houses, or CAHSR could share the current tracks with Metrolink, Amtrak and Freight. The catch: Metrolink has no money and no developed plans for electrification (Unlike Caltrain, which almost has an approved EIR and is basically "shovel-ready" for electrification and new trains over the next 10 years). So Metrolink, like California Amtrak, is stuck using heavy, "FRA-compliant" trains for the next decade or longer. These diesel trains can't accelerate or reach top speeds like modern HSR trains, and would seriously slow down HSR trains between Anaheim and LA. Also, the Federal Railroad Administration has no regulation that allow heavy FRA-compliant trains and light electric trains to share tracks at the same time of day. According to this document: www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1315_7191.pdfCurrent plans for Metrolink and Amtrak and BNSF freight call for over 300 trains per day on the LA to Fullerton segment of track by 2025. That's 12 per hour, or one every 5 minutes. If Metrolink proves more popular than expected, or if CAHSR is as popular as their studies project, there won't be room for enough extra trains on the existing tracks north of Fullerton. There is only one track thru Anaheim, so that won't be enough, either. Perhaps Metrolink, Amtrak, BNSF and CAHSR can work out a solition with 2 more tracks shared by all services. But the FRA would have to approve this, and they are notoriously conservative and have zero experience with high speed rail. That's why CAHSR has been planning not to share any track with freight or heavy commuter trains, from what I've read. I think CAHSR is going to be a bigger success than most people suspect, if it is built right. The section between LA and OC could theoretically work if shared with an electrified Metrolink and Pacific Surfliner, if freight trains can be kept at night or on an extra track. But I understand why the high speed rail planners think they need two new tracks to meet the expected demand. I hope they can work out a solution which doesn't involve an unnecessary, billion-dollar tunnel or slow, Acela-style trains.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 7, 2010 18:25:29 GMT -8
If we can't work out a solution, an alterative would be to build the SF to LA tracks right away, starting with the central valley so we can use all the stimulus money, and continuing to the tunnels thru the tehachapi pass and the pacheco pass as soon as possible. Once Californians have a chance to ride the trains from Nor Cal to So Cal in 2 and 3/4 hours, San Diego, OC and Sacramento will be begging for extensions as soon as possible. I know Anaheim will be a popular destination, and that 20 minute ride to Downtown LA would get thousands of commuters off of I-5 every day, but if we can't build it right, we should not build it wrong now.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 7, 2010 18:50:31 GMT -8
To clarify things, an satellite overview of the LOSSAN corridor from LA Union Station to Anaheim shows that there are 3 or 4 tracks along the LA River (actually there are even more in that section), thru parts of Fullerton north of 91, and that the right-of-way is wide enough for 4 tracks almost everywhere, except for 1) the run-thru tracks south of Union Station (there is no right of way there, currently, but it is doable), 2) the junction where the LOSSAN goes east from the LA river, 3) thru some industrial areas of Buena Park and Santa Fe Springs (no residential houses or condos would be effected), and 4) South of Fullerton thru Anahiem. This last section is the real problem, as others have mentioned. It only has one track now, and part of the right-of-way was sold at some point in the past for houses and businesses, as far as I can tell. Spokker made a Google Maps edit which shows the half-dozen houses that would lose yards or structures in this area: maps.google.com/maps/ms?oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=111791154239862255567.00047db900d7af3d6266a&t=h&ll=33.824785,-117.901985&spn=0.00121,0.00283&z=19 For more, read this post at CAHSR blog: www.cahsrblog.com/2009/12/fullerton-to-anaheim-artic/
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 7, 2010 20:21:20 GMT -8
My map was based on the alternatives analysis report from the original post in this thread.
Since then, recent meetings have suggested that the planned corridor through Anaheim has gotten wider because the CHSRA thinks they will need these big crash barriers for 110 MPH trains. That means more eminent domain, of course.
I don't know, I'm leaning more toward a shared track alternative now. HSR is important but people ride Amtrak and Metrolink too. They're not dog crap. Improve all three services and you might see a huge jump in ridership because they all do different things and are coming from and going to different places.
They could add a track and keep the freight and passenger trains separate, and I think advanced signaling would keep the heavier passenger trains from hitting the lighter ones. My only worry is that the FRA will muck it up.
|
|