New shared-track alternative for bullet train minimizes costs, eminent domain but reduces future service between Los Angeles and Anaheim
Submitted by Steven on 8 July, 2010 - 3:52pm
The California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) Authority met today and released a supplemental alternative analysis for the tracks between Los Angeles and Anaheim. They did this after a year of conducting meetings among railroad companies, city planners, and — of course — vociferous homeowners such as the tense, angry Anaheim folks I saw that attended a high-speed rail meeting. In a nutshell:
- 2 mainline dedicated passenger tracks between Fullerton Junction and Commerce (largely within the existing 3-Track BNSF right-of-way).
- 2 existing at-grade shared-use tracks within the OCTA right-of-way from Fullerton Junction to the new ARTIC terminal in Anaheim. These are called "shared-use" because they plan to let both passenger and freight trains that are "temporally separated" run on these.
Doing this alternative — as opposed to building new dedicated bullet train tracks — unfortunately will cut the number of bullet trains that can run from 5 to 3 bullet trains per hour. This arrangement will require that Metrolink runs about 3-4 trains per hour and Amtrak runs 1 train per hour. Also, all trains — including the bullet trains — will be maxed out at 90 mph to prevent train conflicts (or "overtakes" in train parlance). Here's a map of the area:
I personally can't believe that OCTA is honestly going to try and squeeze Metrolink, Amtrak, CAHSR, and freight onto 2 lines. In New York, some corridors run 8 tracks of passenger trains, and when an accident on one track happens, it wreaks havoc on a lot of people's commutes. Imagine if one track gets shut down.
The good news: it'll cost less to build because fewer homes will be taken, and the Federal Railroad Administration recently allowed a similar arrangement to occur for Caltrain, a 2- to 3-track railroad on the San Francisco Peninsula, to allow them to run "mixed-use" passenger train service. Caltrain can now plan to run lighter, more sleeker electrified trains.
Their documents are unfortunately buried in their website; you can read their Press Release after the break, take a look at the Los Angeles to Anaheim presentation, alternative report, recommendations presentation, and their briefing memo.
....and more visuals. Here's a map of the Anaheim study area in particular:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 8, 2010
California High-Speed Rail Authority Okays Study Of Shared-Track Option On Los Angeles To Anaheim Run
LOS ANGELES – Working in cooperation with regional transportation officials, the California High-Speed Rail Authority moved ahead with environmental work on a plan to share tracks with Metrolink and Amtrak trains between Los Angeles and Anaheim.
While still in its early stages, the plan could allow high-speed rail to operate in the narrow and heavily trafficked corridor with a minimum of disruption to neighborhoods and property owners nearby, potentially saving substantial property acquisition costs.
“We are making good progress, in large part because of the close partnerships we have created with local and regional transportation officials,” said Curt Pringle, Chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. “We all see the value of working together to create a system that provides Californians with jobs, economic opportunity and a cheaper, faster and more convenient way to get where they are going.”
Los Angeles to Anaheim
The Board voted to approve a Supplemental Alternatives Analysis for the Los Angeles to Anaheim section of the project which recommended that environmental and preliminary engineering studies continue for both a shared-track system, on which high-speed, commuter and Amtrak trains would travel, and for a dedicated-track system devoted exclusively to high-speed trains.
The Authority renewed its investigation of a shared-track alternative in response to interest from local officials and a change in policy by the Federal Railway Administration. The shared-track proposal would greatly reduce the need to purchase property, potentially saving significant right-of-way acquisition costs for the project.
The shared-track proposal calls for two new tracks to be built and shared among the passenger services in the region – Amtrak, Metrolink and High-Speed Rail – with trains traveling a maximum speed of 90 mph. Three existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe freight tracks in the region would continue to carry a small number of Metrolink and Amtrak trains.
The shared-track plans call for up to three high-speed trains through the region per hour, two fewer than projected in the dedicated-track alternative, resulting in a 3.5 percent decrease in projected ridership.
The analysis calls for continued study of stations in both Fullerton and Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs, though only one station is likely to be included in final plans for the project. The analysis also calls for further study of new at-grade train platforms at both Los Angeles Union Station and at the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center.
Los Angeles to Palmdale
The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis calls for continuing to study a number of possible alternatives for this segment of the project, including tunnels or covered trenches to minimize disruption of parks, neighborhoods and the Los Angeles River between Union Station and State Route 2 in Glendale.
Through the San Fernando Valley, the analysis calls for high-speed trains to run within the Metrolink corridor, sharing the right of way. Trains would travel at-grade, elevated on viaduct or in a trench to separate the tracks from street traffic.
Stations stops in the San Fernando Valley for further study include four different locations: near the Burbank Airport, near Branford Street and the Tujunga Wash in Pacoima, near the 118 Freeway and the Pacoima Wash, and near Maclay Street in San Fernando. The study recommends that one stop be selected.
Through the mountains to Palmdale alignment options will run close to State Highway 14, entering Palmdale along two possible alignments, one following the Union Pacific right of way from Palmdale Lake and another option to the west of Palmdale Lake. Both options will include stops near the Palmdale Airport.
Palmdale to Bakersfield
The Authority’s Board of Directors also received a report on initial alternatives being considered for the project from Bakersfield to Palmdale, which recommended further study of several alternative alignments through Lancaster, Tehachapi, Mojave and Edison.
In addition, Chairman Pringle and Vice-Chair Tom Umberg were re-elected to their respective leadership positions. Vice-Chair Umberg attended Thursday's meeting in person after returning to California from military service in Afghanistan.
Contact:
Rachel Wall
rwall@hsr.ca.gov
Comments
Instead of complaining about
Instead of complaining about going from a possible 5 trains per hour to 3, consider that 3 trains per hour is a huge improvement over what we have now. Essentially, 20 minute headways on the LA-Anaheim corridor, plus whatever Metrolink and Amtrak do, is going to make the corridor much more attractive (Personally, I think two trains per hour would be just fine).
Adding two tracks boosts the total capacity of the corridor substantially. Getting as many passenger trains off of BNSF's ass as possible makes them happy.
It doesn't make much sense to worry about top speed on this segment. The key is sustaining top speeds for a longer period of time. Today we have a top speed of 79 MPH but based it fluctuates during the trip a lot. Another great thing is that two dedicated HSR tracks may improve reliability.
"I personally can't believe that OCTA is honestly going to try and squeeze Metrolink, Amtrak, CAHSR, and freight onto 2 lines."
There is not much freight between Anaheim and Fullerton. It's LA-Fullerton that is part of BNSF's transcontinental route.
"Imagine if one track gets shut down."
What happens now? You route trains around it. No big deal.
Agree with you
I agree that whatever they do is an improvement over the status quo. Also, this is much less politically risky than getting real dedicated tracks, which may embolden Anaheim homeowners to band together and try to kill the project — much like what cities along the San Francisco Peninsula are trying to do (I think they're suing the high-speed rail authority, or were planning to at least... don't know off the top of my head).
Oh, boy, something else for
Oh, boy, something else for Metrolink to crash into!
Number of Tracks
Steven:
Your post is a little misleading. You should stress that there will be FIVE tracks on the BNSF right-of-way between Redondo Jct. and Fullerton.
-The three BNSF tracks would be used by BNSF freight trains, of course, and by 32 Metrolink 91 Line trains and Amtrak's Southwest Chief.
-The two new passenger tracks would only be used by high-speed trains, Metrolink, and Amtrak.
Inclusion of this shared-track alternative is a monumental step for the high-speed project. Unlike on the SF Peninsula, we now have consensus between all parties involved: the high-speed rail authority, project engineers, Metro, OCTA, Amtrak, Metrolink, BNSF, and all the cities along the alignment. Importantly, this consensus has been achieved without giving up meaningful elements of the high-speed project.
HSR to Anaheim
The question that needs to be asked is: Why is there a HSR to Anaheim in the first place? This is already one of the best served transit corridors in the country and service is scheduled to be increased soon. Who is going to ride this line with few stops between Anaheim and Los Angeles and who will be traveling beyond Los Angeles? If there are too many stops the line is no longer HSR. This is a dead end branch that will never be extended so why is it even under consideration to build any kind of HSR between Anaheim and Los Angeles? How much time is going to be saved by passengers on the ill proposed line, 10, 15 minutes at the most over taking a frequently scheduled MetroLink train? This is an unwanted and unneeded project that only profits the developers of the ARTC and the contractors that will build it.
The HRS between Los Angeles and the Bay Area and eventually San Diego needs to be built as soon as possible with out throwing in political self serving boondoggles like the line between Anaheim and Los Angeles.
Let’s work on improving the Anaheim Los Angeles service, but not building a HSR line that will not even be HSR anyway.
Why Anaheim:
Disneyland is one of the top three tourist destinations in Southern California, according to Forbes. Anaheim isn't a dead-end branch; the CAHSR plans call to terminate at Irvine at a later phase.
Service is scheduled to be increased only between Fullerton and Laguna Niguel per OCTA's plans; if anything, Metrolink train service has been decreasing between Los Angeles and Orange because Metrolink has slashed service on the Orange County Line.
With the shared track
With the shared track alternative, you'll see capacity and reliability improvements for Metrolink and Amtrak trains. That was the whole point of moving from the expensive dedicated track alternative to the less expensive shared track alternative.
Shared Track A Better Idea
I agree with the other commenters that it makes much more sense to share tracks on this stretch. Does it really matter if the train reaches its absolute top speed on a merely 30 mile line? The primary advantage ot steel on wheels track over maglev is that it is compatible with existing lines. In Germany, Italy and Britain, they have used high speed trains from super speed trunk lines (like Paris-Lyon, Paris-London and now....SF-LA) to continue on minor branch lines (like Anaheim)--without needing upgading those branch lines to the same standards.
With a very limited budget, we should save the big improvements for SF-LA. Three trains an hour--every 20 minutes-- should be fine going into OC. Especially since transit planners generally say 20 minute headways are the threshold for passengers to be able to use the service without worrying about checking the timetable. Do we really need more trains than this? And if capacity rather than freqency is the issue, make the trains double decker like the TGV has done over the last decade.
One thing I would be more concerned about is the $200 million being spent on ARCTIC--which does seem like a boondoggle. It can't promote much transit oriented development, as it's surrounded by the Santa Ana River, the 57 freeway and the Pond. Users will need to drive there or use the bus. In fact, the current Anaheim station is in a much better position to allow for future development around it, in that vast parking lot for Angel's Stadium. Plus, Orange County simply isn't layed out as a central city, conducive to using a monocentric hub and spoke transit system. It's more like a big mat, and it would make much more sense to keep the existing Anaheim station (with minor upgrades), and use that $200 million to extend service to Santa Ana and Irvine now rather than later. That makes for two more hubs, and service to another half million people (more than the population of Anaheim itself). Three hubs are better than one.
Post new comment