 |
Alternatives to CAHSR - in a different universe - rant warning
Author: mook
Date: 08-31-2016 - 18:22
Let's postulate a universe where instead of the CAHSR/Kopp boondoggle we got, say, $10B to fill in gaps and set up a real California Passenger Railroad system. Granted that it wouldn't be 200mph HSR, what could have been done with that? Some cogitations:
1) Build a passenger track connecting Bakersfield and Lancaster (i.e. BNSF in the Valley to Metrolink in Lancaster), deviating from the freight line where appropriate to make it straighter (allowing at least 60-70mph with Cal-Amtrak equipment) but certainly somewhat steeper. What would be an appropriate route for something like that, and what would it cost? How much would something like that resemble the HSR routing through Tehachapi? I suspect that, while $10B is barely a down payment on a 200mph HSR line through the mountains (by any route), it could cover more than 1/2 of the cost for a more Amtrak-oriented line that could later be electrified and have speeds kicked up up a bit.
2) Finish the Fresno segment of HSR as a BNSF bypass for Fresno (charging tolls for freight like the Alameda Corridor) allowing Fresno to end BNSF's downtown mainline franchise at the next renewal. Add a 3rd track to improve passenger service. Total cost probably about what HSR is paying (c.$2B) but more useful for all concerned.
3) Add a 3rd track for passenger service where needed along BNSF in the Valley to allow hourly or better service. Ease curves where possible so minimum speed rises to at least 60mph. Ideally, rebuild the whole thing to allow 90mph or better. Could probably be done incrementally, but likely to take at least 1/2 of the $10B for the basics.
3a) Bay Area connection from SJ Valley needs improvement - crossing the Delta and tiptoeing along the Bay Shore isn't viable for higher speeds, or in the long run with sea level rise. Altamont is steep, slow, and NIMBY-infested. Could something actually be done with the CASHR Pacheco alignment or some modification of it to make it usable with more conventional (say, Acela-class) equipment and affordable? Probably not, but what would that kind of thing look like?
4) Add, relocate, and improve track and signals (can't we do something with PTC for this?) along the Capitol Corridor to increase maximum speeds to at least 90mph. Give some thought to raising track elevations a bit to address sea level rise. 1/2 of the $10B? Has anybody looked at needs there other than in a few short segments?
5) Do the LOSSAN thing, people! The WHOLE thing, including the San Clemente relocation and double-triple track throughout and Del Mar and Miramar Grade fixes, with grade separations and curve fixes so speeds can be increased to 90-125mph (apparently a peak speed of 125 qualifies as HSR in Florida...). Given the old numbers from LOSSAN planning, and allowing for the tweaks SD County has already done, would this be 1/2 or 3/4 of the $10B?
6) Electrify Caltrain already.
7) Start working on electrifying and cleaning up the track layout of Metrolink, and set up extension to Palm Springs (it's still in Riverside County). Adding grade sep and cleaning up the alignments/track numbers would help increase speeds for expresses, and electrification would increase capacity as Caltrain has shown plus reducing local emissions and noise. *$&*( the NIMBYs regarding horrible ugly overhead wires - mostly, they won't see them any more than they do the ones in the street or their backyards for Edison now. And if Xpresswest or some future descendant of CAHSR actually does appear, they'll need electrification to run on Metrolink tracks anyway.
8) How much does BNSF actually use the steep, original main line track on Cajon? If not a lot, how about adding tracks in suitable places to allow Metrolink service over the Pass using it to VV and Barstow? Lots of commuter housing available in VV for cheap right now - get an assessment on it while it's still cheap to help with the cost? If electrified, perhaps Xpresswest could send some of its trains that way?
Yes, I know #7 and 8, especially, would probably cost, by themselves, something near the cost of the current CAHSR boondoggle. $10B would certainly not be enough for all of these, as it isn't for a 200-250mph CAHSR under any stretch of the imagination or redesign, but could make a serious dent in a few.
And what *IS* a reasonable travel time between downtown LA and downtown SF? 1 hour or less (Hyperloop in Elon's dreams); 2.5-4 hours (CAHSR, current flying time with security but not airport access time); 4-6 hours (improved Amtrak (Acela-level, or at least 125mph peak) with a way over the mountains, flying time with security AND airport access time, driving time via I-5 off-peak); 7-9 hours (current Amtrak with bus BFD-LAX, typical driving time with rest stops on I-5 or pushing it on 101); 12-14 hours (current Starlight, comfortable with stops on 101)? Also, does anybody really believe that HSGT in any form (Hyperloop through improved Amtrak) will not be subject to airport-style security? Add time...
1) Build a passenger track connecting Bakersfield and Lancaster (i.e. BNSF in the Valley to Metrolink in Lancaster), deviating from the freight line where appropriate to make it straighter (allowing at least 60-70mph with Cal-Amtrak equipment) but certainly somewhat steeper. What would be an appropriate route for something like that, and what would it cost? How much would something like that resemble the HSR routing through Tehachapi? I suspect that, while $10B is barely a down payment on a 200mph HSR line through the mountains (by any route), it could cover more than 1/2 of the cost for a more Amtrak-oriented line that could later be electrified and have speeds kicked up up a bit.
2) Finish the Fresno segment of HSR as a BNSF bypass for Fresno (charging tolls for freight like the Alameda Corridor) allowing Fresno to end BNSF's downtown mainline franchise at the next renewal. Add a 3rd track to improve passenger service. Total cost probably about what HSR is paying (c.$2B) but more useful for all concerned.
3) Add a 3rd track for passenger service where needed along BNSF in the Valley to allow hourly or better service. Ease curves where possible so minimum speed rises to at least 60mph. Ideally, rebuild the whole thing to allow 90mph or better. Could probably be done incrementally, but likely to take at least 1/2 of the $10B for the basics.
3a) Bay Area connection from SJ Valley needs improvement - crossing the Delta and tiptoeing along the Bay Shore isn't viable for higher speeds, or in the long run with sea level rise. Altamont is steep, slow, and NIMBY-infested. Could something actually be done with the CASHR Pacheco alignment or some modification of it to make it usable with more conventional (say, Acela-class) equipment and affordable? Probably not, but what would that kind of thing look like?
4) Add, relocate, and improve track and signals (can't we do something with PTC for this?) along the Capitol Corridor to increase maximum speeds to at least 90mph. Give some thought to raising track elevations a bit to address sea level rise. 1/2 of the $10B? Has anybody looked at needs there other than in a few short segments?
5) Do the LOSSAN thing, people! The WHOLE thing, including the San Clemente relocation and double-triple track throughout and Del Mar and Miramar Grade fixes, with grade separations and curve fixes so speeds can be increased to 90-125mph (apparently a peak speed of 125 qualifies as HSR in Florida...). Given the old numbers from LOSSAN planning, and allowing for the tweaks SD County has already done, would this be 1/2 or 3/4 of the $10B?
6) Electrify Caltrain already.
7) Start working on electrifying and cleaning up the track layout of Metrolink, and set up extension to Palm Springs (it's still in Riverside County). Adding grade sep and cleaning up the alignments/track numbers would help increase speeds for expresses, and electrification would increase capacity as Caltrain has shown plus reducing local emissions and noise. *$&*( the NIMBYs regarding horrible ugly overhead wires - mostly, they won't see them any more than they do the ones in the street or their backyards for Edison now. And if Xpresswest or some future descendant of CAHSR actually does appear, they'll need electrification to run on Metrolink tracks anyway.
8) How much does BNSF actually use the steep, original main line track on Cajon? If not a lot, how about adding tracks in suitable places to allow Metrolink service over the Pass using it to VV and Barstow? Lots of commuter housing available in VV for cheap right now - get an assessment on it while it's still cheap to help with the cost? If electrified, perhaps Xpresswest could send some of its trains that way?
Yes, I know #7 and 8, especially, would probably cost, by themselves, something near the cost of the current CAHSR boondoggle. $10B would certainly not be enough for all of these, as it isn't for a 200-250mph CAHSR under any stretch of the imagination or redesign, but could make a serious dent in a few.
And what *IS* a reasonable travel time between downtown LA and downtown SF? 1 hour or less (Hyperloop in Elon's dreams); 2.5-4 hours (CAHSR, current flying time with security but not airport access time); 4-6 hours (improved Amtrak (Acela-level, or at least 125mph peak) with a way over the mountains, flying time with security AND airport access time, driving time via I-5 off-peak); 7-9 hours (current Amtrak with bus BFD-LAX, typical driving time with rest stops on I-5 or pushing it on 101); 12-14 hours (current Starlight, comfortable with stops on 101)? Also, does anybody really believe that HSGT in any form (Hyperloop through improved Amtrak) will not be subject to airport-style security? Add time...
Alternatives to CAHSR - in a different universe - rant warning