 |
Re: RCTC Indio Study continues Less is always less... Think bigger and do it right.....
Author: BOB2
Date: 06-11-2022 - 13:08
UPyours Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Is UP still insisting that a whole new railroad
> has to be built alongside
> >their present tracks from Colton to Indio to
> accommodate the new passenger train?
>
> Only from Colton? Why not from downtown LA? And
> how many tracks? Don't forget another flyover or 2
> at the BNSF crossing for connector tracks. And
> grade seps at all the existing grade crossings,
> for passenger safety (and faster freight trains).
>
> Wasn't "build a new railroad; we'll rent you the
> r/w" more or less what they told Amtrak they
> wanted to let the Sunset go daily? So, at least
> they're consistent.
The need for an exclusive parallel passengter alignment from Colton to Indio is probably a minimum, which is why a full schedule like Brighline "LOS" is what should be planned for.
Connection via at Brynn Mawr along the alignment of the San Timeteo Creek levy to a connection with the Redlands Branch whould all for direct conncectivity using Metrolinks San Gavriel Valley sub vis San Bernardino, and at Colton, a passenger flyover to connect via Riverside would probably be optimal ,(it is an "RCTC" project, but should be a "Regional" system connection with through services via the LAUPT runthrough to Santa Barbara).
Longer distance high mileage trips are the target market base, connecting to major centers. Every 75 mile trip you remove in the corridor is the equivalent of 5 fifteen mile trips on the I-10 that are no longer diplaced. Which is why a separate line at probably 1.5-2.5 billion, grade separated and 110 engineered is less than half the cost of adding two more lanes ot I-10 just over Beaumonts (billions more in urban widenings for the rest of the trip).
The failure to design for future optional needs and break even points by "only 3 train" kind of half assed plannong is what I worry about, with things liie the lack of sufficient operations to Perris, that I worry about. We need to start looking at potential demand for th3 most likely trip markets that can be most effectively met. So, sorry, no services to Niland any time soon for that reason. Despite the hopeful zeal in my advocacy publications from groups like TRAC, Arizona needs to get to Tucson from Nesa/Phoenix, where there "might" be a rail market, before they fantazize too hard about even daliy service to LA or a restored connection via Phoenix.
And back to the whiners about losing the election in Santa Cruz, it would be for the same reasons we should look at first world services from LA-OC to IE-Coachella Valley using the optimal market penetrTIONS "Brightline" service level model for connecting Santa Cruz to San Jose, SFO, the City, or Sacramento 16 times a day, may cost more to do rigbts, but have the greatest cost benefit when it is done. This is the complete opposite of the planning philosophy of the CAHSRA fiasco "build it and they will come....". Rail passenger servces can serve certain trip types competitively and that is why there are plenty of mid and sort distance City pairs generating high passenger miles, and offering a real alte3rnative to auto travel, and some types of very costly short distance air flights, something that Brightliine understands.
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Is UP still insisting that a whole new railroad
> has to be built alongside
> >their present tracks from Colton to Indio to
> accommodate the new passenger train?
>
> Only from Colton? Why not from downtown LA? And
> how many tracks? Don't forget another flyover or 2
> at the BNSF crossing for connector tracks. And
> grade seps at all the existing grade crossings,
> for passenger safety (and faster freight trains).
>
> Wasn't "build a new railroad; we'll rent you the
> r/w" more or less what they told Amtrak they
> wanted to let the Sunset go daily? So, at least
> they're consistent.
The need for an exclusive parallel passengter alignment from Colton to Indio is probably a minimum, which is why a full schedule like Brighline "LOS" is what should be planned for.
Connection via at Brynn Mawr along the alignment of the San Timeteo Creek levy to a connection with the Redlands Branch whould all for direct conncectivity using Metrolinks San Gavriel Valley sub vis San Bernardino, and at Colton, a passenger flyover to connect via Riverside would probably be optimal ,(it is an "RCTC" project, but should be a "Regional" system connection with through services via the LAUPT runthrough to Santa Barbara).
Longer distance high mileage trips are the target market base, connecting to major centers. Every 75 mile trip you remove in the corridor is the equivalent of 5 fifteen mile trips on the I-10 that are no longer diplaced. Which is why a separate line at probably 1.5-2.5 billion, grade separated and 110 engineered is less than half the cost of adding two more lanes ot I-10 just over Beaumonts (billions more in urban widenings for the rest of the trip).
The failure to design for future optional needs and break even points by "only 3 train" kind of half assed plannong is what I worry about, with things liie the lack of sufficient operations to Perris, that I worry about. We need to start looking at potential demand for th3 most likely trip markets that can be most effectively met. So, sorry, no services to Niland any time soon for that reason. Despite the hopeful zeal in my advocacy publications from groups like TRAC, Arizona needs to get to Tucson from Nesa/Phoenix, where there "might" be a rail market, before they fantazize too hard about even daliy service to LA or a restored connection via Phoenix.
And back to the whiners about losing the election in Santa Cruz, it would be for the same reasons we should look at first world services from LA-OC to IE-Coachella Valley using the optimal market penetrTIONS "Brightline" service level model for connecting Santa Cruz to San Jose, SFO, the City, or Sacramento 16 times a day, may cost more to do rigbts, but have the greatest cost benefit when it is done. This is the complete opposite of the planning philosophy of the CAHSRA fiasco "build it and they will come....". Rail passenger servces can serve certain trip types competitively and that is why there are plenty of mid and sort distance City pairs generating high passenger miles, and offering a real alte3rnative to auto travel, and some types of very costly short distance air flights, something that Brightliine understands.
