As a southern Californian, after perusing your rail transportation advocacy website it is obvious that northern California has it's rail transportation act together. I am sure you have many contacts here in the "southland" that share the same sentiments.
The electrification of your Caltrain commuter line offers a solution for what I believe is a gap in our approach to rail statewide. The project sits between two poles. First the visionary long term efforts of CAHSR for a statewide VERY high speed rail system. Second the collection of what by contrast are understandably limited near term goals of the state intercity passenger rail department ("Amtrak California") and our state's commuter services, namely California's Metrolink, Coaster and ACE.
I believe there is a missing near-term gap in our state rail strategy. I believe the current Caltrain project offers an important - sensible and immediately advantageous - third way. Namely, the electrification and upgrade of existing intercity and commuter services in anticipation of the arrival of CAHSR between San Francisco and Los Angeles in 2018. I am writing to seek your advise in raising visibility for this as a statewide initiative.
There are a few reasons I want to advance this. It logically follows that a large feeder network at each "end" of the main CAHSR system will boost the HSR business plan's potential for success and would significantly raise the prospects for more private capital. The NEC, European and Japanese models pursued by CAHSR depends on a robust feeder network to make the trains successful.
The National Defense Rail Act S. 1991 recently offered by Senator Hollings will provide nearly $4.5 billion a year for rail projects. Notably the highly organized NEC has lobbied to successfully capture over 25% of funds promised by the bill for "capital projects." California, the nation's most congested automobile state, is notably NOT specifically mentioned in the text of the bill.
I have expressed to my elected officials that as a state we need to have ready a near-term rail plan to present to our congressional delegation which compliments our long term HSR initiative. This near-term statewide plan would demonstrate that we are ready to take advantage of rail capital funds the MOMENT they become available in sensible and effective upgrades. Our strategic rail/transportation plan demands that we articulate a near-term unified suite of projects which will significantly advance the reduction of automobile trips, prepare this state for the advent of HSR services, as well as relieve pressure and synergize our state's major airports.
The plan would focus upon EXISTING state and commuter services and might include grade separation & curve elimination, complete double or quad tracking, public-private partnerships for station development, and most importantly electrification statewide along each of these corridors. Specifically, I would advance in southern California the following projects:
1. Upgrade of the Pacific Surfliner "coast route" from San Diego to at least Santa Barbara (about 218 miles of the 347 mile system) 2. Upgrade the remaining southern California (Metrolink/Coaster) commuter system (about 262 miles remaining after Pacific Surfliner upgrades) 3. Extension of existing commuter service to San Bernardino to include Pacific Surfliner "Inland Empire" service to Palm Springs. 4. Urgently extension of both the commuter and intercity service westward along the existing ROW (now un-used) to LAX to DIRECTLY access the 90 million passengers using the world's third busiest airport with a ONE SEAT RIDE.
In northern California we must consider:
1. Identifying the experience of Caltrain as our statewide model for near-term rail development. 2. Upgrade the Capitols route to Sacramento. 3. Upgrade the remaining northern California commuter system - ACE. 4. Integrate rail with airports in every conceivable instance.
As a state, we should - achieve TREMENDOUS cost efficiencies by:
1. Shield the project from political forces by placing the initiative into a JPA with a firm mandate to complete the plan by 2008-2010. 2. Plan these projects as a statewide initiative collaboratively - eliminate the duplicative planning and administration. 3. Award all contracts for construction and electric locomotive rolling stock for use statewide. Leverage the experience of other agencies in this regard (such as NJ Transit). 4. Get aggressive and permissive with land development, advertising, concessions, retail and any other revenue generating opportunities. Consider our station real-estate a tremendous strategic asset - put it in the hands of private professionals statewide. 6. Consider turning statewide intercity and commuter rail operations into a private stock company. It will have the scale to attract such investment.
I believe that our statewide preparedness near and long term will position the Golden State to take advantage of a congressional rail initiatives and public needs and demands which have all ready been registered.
I am writing to learn what you think of this proposal. If there is an existing initiative or advocacy group, I would gladly join it. Your advise is greatly appreciated.
Kind regards,
Ray Bianco
Posts: 4 | From: Marina del Rey, California | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You make an eloquent plea for electrification of California corridors, and you make a number of good points overall. But I'm not sure electrification is a panacea. A power failure, such as a rolling blackout or from storm damage (a common winter occurance in California), can bring the whole system down. And personally, I think catenary is damned ugly. I'd hate to see the coastal areas of the Surfliner route marred by such, unless it can be put underground or something.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
May 3rd 3:48 PM OFFERED FROM ANOTHER BOARD... <>
As someone who grew up in NYC, I can tell you that even with the weather in NY power failures like you're talking about are extremely rare (and the government would be insane to include a rail line in a rolling blackout). On the whole, the failure rate of diesel locomotives is much higher. In fact, during the 1996 storm that hit the Northeast (the biggest in 50 years) the eletrified Amtrak lines were the only thing moving at all. Cantenary is much stronger than it looks.
<< And personally, I think catenary is damned ugly. I'd hate to see the coastal areas of the Surfliner route marred by such, unless it can be put underground or something.>>
It can not be put underground. Newer European style cantenary is not as obtrusive as the NY-style poles and cross wires you may be used to. If there were a way to avoid its advantages, I'd agree with you. But, hey, we're all dying a slow death in traffic and polluted air (and compared to the blight of a freeway, an electrified rail line is practically a beautification measure). Anyway, something has to be done about our traffic and pollution. If you try moving the tracks away from the coast it ceases to be as usefull and attractive to passengers. Everything's a pro and con, but electrified lines skirt up and down the French riveria coast, and they manage just fine.
RR
Posts: 4 | From: Marina del Rey, California | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Electrics may be more efficient, but from a train watching point of view, they are rather ugly. Diesels are considerably more versatile, at least in U.S. applications, since an electric can only go as far as the catenary, and I doubt railroads would want to electrify every line in the U.S., let alone California. If California were to electrify all the current passenger lines, what would happen to the freight trains that still run on them (which presumably would remain diesel powered)?
Instead of electrification, what if they boosted the speed limit for passenger trains to between 110-125mph? In Britain, they do this with diesels, and you can reach 110+mph with conventional equipment (much less $$$). This probably could be done on the Surf Line for considerably less money than it would cost to string catenary, as they aleady have 90mph running south of L.A.
Although diesels do pollute more than electrics, they are considerably more environmentally friendly than cars, and can go just about anywhere where there are standard gauge rails.
I have heard tell of a California plan to have a special high-speed rail line between San Diego and San Fancisco in the future, but I don't know how serious it is. It would be electric, but would use a separate, new line as opposed to just upgrading the existing infrastructure.
I realize that I may be speaking with somewhat of a "railfan bias," as I much prefer diesels to electrics, and find them considerably more aesthetically pleasing. With electrics, you lose the great variety that comes with diesels. Yes, electrics are much more efficient, but I would certainly miss seeing a four unit lashup straining against a 10,000 ton doublestack, or an F59 racing a Surfliner along the beach at San Clemente. With electrics, you loose a lot of that.
One thing that works to Europe's advantage is that their railroads are state run (for the most part). Here, even though the state can take over passenger rail, what do you do with the freight trains? I like seeing something that runs on it's own power as opposed to something that must draw it's power from overhead wire.
Oh well, enough of my rambling. I suppose I went way off topic. The idea is good -- maybe it's just that I don't like electrics. Now if they string catenary and built locomotives that look something like a GG1......
posted
I think it would be beneficial to improve the track enough to raise track speeds, but part of that would involve additional grade crossing elimination.
The Caltrain line upgrade eliminated several crossings, which increased safety and reduced delays for the trains.
Posts: 874 | From: South Bay (LA County), Calif, USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MPALMER: The Caltrain line upgrade eliminated several crossings, which increased safety and reduced delays for the trains.
And the results are quite attractive as well as functional.
I don't object to catenary in urban areas and near California's featureless farmlands, but I would never consent to marring California's spectacular coastline with it. I doubt the affected county governments and the California Coastal Commission would allow it either.
Electric trains are very inflexible. If you want to extend an electrified route, you have to extend the catenary which takes time and money. To extend a diesel route, you just get permission then keep going.
Looking at this strictly from a fuel efficiency standpoint, electrification may be better, but if all costs and the relative inflexibility of the system are considered, it probably isn't so great.
I read somewhere that high-speed diesels are being developed. That would free high-speed trains from the confines of the catenary and allow greater flexibility in routing, even over conventional tracks for part of its route.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
Maybe I spoke too soon on electrification. The state rail dept. advises that our California locos are built to travel 125 mph and our rail cars can go 150. The track upgrades, tresspass and signals are the issues to achieving high speed. That's much lest costly than catenary through the whole system. Something worth working for.
And you are right on next gen HSR. There is a HSR diesel project. The research, funded jointly by FRA and Bombardier is behind schedule (by about two years). This next generation diesel loco will incorporate fly-wheel technology which will give the vehicle the same accelleration characteristics as an electric. Looks like the prototype test is going to happen sometime in 2004.
Posts: 4 | From: Marina del Rey, California | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
