RailPAC POSITION ON THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PROPOSAL

RailPAC POSITION ON THE
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PROPOSAL

Prepared for RailPAC by:
Dr. Adrian Herzog
VP Research, United Rail Passenger Alliance URPA

PROPOSED ROUTING OF THE
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL SYSTEM
as PROPOSED BY THE
California High-Speed Rail Authority

The California High Speed Rail Initiative's route proposal can be divided into five main components. These are:

NOTE: Subsequent to Dr. Herzog's writing this 1999 article RailPAC has endorsed the High Speed Rail Authority's plan to route its trains south of San Jose and across or under Pacheco Pass to the San Joaquin Valley, tying into the route south from Sacramento at approximately Merced. In reading this article please disregard references to Pleasanton, as they are no longer applicable.

Of these segments, three are urban in nature and resemble the ill fated San Diego Bullet Train. These are segments 1, 3 and 5 from the above list. The other two fall into the category of high speed bypass routes similar to the original concept of the Paris-Lyon TGV project which has now been spread to many other regions in France. The one difference between the French TGV project and these two segments is that in France the capacity of the parallel existing railroads was totally maximized by existing services and could not support any additional services. The only segment in California where, according to the freight railroads, the capacity if now fully utilized is on the Tehachapi Crossing. In addition, in the near future, the capacity of the existing rail corridor between San Diego will begin to reach saturation between [Los Angeles] Union Station and San Diego. Therefore, RailPAC will need to look for alternative routes if additional service is to be brought into San Diego and if any sort of high density passenger service is to be proposed between Los Angeles and San Diego and Los Angeles and Bakersfield. Such large investments are only justified as part of a statewide master plan for rail passenger service. RailPAC should therefore immediately announce its support for the Pleasanton and Sacramento to Palmdale and Ontario Airport to Escondido routes selected by the California High Speed Rail Authority. An endorsement of these routes would not constitute a full endorsement of the entire project as proposed by the HSR. Such a full endorsement would depend on the exact nature of the service that would operate over these routes.

On the other 3 segments, all of which occur in urban areas, RailPAC needs to encourage the compatibility of high speed rail with existing rail systems already operating or proposed to operate in these corridors. For this reason, RailPAC can only endorse steel wheel on standard gauge track technology.

PROPOSED TECHNOLOGY FOR THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PROJECT.

Two main technologies are in competition for the California HSR. These are conventional standard gauge electrified high speed rail as implemented in Japan (Bullet train), France, Holland Belgium, Spain and the Channel Tunnel (TGV or TGV derivatives) , Germany (ICE) and MAGLEV not in commercial service anywhere. MAGLEV is a technology that is incompatible with any other mode and like the MONORAILS of the 1950s will fail to be introduced into commercial service due to its incompatibility. The only MAGLEV line that came near to construction was Hamburg to Berlin, but due to budget problems and environmental opposition to more ugly structures in both the urban and rural environment is about to be killed by the normal democratic process. RailPAC is therefore prepared to strongly support a conventional HSR system compatible in terminal areas with conventional rail, but to STRONGLY OPPOSE ANY ATTEMPT TO INTRODUCE MAGLEV into the mix of vehicles in use for rail transportation in this state.

FINANCIAL IMPACT ON EXISTING SERVICES.

RailPAC strongly urges that the HSR Project be presented as a joint venture between locally supported rail initiatives like METROLINK, THE COASTER and the PENINSULA COMMUTE, By sharing terminals, yards, and urban access corridors and using compatible technology it will be possible to produce an integrated system of commuter trains, local corridor trains, high speed trains and long distance trains. As a joint project, it will be possible to minimize costs while maximizing the return on investments made by all modes of rail transportation.

The existing services that will be impacted, either positively, or negatively are:

CONCLUSION.

RailPAC can support the HSR as a conventional high speed rail service as long as the current corridors and commuter services are an integral part of the proposed system. Trains like the TGV shown above, are completely compatible with existing rail passenger systems. Under no circumstances can RailPAC support the introduction of non-standard technology such as MAGLEV into California.


RailPAC Contacts Publications Issues Archives Tehachapi Airports Surfliners Western Corridor Car High Speed Rail Line Segments Service Impacts Zephyr to LA Revisited Tributes Eagle to Phoenix Meeting Reports Membership Links	RailPAC POSITION ON THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PROPOSAL Prepared for RailPAC by: Dr. Adrian Herzog VP Research, United Rail Passenger Alliance URPA PROPOSED ROUTING OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL SYSTEM as PROPOSED BY THE California High-Speed Rail Authority The California High Speed Rail Initiative's route proposal can be divided into five main components. These are: San Francisco and San Jose to Pleasanton Pleasanton and Sacramento to Palmdale Palmdale to Ontario Airport via Los Angeles Union Station with a branch to LAX Ontario Airport to Escondido Escondido to San Diego NOTE: Subsequent to Dr. Herzog's writing this 1999 article RailPAC has endorsed the High Speed Rail Authority's plan to route its trains south of San Jose and across or under Pacheco Pass to the San Joaquin Valley, tying into the route south from Sacramento at approximately Merced. In reading this article please disregard references to Pleasanton, as they are no longer applicable. Of these segments, three are urban in nature and resemble the ill fated San Diego Bullet Train. These are segments 1, 3 and 5 from the above list. The other two fall into the category of high speed bypass routes similar to the original concept of the Paris-Lyon TGV project which has now been spread to many other regions in France. The one difference between the French TGV project and these two segments is that in France the capacity of the parallel existing railroads was totally maximized by existing services and could not support any additional services. The only segment in California where, according to the freight railroads, the capacity if now fully utilized is on the Tehachapi Crossing. In addition, in the near future, the capacity of the existing rail corridor between San Diego will begin to reach saturation between [Los Angeles] Union Station and San Diego. Therefore, RailPAC will need to look for alternative routes if additional service is to be brought into San Diego and if any sort of high density passenger service is to be proposed between Los Angeles and San Diego and Los Angeles and Bakersfield. Such large investments are only justified as part of a statewide master plan for rail passenger service. RailPAC should therefore immediately announce its support for the Pleasanton and Sacramento to Palmdale and Ontario Airport to Escondido routes selected by the California High Speed Rail Authority. An endorsement of these routes would not constitute a full endorsement of the entire project as proposed by the HSR. Such a full endorsement would depend on the exact nature of the service that would operate over these routes. On the other 3 segments, all of which occur in urban areas, RailPAC needs to encourage the compatibility of high speed rail with existing rail systems already operating or proposed to operate in these corridors. For this reason, RailPAC can only endorse steel wheel on standard gauge track technology. PROPOSED TECHNOLOGY FOR THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PROJECT. Two main technologies are in competition for the California HSR. These are conventional standard gauge electrified high speed rail as implemented in Japan (Bullet train), France, Holland Belgium, Spain and the Channel Tunnel (TGV or TGV derivatives) , Germany (ICE) and MAGLEV not in commercial service anywhere. MAGLEV is a technology that is incompatible with any other mode and like the MONORAILS of the 1950s will fail to be introduced into commercial service due to its incompatibility. The only MAGLEV line that came near to construction was Hamburg to Berlin, but due to budget problems and environmental opposition to more ugly structures in both the urban and rural environment is about to be killed by the normal democratic process. RailPAC is therefore prepared to strongly support a conventional HSR system compatible in terminal areas with conventional rail, but to STRONGLY OPPOSE ANY ATTEMPT TO INTRODUCE MAGLEV into the mix of vehicles in use for rail transportation in this state. FINANCIAL IMPACT ON EXISTING SERVICES. RailPAC strongly urges that the HSR Project be presented as a joint venture between locally supported rail initiatives like METROLINK, THE COASTER and the PENINSULA COMMUTE, By sharing terminals, yards, and urban access corridors and using compatible technology it will be possible to produce an integrated system of commuter trains, local corridor trains, high speed trains and long distance trains. As a joint project, it will be possible to minimize costs while maximizing the return on investments made by all modes of rail transportation. The existing services that will be impacted, either positively, or negatively are: Local Commuter services The Southwest Corridor (San Diego - San Luis Obispo) The Capitol Corridor The Coast Route The Existing San Joaquin Route Transcontinental long distance trains CONCLUSION. RailPAC can support the HSR as a conventional high speed rail service as long as the current corridors and commuter services are an integral part of the proposed system. Trains like the TGV shown above, are completely compatible with existing rail passenger systems. Under no circumstances can RailPAC support the introduction of non-standard technology such as MAGLEV into California. Copyright RailPAC and URPA 1999 [30 March 1999] RailPAC POSITION ON THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PROPOSAL RailPAC POSITION ON THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PROPOSAL
	Photos and copy on this site are the property of RailPAC. Reproduction of anything on this site requires the permission of RailPAC. Copyright © 2007, Citizens For Rail California, Inc.