One important change in the plans for the end point in San Diego. They are now planning to run CHSR into downtown and instead connect the airport with a people move/or light rail although they are leaning more towards people mover for the federal dollars.
Thank goodness. The Caltrain northern terminus a mile outside the Financial District in San Francisco has been a huge blight on the city's rail accessibility, so I'd hate to have it replicated anew down in San Diego by stopping the hundreds of miles of HSR just two miles outside of downtown.
What about San Diego's second airport? Yes, it does have a second airport, used by more Americans than Mexicans now: it is of course Tijuana Airport. The CBX cross-border pedestrian bridge there is doing great business, allowing one to walk to/from the airport terminal without faffing about with the San Ysidro and Otay Mesa crossings that are usually completely busy. Would it be possible to run trains or light rail to the CBX bridge there, in which case one would have an almost-European level of convenience and journey ease? Or would that be too obvious? Just look at the godawful third-world cockup that is LAX, maybe the worst airport I have ever used, not least because it has no rail connection at all to anywhere. Unbelievable...
@@ianhomerpura8937- There would not be a very good way to connect the SAN airport by LRT. I guess extending the Orange Line is possible, but there are already two lines running between Santa Fe Station and Old Town Transit Center. People Mover works well for BART at SFO, and will work well for Metro at LAX.
This video brings back so many memories of when I lived in San Diego...and how much of a pain it was to get around without a car. I wish high speed rail was built back then. My trips to LA would have been so much easier.
@TheRailwayDrone They've also got decent bike lanes near popular uptown spots. In fact they just added more, a few days ago after resurfacing parts of University Ave in Hillcrest. Edit: Still only painted buffers and plastic sticks but better than a lot of American "bike lanes" aka bicycle gutters. Hopefully the plastic sticks can turn into concrete curbs or metal bollards in the future.
@@TheRailwayDrone I'm 25, raised here in SD. My biggest hope for projects like these would be greater access to more affordable areas while still being to work in downtown or even Los Angeles. I know a big thing here is people living out in Murietta/ Temecula or even Perris, then having to drive an hour or two in traffic to work down here. With rent at all time high, public transit like high speed rail is almost necessary. Especially for people who can work on their computers while traveling to work, that is a major step up than wasting your life in traffic. I for one would definitely love to live between LA/SD, maybe having a job in Los Angeles and being able to still visit my family whenever I want!
This is crazy how much traverseing would need to be done to get the LA to SD route complete. Im all for relocating and demolishing what is needed to get this done. CA needs this.
What a pain in the donkey! Good job covering the complexity of one of the most densely populated regions in the country. The line from Ontario to LAX sounds like the route to get the most popular support. Not sure I would want to be in the middle of the political in-fighting on the LA to San Diego section.
I skipped it, but I foresee a slightly silly San Gabriel Valley station in the mix, maybe in Covina. They have an option for El Monte along I-10 which is even worse. I would also say the odds that politics will take the route through San Bernardino and Riverside are fairly decent. San Bernardino is a wasteland and the "Riverside" station is more Moreno Valley, which isn't far from Murrieta, like the Corona option and Ontario. Along with being more expensive, I find the station options along that path wholly unappealing, and I used to live 2 miles from the Riverside station site. Overall, I think there is a danger this could wind up as fast regional rail with as many as 9 or 10 stations over the 150-170 miles. That said, 20 mins between LAUS and ONT/BLW has a lot of potential impact. It's too bad all of that is tied in with 780 other miles of HSR and the expense of all that.
What’s the cost and physical feasibility of having express tracks at stations in San Bernardino, March ARB, and Murrieta? Not sure if you looked at that in preparation for this video.
@@windsabeginning2219 I started looking at it, but changed my mind in favor of I-15. I can figure it out without too much trouble. I'll get back to you when I have the figures. In terms of feasibility, the only real problem is getting BNSF to agree to allow the tracks to cross their yard at the BNSF San Bernardino depot on viaduct. Everything else is within the realm of possibility. The SB/Riverside option would also need an additional ~2 miles of tunnelling.
@@LucidStewI see a bigger trend towards a station in El Monte. From what I've seen, there's been historical proposals for either elevated or just double/quad track on the median of the 10. El Monte is honestly quite a big hub so I wouldn't say it is out of the picture for a station "upgrade" especially since El Monte is trying or build a massive tod development around the station.
@@goldenoodles6281 I just don't see the point in it. The express bus lanes are already there. There isn't enough distance for HSR to do anything between El Monte and LAUS. You'd be better off taking the bus to LAUS and then getting on HSR rather than trading one for the other.
Electrifying the Surfline and building that tunnel under De Mar to avoid the crumbling cliffs seems a project that they should do over the ten years, let's by 2035. Given that HSR will go deep along the existing railway ROW into Orange County, they might as well keep going with an electrified "HrSR" route along the existing line to San Deigo. However, the new HSR route seems desirable (this video sold me on it :D) as it connects the Inland Empire to both San Diego and LA, plus the potential connection to Brightline. The CHSRA should do the section from LA Union Station to Ontario Airport to get that airport connection and so that Brightline could also get to LA Union Station. I wonder if CA HSR had started with the LA-SD route that we might be seeing more progress as its harder in terms of urban environment and terrain, but it's also a lot shorter.
I agree with both ideas. I think 2050 is realistic for CAHSR to be doing something in southern California besides improving LAUS. So why not have the rest of LOSSAN ready to hook in by then?
@@LucidStewI imagine SCRRA and NCTD won’t electrify the Surf Line, at least not fully, until the tracks in Del Mar are rerouted off the bluffs, and maybe also through San Clemente. I’d do it in segments, starting with LA to Anaheim and down to Irvine or possibly Laguna Niguel. Metrolink is building a new layover facility in Irvine which could work as one for EMUs. Next would be San Diego to Oceanside for Coaster service once Del Mar is rerouted. Third and final segment would then be Irvine/Laguna Niguel to Oceanside. BNSF does run autoracks on this route, which it’s interesting that HSR ends in Anaheim, just north of where it would join the tracks those freights use to go through Orange and Anaheim Canyon to join their mainline east to Colton. That said, the catenaries should be tall enough to clear autoracks, (and double stacks), so that shouldn’t be a problem to electrify south of Anaheim anyway.
Closest I've been to southern California is Staten Island 20 years ago, so I'm not exactly a local expert, but... Electrifying & fully double tracking the Surfline seems like such an obvious good investment. Especially if it also includes tunneling past the section that seems to be disrupted by storms every year now. Add in the LA Union Station upgrades so that is less of a constraint as well, and you'd be able to run a nice reliable & decently dense service. Given the size of both LA and SD, and all the stops along the way, I'm sure having both the Surfline and the CaHSR route running LA-SD services would make sense (and give ppl options if there's an issue on one line).
I'm wondering about the what ifs of the initial operating segment. Some people say LA to SD would have been better, and I agree it would have been a higher ridership route to start with. But thinking about it, the route that California is most hurting for is one through the mountains between the Central Valley and LA. An initial operating segment between Bakersfield and LA Union Station would have closed that gap, providing continuity for the San Joaquins all the way down to LA. This segment likely wouldn't have been utilized at first by HSR trains. It's still a sorely missing route regardless. Am I mistaken in thinking there's some physical rails bridging the gap even without passenger service? I'll have to look at the maps more to see
@@GustavSvardthe Surfliner is one of California's highest ridership corridors, and I think it will absolutely continue to be even with CAHSR making it redundant. Electrification and upgrades would allow it to shed its terrible reliability due to erosion, and bring it up to speed for modern and quick regional connection. More options for rail is excellent.
Definitely just a dream, but imagine how awesome it would be to be able to actually complete projects like this by taking funding from military spending
Redirecting money from freeways is a much more likely option, especially in the 2030s. Billion dollar highway projects are not unheard of in southern California.
@@pacificostudios Perhaps less so redirecting funds, more so being done with new freeway construction and shifting to maintenance only on those. Even still, a huge fiscal challenge is looming for the entire country. Spiraling debt will make everything more difficult to fund and finding a way to stop that and reverse it will be even worse.
@@pacificostudios that would be nice.... So cars/highways got all the money for the last 60+ years, therefore now trains will get all the car/highway money for the next 20-30 years. Just imagine how amazing the public transportation and train network would be then....
And they may decide to go through San Bernardino, which would take that much longer... 10 years is pretty optimistic in terms of demonstrated pace, but maybe they'll be better at building HSR by that time.
I know we are all rail fans, but by the time this happens, transporters will have been invented eliminating the need for high speed rail. Sure is fun to dream though. Thanks and Cheers!
@@ianhomerpura8937there’s a lot of planing, environmental reviews, land purchases (not everyone agrees to selling their property) and other bureaucratic red tape. Prior to all these regulations the US used to build infrastructure at neck break speeds. It took only 6 years to build the intercontinental railroad for example.
@@greasher926 we have all of that in Southeast Asia as well - planning, environmental reviews, land acquisition, eminent domain cases, etc. yet we still have shorter timelines and cheaper costs.
@@ianhomerpura8937not to the extent it is in the US and most of the west... The level of environmental clearances needed here are typically much higher. Another reason - the ability of opponents to a project to fight lawsuits is much lower...in the US, the opponents are either very wealthy or very well funded by corporations or wealthy who have a lot to lose and so can sustain years if not a decade plus of legal actions which add delays and thus cost The cost of labor is another reason - minimum wage is poor comparison but the easiest accessible data...the minimum wage in Indonesia is US$305 a month...in CA (the only place with a HSR project is actively being built) the current minimum wage of 15.50/hr so a minimum wage person will make the Indonesian minimum wage in like 3 days of work...and in neither place is the construction worker being paid minimum wage, but they are probably making comparable premiums over the minimum wage...The same is true for more technical/educated positions - the cost of engineering is also different...a Civil Engineer in CA makes 4-10x what an engineer in India makes (nearest comp i could find without spending hours to figure out local info and source reliability)...so factor that into the increased engineering costs and also the increased compliance costs for all the environmental and other studies too... That's just 3 reasons...there are a lot more
Nice, thanks! I just got around to downloading your stuff. I'm pretty bad about checking that email. I haven't looked at them yet, but I do appreciate it!
@LucidStew the videos in there atm are from my phone, I still need to get some more NEC footage of trains at speed. Currently, I do have quite a few videos of trains pulling into 30th Street on my new camera. I will try to go out and fet some footage soon and upload some trains actually going fast on the NEC by next weekend. Also, to add more context, my phone has been having an issue with videos being stable despite using a tripod (hence why I bit the bullet and got a new camera). Just make sure to look closely at each phone video as it may need a warp stabilizer effect done to it via premiere pro, if you can't do that I'm happy to reupload any clips with that effect which fixes the issue.
I believe an upgraded (tunnels avoiding the critical cliff bits + 110mph) and electrified Surfliner corridor is the way to go for connecting San Diego. Additionally you could then still serve the inline empire with a LAUS - BLW connector with a potential new line towards Phoenix serving San Bernardino.
I think that might be the combination that ultimately ends up happening. I'm extremely skeptical about the likeliness of CAHSR Phase 2. I also think they might have a problem with Bakersfield-Burbank. Electrified LOSSAN seems pretty likely in the long-term given the desire to "decarbonize" transport eventually. I like the link between LAUS and ONT, maybe with an intermediate stop in Covina. Getting from there to Vegas in one seat is a tall order. Right now they're talking about some sort of tunnel between ONT and BLW, but my impression was that it would be more like a people mover than double-tracked heavy rail. ALTHOUGH, if forces could team up at some point in the future, it could be worth it.
@@LucidStew I don't think there's any need for a tunnel, a low speed connector elevated over Deer Creek seems possible, though either bypassing the ONT station (or a second set of platforms further away) or coming the wrong way into the ONT station (so that you'd have to reverse out to get to LAUS or carry straight on to get to San Bernardino). Also possible would be both options, so that express trains to LA could bypass the station while other can stop at ONT and carry on east.
Electrifying the Surfline and building that tunnel under De Mar to avoid the crumbling cliffs seems a project that they should do over the ten years, let's by 2035. Given that HSR will go deep along the existing railway ROW into Orange County, they might as well keep going with an electrified "HrSR" route along the existing line to San Deigo. However, the new HSR route seems desirable as it connects the Inland Empire to both San Diego and LA, plus the potential connection to Brightline. The CHSRA should do the section from LA Union Station to Ontario Airport to get that airport connection and so that Brightline could also get to LA Union Station. I wonder if CA HSR had started with the LA-SD route that we might be seeing more progress as its harder in terms of urban environment and terrain, but it's also a lot shorter.
A video discussing hypothetical upgrades/realignments to get the existing LOSSAN corridor to HSR standards would be neat. It would definitely be cheaper, easier to build, and quicker from downtown to downtown than the CAHSR proposal.
An overnight route like that might make sense if it was HSR and if it took around 8 to 12 hours versus the 24 to 26 right now. Plus a lot of New Yorkers / Floridians travel to and from, from both States.
Another option for getting from LAUS to Pomona is the UP's ex-Salt Lake Route through Montebello. That route is currently used by the Metrolink Riverside line. Of course, two more tracks must be built to follow the UP tracks from Los Angeles to Ontario, but it would have minimal effect on existing car, truck, and bus traffic.
@@MikeBrady-js5rq We can safely presume that all CHSRA lines near DTLA will be blended with Metrolink. Furthermore, the LA to SD is planned to have a line speed limit of 175 MPH. Not even 300 KPH. Also, unlike the Surf Line or the Coast Line, the Salt Lake has no sharp curves from LAUS to Riverside. The Surf Line abounds with segments limited to 40 MPH, 35 MPH, and even the 25 MPH on the Sorrento Grade.
Metrolink should encourage cities with stations along the routes to build more TRANSIT ORIENTED DESTINATION CENTERS to increase ridership. Maybe even add more fill-in stations. Placentia is a great location and closed to their old town area. SCORE will definitely help that station once it is built. A PUENTE HILLS STATION on Azusa and Gale with mixed living and retail buildings would be greatly appreciated. The City of Industry can build a monorail over the 60 fwy to the mall and more mixed retail and living buildings around the mall like at Orangefair in Anaheim. A hybrid Metro Rail/Metrolink station behind the Citadel Outlets with mixed Living, Retail, and Work TOD Center would be amazing. Citadel Village is a great name for the TOD center between The Citadel Outlets and The Commerce Casino. So much potential for real.
I don't think Metrolink has any power there, but we do need municipalities and regional governing bodies to plan for density around existing and future transit. Especially in southern California, sprawl is about at its limit. They're building tract homes in BANNING, 20 miles west of Palm Springs, at this point. The only option left, if the socal economy has a chance to continue growing, is density where it can be properly transported. The L.A. basin in general has a lot of potential for that as it represents the core of the megalopolis.
@LucidStew The Arrow Line should continue east from Redlands to Indio or Thermal on a dedicated line. And a west extension to Rancho Cucamonga BRIGHTLINE. So people from the High Desert and Las Vegas can have ez access to the Coachella Valley. Personally, I would love to see stations in Yucaipa, Crafton College, Calimesa, West Beaumont, San Gorgonio Hospital, East Beaumont, Cabazon, 2 or 3 stations in Palm Springs including one next to the airport, Thousand Palms, Palm Desert, Indio, Coachella and Thermal. Then people can enjoy everything the Coachella Valley offers. BESIDES CASINOS, RESORTS AND SPAS. THERE'S ENDLESS CONCERTS AND FESTIVALS ALL YEAR LONG, RACING AT THERMAL, CV FIREBIRDS HOCKEY EVEN MAYBE MORE MINOR LEAGUE TEAMS WILL MOVE TO THE COACHELLA VALLEY. MANY STATIONS ALONG THE ROUTE CAN BUILT TODs (Transit Oriented Destinations. Calimesa, Beaumont, Coachella and Thermal have so much potential.
@@robserrano8971 I'm not seeing how Arrow makes it east from Redlands into the San G. Pass. West to Rancho doesn't sound like an issue, but why not just run the SB line out to Redlands? To be honest I'm not sure why Arrow Service exists, even after riding it.
With sea level rising and heavy rain events becoming more frequently, LOSSAN Is already going to require a tunnel at Del Mar and relocation at San Clemente. A more cost effective solution might be a third tunnel around Sorrento and Rose Canyon grades, along with full double tracking of the line and elimination of the remaining speed restrictions between Anaheim and San Clemente. 2 hours from LA to SD will be very competitive against both driving and flying.
Drive from LA to SD is probably 2 hours. With HSR, you may get lucky to cut the trip time to 1 hour (unlikely). BUT, you need to spend maybe 30 minutes driving to the station, wait 15 minutes for train, and arrive in SD without a car. HSR makes more sense if the public transport at either end is well-built, as is in China, Japan, and Europe. You can't have people just get there, they need to get around.
That really depends on the 5 in various spots. You could easily hit an extra hour of traffic. The 30 minutes to LAUS makes a lot of assumptions. Both L.A. and S.D. already have pretty extensive public transit that the respect stations would be able to access. That's the entire reason it was pointed out in the video.
This is interesting, although pretty expensive. Needs to be compared with upgrade of the existing route with completion of double-tracking, electrification, tunnels at San Clemente, Del Mar and Miramar, and as much grade separation as possible.
This section should have been built first . I know way more people travel between the IE to LA or SD and OC and vice versa than people who travel from LA to SF. SoCal to Vegas makes way more sense than SoCal to SF. People in here don’t even like people in SF
In the San Diego area, I think HSR will be combined with Surfliner and Coaster into a tunnel under Miramar Hill. That will not only allow HSR to get into California's third city, but cut off 20 minutes from all trains using the Coast route. Remember that a tunnel under Del Mar is already going through community review.
Man. I'm basically fine with taking the 3 hour train ride to LA because it lets me avoid traffic. Cutting that to 1 hour would be a dream. Tunneling under MCAS Miramar would be... interesting.
VTOL options like Lilium will be maturing by this time negating the need for costly land acquisition and intensive infrastructure construction. I love rail transit, but I think there are more scaleable technologies on the horizon.
It's interesting that the CAHSR designers chose the LA to SF segment first, despite the fact that LA to SD is higher volume. Says something about high speed rail proponents getting hung up on HSR competing with air, when in fact it should be getting people out of cars. Sand Diego is an absolute bitch if you don't drive. Just like most American cities. I think if you're serious about getting people out of cars you need to invest a lot of money into public transport, as part of the high speed rail project.
As much as I would love to ride HSR to San Diego, as a Gen X'er I'll probably be dead and turned to dust before that's possible. I'm pretty surprised that a Riverside station isn't planned, although it would have to be either Riverside or San Bernardino if the line swung that far east. I'm also surprised that the Inland Empire station wouldn't be a HSR/ Metrolink/ Brightline station w a light rail connection to ONT. Seems like that would be the ultimate transit center for the Inland Empire. I think that Rancho Cucamonga would be more useful to more people than ONT due to the connection between Brightline to Los Angeles, disjointed HSR stations to a key destination like Las Vegas seems like an onerous gap. The reason I'm not that excited about an ONT connection is I'm not sure that station would be highly used by the airport's customer base since the vast majority are in the Inland Empire and HSR doesn't help them get to/from the airport. The people who would HSR from ONT are those going to the rest of California and not using the airport (the majority of passengers for whom ONT is irrelevant) and the much smaller amount of passengers using the airport and going to non-local places like LA or Murrieta. In my opinion, ONT is better served by light rail to Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink with the stations to distribute airport passengers throughout the Inland Empire and San Gabriel Valley, and HSR would be better able to collect passengers from Inland Empire and SGV via a Metrolink connection and from direct connections to Las Vegas HSR. I think the best hope that I may live long enough to ride HSR to San Diego is if the Brightline HSR to Las Vegas is a huge success (since that would be the first actual line running) to spur excitement and political impetus to finish the line from SF to LA more quickly. If the CA HSR line were to have a station at Rancho Cucamonga, then San Diego-Las Vegas travel demand could boost expected ridership and provide more impetus to finish the leg to San Diego. Las Vegas is the #1 air destination from San Diego w 837,000 passengers/ year and an airport that is not centrally located in the region meaning long car travel times to get to the airport, making HSR more competitive w air travel.
Same problem as always in the I.E., you have 15 different agencies doing 15 different things and then its a shock when they all come together in the most haphazard way possible. The SB line that the Rancho 8th St. station is on is a no-go to LAUS because of the Metro Gold Line(A or whatever letter) extension to Montclair. So we're stuck with this 2 mile gap between that and the UP line that runs next to ONT. And its not like you can talk Brightline into terminating at ONT. 1) it wouldnt be easy getting past the 10/15 interchange. 2)The reason they're building to Rancho in the first place is because they don't want to wait for CAHSR to get to Palmdale(which would probably happen 30 years before they managed ONT). The reason I like HSR between LAUS and ONT is that is would expand ONT's reach beyond the generally local and allow anyone withing walking distance of L.A. transit to use it. Along with Phase 1 running to Hollywood/Burbank, this would take pressure off LAX and make that a better option for people that aren't close to it. Let's face it, LAX is a massive pain, but it has a LOT of flight options you can't get from other area airports.
@@LucidStew Thanks for responding. Btw your video is amazing and very well researched. I commend you on that. Yes the IE has its transit problems for sure, but they are very enthusiastic about the possibilities of Rancho Cucamonga becoming the IE's premier regional transit center. They had also explored a Boring Company tunnel from Rancho Cucamonga to ONT. Of course, it died. It's a stupid idea, but they are looking at alternatives. Sorry for the long post but, I have done some airport transit use research and want to present some findings just to underline where I'm coming from. Airport connections are good to have but, people often overestimate the importance of them compared to other more local and regional priorities. BART's SFO station only gets about 5000 users/day. DC's Reagan Metro station also only gets about 5000 users/day Chicago O'Hare gets just over 11,000/day Chicago Midway just over 8,000 These cities have comprehensive rapid transit systems. As an outlier, DEN does get about 14,000/ day. I haven't figured out why yet. It could be parking availability or rates, employee use (35,000 work there), or the strength of its transit connections. It's commuter rail carries about 2x Metrolink's but its light rail carries only about 1/4 of LA Metro. Still looking for data to figure that out. The busiest US airport transit station is NYC JFK. It gets just over 18,000/day, with the country's most extensive rail network across 3 states. This is about 9% of JFK's daily passengers. These people connect from the NYC subway and LIRR station to JFK via a 4 mile people mover. Even LA Metro is only forecasting a little over 2000 people a day for the LAX station, less than 2% of daily passengers. That makes sense compared to NYC because the rest of the rapid transit system's coverage is meager and will be even with it's full planned build out compared to the Bay Area and NYC. None of these stations are among the busiest in their cities. Using transit to an airport can be convenient but it can also be inconvenient with lots of luggage. So many people drive or use Uber even in these transit heavy cities. Worldwide, US airport stations get meager usage compared to other global cities in Europe and Asia w many in the 50-100,000 people/day range. In the hierarchy of connections, I believe local transit centers are the most important transit connections because they will serve the most people, followed by major activity centers, and then airports. If you build 2 lines but they are not connected, you drastically lower the utility of both of those lines. In this case, the utility of both Brightline and CA HSR whose main customers are long distance ones. ONT's max reach is limited because of the region's other airports. Whereas many people in the Central Valley who currently drive to SFO, OAK, SJC, BUR and LAX (Fresno's airport has limited destinations and is very expensive), it's unlikely many from LA, the SFV, the OC, or the South Bay would use ONT because of much closer airports. ONT could be a contender for competing with BUR for passengers from the SGV but, those people would need to drive or use Metrolink no matter where the HSR station is located. Maybe more people from the Gateway Cities may use ONT if there is a HSR station at Norwalk but, they could just as easily, and maybe less expensively, use Metrolink. 2.8 million/year people use Southern California airports (incl ONT) to fly to Las Vegas, 3.7 million if you include San Diego. That's 2/3 the total number of passengers that use ONT today. That's a big market and collectively makes it the 2nd biggest air market in Southern California after the Bay Area. That's why I prefer a Rancho Cucamonga HSR station. It connects to Metrolink, Brightline, and San Bernardino County is exploring a BRT which would also connect there. A people mover or light rail line could also connect ONT to what will be a busy station, which would make it easier for more people to use ONT than a HSR station would. NYC does well with it's JFK people mover connection, I think ONT would also do well with one from Rancho Cucamonga. It would be about an 10 minute ride and could take passengers directly to each of ONT's terminals (which is a big deal or deal breaker), something even a HSR station at ONT will not do.
@@bryanCJC2105 I see your point. It's not impossible, but looks pretty slow, and then it would go right past the airport without stopping. 😂 But how many people a day are using a typical transit hub that size? Also, with the BRT line also stopping at ONT and the tunnel to 8th St., wouldn't that kind of turn ONT into a transit hub itself?
@@LucidStew tunnel to 8th St? That died. I imagine Rancho Cucamonga becoming like the Millbrae transit hub which will directly connect HSR with Caltrain, BART and local transit. The BART connection takes people into SFO. ONT would be between 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile from the terminals and require another mode to get there, probably people mover. So, ONT would require an intermediate transfer by all passengers going to the airport and to Cucamonga/ Las Vegas but, at Cucamonga only ONT travelers will need intermediate transit. Brightline is forecasting 7.5 million passengers at Cucamonga annually, a 15% share of all Las Vegas travel. If HSR stops at ONT instead, it wouldn't be the end of the world but, it might be criticized by those arriving on HSR from LA, SFV, OC and San Diego going to Las Vegas.
Same as how I show RTA for I.E. bus service when Omnitrans does it as well. I didn't feel the need to get bogged down in all the details. Pointing out the availability of the mode was the point.
Very entertaining and well done sir. However, you are clearly mistaken on the time of completion, as Kirk will take command of the Enterprise in 2265. Obviously, that is far too optimistic
The two corridors are San Diego to Las Vegas and Los Angeles to Phoenix. Brightline needs to connect with California High-Speed Rail in San Bernardino in order to serve San Diego, Riverside, and Orange Counties, as well as the eastern side of San Bernardino County. The station area around the new multimodal terminal in San Bernardino has, by far, the most development potential in southern California, and the site currently offers two lines of Metrolink service, the sbX system between San Bernardino State and Loma Linda Universities, the Arrow transitway to and from the University of Redlands, and the potential for a 1.5-mile extension of the tracks to San Bernardino International Airport.
The principal objective for C.H.S.R. is to direct growth into the interior of the state by reestablishing the old inland railroad cities and connecting them with the coastal metropolises by way of a fast transportation mode.
It certainly does have RE-development potential. The extra expense isn't necessary. Ontario can serve the same function in connecting to Phoenix and San Diego. There could be a station in Loma Linda off the UP line, S.B. would be connected via sbX with much less trouble than trying to run a line through downtown.
Although I would prefer an eastern route like the one in the video, going along the 5 would probably be a lot easier requiring fewer tunnels. Instead of going to Ontario and Corona, you go south along the 57 to the 5 all the way down to SD Santa Fe Station, which is downtown and connects to the trolley. On the east side, I think you go from DT SD probably the Broadway station since you can go up the 163 to 15. Then connect to the Rancho Cucamonga station, so it's a quicker route to go to Las Vegas. Rancho to Union Station to connect to the rest of the HSR should also be high speed, but I don't think they're planning on high speeding the Metrolink lines. Better and expanded Metrolink would be better for getting to the non-LAX airports since it could have more stops and doesn't need to go 200 mph.
Honestly, I wish that the Pacific Surfliner could be improved? One of the chief complaints, is that Metrolink doesn't serve Santa Barbara, California. If Metrolink served Santa Barbara, it could boost ridership between Santa Barbara and Los Angeles and would provide commuter service. The problem that the Pacific Surfliner has traditionally had is that people use it as commuter rail, but why when there's already Metrolink Service? Pacific Surfliner should be running as express service from San Luis Obispo to Santa Barbara to Los Angeles to San Diego. If Metrolink were allowed to run into Santa Barbara and Goleta, it could take an average of 150,000 cars off the congested 101 Freeway. But another problem that's currently being investigated is that in the official Amtrak Timetable, there's no indication of Pacific Surfliner service on the timetable, also there's no mention of Metrolink Services that double on the Pacific Surfliner Timetable. What the Passenger Ride's Association of California and Nevada has proposed is that either Amtrak shows Pacific Surfliner service as part of the national railroad timetable? Or that Pacific Surfliner and Metrolink be combined showing how the currently augment each other?
They are planning to at least get rid of the part that is most vulnerable to the ocean in the south. Tracks down by Del Mar will be moved into a tunnel. In terms of express on the Pacific Surfliner, my experience was that not many people were on at SLO, and that most people boarded or alighted between Ventura and LAUS. There were also a lot of people on my trains that were riding from/to Simi Valley.
metrolink is supposed to start serving santa barbara starting april 2024, or codeshare with amtrak to serve it. with their $10 weekend ticket, it's going to be an amazing price if going all the way from oceanside, like I will be.
Southern California also has San Bernardino International Airport, Palm Springs International Airport, Long Beach Airport, Hollywood-Burbank Airport, and John Wayne (Orange County) Airport.
Great video! A couple of questions: Could the Brightline west station just be moved to the airport? It's only 3 miles and a direct airport connection seems like it would offer huge possibilities for ridership. It could even come with an upgrade to the airport to accommodate the higher number of passengers looking to go to Vegas. Also, why is there no consideration for removing highway lanes when building the HSR? I know the answer, but seriously, wouldn't it make more sense to do that then rip down more homes and businesses?
Conceivably, but the 10/15 interchange doesn't look like the easiest proposition. One of the reasons they've decided to do this is because they can do it at a relatively low cost. Add in a billion for crazy flyover work or a couple billion for a tunnel and it makes less sense for them. Secondly, SBCTA is planning a tunnel and automated people mover between the two, so if you're Brightline why bother when someone else will make the connection for you at no cost to you? Third, The reason to bring the line into Rancho Cucamonga is that they can't wait for CAHSR to get to Palmdale. A station at ONT would accomplish a connection to LAUS no better than 8th St. at more expense. Actually, the 8th St. station is superior is regards to connectivity because it will only be 8 miles from the Metro Gold/L line.
@@LucidStew Thanks for the detailed answer! From a financial perspective, I definitely understand the Brightline position, but I was thinking that the city/state should help fund that cost. To your point, though, that help would probably take way longer than Brightline wants to wait. I wasn't aware that the 8th street connection is better for LAUS though, so from that practical perspective I can understand why everyone involved is happy with the arrangement.
@@jamalgibson8139 I kinda wish Los Angeles and San Diego could jointly support these projects, as it would greatly benefit them to reduce traffic and connect their cities. I'm jealous of European nations, where you can hop on a train and go from France to Belgium to Germany all in one day, and come back! I took public transport from SD to SF and it took like 16 hours thats just crazy. Even when he said in this video it takes 3 hours to get to LA from SD, thats ridiculous as well when you can just drive there in 2 hours if u dodge traffic hours.
They are nuts to not have CHSR connect directly to the Brightline. The A line light rail is the best connection to the Brightline when it rolls out: sub-optimal to say the least.
This segment actually makes sense, and should have been the one they built first. As much as I am a fan of the idea of HSR, California is doing the typical of how they do things and still have absolutely no real idea of what they are doing. Right now they are building it essentially from nowhere to nowhere. And they still have no idea how they will actually get it to either the Bay Area, or to Los Angeles. Those are both major engineering challenges that they have absolutely no idea of how they are going to overcome them.
I keep wondering why they wouldn't run on top of the I-5 all the way down to San Diego..... Leave Union Station, and you can pretty much put a raised high speed train track on top of the I-5 pretty much all the way down to San Diego, with 1st stop at Anaheim Artic (the I-5 will be nearby, and the track can exit the freeway route, stop, and then move back to the I-5, and go south.) A second stop in Orange County could be considered near the Irvine Spectrum. From there, it can go high speed all the way down to Oceanside, which is likely the next stop. Finally, in San Diego the line would exit the I-5 raised track near the airport, and slide right into San Diego downtown. A "people mover" should then be built to connect the downtown central station to the airport.
Holy High Hills, Batman!! California's geography makes everything nasty and the sprawl seriously limits options. A thought occurred to me about the change of grades. HSR likes
You would have to take out a couple of traffic lanes, but it would be a lot easier to build the route in the middle of the”the 60” I think. The overall net benefit, especially if a local regional rail route could also use the same tracks, would mean that the capacity of the route would be an order of magnitude higher taking into account cars + trains. I can definitely see that if HSR helps develop ONT, that could let Burbank, John Wayne, and Long Beach close - which would provide a tonne of land for redevelopment. Especially given all the short hop flights - to the Bay, Las Vegas, maybe Phoenix, etc…that will one day be faster by train. 😊
Honestly Merced to Sacramento should’ve just been part of the initial operating segment. At least then you would have transfers to the ACE and Capitol Corridor. Then you could at least get to the Bay Area while they figure out the Pacheco Pass segment, and it would’ve been more useful for people along that route to connect those cities in the Central Valley too anyways
@@JordanPeace Interestingly, the very first IOS that the CAHSRA came up with was Burbank to Bakersfield, which would have closed the north-south inland transit gap
@@LucidStew that makes some sense with it being the only part of California right now that doesn’t have some sort of rail connection between the two. Of course with how ridiculously slow the San Joaquins line is very few people would have ever been convinced to take it from LA to SF even if they patched that gap. It is kind of ironic though that the Bakersfield to Burbank segment is seemingly becoming the one that (assuming any section of phase 1 doesn’t get completed) they would probably be most likely to give up on actually building
Your video is interesting, but I will probably never see it. I have two quibbles. The first is the problem with the right of way for the Surf Liner. A large part of its coastal rail is located in areas where the land under it is eroding. It is currently closed for most rail traffic not far north of San Diego. The second is that there is no mention of John Wayne Airport in the New Port Beach area of Orange County.
The Del Mar tunnels project is being developed, though a couple more billion$ still need to be found to build them. Concept plans exist for moving the San Clemente tracks to the I-5 alignment inland. Concept plans also exist to reduce the effect of the Miramar grade. Add all of those and some odds/end (WAG maybe 10-15B$) and even without electrification pretty much all of the Surfliner would be good for 90, maybe 110 mph. That would cut LA-SD time from the present 3ish hours to around 2, and would get it out of the surf zone. Not sure where that money would come from, though; it's fundamentally a metro project rather than something of statewide significance.
I work at the Miramar landfill where you propose an alternate route going through the San Clemente canyon, squeezing through four existing landfills. I’d like to help you create a rendering of this.
So if it’s high speed it should only have stations at lax the airport and San Diego with good regional connections to theses stops: otherwise it just doesn’t make the cost worth while
@@LucidStew Sure but maybe it would be cheaper to follow along the coast? Did they do a cost comparison between the coast and the inland empire area? I would think the coast would be easer as there is already rail their.
Upgrades to the LOSSAN (LA-San Diego) corridor have been ongoing - some portions in Orange and SD County are already 90 mph. There have been studies of further improvements that would allow cutting the LA-SD running time to 90-120 minutes. Try driving it in that! Of course, that requires spending money - moving San Clemente inland along the 5, the Del Mar tunnel, reducing the Miramar grade (viaduct from the Del Mar tunnel, perhaps? tunnel through the hill?), bypassing SJC along the 5, replacing several bridges (needed for sea level rise mitigation anyway in the long term) and easing a few curves, and generally adding a heap of grade separations, isn't free. Preliminary (10% or better, or at least advanced concept) design exists for all of those; it'll just take cubic dollars. CAHSR has already kicked in money for some of the grade seps that would eventually assist with the Anaheim extension. And that's without electrifying - using Brightline Florida type equipment - though it would be better eleectrified. Biggest issue, really, is the need to continue freight service on the line (BNSF has rights and there's no other way to San Diego by rail). While CAHSR doesn't want to consider the route, you might want to. Really, unless the 15 route can significantly beat 90 minutes end to end, an upgraded Surfliner (LOSSAN) using the CAHSR Anaheim extension might just be competitive.
This is going by CAHSR guidelines, restrictions, and preliminary route. According to Prop 1A, the train to San Diego must go through the Inland Empire. It also has to be designed to be able to make the L.A.-S.D. trip in 80 minutes as an express. I have it at 62 minutes here, so that's more than possible even if I made major miscalculations.
TGV lines have gradient of 3,5 % ICE in Germany goes up to 4% ! If you only have high speed trains on the line you can build much steeper gradients . I’m afraid the highway curves are not wide enough for true high speed rail , the French example shows us for 186mph you need radii of around 3.75mls…
Many of the places where the route closely conforms to the interstate, I have it between 90 and 110. The segments with a lot of tunneling tend to be the fast portions.
I'm from South El Monte, so it'll be interesting to see what they make out of it if they end up going for the 60 fwy corridor. Their is/was talks to do some lane widening around the 60/605 interchange (area in 4:20 ) a while back (Article titled: "Metro and Caltrans 605/60 Freeway Widening Project Could Demolish San Gabriel Valley Homes" by StreetsBlog has info on this. won't let me post link) but i would mind less having such rail pass by (include a stop too because why not) and destroy some homes, than have one more freeway lane destroy homes.
The other option is the 10, which I passed over because it seemed to me they would need to either remove the bus lanes or remove regular traffic lanes or both to fit another track(or two) in the median. I used to work out in San Gabriel Valley. I can't imagine having to do that and having someone tell me they're going to be taking lanes out. I found that article. One of the graphics has the exact same set houses needing to be demolished and the reconfiguration of the Durfee interchange, too. The other thing is... if they do widen the 60 out there, which they're still talking about, that pretty much eliminates CAHSR in the ROW.
Why they would choose such a difficult route is hard to know. It's both mountainous and built up. I love the beach-running part of the original but have never ridden over it. That's not a high speed curve there by any means - more like 55 at best, but it's the top thrill of the entire line I bet - I read somewhere you could have a 1250' radius at 60 with 8" of superelevation or something, but legally in the US it's got to be 6 I think. CHSR standards don't show an r less than 1500' (60mph with 6' of superelevation, but for superelevation there has to be spirals, and then the whole curve has to be moved to offset it from the tangents to make room for the spirals, usly by some percent of the r like 15') But if you have a fast route otherwise, it can make sense to have a few big curves. I think planners go out of their way to provide for high speed in places where it's counterproductive, by being longer mostly. That one as I imagine it is a very dramatic ride, though it looks like they should just get rid of the Interstate so as not to cramp it's style - like Balboa arriving at the Pacific. I'm not averse to one of those tunnels looked into by the locals and documented by an engineering firm they hired. I think with just that one (the southernmost) on that stretch (where two or three tunnels are suggested) you have the best possible high speed alignment, high speed or not. Use rip-rap to double-track and raise the rest. Also, there's not much to be gained by having that giant curvaceous 10-track ramp going south out of Union Station. Better the original (if you're going east anyway - south too if you ask me - but going east is currently physically blocked for passenger trains from the station.) Better still have the whole HSR station out in front and under the street, connected to that big underground freight line probably built at public expense, which has enough space to accommodate trackage for the high-speed service. (Two for us, one for them.) Going to the university town (can't remember now) Cal State(?) north of San Diego would have the light rail line making the high speed line redundant, as with the airport, and I'm wondering if that wasn't the intent all along at some level. Another acceptable-to-the-US-rail-cabal scenario would be to have the HSR line terminate somewhere near the college town so you could switch to light rail for the rest of the trip. I believe that whole stretch needs somehow to get grade-separated including the existing station in San Diego. It's already a big rail right--of-way; it should be grade separated, with raised platforms. (Notice they're now backing off from raised platforms in Europe, e.g. the glorious Vienna station.) Somehow it's possible to do that. (grade separation) But designers don't like it because it makes them work, or so it seems. I am so obsessive with these comments, pardon it. Have combined about all my CA and AZ lines (save San Diego: too embryonic, though pos. to say same of all) in one file and stripped away most of the extraneous, to show one angle of my plot to take over the world, months ago, but to get the last done it just seems to get heavy to lift and have to postpone. If Brightline builds that thing (you know the operative forces of Brightline are from the FEC i.e. mainstream rail cabal) it will end up being a permanent substitute for a proper high speed line to LV - vs. for instance China
The Inland Empire route is pure politics, I guarantee it, like the Anaheim stub. Electrifying and improving LOSSAN, and then finding a way to connect to ONT to the east( I'm really not sure why UP through City of Industry isn't an option there. The freeway options seem bad.) seems more sane to me. However, I'm of the opinion CAHSR Phase 2 will never happen anyway... The talk is now electrification of everything eventually no matter what, but I felt like the class 1s will be able to stave that off for entire generations before capitulating.
Just south (300 meters) of the Old Town Station in San Diego is a Navy site (Naval Information Warfare Center - labeled OT1,2,3 if you zoom in close enough) that is supposedly is going to be turned back over to the city in the near future. As a former employee of the Navy site...these are the old Consolidated Aircraft "hangars" that produced WW2 aircraft and could be easily converted to a HSR terminal. Don't need to use space off the Washington St. area. Why have the HSR go all the way downtown when the trolley can make that trip? Not to mention that there are shuttles from the Old Town Station that already make trips to the airport.
There have been studies showing that HSR mainly pulls traffic from slower trains and mid-haul flights. The freeways will still be full. The throughput of the CAHSR system isn't such that it can make a significant dent in road travel anyway.
honestly moving so close to the airport seems like a waste terminating at old-town seems sufficient enough given both the green and blue lines can quickly take you to down town and the slowed speed by highspeed trains may are comparable to the coaster. This means you have three different reliable routes into down town
The hardest part really is between Escondido and San Diego because nearly all of the canyon space has been set aside since the construction of the freeways. Could always get rid of one, I guess. Good luck to the CAHSRA on that one, although I'm of the opinion that Phase 2 will never happen.
An easier alternative to following the 60 might be to double the existing former PE track to El Monte along the 10. Metrolink would love to have to tracks between LAUS and El Monte.
Its not impossible, but the situation around LAUS is pretty complicated. I-10 is as well. Something would need to come out to make room for the tracks. It's possible in 50-60 years removing lanes will be more tenable, but that state would continue beyond El Monte to the 605. I skipped the idea because it seemed unlikely and I also don't like San Gabriel Valley for any sort of station. The bus lanes serve the purpose of regional transit. HSR is rendered somewhat pointless if you're stopping every 5 minutes. As it is, Ontario is already pretty close to LAUS for an HSR line, and there are way too many stations on the table for 150 miles of track.
@@LucidStew - Given the projected station spacing between LAUS and Ontario airport stations, I think we can expect this segment to be a blended, 90 MPH railroad, operated with Metrolink, much like LAUS to Anaheim. Remember that noise considerations will be significant wherever the train is not IN THE MIDDLE (as opposed to along) a freeway. An average speed of 100 MPH and up is proven to be competitive with driving. I'm sure that a lot of people in Perris and the Temecula area will love to ride HSR to Los Angeles for commuting. There are alternatives to removing lanes along the 10, such as an aerial alignment. But again, we're talking about a project starting in the 2030s. The LAUS to Ontario segment is on Metrolink's radar as well, and even Brightline. All those trains would keep a double-track railroad along the 10 Freeway well-traveled. Between the El Monte and Riverside, I think CHSRA/Metrolink/Brightline will follow the ex-Southern Pacific Sunset Route through Diamond Bar, Pomona and Jurupa Valley.
I just looked at the satellite photos and I'm convinced that carving out 20 feet for a second track between El Monte and Marengo Street (East Los Angeles) along the 8 miles of the 10 Freeway is easier than building a completely new track along the 60 Freeway. As you pointed out, running along the 60 means crossing one existing interchange after another.
@@pacificostudios There are places where I see zero available feet unless you remove lanes. The frontage roads also have to stay because there are houses on them in many parts. One thing I'll concede is that I had blinders on in terms of placing a 2nd track in the median at-grade. One possibility there is a viaduct in place of the existing track.
The "high speed" in HSR gets slower and slower as the number of stations increase. The paths of right of way or paths caused by geography also means the HSR lines, and its stations, is getting further and further from where populations exist and people want to go.
In the case of CAHSR, all intermediate stations with be four-tracked, so express would travel through at speed unimpeded. As far as geography goes, many of those pathing decisions seem more political than practical. If you were trying to go straight between San Francisco and San Diego, you'd skip the Inland Empire and most of the Central Valley, but then you're alienating about 8 million voters in the process. You also have other ancillary concerns like social justice and nimbyism that keep the whole thing from being as efficient as it could be.
15:00 🤣🤣🤣 Smart to avoid the coastal towns as well as Rancho Santa Fe/Rancho Bernardo/Poway which would fight tooth and nail. Can you imagine residents of La Jolla or Del Mar getting behind this? Yes it would add to the overall cost, but I believe there'd be a great benefit for inclusion of San Bernadino/Riverside.
A LA to Phoenix line would probably just spur off from this line and just continue on the 10 it seems. Or is there not enough space on this freeway, I don’t know the area that well.
The freeway ROW is not impossible, but it has issues. The more viable path is along the UP ROW through San Timoteo Canyon and The San Gorgonio Pass. Pretty slow going there and any straightening could run into local and environmental opposition. I'll do a video about it eventually.
@@LucidStew tie it in with your proposed Phoenix-Las Vegas HSR route and Brightline West's to LA via CAHSR at Palmdale and you have a Southwest HSR triangle!
The SD station is a literal dead zone. Half of it, towards the NW are all steep hills, further reducing the 1/2 walkable area by at least one third. Thank goodness they are aiming for something better.
Seems like an odd choice. It also seems like if they aimed for downtown and dropped the whole airport idea, it would open up some approaches that might be preferrable to I-5
In motion. The extra time is at intermediate stations. The speed difference(150mph vs 128mph) is from having to slow down and accelerate numerous extra times. Particularly harmful is the stop at Pomona because its so close to Ontario.
I never understood the plan to connect LA with SD via the inland route. An upgrade and rerouting of the existing Surfliner corridor would make more sense - electrified of course. Better an extension of HSR through San Bernardino and on to the Coachella Valley. Then a conventional higher speed line to the Perris and Murrietta area.
7:05 If you accelerate out from ONT then it’s just around one mile from encountering that curve. At the end of the day HSR isn’t subways so acceleration is abysmal and 60 mph should be more than enough. The 150 mph should be considered only when we think about trains passing ONT station, and that would be a problem if 60 mph limit is here because it requires you to decelerate from 220 to 60, adding at least a few minutes to the trip
It's funny you would say this because someone else in another comment gave me a hard time for not picking the tunnel. :D My argument in response was similar to yours, although I emphasized that I picked the slower, cheaper alternative because I believe the CAHSRA would do so.
@@LucidStew actually I don’t think it’s that a terrible idea to have a “forced stop” in this station, it’s just a few minutes and actually has two runways instead of one in San Diego Airport. By the way when it one day has Shinkansen frequency either 150 mph compatible curve or the ONT station would be useless.
To be clear: the inland empire is not "between" LA and San Diego as the crow flies. For whatever reason, HSR will take a circuitous route inland on its way to SD. I wish they had a more direct route. The existing Amtrak is SO VERY SLOWWWW.
It seems to me that sometimes transit rail should be accommodated by trench-and-cover UNDERNEATH highways rather than widening the highways further. Such would also eliminate the additional noise (as if freeways weren't already violators of ear-safe noise levels) and additional grade crossing conflicts. It also would more easily permit full electrification in the face of the all-too-common NIMBYesque view-ruining BS. CONS 1. There's no better incentive to taking transit instead of cars than sitting in traffic while trains zip by at speeds faster than the legal driving limit. 2. Utility and other infrastructure very seldomly represent as much of a major problem as it looks on paper. There's always a solution where there's will-and pros for economic growth. Utility and other infrastructure? Yeah, that's very seldom really a major concern. However, infrastructure reconfiguration can prolong the project build-out timeline. Additional PROS 1. Wide highways, especially those with frontage roads or adjacent bike paths, can accommodate multiple tracks, such as dedicated transit lines that might use differing gauges, express lanes, high speed and cross-country rail, or even depressed freight tracks without electricity in order to permit double stacking. 2. Due to archaic funding restrictions and rail- and transit-naysayers, highway projects still raise more funding more expediently. However, multimodal corridors can draw funding from multiple sources… 3. …while sharing costs, thereby increasing efficiency and getting more bang for the buck… 4. …with far greater, synergistic upgrades and flow improvements for all modes. 5. INCREASE LAND USE: interchanges adjacent to commercial centers or major roads can also overlay large multimodal stations, especially if station designs include bus and lightrail lanes. Connecting all the parcels and surface streets adjacent to the interchange for improves interaccess as well as incorporate the stations into their plans, as well as pose opportunities for expansion and making housing inclusion attractive. Some additional development can fill in wasted land, and where said uses bring in people, sound walls can vastly reduce tire-on-pavement noise. Where development density is greater, the buildings themselves can provide much of the noise mitigation. The nice thing about sound walls on stacked interchanges is that they can also eliminate vertigo 6. Or the interchange can be completely overhauled to underlay a redevelopment of the land for said multimodal stations that can better serve multiuse development complexes, civic and entertainment facilities, hospitals (with dedicated ambulance ramps or lanes), hotels or schools. People underestimate just how enormous the footprints of interchanges often are, not infrequently larger than small towns and entire suburb tracts. Highrises are not out of the question, perhaps even highly desirable.
It's certainly an option. However, its an expensive one. Many times there are better options within the existing freeway right of way. You're probably also looking at more traffic disruption that way during construction. If you have a ROW that is absolutely full with lanes and bounded(as you point out), I think it becomes a more attractive idea. If we take the stretch on the 10 through San Gabriel Valley in the video as an example, I think aerial in the median still wins out. Another example that comes to mind is the 60 through South El Monte. The San Gabriel River complicates that situation slightly, but that area might be a better application of a tunnel or necessary if there is local opposition to freeway adjacent demolition.
San Bernardino is the key to fixing all of southern California. San Bernardino must be reestablished as the mega-region's third metropolitan core, alongside Los Angeles and San Diego.
Who in the world wants to live by an airport? The station site at Ontario International is fine for air-rail integration, but the location is all wrong for transit-oriented development.
Are there any existing technologies that could handle a 4% or 5% grade? This would presumably eliminate a good deal of the tunneling for less overall cost.
4% is possible, German high speed line from Cologne to Frankfurt (KRM) has multiple stretches at 4% and never falls below 150mph. (but probably not possible at high speed if you have a stop at or very close to the ascend, losing all momentum)
Siemens promo materials for their train aimed at the Brightline West route claims it's 4.5% capable, which would match the steepest grades on that route.
A new Sprinter station at the 15 Freeway and the HSR line might save a lot of money and avoid community opposition compared to hacking the way into Escondido. The walk from the Transit Center to downtown Escondido is not at all pleasant. There is a lot of underdeveloped land by the 15 Freeway and the Sprinter/Escondido Branch.
I was going by the older lower resolution map, but the map on buildhsr.com has a hypothetical station closer to the freeway by the Sprinter tracks. I would assume it would be underground. However, its very optimistic to think any of it will ever be built.
@@LucidStew - As I pointed out, "never" is a long time. Even 2040 is far away. All Newsom really did is say "Let's focus on Merced to Bakersfield by 2029," and worry about 2040 once we get that done. Bits of cash have dribbled away in LinkUS (L.A. Union Station), Rosecrans/Marquadt, and of course, CalTrain electrification. Remember that it is not uncommon for a Zoomer to lack a driver's license now, when before, getting your license at 16 was the priority of every high school student. No one predicted what cellphones would do to Americans, and smartphones and e-bikes were not even on the horizon in the 1990s. Likewise, electric cars were considered a pipe dream in 2010, but by 2035, they will be the only kind of car on sale in California. Meanwhile, California might become the Saudi Arabia of lithium in a few years!
@@LucidStew- They might have taken it down, but CA HSR had once uploaded preliminary engineering plans for the LA-SD segment, and it was basically a 175 MPH railroad through San Diego county. Grades up to 4% are fine for HSR, because of the remarkable power-weight ratio needed to get to HSR speed. The ICE lines in Germany have a max grade of 4%. Although CHSRA proposed a line to the SAN airport, that was before SAN started becoming serious about providing landside transportation to Old Town station. I think HSR will be a Blended system from Sorrento Valley all the way to Santa Fe station. By that time, Coaster will probably be starting by Petco Park, which will free up mucho track space in Santa Fe station.
@@pacificostudios I'm more than willing to adjust my view. However, there are many factors working against, currently. Other technologies are also going to have an impact on the utility and competitiveness of the mode over time.
Seems like there is a whole basketful of nearly equally crappy options down there. Staying in the 15 ROW down to SR94 would accomplish about the same with less tunneling. I didn't even look at that while making the video because of the focus on the CAHSR station site. I agree, though. I don't find anything particularly compelling about stopping near the airport instead of in or near downtown.
Ontario airport is a weird situation, and I don't see a need for it to have a direct station. There are existing rights of way that make more sense for HSR that are not near the ONT terminals. Ontario already has two metrolink stations on two different lines. What is needed is a tram or peoplemover that transfers between them and the ONT terminals. HSR, whether it's brightline OR CAHSR would just need to be included in this peoplemover network, which would be primarily running along or near Milliken Ave, with points of interest stops at each metrolink, ONT terminals, and likely Ontario Mills and Victoria gardens retail areas.
Unfortunately, SBCTA has actually initiated a study and environmental review for a tunneled on-demand people mover from the RC MetroLink station (and Brightline West terminus) and ONT, but have not included the Riverside MetroLink line in it's evaluation, even though it is actually far closer to the airport. And frankly, I can't see how it makes sense to bury it in this context, either, as density doesn't preclude keeping it actually visible (which IS important).
Where you choose a 60 mph bend over a 150 mph bend "because you would only win a few minutes", you negate the premise of the whole project, which is to build high speed rail. Consider that that doesn't only bring the speed down in that particular bend, but also on the rails on either side of it. A train can't accelerate and decelerate as quickly as a car can. Also, you're introducing the potential for derailment, possibly damaging the nearby highway interchange.
This would be 2 miles from a stop. Only an express train would have any reason to be near high speed there. The route to the south along I-15 isn't all that fast either, so a train coming from the west would have to slow there anyway. I didn't pick it because I'm lazy. I picked it because it would save half a billion to a billion dollars, and the CAHSRA is apt make such decisions at this point. There's also an option to take out a few more warehouses and make it a 90mph curve if you like. The idea that this would negate the premise of the entire project doesn't hold. With that 60mph curve, the train still gets between L.A. and S.D. in 62 minutes, which is 18 minutes faster than required by Prop 1A. I took acceleration into account, btw.
I'd love to see your take on how you would have routed phase 1, ignoring the political realities which have led to the current route. Personally I really like the idea of an alignment between Bakersfield and Madera next the (CSX?) ROW alongside the 99. The ROW looks plenty wide enough with most places although sometimes requiring a freight track shift.
Freeway design standards aren't as stringent. Interstates are allowed up to 6% grade, and minimum desired curve radius is 1/3 of a mile. A high speed rail line is limited to more like 4% grade and full speed curves can be 3 mile radius or more. More expensive infrastructure elements like long cuts, earthen ramps, viaduct, or tunnels are sometimes necessary to meet those geometry requirements when a freeway would not need them. But also, we DID and still DO spend a lot of money on freeways. The Federal Highway System also has a dedicated ~$50 billion/year fund maintained by a dedicated tax. Passenger rail has no such funding mechanism.
Why would you put the hsr station just outof walking distance of old town station. Old town station is the core junction of the san diego aria. You need to go there to get to anyware so it makes sense to put the hsr station platforms there at the current rail station.
Yeah, its a weird spot. I think obviously you'd like to get to downtown if you could, but if you cant and you're coming from that direction the Old Town Transit Center is probably better than the back end of the airport.
A carbon analysis also helps to justify the expense of the venture. There is an effect on GDP in terms of $ per ton CO2 that this could be analyzed for.
satation at old town transit center too. also a though bus to del mar race course via the marines camp pendelton to at lesat the station at murieta maybe even extended east to palm sping
Why already tunneling at elevation grades over 2% ? Light high speed trains are capable of elevation grades over 4 - 4,5% (1 - 2% for normal trains i belive?) and also quiet a lot smaller curve radii compared to normal trains. So theoretically you could use way less tunnel at the mountainous sections....
What exactly is meant by "High Speed Rail" in the USA? The de facto international standard now for true HSR is 300 kMH (in many places around the world even this speed is now exceeded), and if this definition is used there's no way that LA-SD trains could even reach, let alone exceed, that speed if they follow existing ROW alongside freeways designed for 65MPH road traffic, except for occasional short fast straight sections between much longer slower stretches of curving ROW. Considering this constant accelerating/braking, a very energy-intensive and inefficient way to operate any train, the route via Ontario and the Inland Empire is MUCH longer than the existing ex-Santa Fe coastal route, so overall any time savings would be minimal at best, and definitely not worth the massive expense involved. This whole notion of linking LA with SD in this fashion seems idealistic and unrealistic, like something that politicians get excited about until hard reality inevitably rears its ugly head. Maybe, because evidently Americans have absolutely no clue how to build effective HSR, it would be prudent to enlist the help of those nations that already have true HSR: how about asking for advice from France, Spain, Italy, Germany, etc etc, and of course China... And as for Brightline West, has its planners (and I use that term very loosely) ever heard of climate change and water shortages, both of which will soon render Las Vegas and other desert cities mostly uninhabitable? It would be ironic that if BLW were built, there would be insufficient people remaining in LV to make it worthwhile.
The U.S. federal definition is top speed of 110mph/175kph. My benchmark is 150mph top speed, which is an Imperial simplification of the generally accepted 250kph international standard. The route in this video would be able to sustain 200mph/320kph+ for about 60 miles between Corona and Escondido mainly due to about 20 miles of tunnels, with a top speed of 220mph/350kph. In other places, the freeway alignment would constrain speed to 110 or less. I have those portions also at about 60 miles total, giving an average speed of 155mph/250kph when combining those. This aligns with the 150mph/240kph average speed I calculated for an express between the two areas with the route choices presented.
Temescal="temm-ess-CAL" Also, it's "Penesquitos", not "penesquitas". Another problem in San Diego County is that a lot of the land is federal property such as around MCAS Miramar. Around Old Town a lot of the land is state property.
High speed rail all over the world: Connects city centers directly, makes it much more convenient than going to the airport High speed rail in California: Great! Now we can connect our airports
"Its implied by the populations served, their proximity, and the connections made." True. But we still should have an estimate. As a start, Surfliner has a 1.6M annual ridership.
As someone nearly 50 years old, I'm hoping there will be as large of a window as possible between being retired and taking a trip from SF to LA and doing so while still in full control of my bowels, i.e. not needing Depends.
This all seems so inefficient. Why duplicate the metrolink corridor? Let brightline handle it? Usually I like ambitious plans but this doesn't sit well.
