An all-stops local post of recent developments in peninsula rail:
- UPDATE: the California High-Speed Rail Authority sheds a crocodile tear over the potential demise of Caltrain, no doubt trying hard not to covet the 700 acres of pristine rail corridor real estate that would suddenly become available. Can Obi-Wan Doty save the peninsula commute from the evil HSR empire?
- The Peninsula Rail Program finally releases its long-promised Context Sensitive Solutions toolkit. The toolkit allows anyone to provide specific input and recommendations on the details of how the peninsula HSR project should be configured. The toolkit contains some detailed maps and explains the pros and cons of various options. There is no review period or deadline.
- The slam-dunk certification of the electrification EIR unexpectedly bounces off the rim after a threat of lawsuit over the lack of (recent) public circulation. Who sat on it since the public comment period way back in 2004? Probably the FTA.
- Even as expensive capital projects go out to bid, Caltrain reveals that it is in a fiscal death spiral. That serves as a reminder of two organizational features that have always put a drag on Caltrain: (1) SFMTA, SMCTD and VTA feed it leftover scraps only after they have helped themselves, and (2) a significant portion of its operating budget is squandered on excessive crewing costs, with three to four employees staffing each train. (Safety First!)
- For its April board meeting, the CHSRA has an update on their discussions with the Transbay JPA regarding access to the Transbay Transit Center. The latest drawings and diagrams reveal the following evolutions in the design:
- The access to the TTC seemingly utilizes two new tracks tunneled under 7th street, which are said to be completely separate and independent from the existing tunnels 1 - 4 all the way out to Brisbane, where the giant HSR yard is planned. Could this clearly unaffordable and redundant infrastructure possibly be the setup for a future descoping of peninsula commuter service to a comparatively more sensible Millbrae - Santa Clara link?
- Thankfully, the plan for tail tracks extending under Main Street seems to have been dropped.
- Access to the Caltrain platforms, previously criticized for having only a single access track, now sports a new "emergency" crossover for Caltrain. Why this crossover is not simply considered a regular feature of a competently-designed station throat is a mystery, although it may be related to the fact that it uses (horror of horrors!) curved turnouts, which are generally unknown in AREMA circles. Such a strange and unfamiliar piece of trackwork must no doubt be used only in an emergency, such as if Caltrain actually needed to serve downtown San Francisco.
- The crazy-tight curve radii (650 feet!) are deemed commensurate with the station in Cologne, Germany where, incidentally, these "emergency" curved turnouts are used everywhere. If they can do it, we can do it. Another thing that the Germans seem to have figured out is that you don't put such tight curves 1.5 miles out from the station, and that all the crossovers lie within 800 feet from the platforms, rather than 2500 feet as planned in San Francisco. "High-speed" trains will have to trundle along at 40 mph for a couple of minutes, and tie up key trackwork for way longer than necessary, unless designers finally decide to study a bit more attentively what makes Cologne tick.
- The much-awaited Alternatives Analysis for the peninsula will be pitched by Bob Doty on Thursday in San Jose. The impacts of high-speed rail on commuter service will be of particular interest.
Note: opening picture shows a BART Stadler DOSTO "ringing the Bay" circa 2022. Unless, that is, somebody decides that it's better to have incompatible platforms, incompatible train control, AND incompatible track gauge.
An all-stops local post of recent developments in peninsula rail:
This really is sad. After much handwaving, I think it's just about official now, CalTrain is about to get screwed. The CalTrain DTX still fails to serve CalTrain at all. That CHSRA memo shows a couple things fixed, but it's still a clusterfuck. Billions about to be wasted on incompetently designed infrastructure.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe I'm saying this, but if BART took over CalTrain from the counties, maybe they really would do a better job. They certainly wouldn't have rolled over and taken this, nevermind welcome it.
On a side note, I love Parsons Brinkerhoff letterhead, "PB. Over a Century of Engineering Excellence."
What a laugh.
I fully agree with your statement regarding "excess staffing". Midday train don't need two conductors. I also see "inefficient" train utilization of long turnaround time at Tamien.
ReplyDelete@Samsonian ... sorry, but I see no reason to believe BART would do anything better. Their over-engineered cluster-fuckage is legion. Look around. See the SFO extension? See the way over-budget and lowered-expectations eBART debacle? Look at Warm Springs and VTA's plan for SJ/Santa Clara.
ReplyDeleteMaybe if they ran 10-car commuter trains like GO Transit they would need 2 conductors.
ReplyDeleteThe only advantage behind having BART operating Caltrain would be for them to have bigger financial and political clout. However, I foresee a problem with that, where, other than San Francisco, none of the counties where Caltrain runs are part of the BART District. They would have to join for this to work...
Sorry to be dense, but I don't understand your first bullet point regarding the tunnelled tracks. Can you elaborate on what has changed?
ReplyDeleteLet's see ...
ReplyDeleteOur "friends" a the Peninsula Rail Program ...
* systematically LIE when they say 1% grade for freight is a requirement.
* systematically LIED when they say that freight is a requirement. (Will somebody point me at the point where this extremely expensive and system castrating requirement was discussed, pros and cons weighted, and decided?)
* systematically LIE when they claim that it is impractical for HSR and whatever other residual leftover crumb local service to share stations and tracks.
* systematically LIED about requiring a unique train control system, because, well, it turns out, huge huge surprise here, that they're not going to operate freight and passenger on the same tracks at the same time after all. But CBOSS away!
* systematically LIED when they imply that HSR and residual leftover crumb local service can't share level boarding plaforms.
* systematically LIE when they claim that a separate, inconvenient, non-CBD, stupid, expensive, and completely unnecessary terminal is required residual leftover crumb local service while HSR gets a $4 billion underground disaster effectively all to itself ... so it can PARK trains OUT OF SERVICE at the platforms for half an hour or more at a time.
* LIE when they claim elevated stations make pedestrian access MORE DIFFICULT ... than four tracks at ground level!
* never never ONCE prioritize (or even mention other than in passing, that I can see) the provision of any local or regional service. You know, the service that PEOPLE WHO PAY THEIR WAGES use. The service that at least two or three times more people will use than a flight level zero airline to Los Banos. The service that might give people who live anywhere in the region a reason to put up with years of inconvenience and disruption and with sacrificing tens of billions of their tax dollars.
* systematically LIE when they claim that four tracks are needed everywhere, because of the systematic and deliberate and knowing and historically proven LYING about ridership and traffic projections for PBQD rail projects in the Bay Area.
* one could go on.
Where on earth do they find these people?????
Wasn't it possible to find one single remotely professional or qualified or ethical individual who could, for just a microsecond, put the interests of the people who own and/or use and/or live near and or pay to maintain and run an irreplaceable public transportation corridor ahead of the interests of a proven fraudulent, rent-seeking, cost-misrepresenting, ridership-misrepresenting, engineering consortium which only represents its own private interests?
@Reality Check
ReplyDeleteBelieve me, I know full well the extent of BART's clusterfuckage. I complain about it pretty regularly.
All I'm saying is, BART is like a bull. And it wouldn't have rolled over and taken this, nevermind welcomed it like CalTrain did. CalTrain basically gave CHSRA a shotgun and told it to shoot them, and then defile its mangled body.
If we get that bull on a decent track, we might have something better than what we have now. Granted it would require those counties to join BART, but CalTrain with its existing structure and the path it's on, is unsustainable.
Maybe if they ran 10-car commuter trains like GO Transit they would need 2 conductors.
ReplyDeleteEven then, it's still seems like over-staffing. The whole point is to have random, roving fare inspection with a Proof-of-Payment system. Sometimes that means there aren't inspections, and sometimes that means there are. So they shouldn't ever need to have more 1 per train all the time, and sometimes not even that.
I don't understand your first bullet point regarding the tunnelled tracks. Can you elaborate on what has changed?
I think Clem is saying there appears to be an additional pair of tunneled tracks under 7th street (for HSR "needs"). Looking at the CHSRA doc in the blog post, it would seem so.
This despite the fact that there are 4 at-grade tracks adjacent to 7th in this section already, which probably need to be put below grade like the section just south of it.
Maybe the two extra tracks leaving the TTC to Brisbane along 7th (on the drawing) are just their way of showing 2+2, not 4+2. Otherwise that is just insane to have 6 tracks from the city outward. (Yes I hear you thinking Richard. lol)
ReplyDeleteSamsonian: on busy commuter lines, inspectors travel in packs. This is because a single inspector has no hope for covering the entire train before passengers have a chance to get off and then reembark at a car he's already ticketed.
ReplyDelete@Alon Levy
ReplyDeleteFair enough. But that still doesn't warrant 3-4 personnel on all trains.
Maybe the two extra tracks leaving the TTC to Brisbane along 7th (on the drawing) are just their way of showing 2+2, not 4+2.
If that's their idea of "2+2", then it would seem they're leaving CalTrain at-grade there. Or they really are doing 2+4. Either way, it makes no sense.
Samsonian: no, it certainly doesn't. High-volume-passenger railroads have faregates at each station, so that trains run with just one operator. Less busy systems have zero faregates, one operator, and roving packs of fare inspectors.
ReplyDeleteSo is Berlin Central Station a "smaller system"??
ReplyDeleteBerlin Central could be considered "relatively" smaller than say JR East's Shinjuku Station- e.g. 350,000 daily passengers vs. 3,398,000 daily passengers.
ReplyDeleteI just had a very odd idea. If Caltrain was to shut down, what would be the possibilities then for resurrecting it as a system compatible with HSR once funding becomes available again. I'm thinking that one of the current problems is the transition period, where Caltrain can't switch to using high platforms because during construction that is incompatible with their current fleet. Not an ideal solution, in my opinion, but a workable option... Any thoughts?
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Peter. Shut CalTrain down. Shorten construction time and do away with all the construction needed to work around an operating railroad. Does the lack of CalTrain increase the burden on freight to mantain tracks, and if so can that be used as additional leverage to boot them off. If not, subsidize trucking in the interim. Nearly eliminate all right of way emminent domain concerns. NIMBYs go from dozens of horn/diesel trains to the same amount of electric/quiet trains on safer grade separations. Build the line, and tbt, with only high speed rail in mind. Down the road add more limited commuter rail that is in full compliance with hsr and can operate using the existing 4 track passing lanes. Keep it simple and get it done.
ReplyDeleteTake a look at the BART map. Lack of CalTrain on the low density/high income peninsula would look a lot like the lack of BART along the low density/high income 680 corridor. And they like it that way.
ReplyDeleteSo is Berlin Central Station a "smaller system"??
ReplyDeleteYes. Even the RER, which uses faregates, has much less traffic than the Tokyo commuter rail system. The RER A peaks at 55,000 passengers per direction per hour; the Chuo Rapid Line peaks at about 90,000.
Why would you need to shut down Caltrain for the CHSRA to take it over? 35k riders/day isn't huge but it's still a decent amount of people who use the damn thing.
ReplyDeleteThere was a legislative push to put the CHSRA and Caltrans' Rail department under a new California Division of Rail. A push that withered on the vine, last I heard. Perhaps it could be ressurected.
If you throw Caltrain in there, now you've got CHSRA, the Capitols and Caltrain all in one department. That doesn't guarantee cooperation, but it might help.
I actually think that Caltrain should only be shut down temporarily as they deal with their budget crisis. Then, once funding is available again, rebuild Caltrain as a full-blown mas transit service, not some half-assed peak-hour only system. and when rebuilding, make sure it is compatible with HSR in terms of platform height, etc.
ReplyDeleteAlso see if you can get San Mateo and Santa Clara counties to join the BART district, and fold Caltrain's organization into BART for better funding and political clout. Please don't rebuild Caltrain as BART, though.
@ AndyDuncan
ReplyDeleteI'm not advocating shutting down Caltrain. That would be stupid. My wife uses it to get to work, so I'm not being insensitive.
Shutdown may actually happen no matter what if the funding situation doesn't improve. I'm just making suggestions for what to do if it DOES get shut down.
@Peter, sorry I should have had an @Kiss on my initial comment. I realize you were looking at a solution to the problem of a shut down caltrain, not shutting it down as part of some other project.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your idea about rebuilding it as a real mass transit system. It was my hope that with CHSRA choosing the Caltrain ROW, that just such a thing would happen. Perhaps there's still a way to sort this out so we don't end up with BART+HSR with it's commensurate lower ridership and higher cost.
Mission accomplished!
ReplyDeleteDote-ie, you're doing a heckuva job.
Where do they find these people? It can't be easy.
Where do they find these people?
ReplyDeleteBART and Bechtel employee payrolls.
Board meeting today, and we have a minor update on the track configuration front. This collection of cross sections accounts for FFSS, SFFS, and FSSF scenarios, though FFSS is by far the most common and I can only see one specific reference to FSSF.
ReplyDelete@Joey, the discussion of the different FSSF/SFFS/FFSS/SSFF is on page "4-2" (pdf file page 46) of the SF-SJ AA.
ReplyDeleteThey don't pick a particular configuration but they do say a couple things about it:
"The San Francisco to San Jose Section is considered to be a “shared use” corridor between Caltrain and HST, allowing each operator access to the four (assumed) main line tracks in order to reliably deliver their respective schedules and service types."
"Under normal operating conditions, HST is assumed to operate predominantly on two mainline tracks and Caltrain is assumed to operate predominantly on the other two mainline tracks. Crossovers connecting the four mainline tracks will be placed at specified intervals/locations to provide for commingling of trains for “shared operations” on the same tracks when necessary."
By "when necessary" they seem to mean "when a track is blocked".
For FFSS/SSFF They mention that freight will have to cross the HST tracks in the "early morning" to access spurs on either side of the track. Their main point against FSSF/SFFS is that it would require flying junctions to get trains from the F to the F or the S to the S (respectively):
"At the higher speeds ( up to 125 miles per hour) and higher train frequencies (up to 20+ trains per hour) anticipated for both HST and Caltrain service, it is not operationally feasible for trains to cross oncoming rail traffic to reach another track and maintain reliable service performance. Instead, a railroad grade separation must be provided to physically separate the crossing movement from the opposite-running track."
Their main point against FSSF/SFFS is that it would require flying junctions to get trains from the F to the F
ReplyDeleteThis particular concern is hot candidate for The Daily WTF. Why on earth should HS train cross to another track at 0-80 km from terminus? OK, it would make some sense if they assumed total physical separation, but that isn't the case:
Crossovers connecting the four mainline tracks will be placed at specified intervals/locations to provide for commingling of trains for “shared operations” on the same tracks when necessary.
At the higher speeds ( up to 125 miles per hour) and higher train frequencies (up to 20+ trains per hour) anticipated for both HST and Caltrain service, it is not operationally feasible for trains to cross oncoming rail traffic to reach another track and maintain reliable service performance.
ReplyDeleteI hate to sound like Adirondacker, but have those people ever heard of the Northeast Corridor Line?
Though perhaps a more important question is, how often they plan on trains breaking down on the tracks? It doesn't happen to HSR unless there's a major disaster; that's why FSSF is so favorable.
And yet a third question is, why can't trains cross over to the other same-direction track?
There's a fourth question to be asked, but Richard's already raised it.
The flying crossovers seem like Doty/HSRA's way to say they seriously looked at FSSF before dropping it. Since they're talking about shared track, Caltrain or HSR would only have to move over one track to get around another stopped or broken-down train or out-of-service track section on an adjacent track going in the same direction.
ReplyDelete@Alon
ReplyDelete"Though perhaps a more important question is, how often they plan on trains breaking down on the tracks? It doesn't happen to HSR unless there's a major disaster; that's why FSSF is so favorable. "
What's more, FFSS/SSFF is worse than FSSF/SFFS when you have a blocked track as instead of same-direction trains sharing a track at reduced capacity, you have opposing direction trains sharing a track at even more reduced capacity.
They don't say it explicitly, so I'm putting words in their mouth, but the way it's written they make it sound like wrong-way F to F transitions are going to happen just as often as wrong-way S to S transitions. which of course seems unlikely.
The whole defense of completely separating the HSTs from the freight traffic goes out the window if they have to have freight crossing the F tracks anyway.
Hey wait a minute. Doesn't the interlocking just north of San Jose station (CP Julian if I'm not mistaken) have curved turnouts? The speed through there is pretty low, 20 mph I think, but there are definitely turnouts in a curve there.
ReplyDeleteThe Authority's engineers, or whomever the Authority is paying for engineering work, can now be considered officially-certified idiots
ReplyDeleteSeriously, their logic makes no sense. When would it ever be operationally required for high-speed trainsets to switch between the two express tracks? Isn't that the entire point of Caltrain using compatible tractive / track infrastructure—so that high-speed trainsets can avoid track issues without fouling Caltrain traffic?
In the event that the southbound express track was shut, why couldn't a high-speed trainset use the southbound local track? The only issue I foresee is platform height, but really, the arrangement of tracks should not be dictated by an obsessive desire to avoid compatible platform heights
Sheesh
And @Alon Levy "I hate to sound like Adirondacker, but have those people ever heard of the Northeast Corridor Line?" — is there any precedent anywhere in the world of running a four-track mainline like two independent two-track mainlines? Even in the US, four-track mainlines are run so that parallel tracks carry parallel traffic (NY city subway, Northeast corridor, etc.) With that nonsense FFSS system, you still double capacity, but you surrender all of the other benefits of quad-tracking (flexibility, perhaps?)
Goddamnit. Why are people so stupid...
Check out Appendix K in the AA study. I think this will provoke a lot of discussion, especially as it relates to operations and timetables. Enjoy. http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20100408094951_Appendix%20K%20Train%20Operations.pdf
ReplyDeleteI hate to sound like Adirondacker, but have those people ever heard of the Northeast Corridor Line?
ReplyDeleteIt's east of the Sierra Nevada and therefore doesn't exist. What used to be Reading lines north of Philadephia and the PRR Main Line west of Philadelphia. Or the Hudson line on Metro North. Or the Metra Electric lines in Chicago..... The old CNJ main ... Or lines in the rest of the world....after all California is Special
is there any precedent anywhere in the world of running a four-track mainline like two independent two-track mainlines?
LIRR in southeastern Queens does it. Far Rockaway branch on the south side stopping at a few local stations and the other branches on the north side expressing through. . so it's more like two railroads that happen to share ROW for a short stretch. Probably happens in other places too. 50 miles worth? Probably not anyplace in the world.
In the UK, it's fairly standard to have paired "fast" and "slow" lines, so that you do effectively have two independent lines that are next to each other. They also have crossovers for same-direction F-S and S-F crossings, which cross over the opposite-direction F or S track with a diamond (sometimes one with movable frogs). It's an arrangement that was state of the art when the lines were built, in the mid 19th century. And it does have some advantages at terminals , but plenty of disadvantages elsewhere. The correct way to operate a four track mainline when there is a blockage is to use two tracks for the peak direction and one for the non-peak direction, and no matter which track is blocked, this does not require any moves directly between the outermost tracks. You can also short-turn the commuter service, which is easier with the express tracks on the outside, but it would make no sense to short-turn HSR trains on the Peninsula, so FSSF would make more sense for that particular case.
ReplyDelete"Obi-Wan Doty save the peninsula commute from the evil HSR empire?"
ReplyDeleteHang on! O.D. Wan Doty's trying to save Caltrain?!?!?!?
Are you sure that isn't the plot to some other movie than the one we're watching?
Or is there a secret, Jedi-eye-only back story, that involves appearing to completely wreck the future of the SF-SJ transit service ... local trains only now and forever ... no shared stations ... never ever serving the downtown SF station ... 50 miles of no overtaking ,.. CEMOF ... low-level platforms -- CBOSS ... sharing tracks with freight ... NOT sharing tracks with HSR ... sharing platforms with freight ... NOT sharing platforms with HSR ... sharing signals with freight ... NOT sharing signals with HSR ... while secretly working from within the system and really, unknown to everybody doing the exact opposite to what he superficially seems to be up to, which will all be revealed in a surprise plot twist in the last minute of the story?
Crafty dude, your buddy Bob. A master of disguise! A wily operator. Been around the block a few times, and seen a few things in his day, you bet ya. Just a few years from retirement but there was just one more inside job he couldn't refuse. And nobody will see what's really happening right up to the last minute. This blockbuster going to out-gross Avatar for sure.
"Where do they find these people?"
ReplyDelete"People"? Surely you means this only in the most inclusive sense.
Is there evidence that H. sapiens was involved in the ritual undertaking at any time?
Any sort of evidence of forethought? Advanced stone tools? Evidence for a theory of mind? Working in communities for shared goals? Trading off strategic and tactical methods and goals? Planning? That sort of thing. The archeological and sociological evidence is not encouraging.
Pics or it dodn't happen.
So, what say we all declare "Caltrain HSR COMPATIBILITY" dead and buried? Never the twain shall meet, and all.
ReplyDeleteNext up: PBBechtel-BART Compatibility Blog.
Just as Clem predicted. Smart guy. Knows the right solution when he sees it, and knows how to call the actual solution.
And a special thanks to Old BART dude Bob Doty. You can take the Old BART dude out of BART, but you can't take the BART out of the Old BART Dude. Simply awesome mad service planning skillz! Smart operator. Knows how to always avoid the right solution when he sees it, and knows how to ensure the most contractor-profitable solution.
Let "FFSS CBOSS" be engraved on his headstone as a token of esteem from a grateful industrial complex. (Beats "S = k log W" any day.)
PS to anon: yeah, I was being pretty charitable with the attribution of personhood to the World's Finest Transportation Professionals Who Just Happen Amazingly To Live Right In Our Midst.
OK y'all, anons and not-so-anons, would you please express your displeasure, if any, without belittling people? It may feel good, but ask yourself, how does that advance your cause?
ReplyDeleteThere's lots to dig into here over the coming weeks.
Honestly I'm more displeased about what has *become* of the SF terminus (now two termini) than anything else.
ReplyDeleteGuess not everyone reads the Mountain View Voice-
ReplyDelete"But holding fast to its prior plans, the Authority states that its analysis "reconfirms that four-track, grade-separated, shared Caltrain and High-Speed Train system is feasible and the preferred ... alternative between San Francisco and San Jose on the Peninsula.""
Anon- as not to get yelled at by name.
At least they are planning to share tracks on the Penninsula, even if the Transbay terminal is still messed up. Here in Southern CHSRA has decided that it needs 2 totally separate tracks from LA to Anaheim. Metrolink and Amtrak would still get grade-separated, but would be mixed with the frequent freight trains rather than sharing tracks with HSR. There might even be a big concrete wall between the two sets of tracks.
ReplyDeleteMetrolink is understandable unhappy with the plans, and is asking CHSRA to reconsider sharing tracks. I think they are afraid to ask for a waiver from the FRA, since Metrolink and Amtrak appear to be stuck with FRA-compliant heavy trains for the forseeable future. But getting a 75 foot right-of-way thru Anaheim will be expensive and disruptive, and a tunnel there would be just as stupid as along the Caltrain right-of-way, leaving BNSF freight and other passenger rail trains at grade.
Clem, any interest in doing a big post about Metrolink/Amtrak/HSR compatibility along the LOSSAN corridor? I know you may not have as manly details about our area, but the HSR blog as adressed some of the issues and the alternatives analysis shows all the problem areas fairly clearly.
If the FRA would let us run a modern system and fully share tracks, how many tracks would we need to meet expected demand? Should freight or HSR be kept separate from LA to fullerton? Would 2 tracks south of Fullerton be enough for all the passenger rail services? Do we need to dual track the rest of the LOSSAN corridor down to Oceanside to keep the system sufficiently reliable?
"At least they are planning to share tracks on the Penninsula..."
ReplyDeleteREAD WHAT THEY'VE PUBLISHED.
*** They're NOT SHARING TRACKS. ***
OK? Maybe there are some non-revenue, emergency crossovers somewhere, so that if most important HSR breaks down it can take over the Caltrain tracks as well, but they're going to operate two parallel, incompatible systems with different stations, different platforms, and different tracks on incompatible timetables with incompatible equipment. Separate and unequal.
Complete HSR-Caltrain imcompatability.
Completely unnecessary.
BART-type planners deliver an incompatible BART-like system
Caltrain shares tracks with FREIGHT ***ONLY***.
Delivers miserable and costly and unattractive service.
Exceedingly costly. Mmmmmmm......
The only thing "shared" is that the HSR mafia steal the public's Caltrain right of way, run NON-STOP trains on it, prevent Caltrain from ever running express trains ever again, and deliver absolutely nothing in return. Sharing and caring.
Calm down ... and actually read the AA. There is a definite commitment to at least some track sharing (more than emergency crossovers), though there is not commitment toward doing it intelligently.
ReplyDeleteJoseph: I actually asked Clem about whether there's a Metrolink-HSR compatibility a few months ago. He said, and I quote,
ReplyDelete"I'm not aware of one, although it would make lots of sense to start one!
I've got my hands full with the peninsula, and besides, I know nothing about LA."
My personal opinion is that more than two tracks south of Fullerton are a complete waste. Most SoCal-bound traffic could terminate in LA in the first phase, and would be diverted to SD in the second phase. So the total tph count on the Fullerton-Anaheim segment would be low enough to be done on two tracks with timed overtakes at Norwalk. (No, I haven't run line maps - I'm just guessing.)
Testing 4/21 11:45
ReplyDelete