High-Speed Trains For California Strategic Choice: Comparison of Technologies and Choice of Route Peter Hall Daniel Leavitt Erin Vaca June 1992 Working Paper, No. 104 The:University of California TransportationCenter Uniw~,rsityof California Berk~,ley,CA 94720 The University of California Transportation Center Tile University of California Center activities. Researchers Transportation Center (UCTC) at other universities within is one ef ten regional units the region also have opportu- mandated by Congress and nities to collaborate on selec- established in Fall I988 to ted studies. CurrentIy faculty support research, education~ at California State University, and training in surface trans- Long Beach, and at Arizona portation. The UCCenter State University, Tempe, are serves federal Region iX and active participants. is supported by matching grants from the I J.S. Depart- UCTC’s educational and ment of Transportation, the research programs are focused California State Departmenl on strategic planning for of Traiisportation (Caltrans), improving metropolitan and the University. accessibility, with emphasis on the special conditions in Based on the Berkeley Region IX. Particular attention Campus, UCTC draws upon is directed to strategies for existing capabilities and using transportation as an resources of the Institutes e { instrument of economic Transportation Studies at development, while also ac- Berkeley, Davis, and Irvine; colnmodating to the re- the Institute of Urban and gion’s persistent expansion Regional Development at and while maintaining and Berkeley; tile Graduate enhancing the quality of School of Aa’chitecture and life there. Urban Planning at Los Angeles; and several aca- The Center distributes reports demic departments at ti~e on its research in working Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, and papers, monographs, and in Los Angeles campuses. reprints of published arti- Faculty and students on other cIes. For a list of publications University of California in print, write to the address campuses may participate in below. Universityof California TransportationCenter 108 NavalArchitecture Building Berkeley, California 94720 Tel. 4151643-7378 FAX:415/643-5456 Authors of papers reporting on UCTC-sponsoredresearch are solely responmblefor their content This research was supported by the IJ.S. Departmentof Transportation and the Caiifornm State Departmentof Transportation. neither of whichassumes liability for its cantent or use High Speed Trains for California Strategic Choice: Comparison of Technologies and Choice of Route Peter Hall Dan Leavitt Erin Vaca Institute of Urban and Regional Development University of California at Berkeley CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL SERIES Working Paper, No. 104 The University of California Transportation Center University of California at Berkeley CONTENTS Volume I Preface vii Executive Summary Comparison of Technologies Choice of Route Cost Strategy for Implementation Introductlon 2. Comparison of Technologies 3 Classification and Description of Technologies 3 Basic Assumptions and Definitions 5 Key Criteria and Recommended Choice of Technology 13 Conclusion 17 Assumed Technology and Network Options 19 Performance Characteristics 19 The CalSpeed Network Options 26 o The Very High-Speed Mainline: Los Angeles to the Bay Area/Sacramento Los Angeles to the Bay Area The Los Angeles Basin Southern California Mountain Crossing The Central Valley The Northern California Pass The Santa Clara Valley The San Francisco Bay Area Summary Los Angeles to Sacramento Route Alignment Alternatives Preferred Route Alternative Feeders and Supplementary High-Speed Services San Francisco Bay Area to Sacramento Los Angeles to San Diego Greater Los Angeles o Summary and Conclusions Importance of Very High Speed The Choice of Technology The Choice of Technical Standards for High-Spc~-~ Rail Importance of Route Choices Need for Integrated Transportation Planning The Needfor a Staged Plan Financing the System Appendices A. CaLSpeed Working Papers and References B. Cost.Estimating Methodology C. The Australian Very Fast Train D. Travel Time Simulations E. Mountain Profile Volume 1I Appendix F: Detailed Segment Descriptions, Cost Estimates, and Travel Time Calcu_l~tions INTRODUCTION THE VERY mGH-SPEED Los Angeles-Bay Area Los Angeles Basin-SP R/W(32 miles) Grapevine Crossing (49 miles) Base Tunnel Alternative (47 miles) Pakndale Alternative (86 miles) Cemrai Corridor, New R/W (205 miles) 1-5 Corridor, New R/W(188 miles) Existing Rail R/W(217 miles) SUPPLEMENTARY ItlGH-SPEED SERVICES 0 San Francisco Bay Area-Sacramento Los Angeles-San Diego U List of Figures Executive Sunmm~ E.I :~e CalSpeed Network xii E.2 TGV xvii ,°o E.3 Magiev XVlli E.4 ~[CE "-" xix Chapter 3 3. I Texas TGVAcceleration/Braking Curves 22 3.2 The CaiSpeed Network 29 Chapter 4 4.1 Los Angeles-Bay Area Sections 34 4.2 Los Angeles Basin: SP Right-of-Way 35 4.3 Southern California Mountain Crossing 38 4.4 The Central Valley 44 4.5 The Northern California Pass 48 4.6 The Santa Clara Valley 51 4°7 The Bay Area 54 4.8 Los Angeles to BayArea: Route #1 59 ~.9 Los Angeles to Bay Area: Route #2 61 4.10 Sacramento Link Alternatives 64 Chapter 5 5.1 Oakland-Sacramento: SP Right-of-Way 69 5.2 The LOSSANCorridor 73 5.3 Southern California Commuter Network 75 App~mdix C C.1 The Proposed Route 113 Appendix D D.1 TGV Running Simulations 116 Appendix E E.I Mountain Profile 124 iii Hst of Tables Executive S!lmma~r E. 1 CalSpeed Costs & Express Travel Times Chapter 2 2ol Comparison of Key Data: Steel WheeL/Steel Rail and Maglev Systems C~h.~pter 3 3.1 The CalSpeed Train 3.2 CST Performance Characteristics Chapter 4 4.1 Southern CaLifornia Mountain Crossing Mternadves 4.2 LA-Bay Area Route/alternatives Summary, 5% 4.3 Service to Sacrarnemo: Summary of Alternatives Chapter 5 5.1 Oakland-Sacramento Alternatives Appendix B B.1 B.2 Appendix C C.1 II C.2 The Proposed Route 11 Deflation of Terms CalSpeed Train (CST): refers to the VHSTsteel-wheel-on.rail technology assumed for the proposed mainlines linking Greater Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Sacramento. The CST is discussed in Chapter 3+ High-Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT): includes HSTor VHSTsteel wheel or Maglev technologies. tIigh-Speed Train (HST): refers to steel-wheel.on-rail technology capable of top speeds in the neighborhood of 125-155 mph. Laglev: refers to magnetic-levitation-guided transport technologies. Very mgh-Speed Train (VHST): ~refers to steel-wheel-on-rail technology capable of over 155 mph top speeds. PREFACE This report represents the conclusion of the first year of IURD’sstudy of the potential for a high- speed passenger train service in California. Seven previous studies have each dealt with a specific high.speed train technology; each attempted art evaluation, standardized so far as data permitted, of its te.~hnical andeconomic viability. The present report first summarizes and synthesizes these seven studies, attempting a systematic point-byopoint comparison. Then it goes on to develop a possible high-speed network for California in the light of knownfacts about the state’s physical and economic geography. It develops physical profiles for such a route, and uses available cost data to produce an estimate of total construction cost. It gives simulations of timings between the major urban areas. These data will be used as basic inputs to the second stage of the work, now under way, which will analyze the market prospects for such a system and the ways in which it might be financed. Wegratefully acknowledge the support provided by the United States Department of Transportation and the California Department of Transportation [CALTRANS]through the UniveJ~sity of California Transportation Center. Of course, any errors of fact or interpretation shouh~[ be assigned to us and not to our sponsors. During our study, after we concluded that we should recommend adoption of steel-wheel-ono steei-t~ail technology based on the French TGV, we approached M. Andr¢~ Huber of GEC-Alsthom for assistance in providing technical data about the performance of the TGVand in simulating its performance in California conditions. Wewant to acknowledge his help in this part of our study. Our thanks go to the Caltrans Division of Rail, the San Francisco office of Morrison-Knudsen, Hem’s, Johnson, and many other parties at numerous public agencies who were most helpful in providing information and offering helpful commentsand criticism on the draft version of this repoJx. Thanks also go to the Universiq, of California Transportation Center for funding this worl Finally, manythanks to the staff at I.UoR.D. for their help and support in producing this report. vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report has two purposes: (1) To evaluate candidate technologies for provision of a High-Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT)system for California. (2) To survey and evaluate route options for such a system. Comparison of Technologies The candidate technologies have been evaluated in detail in separate working papers of the project, and are summarized here. Six are steel-wheel on steel-rail technologies: the Japanese Shtnkan.cen, (SKS) the French Train d~ Grande Vitesse (TGV), the GermanInterCfty Express (ICE), two Tilt Trains (the Italian ETR-450and the Swedish X-2000), and the British InterCtty 125 and 225 (IC 125/225). Two are magnetic levitation technologies: the German Transraptd (TR) and the Japanese ZinearMotor Car (LMC). All the steel.wheel technologies except the British are classifiable as Very High-Speed Trains, currently capable of maximumspeeds between 155 and 186 mph and potentially capable of 200-220 mph. The maximumspeed of the Magnetic Levitation systems is still uncertain, but is likely to be in the range 250-300 mph. The report summarizes the technical and commercial characteristics and performance of the systems, insofar as information is available. These are presented in a table with detailed explanatory notes. A strategic assessment, the report argues, must depend on certain key elements. These are identified as feasibility, compatibility, cost, overall performance, and environmental impact.