UC Berkeley Earlier Faculty Research Title Potential for Improved Intercity Passenger Rail Service in California: Study of Corridors Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3cn732tv Authors Leavitt, Daniel Cheng, Peter Vaca, Erin et al. Publication Date 1994-03-01 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California California High Speed Rail Series Potential for ImprovedIntercity Passenger Rail Service in California: Study of Corridors Daniel Leavitt Peter Cheng Erin Vaca Peter Hall Working Paper UCTC No. 222 TheUniversity of California TransportationCenter Universityof California Berkeley, CA94720 The University of California Transportation Center The University of California Center activities. Researchers Transportation Center (UCTC) at other universities within the is one of ten regional units region also have opportunities mandated by Congress and to collaborate with UCfaculty established in Fall 1988 to on selected studies. support research, education, and training in surface trans- UCTC’seducational and portation. The UC Center research programs are focused serves federal Region IX and on strategic planning for is supported by matching improving metropolitan grants from the U.S. Depart- accessibility, with emphasis ment of Transportation, the on the special conditions in California Department of Region IX. Particular attention Transportation (Caltrans). and is directed to strategies for the University. using transportation as an instrument of economic Based on the Berkeley development, while also ac- Campus, UCTCdraws upon commodating to the region’s existing capabilities and persistent expansion and resources of the Institutes of while maintaining and enhanc- Transportation Studies at ing the quality of life there. Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, and Los Angeles; the Institute of The Center distributes reports Urban and Regional Develop- on its research in working ment at Berkeley; and several papers, monographs, and in academic departments at the reprints of published articles. Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, and It also publishes Access, a Los Angeles campuses. magazine presenting sum- Faculty and students on other maries of selected studies. For University of California a list of publications in prim, campuses may participate in write to the address below. Universityof California TransportationCenter 108 NavalArchitecture Building Berkeley, California 94720 Tel: 510/643-7378 FAX:510/643-5456 Thecontents of this report reflect the viewsof the author whois responsible for the facts and accuracyof the data presentedherein. Thecontents do not necessarilyreflect the official viewsor policies of the State of Californiaor the U.S. Departmentof Transportation.This report does not constitute a standard, specification,or regulation. Potential for Improved Intercity Passenger Rail Service in California: Study of Corridors Daniel Leavitt Peter Cheng Erin Vaca Peter Hall Institute of Urban and Regional Development University of California at Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720 CALIFORNIAHIGH SPEED RAIL SERIES Working Paper March 1994 UCTC No, 222 The University of California Transportation Center University of California at Berkeley TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ii *oo EXECUTIVE SUMMAlkY IIi INTRODUCTION 1 1. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TOWARDS ACHiEViNG HIGH SPEED 2 E:dsthag Rall Rights-of-Way 2 New High-Speed Corridors 4 2. HIGH-SPEED RAIL IN EXISTING RAIL CORRIDORS 6 2.1. Los Angeles-San Diego Corridor (LOSSAN) 6 2.2o The Los Angeles-Santa Barbara Corridor 14 2.3. The Coastal Corridor (L.A.-Santa Barbara-San Francisco) 20 2.4. Los Angeles-Central Valley-Oakland/Sacramento Corridor 25 2.5. San Jose-Oatdand-Sacramento Corridor (Capitol) 34 2.6° Sacramento-Redding Corridor 40 2.7. Sacramento-Lake Tahoe-Reno Corridor 45 2.8. Los Angeles-Las Vegas Corridor 49 2.9. Los AngeIes-Yuma-(Phoenix) Corridor 54 2.10. San RafaeloEureka Corridor 60 3~ NEW HIGH-SPEED RAIL CORRIDORS 67 3.1. Los Aageles-San Francisco: The Central Valley Route 67 3.2. Los Angeles-San Francisco: The Coastal Route 74 3.3. Comparison of High-Speed Route Alternatives 79 4. LOS ANGELES-SANFRANCISCO: Summary and Analysis of Alternatives 85 Summaryof Alternatives 85 Cost 85 Travel Times 86 Population 86 Conclusions 87 5. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 89 Key Findings 89 Recommendations 90 REFERENCES 92 TECHNICAL APPENDIX 95 PREFACE This report concludes FUILD’sstudy of the potential for high-speed passenger service in California (CalSpeed), conducted under the direction of Professor Peter Hall. Building upon previous workin the series, the primary purpose of this study is to investigate the potential for increasing inter- city passenger train speeds in various corridors throughout California. The researchers gratefully acknowledgethe support provided by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) through the University of California Transportation Center. Any errors fact or interpretation should, of course, be assigned to the researchers and not our sponsors. Our thanks also goes to the individuals at public agencies and private firms whoprovided infor- mation, assistance, and advice over the course of the study. In particular, John A. Harrison of Parsons Brinckerhoff Qua&& Doughs, Inc., Nick Brand of Rail Transportation Systems, Inc., and Steve Zimrick and Lynn Franks of Ca!trans Division of Rail deserve mention for their help in accomplishing this research. Thanksalso to CalSpeedresearch assistant MashaiAfredi for her tedious but valuabIe work on the population projections, to Kevin Keckfor graphics, and as always to the staff at F,_EkD.A special thanks to Barbara Hadenfeldt, Office Managerof 1Z3RD,who has supported this project since its beginning nearly three years ago and has been instrumental in an)" success CalSpeedhas achieved. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report has met two objectives: 1. Thestate’s existing intercity rail corridors have beenevaluated for potential upgradingin terms of estimatedcosts, travel times, and populationprojections. 2. Themost promising existing rail and "new-corridor"alternatives for high-speedservice between downtownLos Angeles and downtownSan Francisco have been comparedand analyzed in terms of costs, travel times, andpopulation projections. 1. Existing Rail Corridors Tenexisting intercity rail corridors werestudied: I. Los Angeles-SanDiego 2. Los Angeles-SantaBarbara 3. Los Angeles-SantaBarbara-San Francisco 4. Los Angeles-Fresno-Oakland/Sacramento 5. San Jose-Sacramento 6. Sacramento-Redding 7. Sacramento-Truckee-Reno 8. Los Angeles-LasVegas 9. Los Angeles-Yuma-Phoenix 10. San Rafaei-Santa Rosa-Eureka Table E.1 summarizesthe alternatives for the ten corridors. Althoughmany of these corridors overlap (the Los Angeles-SantaBarbara Corridor is entirely a subsection of the Los Angeles-San Francisco Coastal Corridor), each route is analyzedseparately without any cost-sharing assumptionsto simpli~ presentation and comparisonof alternatives. Mostof the corridors within the state showgreat potential for ll0-mphupgrade, exhibiting a combinationof strong marketpotential (population), relatively fiat terrain over mostof the route, and existing infrastructure in goodcondition, ll0-mphupgrades would be relatively easy to implementand cost-effective in these corridors. Only the Sacramento-Redding,the Sacramento-Truckee-Reno,and the San RafaeI-SantaRosa-Eureka corridors have little potential for upgradebeyond the 79-mphstandard becauseof difficult terrain and/or low populationserved. In particular, the Los Angeles-SanDiego Corridor (LOSSAN)is the most promising candidate for 110-mphupgrading, largely as a result of the successfulexisting service and the substantial invest- mentalready madein the corridor. Furthermore,although this corridor has a numberof constraints and obstacles, its large potential marketmakes the LOSSANcorridor the most likely to support 125- mphservice. iii p.. +i o ~llll IIIII ++++ i I t i i t i i i I i i i m.. m I +++++m I i t i m ++ oo P,,l i p,. ++ ~t P+ ++ o o m.. ~0 m !+ p,+ o c; <:+ P+ ++-+ o o <:+ m ++ +o ++ + ,m- +: c+ c~ o P,0 ++ c~ c~ c~ o m +. m+ o m o~ <,,.: ++_+ ,,4 0 m P, pe: ,4 ++ e.i +1 -~ .~-~.~ +~ E ~o ~ i+ °i i t 0[,., .3 + Z ,< Z < "E Z 0 _1 ..2 e~ The Los Angeles-SantaBarbara-San Francisco (Coastal), Sacramento-Truckee-Reno,and San Rafad-SantaRosa-Eureka corridors are the mostlikely candidatesfor tilt-trains operations. Withtheir highly curved routings, these three corridors wouldprobably exhibit enoughtravel time savings to off- set the higher operational and maintenancecosts neededfor til>trains. Finally, limiting the numberof stops will alwaysimprove travel times regardless of the corridor or improvementscenario. Therefore, a combinationof skip-stop and express passengerrail service offers a low capital-cost alternative for improvingtravel times on any corridor. Capital improvement programsfor each corridor should be plannedto allow for skip-stop and express services as soon as the marketcan support the high frequenciesthat these types of services require. 2. Los Angeles-San Francisco A corridor connectingthe state’s major travel markets - the Los AngelesMetropolitan Region and the San FranciscoBay Area-offers one of the strongest potential marketsfor high-speedrail in the United States. This study has researchedthe different alignmentsand technologies whichpresent the greatest opportunityfor high-speedrail service to connectthese marketsin the immediateor near future. Six alternatives, includingfour existing rail right-of-wayalternatives (two at 110 mphand two at 125 mph)and two corridors