AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Author Topic: LA Times - High Desert Highway  (Read 25303 times)

Mark68

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 515
  • Location: Sparks, NV
  • Last Login: February 04, 2024, 04:12:40 AM
    • My Travels over the years
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #25 on: February 16, 2018, 10:21:19 AM »



CA-62 can be converted to a freeway from I-10 up through the mountain pass and up to the doorstep of the town of Morongo Valley. The road would need work in the mountain pass; it's already divided, but the shoulders appear inadequate in spots. It doesn't look like there are any driveways there.

It would take some creative ideas to get CA-62 converted into a freeway through the town of Morongo Valley. An elevated highway about 1 mile long over the current CA-62 four lane is do-able and wouldn't need to consume a bunch of property. But elevated highways face serious political headwinds. So that would force a new highway alignment.

Not many of the properties that dot the valley floor look valuable. It might not be all that difficult to acquire ROW. Bypassing Yucca Valley would be more tricky. There's too much development along CA-62 itself. At first glance a bypass around the north side of town would seen feasible. But there are some higher income homes and a golf course along that side.

These difficulties are one of the reasons I thought about an I-10 to CA-62 link starting near Desert Center. It would prevent Westbound I-10 traffic headed to Northern CA from having to back-track through Morongo Valley. It would be a more direct route to a larger LA High Desert Highway bypass.
[/quote]

I think anything elevated in that area would be a non-starter for two reasons: Cost and seismic risk.
Logged
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."~Yogi Berra

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:45 AM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #26 on: February 16, 2018, 11:15:07 AM »

Quote from: sparker
Actually, if plans were to forego any part of the CA 62 alignment from I-10 to the Morongo/Yucca Valley separation (a shallow rise on EB 62), a facility from I-10 south of Desert Hot Springs through that "community" (the more of that particular desert blight that's taken by eminent domain the better, IMHO!) and over the mountains west of the Joshua Tree NP boundaries and alighting either west or east of Yucca Valley might be a possibility (albeit not cheap!).

I wasn't talking about Desert Hot Springs. Desert Center is an hour drive East on I-10 from the CA-62 exit (117).

The gap I describe spanning would begin around mile marker 199 on I-10 a little East of Desert Center. It would run just east of the Desert Center airport and Chuckwalla Valley Raceway. The road would cross CA-177 and skirt east of a large solar power farm and the Eagle Mountain community. Then it would shoot a modest gap in the Coxcomb Mountains and proceed through a wide open desert valley to CA-62, near a point where CA-62 makes a fairly sharp bend around a mountain range. Then the upgraded highway would approach Twentynine Palms from the East. This concept could bypass the town of Twentynine Palms to the north and provide closer service to the Marine Corps base to the North. The road could also avoid the development in Joshua Tree and Yucca Valley, hooking into CA-247 near the town of Landers.
Logged

DTComposer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1247
  • Location: San Jose
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:06:38 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #27 on: February 16, 2018, 12:31:07 PM »

Quote from: sparker
Actually, if plans were to forego any part of the CA 62 alignment from I-10 to the Morongo/Yucca Valley separation (a shallow rise on EB 62), a facility from I-10 south of Desert Hot Springs through that "community" (the more of that particular desert blight that's taken by eminent domain the better, IMHO!) and over the mountains west of the Joshua Tree NP boundaries and alighting either west or east of Yucca Valley might be a possibility (albeit not cheap!).

I wasn't talking about Desert Hot Springs. Desert Center is an hour drive East on I-10 from the CA-62 exit (117).

The gap I describe spanning would begin around mile marker 199 on I-10 a little East of Desert Center. It would run just east of the Desert Center airport and Chuckwalla Valley Raceway. The road would cross CA-177 and skirt east of a large solar power farm and the Eagle Mountain community. Then it would shoot a modest gap in the Coxcomb Mountains and proceed through a wide open desert valley to CA-62, near a point where CA-62 makes a fairly sharp bend around a mountain range. Then the upgraded highway would approach Twentynine Palms from the East. This concept could bypass the town of Twentynine Palms to the north and provide closer service to the Marine Corps base to the North. The road could also avoid the development in Joshua Tree and Yucca Valley, hooking into CA-247 near the town of Landers.

Where is the traffic that would utilize this bypass coming from? Once the bypass starts this far east, wouldn't most of the traffic be coming from Phoenix and points east? At that point, why not complete and use the I-11/I-40/CA-58 corridor?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #28 on: February 16, 2018, 03:34:19 PM »

Quote from: sparker
Actually, if plans were to forego any part of the CA 62 alignment from I-10 to the Morongo/Yucca Valley separation (a shallow rise on EB 62), a facility from I-10 south of Desert Hot Springs through that "community" (the more of that particular desert blight that's taken by eminent domain the better, IMHO!) and over the mountains west of the Joshua Tree NP boundaries and alighting either west or east of Yucca Valley might be a possibility (albeit not cheap!).

I wasn't talking about Desert Hot Springs. Desert Center is an hour drive East on I-10 from the CA-62 exit (117).

The gap I describe spanning would begin around mile marker 199 on I-10 a little East of Desert Center. It would run just east of the Desert Center airport and Chuckwalla Valley Raceway. The road would cross CA-177 and skirt east of a large solar power farm and the Eagle Mountain community. Then it would shoot a modest gap in the Coxcomb Mountains and proceed through a wide open desert valley to CA-62, near a point where CA-62 makes a fairly sharp bend around a mountain range. Then the upgraded highway would approach Twentynine Palms from the East. This concept could bypass the town of Twentynine Palms to the north and provide closer service to the Marine Corps base to the North. The road could also avoid the development in Joshua Tree and Yucca Valley, hooking into CA-247 near the town of Landers.

Where is the traffic that would utilize this bypass coming from? Once the bypass starts this far east, wouldn't most of the traffic be coming from Phoenix and points east? At that point, why not complete and use the I-11/I-40/CA-58 corridor?

The other issue with taking a bypass out past 29 Palms and then dropping it down to I-10 somewhere near CA 177 is that it would not serve either the Coachella Valley area or the Salton Sea region (Coachella down to Calexico); there's considerable agricultural truck traffic going back and forth from the Imperial to Central Valleys -- and much of that seems to wind up on Cajon Pass, US 395, and CA 58.  Getting that out of the Inland Empire would seem to be a primary reason for deploying a bypass in the first place; configuring the bypass to serve as many traffic originators as possible would seem to me to be a more than reasonable concept.  It would certainly boost the potential AADT of such a bypass corridor -- possibly to the point of actual feasibility.   
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:45 AM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #29 on: February 16, 2018, 04:02:02 PM »

Quote from: DTComposer
Where is the traffic that would utilize this bypass coming from? Once the bypass starts this far east, wouldn't most of the traffic be coming from Phoenix and points east? At that point, why not complete and use the I-11/I-40/CA-58 corridor?

I-11 will primarily be for traffic headed between Las Vegas and Phoenix and other points along that diagonal.

This bypass I describe would actually give I-10 traffic coming from Phoenix a more direct path to the I-5 corridor North of LA than taking the I-11/I-40/CA-58 route through Bakersfield. The I-11/I-40 combo would make a really big, time/mileage-wasting "S" shape going up to I-40 and through Kingman, AZ. Bakersfield is a fairly big city and I-5 acts as a regional bypass to it. Traffic joining I-5 at the CA-138 interchange would have the option of using either the CA-99 or I-5 corridor.

I still think CA-58 from Barstow to Bakersfield and I-5 should be fully upgraded to Interstate standards, and that's for all the traffic coming from I-40. That's a major corridor too.

It's worth mentioning again the military benefits of this kind of connection. It would cut a lot of mileage off road trips between the Twentynine Palms and MCAS Yuma Marine Corp bases. The Army has Yuma Proving Ground just North of Yuma; Luke AFB and its giant range is East of Yuma. Twentynine Palms has its own large bombing/artillery range. Lots of equipment and personnel move between those installations. Politicians are trying hard to sell I-14 ideas back East as a means of linking military installations. I see little benefit in their example. Improving connections in SE CA could actually be pretty useful. The route wouldn't be nearly as long either.

Quote from: sparker
The other issue with taking a bypass out past 29 Palms and then dropping it down to I-10 somewhere near CA 177 is that it would not serve either the Coachella Valley area or the Salton Sea region (Coachella down to Calexico); there's considerable agricultural truck traffic going back and forth from the Imperial to Central Valleys -- and much of that seems to wind up on Cajon Pass, US 395, and CA 58.  Getting that out of the Inland Empire would seem to be a primary reason for deploying a bypass in the first place; configuring the bypass to serve as many traffic originators as possible would seem to me to be a more than reasonable concept.  It would certainly boost the potential AADT of such a bypass corridor -- possibly to the point of actual feasibility.

CA-62 and I-15 are the only options to get to the High Desert Highway for Coachella traffic and traffic coming up from El Centro and other points along the CA-111 corridor. There are no other gateways. The highway concept I describe going from I-10 mile 199 near Desert Center and Northwest up to CA-62 is the literally the nearest next possible opening for serious highway traffic. CA-177 sort of spans that gap, but going in a different diagonal direction. Cottonwood Springs Road & Pinto Basin Road is literally the only fully paved North-South road between Morongo Valley and CA-177. But that's a scenic road going through the Joshua Tree Park. The way that narrow road winds through mountains would not be friendly at all to truck traffic.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 04:10:51 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #30 on: February 16, 2018, 04:08:10 PM »

Hence my suggestion for a new-terrain facility through (gag) Desert Hot Springs and skirting the west end of the national park; how it traverses Yucca Valley and environs would be an issue TBD once the routing of the segment over the hills was finalized.  Other than that, the rest of the corridor could go via Landers, Lucerne Valley, and segue onto the planned Apple Valley north bypass (and on to "E-220" and/or US 395).
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:45 AM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #31 on: February 16, 2018, 04:21:45 PM »

Desert Hot Springs has a lot of mountains North of it. There are no existing roads going North out of that town that reach into the vicinity of Yucca Valley. One could try building a new highway along Long Canyon Road and follow the river bed cutting through those mountains going directly north. Long Canyon Road dead ends not far into those mountains. Designing the highway to not be prone to flash floods and keeping the road grade at/under 6% through there would be a very expensive endeavor, and it would seem pretty ridiculous with CA-62 only about 8 miles to the West. Given the choice, it would be cheaper buying out a bunch of property owners in Morongo Valley and Yucca Valley to build a freeway there. Caltrans may eventually have to do that anyway.
Logged

DTComposer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1247
  • Location: San Jose
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:06:38 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #32 on: February 16, 2018, 04:51:07 PM »

Quote from: DTComposer
Where is the traffic that would utilize this bypass coming from? Once the bypass starts this far east, wouldn't most of the traffic be coming from Phoenix and points east? At that point, why not complete and use the I-11/I-40/CA-58 corridor?

I-11 will primarily be for traffic headed between Las Vegas and Phoenix and other points along that diagonal.

This bypass I describe would actually give I-10 traffic coming from Phoenix a more direct path to the I-5 corridor North of LA than taking the I-11/I-40/CA-58 route through Bakersfield. The I-11/I-40 combo would make a really big, time/mileage-wasting "S" shape going up to I-40 and through Kingman, AZ. Bakersfield is a fairly big city and I-5 acts as a regional bypass to it. Traffic joining I-5 at the CA-138 interchange would have the option of using either the CA-99 or I-5 corridor.

Right now, Phoenix to San Francisco is 791 miles if we use an approximation of this bypass (I-10/CA-177/CA-62/CA-247/CA-18/CA-138/I-5/I-580/I-80). Assuming a freeway/expressway straightens out this route a little, let's say 775 miles or so.

Phoenix to San Francisco using (US-93 (future I-11)/I-40/CA-58/I-5/I-580/I-80) is 812 miles. Again, assuming some straightening (but not as much since more of this route is already at least expressway), let's say 805 miles.

Yes, Bakersfield is a big city to drive through (urban area is about 575,000) but the High Desert Highway would be going through both Victorville/Hesperia and Lancaster/Palmdale (both 350,000+), so that's kind of a wash.

So asking this again, but slightly differently: is there enough traffic to warrant the cost of upgrading 200+ miles of two-lane road to expressway and/or freeway to save 30 miles from a routing that is already almost entirely expressway or better, and is already slated to be upgraded along the rest of the route?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #33 on: February 17, 2018, 03:04:37 PM »

Quote from: DTComposer
Where is the traffic that would utilize this bypass coming from? Once the bypass starts this far east, wouldn't most of the traffic be coming from Phoenix and points east? At that point, why not complete and use the I-11/I-40/CA-58 corridor?

I-11 will primarily be for traffic headed between Las Vegas and Phoenix and other points along that diagonal.

This bypass I describe would actually give I-10 traffic coming from Phoenix a more direct path to the I-5 corridor North of LA than taking the I-11/I-40/CA-58 route through Bakersfield. The I-11/I-40 combo would make a really big, time/mileage-wasting "S" shape going up to I-40 and through Kingman, AZ. Bakersfield is a fairly big city and I-5 acts as a regional bypass to it. Traffic joining I-5 at the CA-138 interchange would have the option of using either the CA-99 or I-5 corridor.

Right now, Phoenix to San Francisco is 791 miles if we use an approximation of this bypass (I-10/CA-177/CA-62/CA-247/CA-18/CA-138/I-5/I-580/I-80). Assuming a freeway/expressway straightens out this route a little, let's say 775 miles or so.

Phoenix to San Francisco using (US-93 (future I-11)/I-40/CA-58/I-5/I-580/I-80) is 812 miles. Again, assuming some straightening (but not as much since more of this route is already at least expressway), let's say 805 miles.

Yes, Bakersfield is a big city to drive through (urban area is about 575,000) but the High Desert Highway would be going through both Victorville/Hesperia and Lancaster/Palmdale (both 350,000+), so that's kind of a wash.

So asking this again, but slightly differently: is there enough traffic to warrant the cost of upgrading 200+ miles of two-lane road to expressway and/or freeway to save 30 miles from a routing that is already almost entirely expressway or better, and is already slated to be upgraded along the rest of the route?

The principal advantage to a closer-in bypass such as a composite one via (more or less) Yucca Valley, Victorville, and Lancaster would be as a "double-duty" facility serving to connect the exurban areas of northern L.A. County with the High Desert exurban complex (V'ville, Hesperia, etc.) clustered along I-15 as well as serving as a more convenient bypass which also serves the Coachella Valley.  Of course, there are both upsides and downsides to this approach; the service potential described above is part & parcel of the upside; but another potential -- that for congestion if commute traffic dominates at recurring periods -- is always present.  Since the "E-220" central section now under study & planning will clearly be the first piece of finished roadway of any extended bypass concept, it would be worthwhile for both local planners and Caltrans to keep a close eye on not only the volume but the composition of the traffic initially utilizing the new road, as it would indicate whether the dominant use of the new road is to augment existing commute patterns or servicing longer-distance travel as part of an alternate interregional picture.   The findings may indicate whether or not utilizing the route as part of a more extensive metro bypass is (a) feasible and/or (b) appropriate in light of the improvements to CA 58 (which would be additionally telling if CA 14 were extended to CA 58 as a full freeway around Mojave as well as developing a freeway connection along US 395 between the Victorville area and CA 58) and the progress along the I-11 corridor well to the east.   If that composite corridor comes on line in relatively short order, it may obviate -- at least for the near term -- any perceived pressing need to install the metro bypass as previously described in this thread.
Logged

theroadwayone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 611
  • Location: San Diego, California
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:29:55 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #34 on: February 20, 2018, 01:30:43 AM »

I recall reading an article on TRN some years back about possibly building the highway as a toll road. It'll be interesting to see how that develops.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #35 on: February 20, 2018, 04:33:40 PM »

I recall reading an article on TRN some years back about possibly building the highway as a toll road. It'll be interesting to see how that develops.

AFAIK, it was always intended to be an ORT facility between Palmdale and US 395; the PPP nature of its proposed development virtually dictates that status.  Whether there will be a transponder link with the existing toll facilities further south in Orange and possibly San Diego counties -- or the toll-lane segments in and around L.A. county -- hasn't been publicized as of yet; I'd stay tuned to see if that transpires.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4174
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 07:55:49 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #36 on: February 22, 2018, 12:53:23 AM »

I think the preferred alternative is a toll road concept that has parts of it being free to use. I support the entire thing being a freeway just to have a better freeway network.

The components of this are HSR and a bike trail.

Project homepage: https://www.metro.net/projects/high-desert-corridor/

I've been following this project with high hopes it gets built. The final EIRS was released last fall.

Final EIRS: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d7/env-docs/docs/hdc/

Who says this will get built? I am getting a little worried projects like and the 710 South expansion will get scaled back or even canceled with the current anti-freeway sentiment in California.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #37 on: February 22, 2018, 01:36:07 AM »

I think the preferred alternative is a toll road concept that has parts of it being free to use. I support the entire thing being a freeway just to have a better freeway network.

The components of this are HSR and a bike trail.

Project homepage: https://www.metro.net/projects/high-desert-corridor/

I've been following this project with high hopes it gets built. The final EIRS was released last fall.

Final EIRS: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d7/env-docs/docs/hdc/

Who says this will get built? I am getting a little worried projects like and the 710 South expansion will get scaled back or even canceled with the current anti-freeway sentiment in California.

With the mixed track record of SoCal toll facilities, this project -- while preliminarily considered to be a tolled facility -- could be shifted to a standard freeway project by the time construction actually starts in the early-to-mid 2020's.  As far as the rail component is concerned, while the west end of the project does correspond with the proposed HSR route, it also is the location of the Lancaster branch of the Metrorail commuter network; if HSR "bites the dust" or otherwise fades into oblivion, the ROW reserved for rail (presumably the median) could conceivably become a Metrorail extension out to Victorville (BNSF has shown no inclination to host an extension of the San Bernardino Metrorail line over Cajon Pass to the Victorville area, primarily due to the sheer amount of freight traffic over that line -- a train each way at about 20-30 minute intervals -- essentially 24/7!).   

There seem to be interests lined up to support this corridor -- from Vegas honchos who've always supported ways to make access to their attractions easier, to the developers looking for a place to slap down housing (this region has historically been among the more affordable areas of SoCal), and to San Bernardino County officials, who need a shiny new project such as this to draw attention away from the fiscal problems endemic to Inland Empire cities -- particularly the namesake county seat.  And being that it's on the "wrong side of the mountains" and out of the line of fire of most of the region's urban activist core (and has bike & rail components), it's likely to be the one new-terrain project that'll get traction in the area. 
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4174
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 07:55:49 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #38 on: February 22, 2018, 02:02:45 AM »

You do paint a positive picture on it. Time will tell. I'm not sure whether I'd like to see efforts placed on this or extension of I-40, but the high desert needs some love ASAP! I am very skeptical of the ExpressWest HSR proposal even more so than I am of the LA to SF HSR project which I don't think will happen.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #39 on: February 22, 2018, 02:24:48 AM »

You do paint a positive picture on it. Time will tell. I'm not sure whether I'd like to see efforts placed on this or extension of I-40, but the high desert needs some love ASAP! I am very skeptical of the ExpressWest HSR proposal even more so than I am of the LA to SF HSR project which I don't think will happen.

The LA to SF HSR project is on thin ice politically; whether it survives into the next gubernatorial term will depend upon the whims of whomever occupies that office; none of the leading candidates seem to be as committed to the project as Brown is; the likely question will be how to best utilize the Valley portion currently under construction.  As far as the ExpressWest connection to a Vegas-serving HSR, the latter has always been a roller-coaster ride, largely dependent upon Nevada money (which seems to run hot and cold almost randomly).  Neither major project is a sure bet; a dependent connector between the two is even less so.  But reserving a space in the median for some sort of rail on a relatively flat alignment such as this isn't a terrible idea; as I've iterated before, a more conventional sort of rail -- whether a commuter line, freight reliever, or both -- could readily be deployed even after the roadway portion was in service.  It also seems that this project is completely independent of the CA 58 efforts some thirty miles north; that tends to serve a more interregional and/or commercial purpose than the "E-220" corridor; its provision of access to Northern California (via Tehachapi Summit) sets it apart from the rationale for the shorter corridor.     
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:45 AM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #40 on: February 23, 2018, 04:31:25 PM »

High Speed Rail is going absolutely nowhere in the United States. From my perspective it looks like politicians, planners, anti-freeway activists and anyone else cheerleading HSR are all ignoring the issue of cost, as if the high price of this stuff is not a problem. These folks are out of touch with reality. HSR is a luxury version of ordinary commuter rail. Here in the United States we can't even figure out how to build ordinary commuter rail lines without costs exploding into the stratosphere. We also can't figure out how to build something like that without the process taking decades. It's bad enough how slow we are at building highways.

I don't understand the motivation to build a high speed rail line through the high desert cities and towns North of the San Gabriel mountains. That makes about as much sense as building a 20 lane wide freeway between Nome and Fairbanks.

Regarding the anti-freeway sentiment in California, it will be interesting to see if those attitudes are still the same 10 years from now. The real estate market in SoCal cities (and much of the US) could be a lot different. Interest rates are creeping up; higher borrowing costs could slow down and reverse that market. Ever rising health care costs, living costs, etc are pushing the US fertility rate into baby bust territory. Over the long term that's going to push real estate demand downward. People will down-size their living spaces. Homes & apartments will get smaller. Many jobs are going to be eliminated via automation, robotics & artificial intelligence. Ever faster broadband and mobile service will change how and where people work; fewer people will commute back and forth to a central office. These factors aren't good for mass transit platforms that only move people in large groups.

The automobile is poised to go roaring through another golden age once self-driving capable cars are sold widely to the public. Auto makers are even designing vehicles that have no steering wheel and run in fully autonomous fashion. That technology is going to be disruptive in ways we can't even predict. It's going to make a big dent in the enthusiasm for mass transit.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #41 on: February 23, 2018, 05:07:32 PM »

High Speed Rail is going absolutely nowhere in the United States. From my perspective it looks like politicians, planners, anti-freeway activists and anyone else cheerleading HSR are all ignoring the issue of cost, as if the high price of this stuff is not a problem. These folks are out of touch with reality. HSR is a luxury version of ordinary commuter rail. Here in the United States we can't even figure out how to build ordinary commuter rail lines without costs exploding into the stratosphere. We also can't figure out how to build something like that without the process taking decades. It's bad enough how slow we are at building highways.

I don't understand the motivation to build a high speed rail line through the high desert cities and towns North of the San Gabriel mountains. That makes about as much sense as building a 20 lane wide freeway between Nome and Fairbanks.

Regarding the anti-freeway sentiment in California, it will be interesting to see if those attitudes are still the same 10 years from now. The real estate market in SoCal cities (and much of the US) could be a lot different. Interest rates are creeping up; higher borrowing costs could slow down and reverse that market. Ever rising health care costs, living costs, etc are pushing the US fertility rate into baby bust territory. Over the long term that's going to push real estate demand downward. People will down-size their living spaces. Homes & apartments will get smaller. Many jobs are going to be eliminated via automation, robotics & artificial intelligence. Ever faster broadband and mobile service will change how and where people work; fewer people will commute back and forth to a central office. These factors aren't good for mass transit platforms that only move people in large groups.

The automobile is poised to go roaring through another golden age once self-driving capable cars are sold widely to the public. Auto makers are even designing vehicles that have no steering wheel and run in fully autonomous fashion. That technology is going to be disruptive in ways we can't even predict. It's going to make a big dent in the enthusiasm for mass transit.

The one thing that always bugged me about the CA HSR plan was the almost complete lack of need assessment.  Touted as the transportation system of the future, there were few if any published data regarding exactly who the potential customers were -- or from where they would be drawn -- automobile travelers between L.A. and the Bay Area or from one or another of the airlines (mainly Southwest and Alaska) serving that corridor.  It's just as likely that regular travelers between the areas already use the airlines, as they have near-saturation service from the various L.A.-area airports and the equivalent in the Bay Area; these would include business travelers as well as people visiting family, friends, or loved ones on a regular basis.  Non-commercial automotive traffic is likely to be somewhat more sporadic -- the occasional trip for one or more of many purposes.  If cargo (gifts, household items, etc.) need to be transported (and UPS or FedEx service is deemed not to be cost-effective), then automobile travel comes into play as well.  And since the whole premise of HSR is daily multi-train service, to render it cost-effective those trains have to be full or close to it.  But the logistics at either end make it something of a wash when it comes to competing with airports -- the traveler has to go to a station, park their car (unless given a ride, like with air travel), and go through the terminal process before boarding; this applies to either mode.  The time involved -- particularly given the fact that there will be a few urban stations along the single rail line, whereas the airports (particularly around L.A.) are dispersed around the metro area; a rail passenger from Orange County would either have to travel to Los Angeles or take local transportation (ostensibly Metrolink) to the HSR terminal whereas there's a local airport (John Wayne) with numerous daily flights to S.F., Oakland, and San Jose.  HSR won't get folks off the road; initially it may get travelers who want the novelty, but even if it catches on, it'll primarily draw customers from air travel -- but, IMO, probably not enough to ensure cost coverage much less any hint of profitability. 

As far as the E-W High Desert extension along the "E-220/High Desert" corridor, this is simply speculation assuming (a) that the main HSR line paralleling CA 14 will be completed as planned, and (b) the private Victorville-Vegas venture also reaches fruition.  If both don't happen in the near-to-mid term, there won't be HSR in the median of the highway; something else (I'll reiterate my guess as to conventional rail) will be placed there.   
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:45 AM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #42 on: February 23, 2018, 05:30:03 PM »

If any kind of rail line would be put in the median my vote would be for regular speed commuter rail. More stations could be built, more communities directly served and the rail line could conform more easily with the freeway alignment. High speed rail demands grade inclines and curves far more gradual than even the smoothest, most modern super highways can manage.

In some respects I wish the US had a decent HSR network at least connecting its biggest cities. It is kind of embarassing that many other developed nations have high speed rail systems but the US does not. But the costs and legal/regulatory issues are just so extreme to make the effort not worth pursuing. And that's assuming the system could even attract the ridership necessary to sustain it if it was built.

I can imagine self-driving vehicles becoming a work/living space away from home. There's no doubt people will be doing all sorts of work while riding in these vehicles. On longer trips they'll be watching TV shows, playing games, video chatting and doing all sorts of other stuff -maybe even things other drivers don't want to see through the car windows. They'll have their own mobile, private environment. You don't get any privacy riding with a group of people on a bus or train.
Logged

DTComposer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1247
  • Location: San Jose
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:06:38 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #43 on: February 26, 2018, 04:39:22 PM »

The time involved -- particularly given the fact that there will be a few urban stations along the single rail line, whereas the airports (particularly around L.A.) are dispersed around the metro area; a rail passenger from Orange County would either have to travel to Los Angeles or take local transportation (ostensibly Metrolink) to the HSR terminal whereas there's a local airport (John Wayne) with numerous daily flights to S.F., Oakland, and San Jose.

I feel like we've had this conversation before, but why are you implying L.A. is going to have only one station?
In phase 1 there are going to be stations at Burbank (near the airport), Los Angeles/Union Station, either Norwalk or Fullerton, and Anaheim. Phase 2 will have stations in the San Gabriel Valley, at/near Ontario Airport, Riverside and Temecula/Murrieta.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #44 on: February 27, 2018, 04:55:32 AM »

The time involved -- particularly given the fact that there will be a few urban stations along the single rail line, whereas the airports (particularly around L.A.) are dispersed around the metro area; a rail passenger from Orange County would either have to travel to Los Angeles or take local transportation (ostensibly Metrolink) to the HSR terminal whereas there's a local airport (John Wayne) with numerous daily flights to S.F., Oakland, and San Jose.

I feel like we've had this conversation before, but why are you implying L.A. is going to have only one station?
In phase 1 there are going to be stations at Burbank (near the airport), Los Angeles/Union Station, either Norwalk or Fullerton, and Anaheim. Phase 2 will have stations in the San Gabriel Valley, at/near Ontario Airport, Riverside and Temecula/Murrieta.
 

Perhaps you're misreading my comment, but I stated that there would be a few stations but arrayed along a single line -- and, at this point, that line will coincide with the present Amtrak and/or Metrolink service.  The point I was attempting to make was that this train service features little difference in traveler preparation -- including transport to the nearest station, parking as needed, etc.  It's basically Amtrak-type service but with higher speeds once away from the urban center.  But since lower speeds are planned from Santa Clarita southward, since it will "piggyback" on Metrolink or Amtrak (former UP and BNSF) tracks down to Anaheim (and LAUPT itself, as a single-ended terminal, is hardly the epitome of efficiency), being the nicest-looking and newest trainset in the bunch is hardly the rider magnet that its backers seem to think it will be.  If the high-speed concept had been extended into central L.A. (on the viaducts that were part of the first iteration) with a dedicated set of stations and possibly a "hub & spoke" feeder system other than Metrolink and LR, then I might be singing a different tune.  But, IMO, there's little to attract riders, at least from the southern end of the system (and the northern end, at least in the initial phase, will mimic its southern counterpart by utilizing the Caltrain trackage up the Peninsula to S.F.).  And since most of the projected ridership originates at the ends of that first stage (whether they'll ever get to Phase Two is TBD by the performance of Phase One; if that falls flat, then P2 likely won't see the light of day), there's little incentive to forsake Southwest and Alaska for a jaunt downtown!   
Logged

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3637
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: July 02, 2022, 05:33:16 AM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #45 on: February 27, 2018, 09:45:55 AM »

^^ But that is how French-style and Germanic High Speed Rail usually works - build fast new tracks outside the cities, but dump onto upgraded existing lines to reach upgraded existing stations.

That HS2 in England doesn't do this has been a major gripe against it. Especially in Birmingham, Leeds, and Sheffield. Sheffield successfully lobbied to replace its proposed high-frequency service to a pre-existing out-of-town transport hub with a proposed lower-frequency, slower, service that uses the existing tracks to the existing city centre station.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:45 AM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #46 on: February 28, 2018, 11:06:15 AM »

Japan has one of the best high speed rail systems, and it has been that way for over 50 years. The Shinkansen lines are all discrete, separate rail track apart from the other commuter/freight rail lines. The rail lines were specifically designed for high speed use, not for sharing with other trains (such as freight trains). They couldn't even share service with other rail systems anyway since the "bullet train" runs on a 4' 8.5" gauge while the other lines run on a more narrow 3' 6" gauge. This is very much unlike the various proposals for different regions in the US which would stick so-called "high speed" trains on quite a bit of existing low-speed track. The Shinkansen also doesn't have lots and lots of stations. Passengers typically take other commuter rail lines, subway lines or other modes of transportation to reach a central station featuring a bullet train stop. Even with totally new track high speed rail would be anything but high speed if the train was making frequent stops.
Logged

theroadwayone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 611
  • Location: San Diego, California
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:29:55 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #47 on: February 28, 2018, 01:18:42 PM »

This is starting to get a little off-topic here. Any other thoughts about the highway itself? I'm trying to speculate on what it'll be designated as, an interstate or a state route; and if an interstate, either a 2di or 3di.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4174
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 07:55:49 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #48 on: February 28, 2018, 04:22:56 PM »

Is it be possible to sign as an x40 if I-15 and I-5 are consigned as x40 to connect to I-40? Would that even be worth it?
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:45 AM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #49 on: February 28, 2018, 05:13:34 PM »

With the federal government expecting the states to pony up much of the government funding on these projects (and rely on private funding to cover as much as possible) I think chances are slim to none the High Desert Highway would carry an Interstate designation if built. If the road is built as a toll road then chances for an Interstate designation would pretty much be nil.

None of the toll roads built in SoCal in the last couple or so decades received an Interstate designation. Then there's the issue of Caltrans and the state government showing little desire to get Interstate designations for roads like the Eastern part of CA-210 in San Bernadino, CA-15 and CA-905 in San Diego. Even if CA-58 was upgraded to full Interstate standards between Barstow and Bakersfield there's no guarantee they would do what most of us want: extend I-40 on it.

Texas is another example of this. There's a decent number of turnpikes and freeways in metro Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio not carrying any Interstate designation.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.