SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   California High Speed Rail Thread (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=180558)

BrownTown Jan 4, 2019 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 8425327)
CA has a clause in their contracts saying that they are only allowed to terminate them in the event of contractor malfeasance.

Either you're just making this all up or else it's just another one of those idiotic California things because I've worked on plenty of multi-billion dollar projects and they all had termination clauses. There's a termination fee obviously, but its not anything close to the entire project cost. Large projects get canceled all the damn time and thousands of people just get laid off one day. That's how it works in the real world, not sure about California. Hell, I've been on projects where they just furloughed everyone for a few weeks at the end of the year because they ran out of money.

ardecila Jan 4, 2019 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8425196)
To clarify, the Caltrain electrification project that is currently underway will terminate immediately south of DT San Jose. Electrification of the entire line to Gilroy will be part of the HSR project. I believe that diesel trainsets will continue to operate between Gilroy and SF King even after electric operation commences between San Jose and SF King in 2022.

Democrats will be back in control of Washington in two years and with California's huge congressional contingent + a lobbying push from Google, Facebook, Apple, and other well-heeled Silicon Valley employers, we'll see an end to the Trump/Tea Party monkey business and the 13-mile mountain tunnel along with the tunnel link to Transbay will receive generous federal grants. California will be able to easily finance the balance.

I don’t think they’ve made a decision about the alignment between South SJ and Gilroy. The speed limits of a blended system south of SJ may reduce overall SF-LA travel times below the 2h43 requirement, so they are also considering a viaduct over 101 or greenfield alignments in the foothills of the Diablos. This may cause the Gilroy HSR station to be in an exurban location east of the city, rather than downtown.

numble Jan 4, 2019 1:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 8425338)
Either you're just making this all up or else it's just another one of those idiotic California things because I've worked on plenty of multi-billion dollar projects and they all had termination clauses. There's a termination fee obviously, but its not anything close to the entire project cost. Large projects get canceled all the damn time and thousands of people just get laid off one day. That's how it works in the real world, not sure about California. Hell, I've been on projects where they just furloughed everyone for a few weeks at the end of the year because they ran out of money.

As they are public contracts, it’s easy to compare them. Here is the CAHSR contract with Tutor Perini. What multibillion public works contracts have you seen that are different in terms of the termination provisions?

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Const...act/index.html

BrownTown Jan 4, 2019 2:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by numble (Post 8425439)
As they are public contracts, it’s easy to compare them. Here is the CAHSR contract with Tutor Perini. What multibillion public works contracts have you seen that are different in terms of the termination provisions?

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Const...act/index.html

Not public projects, power plant and transmission system projects for utilities. Power plants get canceled all the time. Don't really see why there should be a difference in the contract for an investor owned utility cancelling a nuclear plant as opposed to a state cancelling a railroad.

emathias Jan 4, 2019 4:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 8425364)
People never like hearing the truth, but that's their problem not mine. It's just a pity this isn't the sort of thing you can place bets on because this forum is full of suckers when it comes to believing infrastructure projects schedules and budgets even though the majority of projects never come close to hitting them. Saying a project of this size is going to go massively over budget and be significantly delayed is about as risky as saying water is wet.

The majority of projects do come in on time and on budget. It's the big, unique ones that often end up costing more than planned, and that's true for both private and public projects. The more unique a project is in relation to what the planning organization normally does, the more likely it is to run into excess costs. Which is hardly surprising. Cities that build new transit systems regularly run over in the first parts, and come in on or often even under budget on the last pieces.That's also true for private industry and for private individuals. The more you do something, the better you get at it, which is why roads are routinely resurfaced on budget and on time, for example.

Will O' Wisp Jan 4, 2019 6:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 8425450)
Not public projects, power plant and transmission system projects for utilities. Power plants get canceled all the time. Don't really see why there should be a difference in the contract for an investor owned utility cancelling a nuclear plant as opposed to a state cancelling a railroad.

There isn't any difference in the contracts, a private utility can't cancel an under construction power plant any easier than CA can cancel HSR. The only plant that's been cancelled while under construction in the last 30 years is the Summer nuclear station project in South Carolina, and that was because the prime contractor (Westinghouse) went under.

Previous to that in 80s there was a spate of canceled under construction nuclear reactors, mainly due to increasing regulations on nuclear power after three mile island. Many contractors suffered huge losses, some did sue, but in that case utilities were able to make the argument that the circumstances were out of their control. I suppose that is one advantage a private project has, if the government turns against them the project sponsors can argue that. But when the project sponsor is the government that justification isn't going to go as far.

I'm getting the impression here that during those multi-billion dollar projects you say you working on, you weren't employed by a prime contractor or a project sponsor in any significant capacity related to the project. The subcontractors and sub-subcontractors you might be more experienced with will occasionally sign contracts with termination clauses like you describe, if they feel confident enough that the sudden termination of their contract won't put them out of business. But with projects of this sort of size and scale a sudden termination of the contract will almost always but the prime contractor in immediate danger of severe financial loss or even bankruptcy, and so it would be unaccountably foolish for any of them to sign a contract that could be ended so liberally.

But if you want it from the horse's mouth, here's the peer review of HSR business plan I linked before discussing the immediate construction halt option:

Quote:

End the project, pay the remaining contractor charges, retain purchased property for state uses where needed and otherwise sell it or return it to its former owners and scrap any work already done. In practice this would not be practical because the work done so far would have no utility and the federal ARRA money would probably have to be repaid.

KevinFromTexas Jan 4, 2019 9:28 PM

*Posts deleted*

A reminder to not troll each other and to stay on topic.

Crawford Jan 4, 2019 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 8424555)
You can't just cancel them,

Of course you can. The NYC MTA just cancelled a half-billion dollar subway tunnel renovation that was supposed to begin in just a few days. They claim they found a cheaper/easier way to do it.

I'm sure every agreement has specific language re. non-completion of contract terms. Isn't this why you have lawyers?

Crawford Jan 4, 2019 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R@ptor (Post 8422326)
It is actually VERY commonplace in Germany and France to commute with HSR.

Probably a quarter of the people I work with commute to Frankfurt by HSR (particularly from Mannheim (35min), Fulda (55min), Cologne (70min) and Düsseldorf (85min))

I don't believe it. Sorry. Show me data that DB HSR has a heavy component of commuters.

The Cologne-Frankfurt HSR line is quite expensive, and it obviously serves downtown-to-downtown, so would be impractical for high income professionals (who live west/south of Cologne's center).

They would have to backtrack, take a 20 minute train ride to Cologne HBF, then take the new route to Frankfurt HBF while dealing with intercity riders. Then, once in Frankfurt, they would have to transfer to S or U Bahn to get to most offices. That would probably be a 2 hour one-way commute, door to door. Maybe fine for a few times a month, but not for daily travel.

And Düsseldorf would be beyond ridiculous. The Neubaustrecke ends at Colgone, so they would have an additional transfer to Rhein-Ruhr trains? No way.

Mannheim is close to Frankfurt. The Rhein-Neckar S Bahn lines extend quite a ways south and are easy/frequent commuting. Why would someone pay 5-10x as much to save a few minutes?

Crawford Jan 4, 2019 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket (Post 8423698)
Agreed. The only limiting factor would be the ticket prices. I'm not sure how much it would cost to commute daily from say Merced to SF, but assuming it's around $100 round trip, that comes out to about $26,000/year. Sounds high, but for some people it may be worth it so they can afford a house in the Central Valley.

But a house in the Central Valley wouldn't be next to the station, obviously. You have to factor that in. Someone who values a cheap big house in the CA interior isn't gonna be living in a TOD. They would have to drive a distance, and probably pay for parking, competing with intercity riders.

Putting aside other issues, do you think there's a large cohort of people willing to spend like 25% of their pretax income on daily commuting?

Will O' Wisp Jan 5, 2019 5:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8426290)
Of course you can. The NYC MTA just cancelled a half-billion dollar subway tunnel renovation that was supposed to begin in just a few days. They claim they found a cheaper/easier way to do it.

I'm sure every agreement has specific language re. non-completion of contract terms. Isn't this why you have lawyers?

That's an entirely different situation. The L line renovations aren't using contractors for the most part, and so MTA hasn't issued any large construction contracts. Certainly they're not using them at the level that HSR is. For this project MTA is primarily using it own workers, making its own construction plans, and making its own relationships with suppliers and subcontractors. That means MTA doesn't need any contracts, since as both the project sponsor and prime contractor MTA would be signing a contract with itself. And that would just be silly.

MTA is fairly unusual within the US in that it combines these two usually separate parties under one roof, at least for major repairs (new construction like the 2nd avenue subway uses the more usual method). It has the advantage of giving the MTA complete and utter control over the project to make whatever changes it wants at any time it wants, but the lack of any legally binding agreements means the scope of the project can suddenly and radically change without warning (which usually leads to huge delays and massive cost overruns). A large percentage of HSR's cost overruns and delays have been from project changes, under a system where CAHSR went into the construction business itself they'd likely be even higher.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8426308)
But a house in the Central Valley wouldn't be next to the station, obviously. You have to factor that in. Someone who values a cheap big house in the CA interior isn't gonna be living in a TOD. They would have to drive a distance, and probably pay for parking, competing with intercity riders.

Putting aside other issues, do you think there's a large cohort of people willing to spend like 25% of their pretax income on daily commuting?

It sounds stupid, but spending $20k+ on commuting honestly makes economic sense for many people working in the bay area. Average rent for a two bedroom apartment in SF is $4,650 a month, or ~$56,000 a year. The average house in Madera is $232,400, which with a 3.92% 30 year APR would cost $1,099 a month or ~$13,000 a year. So for someone looking to raise a family you could buy a house in Madera, spend $100 every working day commuting via HSR to SF, and still be saving $17,000 a year over trying to rent a two bedroom apartment in SF. If you worked from home once a week you'd be saving $23,000.

Of course that's making the very big assumption that housing prices in the bay area will stay at their current ridiculous levels. That's the real weakness of the whole HSR commuting plan.

BrownTown Jan 5, 2019 9:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 8426635)
It sounds stupid, but spending $20k+ on commuting honestly makes economic sense for many people working in the bay area. Average rent for a two bedroom apartment in SF is $4,650 a month, or ~$56,000 a year. The average house in Madera is $232,400, which with a 3.92% 30 year APR would cost $1,099 a month or ~$13,000 a year. So for someone looking to raise a family you could buy a house in Madera, spend $100 every working day commuting via HSR to SF, and still be saving $17,000 a year over trying to rent a two bedroom apartment in SF. If you worked from home once a week you'd be saving $23,000.

Of course that's making the very big assumption that housing prices in the bay area will stay at their current ridiculous levels. That's the real weakness of the whole HSR commuting plan.

The home owner would also have to pay property taxes, insurance, upkeep etc. which will hurt that calculation a bit more.

But yeah, this could all be better achieved for a fraction of the cost by upzoning areas near existing transit and building new transit lines followed by subsequent upzoning of more of the peninsula. Also there's always the potential for another tech crash which will send home prices tumbling in a heartbeat. Hell, California simply changing their stupid property tax laws that let these millionaires get away with paying incredibly tiny amounts of property taxes would cause home prices to tumble.

Will O' Wisp Jan 5, 2019 8:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 8426693)
The home owner would also have to pay property taxes, insurance, upkeep etc. which will hurt that calculation a bit more.

But yeah, this could all be better achieved for a fraction of the cost by upzoning areas near existing transit and building new transit lines followed by subsequent upzoning of more of the peninsula. Also there's always the potential for another tech crash which will send home prices tumbling in a heartbeat. Hell, California simply changing their stupid property tax laws that let these millionaires get away with paying incredibly tiny amounts of property taxes would cause home prices to tumble.

On that we agree, but SF is just so damn resistant to upzoning. When stuff like this is a best case scenario for a developer trying to build new housing in the bay area, a $30 billion dollar rail line almost seems like the simpler option. That's my guess as to why SF has always been the firmest supporter of HSR, and as the richest city in CA they have a tenancy to drag the rest of the state along with them.

As a San Diegan though I'm still not 100% okay with having my tax dollars fund a project that I'm almost certain will never directly benefit me. I have zero faith HSR is going to reach my city, best I'm hoping for are improvements to the LOSSAN corridor. Prop 1A as written was a bit of a political trick. For the full Sacramento to San Diego network we're probably looking at a final price tag of $150-200 billion dollars. Even in the rosy early predictions the final price tag was close to $100 billion. And yet Prop 1A only gave CAHSR $9 billion and assumed the ballences was going to come from somewhere. The Fed hasn't funded local transportation projects more than 50% in decades, and even that 50% tends to top out at $2-3 billion. The rest was always going to come from statewide CA taxes. If you had straight up told CA voters they'd be paying $80 billion for an HSR line they might not have passed Prop 1A.

Even now I have little confidence that CA voters will agree to spend the extra $30 billion to tunnel through the Tehachapi pass in the near future. The new governor has implied he wouldn't support it, and CAHSR's own plans seem to show a lack of faith it will happen. Still, an HSR line from Bakersfield to SF with the potential to be expanded to LA at some point in the future is better than just throwing away the money in a pointless political stunt I suppose.

jmecklenborg Jan 6, 2019 7:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 8427044)
Even now I have little confidence that CA voters will agree to spend the extra $30 billion to tunnel through the Tehachapi pass in the near future. The new governor has implied he wouldn't support it, and CAHSR's own plans seem to show a lack of faith it will happen.

Ten years ago the feds refused to fund a tunnel for the DC Silverline. A similar strategy presents itself for CAHSR -- no federal funding for the ridiculous amount of tunneling needed to avoid spooking horses. Pull the plan back to a mostly-surface, horse-spooking one and save $5 billion or you don't get a federal grant.

130+ years ago, my hometown of Cincinnati set about building a 300+ mile railroad due south to Chattanooga because no private investor could get the cheap bonds that the city could and the line required two huge bridges and 27 tunnels, which threw a lot of uncertainty into the financing. They ran out of money in the middle of the Kentucky hills and had to go back to voters a second time.

The second bond issue passed. FFWD to 2019 and the thing is still a prodigious earner for the city. The city earns hundreds of millions per decade in direct leasing revenue as well as millions per year in property tax from the huge yard that sits within city limits.

nito Jan 7, 2019 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8426301)
I don't believe it. Sorry. Show me data that DB HSR has a heavy component of commuters.

142mn journeys were made on Deutsche Bahn Long Distance in 2017 which is close to 5x Amtrak’s ridership and not far off 50% more than Metro North Rail Road (North America’s busiest commuter rail network). I think it highly likely that a large proportion of that number is commuter based on similarities to the UK intercity network where competitive journey times, pricing, speed, high frequencies and good origin and destination connectivity make commuting a legitimate possibility.

Super commuting is a reality in the UK as well, primarily driven by the crazy house prices in London.

jamesinclair Jan 8, 2019 10:01 PM

Stopped by last week, the construction is really massive

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/vHxETez.jpg[/IMG]

Busy Bee Jan 8, 2019 10:13 PM

Please post all the pics you can since the CHSRA flickr page is only updated once a month and they're past that already this latest period. Not sure why a massive project that needs to maintain all the continued public support it can and reaffirm progress is being made doesn't do photo Instagram/facebook/website whatever updates on practically a daily basis.

jamesinclair Jan 8, 2019 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 8430062)
Please post all the pics you can since the CHSRA flickr page is only updated once a month and they're past that already this latest period. Not sure why a massive project that needs to maintain all the continued public support it can and reaffirm progress is being made doesn't do photo Instagram/facebook/website whatever updates on practically a daily basis.

Their flickr updating pattern aligns with student employee schedules. My guess is they have a Fresno State intern do them.

I took a few more photos on a DSLR, I have to get them onto my computer and upload them.

chaunceyjb Jan 9, 2019 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesinclair (Post 8430101)
Their flickr updating pattern aligns with student employee schedules. My guess is they have a Fresno State intern do them.

I took a few more photos on a DSLR, I have to get them onto my computer and upload them.

Thank you! I agree. Looks to me like the last photos were taken in November. I'd particularly like to see how the work on Cedar Viaduct looking the other way is coming along.

CastleScott Jan 10, 2019 12:59 AM

^ For construction pics: take Hwy 99 south from Sacramento (Sacto) towards Fresno when you get to the San Joaquin River there's a giant new bridge were it crosses and there's several spots around Turlock and also Fresno for pics.

jamesinclair Jan 15, 2019 4:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaunceyjb (Post 8431378)
Thank you! I agree. Looks to me like the last photos were taken in November. I'd particularly like to see how the work on Cedar Viaduct looking the other way is coming along.


https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4816/...8676e68f_c.jpgDSC_0909_38289 by J Sinclair, on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4835/...f1167ec4_c.jpgDSC_0918_38298 by J Sinclair, on Flickr

The graffiti reaches about 6 feet up, which shows how massive this thing is

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4915/...7d7f1de7_c.jpgDSC_0929_38309 by J Sinclair, on Flickr

Further south

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4854/...f89cc4f5_c.jpgDSC_0935_38315 by J Sinclair, on Flickr

Busy Bee Jan 16, 2019 4:48 PM

^^^ Thank you for posting those! Great shots. Also there are a bunch more on that user page for those interested.

Busy Bee Jan 16, 2019 4:49 PM

A few new photos on the CHSRA flickr page.

jamesinclair Jan 16, 2019 5:04 PM

Forgot I took photos of the 180 tunnel as well

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4880/...5510328e6c.jpgDSC_0875_38256 by J Sinclair, on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4846/...74e43b4fd8.jpgDSC_0871_38252 by J Sinclair, on Flickr

northbay Jan 16, 2019 7:45 PM

Thanks for the photo updates! :)

chaunceyjb Jan 17, 2019 6:32 PM

That last picture of the 180 tunnel is kinda weird. The porta potties look tiny.

Busy Bee Jan 17, 2019 6:50 PM

Yeah that is some funky perspective. If you look closely though you can see the bulldozers are on top of the mound. Welcome BTW....

aaron38 Jan 17, 2019 7:03 PM

This thing looks like the elevated highways found scattered around Fallout 3.

Busy Bee Jan 17, 2019 7:10 PM

^

I take such genuine delight in not knowing what you're talking about.:shrug:

jamesinclair Jan 17, 2019 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaunceyjb (Post 8440139)
That last picture of the 180 tunnel is kinda weird. The porta potties look tiny.

Its a big hole! And theyre still digging.

...And I dont quite get it. From north to south...

The line is elevated over the river, and then elevated over the UP tracks.

Then goes ground level, and then well underground to go below a freaking canal and 180.

Right after it pops back up to an elevated train station.

And then even higher up for the Cedar viaduct.

Why didnt they go over 180 instead of under?

chaunceyjb Jan 18, 2019 2:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesinclair (Post 8440511)
Its a big hole! And theyre still digging.

...And I dont quite get it. From north to south...

The line is elevated over the river, and then elevated over the UP tracks.

Then goes ground level, and then well underground to go below a freaking canal and 180.

Right after it pops back up to an elevated train station.

And then even higher up for the Cedar viaduct.

Why didnt they go over 180 instead of under?

Yeah, I wondered that too. Somewhere I saw early proposals that would have gone over 180. I assume it was just too high. The bottom of the overpass structures would have needed to be 15 or so feet at a minimum above 180. Or it could be that the transition to get below the street overpass was too much. i dunno. I am curious though, you say an "elevated train station" Where do you see that? Everything I've seen has it at ground level. Also, any word on when UP is going to get going on the shoo-fly? That seems to be a big hold up in getting the street underpasses in downtown Fresno.

Busy Bee Jan 18, 2019 3:25 AM

That elevation question surely has an answer somewhere in the EIS Final Alignment docs, though it might take a while to find.

jamesinclair Jan 21, 2019 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaunceyjb (Post 8440754)
Yeah, I wondered that too. Somewhere I saw early proposals that would have gone over 180. I assume it was just too high. The bottom of the overpass structures would have needed to be 15 or so feet at a minimum above 180. Or it could be that the transition to get below the street overpass was too much. i dunno. I am curious though, you say an "elevated train station" Where do you see that? Everything I've seen has it at ground level. Also, any word on when UP is going to get going on the shoo-fly? That seems to be a big hold up in getting the street underpasses in downtown Fresno.

It may have changed, but the original plans had the Fresno train station on top of the old UPRR passenger train station.

It was historical at ground, lobby on 2nd floor, tracks on top.

This is the old station

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7910/...b1c9ff63_c.jpgDSC_0896_38276 by J Sinclair, on Flickr

chaunceyjb Jan 22, 2019 3:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesinclair (Post 8444497)
It may have changed, but the original plans had the Fresno train station on top of the old UPRR passenger train station.

It was historical at ground, lobby on 2nd floor, tracks on top.

This is the old station

If you look at the EIR, it's showing an overhead walkway, but the tracks are "at grade": http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/...s_File1of1.pdf

FresnoHobbit Jan 22, 2019 7:07 AM

Where the HSR crosses the 180, the freeway is already elevated to cross freeway 99, so it makes sense to put the rail below. Being below the freeway, there is not enough room to go above the rail spur and an irrigation canal, so the HSR has to go below ground level.
I am under the impressions that the rail station will be at ground level... As far as I know the historical train depot is on the other side of the Union Pacific track from where the HSR track will be located.

Busy Bee Jan 22, 2019 4:42 PM

^And even though those early engineering docs from'14 were only 15% design, the track elevations and general station distribution are likely to be accurate.

jamesinclair Jan 23, 2019 1:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaunceyjb (Post 8444749)
If you look at the EIR, it's showing an overhead walkway, but the tracks are "at grade": http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/...s_File1of1.pdf

I guess Im really out of date! I didnt realize it had changed from this.

http://www.cahsrblog.com/wp-content/...hsrstation.jpg

Heres the station plan I remember - I attended meetings related to this.

https://www.fresno.gov/mayor/wp-cont...ts_reduced.pdf

FresnoHobbit Jan 23, 2019 7:07 AM

Thanks for posting the link to the station plans - I had not seen any plans that detailed before.
On that note, does anybody have the plans for the HSR crossing Herndon Avenue in Fresno? I have a good guess of what they are going to do, but would like to see the plans. :)

Busy Bee Jan 23, 2019 3:49 PM

^ Don't interpret those early engineering plans as what the station will look like. Those docs really only vaguelly describe the basic requirements of the station - passenger flow, pick up/drop off, track/platform alignment - but do not in any way suggest how the ultimate architectural form of the station will appear.

Busy Bee Jan 24, 2019 3:36 AM

New photos up on the Flickr page.

chaunceyjb Jan 28, 2019 4:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 8447212)
New photos up on the Flickr page.

Has the north side of the bridge over the San Joaquin River been poured? I can't tell from the pix. I see the wood forms, but can't tell if there is any concrete in the forms. Also, does anyone know if the big pillars have been poured in the median of the Cedar Viaduct? It looks like most of the rest of the pillars have been poured. And finally, anyone know what the deal is with UP getting going on the shoo-fly in downtown Fresno? That was supposed to be built last summer by UP. That's really putting the construction of the underpasses behind schedule.

chaunceyjb Jan 28, 2019 5:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FresnoHobbit (Post 8446141)
Thanks for posting the link to the station plans - I had not seen any plans that detailed before.
On that note, does anybody have the plans for the HSR crossing Herndon Avenue in Fresno? I have a good guess of what they are going to do, but would like to see the plans. :)

I haven't seen any plans for Herndon. However, I believe that the original plans have changed. See this proposal from January 2018: http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/brdmeetin...B_Contract.pdf Originally the trains were supposed to go over Herndon, but there were problems associated with moving a pipeline and eventually they decided to bring the rail to ground and take Herndon over the tracks.

BrownTown Jan 28, 2019 11:05 PM

Google Maps in the region has been updated again. It was updated not that long ago so only slightly more progress is visible, but still good to see something getting done.

jamesinclair Jan 29, 2019 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 8452581)
Google Maps in the region has been updated again. It was updated not that long ago so only slightly more progress is visible, but still good to see something getting done.

Are you sure? Downtown Fresno shows February 2018, which I believe showed up in April of may last year.

BrownTown Jan 29, 2019 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesinclair (Post 8454166)
Are you sure? Downtown Fresno shows February 2018, which I believe showed up in April of may last year.

It's been updates since Feb 2018.

For instance in the Feb 2018 pics this whole portion of the bridge over the San Joaquin River is just pylons:
https://i.imgur.com/EJZvO0j.jpg

chaunceyjb Jan 29, 2019 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 8447212)
New photos up on the Flickr page.

There are also new pictures up today for the State Route 180 Passageway. They are not on the Flickr account so far as I've found, but are in the buildhsr.com page relating to the Fresno Trench SR 180 Passageway page. They've got to be getting close to the bottom.

jamesinclair Jan 30, 2019 9:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaunceyjb (Post 8454325)
There are also new pictures up today for the State Route 180 Passageway. They are not on the Flickr account so far as I've found, but are in the buildhsr.com page relating to the Fresno Trench SR 180 Passageway page. They've got to be getting close to the bottom.

They posted a drone video on their facebook page which is impressive

https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniaH...2206337318323/

chaunceyjb Jan 31, 2019 8:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaunceyjb (Post 8454325)
There are also new pictures up today for the State Route 180 Passageway. They are not on the Flickr account so far as I've found, but are in the buildhsr.com page relating to the Fresno Trench SR 180 Passageway page. They've got to be getting close to the bottom.

I just noticed this on the buildhsr page: "Crews have reached the bottom of the trench and are fine grading the area in order to start the box construction."

k1052 Feb 12, 2019 7:40 PM

Newsom is terminating the project.

https://www.apnews.com/801b4fb4ff954d1b91bce4aad77f7caa

Quote:

California Gov. Gavin Newsom says he’s ending the state’s effort to build a high-speed rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Newsom said Tuesday in his State of the State address it “would cost too much and take too long” to build the line long championed by his predecessor, Jerry Brown. Latest estimates pin the cost at $77 billion and completion in 2033.

Newsom says he wants to continue construction of the high-speed link from Merced to Bakersfield in California’s Central Valley. He says building the line could bring economic transformation to the agricultural region.

And he says abandoning that portion of the project would require the state to return $3.5 billion in federal dollars.

Newsom also is replacing Brown’s head of the board that oversee the project and is pledging to hold the project’s contractors more accountable for cost overruns.

Busy Bee Feb 12, 2019 7:45 PM

Hold on while I kill myself...


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.