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)

jg6544 Jul 30, 2012 4:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5780744)
Ok. I'll explain why HSR is ridiculous for California.

First you argue about freeways WITHIN LA and weigh them against HSR.

I'll make the same argument against the 5 or the 101.

HSR will move more people between LA and SF faster than any freeway ever could. Travel time between LA and San Francisco if you use LAX and SFO is still over three hours if everything goes right at both ends. HSR will compete with that travel time, even figuring in the time it takes to get to Union Station from the westside of LA.

By every measure, HSR is, as it has been in the east coast corridor for decades, a vital third alternate mode for those who, like me, loathe flying and loathe LAX even worse and who don't always want to make the drive (which is the only way I will make the trip now).

Nexis4Jersey Jul 30, 2012 4:25 PM

What kind of soil is the terminal being built on?

Busy Bee Jul 30, 2012 5:26 PM

^Yeah, it does look like an awful lot of cave in prevention going on there. Must be sandy?

M II A II R II K Jul 30, 2012 9:20 PM

Can a Bullet Train Shrink California’s Carbon Footprint?


July 27, 2012

By Roger Rudick

Read More: http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2...bon-footprint/

Quote:

Near Antwerp, Belgium, there’s a two-mile section of high-speed rail (HSR) line with solar panels over the tracks to help power the system. That kind of technology is essential to maximizing environmental benefits from California’s proposed bullet train, according to a new study co-authored by Berkeley’s School of Civil and Environmental Engineering. California is poised to begin construction of an HSR line from San Francisco to Los Angeles early next year.

- But before the electrically powered trains start cleaning up California’s air, they have to make it dirtier. That’s because the construction generates pollution. “We calculated after ground breaking, so the net benefits come at best 10 years after the system starts running,” said Mikhail Chester, a professor at Arizona State and a study author.

- And some of that depends on how quickly people switch from driving and flying to using the train, he added. According to the study, entitled “High-speed rail with emerging automobiles and aircraft can reduce environmental impacts in California’s future,” 67% of the construction pollution for HSR comes from making cement. “But construction is a one-time cost…the benefits continue for the life of the system,” he said.

- “I think the point about running smaller trains during off-peak times is important, to avoid excess capacity,” said Rick Geddes, Associate Professor, Department of Policy Analysis and Management at Cornell, in reference to the study. He also pointed out a difficult trade-off: the faster the trains, the more power they consume. But higher speeds attract riders from heavily polluting airplanes—so it’s important to find the sweet spot that does the most to reduce emissions over all, he said.

- Even if California HSR is powered by wind and solar, bad regulations could negate the benefits, according to the study. Under a cap-and-trade policy in which the right to emit carbon is sold on the open market, the efficiencies of the train could drive down the price of carbon offsets. In other words, if the “cap” is too high, the train could just end up making it cheaper for other sectors to pollute. But assuming the state can avoid self-defeating policies, the only other way to reduce carbon emissions is to impede travel, said Clark. “Because under any scenario, California’s going to continue to grow.”

.....

Nexis4Jersey Jul 30, 2012 9:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 5782288)
^Yeah, it does look like an awful lot of cave in prevention going on there. Must be sandy?

That wouldn't be so good during an Earthquake...

fflint Jul 30, 2012 10:18 PM

^Seismic engineering takes soil conditions into account.

dl3000 Jul 31, 2012 2:34 AM

Most of the soil in downtown is historic fill which is all kinds of crap, and young bay mud. It's tough to build on. They probably put pilings down to old bay mud or sandstone bedrock.

202_Cyclist Aug 1, 2012 7:12 PM

High-speed rail will shift Highway 99 through Fresno (Fresno Bee)
 
High-speed rail will shift Highway 99 through Fresno

By Tim Sheehan
Fresno Bee
Jul. 31, 2012

"Caltrans estimates that it will cost about $226 million and take up to three years to relocate a stretch of Highway 99 through Fresno to make way for high-speed train tracks.

The estimate by the state's transportation department includes acquiring the private property needed to shove the freeway west by about 100 feet between Ashlan and Clinton avenues in central Fresno, as well as building new traffic lanes and demolition of the old highway, according to a report to the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

The authority, meeting Thursday in Sacramento, will consider approving an agreement with Caltrans to handle the 2.5-mile construction project. No time frame has been set for when the freeway work would begin..."

http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/07/31/...e-highway.html

peanut gallery Aug 1, 2012 8:27 PM

On the question of soil conditions at the Transbay site, a local article touched on that last week:

Quote:

At the eastern end, Beck says buttresses are being built and seven foot diameter casings are placed 250 feet down then filled with concrete to help stabilize the silty soil. The eastern end was once covered with water and called Yerba Buena Cove, "We're drilling down to bedrock, excavating out the existing soil and replacing it with concrete. And that's just to improve soil quality here in this area so it resists heave as we excavate the site."
It's not ideal soil to build on but obviously very possible given everything that's already been built in the area. The article also mentions that about half the total schedule is excavating and then building back up to the surface.

Cirrus Aug 18, 2012 1:24 AM

Mod note
There have been some complaints that this thread has become so cluttered with political discussion about the merits of CAHSR, that it is impossible for people interested in the project to use this thread for its originally intended purpose, which was to discuss updates and keep track of specific details.

Both topics are permitted, but it is not fair for one to make the other impossible or overly inconvenient.

So with that in mind, we are going to split this discussion into separate threads. Please continue to use this one for its original purpose, to track the details of the project as it moves forward. If you would like to discuss "larger" issues relating to the overall wisdom of the CAHSR project, use the other thread.

I'll move some posts from the last few days over in to the other thread, so it will have a natural start point.



bmfarley Aug 22, 2012 3:54 AM

Great news! I love project details. I want to discuss station architecture, special track work, operating patterns, etc.


I've moved on from the mind-numbingly ignorant talk about econmic apocalypse or nimbys type talk because a single person should have more influence than the 'will' of the people, which is almost 40 million strong.

202_Cyclist Sep 20, 2012 2:24 PM

U.S. approves California bullet train construction (LA Times)
 
U.S. approves California bullet train construction

The action allows the state rail authority to begin acquiring the land that will be needed between Merced and Bakersfield to construct about 130 miles of rail by 2017.


By Ralph Vartabedian
Los Angeles Times
September 20, 2012

"The Obama administration Wednesday gave the first formal regulatory approval to the California High-Speed Rail Authority's plan to construct a bullet train between Los Angeles and San Francisco, clearing a major legal hurdle to starting the project in the Central Valley.

The action allows the rail authority to begin acquiring the first of nearly 1,000 parcels of land that will be needed between Merced and Bakersfield to construct about 130 miles of rail by 2017, rail officials said. The deadline is a requirement of federal stimulus funding that the state has received.

"It is a very big step and a very important milestone," said Jeff Morales, chief executive of the rail authority. "It allows us to move forward in earnest..."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,6307619.story

202_Cyclist Sep 28, 2012 3:59 PM

I was watching the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee field hearing yesterday about the ownership and management of Ontario Airport. Lucy Dunn, the CEO of the Orange County Business Council noted that there was a ground breaking about two weeks ago for the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), which will eventually serve high speed rail.

ARTIC Groundbreaking Signals Orange County’s Transportation Gateway is Underway

"ANAHEIM, CA - (September 18, 2012) - It’s official. The Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center will connect Anaheim, Orange County and the entire Southern California region.

With shovels in the ground and elected officials, city leaders past and present, and travel enthusiasts under sunny skies, the symbolic turning of the dirt signaled the start of construction on a $184 million multimodal transportation facility to serve the entire Southern California region.

The Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center – known as ARTIC - became a reality today.."

http://www.anaheim.net/administratio...ws.asp?id=1484

CastleScott Sep 28, 2012 7:46 PM

Heres something that should go a long ways:

California Transportation Commission releases CBOSS PTC funding
Written by William C. Vantuono, Editor-in-Chief
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services
0

The California Transportation Commission has voted to release $39.8 million in allocations toward work to advance the Caltrain Modernization Program and prepare the rail corridor, which connects San Francisco with San Jose and Gilroy, for a future “blended” system with California High Speed Rail.

The funding will be used to advance design work for Caltrain’s CBOSS PTC Communications Based Overlay Signal System with Positive Train Control) signal system project. Caltrain calls the CTC’s allocation “the first major funding milestone to advance Caltrain electrification from the High Speed Rail ‘early investment’ program.”
“Improved safety is one of the key features of the new signal system,” Caltrain said. “The project includes PTC, which prevents train to train collisions, enforces speed restrictions, and provides protection to workers on the right-of-way throughout the Caltrain system. The project is an essential component of electrification of the corridor and is necessary to achieve the performance advantages available in an electrified system. The advanced signal system will allow for increases in the number of trains per hour operating on the corridor and will help Caltrain meet growing ridership demands. It also potentially has the capability to reduce gate downtime per train, which is important in communities where there are multiple grade crossings in high traffic areas.”

“With today’s vote by the CTC, Caltrain can continue on track to meeting its commitment to bring a cleaner, quieter, faster and/or more frequent service to the corridor by 2019 and take more cars off the region’s roads and highways,” said Adrienne J. Tissier, chair of Caltrain’s Joint Powers Board. “The advanced signal system will play a key role in improving the efficiency of the trains and will allow Caltrain to safely provide more service to more stations.”

The $231 million CBOSS PTC system “will be fully interoperable with freight traffic using the Caltrain corridor and future California High Speed Rail trains,” Caltrain said. “It also meets the Federal Railroad Administration’s requirements to install PTC by 2015, which is why it is essential that the funds be allocated now. The advanced signal system will also provide some important advantages during the installation of electrification that will enable Caltrain to maintain rail operations and support faster, more efficient service in a safe work environment.”

CBOSS PTC is one of three key components of the modernization program, which also includes the implementation of electrification and the purchase of electric-multiple-unit rail vehicles. Caltrain says modernizing the corridor “will reduce emissions by up to 90%, provide faster and/or more frequent service, and will prepare the system for shared use with California High Speed Rail in the future. Electrification of the system is also expected to substantially reduce Caltrain’s operating cost, but will not eliminate the need for a dedicated funding source. “

The total cost of the Caltrain Modernization Program is $1.5 billion. State legislators voted to include $706 million in funding for the modernization project in the California High Speed Rail budget earlier this year. That money, combined with other local, regional and federal funding sources, provides full funding for the program.

202_Cyclist Nov 13, 2012 4:29 PM

Bullet-train planners face huge engineering challenge (LA Times)
 
Bullet-train planners face huge engineering challenge
The 141-mile section from Bakersfield to L.A. will travel over two mountain ranges and more than half a dozen earthquake faults. Experts see it as the project of the century.

http://www.trbimg.com/img-50a1b703/t...1113-photo/600
Vehicles travel westbound on California 58 near White Wolf fault in Kern County after descending through the Tehachapi Pass crossing the Tehachapi Mountains. (Al Seib / Los Angeles Times / November 12, 2012)

By Ralph Vartabedian
Los Angeles Times
November 12, 2012

"Civil War veteran William Hood arrived at the mosquito-infested swamps near Bakersfield in 1874 to build a rail line that would soar through the Tehachapi Mountains, linking the Bay Area and Southern California for the first time.

Hood, Southern Pacific Railroad's chief assistant engineer, assembled 3,000 Chinese immigrants with picks, shovels and dynamite. They snaked the track up treacherous mountain ridges, twisted it back and forth around canyons and punched it through sheer rock in a series of 18 tunnels — climbing 4,025 vertical feet along the way.

It's a feat no one has attempted to duplicate. Until now..."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...tory?track=rss

202_Cyclist Nov 17, 2012 3:01 PM

California bullet train moves forward, judge denies farmers' plea to halt project
 
California bullet train moves forward, judge denies farmers' plea to halt project

By Mike Rosenberg
San Jose Mercury
11/16/2012

"SACRAMENTO -- California's $69 billion bullet train will continue zooming toward a groundbreaking next year after a judge on Friday denied a last-ditch request from Central Valley opponents to halt all work on the state's high speed rail project.

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Tim Frawley said at the end of a closely watched three-hour hearing that the 520-mile rail line was so unprecedented in size that he alone could not stop it now.

"This keeps us on track," Jeff Morales, CEO of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said inside the courthouse after the hearing. "It's not a surprise, but obviously you don't know until you get the ruling..."

http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...ers?source=rss

202_Cyclist Nov 17, 2012 3:07 PM

Bullet train segment's completion date pushed back (LA Times)
 
Bullet train segment's completion date pushed back
The high-speed rail authority adds 12 months to the schedule for 130 miles of Central Valley track, meaning it would be finished by December 2017 rather than a year earlier.

By Ralph Vartabedian
Los Angeles Times
November 16, 2012

"The California High-Speed Rail Authority said Thursday that it was adding 12 months to the construction schedule for 130 miles of track in the Central Valley, easing what some outside experts have contended was an overly aggressive and risky timeline.

Jeff Morales, chief executive of the authority, said the revised schedule would have the track completed by December 2017 rather than a year earlier as set under the agency's contracting documents. The new timetable will allow contractors to use less overtime and other practices that were expected under the accelerated plan in place earlier, Morales said.

"We are going to get lower bids, save some money and still meet all of our deadlines," he said. "It is a good business move..."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,1073915.story

twoNeurons Nov 18, 2012 7:03 AM

I realize this is "slightly" off track, but for anyone interested, there's a GREAT photo update on the construction of the new 500km/h Chuo shinkansen Maglev in Japan.

Wouldn't it be nice to see something like this in California... or for that matter, ANYWHERE in North America.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8478/8...80e128a9_b.jpg
P1010463 by castermaild, on Flickr

eleven=11 Nov 18, 2012 7:29 AM

yeah , high speed rail from LA to San Fran is great
if 30 to 40 years ago they started this
it would be great
We need to be happy with what we are now geting slowly
small better improvments in rail travel is the only way the USA
is going to do it better.
DONT trust any republicans with planing of anything.

aquablue Nov 21, 2012 4:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eleven=11 (Post 5905422)
yeah , high speed rail from LA to San Fran is great
if 30 to 40 years ago they started this
it would be great
We need to be happy with what we are now geting slowly
small better improvments in rail travel is the only way the USA
is going to do it better.
DONT trust any republicans with planing of anything.

Japan with its density and unique geography is a special case. HSR is fine for the USA, just as it is in Europe and most other countries.

mongoXZ Nov 22, 2012 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons (Post 5905408)
I realize this is "slightly" off track, but for anyone interested, there's a GREAT photo update on the construction of the new 500km/h Chuo shinkansen Maglev in Japan.

Wouldn't it be nice to see something like this in California... or for that matter, ANYWHERE in North America.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8478/8...80e128a9_b.jpg
P1010463 by castermaild, on Flickr

Cool! What is that?

fflint Nov 23, 2012 8:19 AM

People who want to blather on about right-wing ideology and/or foreign rail projects should go to a thread about such things. This isn't that thread.

Urbana Nov 24, 2012 7:20 PM

Is the Altamont Corridor Rail project still being planned as a part of the California High speed Rail project?

JDRCRASH Nov 24, 2012 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbana (Post 5912791)
Is the Altamont Corridor Rail project still being planned as a part of the California High speed Rail project?

Yes, but the main priority now is connecting SF with LA. I believe the Altamont Corridor is a ways off at this point.

fflint Nov 24, 2012 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbana (Post 5912791)
Is the Altamont Corridor Rail project still being planned as a part of the California High speed Rail project?

It's not technically part of the CAHSR project, but according to the project's website, Altamont Corridor would, if completed, transform the existing Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) into a "modernized streamlined system" and serve "as a feeder to the California High-Speed Train system." CAHSR itself will run through Pacheco Pass, south of San Jose.

Currently, ACE runs basic commuter rail service through the Altamont Pass between the Bay Area and Central Valley. APTA reports weekday ridership at 3,300 passengers.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...amont_Pass.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ACE_Altamont_Pass.jpg

CityKid Nov 26, 2012 10:24 PM

^^^ Interesting, I didn't realize that there would be improvements to the Altamont Pass. That may make a stronger case for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor, which I thought had died back when the MTC rerouted their funding to SJ BART (the failure of B1 in Alameda County doesn't help either). From what I understand, though, it's still alive and going through environmental review, which should be out later this year or early next year. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

phoenixboi08 Nov 27, 2012 3:46 AM

Does anyone know anything about the breakdown of power consumption in these trains?
In other words, it takes x amount of power to move the train as the desired speed increases by y (not the exact equation, obviously). This is the same phenomenon with airplanes (i.e. why they tend not to fly over a certain speed - not cost effective).
Seems to me, the biggest pay off will be figuring out how to drastically cut the cost of operations.

I've been searching for stuff about this, but have had little luck.

electricron Nov 27, 2012 2:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoenixboi08 (Post 5915084)
Does anyone know anything about the breakdown of power consumption in these trains?
In other words, it takes x amount of power to move the train as the desired speed increases by y (not the exact equation, obviously). This is the same phenomenon with airplanes (i.e. why they tend not to fly over a certain speed - not cost effective).
Seems to me, the biggest pay off will be figuring out how to drastically cut the cost of operations.

I've been searching for stuff about this, but have had little luck.

I believe you'll find your answer at http://alttransport.com/2011/04/chin...gh-speed-rail/
All trains under the new law will travel at a maximum speed 186 mph from July 1, 2011, compared to 217 mph that they were originally set up to go.
The new speeds will also cut energy usage by almost half since trains going 217 mph need twice as much energy as those operating at 124 mph.

Some simple math.....
217/124 = 1.75
and taking that slightly further...
if going 1.75 times faster consumes twice the energy,
the fuel consumption ratio is 2/1.75 = 1.143

202_Cyclist Nov 27, 2012 8:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoenixboi08 (Post 5915084)
Does anyone know anything about the breakdown of power consumption in these trains?
In other words, it takes x amount of power to move the train as the desired speed increases by y (not the exact equation, obviously). This is the same phenomenon with airplanes (i.e. why they tend not to fly over a certain speed - not cost effective).
Seems to me, the biggest pay off will be figuring out how to drastically cut the cost of operations.

I've been searching for stuff about this, but have had little luck.

This study is a good place to start.

High-speed rail with emerging automobiles and aircraft can reduce environmental impacts in California’s future
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...7_3_034012.pdf

aquablue Nov 30, 2012 9:00 PM

So, what is holding this project up now? Lawsuits? Finance?

Will we ever see a groundbreaking on this project?:rolleyes:

202_Cyclist Dec 6, 2012 3:31 PM

The House Transportation & Infrastrucutre Committee is holding a hearing this morning on high speed rail. The hearing can be seen here:

An Update on the High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Program: Mistakes Made and Lessons Learned
http://transportation.house.gov/hear...px?NewsID=1761

Additionally, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a report on California's study today.

Preliminary Assessment of California's Cost Estimates and Other Challenges

"What GAO Found
Based on an initial evaluation of the California High Speed Rail Authority's (Authority) cost estimates, GAO found that they exhibit certain strengths and weaknesses when compared to best practices in GAO's Cost Guide. Adherence with the Cost Guide reduces the risk of cost overruns and missed deadlines. GAO's preliminary evaluation indicates that the cost estimates are comprehensive in that they include major components of construction and operating costs. However, they are not based on a complete set of assumptions, such as how the Authority expects to adapt existing high-speed rail technology to the project in California. The cost estimates are accurate in that they are based on the most recent project scope, include an inflation adjustment, and contain few mathematical errors. And while the cost estimates' methodologies are generally documented, in some cases GAO was unable to trace the final cost estimate back to its source documentation and could not verify how certain cost components, such as stations and trains, were calculated. Finally, the Authority evaluated the credibility of its estimates by performing both a sensitivity analysis (assessing changes in key cost inputs) and an independent cost estimate, but these tests did not encompass the entire cost estimate for the project. For example, the sensitivity analysis of the construction cost estimate was limited to 30 miles of the first construction segment. The Authority also did not conduct a risk and uncertainty analysis to determine the likelihood that the estimates would be met. The Authority is currently taking some steps to improve its cost estimates.

The California high-speed rail project faces many challenges. Chief among these is obtaining project funding beyond the first 130-mile construction segment. While the Authority has secured $11.5 billion from federal and state sources, it needs almost $57 billion more. Moreover, the HSIPR grant program has not received federal funding for the last 2 fiscal years, and future federal funding is uncertain. The Authority is also challenged to improve its ridership and revenue forecasts. Factors, such as limited data and information, make developing such forecasts difficult. Finally, the environmental review process and acquisition of necessary rights-of-way for construction could increase the risk of the project's falling behind schedule and increasing costs..."

The full report can be seen here:
http://gao.gov/assets/660/650608.pdf

M II A II R II K Jan 17, 2013 7:04 PM

Rep. Denham: Not 'one more penny' for Calif. high-speed railway

Read More: http://thehill.com/blogs/transportat...d-rail-funding

Quote:

The House lawmaker responsible for oversight of the nation's railways promised Wednesday to use his new position to put the brakes on a controversial high-speed railway in his state.

- "I've obviously taken a very strong position about California high-speed rail and I'm going to continue do so," Denham said. "We'll have the ability to hold hearings, we'll have the rail reauthorization bill and different transportation funding measures. I don't want to see one more penny [go to the California high-speed rail] until they disclose who their private partners are."

- Despite his state's Democratic leaders' enthusiasm, Denham sponsored an amendment to the $105 billion transportation bill that was approved by Congress last year to bar any of the money from going to the proposed California railway. He told The Hill on Wednesday that he would seek to continue the ban in future transportation authorizations. "I don't believe gas tax money should be going to rail," Denham said.

- Transportation industry officials may not see Denham's appointment as act of goodwill on rail funding, however. "We need a transportation network in this country that is interwoven and properly funded from our waterways to our railways to our runways to our highways. ... We can’t be an economic power if we’re defined by slow passenger trains, eroding bridges, over-crowded transit systems, aging aviation technology, congested highways and ports that are choking the economy," AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department President Ed Wytkind wrote Wednesday in blog post defending federal funding for high-speed rail.

- "America is littered with examples of botched privatization and contracting schemes that left us with reduced wages, weakened health care and pension protections, and eroded or eliminated bargaining rights," Wytkind wrote. "This labor model ensures our [high speed rail] goals will fail miserably." House Transportation Committee Bill Shuster (R-Calif.) has made comments similar to Denham's about the possibility of finding "common ground" with supporters on a new rail funding bill. The Pennsylvania lawmaker has sought to recalibrate his message on rail funding after contentious fights in the last Congress over a GOP effort to eliminate federal subsidies for Amtrak.

.....

easy as pie Jan 17, 2013 8:54 PM

this guy is a monster.

202_Cyclist Jan 18, 2013 7:27 PM

Amtrak Joins California to Help Buy High-Speed Rail Gear
 
Amtrak Joins California to Help Buy High-Speed Rail Gear

By Angela Greiling Keane
Jan 17, 2013
Bloomberg

"Amtrak agreed to work with California, the only U.S. state planning to begin construction on a high-speed rail project this year, to buy passenger-rail equipment.

Amtrak, the U.S. long-distance passenger railroad, will ask companies starting today for information on building as many as 60 trains, which will add units on the Northeast Corridor, replace Acela trains and provide equipment for California, Chief Executive Officer Joseph Boardman said.

New trains might cost $35 million to $55 million each, Boardman said in Washington, declining to estimate the value of a contract. Amtrak and California, which plans to begin fast- train rail operations in 2022, will seek bids from companies by September, Boardman said..."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...rail-gear.html

dimondpark Jan 21, 2013 4:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MIIAIIRIIK
I don't want to see one more penny [go to the California high-speed rail] until they disclose who their private partners are.

I don't see anything unreasonable about this^.

Bootstrap Bill Jan 22, 2013 2:09 AM

CaHSR was approved in 2008, the same election Obama won his first term. It's been more than four years and still no ground breaking.

Is it normal for projects like this to be delayed so many years?

electricron Jan 22, 2013 3:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bootstrap Bill (Post 5982629)
CaHSR was approved in 2008, the same election Obama won his first term. It's been more than four years and still no ground breaking.

Is it normal for projects like this to be delayed so many years?

Yes, especially when the EIS hasn't been completed. Environmental Impacts can take years to clear and have to reaccessed when changes are made. Every time a significant change is made, it delays progress 6 months to a year. It's not like the CHSR project was set in stone 4 years ago. Changes have been made, and more changes will be made in the future because the total amount of money needed to complete the project hasn't been allocated. So expect more delays as changes are made to build the project cheaper.

DJM19 Jan 22, 2013 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bootstrap Bill (Post 5982629)
CaHSR was approved in 2008, the same election Obama won his first term. It's been more than four years and still no ground breaking.

Is it normal for projects like this to be delayed so many years?

Well that was really just the approval by voters to set up a funding mechanism. The project still had a lot of planning ahead of it, including all the necessary environmental documents which take a lot of time for a project this size. But ground breaking will begin this year.

M II A II R II K Jan 25, 2013 7:41 PM

http://www.cyclelicio.us/2013/govern...ransportation/


California Governor Jerry Brown gave his State of the State speech tonight. He hinted at changes coming in how we fund transportation and indicated his continuing support for high speed rail and mitigating the effects of climate change.




Video Link

easy as pie Jan 26, 2013 12:40 AM

the changes in transportation funding run along two lines:

1) pedestrian and cycling initiatives into a single file, streamlining funding and that;
2) lowering the electoral threshold for bond measures/taxation initiatives related to transportation funding, down from 2/3 to 55%.

this wouldn't touch on hsr directly, but it would definitely help along a lot of projects in the pipeline. over the past decade, we've seen losing majority-backed transit initiatives in many counties, including notable ones in los angeles and marin, where there was almost 66% support, but not quite.

electricron Jan 26, 2013 3:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by easy as pie (Post 5988165)
the changes in transportation funding run along two lines:

1) pedestrian and cycling initiatives into a single file, streamlining funding and that;
2) lowering the electoral threshold for bond measures/taxation initiatives related to transportation funding, down from 2/3 to 55%.

this wouldn't touch on hsr directly, but it would definitely help along a lot of projects in the pipeline. over the past decade, we've seen losing majority-backed transit initiatives in many counties, including notable ones in los angeles and marin, where there was almost 66% support, but not quite.

Hmmmm, not affect HSR directly?????
Where does CHSR Authority plan to find the remaining $40 to $50 Billion to finish just the L.A. to S.F. HSR line, and both future extensions? So far, around $4 Billion from the US and $9 Billion from the California treasuries have been allocated. Less than $15 Billion will never build something that costs over $60 Billion.
Yes, CHSR will come back and ask for more funds from California voters in the near future, and that my friend directly affects CHSR!

northbay Jan 26, 2013 12:23 PM

The initial bonds were part of Prop 1A that passed in 2008 with just a simple majority. It got 52.62%.

202_Cyclist Jan 27, 2013 1:25 PM

California still hasn't bought land for bullet train route (LA Times)
 
California still hasn't bought land for bullet train route

Construction is supposed to start in July. High-speed rail officials say they can do it. But they face resistance from landowners, and if the schedule slips, costs could grow too high.

By Ralph Vartabedian
Los Angeles Times
January 27, 2013

"Construction of California's high-speed rail network is supposed to start in just six months, but the state hasn't acquired a single acre along the route and faces what officials are calling a challenging schedule to assemble hundreds of parcels needed in the Central Valley.

The complexity of getting federal, state and local regulatory approvals for the massive $68-billion project has already pushed back the start of construction to July from late last year. Even with that additional time, however, the state is facing a risk of not having the property to start major construction work near Fresno as now planned.

It hopes to begin making purchase offers for land in the next several weeks. But that's only the first step in a convoluted legal process that will give farmers, businesses and homeowners leverage to delay the project by weeks, if not months, and drive up sales prices, legal experts say..."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...tory?track=rss

easy as pie Jan 27, 2013 6:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by northbay (Post 5988536)
The initial bonds were part of Prop 1A that passed in 2008 with just a simple majority. It got 52.62%.

yeah, i should have written that it's local measures/initiatives that will see a reduced electoral threshold, and why i say bond/tax is because the specific way that it works in california is that these transportation projects are funded by issuing bonds backed by sales taxes, which require 2/3 majority to pass.

so, no, not directly related to hsr, but very good for rail projects. i'd love to see a geary street line here in sf, and unlikely as that is, a 55% threshold makes that one a lot more feasible than 66%.

eleven=11 Jan 27, 2013 9:20 PM

anybody see the Anderson Cooper tv show about High Speed Rail?

phoenixboi08 Jan 28, 2013 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eleven=11 (Post 5989903)
anybody see the Anderson Cooper tv show about High Speed Rail?

was it an entire episode or just that segment in Vermont?
I was hoping they at least presented a full picture. Doubt it though.

Innsertnamehere Jan 28, 2013 4:00 AM

just the Vermont portion. though they seemed to insinuate that they will be doing a continuing series on it, so hopefully they feature the true 100mph trains like chicago - St. Louis.

plus they must realize that $10 billion isn't going to get you anywhere with HSR. HSR is insanely expensive.

eleven=11 Jan 28, 2013 9:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere (Post 5990274)
just the Vermont portion. though they seemed to insinuate that they will be doing a continuing series on it, so hopefully they feature the true 100mph trains like chicago - St. Louis.

plus they must realize that $10 billion isn't going to get you anywhere with HSR. HSR is insanely expensive.

not just HSR maybe only better rail & higher speed rail
plus Higher Speed rail and better tracks and new trains
is not easy or fast

phoenixboi08 Jan 28, 2013 1:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere (Post 5990274)
just the Vermont portion. though they seemed to insinuate that they will be doing a continuing series on it, so hopefully they feature the true 100mph trains like chicago - St. Louis.

plus they must realize that $10 billion isn't going to get you anywhere with HSR. HSR is insanely expensive.

The segment just seemed a bit too...
They seemed to have already made up their mind that it's a waste of money.

DJM19 Jan 29, 2013 3:32 AM

It really just showed a lack of expertise in what its like to build an actual high speed rail line. They complained that California has yet to start its project (even though planning it is just as much part of it as building it) but neglect that it was only recently approved for a release of funding is out to big as we speak. They acted like a 60 billion dollar project can just start up overnight or that there are no obstacles in the way its all the planners faults.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.