California High Speed Rail Thread - Page 190

MAC123 · #**3781** Posted **Apr 2, 2023, 6:02 PM**

There's plenty of news about it, especially in 3 months. Dunno why no one posts it here.

But as for the rain, that's exactly why the entire line is on those raised berms you see all over the place (and the aqueducts, etc) among other reasons

JDRCRASH · #**3782** Posted **Apr 3, 2023, 1:25 AM**

I was wondering about how the project would be affected by the rains, given that the segment most furthest along just so happens to run smack dab over part of the old Tulare Lake area.

With all the cost overruns and longer timetable for completion I would hope the authority had scenarios like this in mind when they were handing out contracts.

AndrewK · #**3783** Posted **Apr 3, 2023, 7:30 PM**

It doesn’t help that there have been no major updates to the Build HSR website in a year.

Busy Bee · #**3784** Posted **Apr 3, 2023, 7:43 PM**

I've been saying this for years. CHSRA loves to toute the economic benefit of _______ thousand jobs created by building the central valley IOS but bizarrely neglects the PR media campaign by having subpar and infrequent project updates, and for lack of a better word "selling" of the project, which does them no favors with the politics of this megaproject. I don't understand what they're thinking. And maybe its more for nerds and super advocates but their Flickr photostream has been dormant for two years. That's like one person that could make sure thats kept current along with performing their other media relations tasks. Its just weird and broadcasts an instability about the whole endeavor.

homebucket · #**3785** Posted **Apr 3, 2023, 8:18 PM**

I don't think there's any Central Valley forumers here either that can drive by and take photos to provide updates.

Busy Bee · #**3786** Posted **Apr 3, 2023, 8:50 PM**

YouTuber "Drone Zone Flyovers" does some pretty excellent video updates for major structures. Another "The Four Foot" did some epic drone update videos but hasn't posted anything in ages.

MAC123 · #**3787** Posted **Apr 3, 2023, 9:25 PM**

I'm subscribed to the Drone Zone. They produce quality, relatively common drone videos of the construction sites.

jbermingham123 · #**3788** Posted **Apr 4, 2023, 2:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/envi...avoc-rcna75942

jesus.. those pv farms back there are probably totally trashed

jmecklenborg · #**3789** Posted **Apr 4, 2023, 3:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

jesus.. those pv farms back there are probably totally trashed

I didn't see that until you pointed it out. That looks...bad.

Lots of drone footage here:
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loca...-lake/3197517/

It's going to take awhile for scientists to determine exactly how long the reformed lake is going to be around.

homebucket · #**3790** Posted **Apr 4, 2023, 3:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

I didn't see that until you pointed it out. That looks...bad.

Lots of drone footage here:
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loca...-lake/3197517/

It's going to take awhile for scientists to determine exactly how long the reformed lake is going to be around.

Last time this happened it took about 2 years for the lake to fully go away. I think this time there's even more water from melting snow coming so 2 years might be the minimum here.

Busy Bee · #**3791** Posted **Apr 4, 2023, 4:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

jesus.. those pv farms back there are probably totally trashed

Probably comrs down to whether water finds its way into areas that are detrimental to corrosion. Isn't the actual panel holding structure made of galvanized steel? I would imagine if water got into cable conduit it wouldn't necessarily ruin it. Whether prolonged soaking of the silica PV panels themselves destroys them is something i dont kbow the answer to.

edale · #**3792** Posted **Apr 4, 2023, 5:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket

Last time this happened it took about 2 years for the lake to fully go away. I think this time there's even more water from melting snow coming so 2 years might be the minimum here.

Why the hell would they route the HSR through an ephemeral lake? Yet another piece of evidence supporting the I-5 alignment. What a clusterfuck this project continues to be. Even ardent supporters are starting to see the writing on the wall that this project is being mismanaged to all hell.

sopas ej · #**3793** Posted **Apr 4, 2023, 5:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edale

Why the hell would they route the HSR through an ephemeral lake? Yet another piece of evidence supporting the I-5 alignment. What a clusterfuck this project continues to be. Even ardent supporters are starting to see the writing on the wall that this project is being mismanaged to all hell.

If it followed the 5, then it would bypass all the major towns/cities of central California.

LAsam · #**3794** Posted **Apr 4, 2023, 5:30 PM**

It looks like historic Lake Tulare is out between the 5 and 99. I thought the rail was being constructed along the 99 corridor. Does the rail further towards the center of the San Joaquin valley at this location?

jmecklenborg · #**3795** Posted **Apr 4, 2023, 6:06 PM**

It looks like the line is being built along the eastern shoreline of the dead lake. That means if the lake were to fill by 90%, the line would be completely unaffected.

Until human beings die off and the dams and irrigation diversions in the mountains fail a few decades later, lake water will not reach the base of the HSR berms.

sopas ej · #**3796** Posted **Apr 4, 2023, 6:12 PM**

And I'm sure engineers and the people routing this thing have already studied Historic Tulare Lake, so I'm sure all of this was taken into account.

For reference, per the CAHSR website, the Kings/Tulare Regional Station would be located just east of the center of Hanford, where CA Highways 43 and 198 intersect: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Hist...4!2d36.3274502

jmecklenborg · #**3797** Posted **Apr 4, 2023, 6:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopas ej

And I'm sure engineers and the people routing this thing have already studied Historic Tulare Lake, so I'm sure all of this was taken into account.

This might slow down construction in the area, but it's not as if this thing is on any sort of deadline.

edale · #**3798** Posted **Apr 4, 2023, 6:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopas ej

If it followed the 5, then it would bypass all the major towns/cities of central California.

And I think that would be an improvement. The 'major' towns/cities of the Central Valley would still have access to the HSR. They'd have to drive 30 mins to an hour to reach a station, but how is that any different than people driving to an airport? They would still be getting a huge amenity by having easy, fast access to SF and LA (eventually Sac and SD, too), even if the train didn't pass through the center of town. The whole point of HSR should be connecting the Bay Area to SoCal as fast and easily as possible. When you have mission creep, such as serving every cow town in the CV, the project suffers, as we've seen. Land acquisition and road and utility relocation in the CV has been a HUGE waste of time, money, and resources. These issues would have been much, much simpler had the I-5 alignment been selected. Because these issues were dealt with when the 5 was constructed!

Oh well, that ship sailed long ago. It is what it is at this point. Looking forward to seeing bullet trains connect Madera and Bakersfield in 2030!

LAsam · #**3799** Posted **Apr 4, 2023, 7:00 PM**

I see. I assumed the rail would go through Tulare and Visalia but it goes through Corcoran and Hanford instead. So yeah, that would put it at the eastern edge of Historic Lake Tulare.

jmecklenborg · #**3800** Posted **Apr 5, 2023, 2:31 AM**

I just took a look at a topographical map of Tulare Lake. At its deepest, the lake was only 20 feet deep, and the majority of the lake was only about five feet deep. This means the size of the lake must have fluctuated wildly with relatively small changes to the volume of water flowing in.

The deepest point was roughly 170 feet above sea level and the highest point was roughly 190 feet above sea level, with exponentially more water necessary to rise each foot above 190. It might have been the case that 2X as much water was necessary to get it from 185 to 190, and maybe 4X as much to get to 195.