Work on (LA to Vegas) high-speed rail set to begin this year - Page 4

pesto · #61 Posted **Apr 1, 2010, 10:30 PM**

btw, 100,000 per day is very impressive for Colorado. More or less what California HSR predicts for the whole state.

SnyderBock · #62 Posted **Apr 1, 2010, 10:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by northbay

its being finalized

That makes no sense though. If it's already being finalized, then where are all the documents released along the way? Where is the Preferred Alternatives Document and how about the Draft EIS? The Final EIS is the last of a long string of public documents. When did they begin the EIS process? If they are not seeking federal funding, why are they even conducting an EIS? The EIS is only required in order to qualify for federal assistance. If no federal assistance is being sought, an Environmental Evaluation (EE), would be sufficient. Again, there should be a Draft EE released already -- if this was the case and they were already preparing the Final EE. I would like these documents.

mwadswor · #63 Posted **Apr 1, 2010, 10:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

That makes no sense though. If it's already being finalized, then where are all the documents released along the way? Where is the Preferred Alternatives Document and how about the Draft EIS? The Final EIS is the last of a long string of public documents.

Since this is a privately finance operation, do they get to skip a lot of the standard requirements? I know a lot of the really byzantine requirements aren't requirements to put shovels in the ground, they're requirements to apply for or be awarded state and federal funding. Since most projects apply for at least state funding (some projects skip federal funding to avoid requirements and speed up the process), it's difficult to distinguish between what's being done to build and what's being done for funding.

Does anyone know which processes are actually required just to put shovels in the ground and which processes that we usually go through are to get public funding (and would presumably be skipped by a privately funded operation like DX)?

mwadswor · #64 Posted **Apr 1, 2010, 10:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

The LV monorail is overpriced and doesn't serve the strip as well as it could.

No argument here, but that doesn't change the fact that it's there. The fact that it could have been designed better in the past isn't a good reason not to utilize existing infrastructure to enhance projects. It will work good enough, and certaily better and cheaper than the alternatives.

northbay · #65 Posted **Apr 1, 2010, 10:42 PM**

my guess is that since the majority of the route is already within an existing row and that the project is completely privately financed, the eir process is simpler.

since they are working with the fra on the eir its possible that the documents are somehow accessible from the fra website?

Busy Bee · #66 Posted **Apr 1, 2010, 11:16 PM**

I thought the monorail ceased operating? What they need is a strip subway that goes to the airport. So what if the first line is geared toward tourists. LV is tourism. Without tourism, no LV.

twoNeurons · #67 Posted **Apr 2, 2010, 3:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I thought the monorail ceased operating? What they need is a strip subway that goes to the airport. So what if the first line is geared toward tourists. LV is tourism. Without tourism, no LV.

Eh? Since when? As far as I know they filed for Chaper 11 in January but it's still running. It should've been run down the strip. That strip's super wide.

It's really only useful if you're trying to get to the convention centre.

Also... $5 for a single Ride that goes along the backside of all the hotels? It's not even geared towards tourists. I am an elevated train fan and when I went to Vegas for a couple of days I didn't even ride it. It was just too far out of the way and didn't end up going anywhere I wanted to go.

the Deuce was $5 for all day and was actually useful...

$14 for an all-day pass on a monorail that doesn't get you anywhere useful?

What were they thinking?

It's a shame, because it's a black mark for monorail... when in reality the problem is that it doesn't go anywhere people want to go.

dl3000 · #68 Posted **Apr 2, 2010, 5:07 AM**

I'm not feeling the half assed vibe DX gives me. Slower trains, stopping in Victorville. I get the logic, but I don't see it making profit without being tied into the LA basin somehow.

nequidnimis · #69 Posted **Apr 2, 2010, 5:34 AM**

It would make a tidy profit if they could install slot machines on the trains...

bmfarley · #70 Posted **Apr 2, 2010, 1:14 PM**

Is Desert Express doing and EIR for CEQA? I see an EIS for NEPA.

JDRCRASH · #71 Posted **Apr 2, 2010, 2:40 PM**

So I understand, it's skipped the CEQA process.

plinko · #72 Posted **Apr 2, 2010, 3:59 PM**

^Not possible. Per CEQA, ANY project that requires a building permit in the state of California requires at least a negative declaration. Building a 15,000SF garage, a station, not to mention the rail lines requires CEQA review.

Something is amiss...

Is all of this project within California being built on state owned land?

JDRCRASH · #73 Posted **Apr 2, 2010, 4:56 PM**

Maybe it got an exemption like the proposed NFL stadium in CofI?

pesto · #74 Posted **Apr 2, 2010, 5:20 PM**

So, in summary, what's the over/under on when "construction" starts? This year? Next year?

northbay · #75 Posted **Apr 2, 2010, 9:08 PM**

heres the link to the draft eis from the fra:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/1703.shtml

JDRCRASH · #76 Posted **Apr 2, 2010, 9:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto

So, in summary, what's the over/under on when "construction" starts? This year? Next year?

I've heard 3 dates:

This March, This Year, and most recently, Next March (someone on curbed LA claimed he was very deeply involved with the project and said March 2011 was the groundbreaking date, so who knows).

nequidnimis · #77 Posted **Apr 3, 2010, 1:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by northbay

heres the link to the draft eis from the fra:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/1703.shtml

Interesting reading. One option considered is DEMU, Diesel Electric Multiple Unit, which would have a top speed of 125 mph, and a trip time of 116 minutes, as opposed to 150 mph and 90 minutes for EMU.

electricron · #78 Posted **Apr 3, 2010, 5:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

Interesting reading. One option considered is DEMU, Diesel Electric Multiple Unit, which would have a top speed of 125 mph, and a trip time of 116 minutes, as opposed to 150 mph and 90 minutes for EMU.

Higher speeds do help, in this case saving 26 minutes.

How far can one go at 125 mph for 116 minutes?
125m/hr x 116min/60min/hr = 241.67 miles.
How far can one go at 150 mph for 90 minutes?
150m/hr x 90 min/60min/hr =225 miles.
Obviously the 150 mph top speed train doesn't run at top speed as long as the 125 mph top speed train runs at top speed.....

nequidnimis · #79 Posted **Apr 3, 2010, 7:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by electricron

Obviously the 150 mph top speed train doesn't run at top speed as long as the 125 mph top speed train runs at top speed.....

I believe it's the other way around. Let's say the distance is 225 miles. If the 125 mph ran at top speed all the time, it would do the trip in just 108 minutes. The DEMU probably also has a harder time going up the slopes.

nequidnimis · #80 Posted **Apr 3, 2010, 8:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Florida made the same decision to use 150mph technology, in a similar interstate-median alignment.

I suspect there was some safety-based government decision at some point that HSR in an interstate right-of-way should be capped at 150mph.

220 mph requires a minimum curve radius of 3.5 miles. If you look at the maps in the EIS, there are a handful of curves much sharper than this. I suspect the same in Florida. As a matter of fact, a few curves help keep interstate drivers alert.