|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 13, 2019 16:22:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 14, 2019 11:42:17 GMT -8
Newsome is doing damage control and revealed a few more details after his meeting with the valley mayors: amp.fresnobee.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/political-notebook/article226242400.htmlHeadline is that Newsom is committed to valley to valley so the connection the Bay Area is almost 100% going to happen, is my guess. They just can’t do that if they continue the current project management approach (of continual overruns and largesse) and are also committed to Bakersfield to Anaheim. So he’s saying valley to valley by 2027, if need be by using the Altamont express corridor. And then figure out how to get to LA after refocusing in the valley to valley priority. I think there will be massive budget cuts on the Altamont corridor, but the hsr will get to Gilroy. I do wonder what they plan to do from Gilroy to San Jose since one of the things he explicitly cut on Tuesday was the San Jose to Gilroy electrification prep work for hsr. Shocking that a nor cal politician is cutting so cal out of the big statewide infrastructure project (note sarcasm). But it makes basic sense, the Altamont range is fantastically easier and less expensive than either the tehachape or San Gabriel crossings.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 18, 2019 11:11:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 18, 2019 12:01:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 18, 2019 12:10:58 GMT -8
The above story--which points out over and over again that Newsom has "expanded" the central valley section to include both Bakersfield and in particular Merced got me thinking.
Merced has a separate environmental review for the Merced Wye.
Any Construction package submitted to get to Newsom's stated terminus of Merced would have to fully build out that wye, because it's bounded by the terms of the supplemental environmental review.
That wye included an extensive East-West section of new track, from state route 99 to Carlucci Rd.
That is 43 km of East West Track alongside SR152
The preferrred alternative of the road 11 route will be 12.5 km west from highway 99, and it is an additional 30 km to the western terminus of the environmental review at Carlucci Rd.
That leaves a 80-90 km gap in track from Carlucci Road to Gilroy, inclusive of going north around Los Banos and The Reservoir, roughly returning to SR152 through the approximately 30 km of that right of way, but probably involving several tunnel reaches, with the longest reach likely between 10-20 km in length. Then, of course, entering Gilroy from the South.
Remember, Gilroy--like Palmdale--is written into the language of the ballot measure as a requirement for a HSR stop, it would be illegal to not go to either of them.
Fundamentally, it is going to be building those Pachecho tunnel reaches that will be the only thing 100% necessary to complete a valley to valley HSR.
If California can realize that tunneling under undeveloped mountains is not as expensive as tunneling under urban San Francisco, or urban Los Angeles or urban New York City, perhaps they can get tunnel bids for around 75 million per kilometer. If so, those tunnels could probably be built for 2 billion, 3 billion with contingency.
Figure another 3 billion for the sections on either end of the Pacheco tunnels, and HSR could build out to Gilroy (and run blended on cal train tracks up the peninsula), for as little as 6 billion. 6 billion is probably a low enough number for California's super majorities in the legislature to authorize, especially if they do it as additional bond sales. Presuming the environmental reviews for the Gilroy to Carlucci Rd segment are not completed until 2021, there's also a possibility of a friendlier administration and getting a few billion in matching grants out of the feds, which would also lower the hit on the HSR.
But it's all dependent on keeping the tunneling contract below urban costs.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 18, 2019 16:57:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 19, 2019 18:02:39 GMT -8
Newsom’s juvenile twitter provocations of Trump and his idiotic state of state speech have resulted in the department of transportation going to de obligate the 989 million in funding that they’re currently doling out and is currently the major funds of the cal train electrification. That speech of newsoms has been unbelievably bad leadership and is really escalating into a gargantuan fight with the federal government that is going to break new legal ground about funding. www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-high-speed-rail-20190219-story.htmlNote this la times story has been updated about four times since it first dropped. Ironically, the reason newsom probably had the bullet train in his speech was because of posturing as a responsible leader for his future presidential run and because he also wanted to signal that he didn’t want to devote much political capital to the train, so he was trying to hand wave it into the background so that he could focus his first term on his priorities of the housing crisis and healthcare. But that has backfired in the most spectacular way and now the melting down fallout of his state of the state speech fiasco is going to dominate his administration, especially with the massive new legal battles over the train he has now created with his speech. In effect, rather than avoiding HSR and focusing on other things, he has put the hsr around his neck as a signature albatross—and yes he he shot the albatross. And he may now find he now has to devote ten times more attention and resources to the project. And it would have remained a background irritant if he’d just continued the absentee approach of brown.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 19, 2019 18:04:24 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 19, 2019 19:58:39 GMT -8
Newsom’s juvenile twitter provocations of Trump and his idiotic state of state speech have resulted in the department of transportation going to de obligate the 989 million in funding that they’re currently doling out and is currently the major funds of the cal train electrification. That speech of newsoms has been unbelievably bad leadership and is really escalating into a gargantuan fight with the federal government that is going to break new legal ground about funding. www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-high-speed-rail-20190219-story.htmlNote this la times story has been updated about four times since it first dropped. Ironically, the reason newsom probably had the bullet train in his speech was because of posturing as a responsible leader for his future presidential run and because he also wanted to signal that he didn’t want to devote much political capital to the train, so he was trying to hand wave it into the background so that he could focus his first term on his priorities of the housing crisis and healthcare. But that has backfired in the most spectacular way and now the melting down fallout of his state of the state speech fiasco is going to dominate his administration, especially with the massive new legal battles over the train he has now created with his speech. In effect, rather than avoiding HSR and focusing on other things, he has put the hsr around his neck as a signature albatross—and yes he he shot the albatross. And he may now find he now has to devote ten times more attention and resources to the project. And it would have remained a background irritant if he’d just continued the absentee approach of brown. I agree he has mishandled this issue. He did not really change any plans except try to make it look like he was doing something big, which drew a lot of attention to the issue and ended up picking a fight with the federal government.
|
|
|
Post by blueridge on Feb 20, 2019 7:41:35 GMT -8
Did Newsom's change of direction for the HSR project put the Proposition that got it all started in jeopardy? Or at least open it up to a legal challenge? There were specific metrics in Prop 1A (that was approved by the voters) about starting at point A and going to point B and accomplishing that trip in a minimum amount of time. Sorry I can't remember the specific metrics right now. Essentially he has publicly stated that those metrics will most likely never be met. Can the voters now challenge Prop 1A more successfully?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 20, 2019 10:10:20 GMT -8
Newsom needs to shut his mouth and start working with the HSR team, to ensure we remain in compliance with Prop 1A as well as the grant agreements, so we don't get screwed over the White House.
I do think Trump is just being a dick about the funding. But at the same time, there's a good chance the FRA is on solid legal ground to demand accountability and ultimately to ask for the money back.
Newsom's "State of the State Statement" is the gift that just keeps on giving...
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 20, 2019 15:24:31 GMT -8
Under Contract as of feb 18 $5,895,730,989 $12,618 available from all sources as of Dec 2017;
1-2 billion since 2017 from Cap and trade
That leaves about $8 billion available to fun the Merced wye and the Bakersfield portions
However the FRA is withholding approval of the Merced wye environmental review in order to force CAHSR to miss their deadline.
Btw, at 5.9 billion for 110 miles, that’s about 53 million per mile, sure it’s the part of the rail that isn’t supposed to be very expensive, but 53 million per mile doesn’t seem as outrageous.
And if we get a build out of the next 90 miles (of the Merced wye and Bakersfield sections) at that rate, it’s only about 4.7 billion, and the Merced wye should be significantly cheaper per mile than the Fresno projects. So those segments may wind up less per mile.
That still leaves 3.3 billion for tracks signaling electrification, stations and rolling stock.
(Not sure if stations are included in any of the current construction packages)
And if you include all of that in the per mile cost, it’s still about 200 miles of HSR from Carlucci rd and Merced to Bakersfield for 12.6 billion or a per mile cost of about 65 million per mile.
(About forty million per km)
In other words the loss of the 900 million yesterday when the funds were canceled might not be catastrophic, but paying back the 2.5 billion would be.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 20, 2019 17:09:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 21, 2019 17:55:48 GMT -8
Handy dandy PDF from CAHSR made by a consultant hired to analyze zillions of various alignment options for various route possibilites (but not Altamont) with the main goal of minimizing tunnels and minimizing environmental impacts. www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/eir-eis/statewide_techrpt_EvalQuntmSysFin.pdfIt makes me realize the Tejon route is more possible than I thought, though it's a shame there's no detail on how specifically it would route the the actual city of Santa Clarita. But I imagine that the environmental impacts to the Castaic Lake floodplain would have been a death knell to the route if it had been more seriously considered. Also it is pretty outdated with respect to the soledad crossing, and while we got a route that is somewhat similar, the added constraint of avoiding a route through Canyon Country, Valencia and Newhall means that their minimal tunnel options are not really plausible today. I imagine that the Pachecho and Tehachipi crossings are very similar to what we'll get, makes me think that both of those will be significantly less expensive than I thought they would be.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 26, 2019 10:39:31 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 26, 2019 11:19:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 26, 2019 13:23:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 27, 2019 13:15:15 GMT -8
Californias Legislative Analysts office has a report out with a ton of info on HSR: lao.ca.gov/reports/2019/3948/transportation-proposals-022619.pdfThey estimate the Gilroy to Carlucci Rd segment at 10.2 billion I previously linked to QuantM's studies of mountain crossing routes analysis, They had a route that crossed all 3 faults at grade, avoided Henry Coe State Park, was close to SR130 to provide construction access, a maximum 3.5% grade and had a 5 mile tunnel and 16 miles of total tunneling with their cost estimate at 1.88 billion to cross the Diablos at Pacheco quantm (page 49) The CALAO also estimates Bakersfield to Palmdale - 16.5 billion and Palmdale to Burbank - 17.5 billion So that is 34 billion to get from Bakersfield to Burbank Would Tejon be cheaper using a QuantM alignment? they had an east side of I5 alignment with 3.5% max grade, Garlock and San Andreas crossings at grade, with 17.4 miles of total tunnels and a 6 mile max tunnel budgeted at 2.42 Billion. If we extrapolate a 5.42x cost premium over the QuantM alignment (pachecho 10.2 current estimate divided by 1.88 QuantM alignment), that would make the Tejon crossing cost 13.1 billion, less than either section required to go to Palmdale. That's a savings of 21 Billion to use Tejon instead of Palmdale, or about 40% of the total 50 billion funding gap.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 27, 2019 13:32:04 GMT -8
Slate points out one of the many reasons for HSR cost overruns--overengineering so as to reduce future maintenance costs. And they do that because future maintenance costs are required to be paid for by fare revenue due to the ballot measure language. TL;DR, HSR is building road overpasses with a 27 foot clearance, 5-8 feet more than they need so that they don't have to hang catenary from the bottom of the bridge, and can instead just build ordinary catenary poles under the bridge. This causes cost overruns, because those extra-5-8 feet of clearance require acquiring more property, or more parcels to build the ramps to raise the road bed up that high, and of course because of the increased labor and materials and time costs in building something bigger. slate.com/business/2019/02/california-high-speed-rail-has-a-cost-problem-was-it-the-big-bridges.html
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 27, 2019 13:46:45 GMT -8
HSR is building road overpasses with a 27 foot clearance, 5-8 feet more than they need so that they don't have to hang catenary from the bottom of the bridge, and can instead just build ordinary catenary poles under the bridge. So somebody chose to front-load enormous costs while the public trough is open for feeding, so that the future operator might save some money in future possible costs? Isn't that something! And because of that choice, we get a gold-plated high-speed rail corridor from nowhere to nowhere. Somebody decided what the priorities were. Somebody evaluated various technical alternatives (e.g., normal overpasses vs. ginormous overpasses) and chose the more expensive approach. That choice, that decision, was made either by the people who wrote the law authorizing the project, or by the board, or by project managers. That somebody should be publicly named, subjected to ridicule, and prevented from working in infrastructure planning ever again.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 27, 2019 16:05:02 GMT -8
And shoot, a lot of these bridges are for TWO LANE roads, not two on each side, but two lanes TOTAL, that means the space the train traverses under the overpass is 30-40 feet wide total, why the hell do they need to put up poles for that insignificant of a distance?
The expo line goes under the 405, which is like 200 feet wide, with only a couple feet of clearance and no problem hanging the catenary when they need to. HSR probably would have built a two billion dollar overpass to avoid doing something similar!
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 28, 2019 10:58:32 GMT -8
Also they’re not planning on building tunnels with 27 feet of clearance, they’ve actually reduced tunnel diameter in their planning and said they don’t need to ventilate tunnels as their rationale for smaller diameter tunnels. Completely opposite of the bridge catenary clearance rationale.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 1, 2019 12:07:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 8, 2019 18:04:29 GMT -8
HSR is building road overpasses with a 27 foot clearance, 5-8 feet more than they need so that they don't have to hang catenary from the bottom of the bridge, and can instead just build ordinary catenary poles under the bridge. So somebody chose to front-load enormous costs while the public trough is open for feeding, so that the future operator might save some money in future possible costs? Isn't that something! And because of that choice, we get a gold-plated high-speed rail corridor from nowhere to nowhere. Somebody decided what the priorities were. Somebody evaluated various technical alternatives (e.g., normal overpasses vs. ginormous overpasses) and chose the more expensive approach. That choice, that decision, was made either by the people who wrote the law authorizing the project, or by the board, or by project managers. That somebody should be publicly named, subjected to ridicule, and prevented from working in infrastructure planning ever again. Can’t remember where but I saw elsewhere that the 27 foot clearance is a cal trans requirement?
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 25, 2019 8:49:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 29, 2019 10:50:23 GMT -8
This video is drone footage that really illustrates the mammoth size of many of the HSR structures currently under construction.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 29, 2019 10:52:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 3, 2019 14:49:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 26, 2019 17:57:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 28, 2019 6:06:01 GMT -8
I used to work for a major consulting company with a small HSR contract, but had no involvement in that side of the business. But I did know some of the people that did and near the beginning of the HSR project they performed their small part of the project several times over at the request of the HSR Authority. Without getting into any specifics I'll use an anecdote. Imagine that you owned some land and were building a house on it. So you hire a team of highly compensated contractors and architects to make plans. They get about halfway done and you decide that you want a slightly different house in a different area of the land so you bring everyone back to rework. And then you do that several more times. At the time the authority was small, had no idea what they were doing and by all appearances wasting taxpayer money. They had no experience with what they were being asked to do. I never understood why Caltrans wasn't managing HSR. They don't have rail experience but they have way more experience with these types of construction projects than the HSR authority.
|
|