|
Post by fissure on Sept 14, 2018 9:56:36 GMT -8
Can they really not design the electrical systems to allow everything but the traction motors to be powered by a diesel locomotive they hook up to the front of the thing? I think the TGV and Acela at least only have powered axles on the end cars, so there should be some kind of power flowing down the train.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 19, 2018 13:11:10 GMT -8
supposedly at a noon webcast CAHSR revealed which of the three alternatives was chosen for Palmdale to Burbank, but I can't find any coverage on it.
I imagine SR 14 refined wins out.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 19, 2018 14:04:07 GMT -8
Refined SR14 route is the winner.
38 miles long
24 miles of tunnels in five sections
5 miles 3 miles 1/2 mile 1 mile 13 miles
Crosses San Andreas fault at grade
Bridges over SR14 near river mine road and the Santa Clara river
Emerges near Branford street in the industrial area of pacoima
Enters existing rail corridor and travels at grade along the east side of said corridor
Enters a trench as it leaves rail corridor to arrive Burbank airport station below grade.
Exits the antelope valley railway right of way.
Travels south under Hollywood way and uses the railway right of way south of Burbank airport to reenter the right of way and proceed to downtown.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 19, 2018 14:27:25 GMT -8
Easiest and fastest to construct
Most simultaneous construction locations
Lowest construction risk regarding geologic conditions, particularly of the mountain rock conditions.
Most reliable lowest risk of unexpected conditions or circumstance hat could increase the timeline or costs
Fewest traffic and air quality construction impacts
Least amount of tunnel spoils.
Shortest tunnel under the National forrest and monument
Lowest risk of impacting surface or groundwater
Avoids key archeological and tribal resources
Uses former mining area for construction staging for the long tunnel and then they reconstruct the staging area to a natural pre mining state: leaving it better than they found it
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 19, 2018 14:29:44 GMT -8
Draft EIR in one year winter of 2019 /2020
Final EIR in early 2021 leading to NePA record of decision
Which presumably means a construction start in early 2022.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 19, 2018 14:32:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 19, 2018 15:31:21 GMT -8
I’m guessing four-six TBMs for the tunneling
Probably four because while it would be a pain to move the second pair of tbms four times, there’s no time advantage to be gained when one tunnel is 13 miles (21,000 meters) long.
At 21 km and a rate of 10 meters/ day (lower than the usual fifteen meters per day because its nastier mountainrock they’re tunneling through) that’s 2100 days of tunneling, assuming your union contract allows for staggered fours (four day shifts of 12 hours each, four days off, so two crews alternating every four days ) you could work 7 days a week for about 300 days per year (excluding 65 days for maintenance and holidays)
That would be 7 years in a tunneling machine.
Hmm the workers might not like having their schedule shifting on a 28 day cycle for 7 years, the union would love having two crews but I could see them preferring one crew working five day twelve hour shifts, down for Saturday and sunday.
That’s more like 220 days working (since you still lose holidays and maintenance) so that’s 9.5 years in the tunneling machine.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 20, 2018 16:49:17 GMT -8
I'm actually quite impressed by the plan. They choose the correct route. But of course CEAQ trolls are already salivating and NIMBYs of all stripes have already had their front page LA Times appearance. The front page LA Times article by noted HSR hater "reporter" Ralph Vartabedian interviewed and quoted exactly ZERO HSR advocates and didn't waste any ink discussing the merits of the route. But predictably devoted nearly 1/3 of the article to some idiot with an AstroTurf'd organization called "Save Angeles National Forest for Everyone" who wants to preserve the "equestrian culture" of Sun valley. "Equestrian culture" must be the new NIMBY code for suburban sprawl and excessively large parking lots at strip mall. www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-high-speed-rail-palmdale-burbank-20180919-story.html
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Oct 8, 2018 14:21:27 GMT -8
The final supplemental EIR is in for the Fresno to Bakersfield section. the big update is the location of the bakersfield station (intersection of state route 240 and F street) and the maintenance facility (in Northern Shafter) www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Environmental_Planning/final_supplemental_fresno_bakersfield.htmlthe station is in the middle of bakersfield near all the massive existing rail yards (and oh noes think of the chilluns) and next door to Bakersfield high school The next two big question marks will be humdingers: Bakersfield to Palmdale and the route choice from madera to san jose.
|
|
expo
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by expo on Oct 9, 2018 13:09:12 GMT -8
I'm seeing the updated location as farther east, next to the existing Amtrak station. Am I looking in the wrong place?
Either way, that's great news, the station will be downtown rather than the earlier preferred alignment which had the station north, outside of downtown.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Oct 9, 2018 14:30:08 GMT -8
I don’t know, I looked it up on google maps based on the info on the press release and that’s by the railyard, but the FEiR seems to indicate they chose the alternate route. Extremely confusing what actually where anything is. At least they did much better revealing the route to Burbank.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Oct 10, 2018 8:52:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by numble on Oct 11, 2018 11:00:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Oct 11, 2018 11:25:45 GMT -8
I mean to anyone following the project it’s been incredibly obvious for a few years that Bakersfield to anaheim has been as unofficially axed just like the dog leg to Modesto has been unofficially axed. But they’ll keep those parts of the project moving forward with environmental reviews etc they just won’t fund those parts right now Once the 10 billion + cost for the tunnels for the Pacheco problem is announced the bullet train will have its last big cost escalation, and that cost escalation will be what kills the Bakersfield to la portion of the line until the bullet train is finally in revenue service I mean look, they’re getting HSR money for the atrocious rebuild of union station and they are not even bothering to build an HSR platform because they know HSR will never get to union station.
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Oct 11, 2018 19:44:14 GMT -8
Really wish we could have an actual progressive candidate to vote for, but oh well. Without the LA portion, the project is doomed to permanently need state cash infusions, which anti-transit folks will forever use to block expansion. This country is broken.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Oct 11, 2018 22:58:57 GMT -8
Really wish we could have an actual progressive candidate to vote for, but oh well. Without the LA portion, the project is doomed to permanently need state cash infusions, which anti-transit folks will forever use to block expansion. This country is broken. I wouldn’t be too morose about it, it’s two years before the LA to Palmdale section has a finished environmental review and five years until the inevitable specious CEQA lawsuits against the LA to Palmdale section are finished then it’s another two years after that before they officiate a contractor and at least eighteen months after that before that contractor is ready to break ground. But they won’t break ground because the Bakersfield to Palmdale section is two years behind all this (and will feature all the same delays outlined above) and someone will get an injunction to prevent la to Palmdale construction starting before la to Bakersfield has started. Add that all up and it will be lucky to have a groundbreaking on the la to Bakersfield section before 2030. But I say cheer up because newsome may not be an HSR cheerleader but he is practical. He will quietly be shoveling money to the SF to Bakersfield projects and it will get steadily built out over the next eight years. That practical comes in handy, he may not be able to get a seventy seven billion funded but he’ll be able to quietly shovel at least four billion to the HSR over his eight years—while they are spending the authorized bond money and getting carbon money. While that might not be enough to build the twenty billion Pacheco tunnels (every time I mention the Pacheco project I add ten billion to how much it costs which is the official and scientific method used by contractor bidders). But it should be enough to build everything else, then closing that little old thirty billion Pacheco gap is a much easier lift for our elected politicians. In other words newsome will keep the money flowing and the construction working because he knows which side the bread is buttered on and SF to Bakersfield will be finished even with forty billion Pacheco tunnels.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Nov 5, 2018 12:16:50 GMT -8
Here’s the November update, the massive river viaduct and iconic pergola is looking more and more complete. Once the three mega structures (for tracks) in Fresno are complete they become selling points and photo ops for politicians on tour to see it, and much harder to stop the HSR and much easier to allocate money to it. Since some of these mega structures will be complete next year, that bodes well for the next four years of funding once the politician tours ramp up. www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/construction/road_closure/2018_November_Construction_Update.pdf
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Dec 10, 2018 18:07:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Dec 11, 2018 15:29:27 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 1, 2019 14:34:52 GMT -8
February update www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/construction/road_closure/2019_February_Construction_Update.pdf2573 workers total first ARRA quarterly report is available. state route 99 realignment is 88% complete with a ribbon cutting scheduled for february 15th Construction Package 1 is 58.2% complete Construction Package 2-3 is 43.2% complete Construction Package 4 is 21.9% complete all the environmental reviews are behind schedule. the nearest ones do to NEPA and FRA dragging their heels rather than the HSR's fault. (and probably impacted by the government shutdown as well). They're going to enter a burn phase later this year for nearly two years to try to catch up schedule and also spend enough money to meet the ARRA march 2022 deadline, so I expect we'll see a big increase in work finished over 2019.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Feb 12, 2019 11:49:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 12, 2019 13:22:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 12, 2019 13:39:49 GMT -8
So is this pure corruption to gift UP a brand new grade separated freight corridor?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 12, 2019 13:53:11 GMT -8
At a minimum, they will need to bring both ends to grade, so the corridor can be used in the future for electric (non-high-speed) passenger train traffic.
And if they're smart, they will buy as much land as possible along the other corridors, even if they aren't planning to build something right away. Real estate costs only go upward.
This project has been mismanaged from the start, with too many giveaways to too many contractors and constituencies. Everybody wants everything perfect - silent and invisible, with zero impacts. Then they wonder why things are too expensive to build.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 12, 2019 14:43:39 GMT -8
Scott wiener and Alyssa walker say the press is blowing this out of proportion, that all newsome is doing is instituting a phased approach rather than a simultaneous one.
Not sure how reliable that is as it’s obviously a Trojan horse to just cut bait once the current section is done, as newsoms actual comments about there existing no path to connect it to the Bay Area indicate.
Building the spine first seems to actually be the thing that is guaranteeing the project will be killed, which is ironic as the strategy was that by doing that section first the project could never be killed since that section doesn’t achieve any hsr goals in its own.
Strategically they should have had tunneling start early, at the very least through the tehachepes and through Pacheco/Altamont, why? Because tunneling are long and expensive projects but also those two create two crucial connections that make the need to finish it more obvious.
And they did not create buy in by not making the Caltrain and Metrolink corridor updates a priority. If cal train and metro link had been grade separating and fixing curves and double tracking and electrifying for a decade the populace would have more belief in the project, but it seems like both of those projects have been mostly talk and rolling stock rather than visible changes, which is a shame.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 12, 2019 14:58:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by andert on Feb 12, 2019 15:16:37 GMT -8
Can we please not use the term 'fake news,' even flippantly?
I don't understand what advantage there is to waiting on the LA/SF portions... the price will just increase, we lose the 3.5B we're getting back, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not like those were the segments whose design and routing made this a less-than-perfect train... it was the central valley portions, which are being built regardless. So even if the LA/SF portions *do* get finished at some point (when they're more expensive, with less money available to build them), we're still locked into using the shitty central valley route that was the problem in the first place... so what possible benefit is there to waiting? It seems like he's just slow-walking killing it, and trying to make it sound less impactful to piss less people off.
EDIT: Reading the article more closely, he seems to be suggesting we're *not* losing the 3.5B, and he wants to be able to federally fund the whole thing, which... does not seem realistic unless there is a massive political sea change, and still feels like a way to slow-walk killing it unless a political miracle happens.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 12, 2019 16:26:08 GMT -8
To some extent I think he’s trying buy time. CP1 major grade separations are all about a year from finishing which means rail starts going down not long after and once there are rails it’s easier to get legislators to vote it some more funding. And if the new oversight can really crack some skulls and kill the cost overruns like the successes found by the Caltrans bridge oversight program it would really open a legislative path for more funding.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 12, 2019 18:57:49 GMT -8
This almost deserves a topic of it's own, and no doubt will if the plans actually materialize. The LA Times finally picked up on a story that has been circulating for a few weeks now, and that I just got wind of a couple days ago. Here is the link: www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-train-plan-20120220,0,2256852.story There is another story in todays paper too: latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/california-bullet-high-speed-train-funding-shift-los-angeles-bay-area.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lanowblog+%28L.A.+Now%29It looks like the plan is to essentially spend some of the money on the bookend approach, improving local commuter feeder system on both the North and South end. The original segment in the Central Valley will still be constructed starting this year. The money would come from the $950 million of prop 1A set aside for this purpose, plus another $2 billion each in SF and LA, with 50% of that being locally generated matching funds, with the other 50% coming from the prop 1A $9 billion bond. This is a complete acceptance of the blended approach. The SF portion would include completion of the DTX tunnel to bring Caltrain into the under construction Transbay Terminal, and the electrification of Caltrain. Up there this is being proposed as the "Fast Start" project: www.sfmta.com/cms/cmta/documents/2-7-12item12bhsrcaltrainsfctappt.pdfDown here the agencies involved are: CSHRA, SCAG, SCRRA, SANDAG, Metro, OCTA, RCTC, SANBAG. Here is a link to the RCTD description of the coming MOU agreement: rctc.org/downloads/workshop/RY.draft%20Rail%20Action%20Items.pdfThey are trying to get this all finalized by June of this year. With construction of all the projects completed by 2020. The list of work is astonishing, and include LAUS run through tracks for $350 million. Here is the list pasted from the above link: If these guys can pull this off, this will be the biggest boon to regional rail transit in recent history, if not ever. It should also go a long way toward appeasing those who do not support HSR because it doesn't take advantage on the system already in place. If this gets done, you are looking at electric rail service possibly all the way from the Transbay Terminal to at a minimum of Bakersfield. Then you have improved Metrolink service from Palmdale to LAUS. All thats missing then is the Bakersfield/Palmdale segment. This could all be done by 2020 RT This caught my eye, skimming old posts, was any of this ever done or was nothing done?
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 12, 2019 20:10:17 GMT -8
This almost deserves a topic of it's own, and no doubt will if the plans actually materialize. The LA Times finally picked up on a story that has been circulating for a few weeks now, and that I just got wind of a couple days ago. Here is the link: www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-train-plan-20120220,0,2256852.story There is another story in todays paper too: latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/california-bullet-high-speed-train-funding-shift-los-angeles-bay-area.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lanowblog+%28L.A.+Now%29It looks like the plan is to essentially spend some of the money on the bookend approach, improving local commuter feeder system on both the North and South end. The original segment in the Central Valley will still be constructed starting this year. The money would come from the $950 million of prop 1A set aside for this purpose, plus another $2 billion each in SF and LA, with 50% of that being locally generated matching funds, with the other 50% coming from the prop 1A $9 billion bond. This is a complete acceptance of the blended approach. The SF portion would include completion of the DTX tunnel to bring Caltrain into the under construction Transbay Terminal, and the electrification of Caltrain. Up there this is being proposed as the "Fast Start" project: www.sfmta.com/cms/cmta/documents/2-7-12item12bhsrcaltrainsfctappt.pdfDown here the agencies involved are: CSHRA, SCAG, SCRRA, SANDAG, Metro, OCTA, RCTC, SANBAG. Here is a link to the RCTD description of the coming MOU agreement: rctc.org/downloads/workshop/RY.draft%20Rail%20Action%20Items.pdfThey are trying to get this all finalized by June of this year. With construction of all the projects completed by 2020. The list of work is astonishing, and include LAUS run through tracks for $350 million. Here is the list pasted from the above link: If these guys can pull this off, this will be the biggest boon to regional rail transit in recent history, if not ever. It should also go a long way toward appeasing those who do not support HSR because it doesn't take advantage on the system already in place. If this gets done, you are looking at electric rail service possibly all the way from the Transbay Terminal to at a minimum of Bakersfield. Then you have improved Metrolink service from Palmdale to LAUS. All thats missing then is the Bakersfield/Palmdale segment. This could all be done by 2020 RT This caught my eye, skimming old posts, was any of this ever done or was nothing done? They have been doing Caltrain electrification up North and Metro in the South is also doing regional rail improvements with HSR money, so I guess it has been going on? www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/2018_Press_Release_Joint_LA_Metro_050118.pdf
|
|