|
Post by spokker on Nov 4, 2008 21:39:43 GMT -8
At least it's not a landslide and we can say, "Well, it was the economy! Yeah... that's it..."
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Nov 4, 2008 23:53:55 GMT -8
At least it's not a landslide and we can say, "Well, it was the economy! Yeah... that's it..." Well, not everyone lives along the SF-LA corridor. People in more remote inland regions won't vote for it. Had the alignment gone through more populated areas, maybe it could've helped. Remember, a bond measure is like a tax on the future ten years. It sounds easy now, but the interest is almost as high as the principal. I feel it's worth it.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Nov 5, 2008 0:45:19 GMT -8
12:40 Update:
Yes votes are ahead by 155,256 votes (51.3% - 48.7%) 60.1% Reporting
According to the map, most of the no votes are from areas of the state that are not close to the LA-SF HSR route.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Nov 5, 2008 8:02:22 GMT -8
It's passing with 52.3% with 95.8% reporting. Time to call it already.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Nov 5, 2008 8:07:31 GMT -8
It's still too close to call, we could see a surge of No's from the conservative inland areas. Meanwhile Measure R barely passes 67% to 33%. 2/3 majority was needed and we got that. Long live the Subway to the Sea.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 5, 2008 8:10:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Nov 5, 2008 8:18:40 GMT -8
Those are the counts for LA County only, but 1A is ahead over 400,000 votes with a 95% statewide reporting. "Yes" votes have maintained a narrow lead through the night.
Statewide: YES 4,919,279 52% NO 4,497,841 48%
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Nov 5, 2008 8:25:52 GMT -8
San Bernardino worries me, but I've been told by those more statistically minded that it can still win.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 5, 2008 8:25:57 GMT -8
Those are the counts for LA County only, but 1A is ahead over 400,000 votes with a 95% statewide reporting. "Yes" votes have maintained a narrow lead through the night. Statewide: YES 4,919,279 52% NO 4,497,841 48% ha ha, oh yah. sorry, im just too happy
|
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Nov 5, 2008 9:35:34 GMT -8
So now what? What's the next step?
And just for those of us who need to catch up, are there any official proposed routes yet?
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Nov 5, 2008 10:23:45 GMT -8
Proposed route goes from LA - Bakersfield - Fresno - Gilroy - San Francisco ... the smaller cities like Bakersfield, Fresno, Gilroy will get a big boost from this.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Nov 5, 2008 10:29:02 GMT -8
That's so strange Prop 1A is leading 52% to 48% with 96% reporting ... and they haven't called it.
But Prop 8 the Gay Marriage Ban is leading 52% to 48% with 96% reporting, and they called it an hour ago ??
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 5, 2008 10:59:18 GMT -8
That's so strange Prop 1A is leading 52% to 48% with 96% reporting ... and they haven't called it. But Prop 8 the Gay Marriage Ban is leading 52% to 48% with 96% reporting, and they called it an hour ago ?? they have not gotten to the mail in ballots / early votes yet. those would be the most passionate voters so.. i think its still to soon
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Nov 5, 2008 13:02:23 GMT -8
It's official. 1A has been called and it has passed.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 10, 2008 13:12:21 GMT -8
I was out of town on vacation on Election Night, in a place where Internet service is expensive, so please excuse the slowness of this comment, but I am absolutely overjoyed to hear that 1A passed.
partially because California will FINALLY start work on the bullet train that it deserves, but also because high-speed rail will do wonders for local transit. think about it: any right-of-way that HSR shares with Metrolink will almost inevitably have to be upgraded. second: all of those high-speed rail stations will need better transit connections, including L.A. Union Station.
so, way to go, California. you looked beyond today's economic woes towards a high-speed future.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 11, 2008 7:45:47 GMT -8
this is a little out of date, but im digging through my sd card and found a photo i took at a la county library. behold the full 2005 DEIR for california high speed rail!
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on May 4, 2010 9:52:12 GMT -8
interesting ideas floating about proposing a tunnel from union station to around the 2 freeway. cahsr blogeastsider la post
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 4, 2010 12:21:16 GMT -8
Some people can certainly blame the CHSRA for cost escalation, but part of that cost escalation is dealing with insane alternatives from "concerned" stakeholders. The Authority really needs to push back on these proposals, because once the LA River folks get a tunnel, the Peninsula gets a tunnel, Anaheim gets and tunnel, and suddenly the thing is really as expensive as Reason thinks it will be.
I didn't know that big concrete channel was so sacrosanct.
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on May 4, 2010 17:00:30 GMT -8
But if they do tunnel under the Dodger Stadium, would they consider adding a station at Dodger Stadium for seasonal games? I know it wouldn't happen but would it be possible?
|
|
|
Post by trackman on May 4, 2010 19:32:53 GMT -8
But if they do tunnel under the Dodger Stadium, would they consider adding a station at Dodger Stadium for seasonal games? I know it wouldn't happen but would it be possible? Oh my goodness...certainly not.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 4, 2010 19:57:52 GMT -8
Yes, I can imagine lots of Northern Californians riding the high-speed rail from San Francisco who just can't wait to go see a Dodger game.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on May 4, 2010 22:12:42 GMT -8
But if they do tunnel under the Dodger Stadium, would they consider adding a station at Dodger Stadium for seasonal games? I know it wouldn't happen but would it be possible? To be fair, I must say that yes, building an underground station under a portion of the Dodger Stadium would likely be technically feasible. But given the depth of such a station (about 200 feet), it would have to be constructed with conventional segmental mining methods (in particular the New Austrian Tunneling Method, or NATM) rather than with cut-and-cover methods. For comparison, the San Jose HSR station is proposed to be a NATM-mined station 140 feet below the existing San Jose Diridon station. Here is the current preferred configuration for the San Jose HSR station: A Dodger Stadium HSR station would require a 4-track configuration and would look very similar to the proposed San Jose station. But, a station under Dodger Stadium would be phenomenally expensive and would be entirely inconsistent with the mode of high-speed rail. Dodger Stadium is a mere 1.3 miles from Union Station and stop spacings of such a short distance is much better suited for light rail than for high-speed rail.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 4, 2010 12:48:24 GMT -8
I have a question concerning the possibility of the LA-Anaheim segment seeing the first actual construction. CHSRA recent documents indicate that the track itself would be built with the electrification and signaling coming later. I was also just looking through some AA material at the CHSRA website related to the now included possibility of having a “shared track” option between LAUS and Anaheim. Basically they would run HSR, Pacific Surfliner and Metrolink trains on 2 dedicated tracks, have 2 freight tracks, and an additional track for longer distance Amtrak trains. They also now seem to suggest that an at-grade LAUS platform might be the way to go instead of the previously suggested elevated platform for cost reasons.
If they did the LAUS at-grade and actually constructed the new tracks for the LA-Anaheim segment, presumably then the LAUS run through would be available for Metrolink and/or Amtrak Surfliners to use from that point forward. Does this seem right? If so, that could produce some time savings on both Metrolink and Surfliner routes that go South from LAUS and could use the run through tracks. Anybody have any idea what the LA-SD time might be reduced by?
The Southbound Surfliners between LAUS and Anaheim are all currently showing 39 minutes in the schedule, while the Northbound trains vary between 42-49 minutes. I guess it depends on what amount of that time is consumed by the stub at LAUS, and also having to wait for freight, both of which would be eliminated if the above came about. The slow crawl out of LAUS through the first set of switches seems to take forever, but that would be history.
RT
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Aug 4, 2010 21:06:51 GMT -8
The Surfliner can already do LA-Fullerton in 25 minutes but it's scheduled for 30. It's not uncommon for a train to arrive in Fullerton and dwell for 5 minutes for its scheduled departure.
What I'm hoping for this project to do is increase reliability to the point where you don't need to add as much slack in the schedule.
Unless something has changed very recently, we are talking two mainline tracks for passenger trains and three for freights. The 91 Line and the Southwest Chief would remain on the freight tracks.
However, conditions points South on the line can and will muck up schedules. Expect Surfliners and Metrolink trains to hit bottlenecks in San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente, only to delay high speed trains when they finally get to Anaheim (which means late arrivals in SF). When the old equipment invariably breaks down, hopefully there will be good dispatchers and enough spots for high speed trains to pass.
It's going to happen, but there will be a lot of money saved by sharing tracks, and I doubt all trains will go to Anaheim anyway.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 5, 2010 8:24:21 GMT -8
BTW, at the CHSRA meeting today at 9:00am they are going to select which of the 4 corridors will be getting the stimulus money, and will likely see first construction excluding the TBT train box. I came across some additional info looking through the 06-30-10 supplemental AA report for the LAUS-Anaheim section. The new at grade bridge over the 101 will have 6 HSR tracks and 4 conventional tracks. The construction sequence shows the 8 steps involved, and matches the numbers above the top 2 pictures so that you can follow it. The above pictures are a bit confusing because when I cut and pasted them from the AA document, they show the Gold Line tracks in the same location, which is not the case. The bottom picture "shared track" needs to be shifted right about 60 feet to correspond to the upper picture. The LAUS platform area will increase significantly in size! I have to say that I like this "at grade" concept much better than the aerial structure which would have put the HSR tracks above the current LAUS. This way, all the station tracks are essentially at the same level, and when you ride in on the Gold Line, you are looking up at the HSR track. I'm guessing that it is less expensive than the aerial option, plus you get a completely new LAUS track area. The construction picture taking opportunities alone make this the most obvious choice The tracks at the transit plaza end are demolished first, with the new track/platform then constructed. Trains then start using that new platform, with demolition proceeding toward LAUS. The HST platform and tracks would then be the last ones built, since they would be the last ones to be needed. All the while keeping the current trains running. The one thing that seems puzzling is why they would choose to elevate the 8 new Amtrak/Metrolink tracks? I can certainly see why they would want to completely replace the current platforms, but why raise the entire slab shown in 2 and 4a off the ground on 5 columns when you could much more easily construct the slab on the ground itself? RT
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Aug 5, 2010 22:49:46 GMT -8
Well, we will get a chance to fix the 15 mph limit Gold Line freeway bridge after all! In the image above, the gold line platform has moved over about 30 feet, and the new tracks are west of the existing bridge. The curve of the planned tracks over the 101 is gentler; looks like it might allow 35 mph operation? I would still love to see a straight-shot approach for the light rail trains, directly north from the new Little Tokyo/Arts District station to Union Station. See this thread for details: transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=connector&thread=691&page=9
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 6, 2010 18:40:50 GMT -8
The one thing that seems puzzling is why they would choose to elevate the 8 new Amtrak/Metrolink tracks? I can certainly see why they would want to completely replace the current platforms, but why raise the entire slab shown in 2 and 4a off the ground on 5 columns when you could much more easily construct the slab on the ground itself? This is just a guess, but I can think of a couple of reasons. Minimizing noise and vibration. Earthquake safety. Keeping people from crossing the tracks. Preparing for the lift up and over the freeway as the tracks head south from Union Station. Any other thoughts, rail fans?
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Aug 6, 2010 20:22:18 GMT -8
Well, we will get a chance to fix the 15 mph limit Gold Line freeway bridge after all! In the image above, the gold line platform has moved over about 30 feet, and the new tracks are west of the existing bridge. The curve of the planned tracks over the 101 is gentler; looks like it might allow 35 mph operation? I would still love to see a straight-shot approach for the light rail trains, directly north from the new Little Tokyo/Arts District station to Union Station. See this thread for details: transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=connector&thread=691&page=9So how much money would have been wasted to build a bridge that would be demolished in less than 10 years? Why didnt they do it right the first time? Its not like HSR was a surprise.
|
|
|
Post by soundguise on Aug 6, 2010 21:42:50 GMT -8
True it was not a surprise although I don't know how CAHSR seemed even possible during GLEE planning. This option as far as I have heard is only now really being discussed. All of the previous documents I have seen showed and proposed an elevated HSR station and the Amtrak/Metrolink tracks remaining where they were. Please correct me if I am wrong on this.
On the other hand there are plenty of criticisms (in my opinion) of how the Gold Line moves through Downtown and this is being highlighted more and more with the Regional Connector planning (underground emphasis etc. in Little Tokyo). Perhaps if this option is chosen it will offer an excuse to realign the Gold Line for a better Connector situation and benefit Amtrak and Metrolink at the same time with a shared corridor between LAUS and ARTIC. I would assume this might make it easier to construct the run-through tracks for Amtrak/Metrolink and at least CAHSR is looking at how that project could fit in.
I agree wholeheartedly that combined planning and communication now can lead to a unified plan and better construction and operations of whatever ends up being built. That has for a long time been a problem with infrastructure projects but I suppose I am preaching to the choir so to speak with that type of comment.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Aug 6, 2010 22:56:33 GMT -8
Why didnt they do it right the first time? Its not like HSR was a surprise. I too wish concurrent planning had occurred but we do need to consider the timeline of these events. Metro completed environmental review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension in 2002 and broke ground on the project in 2004. Back then, most people regarded HSR as a remote possibility for the distant future. The High-Speed Rail Authority didn't event complete its first EIR/EIS until 2005.
|
|