HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2521  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2019, 12:13 AM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
People have had 10 years to understand the plan, but few have. Phase 2 LA>SD is about setting up SoCal for HSR to Phoenix. It has nothing to do with creating a high speed service between DTLA and DTSD (or by extension, SD to the Central Valley or NoCal). It would have upgraded existing corridors to full grade separation and full electrification, enabling speeds of 125mph. It would have not been built until serious planning began for Phoenix HSR.

Phase 2 to Sacramento is a relatively simple and inexpensive improvement to the network. Obviously, if the Pacheco Pass approach is abandoned in favor of Altamont, the wye will not be built and a spur to Sacramento will only entail 60miles of new track construction, none of which will require a tunnel or other exotic engineering.
They cant even get the thing built in the central valley but going through densely populated areas to SF, SJ, Okland, LA, Long Beach, Irvine and SD would be "relatively simple"?

I admire your optimism.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2522  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2019, 12:32 AM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
They cant even get the thing built in the central valley but going through densely populated areas to SF, SJ, Okland, LA, Long Beach, Irvine and SD would be "relatively simple"?

I admire your optimism.

Phase 2 between Merced and Sacramento does not travel through SF, SJ, Okland [sic], LA, Long Beach, Irvine and SD.


Instead of responding to my posts without reading them, or anyone else's, set aside 2 hours or so to go through all of the source materials available online dating back to 2005 or so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2523  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2019, 3:15 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
Oh please.
You disagree? Please explain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2524  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2019, 3:19 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
i would have used it 3 times over the last 2 weeks if it was built
Me too, but you think it is worth 100 billion dollars when other modern countries could have likely built it for pennies compared to what we're paying?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2525  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2019, 4:09 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
The state is better off building rail networks for the Bay Are+ Sacramento and LA-San Diego mega regions.

Agreed!
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2526  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2019, 6:05 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
As for mountains in HSR... try riding the train between Rome and Florence. It's like all in a tunnel.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2527  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2019, 11:30 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by mt_climber13 View Post
More like.. let us keep more of our money for our own state’s needs ( we send much more tax money to the federal government to be dispersed to other states than we receive)

Obama was nowhere near far left. Obamacare, his supposed far left commmunist boogeyman healthcare plan, was a conservative Heritage Foundation idea implemented in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney. So after Carter we’ve had 6 republican presidents in a row (some more sane than others).

When a REAL leftist gets in, like FDR, tax the fuck out of billionaires and pay for HSR and mass rail infrastructure with that- which is how the interstate highway system was built (and the top marginal tax rate was 90%)

And the fact that you say ppl in Japan don’t drive cars when Japan has the world’s leading auto manufacturers and that it works for them because they live in small apartments.. bro have you even been to California??? I mean, outside of Redding? My first apartment in sF I could reach my arms and touch both walls and my bedroom was under my bed. You’re embarrassing yourself.
You're comparing the city of SF to the entire country of Japan?

Japans urbanity is some of the best on Earth, if not the best. The suburbs of Tokyo have far superior transit compared to SF. People live differently there. Walking and taking the train is part of life. Its not the case in California. Period.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2528  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2019, 10:14 PM
Will O' Wisp Will O' Wisp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: San Diego
Posts: 481
Why the California Bullet Train Project Failed: 7 “Worst Practices”

Quote:
Worst Practice #1: Legally defining project parameters in ways that can never be changed. In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 1A, which enacted a new law authorizing construction of the high-speed rail system and authorizing the issuance of $9 billion in bonds to fund planning, design and construction. However, the law enacted by Prop 1A (text here) was exceedingly detailed, and prescribed the route, minimum speed between each set of major destinations, number of stations, headway times, and other metrics. And in California, laws enacted by ballot initiative can never be amended by the state legislature without going back to voters (see Article II, section 10 of their constitution). This meant that the project could not evolve to fit budgetary and other realistic constraints without inviting lawsuits based on the text of Prop 1A, which the State Auditor said caused many of the construction delays. It is uncertain if California can ever construct a system that meets the terms of Prop 1A, which includes a requirement that the finished system “will not require a local, state, or federal operating subsidy.”

Worst Practice #2: Using different types of dollars for your cost estimate and your pay-for. California voters were told in 2008 by the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) that the entire 800-mile system (including extensions to Sacramento and San Diego) would cost $40 billion and that they were being asked to put up $9 billion in state bonds for their share of the project cost. This, naturally, led voters to assume that their bond issuance would pay about 22.5 percent of the cost. But the construction cost estimate was in constant 2007 dollars that would inflate with time and delay. The $9 billion in bonds, by contrast, was a fixed amount that would never go up. Since summer 2008, the evolving cost estimates have led to the Sacramento and San Diego extensions being shelved and the cost estimate of the remaining 520 miles now at $77 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars. But the Prop 1A bonds still only raise $9 billion, which is now less than 12 percent of construction cost of the truncated system. Dedicated revenues for a proposed project should always be compared to the same kind of dollars used in the cost estimate.

Worst Practice #3: Relying on non-existent, hypothetical funding sources for the bulk of your capital costs. CHSRA was telling voters in fall 2008 that “Federal funding sources are needed for 25% – 33% of the construction cost. The targeted federal funding would come in part from existing program funding sources, but would also require the creation of new grant allocation programs designed specifically for high-speed trains.” (Emphasis added.) CHSRA then made a broader leap for the remainder of the funding, saying that their finance team “anticipates that the commitment of state and federal dollars will attract private sector funding.” The federal government did not create any such programs with guaranteed, multi-year funding, and after a burst of one-time federal appropriations in 2009, no federal dollars have been forthcoming since. Nor has the private-sector money materialized. It’s probably bad practice to predicate your entire program strategy on a future Congress creating a new program just to fund your project, funding that program fully, and then having that money in turn attract outside funding.

Worst Practice #4: Appropriating funds with a short deadline for greenfield projects and untried technologies. Out of the blue, the February 2009 ARRA stimulus law appropriated $8 billion for a new high-speed and intercity passenger rail grant program, at the behest of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel (who stunned Congressional appropriators on the last night of the House-Senate conference by demanding $10 billion for an untried program that had only received $300 million in the House bill and $2.25 billion in the Senate version – his demand was eventually downsized to $8 billion in the final law). Because ARRA’s legislative momentum was all about immediate response to the Great Recession, the high-speed rail money had two deadlines – every dime had to be legally obligated by September 2012, and every dime had to be spent by the Treasury by September 2017. This decision by the White House and Congress in turn led to a lot of bad decision-making down the line by forcing the Department of Transportation to give money to projects that were barely in the design phase and for which the technology did not yet exist in the U.S., lest the money be forfeited. (Yes, high-speed rail was a tried-and-true technology overseas, but none of those systems could be purchased “off the shelf” and installed in the U.S. because they did not meet our safety standards, and those safety standards were not changed until three months ago.) This deadline from the ARRA law then led to the next three worst practices associated with this project. Specifically:

Worst Practice #5: Committing federal dollars for construction of a project that is clearly not ready for construction. Because of the deadline pressure from the stimulus law – and because the new Republican governors of Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio turned back their shares of the $8 billion upon taking office in early 2011 – the Department of Transportation wound up giving $2.6 billion of ARRA’s $8 billion to the California project. They then followed that up with another $929 million of fiscal year 2010 appropriations enacted a few months later. A full $3 billion of that $3.5 billion was dedicated to construction, despite the fact that none of the environmental analysis was complete and that the financing plan for the project was still sketchy. (In the CHSRA April 2010 update, they only anticipated reaching a record of decision on the relevant segments by fall 2011. It actually took until June 2014.) By contrast, the federal program that funds new subway and light rail systems (the §5309 Capital Investment Grants program) requires that all proposed new projects get their environmental clearances first, and only then can they try to put their funding package together with additional engineering, and only after that can they actually apply for federal construction dollars. The California project could never have received federal construction funds if the high-speed rail program had been run like the mass transit new starts program.

Worst Practice #6: Committing federal dollars for anything less than an operable segment of a new system. Another key feature of the “new starts” (Capital Investment Grants) program for new subways and light rail systems is this: when building a new system where none yet exists, the federal government cannot fund construction of anything less than a “minimum operable segment” (MOS), which is defined as “The MOS must be able to function as a stand-alone project and not be dependent on any future segments being constructed.” Congress, regrettably, did not include any such minimum standard for the high-speed rail grant program, meaning that all the Federal Railroad Administration had to do before committing construction money to a project was to satisfy a general requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act that any project demonstrate “independent utility.” FRA has given $3 billion in federal construction money to a Central Valley Segment which (a) is not guaranteed to connect to anything else, ever and (b) has no money in its budget to actually buy high-speed trains. Yet FRA has stated that the Central Valley Segment has independent utility, even if the rest of the state high-speed system is never built, because existing Amtrak trains could use the new high-speed rail lines at up to 120 miles per hour (up from the previous 79 mph), along with the safety benefits that come from using the new track without grade crossings. The Central Valley Segment, by itself, is clearly not operable as a high-speed rail system, and could not have received federal construction funds if the high-speed rail program worked the same way that the mass transit program does.

Worst Practice #7: Allowing the state to spend all the federal dollars first. Standard federal practice for matching grant programs is for every dollar spent to have the same federal-state match. If the project agreement calls for a 60-40 federal-state match, then for every dollar spent, the state must produce 40 cents of its own money to match 60 cents of federal money. This ratio stays the same from the first dollar spent to the last dollar spent, and in this way, it ensures that both the federal government and its state/local partner have the exact same proportion of “skin the game” through every step of the project. But the ARRA deadline pressures, and the delays, eventually made it clear that the Central Valley Segment was not going to be completed by September 30, 2017, the date on which all unspent ARRA appropriations would vanish in a puff of smoke. So California asked DOT in the spring of 2011 for permission to spend the ARRA dollars first, and then spend the state share later, after the 2017 deadline. At first, DOT said no, that this was bad practice and put the project in “serious jeopardy“. But later on, in December 2012, DOT changed its mind and allowed California to spend all of its ARRA money first and then come up with its state matching dollars later, which they did. By allowing California to spend the federal money first, the state essentially went into debt to the federal government. As the State Auditor report pointed out, if California can’t complete construction of the Central Valley Segment by December 2022 (the deadline in the latest FRA grant agreement amendment), “it may need to repay $3.5 billion in federal funding, $2.6 billion of which it reports it has already spent.” This is why Governor Newsom made a point of saying yesterday that they had to finish building the Central Valley Segment, even if never connects to anything else, because “I am not interested in sending $3.5 billion in federal funding that was allocated to this project back to Donald Trump.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2529  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2019, 10:35 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
The project didn't fail. It's still under construction and will eventually be completed although at a later date and at a higher cost adjusted for inflation. The "pause" is saving political face and using the completion of the central valley segment as a guarantee of future federal dollars to bore the mountain tunnels.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2530  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2019, 10:52 PM
Will O' Wisp Will O' Wisp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: San Diego
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
The project didn't fail. It's still under construction and will eventually be completed although at a later date and at a higher cost adjusted for inflation. The "pause" is saving political face and using the completion of the central valley segment as a guarantee of future federal dollars to bore the mountain tunnels.
Depends on your definition of "failure". You are right in that infrastructure is getting built and there remains a potential path forward for the final connections to SF and LA. I do think though that this is the death knell for the extensions so San Diego and Sacamento, and so the system did fail at connecting all the major metros it initially promised. Even as a CAHSR supporter I think it's important to acknowledge there were some serious issues with the way it was conceived and run, and that's why we're currently left with a partially complete HSR line and an uncertain future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2531  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2019, 10:57 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
The project didn't fail. It's still under construction and will eventually be completed although at a later date and at a higher cost adjusted for inflation. The "pause" is saving political face and using the completion of the central valley segment as a guarantee of future federal dollars to bore the mountain tunnels.
1. The project did fail. Even if it does eventually get built it will only be after drastic cost overruns and delays. That's still a failure even if trains eventually do roll. The Big Dig is probably the largest infrastructure boondoggle in my lifetime, but it was still completed eventually.

2. The probability this is NEVER completed is still quite high. It seems much more likely than not that the full system will never get built and even the limited system between SF and LA seems a 50:50 bet at best. The only way this gets built is if the federal government implements a large infrastructure bill and directs funding to it. An infrastructure bill can likely get bipartisan support and has a decent chance, but even if infrastructure money is approved Republicans will try to stop funding for this specific project given how large the price is and how all the remaining construction will be in incredibly blue areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2532  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2019, 1:19 AM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
The project didn't fail. It's still under construction and will eventually be completed although at a later date and at a higher cost adjusted for inflation. The "pause" is saving political face and using the completion of the central valley segment as a guarantee of future federal dollars to bore the mountain tunnels.
That sounds exactly like a failure to me.

1] They're just "pausing it", in other words, not coming remotely close to completing "phase I" which was already a severe cut back from the initial proposal.

2] It'll eventually be completed at a later date and higher cost. Uhh, ok. How is that not failing? Everything will be eventually completed at much higher costs than today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2533  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2019, 1:53 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
I suppose my definition of failure would be pulling all support for and not even pursuing the completion of the project. I don't think that's what happening here. It's akin to a schoolboy being held back in school for a couple grades vs. a dead schoolboy.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2534  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2019, 2:04 AM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
The Big Dig is probably the largest infrastructure boondoggle in my lifetime, but it was still completed eventually.
And speaking of the Big Dig, how's that working out with traffic? Boston was just ranked with the worst traffic in the nation this year. Not exactly what was promised a couple decades ago, lol.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2535  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2019, 2:20 AM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
And speaking of the Big Dig, how's that working out with traffic? Boston was just ranked with the worst traffic in the nation this year. Not exactly what was promised a couple decades ago, lol.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Big Dig wasn't about fixing traffic, it was about tearing down an "ugly" elevated freeway. It's still a huge gash across the city though, just a green one instead of an asphalt one. Seattle just completed a similar project which was also a huge boondoggle and it actually reduced the amount of lanes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2536  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2019, 3:05 AM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Big Dig wasn't about fixing traffic, it was about tearing down an "ugly" elevated freeway. It's still a huge gash across the city though, just a green one instead of an asphalt one. Seattle just completed a similar project which was also a huge boondoggle and it actually reduced the amount of lanes.
Yes and no. Bostonians loved the aesthetics of the project. Tearing down the other green monster, re-knitting the North End to the rest of the city. Also, The Big Dig was more than burying ugly traffic underground where it is hidden from the eye. The old Central Artery Expressway was designed and used as a local road. The Big Dig did eliminate numerous on and off ramps throughout central Boston.

Also the third harbor tunnel, definitely relieved the callahand and sumner tunnels.

Everybody knew then as they know now that adding one lane to the 93 wouldn't do jack squat in terms of mobility.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2537  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2019, 3:37 AM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
You're comparing the city of SF to the entire country of Japan?

Japans urbanity is some of the best on Earth, if not the best. The suburbs of Tokyo have far superior transit compared to SF. People live differently there. Walking and taking the train is part of life. Its not the case in California. Period.
Plenty of walkable cities and towns in California, especially along the HSR nodes. LA is one of the densest urban areas in the country, SF is the second densest city in the country. Not sure if you've even been to California or what parts you have been, but I'm born and raised here, and have been to almost every large to medium sized city in the state. HSR will not work though without auxiliary LIGHT RAIL that connects with major HSR nodes. We should probably get that worked out first.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2538  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2019, 5:12 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Big Dig wasn't about fixing traffic, it was about tearing down an "ugly" elevated freeway. It's still a huge gash across the city though, just a green one instead of an asphalt one. Seattle just completed a similar project which was also a huge boondoggle and it actually reduced the amount of lanes.
I hate these new types of "parks." Basically just a lawn. They should have built actual buildings in Boston. It would have been so much better looking and functioning. I do like Dallas's park though, its small and looks decent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2539  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2019, 5:14 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by mt_climber13 View Post
Plenty of walkable cities and towns in California, especially along the HSR nodes. LA is one of the densest urban areas in the country, SF is the second densest city in the country. Not sure if you've even been to California or what parts you have been, but I'm born and raised here, and have been to almost every large to medium sized city in the state. HSR will not work though without auxiliary LIGHT RAIL that connects with major HSR nodes. We should probably get that worked out first.
I've been to California before, but have you been to Japan? There's not even a comparison to be had. I have no doubt parts of California are dense but that doesn't warrant a 70 billion dollar HSR system.

*Oh been to L.A and SF.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2540  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2019, 1:40 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
I hate these new types of "parks." Basically just a lawn. They should have built actual buildings in Boston. It would have been so much better looking and functioning. I do like Dallas's park though, its small and looks decent.
I don't think the tunnels were designed to carry the weight of buildings. That's why Boston ended up with the greenway. And honestly, who the heck would protest against green space in a city like Boston? Easy PR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:42 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.