Discussion related to commuter rail and transit operators in California past and present including Los Angeles Metrolink and Metro Subway and Light Rail, San Diego Coaster, Sprinter and MTS Trolley, Altamont Commuter Express (Stockton), Caltrain and MUNI (San Francisco), Sacramento RTD Light Rail, and others...

Moderator: lensovet

  • 551 posts
  • 1
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  by mtuandrew
 
eolesen wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:44 am It's still with the lawyers.
Presumably if Cali can stretch the proceedings beyond 1/20/21 at noon, USDOT will quite suddenly reverse its opinion on clawing back said money. Would be a huge win for CAHSR and the state.
  by John_Perkowski
 
So this popped in the Los Angeles Times today

High-speed rail to run on a single track in Central Valley as overall cost rises

Brief, fair use quote
By RALPH VARTABEDIAN

The first phase of the California bullet train — a 171-mile link in the Central Valley — will be reduced to a single track as its estimated cost has risen by $2 billion, according to a revised business plan for the project released Tuesday.
  by Pensyfan19
 
There are no words to describe the overwhelming amount of anger, disappointment and confusion of having a single-tracked high speed line...

I´ve heard of a few minor ¨high speed¨ lines in Japan being single tracked, but never a major main line like this...

Image
  by Pensyfan19
 
The fate of this high speed rail project is hanging on an upcoming funding decision by the State of California.

https://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2 ... egislature
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The fate of California’s high speed rail project hangs on a funding decision the California legislature will make before adopting the new state budget in June.

“I do think it's time to decide: Is California committed to moving to electrified, clean, high speed rail as a way to move people around the state and connect regions that are not well connected today?” project CEO Brian Kelly told Trains News Wire after unveiling high speed rail’s latest business plan. “My answer to that is yes. And my governor's answer to that is yes. And I believe, and my governor believes, that the Biden administration supports that effort.”

This decision was postponed last summer when the California Assembly asked the High-Speed Rail Authority not to purchase rail, electrification, and signaling systems for the Central Valley line under construction between Merced and Bakersfield. But on Tuesday, the authority board unanimously put the funding question back in the legislature’s lap and begin procurement this summer [see “Revised California high speed rail plan …,” Trains News Wire, Feb. 10, 2021].
  by eolesen
 
CAHSR is the poster charge for state agency mismanagement. Brian Kelly should be fired.
  by scratchyX1
 
eolesen wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:07 am CAHSR is the poster charge for state agency mismanagement. Brian Kelly should be fired.
And also for "let's just have the contractors do everything , as we've little in house knowledge and they wouldn't rip us off, right?"
  by west point
 
Penny wise pound foolish.
Can you imagine the additional costs that will be needed to drop ties and rail once service is ongoing?.. The additional labor costs due to inefficiencies of waiting for track time, delays to operating trains. Additionally cat support poles will need to be installed to outside on the single track sections to allow for the future dropping of rail and ties to uninstalled 2nd main track.
It may be some kind of rail installation train can be that can ring both rail and ties such as seen in Europe.
As well the installation of crossovers at CP will need much coordination to prevent shutdown of service for installations..
Will signal bungalows be set up for future 2 main tracks or not.? The list just gets longer and longer.
  by Pensyfan19
 
Looking this over, I would like to point out that Phase I, or the initial operating portion of this route, is the Central Valley portion of the whole route. This means that the entirety of the route (or phase I at least) will be single tracked... :(
  by eolesen
 
Yep, one track doesn't cut the costs in half... bridges and station platforms will still need to be doubled from the start. Signaling will have to be built out with stubs, and utility feeds will have to be designed/built to future state.

At best I'd guess they save $500M off the current budget and will spend over $1B to finish it out later...

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

  by lensovet
 
eolesen wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:07 am CAHSR is the poster charge for state agency mismanagement. Brian Kelly should be fired.
fwiw, the contractor in Fresno seems to share my opinion that this has nothing to do with the agency, or the contractor, and everything to do with property acquisition, which you can imagine is blocked by the very same people claiming that the rail line is a boondoggle.

https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... gry-letter
The Ariqat letter notes that less than 50% of the 31-mile construction segment under Tutor Perini’s contract has been completed. The original contract anticipated completion by 2017.

The letter notes that the firm has completed 14 bridges, viaducts and other structures and has begun work on six more. But it has not even begun work on 32 structures, mainly because the state has not provided the land.
don't expect UP to be helping matters either…
The Ariqat letter spends considerable time detailing the problems of working with Union Pacific, whose tracks parallel the bullet train route through much of Fresno. It alleges that the railroad has made “preferential and unreasonable demands” in reviewing and approving work plans for sites adjacent to its property.
  by lensovet
 
it's nuts because this is money from bonds that were already sold for this project. the fact that the legislature has to approve it at all is bonkers.
  by John_Perkowski
 
If construction interferes with UPs operations, they have every right to say pound sand.

And if the authority or the contractor want to use rail to move construction materials, UP has every right to charge the tariff rate.

And if the authority needs temporary sidings, UP has every right to charge cost plus profit to install and remove them.

Full disclosure: Long IRA position in UNP.
  by eolesen
 
It's called "Checks and Balances"....

Since the State is liable for the bonds, not the agency, the Legislature's oversight is essential.

Given how mismanaged they've been with the funds already released to the Agency, I can see why the Legislature might be tightening the purse strings and putting the Agency under more scrutiny.
  by electricron
 
The CHSR Authority can not continue to ignore the State Legislature forever. Almost all high ranking legislators are from Southern California, and they are already on record spending the next $4 Billion in Southern California. They diplomatically tried to nudge the CHSR Authority Board in the last session, if the Board continues to ignore them, the legislature will force them to spend the next $4 Billion in Southern California. The power of the checkbook is extremely strong! CHSR Board can not spend money they do not have. To get that money, they will have to reach a compromise with the legislature.
  • 1
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37