HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1761  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2018, 3:49 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
Would you prefer myopic?
One side isn't as myopic as the other side is being oblivious.

It's been over 10 years and they still haven't chosen the exact route through the San Gabriel Mountains north of Los Angeles. It's impossible to accurately estimate that section's building costs until the footage of tunneling is known.
They can't commence the HSR service between Los Angeles and San Francisco until that section is finished.

The term boondoggle was first in vogue during the construction of the Panama Canal. Another excellent example of construction starting before the final design was finished, and how deep the canal would need to be. But at least the route across the mountains had been fixed before the route across the river was.

In California, they still haven't decided where to route across the mountains yet!

Selecting a final route first is an important step that shouldn't be skipped if you don't want your project called a boondoggle. All Aboard Florida may be building it's Brightline train service piecemeal, section by section, but it had settled on and gained access to the entire route first. Texas Central may not have started construction yet but it is finalizing its routing before construction starts. DesertXpress may not have turned one blade of dirt, but it has finalized it's routing, and has gained access to its entire route first.

CHSR has started building before finalizing and gaining access to the entire route. Apparently it is too much to ask for a final routing and final cost estimation after far more than 10 years of study. There will always be penny pinchers, but that doesn't make them myopic.

Last edited by electricron; Jan 18, 2018 at 4:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1762  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2018, 4:10 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: 10,301
There is absolutely no reason a project of this scale could not start construction in an area where engineering was finalized while specific decisions about segments years away from construction where still being decided. There is nothing unusual about that. It would be more unusual if final design was 100% before a shovel hit the ground. This isn't an office building, its a multi phase ground transportation system.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1763  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2018, 5:57 PM
Parkway's Avatar
Parkway Parkway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
There is absolutely no reason a project of this scale could not start construction in an area where engineering was finalized while specific decisions about segments years away from construction where still being decided. There is nothing unusual about that. It would be more unusual if final design was 100% before a shovel hit the ground. This isn't an office building, its a multi phase ground transportation system.
Particularly in a county that loves killing projects half way through. Look at how many false starts the ARC/Gateway tunnel project has had. Spend the money before someone takes it away.
__________________
"It's like a giant ball of peanut butter with a stick of Dynamite in the middle."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1764  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2018, 2:51 AM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkway View Post
Particularly in a county that loves killing projects half way through. Look at how many false starts the ARC/Gateway tunnel project has had. Spend the money before someone takes it away.
Exactly. Many of the Federal grants had stipulations that the money be spent by a certain date. CAHSR HAD to start construction as soon as possible or they would lose the money.
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1765  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2018, 3:48 AM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by northbay View Post
Exactly. Many of the Federal grants had stipulations that the money be spent by a certain date. CAHSR HAD to start construction as soon as possible or they would lose the money.
Like my old teacher used to say, "there's a difference between an explanation and an excuse". Yes, we all know why they had to go off half-cocked, but it's still stupid. Pointing out the political rational doesn't change the fact that it's a bad idea. If anything I'd say most people should be able to agree that letting politics dictate your plans instead of engineering is a terrible idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar View Post
You do realize you don't have to be a "Conservative" to think that this is a horribly managed project and huge waste of money, right?
Exactly! I don't want to see this money spent on bombing some Muslims, I want to see it spent on infrastructure projects that actually MAKE SENSE. Think how many new subway lines could be built in LA and SF for the cost of this boondoggle! Those two cities could be completely transformed. Something CAHSR will never do even IF it were to be built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1766  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2018, 7:28 PM
eltodesukane eltodesukane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,021
"Q. The High-Speed Rail Authority was established 23 years ago. During that time China has built 16,000 miles of high-speed rail. We are still working on the first 119 miles. What are we doing wrong?"

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/u...peed-rail.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1767  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2018, 7:41 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: 10,301
A. Electing Republicans
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1768  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2018, 10:56 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
A. Electing Republicans
Yeah, California sure is a state totally dominated by Republicans..

The fact of the matter is that the real issue is all the onerous regulations pushed for by Democrats which drives prices through the roof. Obviously it's oversimplifying the issue, but generally speaking you can't build anything in Red states because they won't spend money and you can't build anything in Blue states because they bend over backwards for environmentalists, NIMBYs and unions which means 10+ years of worthless studies and lawsuits before anything can be built along with massive price increases due to generous handouts to appease unions and absurdly expensive design modifications to appease NIMBYs and environmentalists. CAHSR is an example of the latter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1769  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2018, 11:14 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: 10,301
Quote:
Obviously it's oversimplifying the issue
Indeed it is.


Quote:
Yeah, California sure is a state totally dominated by Republicans..
I was referring to Republicans on the national level. As in the GOP doesn't believe the federal government should even fund high speed rail if it was completely up to them. The less GOP in power the better if your goal is a modern sane nation.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1770  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2018, 11:25 PM
CastleScott CastleScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento Ca/formerly CastleRock Co
Posts: 1,055
Quote:
The fact of the matter is that the real issue is all the onerous regulations pushed for by Democrats which drives prices through the roof. Obviously it's oversimplifying the issue, but generally speaking you can't build anything in Red states because they won't spend money and you can't build anything in Blue states because they bend over backwards for environmentalists, NIMBYs and unions which means 10+ years of worthless studies and lawsuits before anything can be built along with massive price increases due to generous handouts to appease unions and absurdly expensive design modifications to appease NIMBYs and environmentalists. CAHSR is an example of the latter.
BrownTown:
This is a big reason I mentioned about the idea of doing higher-speed and do this stuff doing public-private partnerships like they do in Europe (its actually called a design-build-turnkey process were governments work with private companies like railcar builders, large construction companies, transportation consultants, large banks, etc to get er done, I've seen lots of articles on this in trade publications as I was once a consultant). There's nothing wrong with doing higher-speed to say Sacramento from the Bay or Fresno and they sorta are in the process of doing this between LA and San Diego now as they are able in spots to run Amtrak, Coaster and some Metrolink trains at 90 mph. Another example is the higher-speed Amtrak/Union Pacific line from Chicago to St Louis-in many places they will run between 90 up to 110 plus this was also part of a public-private partnership that involved the State of Illinois, local communities, the Feds, Union Pacific and some construction contractors. Yes I also agree a lot more can be done for transit in LA and SF-frankly I believe they can and should build more third or heavy rail in both places as it hauls heavier loads of people (an example of third rail is BART, LA's Red and Purple Lines, Washington DC's WMATA Metrorail Chicago's El, Miami's Metro rail and NYC's subways)..

Just my 2 cents on this.

Last edited by CastleScott; Jan 21, 2018 at 6:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1771  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2018, 1:11 AM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
I was referring to Republicans on the national level. As in the GOP doesn't believe the federal government should even fund high speed rail if it was completely up to them. The less GOP in power the better if your goal is a modern sane nation.
The Feds have already put $8,000,000,000 into this boondoggle, how much more do you expect? This service is located 100% inside California so I'm not sure why it's up the the Federal Government to pay for the majority of it? So far as I know the Federal Government isn't paying a huge chunk of any of the new roads Texas is building for instance..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1772  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2018, 3:31 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
The Feds have already put $8,000,000,000 into this boondoggle, how much more do you expect? This service is located 100% inside California so I'm not sure why it's up the the Federal Government to pay for the majority of it? So far as I know the Federal Government isn't paying a huge chunk of any of the new roads Texas is building for instance..
In 2016, Texas received over $8,367,000,000 in federal funding for its roads..
http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents...rimer_2016.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1773  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2018, 3:33 AM
pizzaguy pizzaguy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
in 2016, texas received over $8,367,000,000 in federal funding for its roads..
http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/documents...rimer_2016.pdf
those roads are all boondoggles!

The golden gate bridge is a boondoggle!

The trans-continental railroad is a boondoggle!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1774  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2018, 3:42 AM
CastleScott CastleScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento Ca/formerly CastleRock Co
Posts: 1,055
^ Throw in the Panama Canal, the entire Interstate highway system (which was really intended to move military convoys at high speed much like the German Autoban) and of course whole transport system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1775  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2018, 3:47 AM
pizzaguy pizzaguy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by CastleScott View Post
^ Throw in the Panama Canal, the entire Interstate highway system (which was really intended to move military convoys at high speed much like the German Autoban) and of course whole transport system.
Don't forget the Roman Aqueducts! That money should've been used on tax cuts!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1776  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2018, 5:15 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 CastleScott View Post
^ Throw in the Panama Canal, the entire Interstate highway system (which was really intended to move military convoys at high speed much like the German Autoban) and of course whole transport system.

The interstate highway system of 47,856 miles cost $499 billion in 2016 dollars.

Almost 48,000 miles in all 50 states and in complex urban areas cost less than 500 billion dollars.

Latest estimate to connect SF to LA is $70 billion and is rising. It'll probably cost $100 billion to connect two cities within one state.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1777  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2018, 8:28 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
The interstate highway system of 47,856 miles cost $499 billion in 2016 dollars.

Almost 48,000 miles in all 50 states and in complex urban areas cost less than 500 billion dollars.

Latest estimate to connect SF to LA is $70 billion and is rising. It'll probably cost $100 billion to connect two cities within one state.
To add the math:
500,000,000,000 / 48,000 = $10.4 million /mile (Interstate Highway)
70,000,000,000 / 800 (per Wiki) = $87.5 million /mile (California HSR)

USDOT has been funding that $500 Billion over 60 years, averaging $8+ Billion/year for the entire country.
CHSR projects to spend around $70 Billion over more than 10 years. If they built in within 10 years, they would average $7 Billion/year; if within 20 years, they would average $3.5 Billion/year; if within 40 years, they would average $1.75 Billion/year. That's using 2016 dollars, not 2046 dollars - and not including interests paid to people buying the government bonds some government would have to sell to raise this amount of cash over and beyond traditional government spending programs.
History of the federal tax on gasoline and other petroleum products:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/gastax.cfm

Last edited by electricron; Jan 25, 2018 at 7:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1778  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2018, 8:02 PM
CastleScott CastleScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento Ca/formerly CastleRock Co
Posts: 1,055
I'll say this:
When you get an over zealous govt authority involved in a mega project like this things like this happen-like I said time and time again they should have did they're homework early on and gone with a public-private partnership like what's a common thing that's done in Europe, Japan and other countries (this involves the govt and private interests like construction companies, large banks, consultant firms and rail car manufactures like Siemens, Bombardier which do whats called a design/build/turnkey process, btw even the railroads could be a part of this). This helps lessen impacts on taxpayers and is MUCH more efficient than just a govt only operation (which can easily FUBAR stuff (if some of you were in the military FUBAR is F*cked Up Beyond All Recognition). Public-private partnerships are a bit new in America sadly though. At least do a whole full route assessment before starting construction..

Btw something similar to Florida's Brightline could work very well on some routes in California-of course this is a private entity.

Just a quick 2 cents on this..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1779  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2018, 9:52 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: 10,301
This was posted by someone named aquaticko over on SSC. I thought I would post it here because I couldn't have said it any better:

Quote:
To put these numbers in perspective, the entirety of the first phase of the project could double in cost--go from $64B to $128B--and still cost less than 5% of one year of California's GDP (~2.7 trillion in 2017). Considering that construction is projected to take about 13 years, and 13x2717=35,321, and 128/35,321=.0036, and therefore the annual cost of the project over the duration of construction will cost less than one-half of 1% of California's GDP, the state can easily afford this.

And this is only really a "cost" if one assumes that the alternative is to not spend anything on California's transportation infrastructure over the next 13 years--which is not actually an option.

I'm politically biased, but not geographically biased (I'm from faraway NH), and I can't help but think, over and over again, that opposition to this project is based far more on ideology than practicality.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1780  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 1:58 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
In 2016, Texas received over $8,367,000,000 in federal funding for its roads..
http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents...rimer_2016.pdf
How are you going to compare a huge road network to one HSR line?
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 8:06 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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