Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
There's capital cost inflation in all big US infrastructure investment projects, for similar reasons though not to the same extent that infrastructure project costs are often inflated in Greece ~ the yellow belly surplus suckers must be fed. In the typical California case, a severely understaffed Joint Powers Authority has a skeleton staff and all major project management must be done by contractors, who systemically overbudget and plan to overbuild.

But its not as severe as the headline $68b price tag makes it sound, since that is the Year of Expenditure budgeting that the US DoT insists upon. The discounted present value is projected to be around $53b.

The Initial Construction Corridor, through the Central Valley, is around $6b, for 210km of HSR corridor, less electrification.

The most expensive section is the descent into the LA Basin, either over the Tejon Pass, or on the preferred corridor, following the population, over the Tehachapi Pass. The second most expensive section is the traverse from the Central Valley to the Bay Area. One might imagine that improved project management could trim another $5b or $10b out, but a SF Bay to LA Basin Express corridor plus upgrades to provide Express Interurban access to downtown San Francisco and downtown LA is going to cost north of 2012 $40b, in any event.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jul 10th, 2012 at 09:02:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The routes into both cities pass through some mighty expensive real estate. That's a side effect of procrastinating on building railroads, I suppose...you wait until it's "needed" and then find that the ROW is filled with multi-million dollar houses...
by asdf on Tue Jul 10th, 2012 at 09:38:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but the route into San Francisco mostly follows an already existing rail corridor that is plenty wide for four tracks for most of its width. Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton (PAMPA) have kicked up a fuss about the dedicated corridor for the HSR, in response to presumed catastrophic declines in property values if an existing rail corridor gets more trains.

So in response the revised business plan calls for upgrading the exiting Caltrain corridor so that HSR and Caltrain can share the corridor. That implies that by the time capacity constraints force widening of the corridor in those areas it will be (1) even more expensive and (2) will be such an in-demand upgrade to an existing rail service by that time that PAMPA opposition at that point is likely to be both diluted and in a position to be steamrollered.

The big problem in the descent to the LA Basin is not development since the corridor was first studied in the 1990's, but rather detailed geography and environmental constraint in the descent into the San Fernando Valley.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jul 10th, 2012 at 10:57:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok, yer in here I see...

http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/04/the-vexed-dtx-tunnel/#comments

What is the minimum radius of those corridors? Will they support full speed operation, something like 3000 m radius?

by asdf on Tue Jul 10th, 2012 at 01:04:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The DTX approach tunnel to the Transbay Terminal station throat is a horrible design. Its supposed to be three tracks wide, but with no better capacity than a well designed two track tunnel would have, due to an insistence on placing the intermediate underground platform terminals directly on the outside two lines, so the entire length of the central track through the entire tunnel is occupied with the task of juggling Express trains past the platforms.

With two right angle turns in the approach, and the curve radius for three tracks in a shallow cut and cover tunnel along the street grid, its obviously not a high speed tunnel. I'd expect 5 minutes minimum lost to the traverse between the tunnel mouth and the TBT station throat, leaving the Caltrain run to be 25mins or under to achieve a SF/SJ time of 0:30.

OTOH, they just started getting serious about value engineering at Parsons-Brinkerhoff when it looked like the $100b Year of Expenditure price tag was going to knock the project out due to sticker shock. If the Governor's office puts ongoing pressure on keeping the costs down and performance up, they could still change to siding platform track with high speed switches at the underground 4th and Townsend station and a two track tunnel, which would allow for higher radius curves in the DTX, simpler operation, and pick up a minute or two at a saving of money.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jul 10th, 2012 at 06:05:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Pentecost steam

by DoDo - May 20
7 comments

A Nomad's Life (A Farewell)

by Nomad - May 10
14 comments

Simple Solar Principles

by gmoke - May 17
1 comment

Rail News Blogging #24

by DoDo - May 12
10 comments

Ferguson hates on Keynes

by Migeru - May 6
100 comments

Occasional Series