24 April 2019

Foundation Progress Tracker

One way to measure the progress of a large and complex construction program like the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Program is to count how many foundations have been completed. This is a revealing metric, since foundation construction is currently the top risk on the program due to surprises when digging holes along the right of way. It's also a metric that is readily measurable and reported monthly.

In round numbers, the electrification project encompasses ~2500 poles and ~3100 concrete foundations. The number of foundations is greater than the number of poles because there are foundations for guy wires and sometimes multiple foundations for portal poles.

The progress chart below will be updated monthly.


At the December 2018 meeting of the Caltrain board of directors, the program manager stated (starting at 01:03:00 in video) that he needed to maintain a pace of 156 pole foundations per month (six per night) to meet the schedule milestone of "electrification substantial completion," which was then set for June 2021. You can see how things went since then.

82 comments:

  1. What's the burn rate on OCS, and how does that match the latest reported cost?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Burn rate on the entire project is lower than planned. See PDF page 12. Where they are right now spend-wise is where they were planned to be 16 months ago, so one way of squinting at the program status is that they are 16 months behind... and even more behind if they are over-spending on the tasks they are already doing.

      The latest monthly claims they're on schedule, but the OCS completion milestone has slipped by 3 months in the last 3 months (December 2018 report: 6/23/21, March 2019 report: 9/24/21)

      I'm thinking the likelihood of any electrified service in 2021 is roughly zero, 2022 getting iffy.

      Delete
  2. What would be the way to prevent this problem - handing the project over to the contractor with less specific plans? eg: "Put a foundation somewhere in this 2m x 8m rectangle" or simpler still, just specify pole spacing requirements and let the contractor figure it out? One can imagine a construction team going out to actually dig a foundation without even knowing exactly where it will go ahead of time, or having an 'ideal spot' but being empowered to relocate on the fly within certain parameters if some unexpected utility turns out to be in the way. Not being in the construction industry I can't say for sure, but I bet this sort of thing was common for this kind of work "back in the day".

    The analogy I can relate to when I built a fence in my backyard, I knew I was shooting for 7'6" on-center post spacing but if I ran into a root while digging I would make it a little shorter or a little wider, up to 8'. I also didn't measure very exactly, because it's a fence, and who cares? I am not an expert, so maybe I am completely wrong, but building foundations to support poles for RR electrification seems like it has the potential to be pretty similar to this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The rate is low because the "team" doing "Segment 3" hasn't been mobilized or hasn't started yet.

    Better question is "why haven't they started yet".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty sure the answer is in the monthly... Segment 3 isn't scheduled to start for another few months.

      Delete
    2. Segment 3 is probably the longest, but also seems to have the shortest time allocated to it. The graph above might be more accurate if broken down by segments, then for each segment, plot the completion/total as well as months.

      Even that assumes linear progress for each segment which might not be the case once teams get up to speed and complete a 100+ poles.

      Delete
    3. The graph makes no assumptions other than the one stated: linear extrapolation from the officially reported foundation productivity of the last three months.

      Realistically, foundation production should follow a sigmoid profile, starting slowly with potholing, accelerating to a maximum rate, and then tapering off as the work wraps up and the hardest cases are dealt with. One would thus expect the extrapolated line to rapidly trend upwards, with the extrapolated completion date pulling well to the left of October 2021.

      Keep watching to see whether it does that, and when.

      It's likely that by now (with accumulated delays since December) the required production rate will have to hit 200 foundations/month in order to finish on time. That's FOUR times the current average.

      Delete
  4. The LA Times has published a damning long article on the HSR project:

    https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-high-speed-rail-consultants-20190426-story.html

    How California’s troubled high-speed rail project was ‘captured’ by costly consultants

    ( Perhaps a sub title of "how not to build a project" should be added

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For once an objective article from Vartabedian.

      Delete
    2. It seems like the contractors all knew to come in with low bids to ensure snagging a package. They all knew they could abuse the authority and find opportunities to sweeten the pot.

      Delete
    3. A follow-on article that summarizes the realities that CAHSR is telling the Legislature:

      -- $20.4 billion complete cost of Bakersfield to Merced ($15 billion needed from now on).
      -- $63 million per year subsidy required to operate the Central Valley segment
      -- $4 billion from Feds is not coming
      -- getting rid of consultants will not be cheap. Example: CAHSR says it needs 10 more IT folks.
      -- a separate prediction that the Bay Area will never connect to the system.

      https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-project-update-20190501-story.html

      Delete
    4. IIRC, the entire reason for the consultant-capture was that certain members of the Authority Board (I want to say they were Republicans or centrist Democrats) wanted to avoid having to fund pensions for Authority employees. The easiest way to avoid that was by using consultants instead of staffing up the agency properly.

      Delete
  5. The required rate is now 200/month. Please adjust your graph.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please see above comment, 26 April 17:56. The graph shows an extrapolation of actual installation rates.

      Delete
  6. Is LA Times disseminating false information again?

    "$63 million per year subsidy required to operate the Central Valley segment"

    The 63 million is based on the farebox-recovery ratio which includes high-speed rail, the Altamont Corridor Express and the San Joaquins services. Ie this is the subsidy for 3 systems.

    83 million without HSR.


    "$4 billion from Feds is not coming".

    CAHSR will not return the 2.5B in fed money.
    Also, it is against federal law to hold back the 1 billion...this will be in the courts for a long time. Dems may be in power before this is decided.

    "$20.4 billion complete cost of Bakersfield to Merced ($15 billion needed from now on)."

    Worst case scenario is recouping FY10 and C&T comes in on the low end. Which leaves 1 billion short.

    ARRA $2.49
    FY10 $0.93
    Prop 1A Planning $0.68
    Prop 1A $2.61
    Future Prop 1A $4.17
    Proposition 1A Bookends $1.10
    Cap-and-Trade Received December 2018 $2.42

    Subtotal $14.45

    Future Cap-and-Trade* $6.00 – 9.00

    Total $20.45 – 23.45

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oops, wrong spot. This was a reply to Reedman's post

      Delete
  7. Update from April 2019 progress report: continued mediocre production rate. Totals are now provided for all segments, so at the current production rate foundations will be completed in March 2023, or 17 months behind schedule. Accounting for some acceleration as they improve their process, the project is probably about a year behind.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 3131 (required) - 791 (completed to date) = 2340 (remaining).
    2340 (remaining) / (45/month) = 52 months remaining; or 4 years 4 months _at current rate_. From April, that's August 2023. Am I missing something?

    45 per month is 29% of the rate needed, from Dec 2018, to hit schedule . The monthly reports on OCS progress must be omitting rows where nothing has been completed -- that explains why the "required" total jumps from 1,225 in January, to 3,313 in April. The Feb report has an addition error; the 392 foundations in the newly-added rows for Segment 4 were not added to the total.

    Are they really saying that in February, they still didn't know how many masts (poles) were needed in Segment 4?

    Clem, I think a year behind is overly optimistic. Foundations completed per month is going down, as construction starts in new areas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I extrapolate based on the average rate for the last 3 months, as stated in the plot legend. I anticipate that production rate will increase, and the cumulative curve should ultimately assume an S-shape (sigmoid). The plot will reveal this, as the extrapolated line should pull to the left and eventually cross the goal to the left of the OCS completion milestone, currently 9/24/2021. This schedule milestone has slipped by 3 months in the last 4 months.

      The "required" totals in the latest monthly report now include the segments that have not yet begun foundation installation. I think 3131 now represents the overall total for the project. I had previously estimated 3700, a bit too high.

      The CBOSS fiber optic cable (poorly located and poorly documented) is getting in the way of hundreds of these foundations, which is one way CBOSS is the gift that keeps on giving.

      Delete
  9. California High Speed Rail appears to be DEAD!

    The LA Times has just published:

    On California’s high-speed rail project, combatant Kings County is ready to settle

    https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-settlement-20190601-story.html

    Reading the story, they are buying diesels to run in the Central Valley, and thus, whether admitting it or not, the Authority is giving up on HSR.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It sounds like Kings County was going to lose the case and wants to put a positive spin on it.

      Delete
    2. Morris, learn to read for comprehension. The San Joaquin Joint Powers Board is buying diesels, not the CHSRA. Even Ralph Vartabedian notes the inconsistency between that; and CHSRA policy and Gov. Newsom's recent statements.

      The article also says the state will not settle with Kings County unless the county also drops out of the Prop 1A lawsuit; and the county has a verbal agreement to do that.

      Delete
  10. I agree with Brown. Having looked at the recent Board meeting and also the Assembly Transportation oversight hearing, there is going to be a major effort to take money from the Central Valley and divert it to Southern California.

    Who in the world can believe that with a $60 billion short fall to build out Phase I, that this project has not miserably failed.

    The LA Times article points out that what is now on the horizon is nothing but a slow train and why should the State pour in billions more into the Central Valley and get so little in return. It makes no sense.

    The new agenda will be a war by regional interests to get as much of available funding diverted away from the Central Valley and spent where it will do much more good.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Verboon threw in the towel at least as far back as February:
    "Verboon announced to his Kings Council of Governments colleagues that the county was close to settling their differences with the California High Speed Rail Authority"

    Now he is doing everything to get a piece of the pie:
    "if the philosophy was to confront and delay the project the new philosophy might be just the opposite – insure that “something happens on this corridor” that will benefit Kings County says Verboon."

    http://sierra2thesea.net/central-valley/hs-rail-kings-county-near-legal-settlement

    "..that this project has not miserably failed."
    I don't think it has failed as much as people have had unrealistic expectations. The business plans have all tapered down the expectations but the media keeps construing it into something it possibly could never be. The French took 50+ years to implement there system. Meanwhile SNCF is doing remarkably well outside of a few rural lines: https://www.railjournal.com/passenger/high-speed/sncf-reports-strong-high-speed-growth/

    And the new Siemen train sets he is mentioning, only 2 are for runs south of Merced, runs 8 and 9, which is set for at least 5 years before the valley is HSR ready.

    Apparently Verboon never bothered to read the May 1, 2019 CAHSR report before the LA Times interview.

    ReplyDelete
  12. CAHSR spent $11 million (sofa-cushion change to them) to pay King County to pull out of the Tos lawsuit. They likely consider it money well-spent to cut down the background noise and continue spending billions. The bigger question (to me) is how the subsidies for operation are going to play out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes, that's one i've been trying to figure out.

      ACE-SJ combined is currently subsidized at 84 million. An ACE-SJ-HSR is subsidized at 60 million according to May 1 HSR document. It assumes higher CV ridership and lower maintenance for the electric leg. Is authority trying to replace a non-subsidized HSR system in Prop1 with a lower subsidized combined system?

      Also, proof Verboon is a lose cannon trying to circumvent the authority. He is but quoting Jim Gonzale's plan from February:
      http://www.stancog.org/pdf/committees/sjjpa/2019/sjjpa-agenda-03222019.pdf

      Delete
  13. It's important to note that Caltrain it placing at least 15% too many poles in the ground, purely because Caltrain's self-serving rent-seeking know-nothing consultants pulled electrification "standards" out of their own rear ends, with absolutely zero attention to global norms or to costs.

    My go-to comparison is the German DBAG "Re200" catenary design. Not only are between-pole spans longer at every curve radius than the orgy of steel and concrete that is so profiting the consultants and contractor mafiosi who completely control Caltrain, but it's designed to be good for 200kmh out of the box. And multiple vendors can and do build to this design (same goes for other actual standards in actual use by actual know-something rail infrastructure outfits.)

    Compare some samples numbers:
    Straight track pole spacing: Re200 80m vs Caltrain for-profit made-up bullshit "standard" 70.1m (230 In-God-We-Trust All-American feet)
    Re200 spacing at 1200m radius 71.6m vs Caltrain 57m
    Re200 at 800m radius 62.5m vs Caltrain 46.6
    Re200 at 500m radius 52.4m vs Caltrain 36.6
    Re200 at 300m radius 42.5m vs Caltrain 27.4m
    etc etc

    Corridor-long this all adds up to around 150 completely unnecessary holes and poles. Meaning cost. Meaning time. Meaning more sweet sweet dollars.

    But, you know, Caltrian needs MORE MONEY and schedule slips on a "complex project" like this are "only to be expected."
    Tough tough stuff, this holes and poles in feet and inches business.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The slightly tighter pole spacing is nothing compared to the heavy use of double track cantilevers and the ridiculous design safety factors, causing each foundation to be easily 300% larger than an equivalent European foundation. Compare to photo of recently constructed heavy-duty 25kV OCS on the French LGV Est, rated for 200 mph. Notice how they just cast a 20 cm pole straight into a 50 cm concrete foundation!

      Here we would say goodness, no, if a train derails that foundation design will slice the vehicle shells right open and you absolutely need a bolted interface to the foundation to function as a structural fuse. What that concept doesn't seem to account for is that a massive foundation (90 cm diameter and several meters deep), even after being sheared of its pole, will act as an immovable obstacle and tear apart the sturdiest of vehicle shells. Especially lightweight aluminum vehicle shells, if you know what I mean...

      Sweet sweet dollars indeed.

      Delete
    2. Breaking News: Balfour Beatty will NOT be invited to bid for the Gilroy electrification.

      Delete
    3. One struggles to imagine how or why electrification would ever be extended past Blossom Hill, now that Pacheco HSR has been put on ice for the foreseeable future.

      Delete
  14. Just published on the HSR website is a 22 page powerpoint presentation for the upcoming June 18th HSR Board meeting

    Link:

    http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/docs/brdmeetings/2019/brdmtg_061819_Item4_Update_on_SJ_Diridon_Integrated_Station_Concept_and_Upcoming_Northern_Ca_Program_Milestones.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Slide 15 states that an elevated station over Stover St. allows a south approach in the existing right of way, but slide 20 states that the existing right of way can only be used if the station is at grade. Which is it? Is there a rational explanation for this discrepancy, or is it incompetence as usual for the HSR consultants?

      Delete
    2. Interesting meeting today. Track and Systems procurement was suspended and Camacho once again made a big push for looking at moving money to LA-Anaheim.

      Delete
    3. I don't know if spending the electrification money on the LA-Anaheim section would be such a bad idea. It would allow time for Merced (or Modesto...I know, wishful thinking) and Bakersfield to be built out so that the tracks and electric work could all be done at once.

      Delete
  15. Omneos are next: https://www.progressiverailroading.com/mechanical/news/Bombardier-to-move-BART-rail-car-assembly-to-California--57827

    ReplyDelete
  16. Breaking News: http://www.scscourt.org/documents/CGJ%20VTA%20Final%20Report%20-%2006.18.19.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  17. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/24/dead-slug-blamed-for-power-failure-on-japanese-railway-system. Does CAHSR need a mascot?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The slug was only trying to slow down the trains so it could cross the tracks.

      Delete
  18. Breaking News: BB have started installing pole foundations EAST of MT-1 between Diridon and Santa Clara.
    What happens next will be beyond fascinating...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The owner of the land would be within their rights to place foundations as they see fit, if necessary reaching over non-electrified tracks of the tenant.

      Delete
    2. And it would especially not be a problem if they have reached an agreement with their tenant to do so. Why people think that these kinds of things happen without full buy-in from all affected parties is fascinating to me.

      Delete
    3. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/caltrain-yard-sparks-outcry/article_fb0e272a-8d86-11e9-8f0e-3f15c1aa6a7d.html

      Delete
  19. For May 2019 we have a small uptick to 73 foundations completed. At the June 6th board meeting, the deputy program manager stated that as of that day there were 907 foundations completed (May report says 864, so they had to have completed another 43 foundations from June 1st to June 6th). She reported a nightly production rate of 9 to 15 over the previous two weeks or 12 working days, and estimated that going forward the average rate would be closer to 10 per night or 60 per week / 240 per month. So for the June 2019 report, which will be published at the end of July, we should expect something well north of 200. Stay tuned.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Fina-inally. Looks like they got it all in there, but still feel the need for an additional Pacheco route as well. Apparently they still don't feel prop 1a is attainable via Altamont. See page 297 of doc

    Universal Corridor Improvements:
    1- Tracy alignment improvements
    2- Altamont Pass Tunnel
    3- Livermore alignment improvements
    4- Pleasanton alignment improvements
    5- Niles Canyon Tunnel/Fremont Improvements
    6- Alviso Flats improvements
    7- Dumbarton Bridge
    8- Jack London Square improvements
    9- Second Transbay Tube

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, see page 299. Maybe it's a morphism in process. At least they have both sets of plans out there before they started construction beyond Madera; finally dumping the cart before the horses strategy.

      Delete
    2. The 2018 CAHSR business plan has Fresno to LA at 120 min.
      Valley Link's "Universal Corridor" concept has Peninsula to Merced 80 min.
      For Fresno to Merced, I'm guessing, 15 mins.
      So LA-Peninsula would be 3hr:35min. Prop 1a has 3:10 for LA to SJ

      Delete
    3. err-->Prop 1a has 2:10 for LA to SJ. No way Altamont would work.

      Delete
    4. No way Pacheco would work either:
      Fantasy: https://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/legislative_affairs/Review_of_Capital_Costs_Est_2018_Assoc_with_Section_SF_Baker_Valley_To_Valley_Concept.pdf (Table 5-4 on page 24)
      Reality: https://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/legislative_affairs/Review_of_Capital_Costs_Est_2018_Assoc_with_Section_SF_Baker_Valley_To_Valley_Concept.pdf (Table 5-31 on page 64)

      Delete
    5. @les Prop 1a has 2:10 (not 3:10) for LA to SJ.

      Delete
  21. HSRA releases SF-SJ and SJ-Merced preferred alternatives

    Alt. A for SF-SJ includes no (new) passing tracks, and so is only compatible with the _least_ ambitious "baseline" service scenario in Caltrain's new Business Plan, falling well short of actual Caltrain ridership demand and leaving many Peninsula stations with (continued) piss-poor infrequent service.  

    Here's the key quote: "With [Alt. A], HSR stations would be at the existing 4th & King and Millbrae stations [...] until the Downtown Extension provides HSR access to SF's Salesforce Transit Center. The East Brisbane [light maintenance facility] would be on about 100 acres of largely vacant land east of the Caltrain line. Additionally, the HSRA, working closely with Caltrain, developed a range of service plans for blended service _without_ passing tracks. This is consistent with the analysis underlying the _baseline_ growth scenario in the Caltrain Business Plan."

    ReplyDelete
  22. The Friends of Caltrain "Green Caltrain" blog has a nice write-up along with embedded videos and upcoming community meetings:
    HSRA to reveal [preferred alternatives] from San Francisco to Merced

    While no passing tracks is a disappointment (let Caltrain pay for that!), it was good to see a rejection of the insanely gold-plated seeming viaducts through San Jose. They've gone with full at-grade "blended" along Caltrain's existing route both north and south of Diridon. They indicate that negotiations with UP regarding SJ-Gilroy are going well ... and that their preferred alternative is blended with Caltrain at no more than 110 mph all the way to Gilroy. So no separate new high speed line until south of Gilroy.

    Caltrain/HSRA are saying they are only required to grade-separate crossings that have 4 or more tracks or when speeds exceed 110 mph. Avoiding building passing tracks across any crossings will avoid having to pay for any mandatory grade separations.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Given that none of these "alternatives" contemplate speeds in excess of 125 MPH between Transbay and Gilroy, it is unclear why anyone would consider entertaining "The Authority" as the "Lead Agency" for this project.
    (b) "Except as provided in paragraph (2), nothing in this subdivision precludes other local, regional, or state agencies from exercising powers provided by law with regard to planning or operating, or both, passenger rail service."
    https://california.public.law/codes/ca_pub_util_code_section_185032

    It is also unclear why anyone in their right mind would consider a Gilroy-Merced section as a "building block" of the LA-San Francisco high-speed line.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's actually only 110mph.

      Delete
    2. I think the difference between 125 and 125+ (aside from geometry and track maintenance) is probably a breaking of track sharing compatibility with Caltrain either due to signal system or some FRA regulation. Speeds are probably still close enough to make that work.

      Difference between 110 mph and 125 mph is grade separation requirement. I'd guess that HSR is ok with 15mph slowdown if they can save a few billion on grade separations, or are happy waiting for VTA, Caltrain and local cities to chip in towards the cost of them down the road.

      Presumably, once sections are grade separated, or if there's a 10-15 miles segment that's separated, one could envision 125mph operation by HSR.

      Delete
    3. FYI - Virgin Trains (formerly Brightline) in Florida plans to hit 125 mph on the new stretch of track between Coco Beach and Orlando.

      https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-ne-virgin-train-orange-track-20190617-hqzsnx3j6jhspf6z3svu5foxlu-story.html

      Delete
    4. Yes, it should save 5-10 mins on a trip to the airport. It's too bad they don't do some additional grade separations so they can run longer at 125.

      Delete
    5. From the article on Virgin Trains: "The 39 miles of Virgin’s twin-track corridor from Cocoa to Orlando International Airport will be entirely new, have no crossings" - there ya go... no grade crossings --> 125mph.

      But as with all things HSR in California, it all comes down to lack of funding to build a grade separated corridor.

      Delete
    6. I'm talking the other 1-200 miles of track. Keep in mind Florida suffers the worst casualty rate by trains of any state. Their current Brightline system alone is good for at least 1 a month.

      Delete
    7. Do you have sources to city that Florida is worst? Both Virgin and Caltrain average around 1 a month for roughly same track length.

      Delete
    8. It was a Trains Magazine article from months back but I can't find it. However I did find an FRA site that has the below (note: California has about twice the track mileage as Florida and over the last 10 years Florida has seen increases at an alarming rate)

      State deaths period
      FL 128 1-2019 to 5-2019
      CA 224

      https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/on_the_fly_download.aspx

      Delete
    9. Also, Caltrains is running just under 3 times as many daily trains as Brightline.

      Delete
    10. Caltrain lacks a first class lounge with complimentary charcuterie and drinks. Brightline/Virgin is hopefully the future of rail. I'd love them to take over the Starlight.

      Delete
    11. Wouldn't it be nice, Starlight could use something, anything. I think Brightline's objective is much different than Caltrains. Though both currently run a distance of ~70 miles, I think Brightline's goal is to cater to the tourist crowd from the distant Orlando airport with only a few "luxury crowd" stops in between, hence the wow factor. My impression is that Caltrains will be more of a high end commuter line than anything. Once they get HSR trains running up the corridor, well that's a different story

      Delete
  24. A reminder that Prop 1A allocated $10 billion. The Merced-Bakersfield link is probably going to cost $13 billion. The Prop 1A timings, routes, restrictions, etc are null and void once the Prop 1A money is all spent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The CURRENT estimate for Merced-Bakersfield is $20B.

      Delete
    2. https://hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/legislative_affairs/Review_of_Capital_Costs_Est_2018_Assoc_with_Section_SF_Baker_Valley_To_Valley_Concept.pdf (Table 1-2 on Page 4)

      Delete
  25. The on again off again request for release of Track and Systems Procurement is on again. The NTPs have greatly been expanded. This will by far be the largest contract to date. NTP 1 alone is $1.65 billion.

    NTP 1: Madera to Poplar Avenue (anticipated summer 2020)
    NTP 2: Poplar Avenue to Bakersfield (TBD)
    NTP 3: Madera to Merced (TBD)
    NTP 4: Gilroy to Central Valley Wye (TBD)
    NTP 5: CP Lick to Gilroy (TBD), which would include upgrade and electrification of the existing Union Pacific Railroad
    corridor
    NTP 6: San Francisco to CP Lick (communications only) (TBD)

    https://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/brdmeetings/2019/brdmtg_071619_Item2_Board_Memo_Track_and_Systems_July_Memo_20190708_wbox_for_CEO_sig.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This tells me the authority is pretty confident about coming up with the money for Pacheco, ie, they included it in the bid.
      And, given the Valley Link long range time estimates for San Jose, Pacheco appears to be the best route per Prop 1a.

      Delete
    2. See, Trump is for HSR after all. He pissed Newsom and the democrats off so bad they went ahead and came up with a financing plan for Pacheco.

      Delete
    3. @Les: details, please! You forgot to post a link to the "financing plan for Pacheco."

      Delete
    4. Oh Sorry, this is my speculation based on the way the next bid is laid out. I can't help but think they have a financial plan in mind given the confidence level of putting Gilroy track NTP in the next bid.

      Delete
    5. Please cut out the speculation and stay on topic, thank you. I will trim the discussion if this continues.

      Delete
    6. I apologize for that, I got a little carried away. Though I do think it is a great sign that, as shallow as it may be, Gilroy got included in a soon to be released electrification bid. Certainly a step up from being just print in a business plan.

      Delete
    7. @Les: Do you understand the subtle difference between an RFQ and an RFP? Do you also understand that SJ to Gilroy (unlike SF to SJ) will actually take a novel approach consisting of laying track BEFORE electrification?

      Delete
    8. They're using an RFP to shortlist for an RFQ. So. The fact they're including Gilroy is surprising given this stage of the game. Also throw in the fact that Beall, one of the primary architects of financing for Caltrains Electrification, was added to the board, tells me they are getting serious about financing.

      "will actually take a novel approach consisting of laying track BEFORE"
      So, these sections are not all part of the same NTP.

      Delete
    9. but I get what your saying, ie, they're only putting out feelers to test the waters so to speak.

      Delete
  26. The latest (verbal) update from the July board meeting stated that 122 foundations were set in June. This is a welcome uptick but it is still well below the productivity promised at the June board meeting, where numbers like 10 foundations per workday were bandied about and the impression was left that June would exceed 200. The acceleration will need to be stronger and more sustained before the curve inflects as it should. Some board members and the program manager are eager to declare victory on this issue, but we are NOT out of the woods.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some Board members and the program manager naively believe that electrification consists of laying some wire and flicking a switch. What will happen the day they do flip the switch will be beyond fascinating...

      Delete
    2. Notable Variances

      During this monthly progress reporting period, BBII is currently reporting an overall delay to substantial completion, including the intermediate milestone of Segment 4/Test Track completion. The delay is primarily due to the time it has taken to finalize the modifications required for the grade crossings, the effect that differing site conditions (DSCs) are having on OCS foundation installation and design completion of the Traction Power Substation (TPS) interconnect.

      JPB continues to work with and is urging BBII to accelerate resolution of these issues.

      Delete
    3. Rather than tracking foundations, it might help to track "low hanging wires that interfere with electrification". There's a particularly low one at Oak Grove crossing in Menlo Park. It's likely a 3rd party utility which are known to wreak havoc with Caltrain schedules. IIRC, both South SF station and 25St Grade Separations delays were blamed on utility relocation issues.

      If you are a betting man, throwing some chips are "low hanging wires" sounds like a winning strategy.

      Delete
  27. Rode SF-Hillsdale and back today. So very impressed that I saw at least four different pole colors- basic galvanized, eucalyptus green, Millbrae Platform Three yellow, and basic black. Real attention to detail I've never witnessed anywhere else in the world. Truly World Class! ; ) They also looked seamless and transit-oriented.

    ReplyDelete