Join the discussion on the following article:
Soil sample drilling begins for California high-speed line
All that, just to build a train to nowhere using money the Peoples Republic of California doesn’t have. But don’t worry. The other states which will receive no benefit will pay for it. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will make sure the other 57 states pay.
I agree with the I-5 corridor comment. Much lower capital cost, and lower operating cost too. But it was apparently critical to get political support for the project from Fresno, Merced and other SJV districts.
California HSR should build the line along the I-5 corridor. It would be a lot cheaper and, in reality, much better in being more direct from L.A. to the Bay Area. Let Amtrak California feed the system rather than HSR compete with it. The way the HSR is planned, it will be just a “high speed” milk run.
Oblamea stated in a campaign speech on May 9, 2008, that he had visited 57 states and had 1 left to go.
57 States… Has United States expanded into Canada?
Someone musta been taking a few days off when the number of states came up in class.
Someone musta been taking a few days off when the number of states came up in class.
b s. we dont need this. now we have to have all these studies. wasthis n the legaleees n initial proposition
Mel & Mo, Paul,
I’m sure they looked at using the I-5 corridor and quickly rejected it:
- The curves in the highway would restrict train speeds to that of the highway (or even slower) in too many locations.
- Then there are grade considerations. Steel wheeled vehicles on steel rail can’t climb grades as steep as rubber tired vehicles. Reduced friction is a two-edged sword.
- And where would the tracks and stations be, in the medians? Aren’t there places on I-5 where there is no median? Then where would the tracks go?
What a gosh awful waste of tax payers money and another political boondoggle. Maybe later but not at the present time!!
If the proposed high-speed train has to cover 520 miles to get from San Francisco to Los Angeles, it’s in a heap of trouble. The actual proposed route connects San Diego with San Francisco - 508 miles according to my road atlas.
There would be much less cost if Caltrans (California Dept. of Transportation) took over administration and design of high speed rail. Design and build contracts will more than double the cost. Caltrans has built rail systems before, incorporated with highway work, BART - Hwy. 24 and 508 in the bay area. Light rail Hwy. 87 & 85 in San Jose. Rail line construction is basically the same as a highway except for spirals at the beginning and end of curves. Keep in mind this a transportation system for the next 100 years or more. The existing UP ( ex SP) line has been in use for about 140 years, it’s time for something new !!!
“We don’t need this now” & “Maybe later” are the attitudes that have already put American high speed rail at least 50 years behind all the other industrialized nations.
What we did not need to build was airports every 400 miles from each other so a half million pound airplane could be propelled at full power up to 30 thousand feet only to settle back to ground level again at full power. On trips of less than 200 or 300 miles one can make the trip in the time spent screwing around in the airport clearing security and ticketing.
I say start now and go hell bent for leather. If not now, when.
“We don’t need this now” & “Maybe later”, are the reasons we are 50 - 60 years behind the rest of the world in rapid transit.
What we don’t need is taking a half million pound airplane up to 30 thousand feet at full throttle then bringing it back down to ground level (again at full throttle) to land after 300 miles. The fuel consumption, airport construction and operational costs are astronomical.
You want to travel 400 miles or less, use steel on steel and get there without the hassle, delays and expense.
I never see anyone whining about the trillions we put into the least economical forms of transport, air travel and highway travel.
If not now - when?