|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 12, 2012 8:09:07 GMT -8
I know I am going to get shot down as soon as I suggest this, but for my own edification I would like to know why it is in an inherently bad idea.
If the San Joaquin Valley power structure doesn't want high speed rail and/or receives oil industry campaign contributions to sabotage the project for the whole state, what about running the Los Angeles-San Francisco route up/down the coastal counties, sort of a 101-ish route. If Tea Party types in Fresno, Bakersfield, etc. would rather be held hostage to the oil industry forever, I am sure Ventura, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo and the Monterrey Peninsula would be thrilled to have access to high speed rail between the Bay Area and So-Cal.
Just my morning musing. Now flame away and remind me why this idea won't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 12, 2012 8:30:59 GMT -8
I know I am going to get shot down as soon as I suggest this, but for my own edification I would like to know why it is in an inherently bad idea. If the San Joaquin Valley power structure doesn't want high speed rail and/or receives oil industry campaign contributions to sabotage the project for the whole state, what about running the Los Angeles-San Francisco route up/down the coastal counties, sort of a 101-ish route. If Tea Party types in Fresno, Bakersfield, etc. would rather be held hostage to the oil industry forever, I am sure Ventura, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo and the Monterrey Peninsula would be thrilled to have access to high speed rail between the Bay Area and So-Cal. Just my morning musing. Now flame away and remind me why this idea won't work. The problem is there is no route suitable there for high speed rail. For high speed rail you need long straight mostly flat track and going up the coast you have almost none of that. Take a look at the Surfliner past LA County as an example. |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jun 12, 2012 9:46:41 GMT -8
Dan,
You would have to check back to the very early planning docs to see the exact reason why the Valley route was chosen. The previous poster mentioned the route might be too curvy, and it probably would also be quite a bit longer. I suspect that that corridor is more constrained in that the closer you get to the ocean, the less space is available for ROW. I have every reason to believe that the coastal areas you mentioned would scream just as loudly about having to sacrifice any of their precious property to allow the train to be built.
The NIMBY'ism coming from everyone in the Valley who opposes HSR is identical to the NIMBY'ism from BHUSD in regard to tunneling under the high school. It comes down to greed, and absolutely nothing else. No matter how much good any specific project does for society as a whole, if it inconveniences a NIMBY to any degree, or ends up costing them $0.01, they will oppose it till their dying breath.
The Sierra Club is having issues with the possibility that CAHSR may get an exemption from CEQA to allow for less litigation that would otherwise slow down if not doom the project. I am a member of the Sierra Club, but they have this completely wrong. CEQA has it's place, but the people who are litigating it are not concerned about the environment, they are just using the CEQA as a tool for stalling and thereby dooming the project. The Sierra Club at some point has to realize that and get on board, since they initially supported the 1A bond issue back in 2008.
Cruickshank on his blog has pointed this out many times, and I completely agree with him. And I have written the Sierra Club several times letting them know how I feel about this. The good news so far is that the LA Times reports today that the state assembly is fast tracking the budget, and it includes the CEQA relief that the Governor is requesting for the HSR system. I suggest that all who support the current HSR plan contact their assembly and senate members and voice their support for this.
RT
|
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jun 12, 2012 13:36:46 GMT -8
It'll be killed after the EIR process. TOO environmentally impacting. Coastal and wetlands habitats would be severely affected. Also, it's a more topographically challenging route, too many curves (which is why it takes longer to drive to SF on the 101 than on the 5).
Also, outside of Ventura-Santa Barbara-SLO, there is pretty much zero ridership between LA and the Bay Area.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 12, 2012 13:47:06 GMT -8
Cool. I knew you guys would bring me to my senses.
|
|
