Re:High-speed rail board completes environmental clearance i...
by Gibbon1 on Saturday August 20, 2022 @03:50AM
(#32530149)
When I look at it the three things I note are
The high speed rail from Grapevine to the San Fernando Valley isn't going to happen because of geology + money. Which leaves Bakersfield, Tehachapi, Palmdale as the viable route.
Gilroy to Bakerfield is the same distance whether you go down I5 or HWY99.
And the current rail corridor needs a bunch of grade separation work done. It would be dumb to build grade separated high speed rail on the west side of the valley. And at the same time also build duplicate grade separation on the east side.
If you look at the current work being done about half if it is the above mentioned grade separation.
I'll also mention the point of high speed rail was to carry passengers quickly but not as fast as possible from SF to LA. Really there are four goals. Connect the northern and southern passenger rail lines. Grade separation in the central valley. Commuter rail in the Bay Area and Socal. And avoid having to upgrade airport capacity.
The high speed rail from Grapevine to the San Fernando Valley isn't going to happen because of geology + money. Which leaves Bakersfield, Tehachapi, Palmdale as the viable route.
Gilroy to Bakerfield is the same distance whether you go down I5 or HWY99.
And the current rail corridor needs a bunch of grade separation work done. It would be dumb to build grade separated high speed rail on the west side of the valley. And at the same time also build duplicate grade separation on the east side.
If you look at the current work being done about half if it is the above mentioned grade separation.
I'll also mention the point of high speed rail was to carry passengers quickly but not as fast as possible from SF to LA. Really there are four goals. Connect the northern and southern passenger rail lines. Grade separation in the central valley. Commuter rail in the Bay Area and Socal. And avoid having to upgrade airport capacity.