That unused rail bridge across the Bay used to traverse a salt mining operation, but it's now a wildlife/bird sanctuary. A high speed rail line through there would offset some of the gains made in getting Morton and Cargill to give up that wetlands area.
It's an existing right of way and has never been formally abandoned; indeed, there is an ongoing project to rebuild it for regional commuter rail from the East Bay to the Peninsula.
The "152" routing could easily find itself traversing the parks and wildlife refuges north of 152. There is no existing right of way through this area.
Building a rail line via 152 ought to bring with it improvement of the not-particularly-safe west end of 152.
How in the world does that follow?
I'd bet far more people would want a straight route from LA to SJ than from LA to Livermore.
1. If the only purpose is to transport people between Los Angeles and San Jose, then it should never be built and we should just go ahead and spend the estimated $10-$20Bn for new mega-airports.
2. The trains wouldn't terminate in Livermore (some idiots have proposed it, though), but would continue to the split point; some would run to San Jose, some to San Francisco. (Some might run to Oakland.) The actual mechanism is undetermined, but I know from my travels in Japan that it's not that difficult, because I've seen it happen.
Population density along the Altamont route is huge. Along Pacheco it's Casa de Fruita and a couple of garlic farms. Much less people impact, no political temptations to make the route into a milk run.
The think that you're calling a liability I think is an advantage. High-speed rail is about more than transport between the end points. It's about intermediate points as well.
But regarding the "milk run" issue, may I suggest you're falling into what Lisa calls the "BART fallacy," which is the assumption that if you build a station, of course all trains must stop at that station. There's an invention called "passing tracks" and "express trains" that don't stop at all stations. Caltrain re-discovered this with their "Baby Bullet" service. As I pointed out in the root message, Shinkansen services have three levels of service, and smaller cities get a few stops while not sacrificing higher-speed expresses.
You want a rail line to run through heavily populated areas and to build stations there so you catch sufficient intermediate ridership.
no subject
The "152" routing could easily find itself traversing the parks and wildlife refuges north of 152. There is no existing right of way through this area.How in the world does that follow?1. If the only purpose is to transport people between Los Angeles and San Jose, then it should never be built and we should just go ahead and spend the estimated $10-$20Bn for new mega-airports.
2. The trains wouldn't terminate in Livermore (some idiots have proposed it, though), but would continue to the split point; some would run to San Jose, some to San Francisco. (Some might run to Oakland.) The actual mechanism is undetermined, but I know from my travels in Japan that it's not that difficult, because I've seen it happen.The think that you're calling a liability I think is an advantage. High-speed rail is about more than transport between the end points. It's about intermediate points as well.
But regarding the "milk run" issue, may I suggest you're falling into what Lisa calls the "BART fallacy," which is the assumption that if you build a station, of course all trains must stop at that station. There's an invention called "passing tracks" and "express trains" that don't stop at all stations. Caltrain re-discovered this with their "Baby Bullet" service. As I pointed out in the root message, Shinkansen services have three levels of service, and smaller cities get a few stops while not sacrificing higher-speed expresses.
You want a rail line to run through heavily populated areas and to build stations there so you catch sufficient intermediate ridership.