Quote:
Originally Posted by DJM19
The main point of this line is to get from LA to SF. That sort of the genesis of why it was considered in the first place. No matter where is starts in that area, it will be pretty useless if not completed. I suppose a train from LA to Bakersfield could be cool, but not what we desire to build.
If you are complaining that it might not ever finish, it doesnt matter where it starts. An unfinished line wont achieve its top goal by far of connecting LA to SF.
Then consider it HAS to start in the central valley. Thats federal mandate.
|
If you wanted a starting route that would function right off the bat, it would be SD-LA. It would have the highest ridership of any other starting route, but the problem is that it would be costly and untimely and politically difficult to dig through such a highly urbanized area. There would be inevitable cost overruns. You don't want backlash or give ammo to opposition when you've barely started. And it's outside of the main SF-LA route, so sensitive Norcal would throw a political fit.
So the Central Valley is a logical place to start. It's still within the LA-SF route, (which SD-LA isn't) yet it's politically neutral with much less local opposition then you'd get in SoNorCal. And it's mostly cows (which you can move) and large swaths of lands, so you can get more rail for your time and buck, and politically, the project will give the appearance of being less expensive than it will eventually be when it gets the ends of the full route.