California HSR Farmer NIMBYs

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

leemell

Conductor
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
1,549
Location
Los Angeles, CA
In the LA Times there was this article on the objections beginning to rise from the farmers in the Central Valley between Bakersfield and Concord, the route of the first link.
 
In the LA Times there was this article on the objections beginning to rise from the farmers in the Central Valley between Bakersfield and Concord, the route of the first link.
The route (at least the first link) won't go through Concord. The article mentions Hanford. Hanford is about 85-90 highway miles (probably 70-75 miles as the crow flies) from Bakersfield.

If a line is built connecting San Francisco and Sacramento, it might go through Concord (which is in the East Bay), though I personally doubt it.
 
In the LA Times there was this article on the objections beginning to rise from the farmers in the Central Valley between Bakersfield and Concord, the route of the first link.
The route (at least the first link) won't go through Concord. The article mentions Hanford. Hanford is about 85-90 highway miles (probably 70-75 miles as the crow flies) from Bakersfield.

If a line is built connecting San Francisco and Sacramento, it might go through Concord (which is in the East Bay), though I personally doubt it.
My mistake, it should be Corcoran.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We are talking a strip of land about 100 feet wide, whcih is the normal right of way of a two lane highway. Plus, much of it will be adjacent to BNSF or some other form of right of way that already divides the land parcels.

I particularly have trouble with these particular whiners since their agricultural kingdom would not exist if not for the HUGE money spent on irrigation systems by both the Federal and State governments. This outporuing of what is effectively a subsidy for farmers in this area alone is a real sore point with many farmers in other parts of the country. If their objection is the spending of the money, it is either ignorance or hypocricy or both.

Oh yeah, how much of their field labor is illiegal immigrants?
 
Often when France has had to create new right of ways for the TGV they have hit major opposition from farmers. I recall the line to Marseilles was delayed for a number of years due to this. I can tell you from firsthand experience, it was worth the battle. I hope there is the political will in this country to prevail.
 
There has been and will continue to be quite a few people that object to the concept and the building of this or any other high speed rail system anywhere. The only thing that changes is the set of arguements they use. If this fails, they will pull out some other arguement. Who knows? Maybe they will find that it goes through the last known habitat of some microbe no one ever heard of before. Anything to stop it. Consider this as just another in a long list of excuses. Once heard the definition of excuse as, The skin of a reason stuffed with a lie." That is all this is. Just enough truth to give it some credibility. If any of this guy's land is actually taken, he will be crying all the way to the bank.
 
My mistake, it should be Corcoran.
Corcoran is about 66 road miles (probably 55-60 as the crow flies) from Bakersfield.

It also has a state prison. :D
Actually it was originally announced that the section would be from Madera (north of Fresno) to Cocoran. With the additional money it was extended from Corcoran to Bakersfield.
 
I would assume that the L.A. to Bakersfield section, which will be through mountainous territory, will also be the most expensive and most difficult to construct. I'm sure the thinking is to get some flatland track laid and running, even if it's out in the middle of nowhere, to let people see how the trains operate in real-life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bakerssfield to Palmdale would be a logical second phase. Yes, it would be expensive,with all the tunnels, but it would enable a one seat ride down the Valley from the Bay Area to Los Angeles. Even if existing San Joaquin equipment, ridership should go through the roof.
 
I would assume that the L.A. to Bakersfield section, which will be through mountainous territory, will also be the most expensive and most difficult to construct. I'm sure the thinking is to get some flatland track laid and running, even if it's out in the middle of nowhere, to let people see how the trains operate in real-life.
The problem with using the initial section as a public demo for the future high speed rail line is that it would take more funding to make that possible. The initial phase presently funded does not include the catenary or the high speed trainsets. So, pending additional grants, the new track will only be useful for conventional equipment running at a 110mph maximum speed.
 
I would assume that the L.A. to Bakersfield section, which will be through mountainous territory, will also be the most expensive and most difficult to construct. I'm sure the thinking is to get some flatland track laid and running, even if it's out in the middle of nowhere, to let people see how the trains operate in real-life.
The problem with using the initial section as a public demo for the future high speed rail line is that it would take more funding to make that possible. The initial phase presently funded does not include the catenary or the high speed trainsets. So, pending additional grants, the new track will only be useful for conventional equipment running at a 110mph maximum speed.
Be that as it may, it would be a start. And 110 mph is undoubtedly faster than what is running now.
 
I would assume that the L.A. to Bakersfield section, which will be through mountainous territory, will also be the most expensive and most difficult to construct. I'm sure the thinking is to get some flatland track laid and running, even if it's out in the middle of nowhere, to let people see how the trains operate in real-life.
The problem with using the initial section as a public demo for the future high speed rail line is that it would take more funding to make that possible. The initial phase presently funded does not include the catenary or the high speed trainsets. So, pending additional grants, the new track will only be useful for conventional equipment running at a 110mph maximum speed.
Be that as it may, it would be a start. And 110 mph is undoubtedly faster than what is running now.
I agree that getting that portion running would be good, but it would simply be a faster portion of an established Amtrak route. In my mind, what would be a game-changer would be to get a usable segment of true high speed (>150mph) service up and running. That is why the Florida project, limited as it is, is so important. It's build-able, and it's can be up and running reasonably soon.

The future of passenger rail is not 79mph or even 110mph trains.
 
Back
Top