 |
more punta colonet stuff
Author: unk diego
Date: 09-02-2008 - 18:18
folks,
More comments (I know I should have put them in the same post -- posting foul on me)
To OldPoleBurner:
Yes, you are 100% right. There is no reason to ridicule the Humbolt (NWP) proposal while accepting the Punta Colonet proposal. In fact, the NWP idea objectively makes more sense at least three ways. 1) A ship from Asia must travel right by Humbolt to get to Punta Colonet, the ship portion of the journey is longer to PC (looking at a 2D map can be confusing, the shortest route from Asia is to head north to near Alaska, then south along the North American Pacific coast, the "great circle" route). 2) The rail portion of the trip would be longer from PC to the east coast rail gateways in Chicago, Kansas City, and St. Louis. 3) Twice as many governments are involved in the PC proposal, meaning guaranteed twice as much waste and corruption.
As I mentioned above, the PC proposal is obviously about taking jobs from ILWU longshoremen, and not really about anything else.
To BOB2:
I noticed that the on the Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization website a document submitted by UP in 2007/2 before they lost interest in the project. Here is the link www.ympo.org. This document includes a map of UP's proposed routes. This map shows a line heading east from PC, then turning north towards Mexicali (avoiding Ensenada). From here there are three options. Option one continues north across the US border just west of Mexicali, and connects with the UP Calexico branch south of El Centro. The second option goes directly to Yuma (avoiding Mexicali). The third option diverges from the second where it crosses the Ferromex (FXE) line to Mexicali, then directly and immediately parallels the FXE lines southeast to Benjamin Hill, then north to Nogales (which seems strange, especially since UP owns a quarter of FXE).
Seeing as you obviously have some insight into both railroad building and the geography of this area, any comments on this map?
That's all, thank you for reading!
More comments (I know I should have put them in the same post -- posting foul on me)
To OldPoleBurner:
Yes, you are 100% right. There is no reason to ridicule the Humbolt (NWP) proposal while accepting the Punta Colonet proposal. In fact, the NWP idea objectively makes more sense at least three ways. 1) A ship from Asia must travel right by Humbolt to get to Punta Colonet, the ship portion of the journey is longer to PC (looking at a 2D map can be confusing, the shortest route from Asia is to head north to near Alaska, then south along the North American Pacific coast, the "great circle" route). 2) The rail portion of the trip would be longer from PC to the east coast rail gateways in Chicago, Kansas City, and St. Louis. 3) Twice as many governments are involved in the PC proposal, meaning guaranteed twice as much waste and corruption.
As I mentioned above, the PC proposal is obviously about taking jobs from ILWU longshoremen, and not really about anything else.
To BOB2:
I noticed that the on the Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization website a document submitted by UP in 2007/2 before they lost interest in the project. Here is the link www.ympo.org. This document includes a map of UP's proposed routes. This map shows a line heading east from PC, then turning north towards Mexicali (avoiding Ensenada). From here there are three options. Option one continues north across the US border just west of Mexicali, and connects with the UP Calexico branch south of El Centro. The second option goes directly to Yuma (avoiding Mexicali). The third option diverges from the second where it crosses the Ferromex (FXE) line to Mexicali, then directly and immediately parallels the FXE lines southeast to Benjamin Hill, then north to Nogales (which seems strange, especially since UP owns a quarter of FXE).
Seeing as you obviously have some insight into both railroad building and the geography of this area, any comments on this map?
That's all, thank you for reading!
