 |
Re: CA HSR Update-Planning History and Plan B.....?
Author: synonymouse
Date: 08-21-2018 - 17:21
PB's opposition to Tejon was partly posited on the latter's allegedly being more seismically importuned, shall we say, than Tejon Pass. This was based on the Ft. Tejon temblor of 1857(estimated 7.9)whilst PB conveniently ignored the Kern Co. White Wolf quake of 1952, which was the 2nd largest in California in the 20th century. PB also chose to downplay that the San Andreas goes right thru Palmdale.
The argument against Tejon fretted about the dreaded Convergence Zone of the San Andreas and the Garlock. Interestingly the Ranch chose to site the Tejon Mountain Village right atop the Convergence Zone.
In actuality any tunneling in the LA region is going to have to cope with seismic activity. IIRC Clem's tentative alignment thru Tejon had both the San Andreas and the Garlock crossed at grade, tho maybe not all the alternatives.
And I do think multi-use tunnels would heighten security concerns. More to disrupt.
The argument against Tejon fretted about the dreaded Convergence Zone of the San Andreas and the Garlock. Interestingly the Ranch chose to site the Tejon Mountain Village right atop the Convergence Zone.
In actuality any tunneling in the LA region is going to have to cope with seismic activity. IIRC Clem's tentative alignment thru Tejon had both the San Andreas and the Garlock crossed at grade, tho maybe not all the alternatives.
And I do think multi-use tunnels would heighten security concerns. More to disrupt.
