 |
Re: Electrifying News for Altamont
Author: les
Date: 09-02-2019 - 12:29
I imagine LA-SF will be a push, both routes being in the 3-4 hr range.
Clem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2:10 cannot be done other than via Pacheco, which
> is precisely why it was written into law.
>
> What most people don’t get, and the HSR people
> actively don’t want known, is that Altamont HSR
> makes for a really fast Bay Area - Sacramento
> connection, even faster than a new Transbay Tube.
> A train originating at SF Transbay going via
> Dumbarton can enter the Central Valley at Tracy in
> just 0:35, and from there Sacramento is but a
> quick flat sprint. The market for SJ - Sac travel
> is more significant than SJ - LA (by simple 1/r^2
> gravity) and Altamont would be ideally suited for
> it; SJ would benefit way more than from a Pacheco
> LA link.
>
> Speed requirements matter, except when they don’t
> matter. Whatever happened to the legally mandated
> 0:30 SF to SJ?
Clem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2:10 cannot be done other than via Pacheco, which
> is precisely why it was written into law.
>
> What most people don’t get, and the HSR people
> actively don’t want known, is that Altamont HSR
> makes for a really fast Bay Area - Sacramento
> connection, even faster than a new Transbay Tube.
> A train originating at SF Transbay going via
> Dumbarton can enter the Central Valley at Tracy in
> just 0:35, and from there Sacramento is but a
> quick flat sprint. The market for SJ - Sac travel
> is more significant than SJ - LA (by simple 1/r^2
> gravity) and Altamont would be ideally suited for
> it; SJ would benefit way more than from a Pacheco
> LA link.
>
> Speed requirements matter, except when they don’t
> matter. Whatever happened to the legally mandated
> 0:30 SF to SJ?
