Mook's comments as always are right on target.

It could be that the engineering difficulty of both routes is reasonably equal. But the Grapevine has the advantage of being demonstrably more direct. Why not let the HSR boldly go where no railroad has gone before?

If our railroads were nationalized and the HSR were to take the route thru the Tehachapis the freight lines would be automatically incorporated into such a major project. By European standards the Tehachapi Loop would be considered an anachronism, even tho much beloved by fans. One question that deserves to be examined is whether the HSR route would pose problems for any eventual upgrades the freight railroads might have in mind there.

I believe if you put the question up to a vote it would go in favor of the Grapevine(of course excluding the citizens of Palmdale). I know you could say the public already did vote on it, but it is very possible that top speeds in the urban areas may be less than hoped for and counted on, making the direct route necessary if you want to live up the campaign promises. I don't know if 125 mph will sell on the Peninsula - it depends on the noise and vibration. There is no buffer zone; the towns are right on the railroad.

In the UK in order to take full advantage of the Channel Tunnel it has been necessary to construct an entirely new line from Dover to London(St. Pancras, I believe.) with much tunnel. A very expensive and difficult job - I don't think we could pull off anything of this magnitude in the Bay Area at this time. My point is that the new HSR trackage will have to be direct and making only the most important stops for the project to be an economic success.