"with a 125 mph, or LA-LV-140 range"

Actually, assuming this line ever gets off the ground, the latest for LA-LV are 200mph capable electrics.

But yes, 250 is a bit excessive, but not crazy when considering maglev and 600 mph hyperloop is thrown into the discussion. I think all passenger rail studies throw out unrealistic high ends to begin with especially when talk of maglev and hyperloop systems are running rampant.

"Les was working for the CAHSRA?"

Thanks for the chuckle.


BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> EU812 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > LES Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > > 3) Washington is as "Green" as state as it
> > comes
> > > when compared to European standards. No way
> on
> > > earth are they going to build more highways,
> >
> >
> > Most European countries continue to build
> roadways
> > and tollways. Off the top of my head I can
> think
> > of major projects in Norway, France, Spain,
> > Portugal, Italy, Germany and of course the
> > countries that used to be behind the iron
> curtain.
> > The EU is funding improvements on a dozen
> major
> > corridors. Highway, rail, waterways.
> >
> > The reality of Europe is very different from
> how
> > it is portrayed by the agenda driven US media
> and
> > politicians.
>
> Yep, both you and FUD get it. Especially the
> "ultra" conclusion first, needs second part. As
> such an analysis might discover that maybe "ultra"
> is not the most cost effective solutions, and as
> was pointed out, which may fail fail to actually
> find an optimal "market need" in the corridor.
> And, that a "needs" (aka travel market based)
> planning approach would indeed, also examine which
> kind of "HSR" option would also be likely to take
> a very large share of the many more highway trips,
> and serve more directly the whole Seattle-Tacoma
> "metro region" to the greater Portland-upper
> Willamette "metro-region" "rail servable" travel
> market share.
>
> If one were using proper "needs" based planning,
> it might indicate that such a corridor could be
> better serve more "travel demands", more cost
> effectively (aka potentially profitably), with a
> 125 mph, or LA-LV-140 range, or a more common EU
> 160 range HSR alternative even, rather than
> "ultra" "end-point" to "end point" "only" service,
> without regard to looking at "corridor"
> competitive travel times, which serve more of the
> identified travel needs and real travel demands in
> that corridor, integrated fully into existing
> services, like the EU nations have done.
>
> But, what I was really wondering once again, if
> our CAHSRA "uber alles" poster Les was working for
> the CAHSRA? I saw that the CAHSRA was caught on
> another social media platform discussion, with a
> consultant, who was possibly using Federal funds
> to "debate" what were clearly "policy" criticism's
> of the CAHSRA fiasco, in a way which the Federal
> auditors might consider an illegal use of Federal
> taxpayer funds to "lobby" the public on the
> project's behalf, and suddenly they pulled his
> posts.