 |
Re: So the only CAHSR base tunnel would be under Pacheco Pass
Author: Edward Cromwelle
Date: 02-19-2021 - 15:13
It is the San Gabriel Mountain Range, not "San Gabriels" as you wrote.
Funny you should name check BOOB2, when you add an "S" , FUD!
Now back to your point: The missing details to punch a hole through Tehachapi was the only reason I voted NO on CAHSR in 2008.
FUD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A tunnel through the San Gabriels, like BOB2 has
> advocated for in the past, would effectively be a
> base tunnel even though the altitudes at each end
> would be significantly different. That's because
> the land at each end is at the base of the
> mountains, so it's impossible to go deeper.
> Palmdale is at about 2500' elevation; Sylmar and
> other spots along the western base of the
> mountains in the San Fernando Valley area at
> 1000-1500' elevation.
>
> A Tejon tunnel would not be a base tunnel, because
> the line would surface at the top of the mountains
> in order to cross the San Andreas Fault. It would
> be, at minimum, two tunnels: one from the San
> Joaquin Valley floor to near Gorman, and another
> from the south side of the fault down to Santa
> Clarita.
>
> The last study I saw for HSR between Palmdale and
> the San Fernando Valley still had several
> alternatives, including one with multiple tunnels
> and lots of earthwork that more or less followed
> the current Metrolink line. IIRC, at least one
> alternative involved a long tunnel through the San
> Gabriels.
Funny you should name check BOOB2, when you add an "S" , FUD!
Now back to your point: The missing details to punch a hole through Tehachapi was the only reason I voted NO on CAHSR in 2008.
FUD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A tunnel through the San Gabriels, like BOB2 has
> advocated for in the past, would effectively be a
> base tunnel even though the altitudes at each end
> would be significantly different. That's because
> the land at each end is at the base of the
> mountains, so it's impossible to go deeper.
> Palmdale is at about 2500' elevation; Sylmar and
> other spots along the western base of the
> mountains in the San Fernando Valley area at
> 1000-1500' elevation.
>
> A Tejon tunnel would not be a base tunnel, because
> the line would surface at the top of the mountains
> in order to cross the San Andreas Fault. It would
> be, at minimum, two tunnels: one from the San
> Joaquin Valley floor to near Gorman, and another
> from the south side of the fault down to Santa
> Clarita.
>
> The last study I saw for HSR between Palmdale and
> the San Fernando Valley still had several
> alternatives, including one with multiple tunnels
> and lots of earthwork that more or less followed
> the current Metrolink line. IIRC, at least one
> alternative involved a long tunnel through the San
> Gabriels.
| Subject | Written By | Date/Time (PST) |
|---|---|---|
 What is a "base tunnel"? Definition here.
|
I searched it | 02-19-2021 - 11:13 |
|
So the only CAHSR base tunnel would be under Pacheco Pass
|
Pay attention, Mouse | 02-19-2021 - 12:56 |
|
Re: So the only CAHSR base tunnel would be under Pacheco Pass
|
FUD | 02-19-2021 - 13:32 |
|
Re: So the only CAHSR base tunnel would be under Pacheco Pass
|
my understanding | 02-19-2021 - 14:21 |
|
Re: So the only CAHSR base tunnel would be under Pacheco Pass |
Edward Cromwelle | 02-19-2021 - 15:13 |
|
Re: So the only CAHSR base tunnel would be under Pacheco Pass
|
synonymouse | 02-19-2021 - 15:42 |
|
Tale of the Bearded Clem
|
LOLOL | 02-19-2021 - 17:35 |