FUD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They'll keep talking about it, and spending a few
> tens of millions every couple of years for
> repairs, until the billions appear to do the
> tunnels. That's because nothing but an inland
> tunnel makes sense.
>
> Spending a couple hundred million to make an ugly
> trench on the cliffs is a real headscratcher of an
> idea. The ocean already owns that property. And
> it'll own more within the life of the railroad
> (you have to think decades if not centuries ahead
> with railroad projects) unless it moves well
> inland and higher in elevation.
>
> The most recent plans (thanks for the link Bob!)
> seem to be focusing on the tunnels. Good. Same
> thing needs to be done in San Clemente - general
> plans exist in the LOSSAN studies done nearly 20
> years ago to move it adjacent to I-5, partly in
> tunnel. That needs to be done too, before sea
> level rise gets critical along the beach-side
> tracks.

I actually have a set of blueprint level schematics for the American High Speed rail proposal that Nat Read gave me, in my old files... And, the proposal they had would have cut across the I-5, go in a long tunnel in a diagonal line from the end of the toll road and I-5, across a long bridge over the Canyon that comes out at trestle's, and a short jog then down to where the current line goes under I-5 in Camp Pendleton.

The route American High Speed had proposed (back in 1980....????) would be on a direct line ob the hypotnuse, of what is now two legs of 15 mile mostly 25 mph. average speed "right triangle" through San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente, saving significant mileage (11 miles versus 15), as well as allowing for high speed operations.