Gary Hunter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with Carol on this one. It reflects the
> position I have been advocating since the
> inception of HSR. My comments have been that it
> is necessary to build parallel, even adjacent
> tracks for a lower speed (90-125 mph)system to
> provide either forward or reverse connectivty to
> all of the cities that will want HSR to stop in
> their little town. Carol's point is obvious. By
> the time all of the cities wanting to be a stop
> are serviced, you no longer have a high-speed
> system. Parallel tracks would allow the HSR
> portion to limit stops to maybe 4 or 5 and still
> allow the regional communties to have access.

This HSR is purportedly to be HSR from LA to SF. If you ride the Chunnel from Paris to London, that is exactly where you start and end, no stops anywhere in between. Why do we have every politician from every burg between LA and SF insisting that they be served? Something seriously does not compute here, other than pork for their constituency and some of them who own the land over or through which the rails would go. Arias from Tracy comes quickly to mind.
C.