3 ms·
SF to San Jose is already well served by Caltrain, they already have limited service trains that do the trip in about an hour (electrification will likely shav
by Johnny555 8y ago
SF to San Jose is already well served by Caltrain, they already have limited service trains that do the trip in about an hour (electrification will likely shave a few minutes off that time) -- due the need to run at reduced speed along the Peninsula, even HSR would take around 47 minutes for the same trip.
San Francisco -> Gilroy -> Merced -> Sacramento is not a substitute for a SF -> Sacramento route.
They don't need to bring the train across the Bay, it could stop in Oakland or Emeryville with a connection to BART.
- brudgers 8y agoI don't disagree. All those "last thirty mile" possibilities are why the Bakersfield to Merced route makes sense. It's the trunk line. Similar options involving metropolitan rail networks exist at LA. And we could have the same discussion about options at that end too. Bakersfield to Merced is the part everyone agrees on (more or less) and is about in the ballpark of the available funds. Sacramento, SF Bay, LA, and San Diego are all big enough to solve the last thirty miles themselves politically and financially. The Central Valley is the area where it won't happen without state money and where the politics are more ideological than local. The Central Valley is also the part of California where major transportation infrastructure can be justified under "Uniform level of service" approaches (the area is 'underserved'). It's where high speed rail is a plausible alternative to a new Interstate and a new Interstate is likely. Since I5 bypasses all the Central Valley cities.