# California HSR Farmer NIMBYs



## leemell (Dec 28, 2010)

In the LA Times there was this article on the objections beginning to rise from the farmers in the Central Valley between Bakersfield and Concord, the route of the first link.


----------



## DET63 (Dec 30, 2010)

leemell said:


> In the LA Times there was this article on the objections beginning to rise from the farmers in the Central Valley between Bakersfield and Concord, the route of the first link.


The route (at least the first link) won't go through Concord. The article mentions Hanford. Hanford is about 85-90 highway miles (probably 70-75 miles as the crow flies) from Bakersfield.

If a line is built connecting San Francisco and Sacramento, it might go through Concord (which is in the East Bay), though I personally doubt it.


----------



## leemell (Dec 30, 2010)

DET63 said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > In the LA Times there was this article on the objections beginning to rise from the farmers in the Central Valley between Bakersfield and Concord, the route of the first link.
> ...


My mistake, it should be Corcoran.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 30, 2010)

We are talking a strip of land about 100 feet wide, whcih is the normal right of way of a two lane highway. Plus, much of it will be adjacent to BNSF or some other form of right of way that already divides the land parcels.

I particularly have trouble with these particular whiners since their agricultural kingdom would not exist if not for the HUGE money spent on irrigation systems by both the Federal and State governments. This outporuing of what is effectively a subsidy for farmers in this area alone is a real sore point with many farmers in other parts of the country. If their objection is the spending of the money, it is either ignorance or hypocricy or both.

Oh yeah, how much of their field labor is illiegal immigrants?


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Dec 31, 2010)

Often when France has had to create new right of ways for the TGV they have hit major opposition from farmers. I recall the line to Marseilles was delayed for a number of years due to this. I can tell you from firsthand experience, it was worth the battle. I hope there is the political will in this country to prevail.


----------



## DET63 (Jan 1, 2011)

> My mistake, it should be Corcoran.


Corcoran is about 66 road miles (probably 55-60 as the crow flies) from Bakersfield.

It also has a state prison.


----------



## George Harris (Jan 1, 2011)

There has been and will continue to be quite a few people that object to the concept and the building of this or any other high speed rail system anywhere. The only thing that changes is the set of arguements they use. If this fails, they will pull out some other arguement. Who knows? Maybe they will find that it goes through the last known habitat of some microbe no one ever heard of before. Anything to stop it. Consider this as just another in a long list of excuses. Once heard the definition of excuse as, The skin of a reason stuffed with a lie." That is all this is. Just enough truth to give it some credibility. If any of this guy's land is actually taken, he will be crying all the way to the bank.


----------



## leemell (Jan 2, 2011)

DET63 said:


> > My mistake, it should be Corcoran.
> 
> 
> Corcoran is about 66 road miles (probably 55-60 as the crow flies) from Bakersfield.
> ...


Actually it was originally announced that the section would be from Madera (north of Fresno) to Cocoran. With the additional money it was extended from Corcoran to Bakersfield.


----------



## gswager (Jan 3, 2011)

It would be better to connect the track between Bakersfield and LA first. That wouldn't be called a track to nowhere!


----------



## DET63 (Jan 3, 2011)

I would assume that the L.A. to Bakersfield section, which will be through mountainous territory, will also be the most expensive and most difficult to construct. I'm sure the thinking is to get some flatland track laid and running, even if it's out in the middle of nowhere, to let people see how the trains operate in real-life.


----------



## George Harris (Jan 3, 2011)

Bakerssfield to Palmdale would be a logical second phase. Yes, it would be expensive,with all the tunnels, but it would enable a one seat ride down the Valley from the Bay Area to Los Angeles. Even if existing San Joaquin equipment, ridership should go through the roof.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jan 4, 2011)

DET63 said:


> I would assume that the L.A. to Bakersfield section, which will be through mountainous territory, will also be the most expensive and most difficult to construct. I'm sure the thinking is to get some flatland track laid and running, even if it's out in the middle of nowhere, to let people see how the trains operate in real-life.


The problem with using the initial section as a public demo for the future high speed rail line is that it would take more funding to make that possible. The initial phase presently funded does not include the catenary or the high speed trainsets. So, pending additional grants, the new track will only be useful for conventional equipment running at a 110mph maximum speed.


----------



## DET63 (Jan 4, 2011)

PRR 60 said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > I would assume that the L.A. to Bakersfield section, which will be through mountainous territory, will also be the most expensive and most difficult to construct. I'm sure the thinking is to get some flatland track laid and running, even if it's out in the middle of nowhere, to let people see how the trains operate in real-life.
> ...


Be that as it may, it would be a start. And 110 mph is undoubtedly faster than what is running now.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jan 4, 2011)

DET63 said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > DET63 said:
> ...


I agree that getting that portion running would be good, but it would simply be a faster portion of an established Amtrak route. In my mind, what would be a game-changer would be to get a usable segment of true high speed (>150mph) service up and running. That is why the Florida project, limited as it is, is so important. It's build-able, and it's can be up and running reasonably soon.

The future of passenger rail is not 79mph or even 110mph trains.


----------



## jis (Jan 5, 2011)

Just to make the demo a little bit more impressive, they could shell out a little more money and get 10 or so 125mph capable diesels, which is quite feasible


----------



## George Harris (Feb 10, 2011)

jis said:


> Just to make the demo a little bit more impressive, they could shell out a little more money and get 10 or so 125mph capable diesels, which is quite feasible


Regear some of the ones they have and play with the suspensions. No new engines really necessary except as needed to meet demands for more or longer trains


----------

