Is California's High-Speed Train Derailed for Good?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

After encountering criticism from environmental groups, Gov. Jerry Brown signaled Wednesday that he plans to withdraw his controversial proposal to protect the California bullet train project from injunctions sought by environmental lawsuits.

Brown's staff told key environmental groups that he would no longer include modifications to the California Environmental Quality Act in a package of legislation this month asking for $6 billion to start construction of the high-speed rail project.

--clip--

Brown's attempt to quiet the controversy over the environmental issues is coming just ahead of the critical decision by the Legislature on the $6 billion appropriation to start construction as early as this December. The matter will be decided in a bill that is expected to be brought up early next week.

The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council raised objections to Brown's proposal, saying it was part of a pattern to water down one of the most important pieces of environmental law in history. Critics of the bullet train, meanwhile, said it appeared that Brown wanted to protect his pet project, while leaving other businesses in the state to bear the full brunt of the law.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-enviro-20120621,0,5470593.story

I really wanted to know if this would work.

[kestrel91316]

1. Our economy is dead in the water and has been for over 5 years.

No one except the wealthy can afford to travel from LA to SF or vice versa on more than rare occasion. We can fly for pretty cheap still because few have money for air travel.

We missed our chance. I don't think this train will happen in my lifetime. And I SOOOO wanted to see it.

[Throd]

2. I certainly hope so.

[FarCenter]

3. The end sections into Los Angeles and San Francisco never were going to be built

They would never find an alignment of the new roadbeds that would satisfy the communities.

[Retrograde]

4. There's a compromise proposal on the north end

High speed to San Jose, then use the existing CalTrain line into San Francisco. There's already a right-of-way, local transportation that feeds into it, and it would be considerably cheaper than the grandiose scheme originally proposed, with the saving available to electrify the tracks and improve the grade crossings.

[FarCenter]

5. Were the high-speed line extended, it would probably be better to go up the East Bay to Sacramento

[Retrograde]

6. East Bay has a lot of the same problems as the Peninsula

What isn't built up and densely populated is mountains. Plus, if you go through the populated areas you're following the Hayward Fault. Now, going up the Central Valley a la Interstate 5 to Sacramento, then following the existing Capital Corridor tracks into the Bay Area would be a reasonable alternative (IIRC, it was actually proposed, but the lege decided to go for the other logical place to cross the hills, south of San Jose.)