<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rural Gilroy Doesn&#8217;t Want To Be A Dumping Ground</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/02/rural-gilroy-doesnt-want-to-be-a-dumping-ground/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/02/rural-gilroy-doesnt-want-to-be-a-dumping-ground/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=rural-gilroy-doesnt-want-to-be-a-dumping-ground</link>
	<description>California High Speed Rail support blog, spreading news and info about the high speed trains project approved by California voters in November 2008.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:54:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: adirondacker12800</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/02/rural-gilroy-doesnt-want-to-be-a-dumping-ground/comment-page-1/#comment-69278</link>
		<dc:creator>adirondacker12800</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:42:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2806#comment-69278</guid>
		<description>..but then I don&#039;t know why we are measuring to San Francisco. There isn&#039;t going to be any place put the train once it gets there, They can all get on the bus in Emeryville and get stuck in traffic on the Bay Bridge. Or transfer to to BART at Coliseum onto to standing room only trains.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>..but then I don&#8217;t know why we are measuring to San Francisco. There isn&#8217;t going to be any place put the train once it gets there, They can all get on the bus in Emeryville and get stuck in traffic on the Bay Bridge. Or transfer to to BART at Coliseum onto to standing room only trains.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: adirondacker12800</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/02/rural-gilroy-doesnt-want-to-be-a-dumping-ground/comment-page-1/#comment-69274</link>
		<dc:creator>adirondacker12800</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:36:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2806#comment-69274</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve had the gumption to do some math. The part on the northern route is relatively easy. To get from Sacramento to San Francisco in an hour means they have to achieve an average speed of 92 miles an hour. NEC like speeds. The CAHSR website says HSR will take 20 minutes to get between Sacramento and Stockton. Which mean you then have 40 minutes to get from Stockton to San Francisco - an average speed of roughly 135. Hmmm. Just slightly less than the average speed of the trip from Sacramento to Stockton on track that is going to be good for 220 MPH. Hmmm.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve had the gumption to do some math. The part on the northern route is relatively easy. To get from Sacramento to San Francisco in an hour means they have to achieve an average speed of 92 miles an hour. NEC like speeds. The CAHSR website says HSR will take 20 minutes to get between Sacramento and Stockton. Which mean you then have 40 minutes to get from Stockton to San Francisco &#8211; an average speed of roughly 135. Hmmm. Just slightly less than the average speed of the trip from Sacramento to Stockton on track that is going to be good for 220 MPH. Hmmm.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joey</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/02/rural-gilroy-doesnt-want-to-be-a-dumping-ground/comment-page-1/#comment-69253</link>
		<dc:creator>Joey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 07:54:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2806#comment-69253</guid>
		<description>Vallejo has more population than Martinez and Benicia combined.  With 100,000+, it makes sense as a stop, plus you get rid of that pesky 180 degree turn in Martinez.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Vallejo has more population than Martinez and Benicia combined.  With 100,000+, it makes sense as a stop, plus you get rid of that pesky 180 degree turn in Martinez.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jimsf</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/02/rural-gilroy-doesnt-want-to-be-a-dumping-ground/comment-page-1/#comment-69249</link>
		<dc:creator>jimsf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 07:37:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2806#comment-69249</guid>
		<description>Actually   it should perhaps eventually &lt;a href=&quot;http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Oakland,+CA&amp;gl=us&amp;ei=6RptS6iFI5H-sgOFpemxDQ&amp;ved=0CA4Q8gEwAA&amp;msa=0&amp;ll=37.775057,-121.264343&amp;spn=1.782302,3.457947&amp;t=h&amp;z=9&amp;msid=106369591048698553426.00047ee99113d106891d2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;look like this&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually   it should perhaps eventually <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Oakland,+CA&amp;gl=us&amp;ei=6RptS6iFI5H-sgOFpemxDQ&amp;ved=0CA4Q8gEwAA&amp;msa=0&amp;ll=37.775057,-121.264343&amp;spn=1.782302,3.457947&amp;t=h&amp;z=9&amp;msid=106369591048698553426.00047ee99113d106891d2" rel="nofollow">look like this</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joey</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/02/rural-gilroy-doesnt-want-to-be-a-dumping-ground/comment-page-1/#comment-69244</link>
		<dc:creator>Joey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 06:44:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2806#comment-69244</guid>
		<description>Well, the endpoints DO matter, but the intermediate portions are perhaps equally as important.

I agree with your idea about Sac-Bay Area HSR.  Though if you&#039;re realigning the route, it might do to include Vacaville (100,000+) in the mix (SF too though that&#039;d be expensive).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, the endpoints DO matter, but the intermediate portions are perhaps equally as important.</p>
<p>I agree with your idea about Sac-Bay Area HSR.  Though if you&#8217;re realigning the route, it might do to include Vacaville (100,000+) in the mix (SF too though that&#8217;d be expensive).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AndyDuncan</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/02/rural-gilroy-doesnt-want-to-be-a-dumping-ground/comment-page-1/#comment-69243</link>
		<dc:creator>AndyDuncan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 06:40:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2806#comment-69243</guid>
		<description>(the reason I highlighted Vallejo is that it&#039;s not currently served by the Capitols, but could be along a straighter, more populated route than the existing line)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(the reason I highlighted Vallejo is that it&#8217;s not currently served by the Capitols, but could be along a straighter, more populated route than the existing line)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AndyDuncan</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/02/rural-gilroy-doesnt-want-to-be-a-dumping-ground/comment-page-1/#comment-69242</link>
		<dc:creator>AndyDuncan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 06:39:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2806#comment-69242</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s not the end points that matter, it&#039;s the &lt;a href=&quot;http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;source=s_q&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=san+francisco,+ca&amp;sll=33.863364,-118.395863&amp;sspn=0.095788,0.162907&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=San+Francisco,+California&amp;ll=38.044847,-122.174149&amp;spn=0.181693,0.325813&amp;t=p&amp;z=12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bits in between&lt;/a&gt;. The route from Fairfield to Sacramento isn&#039;t the issue, it&#039;s how you get from Fairfield to Oakland. Right now, the route goes along that flat part of the bay you mention, the problem is it isn&#039;t &lt;a href=&quot;http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;source=s_q&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=san+francisco,+ca&amp;sll=33.863364,-118.395863&amp;sspn=0.095788,0.162907&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=San+Francisco,+California&amp;ll=38.046739,-122.252555&amp;spn=0.090844,0.162907&amp;z=13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;terribly straight&lt;/a&gt;, and making it straighter means tunnels, viaducts and other expensive bits.

I agree &lt;b&gt;completely&lt;/b&gt; however, that a HSR line connecting Sac, Davis, Fairfield, &lt;i&gt;Vallejo&lt;/i&gt;, Richmond, Berkeley, Oakland, Hayward, Fremont, San Jose. is far more of a priority than Sac, Stockton, Livermore, Fremont, San Jose.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not the end points that matter, it&#8217;s the <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;source=s_q&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=san+francisco,+ca&amp;sll=33.863364,-118.395863&amp;sspn=0.095788,0.162907&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=San+Francisco,+California&amp;ll=38.044847,-122.174149&amp;spn=0.181693,0.325813&amp;t=p&amp;z=12" rel="nofollow">bits in between</a>. The route from Fairfield to Sacramento isn&#8217;t the issue, it&#8217;s how you get from Fairfield to Oakland. Right now, the route goes along that flat part of the bay you mention, the problem is it isn&#8217;t <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;source=s_q&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=san+francisco,+ca&amp;sll=33.863364,-118.395863&amp;sspn=0.095788,0.162907&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=San+Francisco,+California&amp;ll=38.046739,-122.252555&amp;spn=0.090844,0.162907&amp;z=13" rel="nofollow">terribly straight</a>, and making it straighter means tunnels, viaducts and other expensive bits.</p>
<p>I agree <b>completely</b> however, that a HSR line connecting Sac, Davis, Fairfield, <i>Vallejo</i>, Richmond, Berkeley, Oakland, Hayward, Fremont, San Jose. is far more of a priority than Sac, Stockton, Livermore, Fremont, San Jose.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BruceMcF</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/02/rural-gilroy-doesnt-want-to-be-a-dumping-ground/comment-page-1/#comment-69237</link>
		<dc:creator>BruceMcF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 05:15:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2806#comment-69237</guid>
		<description>Definitely, going 47 miles out of your way and digging through some mountains will make it faster. 

Huh, imagine that, going the more direct route (92 route miles when I had roughly 70 miles line of sight ... though that is Oakland/Sacramento ... is 76% efficient, 139 miles is 50% efficient) - why, its supposed to be the magic wand when running &lt;i&gt;away&lt;/i&gt; from customers and &lt;i&gt;toward&lt;/i&gt; more tunneling under more constraints ... but its the transport equivalent of a brick wall when it comes to the Bay to Sacramento w/out tunneling.

Odd, that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Definitely, going 47 miles out of your way and digging through some mountains will make it faster. </p>
<p>Huh, imagine that, going the more direct route (92 route miles when I had roughly 70 miles line of sight &#8230; though that is Oakland/Sacramento &#8230; is 76% efficient, 139 miles is 50% efficient) &#8211; why, its supposed to be the magic wand when running <i>away</i> from customers and <i>toward</i> more tunneling under more constraints &#8230; but its the transport equivalent of a brick wall when it comes to the Bay to Sacramento w/out tunneling.</p>
<p>Odd, that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: adirondacker12800</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/02/rural-gilroy-doesnt-want-to-be-a-dumping-ground/comment-page-1/#comment-69236</link>
		<dc:creator>adirondacker12800</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 04:55:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2806#comment-69236</guid>
		<description>The route between Sacramento and San Francisco is very very flat, so flat that there are tides in Sacramento. The route between Stockton and San Francisco via Martinez is equally flat - there are tides in Stockton too. Dragging out my ancient OGR, according to the timetables San Francisco to Sacarmento is 92 miles. San Francisco to Stockton via the same route is 92 miles. San Francisco to Stockton via the Altamont route is 91 miles. Sacramento to Stockton is 48 miles. Hmm go 47 miles out of your way and dig through some mountains is going to be cheaper and give you a faster route. Hmmm.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The route between Sacramento and San Francisco is very very flat, so flat that there are tides in Sacramento. The route between Stockton and San Francisco via Martinez is equally flat &#8211; there are tides in Stockton too. Dragging out my ancient OGR, according to the timetables San Francisco to Sacarmento is 92 miles. San Francisco to Stockton via the same route is 92 miles. San Francisco to Stockton via the Altamont route is 91 miles. Sacramento to Stockton is 48 miles. Hmm go 47 miles out of your way and dig through some mountains is going to be cheaper and give you a faster route. Hmmm.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: spokker</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/02/rural-gilroy-doesnt-want-to-be-a-dumping-ground/comment-page-1/#comment-69184</link>
		<dc:creator>spokker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:17:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2806#comment-69184</guid>
		<description>So CAHSR will operate at 186 MPH through Central Valley cities. The travel time will be a little longer. Who cares? 

We get bogged down in 220 MPH or nothing when slower speeds would be a huge improvement too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So CAHSR will operate at 186 MPH through Central Valley cities. The travel time will be a little longer. Who cares? </p>
<p>We get bogged down in 220 MPH or nothing when slower speeds would be a huge improvement too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

