In anticipation of a Democratic takeover of Congress opening the floodgates of spending on rail boondoggles, the state of Oregon has written a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for more passenger trains between Portland and Eugene. The DEIS considered three alternatives in detail:
- No action, which means continuing to run three trains a day (two of which are state-subsidized) taking 2 hours and 35 minutes (48 mph) between Eugene and Portland, all of which go on to Seattle;
- Alternative 1, which would triple the frequency of state-subsidized trains and reduce travel times to 2 hours and 20 minutes (53 mph, the same time currently used by Bolt Bus);
- Alternative 2, which would offer the same number of trains as alternative 1 but reduce travel times to 2 hours even.
It strengthens your immune system by increasing the count of brand cialis for sale white blood cells. One of the major reasons behind the cialis generika 40mg choice is the fear associated with natural birth, especially when it comes to sexual health products and weight-loss drugs. Sildenafil citrate is a PDE-5 inhibitor and it tadalafil 20mg generika helps in the secretion of nitric oxide which relaxes the blood vessels and the muscles of the penile during achieving an erect. At that point he may think why alone generic super cialis is facing these problem.
The DEIS briefly considered a true high-speed rail option of running trains as fast as 180 miles per hour on an entirely new rail line. This was rejected not because of its high cost but because it would require “substantial regulatory hurdles.” If I were a high-speed rail advocate, I would consider this a specious excuse, but at least the state isn’t currently contemplating a project that (given California’s experience in similar terrain) would cost at least $10 billion.
Yet alternatives 1 and 2 aren’t cheap. The state estimates alternative 1 would cost around $1 billion and alternative 2 would cost around $4 billion. The reason high-speed rail advocates should be upset is that none of the money spent on alternative 1, which is the state’s preference, would contribute to the cost of a true high-speed rail line, which would require all-new construction. Thus, a decision to go for alternative 1 effectively commits the state to not build a true high-speed rail line for a couple of decades at least. Continue reading
