[lbo-talk] California rail project

[Max Sawicky]

HSR will be an expensive ticket.  Transport of ag labor would not finance
the costs.  It is really a substitute for flying over its ideal range (200
to 500 miles).  It's primarily a benefit to business travelers and
middle-to-upper class tourists.  I happen to think the overall impact would
be positive, but I would not look to it as a benefit for the working class.

 There would be some temporary benefits -- employment, maybe a more lasting
boost to U.S. manufacturing depending on sourcing practices.

On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 2:34 PM, martin schiller <mschiller at pobox.com>wrote:


>
> On Nov 26, 2011, at 10:28 PM, Jordan Hayes wrote:
>
> > Exactly.  There's a faction that says: it *has* to go to downtown San
> Francisco.  m But in order to do that, they will have to face off against
> Atherton and Palo Alto.  Which will never happen.  But: there are already
> trains that go to downtown San Francisco, so the trick here will be to just
> run to San Jose, Livermore, and Richmond, and let the existing trains carry
> the load to the downtown area[*].  Fix up CalTrain, fortify BART ... forget
> the idea of sending the new train all the way to the core.
> >
> > Once this project gets going, all kinds of compromises will be made to
> complete it.
>
> A high speed rail line would make much more sense if it were designed to
> move migratory labor from our southern border to agricultural centers on
> the west coast. This could include stops in Livermore (to tie into BART)
> and Sacramento for business travelers. It seems to me that this would
> provide much better arguments for system value (control of immigration,
> dependable delivery of labor) than other  perceived benefits.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>