Wojtek
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jordan: "I'm sure that could get worked out. But the real issue is
> very few of the projected passengers would be going to an area that's
> close to downtown San Francisco, anyway."
>
> [WS:] I used to work as an aide for a country supervisor in San Jose,
> and from what I heard back then - anything involving any kind rail
> passing through San Mateo county was DOA due to visceral resident
> opposition over "property values." Maybe that changed, but I doubt.
> A more realistic scenario involved rail alignment on the eastern side
> of the Bay, connecting San Jose and Oakland. I would imagine this
> would work with high speed rail as well, especially if it was extended
> to Sacramento.
>
> On a different note - it is sad when lefties start talking about
> 'economic viability' which is a code word for profit potential of a
> project. We live in an era of unprecedented productivity. Our
> economy can produce virtually all good things that can be produce, yet
> we talk as we lived under a condition of utmost scarcity. I
> understand that this is a result of neoliberal brainwashing, but we do
> not have to fall for this hogwash. Why not talkin about project from
> the point of view of what is good for the humanity and environment?
> From that pov, high speed rail is far more beneficial than short
> distance flying, so it does deserve deployment of resources. And who
> gives a flying fuck if someone cannot make a profit our of it?
>
> Wojtek
>
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
>> michael perelman writes:
>>
>>> The idea of using existing connections could work, but it
>>> would make more sense if BART or Caltrans could ensure connections
>>> with short wait time.
>>
>> I'm sure that could get worked out. But the real issue is very few of the
>> projected passengers would be going to an area that's close to downtown San
>> Francisco, anyway. San Francisco is not Paris[1]: the vast majority of
>> people in the Bay Area live in the location called "not San Francisco" -- so
>> if you arrive in downtown San Francisco, chances are very good you have to
>> connect to some other transit anyway. Why not transfer early, to an
>> integrated grid, at the periphery?
>>
>> We're not talking about going to Hoboken because you can't afford to build
>> the final 2 miles of track to penn Station; Livermore is 40+ miles from San
>> Francisco; San Jose is 50 miles. Go 50 miles from Paris and you're way
>> outside Ile-de-France, in the sticks.
>>
>> /jordan
>>
>> [1] The Department of Paris (75) is about 40 square miles and contains 2.1M
>> people; the City of San Francisco is about 50 square miles and contains less
>> than 800,000 people. Paris and the "inner ring" is about 300 square miles
>> and contains 6.5M people; the Bay Area is commonly referenced as ~7000
>> square miles with a total of slightly more than 7M people. Paris is one of
>> the most densely populated cities in the world: it is the largest-densest
>> city outside of India (which has four cities that are larger and more dense:
>> Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, and Mumbai). San Francisco is nothing like it. San
>> Francisco isn't even the largest city in the Bay Area: San Jose is.
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>