2 ms·

I'm laughing at your NIMBYism, but some big city along the northern California or southern Oregon coast would make the corridor from Vancouver to San Francisco

I'm laughing at your NIMBYism, but some big city along the northern California or southern Oregon coast would make the corridor from Vancouver to San Francisco more contiguous, which could help to justify a high-speed rail line.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> I'm laughing at your NIMBYism San Francisco ain't my backyard, by a long shot. > some big city along the northern California or southern Oregon coast would make the corridor from Vancouver to San Francisco more contiguous, which could help to justify a high-speed rail line. AFAIK, the geography of the Northen California to Southern Oregon coast isn't real conducive either to a high-speed rail line or a big city. (If you want a Manhattan of the West Coast, it probably would make more sense to try to build it in the LA area, where an extra couple million people packed in a tight area would still obviously require radical new local infrastructure where it came together, but wouldn't be as significant of a relative increase in demand on regional infrastructure.)
- __derek__ 10y ago
  Just protective of San Francisco, then? Given that the probability of a new big city on the West Coast is effectively zero, I felt comfortable ignoring real limitations of that plan. In reality, of course, water, seismicity, and erosion put a damper on any attractive hypothetical options.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Just protective of San Francisco, then? It just doesn't make sense to transform a city to something its residents don't want because someone else has an aesthetic preference for it to exist somewhere.
    - swampthinker 10y ago
      And I'm sure many complained when the buildings and prices of Manhattan kept climbing. The transplants to a city sooner or later become its natives, with their own desires and aesthetic preferences.
    - saosebastiao 10y ago
      Yes it does. It's current residents transformed it into what it is now from what it was before they arrived...why wouldn't we expect that to continue happening? Just cause some of them don't want it to happen?

dragonwriter 10y ago

> I'm laughing at your NIMBYism San Francisco ain't my backyard, by a long shot. > some big city along the northern California or southern Oregon coast would make the corridor from Vancouver to San Francisco more contiguous, which could help to justify a high-speed rail line. AFAIK, the geography of the Northen California to Southern Oregon coast isn't real conducive either to a high-speed rail line or a big city. (If you want a Manhattan of the West Coast, it probably would make more sense to try to build it in the LA area, where an extra couple million people packed in a tight area would still obviously require radical new local infrastructure where it came together, but wouldn't be as significant of a relative increase in demand on regional infrastructure.)

__derek__ 10y ago
Just protective of San Francisco, then? Given that the probability of a new big city on the West Coast is effectively zero, I felt comfortable ignoring real limitations of that plan. In reality, of course, water, seismicity, and erosion put a damper on any attractive hypothetical options.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Just protective of San Francisco, then? It just doesn't make sense to transform a city to something its residents don't want because someone else has an aesthetic preference for it to exist somewhere.
  - swampthinker 10y ago
    And I'm sure many complained when the buildings and prices of Manhattan kept climbing. The transplants to a city sooner or later become its natives, with their own desires and aesthetic preferences.
  - saosebastiao 10y ago
    Yes it does. It's current residents transformed it into what it is now from what it was before they arrived...why wouldn't we expect that to continue happening? Just cause some of them don't want it to happen?