3 ms·
This news comes as a joy to me. Also I am unable to see the point of train from Merced to Bakersfield for such an enormous cost. Is it meant for cows ? All thi
by KorematsuFred 8y ago
This news comes as a joy to me. Also I am unable to see the point of train from Merced to Bakersfield for such an enormous cost. Is it meant for cows ?
All this money can actually go building better roads and other transportation systems into bay area so rent prices can be reduced.
- melling 8y agoMore roads? Make them wider? That’s what they said in the 1970’s when they tried to build HSR in California the first time. If they’d built it then you’d be leaving SF at 180 mph today and we’d be 20-25 years away from replacing it with a 300 mph maglev.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- KorematsuFred 8y agoCalifornia has not really built any new major roads in last 25 years though the population has nearly doubled and almost quadrupled in bay area.
- pizzetta 8y agoWith 77 Billion they could have: -Built better transit to North Bay. -Built/Complete Bart circuit around the Bay Area. -Built HSR to reach exurbs of Gilroy (S), Tracy (E), and Napa (N). That would have given breathability to the bay area.
- wutbrodo 8y agoThe barriers to these things isn't funding, it's that certain stakeholders don't want them. The North Bay in particular (taken as a collective entity) is huge on convincing themselves that they're entitled to the benefits of cooperative society but don't have any responsibilities to one in turn.
- taobility 8y agoYou are too optimistic. Seattle's ST3 would cost 54 Billion to build 62 miles light rail. And I think such project in Bay Area would be more expensive. So, just pick one
- KorematsuFred 8y agoMy pet project (not that I have any influence to make it a reality) is to completely fill up the bay starting from Alviso with concrete and creating housing there. No NIMBY can stop it, we can also flatten the mountains near fremont and use it to fill up the bay.