3 ms·
The California example is extremely telling in that the only parts of the rail (a progressive project) that have been built are in the relatively conservative a
by AbrahamParangi 5y ago
The California example is extremely telling in that the only parts of the rail (a progressive project) that have been built are in the relatively conservative areas of the Central Valley.
There is a genuine disconnect between the politics of rich, liberal American cities towards building infrastructure (including housing) in theory and in practice.
- mc32 5y agoI think there is something to this sentiment. People support things that reflect positively on them, even if they are personally against it for some specific reason. This was going to share UP lines in some areas (the peninsula, for example). There is no way people in San Carlos or Menlo Park were going to uproot their homes… but they expected everyone in the valley who needed to move, to move. The metoo phenomenon had some of this too. People who engaged in some of the things the movement stood against were some of the same people caught up in the zealousness. Also see Yimbys vs NIMBYs.
- gumby 5y agoThe Central Valley was the right place to start, for several reasons. One: it's a very conservative part of the state; giving them part of the train line first might blunt criticisms of continuing the project. Two: it's important to tie this part of the state into the two large conurbations (Bay Area and LA Basin) for resilience against changes in economic mix (e.g. perhaps water shortages cause agriculture to fall or conversely Silicon Valley burns out and people there need a more diverse set of job opportunities. Currently 5 and 99 run N/S through the valley while on the other side of the hills 880/101/280 (in Bay Area; dunno about LA) run N/S through the Bay Area. Crossing from one to the other isn't super convenient.