Why is Palo Alto aganist CAHSR?

[GlobalistPotato]

So if people say Cali doesn't have money to build CAHSR... so much for being in "the richest state of the richest country and the world."
But wait... that was a statement from before 2008... :/

But IMO, when it comes to priorities, the biggest one for SF-LA travel would be to upgrade capacity over the Tejon or Cajon passes, that way Amtrak can run the San Joaquins directly from Sac/The Bay to LA instead of passengers transferring to a bus at Bakersfield.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Actually if you separate the Northeastern Megapolis form the rest of the US , our GDP is 3x the size of Cali.

[GlobalistPotato]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

Actually if you separate the Northeastern Megapolis form the rest of the US , our GDP is 3x the size of Cali.

But that's a megapolis, not a state... XD

Correction: It's the Tehachapi Pass and the Cajon Pass, not the Tejon Pass. Currrently the Tehachapi Pass is single-tracked and is above capacity; double or even triple tracking will be nessicary to expand the capacity to the point in which Amtrak can run trains through it without delays.

[sjnative]

Originally Posted by GlobalistPotato

Do you have holdings in the oil industry or something? Because you act like we have so much to lose if CAHSR is completed.

You're equating automobile usage with fossil fuels.

Originally Posted by GlobalistPotato

TBH, the transportation, infrastructure and population densities in the Bay Area and SoCal are almost as dense as the Northeast.

You can try to convince of me of this, if you like, though taking one look at the skyline of NYC or any other other big NE city and then looking at the skyline of both the Silicon Valley and LA instantly calls this claim into question.

Originally Posted by GlobalistPotato

You claim that the development in the Bay Area is auto-oriented, but the same can be said for most of the developement outside of the downtowns of Northeastern Cities. Think of Route 128 outside Boston and the Capitol Beltway around the capitol. Although we usually think of Northeastern cities as transit-oriented, I hear people in the Boston Fourm and other Northeastern cities say how car-dependent they are. But does that make the NEC useless? No.

You're still trying to analogize the NE to the SFBA.

Originally Posted by GlobalistPotato

If you act like that everything has to be built for the automobile today and in the future because everything has been built for the automobile in the past, then you've really hit a logical fallacy, or a term called "The Psychology of Previous Investment". CIVITAS

You neglect to realized that most of the developed area in the SFBA is only about half a century hold. The very recent past is the present here, and now you want the SFBA to quickly become more like the NE in its means of transit when the latter's density is so different from the former's.

Originally Posted by GlobalistPotato

If urban planners were able to revolutionize American cities to make them auto-oriented, then they sure as hell can reverse that process.

Pure vagary and nonsense. Urban planners planned the CA cities as automobile cities. They didn't revolutionize anything.

I would like to see you argue how they can "reverse that process" with specific reference to the sprawling infrastructure of the suburban area between south San Jose and San Francisco.

Originally Posted by GlobalistPotato

Also, I did a "casual analysis" of Caltrain's route between SJ and SF. I found that most of the route could be quad-tracked and either elevated or depressed, except for a short portion north of Palo Alto where the ROW is probably less than 40 ft wide, and either a tunnel or elevated structure will be required to widen the railroad to 4 tracks without going into people's backyards. Go figure...

If it were in my back yard, I would partly concede to an underground tunnel as that would minimize the impact of the surrounding area.

If it was a raised track, it would both make noise and be an eyesore to those who live along it.

This all ignores the issue of what you do when you get off the train in most cities along the tracks and you don't have a car to take you that 2-3+ miles to your destination in the suburban sprawl.

Originally Posted by Radical347

I'm not going to have too much sympathy for people who perpetuate an overpriced housing market.

"Overpriced" is a matter of opinion. Let me guess, only houses are the Heartland are "reasonably" priced.

Originally Posted by Radical347

So because most of the SFBA was built after the automobile era, we shouldn't try to make it more transit-friendly?

You can argue that point. Or just reverse the burden of proof by embedding that claim in a question. It's easier to do it that way.

If you really want to use the term "transit", though, you may realize that automobiles are indeed "transit" and, unlike a rail line, can take you directly to your destination rather than somewhere miles from it.