Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Jose
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-28-2014, 11:42 PM
 
555 posts, read 714,481 times
Reputation: 438

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post
I created a thread in the statewide forum for those who want to continue talking about CA HSR without the weird unrelated side issues.

//www.city-data.com/forum/calif...l#post36671388
I have a bad feeling it will sink into political mudslinging, but when I get some spare time I will offer a few cents of discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-29-2014, 01:55 PM
 
Location: San Jose, CA
1,318 posts, read 3,553,030 times
Reputation: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBR View Post
As long as it doesn't affect my property value I could care less about it. I won't complain.
If they need to widen the ROW to 100' they may take some properties on the west side of the tracks. You can find the the width of the ROW on these pages:

http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/upl...TCCM-200-B.pdf
http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/upl...TCCM-200-B.pdf

In most parts it is around 85' so they may want another 15, but likely do with just 85', but where it is 60' it seems like they will want to widen it. The rough edges are all on the west side, so they will likely want to widen it there to smooth it out. So probably means your property will be taken using eminent domain. Mostly parking lots behind the Chili's and the offices before the Caltrain, and the empty properties just to the north, like the old dealerships. Also maybe the farm, and Stone Pine Ln reduced by up to 20'. Who knows exactly.

The idea of taking out the Palo Alto, or part of the Stanford Park Hotel are complete BS since it is over 100' there, but other areas are thinner, so who knows, they (the state) might take your property remove part of the side yard, and sell it off at auction at the loss due to no side yard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2014, 11:28 AM
 
366 posts, read 452,096 times
Reputation: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardinal2007 View Post
If they need to widen the ROW to 100' they may take some properties on the west side of the tracks. You can find the the width of the ROW on these pages:

http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/upl...TCCM-200-B.pdf
http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/upl...TCCM-200-B.pdf

In most parts it is around 85' so they may want another 15, but likely do with just 85', but where it is 60' it seems like they will want to widen it. The rough edges are all on the west side, so they will likely want to widen it there to smooth it out. So probably means your property will be taken using eminent domain. Mostly parking lots behind the Chili's and the offices before the Caltrain, and the empty properties just to the north, like the old dealerships. Also maybe the farm, and Stone Pine Ln reduced by up to 20'. Who knows exactly.

The idea of taking out the Palo Alto, or part of the Stanford Park Hotel are complete BS since it is over 100' there, but other areas are thinner, so who knows, they (the state) might take your property remove part of the side yard, and sell it off at auction at the loss due to no side yard.
Why not take the East side? Except for a brief run through Atherton generally the poorly people live East.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2014, 12:25 PM
 
Location: San Jose, CA
1,318 posts, read 3,553,030 times
Reputation: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBR View Post
Why not take the East side? Except for a brief run through Atherton generally the poorly people live East.
The most obvious reason is to line up with the ROW in Palo Alto. Then it has to do with it being flat on the east side, but jagged on the west side. Lastly it is mostly parking lots and parts of streets on the west side, vs residences on the east side. So as much as you think poor people may live just east of Caltrain in Menlo Park, it is kind of useless to take land on that side, and the cost will be higher. They are not going to take a bunch of land to the east side along the entire length on all cities, when they can just take few parcels on the west side in some cities. In Palo Alto it would require making Alma St. thinner BTW.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2014, 01:50 PM
 
366 posts, read 452,096 times
Reputation: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardinal2007 View Post
The most obvious reason is to line up with the ROW in Palo Alto. Then it has to do with it being flat on the east side, but jagged on the west side. Lastly it is mostly parking lots and parts of streets on the west side, vs residences on the east side. So as much as you think poor people may live just east of Caltrain in Menlo Park, it is kind of useless to take land on that side, and the cost will be higher. They are not going to take a bunch of land to the east side along the entire length on all cities, when they can just take few parcels on the west side in some cities. In Palo Alto it would require making Alma St. thinner BTW.
I guess it's cheaper to buy the 1.5 million places like mine than to flatten the land? ok.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2014, 02:06 PM
 
Location: San Jose, CA
1,318 posts, read 3,553,030 times
Reputation: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBR View Post
I guess it's cheaper to buy the 1.5 million places like mine than to flatten the land? ok.
I mean the border of the ROW on the west side is jagged, they will want a straight line, so they will acquire land to do so. on the east side it is already a straight line, so they would have to acquire ALL the lots on that side to widen the ROW, and it will still be an inconsistent width. Palo Alto ROW is already wide enough and I'm sure the state will balk at paying Palo Alto land prices to widen it to the east. There really is no reason to widen it to the east in Menlo Park when it is way cheaper to widen it to the west, and there is no need to widen in in Palo Alto that way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2014, 02:54 PM
 
366 posts, read 452,096 times
Reputation: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardinal2007 View Post
I mean the border of the ROW on the west side is jagged, they will want a straight line, so they will acquire land to do so. on the east side it is already a straight line, so they would have to acquire ALL the lots on that side to widen the ROW, and it will still be an inconsistent width. Palo Alto ROW is already wide enough and I'm sure the state will balk at paying Palo Alto land prices to widen it to the east. There really is no reason to widen it to the east in Menlo Park when it is way cheaper to widen it to the west, and there is no need to widen in in Palo Alto that way.
I could care less how many low income former middle class neighborhoods or yuppie shopping centers they ruin as long as I'm unaffected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2014, 03:58 PM
 
27 posts, read 74,708 times
Reputation: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBR View Post
I could care less how many low income former middle class neighborhoods or yuppie shopping centers they ruin as long as I'm unaffected.
You're kind of a jerk. This is going to happen at some point or another so you better learn to deal with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2014, 04:20 PM
 
1,696 posts, read 2,858,743 times
Reputation: 1110
Personally I think the rail has too many stations. There should be only 6 stations: SF, SJ, Sacramento, Fresno, LA, and SD.

The less stations the faster we go.

I don't know why we need a Gilroy station, so ridiculous. If people want to go to LA from Gilroy via HSR, they just drive to the SJ station.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2014, 09:49 PM
 
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,066,081 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby_guz_man View Post
Personally I think the rail has too many stations. There should be only 6 stations: SF, SJ, Sacramento, Fresno, LA, and SD.
I agree! Far too many stations. Well, it does need an Oakland stop because that is a major deep water port. Long Beach for the same reason. But it doesn't need 5 stops between San Diego and Los Angeles like it does now, and there should not be any stops between SF and SJ.

Really SF doesn't need a stop because of Caltrain, but like I said, politically they have to put one there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Jose

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:16 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top