OT: Made in Usa, Owned by China.

[bearishgurl]

So, yes, light rail will diminish property values in the immediate area of its tracks/stops.

It is what it is.

The “future” affected homeowners in Santa Clara County aren’t dumb.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]So, yes, light rail will diminish property values in the immediate area of its tracks/stops.

It is what it is.

The “future” affected homeowners in Santa Clara County aren’t dumb.[/quote]
I think AK is talking about high speed rail, not light rail. In order into go high speed, there need to be minimal friction. Friction is one of the biggest cause of sound. With high speed rail, they don’t need as many stops as right rail. They just need 1 per city, kind of like every city have an airport. They can potentially have it near the airport too for easy transfer from train to airplane.

Homeowners in Santa Clara County aren’t dumb, because they know that if you can live in Fresno and use the high speed rail and get to work in 20-30 min, they will attract quite a few people to move there. That’s what AK is getting at.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]So, yes, light rail will diminish property values in the immediate area of its tracks/stops.

It is what it is.

The “future” affected homeowners in Santa Clara County aren’t dumb.[/quote]
I think AK is talking about high speed rail, not light rail. In order into go high speed, there need to be minimal friction. Friction is one of the biggest cause of sound. With high speed rail, they don’t need as many stops as right rail. They just need 1 per city, kind of like every city have an airport. They can potentially have it near the airport too for easy transfer from train to airplane.

Homeowners in Santa Clara County aren’t dumb, because they know that if you can live in Fresno and use the high speed rail and get to work in 20-30 min, they will attract quite a few people to move there. That’s what AK is getting at.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]So, yes, light rail will diminish property values in the immediate area of its tracks/stops.

It is what it is.

The “future” affected homeowners in Santa Clara County aren’t dumb.[/quote]
I think AK is talking about high speed rail, not light rail. In order into go high speed, there need to be minimal friction. Friction is one of the biggest cause of sound. With high speed rail, they don’t need as many stops as right rail. They just need 1 per city, kind of like every city have an airport. They can potentially have it near the airport too for easy transfer from train to airplane.

Homeowners in Santa Clara County aren’t dumb, because they know that if you can live in Fresno and use the high speed rail and get to work in 20-30 min, they will attract quite a few people to move there. That’s what AK is getting at.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]So, yes, light rail will diminish property values in the immediate area of its tracks/stops.

It is what it is.

The “future” affected homeowners in Santa Clara County aren’t dumb.[/quote]
I think AK is talking about high speed rail, not light rail. In order into go high speed, there need to be minimal friction. Friction is one of the biggest cause of sound. With high speed rail, they don’t need as many stops as right rail. They just need 1 per city, kind of like every city have an airport. They can potentially have it near the airport too for easy transfer from train to airplane.

Homeowners in Santa Clara County aren’t dumb, because they know that if you can live in Fresno and use the high speed rail and get to work in 20-30 min, they will attract quite a few people to move there. That’s what AK is getting at.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]So, yes, light rail will diminish property values in the immediate area of its tracks/stops.

It is what it is.

The “future” affected homeowners in Santa Clara County aren’t dumb.[/quote]
I think AK is talking about high speed rail, not light rail. In order into go high speed, there need to be minimal friction. Friction is one of the biggest cause of sound. With high speed rail, they don’t need as many stops as right rail. They just need 1 per city, kind of like every city have an airport. They can potentially have it near the airport too for easy transfer from train to airplane.

Homeowners in Santa Clara County aren’t dumb, because they know that if you can live in Fresno and use the high speed rail and get to work in 20-30 min, they will attract quite a few people to move there. That’s what AK is getting at.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]I think AK is talking about high speed rail, not light rail. In order into go high speed, there need to be minimal friction. Friction is one of the biggest cause of sound. With high speed rail, they don’t need as many stops as right rail. They just need 1 per city, kind of like every city have an airport. They can potentially have it near the airport too for easy transfer from train to airplane.

Homeowners in Santa Clara County aren’t dumb, because they know that if you can live in Fresno and use the high speed rail and get to work in 20-30 min, they will attract quite a few people to move there. That’s what AK is getting at.[/quote]

Yes, thanks for pointing that out, AN. I know the difference between light rail and high speed rail. I agree that if CALTRANS should somehow create some (tax-free) bond offerings to raise capital for a project like this, it would be used much more if it were situated inland. I believe the best path for this would be starting at Santa Fe Depot in SD straight up thru the 5 thru dtn LA (perhaps even using the truck tunnel thru the mtns of Ventura Co). Not sure how to navigate the rest of the Angeles range and San Gabriels, but it should split off at the Grapevine towards Bakersfield and then follow the west side of SR-99, making stops at all the underserved cities and towns along SR-99 to Sacramento. A second (possibly later) fork could cut off at Stockton following along the SR-120/I-205 corridor thru Tracy and Livermore and then following (or veering slightly north of) the I-580 to Oakland to connect with one of four nearby BART stations.

High speed rail is not needed north of SAC as the population is too sparse in those counties to support it.

Though years in the making, a light rail thru this route might have the dual effect of reviving CA’s future “ghost towns” (badly distressed sprawl due to overbuilding and a lengthy recession).

Many residents in the cities and towns on US 101 are typically more well off and have more travel options (such as private planes and luxury vehicles) at their disposal. Besides the expense and the difficulty of acquiring viable locations for the right of way and tracks along US 101, I don’t think a high speed rail would be as effective or as used thru there as it would in the underserved communities running through the San Joaquin Valley serving CA’s agribusiness, Sacramento (and its delta) and the East SF Bay area.

CA’s high-speed rail service would need to be competitively priced to compete with the lowest SWA airfares in communities that Southwest Airlines (SWA) serves (SAN, BUR, SAC, and OAK).

For instance, my kids are flying here for the X-mas holidays from SFO for $74.90 (incl tax) per person RT on SWA, booked on Halloween. That’s about the price point for RT’s to/from those four cities.

The “implementation” would be both ambitious and problematic, but I think a high speed rail thru CA’s midsection is an awesome idea! It might just be the catalyst that could return CA back to its “Golden State” status! 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]I think AK is talking about high speed rail, not light rail. In order into go high speed, there need to be minimal friction. Friction is one of the biggest cause of sound. With high speed rail, they don’t need as many stops as right rail. They just need 1 per city, kind of like every city have an airport. They can potentially have it near the airport too for easy transfer from train to airplane.

Homeowners in Santa Clara County aren’t dumb, because they know that if you can live in Fresno and use the high speed rail and get to work in 20-30 min, they will attract quite a few people to move there. That’s what AK is getting at.[/quote]

Yes, thanks for pointing that out, AN. I know the difference between light rail and high speed rail. I agree that if CALTRANS should somehow create some (tax-free) bond offerings to raise capital for a project like this, it would be used much more if it were situated inland. I believe the best path for this would be starting at Santa Fe Depot in SD straight up thru the 5 thru dtn LA (perhaps even using the truck tunnel thru the mtns of Ventura Co). Not sure how to navigate the rest of the Angeles range and San Gabriels, but it should split off at the Grapevine towards Bakersfield and then follow the west side of SR-99, making stops at all the underserved cities and towns along SR-99 to Sacramento. A second (possibly later) fork could cut off at Stockton following along the SR-120/I-205 corridor thru Tracy and Livermore and then following (or veering slightly north of) the I-580 to Oakland to connect with one of four nearby BART stations.

High speed rail is not needed north of SAC as the population is too sparse in those counties to support it.

Though years in the making, a light rail thru this route might have the dual effect of reviving CA’s future “ghost towns” (badly distressed sprawl due to overbuilding and a lengthy recession).

Many residents in the cities and towns on US 101 are typically more well off and have more travel options (such as private planes and luxury vehicles) at their disposal. Besides the expense and the difficulty of acquiring viable locations for the right of way and tracks along US 101, I don’t think a high speed rail would be as effective or as used thru there as it would in the underserved communities running through the San Joaquin Valley serving CA’s agribusiness, Sacramento (and its delta) and the East SF Bay area.

CA’s high-speed rail service would need to be competitively priced to compete with the lowest SWA airfares in communities that Southwest Airlines (SWA) serves (SAN, BUR, SAC, and OAK).

For instance, my kids are flying here for the X-mas holidays from SFO for $74.90 (incl tax) per person RT on SWA, booked on Halloween. That’s about the price point for RT’s to/from those four cities.

The “implementation” would be both ambitious and problematic, but I think a high speed rail thru CA’s midsection is an awesome idea! It might just be the catalyst that could return CA back to its “Golden State” status! 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]I think AK is talking about high speed rail, not light rail. In order into go high speed, there need to be minimal friction. Friction is one of the biggest cause of sound. With high speed rail, they don’t need as many stops as right rail. They just need 1 per city, kind of like every city have an airport. They can potentially have it near the airport too for easy transfer from train to airplane.

Homeowners in Santa Clara County aren’t dumb, because they know that if you can live in Fresno and use the high speed rail and get to work in 20-30 min, they will attract quite a few people to move there. That’s what AK is getting at.[/quote]

Yes, thanks for pointing that out, AN. I know the difference between light rail and high speed rail. I agree that if CALTRANS should somehow create some (tax-free) bond offerings to raise capital for a project like this, it would be used much more if it were situated inland. I believe the best path for this would be starting at Santa Fe Depot in SD straight up thru the 5 thru dtn LA (perhaps even using the truck tunnel thru the mtns of Ventura Co). Not sure how to navigate the rest of the Angeles range and San Gabriels, but it should split off at the Grapevine towards Bakersfield and then follow the west side of SR-99, making stops at all the underserved cities and towns along SR-99 to Sacramento. A second (possibly later) fork could cut off at Stockton following along the SR-120/I-205 corridor thru Tracy and Livermore and then following (or veering slightly north of) the I-580 to Oakland to connect with one of four nearby BART stations.

High speed rail is not needed north of SAC as the population is too sparse in those counties to support it.

Though years in the making, a light rail thru this route might have the dual effect of reviving CA’s future “ghost towns” (badly distressed sprawl due to overbuilding and a lengthy recession).

Many residents in the cities and towns on US 101 are typically more well off and have more travel options (such as private planes and luxury vehicles) at their disposal. Besides the expense and the difficulty of acquiring viable locations for the right of way and tracks along US 101, I don’t think a high speed rail would be as effective or as used thru there as it would in the underserved communities running through the San Joaquin Valley serving CA’s agribusiness, Sacramento (and its delta) and the East SF Bay area.

CA’s high-speed rail service would need to be competitively priced to compete with the lowest SWA airfares in communities that Southwest Airlines (SWA) serves (SAN, BUR, SAC, and OAK).

For instance, my kids are flying here for the X-mas holidays from SFO for $74.90 (incl tax) per person RT on SWA, booked on Halloween. That’s about the price point for RT’s to/from those four cities.

The “implementation” would be both ambitious and problematic, but I think a high speed rail thru CA’s midsection is an awesome idea! It might just be the catalyst that could return CA back to its “Golden State” status! 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]I think AK is talking about high speed rail, not light rail. In order into go high speed, there need to be minimal friction. Friction is one of the biggest cause of sound. With high speed rail, they don’t need as many stops as right rail. They just need 1 per city, kind of like every city have an airport. They can potentially have it near the airport too for easy transfer from train to airplane.

Homeowners in Santa Clara County aren’t dumb, because they know that if you can live in Fresno and use the high speed rail and get to work in 20-30 min, they will attract quite a few people to move there. That’s what AK is getting at.[/quote]

Yes, thanks for pointing that out, AN. I know the difference between light rail and high speed rail. I agree that if CALTRANS should somehow create some (tax-free) bond offerings to raise capital for a project like this, it would be used much more if it were situated inland. I believe the best path for this would be starting at Santa Fe Depot in SD straight up thru the 5 thru dtn LA (perhaps even using the truck tunnel thru the mtns of Ventura Co). Not sure how to navigate the rest of the Angeles range and San Gabriels, but it should split off at the Grapevine towards Bakersfield and then follow the west side of SR-99, making stops at all the underserved cities and towns along SR-99 to Sacramento. A second (possibly later) fork could cut off at Stockton following along the SR-120/I-205 corridor thru Tracy and Livermore and then following (or veering slightly north of) the I-580 to Oakland to connect with one of four nearby BART stations.

High speed rail is not needed north of SAC as the population is too sparse in those counties to support it.

Though years in the making, a light rail thru this route might have the dual effect of reviving CA’s future “ghost towns” (badly distressed sprawl due to overbuilding and a lengthy recession).

Many residents in the cities and towns on US 101 are typically more well off and have more travel options (such as private planes and luxury vehicles) at their disposal. Besides the expense and the difficulty of acquiring viable locations for the right of way and tracks along US 101, I don’t think a high speed rail would be as effective or as used thru there as it would in the underserved communities running through the San Joaquin Valley serving CA’s agribusiness, Sacramento (and its delta) and the East SF Bay area.

CA’s high-speed rail service would need to be competitively priced to compete with the lowest SWA airfares in communities that Southwest Airlines (SWA) serves (SAN, BUR, SAC, and OAK).

For instance, my kids are flying here for the X-mas holidays from SFO for $74.90 (incl tax) per person RT on SWA, booked on Halloween. That’s about the price point for RT’s to/from those four cities.

The “implementation” would be both ambitious and problematic, but I think a high speed rail thru CA’s midsection is an awesome idea! It might just be the catalyst that could return CA back to its “Golden State” status! 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]I think AK is talking about high speed rail, not light rail. In order into go high speed, there need to be minimal friction. Friction is one of the biggest cause of sound. With high speed rail, they don’t need as many stops as right rail. They just need 1 per city, kind of like every city have an airport. They can potentially have it near the airport too for easy transfer from train to airplane.

Homeowners in Santa Clara County aren’t dumb, because they know that if you can live in Fresno and use the high speed rail and get to work in 20-30 min, they will attract quite a few people to move there. That’s what AK is getting at.[/quote]

Yes, thanks for pointing that out, AN. I know the difference between light rail and high speed rail. I agree that if CALTRANS should somehow create some (tax-free) bond offerings to raise capital for a project like this, it would be used much more if it were situated inland. I believe the best path for this would be starting at Santa Fe Depot in SD straight up thru the 5 thru dtn LA (perhaps even using the truck tunnel thru the mtns of Ventura Co). Not sure how to navigate the rest of the Angeles range and San Gabriels, but it should split off at the Grapevine towards Bakersfield and then follow the west side of SR-99, making stops at all the underserved cities and towns along SR-99 to Sacramento. A second (possibly later) fork could cut off at Stockton following along the SR-120/I-205 corridor thru Tracy and Livermore and then following (or veering slightly north of) the I-580 to Oakland to connect with one of four nearby BART stations.

High speed rail is not needed north of SAC as the population is too sparse in those counties to support it.

Though years in the making, a light rail thru this route might have the dual effect of reviving CA’s future “ghost towns” (badly distressed sprawl due to overbuilding and a lengthy recession).

Many residents in the cities and towns on US 101 are typically more well off and have more travel options (such as private planes and luxury vehicles) at their disposal. Besides the expense and the difficulty of acquiring viable locations for the right of way and tracks along US 101, I don’t think a high speed rail would be as effective or as used thru there as it would in the underserved communities running through the San Joaquin Valley serving CA’s agribusiness, Sacramento (and its delta) and the East SF Bay area.

CA’s high-speed rail service would need to be competitively priced to compete with the lowest SWA airfares in communities that Southwest Airlines (SWA) serves (SAN, BUR, SAC, and OAK).

For instance, my kids are flying here for the X-mas holidays from SFO for $74.90 (incl tax) per person RT on SWA, booked on Halloween. That’s about the price point for RT’s to/from those four cities.

The “implementation” would be both ambitious and problematic, but I think a high speed rail thru CA’s midsection is an awesome idea! It might just be the catalyst that could return CA back to its “Golden State” status! 🙂

[an]

BG, go here to see the proposal: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/home.aspx

[an]

BG, go here to see the proposal: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/home.aspx

[an]

BG, go here to see the proposal: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/home.aspx

[an]

BG, go here to see the proposal: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/home.aspx

[Author]

Posts