🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:25:28 -0800, Steve Fenwick
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <mmullen8014-2B4949.17462808112008@netnews.mchsi.com>,
> Merritt Mullen <mmullen8014@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <nospam-FC2FF2.16370508112008@mara100-84.onlink.net>,
>>  Steve Fenwick <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> > There's no way that they will be allowed to seize without payment new 
>> > ROW from San Francisco to San Jose. The land is just too valuable; there 
>> > would be a huge hue and cry
>> 
>> Eminent domain does not mean "seize without payment."  In fact, that 
>> would be illegal.  The land will be paid for.
>> 
>> How come there never seems to be these problems when we are talking 
>> about a new freeway or toll road, which is also grade separated, and 
>> much wider than a HSR right or way?
>> 
>> Merritt
>
>I understand. The point is that buying that ROW would be crazy 
>expensive. There is no indication in the published plans that that is in 
>the works, at least not in the SFBA.
>
>Where HSR is planned in the SFBA, especially between SFO and Santa 
>Clara, is along a route which has a mix of grade-separated and 
>non-separated ROW, in close proximity to existing construction. I didn't 
>noticed, for example, the need to procure new ROW that had existing 
>construction for things like the new 85-101 interchange in Mountain 
>View. I think the planners who planned in at least some of the major 
>highways did a better job future-proofing the ROW than did Caltrain, who 
>used mostly existing SP ROW.

If I recall the story there used to be enough right of way for 4 track
but Caltrain gave it to the municipalities.  The failure to do
coordinated grade crossing removal with the goal of being crossing
free boggles my mind.
>
>Steve