Seems the shenanigans seen on the SF Peninsula are now turning up in SoCal:

[www.dailynews.com]

As with airports, freeways, and most other transportation facilities, we want the service but don't want it 1) to cost anything; and 2) to be near us. In planning acronym terms, #2 is a NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) or BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody).

There have been studies showing that freeways limit property value appreciation, except for road- (or airport, etc.) oriented commercial, for adjacent and nearby properties up to a distance where the immediate noise and/or visual impact isn't intrusive. Then, they increase values or appreciation rate in a band extending out to a few minutes' travel away from the nearest interchange (station, etc.) because of convenient access. After that, the effect subsides into the regional background. For freeways, the decreased-appreciation band is usually around 1/4-1/2 mile from the road; the increased-appreciation band then extends about another 1/2-1 mile; then it's background. In California at least, you rarely get reduced actual property value reduction near the freeway - it just doesn't appreciate as fast as the regional average for similar properties. And there's a lot of statistical variation - hard to say it's always "significant."

For rail lines and passenger stations, the distances will be different near the stations because you're looking more at walking distance/time than driving, but probably similar to freeways out along the line. Still, living across the street from the station is relatively undesirable due to the activity in the area; a couple or 3 blocks back is better, or farther if the station has convenient parking or effective local transit.

In any case, looks like the SoCal version of the Caltrain+HSR follies is getting started in earnest. [snide] Maybe if you triple the cost you could put it all underground with Metrolink and parks on top? Hey, what's a few extra billion$ in a $70B job? [/snide]