3 ms·
Yup, that's exactly where it was. If you look at the area in satellite view, you can see where you could draw a straight line extending from Foothill through th
by Stratoscope 9y ago
Yup, that's exactly where it was. If you look at the area in satellite view, you can see where you could draw a straight line extending from Foothill through the shopping center and behind the houses on Peninsular, and from there straight to the still-existing tracks south of 280 that serve the Permanente cement plant.
I find it interesting that when they built the shopping center at Foothill and Homestead and the Springwood Apartments next door - which I assume was long after the railroad tracks were gone - they avoided building directly on top of the old right of way but kept it as a driveway through each parking lot. No idea why - contamination?
Even more fun, look up the area in Google Earth (the desktop client, not the web-based "New" Earth), turn on View/Historical Imagery, and slide the timeline all the way back to 1948 when the railway ran through there. You can also see where it ran behind Fry's in Palo Alto.
This 1948 photo covers a big chunk of the Peninsula and South Bay - it's really interesting to see how things looked back then and compare with later years. All those regular patterns of dots you see when you zoom out? Orchards!
- saagarjha 9y agoIntersting…it seems that the two lines actually used to meet up at where Foothill and Grant intersect now, north of 280. The "meeting point" was moved to the other side of 280 and the old line was cut off later.
- andrewaylett 9y agoI don't know about the US, but in the UK one reason to avoid building on old railway lines is that they might technically still be railway infrastructure. For example, the newly-rebuilt Borders Railway, south from Edinburgh, was only able to be built because in a limited sense, it had never stopped being a railway so many of the required permissions were already in place.