 |
Re: California High-Speed Rail: Some Views From the Valley
Author: mook
Date: 08-02-2014 - 18:54
It's all for the developers ... probably true; most transportation systems are. They don't call it CITY Planning for nothing.
However, if HSR does what it is supposed to do and limits stops (for the locals) to 100 or so miles apart, the development impact might be to encourage more compact growth in the vicinity of the stations rather than spread all over the landscape as it is now. At least that's what some of the planner types hope, though it would probably take 50 years and a large increase in gas prices (well beyond general inflation) to notice a difference.
I agree though: the SJV in particular (Sacramento Valley too, but somewhat less attractive) should not be developed as a major urban area. As I said: LA Basin writ large, with less airflow out of the area. That's what I really worry about with HSR: Fresno now is outside the commute zone for LA and SF due to time (3-4 hours driving or 3-5 hours train & bus/BART) so its growth is locally-generated. Add HSR with 2 hour runs to the central Bay Area or LA, and Fresno becomes commute central (see the recent article in the Chron about what $1m buys you in the way of houses, and the mansion (not -ette) N of Bullard that it gets you in Fresno?). Very much not good from pollution, human health effect, and effect on agriculture viewpoints.
So how can it be avoided? First thought: price the tickets like an airline would, with "local" runs between the Valley and either end considerably higher per mile than the through tickets (unless packaged with a longer run, like transfer to an airline at SFO). No commuter discounts. Probably would still be good prices from a time efficiency standpoint, but perhaps would discourage some of the more egregious commute behaviors. Another possibility: none of the through trains stop in Fresno (or Bakersfield) - only the locals, which take an extra hour or so to get to either end, making the net time competitive with driving but not much better.
Frankly, this kind of thing should have been more extensively evaluated in the EIRs. "Growth Inducing Impacts" is a standard item for both CEQA and NEPA.
However, if HSR does what it is supposed to do and limits stops (for the locals) to 100 or so miles apart, the development impact might be to encourage more compact growth in the vicinity of the stations rather than spread all over the landscape as it is now. At least that's what some of the planner types hope, though it would probably take 50 years and a large increase in gas prices (well beyond general inflation) to notice a difference.
I agree though: the SJV in particular (Sacramento Valley too, but somewhat less attractive) should not be developed as a major urban area. As I said: LA Basin writ large, with less airflow out of the area. That's what I really worry about with HSR: Fresno now is outside the commute zone for LA and SF due to time (3-4 hours driving or 3-5 hours train & bus/BART) so its growth is locally-generated. Add HSR with 2 hour runs to the central Bay Area or LA, and Fresno becomes commute central (see the recent article in the Chron about what $1m buys you in the way of houses, and the mansion (not -ette) N of Bullard that it gets you in Fresno?). Very much not good from pollution, human health effect, and effect on agriculture viewpoints.
So how can it be avoided? First thought: price the tickets like an airline would, with "local" runs between the Valley and either end considerably higher per mile than the through tickets (unless packaged with a longer run, like transfer to an airline at SFO). No commuter discounts. Probably would still be good prices from a time efficiency standpoint, but perhaps would discourage some of the more egregious commute behaviors. Another possibility: none of the through trains stop in Fresno (or Bakersfield) - only the locals, which take an extra hour or so to get to either end, making the net time competitive with driving but not much better.
Frankly, this kind of thing should have been more extensively evaluated in the EIRs. "Growth Inducing Impacts" is a standard item for both CEQA and NEPA.
