March CHSRA Board Meeting Open Thread
It’s that time again – first Thursday of the month. And that means the California High Speed Rail Authority is holding its monthly board meeting. You can find the agenda packet here and the live webcast here.
Some of the main topics of discussion at today’s meeting:
• Appointment of interim executive director and update on permanent executive director search
• Proposed MOU for LOSSAN corridor
• Update on Vision California planning project
• New Program EIR for the San José-Merced segment, in order to comply with the judge’s order in the Atherton v. CHSRA case.
And updates from various subcommittees.
Feel free to use this as an open thread for discussing what comes up at the meeting. And I’ll have a post later today on the LAO report on the proposed CHSRA budget.
UPDATE: The CHSRA posted a very informative memo on the questions being raised about the ridership model. It includes a long explanation from Cambridge Systematics about the model and some of the questions raised about that model. It would seem to finally put to bed the controversy that erupted in January. Of course, it’s unlikely to get Alan Lowenthal to stop saying the ridership numbers “don’t pass the smell test,” despite his lack of any explanation or evidence for the claim. I still expect the legislature to order some form of revision or update to the ridership projections.
UPDATE 2: The Vision California report includes this rather interesting and important item: If smart growth principles are applied, California HSR could result in $24,000 less in housing costs per household, and 11,500 less VMT per household. This reinforces other studies that have shown that proximity to transit and walkable neighborhoods is a major financial boost to families.
It appeared to me that they are not issuing a full new EIR, but simply materials to supplement the original EIR that are responsive to the issues held to be inadequately discussed by Judge Kenny.
I opened the PA Post today, to find the main story is about HSR. “Train threatens 227 homes”. That’s along the entire SF-SJ Peninsula, and frankly seems like a *relatively* small number, considering how many homes and businesses are near the tracks. I guess CAHSR released maps to the Post? Anyone else pick up a copy and have thoughts?
Peter Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 9:50 am
Yeah, sounds like they’re reaching pretty desperately for anything that could make HSR sound bad.
Clem Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
The Post obtained the same Caltrain ROW maps as have been available online, just a Google search away, for more than a year. They are selling this as the scoop of the century. Threatening a mere 227 homes is a major retraction from their recent and repeated claims that thousands of homes would be destroyed by HSR. The actual number will be much closer to zero.
Also, the figure 227 includes properties that would lose only a few feet of back yard. In the Post’s world, this means the entire property is condemned.
On the plus side, at least they have a clue now.
The maps sought by the city of Palo Alto are another thing entirely: HNTB has been preparing detailed horizontal track alignments for the major alternatives (SSFF and FFSS).
Joey Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Not that I like either alternative but why are they even considering putting the HSR tracks on the east side, with at least 90% of the freight spurs east of the tracks?
Spokker Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
KA-CHING.
Haha, that’s a fun way to post. No wonder he does it.
Peter Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Because it has been suggested, and they therefore have to study it?
Joey Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
There are plenty of other alternatives that they have eliminated long before they got to this point of study.
Peter Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
True, but you have to start somewhere.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Because they have to consdier some range of alternatives, and SFFS and FSSF have real merit compared to (I assume that left is west and right is east) FFSS.
So comparing those other two alternatives would involve having to look at the various benefits of each and placing priorities on the different benefits of each.
By contrast, comparing FFSS to SSFF is much easier, because they function in identical ways so its a matter of toting up how many problem areas there are for each and the one with the fewest problem areas will win.
The outcome of one of these exercises is often clear from looking at which alternatives were counted and which were not. I’ve been looking closely at the ongoing fight by property developers in Newcastle, Australia, to get their hands on a couple of acres of rail corridor overlooking the Hunter River foreshore, and the repeated efforts to close the rail service into the CBD to free up that land.
You look at someone who’s done a study of alternatives, and they included a train-tram option that was already ruled out, they include the most expensive possible upgrade to the rail corridor, they omit all the most cost effective upgrades to the corridor and they never consider a tram-train … its clear that they are trying to close the rail line.
In the situation here, it looks like they are setting up their alternatives to provide the strongest case for FFSS.
Clem Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
The stated reason is that most of the Caltrain station buildings, and most of the Caltrain ridership, are on the west side–including historic depots at Burlingame, Millbrae, San Carlos, Menlo Park (oldest depot in California!) and Palo Alto.
That is the stated reason; as far as how much value it holds, you can be the judge. In my opinion this is a weak rationale since reaching an island platform one track further east (SSFF vs. FSSF) takes a whopping extra 30 feet of walking per day per commuter, or in Caltrain units, one-third of a gallery car length. The advantages of FSSF, on the other hand, seem to far outweigh this…
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 6:58 am
I never followed up on the SFFS or FSSF or SFSF or FSFS scenario’s… my apoligies. But, the tradeoffs you consider examine crossovers pockets, etc?
Why I ask…. much special trackwork is necessary to enable safe operations for reverse running, made necessary by emergency conditions, unplanned urgent conditions…. or simply preventive maintenance. PM is very common. Probably 5+ days a week. Tunnels =’s a lot more PM. These operations will need to consider access to platforms…. center platforms do not present this problem.
That written… off hand I cannot imagine the track configuration as being practical or feasible. reverse operations is too frequent. Unless, of course, mixed traffic between HSR and Caltrain is assumed… then platform height and length are the considerations.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
“off hand I cannot imagine the track configuration as being practical or feasible”
Which track configuration are you finding not practical or feasible? FFSS, SSFF, and FSSF are all similar in terms of reverse operations, though of course FSSF is the more flexible of the three … the one where reverse operations are extremely difficult are SFFS, since the slow traffic is so far apart.
Platform height and length are an issue for shared platforms (!), but not for mixed traffic … if a train is running past a platform it does not stop at, the height and length of the platform does not seem to be a major issue.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 9:39 am
Meh. It’s hard to turn the local with SFFS. It’s hard to turn the express with FSSF.
Joey Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Expresses are less likely to be turned than locals, in general.
AndyDuncan Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Well, there will be plenty of room at Diridon to do either…
jimsf Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 12:51 am
well if you use ssff and you keep the ss on the freight spur side you also keep the no compliant ff farther away from the compliant.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
That’d be ffss, wouldn’t it? If the freight is worried about liability, its likely that the main traffic on the FF tracks will be in their night curfew when the freight is running … its the SS that will mix the freight.
And of course, if the freight is using the freight spurs when the HSR is shut down, midnight-6am … what would be the obstacle to having the freight spur cross the eastern Express line? That’s a classical time-slice.
Indeed, with FSSF, if there is a network maintaining service operating alongside the freight, it would be at a low enough frequency to run on the western Local track for platform access, using the western Express track for any crossing movements that might be required. There should be regular opportunities for freight crossing movements using the western Local track.
Obviously if there is a tight fit where it has been reduced to FSF to squeeze in, then the Local track is freight bidirectional for that stretch while any Caltrain passenger trains can run on the west and east Express tracks.
Clem Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Have this man hired!
Joey Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
They should hire you.
Sounds like a local paper reporting on local issues. Big NIMBY conspiracy!
Sadly, even if they wanted, they report on any local benefit from the CHSRA scheme for a Flight Level Zero airline operating along the SF peninsula while screwing Caltrain service forever. So regrettably we’re just going to have to put up with reading about and enduring large local downsides with absolutely no upsides for a long time. Tragic, and completely avoidable.
Awww These whining newspapers remind me of Germany. It is the same thing there and I guess everywhere when the government proposes a high speed rail. But in the end nobody wants to live without a high speed rail line in his/her county. We can be glad that California it taking action now.
Reading the material it seems like the sole result, as predicted, of the Atherton lawsuit was the Authority getting extra time to bullet-proof the Program EIR.
Peter Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
From pages 7 & 8 of the Designation of a Preferred Network Alternative for Connecting the Bay Area to the Central Valley pdf
“The FRA has consulted with USEPA and USACE regarding their concurrence for compliance
with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Federal Railroad Administration 2008a). Although no permit is being requested at this time under the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have concurred that the identified preferred network alternative is most likely to yield the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative” (LEDPA) consistent with the USACE’s permit program (33 CFR Part 320–331) and USEPA’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230–233) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2008).”
Take that, Altamont foamers!
I’m not seeing an updated noise and vibration discussion. Has anyone found one? Wasn’t that one of the issues that they had to redo?
Peter Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Ahhh,
“This Revised Draft Program EIR Material does not include changes to the vibration analysis in the 2008 Final Program EIR. The court ruling did not find fault with the vibration analysis in the
program EIR but rather identified a contradiction between the analysis in the program EIR and
the conclusion in the July 2008 CEQA Findings. The Authority will correct this contradiction when
it adopts a new set of CEQA findings in conjunction with a new EIR certification and new project
approval.”
Tonight in Merced at the Farigrounds the Merced Community had over 600 people attend a High Speed Rail dinner. The event speakers were Chariman Pringle, Fomer Speaker Karen Bass, Assemblywoman Galgiani and Senator Jeff Denham. It was a very informative dinner with a great turnout. One of the rumor’s of the evening was that all talks with the authority have fallen apart between UPN and the authority and that now BNSF will be the chosen route through the valley.
Has anyone else heard this rumor?
Joey Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
I thought that the plan all along was to use UPRR north of Fresno, but to construct a new right-of-way next to the current one, since UP is unwilling to share.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Whether or not CHSRA could built a new (all separated) alignment within the UPRR right of way is what the talks have been about. If they have fallen apart, that would shift the alignment.
That far west, its not likely that any substantial stretch of UPRR right of way are easements rather than freehold, but it might be worthwhile to have someone going through the land records to determine the precise status of UPRR right of way through urban areas in particular. Its only a point to raise if UPRR refuses to play ball.
We’ve posted our report from yesterday’s board meeting on our site http://www.calhsr.com/statewide/meeting-report-california-high-speed-rail-authority-board-meeting-342010/. We really encourage everyone who attends events to write them up. Not everything is getting covered in the press. Even little mini-reports like “castle experts” are useful.
Peter Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 10:51 am
I’m not sure whether the remarks in that posting discussing the “letter of the law” and the “spirit of the law” are quite appropriate, especially when the letter of the law is restricted to narrow issues. Insinuating that someone, in this case the Authority, is not following the “spirit of the law” is saying that they are attempting to be sneaky about the issue. They had to respond to certain issues that were held against them in the Atherton case, and it looks to me (after reviewing a large portion of the Revised Progam EIR Materials) like they addressed them. If you don’t agree with their conclusions, you have 45 days to comment, that’s how it’s supposed to work.
I’m certain that there will be another lawsuit coming out of this, not based on any non-frivolous causes of action, but simply as a delay tactic.
Elizabeth Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Under the noticing regime they have chosen, they will not notice people and businesses with homes on Monterey Highway who would lose property. I would say this is not in spirit of the law. If you disagree with this, okay.
Peter Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Whoops, my apologies, I missed what that part of your post was referring to. Still, I don’t think that it is necessary at this point to notice them, as this is still the Program level, not the Project level, and the precise details have not yet been hashed out.
Arthur Dent Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 10:24 am
Are you serious? Don’t notify people until it’s too late?
Matthew F. Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 10:46 am
“There’s no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint, and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now.”
Arthur Dent Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Exactly.
Matthew F. Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
…bring a towel…
Peter Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
It’s a tough galaxy, Arthur.
Peter Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
They will have time to comment on it at the Project Level. Now it would just create unnecessary fear.
Peter Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 11:50 am
In other words, if you don’t like the letter of the law (a relatively objective measure) and would like to have the “spirit of the law” (a VERY subjective, nebulous measure) followed, then lobby to have what you consider to be the “spirit of the law” implemented as the letter of the law.
Could the Authority do more? Yes, they could, but you have to draw the line at how far you should go somewhere, and the minimum required by statute seems to be a good starting point to me. This reminds me of “Office Space,” when Jennifer Aniston’s boss is trying to get her to wear more flair than the minimum he requires, and she tells him to raise the minimum if he wants her to wear more.
Compliance with a statute is just that: Compliance.
Elizabeth Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
We did do exactly that. We made a request at yesterday’s board meeting for them to notice everyone who has been involved with the project level eir and those who live within a certain distance of the proposed alignment.
Peter Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Well, I’m not familiar with the legal authority behind the noticing requirements. Is it based on state statute? If it is, then you can lobby in the legislature for the statute to be changed.
Otherwise, again, compliance with a statute is all that is legally required.
HSRComingSoon Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
The issue of “letter of the law” vs “spirit of the law” reminds of the Australian movie, The Castle. Only, that movie looked at the expansion of Melbourne’s airport and the use of eminent domain to acquire residences for this expansion. The lawyer argued that the eminent domain was illegal because went against “the vibe” of the constitution. That said, the Authority would be unwise to tell people this early on whether a property was to be considered for emient domain, especially if it ends up they didn’t. In this case, the Authority would be left wide open to potentially large lawsuits for pain/suffering, loss of property values, etc., not to mention delay the project, to which I am sure there would be some sympathetic juries. As for the letter of the law, if it is being followed, then so be it. One can challenge the Authority in the way that the law is being interpreted and therefore used. However, the Authority could use more courtesies. Nevertheless, you can bet that when the design and engineering has come to a point where the issue of eminent domain comes front and center, the Authority will be extremely careful not to violate the letter of the law or do anything that can be interpreted as violating the spirit of the law through they way of specific laws are interpreted by paying attention to past precedents.
I’ve found an anti-hsr blog I didn’t know. It’s called American Thinker. It gets data from the Washington Examiner which gets its data from the Cato Institute.
Why it is called American “Thinker” puzzles me. I went through pages of it and couldn’t discover any trace of thought.
Peter Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 10:53 am
It’s like “Observer” who does not do much observing, or “Reality Check” who is detached from reality. It’s simply an attempt to gain legitimacy through a title. Like the PATRIOT Act.
Reality Check Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
True to my moniker, I’d welcome the reality check you imply I need. Yes, I blew it the other day and said west when I meant east when saying what side most Peninsula freight spurs were on … but someone else caught and corrected that for me right away. So which reality do you believe I’m “detached from”?
Peter Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
My apologies. I issue a full retraction that you are detached from reality. It was uncalled for and I shouldn’t have said that.
I do stand though by my statement that handles like “Observer” and “Reality Check” attempt to gain free legitimacy through a title.
Reality Check Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
In my case, I chose what seemed like a fitting handle since my sense is that in most venues I’m frequently most motivated to post by an urge to correct misinformation or to reign in hyperbole or totally baseless speculation or hyperbolic fear mongering, etc. … in short, to provide a reality check on such stuff. It might be a character flaw, but I really dislike when non-reality/fact-based content goes uncorrected/unchallenged. The problems and issues we all face are tough enough without being bogged down by non-reality/fact-based information. GIGO, and all that …
Peter Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Oh, I completely agree with the notion that such misinformation must be corrected. The handle just seems exactly the kind of handle that people who put out such misinformation would choose. That’s my issue with it. I’m sorry if I slighted you, though.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Do you know how hard you need to think to distort every piece of evidence to match your donors’ financial interests?
Peter Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Touche.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
or as Upton Sinclair wrote “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”
There is a talk on HSR in the UK (Highspeed 2) by its Chief Engineer:
High Capacity and High Speed Travel: A 21st Century Solution (via Systemic Failure).
Especially the last bit provided something of a new view to me:
Can one compare British HS2 to CalHSR? The settlement pressure in California is on SoCal and the Bay Area. HSR could start relieving that pressure towards Northern California and the Central Valley (do we even want that?) and make them have a viable economic future “independent of” SoCal and the Bay Area, instead of just having a fast connection between the two.
The video also shows the outlay one has to make to meet the demands of high-capacity service (long through-running stations with acceleration/deceleration tracks, high-throughput passenger handling, etc.). Are the current station designs up to it?
The above-mentioned benefits could be diminished in California because of the routing, service, politics and geography. It could end up being high-speed rail with not so high capacity and not so high average speed in the not so right places. Hmm.
Jack Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Yeah, like running along the I-5 bypassing most of the economically depressed regions of the state maybe?
schrodinger Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
The North of England is home to the manufacturing part of Britain’s economy, which suffers from the predatory currency strategies of places like China and Japan. The South East is home to the financial fun and games which have been very profitable and have grown tremendously over the past 30 years.
The South East also has Heathrow airport, one of the great international air hubs. In today’s world there is a distinct pattern of economic activity being concentrated close to major airports like SFO, LAX and Heathrow. Better links to SFO, or even Sacramento, would very likely be beneficial to the Central Valley.
Personally, I think the HighSpeed 2 engineer is wrong about the attractions of a Northern Super City. It is just simplistic bigger is better thinking.
In California anything which benefits the economy is likely to be opposed by the Sierra Club, which is against economic growth and new housing, which they call ‘sprawl’. Many economic benefits from HSR will be neutralized by ‘anti-sprawl’ legislation.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
“Many economic benefits from HSR will be neutralized by ‘anti-sprawl’ legislation.”
The key would then to make sure that anti-sprawl legislation is actually anti-sprawl, which is to say against subsidizing extensive development in single-use zones. In other words, head off the danger by diverting it into its professed purpose.
Roger Christensen Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Speaking of sprawl…
I just received an email announcing another Public Information Meeting in Fresno on March 16. Seems to be a repeat of the January meeting. No agenda but lots of maps and consultants.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Japan’s currency is overvalued, not undervalued. You’re confusing it with China. It’s understandable, as Asians are an undifferentiated mass of ants with no individuality or distinctions. They all look alike, they don’t value life the way we do, and they will not stop until there are no jobs in the West.
wu ming Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 9:27 am
that one’s going to leave a mark.
schrodinger Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
We have run huge trade deficits with Japan every year for the past 30 years. The yen is undervalued as long as that trade deficit continues.
I do understand the difference between China and Japan though. Japan buys 50 cents worth of American goods for every dollar of goods we buy from them. China only buys 20 cents worth.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
No. Currencies aren’t undervalued based on trade deficit issues. They’re undervalued based on market issues. The market has priced the yen a certain way. If you think the market’s wrong, you’re free to buy yen and hope for an appreciation. Japan isn’t China, which keeps its currency undervalued as a government strategy. In purchasing power parity terms, the yen is worth about 30% less than it is in market price terms, making Japanese products less competitive all else being equal.
Of course, all else is not equal; that’s because Japanese industry makes better products than American industry, but that’s not a currency issue, it’s an Americans-make-crap issue. Capitalist countries try to make better products – see e.g. the strategy in Hong Kong. Socialist countries try to protect their low-quality manufacturing for political reasons – see e.g. the East German Trabi. Guess which one the US is emulating.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Bilateral trade, though, is not a safe place to stand. For instance, suppose the US has a trade surplus with Australia, Australia has a trade surplus with Japan, and Japan has a trade deficit with the US.
So first you have to look at the overall current account situation of various countries. The US has had an unsustainable trade deficit for a decade or more … but not for thirty years.
And of course, there is the question “overvalued in who’s eyes”? A trade deficit can happen because of a strong flow of financial assets into a country, propping up the currency and making it “overvalued” in view of the trade account alone. But if the trade deficit is acting as a drag, it could be “undervalued” in terms of the capital account alone.
China RMB/yuan versus US$ is simpler … China keeps it at a discount to maintain export market share, but nowadays allows some leeway on the individual currencies, so its discount in US$ might be smaller at the same time that its discount in Euros is rising.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
There’s a key difference between the UK and California and it’s pretty important:
The UK operates as a net exporter of its culture, California is a net export of ideas.
The reason California grew so wealthy relative to other states is that each boom in infrastructure from rail to water to highways to universities was about bringing things somewhere. The Nazis built the Autobahn once, California has done it…at least four times.
The difference is now we are talking about an investment in state infrastructure that won’t be controlled by the feds (hello Interstates) or local governments (hello aqueduct) or private hands (insert example here). HSR will basically connect the state’s major industries and yes, hopefully international airports thus providing California with the breakthrough it needs to enter the 21st century.
Conversely, you can cast as many aspersions as you like at the Sierra Club or “anti-sprawl legislation” but that is a position ignorant of California history. The state’s population centers were not and are not where they are because of the availability of cheap land or highways. On the contrary, water, natural harbors, and yes, railways were responsible for the state’s highly uneven population distribution. The state is a terrible candidate for sprawl, but ultimately succumbed to that temptation from a host of factors…not the least of which is the requirement that local taxes be put to a vote. Cities began to see the doom loop of growth as their salvation only to finally see the day when this Ponzi Scheme ran out.
schrodinger Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
If you look at the high growth areas of the state it is places with cheap land, freeways and sprawl. People don’t live in Tracy or Riverside for the climate. In fact there is no way you can separate California’s post WW2 growth from suburbs, cars and sprawl. I’d go so far as to say that car driven sprawl was one of the chief economic engines in California in the past 50 years.
South East England, on the other hand, grew up around the commuter rail lines. They have about 20 commuter lines, each busier than Caltrain, feeding people into London. By the time the car arrived the cities were already built, and there was no room in them for cars. There still isn’t. 70-80% of commuters into central London use rail. London has an urban growth boundary, which they call a ‘greenbelt.’ As a result, houses in the London area tend to be small, old and very expensive. That is why people commute.
San Francisco is similar in some ways to London. There were ferries, and Key system trains coming across the Bay Bridge. Caltrain came in from the south. The city is dense, easy to walk around but has no place to park. The difference is that Oakland and San Francisco bulldozed people’s homes to create freeway access. London never did that. There is no real freeway access to central London, and there is far less parking than in San Francisco.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
The population centers are still on or near the coast. Tracy and Riverside are overflow, caused by rich NIMBYs in the closer-in suburbs keeping densities artificially low and property values artificially high.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
What type of “growth” are you talking about? If you mean “urban growth” or sprawl, then the areas with cheap land and freeways are it. But if you mean economic growth, you are mistaken.
While it’s true that “bedroom communities” replaced streetcar suburbs after World War II, each ring of development becomes more and more parasitic on other economic acitivty as opposed to generating its own. That’s because state law has pushed cities and counties to harvest more and more revenue from “growth” as opposed to sustainable business activity. And yet while all these cities continued to pave more asphalt, it’s the inner suburbs and anchor cities that house all of California’s biggest industries with the exception of agriculture. Even the mortgage companies who floated many of the most questionable loans during the housing boom were not headquartered in the Central Valley or Inland Empire. Nope, they were located in beautiful Orange County.
Matthew F. Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
As I understand it, Prop 13 effectively eliminated local incentive to grow in terms of homes. Now, most local revenue comes from sales taxes, which are generated by economic activity.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 11:51 am
Well actually….
Prop 13 took away the incentive to add residential developments at the expense of commercial ones in established cities with independent, unified school districts but it’s a totally different story in the parts of the state where the sprawl arrived after that.
But the reason this happened isn’t because of NIMBYs. It’s because in the 50′s, the State elected to provide to cities a cut of the sales tax for point of sale transactions. But also, big developers concocted a way to sidestep being part of established jurisdictions by formulating a contract city. These are places which are incorporated cities but have nearly all services provided by the county under contract. As a result, lots of new municipalities proliferated statewide which had urban planning power and, after Prop 13 not much desire for sharing their economic activity with surrounding cities.
Now the state could have taken a more active role in all this. But wouldn’t you know, Prop 13 also made the state income tax the most important source of revenue. So at just the moment in which more centralization would have been useful, California effectively eliminated the resources to make that possible.
YOu can’t leave out the part of the equation though, where the public flocked to socal suburbs fora piece of the california dream…. sunshine, back yards, swimming pools, nestled in tracts in between groves and oranges and lemons, never far from the beach and all served up with a healthy dollop of hollywood glamour and allure. it wasn’t just planning decisions that drove the sprawl, but consumer demand.
The same thing still goes on now. while many on this blog are probably fond of the urban experience, many californians want nothing to do with it. They love suburban living. So we keep building acres and acres of beige stucco because people still want that an no matter how hip the density thing may become, the suburbs will alway have their market. And of course, this is the whole promise of cali, you live out whatever your dream is, you can “do your own thing” an A frame at big bear, a med century poolside in the palms, hemp and flannel in the north coast mist. a 5 acre ranchette with horses, goats and dogs and chickens. all these lifestyles and more are here for the taking and we as californians have a right to those choices. to have our cake and eat it too. Of course lately there have been some cracks in the looking glass… thats scary….it can’t be. the dream must live on. long live the dream. Quick call in the dream weavers to fix things up!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 1:04 am
They build acres and acres of sprawling suburb because the zoning regulations prohibit any other development. Very very difficult to build multifamily housing in places zoned for single family houses.
dejv Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 1:16 am
> it wasn’t just planning decisions that drove the sprawl, but consumer demand.
Consumer demand also drove small and big block engines. Where are they now? If current drouht continuel, water prices will go up and barren backyards and dry pools will lose their appeal.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 2:03 am
Jim, which parts of Modesto and Riverside are close to the beach?
Alon, ini those days it wasn’t about modesto and riverside. ( although by beach access I didn’t mean, beach at your doorstep, I meant, just as we have today, an easy drive to beach and mountain recreation – and that access is still part of the draw of california living..don’t any of you remember the 60s adn 70s? at all?) In fact, I can tell that a lot of push back things such as hsr get, is from folks who do remember the once bucolic lifestyle we had in cali… those folks on the peninsula, they remember… that’s why they give you such a hard time. I totally understand how they feel. This place was the paradise it was made out to be. Im all for progress, my point is that you are not going to force everyone to live in the city. People are going to choose what they like and some people like the suburbs. Many people don’t aren’t fond so fond of “diversity” either and thats why they keep moving further and further into outlying areas…
-and dejav a swimming pool in ones backyard never looses its appeal.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
In those days, there was still room on the coast. It wasn’t just the domain of rich NIMBYs keeping property values inflated so that the middle class can’t move in. Nowadays, when the coast is full, driving from the Central Valley and the Inland Empire to the beach is only easy at 3 in the morning.
And yeah, people are totally not always fond of diversity. Racism and homophobia are facts of life. There’s a reason all the straight people moved out of Eureka Valley and all the white Anglos moved out of Santa Ana.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 11:47 pm
[blockquote]
don’t any of you remember the 60s adn 70s? at all?
[/blockquote]
Zee problem is, Meester Jim, most people in California today were not alive in the 60s and 70s….
What appealed to whites in the 20th century isn’t quite the allure for the much more diverse population now. However, I actually think HSR is great for the “bucolic” types. It will create synergy for consolidating much of the commercial and business property development around the stations and stanch the endless desire to push population centers outward. Last I checked, BART hasn’t ruined Orinda.
jimsf Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
for the latest demograhics
As for alive in the 60s and 70s, anyone in cali whos 35 or more remembers the old cali. Thats if they lived here then anyway.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
I’m not sure what your point is. You want things to go back the way they were in the 60s and 70s when the population of California was exploding or you want the growth to keep slowing down?
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
He wants us to turn back the clock. I understand why, but obviously we can’t do that. We can only go forward, but not necessarily by creating more urban growth.
jimsf Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 9:52 am
I was just making the point that it wasn’t just government planning choices that created sprawl, but also consumer demand for that lifestyle and that there is still a demand, by some for that lifestyle. For me what hsr means, is that cali’s 2nd and 3rd cities, places such as fresno, bakersfield etc, can grow denser downtowns and help relieve the pressure on la and sf. Some seem to advocate for putting all the grown on la and sf. Hsr will make it possible to spread that growth – which doesn’t have to mean sprawl in the tract home sense. However, that said, I am also pointing out that a lot of people prefer country living and suburban living and they should have that option and that a lot of resistance to growth and what some call progress, is because it represents a deterioration of quality of life for those people. In fact here in SF, I would consider it to be a huge deterioration of our quality of life if we added another 500k. It would destroy what makes this a nice place to live. That goes for every place large or small to some extent. If it come down to me or them… then I say build hsr and stick all the new people in fresno and out of my hair. And it is sad to watch a state that was once a bounty of natural beauty and resources, with a fabulous casual outdoor lifestyle, becoming a crime ridden, paved over, tore up detiorating mess cuz a lot of new folks don’t seem to know how to behave.
( alaon from the 40s through the 70s, the suburbs in socal were not places such as riverside, it was mainly all those places in la county with names like lawndale and alhambra and buena park and el sugundo, etc… you know them all tiver side and snb were barely in the picture back that. the inland empire did get off the ground as a big boom/ growth areas until the 80s… at the same time the central valley towns started seeing their first signs of growth)