I posted this yesterday but I will post it again since it is important that this legislation gains no momentum. According to the SJ Mercury (http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_14681077?nclick_check=1), Assemblymember Diane Harkey (R-Dana Point, 73rd District) introduced legislation to defund high speed rail in California. Democrat Judy Jones is running against Harkey this November. Here is Ms Jones’ website: http://www.judyjonesforassembly.net/pr/jones2008/default.aspx

To expand a little more on Portland’s success (where I grew up), they developed a regional government (Metro) to deal with regional planning and created the US’ first Urban Growth Boundary. This had the effect of forcing developers to focus on “infill” rather than sprawl. Metro further encouraged this by allowing higher densities around transit corridors.

To apply some of this to California we want to encourage cities along the HSR route to have 20-30 year growth plans that allow mixed use TOD to encourage vibrant down towns rather than an expanding suburbia. If done right it can preserve the character of the town rather than destroying it. I think this will become vitally important as smaller communities often don’t aspire to become “big cities”.

Building the hsr on the I-5 Grapevine alignment is the way to eliminate the sprawl issue.

Did those French TGV stations placed in the middle of no where encourage sprawl? I don’t know.

Kambitsis seemed to completely overlook that two years ago gas was flirting with $5/gallon, and that once the economy picks up, gas prices will too. A lot of that far-flung low-density housing is going to start looking really unattractive at the very same time as a 100% clean-powered transportation alternative becomes even more appealing to Californians.

I think HSR encourages people to want to live near the station, so that they can walk or take very simple local transit to the HSR station, hop on the train, and go. Bakersfield, Lancaster, and Palmdale, for example, are already a sprawl of Los Angeles. But, the highway makes it equally easy to live 20 miles outside of the center of town as right in town.

Seems to me, your point isn’t really that HSR doesn’t produce sprawl, but that we need to change zoning and land use laws to contain the sprawl that HSR would otherwise produce.

Thanks for your post, Robert. I work for the High-Speed Rail Authority. I just wanted to say that we are committed to working with local communities to encourage transit-oriented development and a network of complete streets and feeder transit systems—with the HST stations serving as hubs. This is part of the reason why we’re so committed to the Vision California project, as we think it’s important to shape the framework for future “smarter” development in California.

You can check out some of the work we’ve already been doing on the sustainability section of our website: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/library.asp?p=8448 (we’ll be expanding this in upcoming months). We are currently working on a TOD potential study for Fresno as well as Station Area Urban Design Guidelines. We are also working on a few other projects related to this area as well.

Well, this is a complex question, for sure. HSR may, in fact, encourage people to live farther from where they work than they do now. This doesn’t necessarily mean sprawl though. Commuters will want to live within easy access of the station, which means within walking/biking distance of a short drive. For already-large Central Valley cities like Fresno and Bakersfield, this means new, higher-density development in already developed areas (though there may still be a little bit of room for this central area to grow in places like Palmdale, Gilroy, and maybe southwest Fresno). But certainly, HSR needs to be combined with effective land-use policies to keep sprawl to a minimum.

That being said, I don’t think that encouraging people to live far from where they work is good policy in general, regardless of what mode of transportation they are using to commute and whether or not it induces sprawl. HSR is (rightfully) planned as serving intercity trips, not commute journeys. And that is policy that needs to be maintained. The fare structure will probably regulate this more than anything else. And this will largely be determined by the operator. Come to think of it, a public operator might make more sense than a private operator, as it would have less of an incentive to profit off of commute trips that might otherwise be taken, but either way, some strict policies should probably be implemented to limit the types of trips which we don’t want. For instance, fares should start high, even for short distances, and not vary too much over the spectrum of distances traveled. People are willing to pay a little bit more money for intercity trips, which are less frequent, compared to commuting, which they do every day. The types of multi-ride passes offered should be limited as well. Passes need to serve people who need to travel frequently (mainly business travelers) without serving those who would otherwise commute every day. So limiting passes to 10 rides/month or so would probably be a good idea. I can’t think of anything else right now, but I’d like to hear what other people have to say about this…

Who is responsible for paying for the proposed parking structures that go with stations?

It is my understanding that the cities are responsible -is that correct? If so, I’m assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that the idea is that this would count as part of the local match money. However, as an example, a place like Gilroy – which I believe is slated to have 6,600 parking spots, has no money to pay for the parking lot. They’re broke. So, then what?

A way to force better land use policies might be to reward stations only to those cities that have made the commitment to make and enforce the kinds of TOD policies needed to stop sprawl (in addition to making a commitment to fund feeder networks, etc).

However, then there could be a ridership problem if, for example, a place like Gilroy – who might attract a lot of riders, can’t actually pay for it.

What other incentives can be used specifically at station locations?

But he looks at places like Bakersfield and Fresno and argues that HSR could produce sprawl, unless steps are taken to mitigate against it.

How is that a controversial point, let alone an anti-HSR point? Look, Bakersfield and Fresno have little TOD. $5/gallon gas makes people drive less, but if you only drive within a small urban area and take the train everywhere else, your VMT is so low you can live with high gas prices. We’re not talking about turning Fresno into LA here.

I strongly support transit-oriented development, but there is a concern that such development will only benefit middle or upper income persons and discriminate against low income persons. TOD needs to be class and income blind to benefit all Californians.

I sure hope sprawl isn’t completely dead because there’s no way in hell that I am ever going to live in an apartment block or a condo. While there are lots of people who are cool with living like a rat in those buildings there will always be at least some people like myself who would rather die than do so.

That said I think HSR benefits both types of people which is why I’ve been a strong supporter all along.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/03/18/the-sprawling-effects-of-high-speed-rail/ Yonah made a post about Sprawl due to HSR, and usually it is mitigated through high density land use policies.

Enabling sprawl is the motive behind LA’s forcing the hsr to Palmdale.

Sprawl = car-centric low-density low-rise expansion of suburbs

Exurbanization = transit-centric high-density high-rise expansion of remote city centers

HSR does *not* inherently promote sprawl, though poor local land use policies could pervert its potential.

On the other hand, HSR *could* lead to exurbanization: think Silicon Valley worker bees commuting from Fresno or Hollywood types commuting from Palmdale or Bakersfield. In e.g. France, the TGV network and cheap monthly/annual passes have encouraged the middle class to flee both overpriced Paris and its high-crime banlieue (suburbs) and live in distant towns like Tours (Loire Valley) and Reims (Champagne). However, those places are arguably a lot more attractive than Central/Antelope Valley towns are today. Moreover, Paris has a very well-developed system for connecting transit.

For both of these reasons plus county-level influence over fare strategies, it is unlikely the exurbanization effect due to HSR in California will ever be as pronounced as it has been in France. There are only so many high-rise apartment towers that could possibly be built within walking distance of California HSR stations, so supply and demand will drive up their prices in due course. Realistically, any exurbanization effect beyond that will require either a car used primarily for commuting (expensive to own and operate) plus expensive parking or, substantially improved public transit. Central and Antelope Valley towns can ill afford that on their own and neither the Bay Area nor the LA basin nor Congress are going to invest heavily in it. (Electric) bicycles are a good alternative during the dry season, but only if there is a network of bike lanes/paths and appropriate parking/recharge infrastructure or commuters choose folding types they can take along on the train.

Bottom line: the whole brouhaha about HSR supposedly causing sprawl is really about exurbanization and the impact that could have on house prices in areas where zoning laws have artificially propped them up. However, for the reasons discussed above, homeowners can relax – HSR isn’t going to change commute patterns all that radically, at least not anytime soon.

In vancouver for instance and other euro style cities, or I guess pretty much everywhere but the US, most cities seem to have multiple high rise districts that consist mainly of housing, strung along skytrain or similar. like this for instance

Darn comments got eated.

3, 4, or 5 story Euro-style housing is very dense housing though, particularly considering the generally smallish apartments and lack of yard space common in cities like London, Vienna, Paris, etc. One thing European cities often lack is the same type of zoning laws that US cities have, so it’s common to see a mishmash of housing, offices, and shops, sometimes in the same building.

Land use laws are the bigegst single cause of sprawl. So long as cities zone large areas exclusively for residential, then peopel will have to travel large distances. Cities should ensure that all houses should have a small retail node (where you can buy basic groceries) within walking distance.

San Bernardino recently unveiled plans for the best-designed high-speed rail station in California that has the capability of becoming a high-speed train hub for service to Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Anaheim-Long Beach, in addition to Los Angeles and San Diego.

Opening in 2013, the San Bernardino Intermodal Transit Center and Transit Village should serve as the model for preventing sprawl at all other California stations. The design is by Cooper Carry with engineering by Arup, and the project is based on the Vision & Action Plan developed by EDAW-AECOM.

The West side of E Street will initially include four Metrolink platforms accommodating eight trains within a dramatic open-air pavilion formed by giant ribbons of solar-energy collectors suggesting the prehistoric geological forces that shaped the valley.

The architects expect LEED Platinum certification for the entire complex.

These ribbons then extend across a linear “bus street” that will encompass 25 bays, mostly for commuter buses since Omnitrans plans to simplify its existing routes so that they feed into the new sbX B.R.T. systems, instead of converging in the city center.

Four tracks of high-speed rail would be accommodated below grade in a trench in order to allow the trains to cross the 215 freeway without having to use an elevated guideway that would have to be built fifty feet or so above the ground. The 215 freeway, incidentally, is currently undergoing an $800 million modernization that will also be completed in 2013.

Passengers will enter the terminal though the Great Hall, a multi-story concourse with ticketing facilities, escalators, and a green roof on the fourth level that will serve as a park offering dramatic views of the city’s mountains and skyline.

The first sbX station will occupy the median of E Street and will connect with an iconic, elliptical, and cable-stayed pedestrian bridge that will stretch from the first phase described above to the second phase, which will be located on the East side of E Street.

The pavilion on the East side of E Street will encompass: the light rail to Redlands; the fixed-guideway link to San Bernardino International Airport; and, the all-weather tramway to Big Bear Lake. The new and stylish San Bernardino International Airport, which will become the size of Burbank International, lies about a mile East of the station.

A new street will be created immediately South of both halves of the terminal to provide facilities for: taxis; shuttles; limos.; and, “kiss-and-ride”, while new mid-block streets and new street extensions will enlarge San Bernardino’s already sizable grid. Additional facilities will be provided for bicycles, as well as for car sharing and conventional car rentals. Most parking for private vehicles would be located off-site at a new parking structure that is just now breaking ground at the existing 1918 train station.

Additional sbX stations for the Route 66 Line and the Airport-to-Airport Line would be located on medians in the middle of Rialto Avenue in order to form a “T”-shape with the E Street station.

A Central Garden runs along the edges of all the at-grade tracks. Mixed-use development is seamlessly-integrated throughout the terminal with a residential emphasis South of the tracks and an employment emphasis North of the tracks. A generous amount of meeting and convention space is also included in the design. But, the complex does a remarkable job of amassing these facilities without creating a superblock since a network of interconnected streets are interwoven throughout the site.

The first phase occupies twelve acres, and the surrounding transit village consumes six large 600 x 600-foot blocks. The project’s Web site was just launched, although there are no renderings available there just yet: http://AreYouIn.Omnitrans.org

Pictures of the conceptual renderings that were presented during the February 23rd Community Meeting are available here: http://www.Flickr.com/groups/sanbernardino/pool