High-Speed Rail As a Conduit of Sprawl

[Captain Zissou]

It’s fast, it’s efficient and it is the future of transportation, but will high-speed rail cause sprawl?

Yes, it could, warn some urban planners. Despite the promise of creating more densely populated urban centers, high-speed rail could do quite the opposite by making it easier for people to live far from urban centers.

Let’s use California as an example, since high-speed rail has made the most progress there. The Golden State, long known as a trendsetter for transportation and environmental policy, has received more than $2.3 billion in stimulus funds toward a proposed line linking San Francisco and Los Angeles by way of the Central Valley. The money is earmarked for construction, land acquisition and engineering and it follows the $9.95 billion allocated by a state ballot initiative. If and when the line is completed by 2030, riders will zip between the two cities in 2 hours and 38 minutes and pay less than half what it would cost to fly.

But that convenience could increase emigration from California’s urban centers to the exurbs and beyond. In other words, it could lead to more sprawl.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/03/high-speed-rail-and-sprawl/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=RelatedLinks&utm_campaign=Previous

An interesting cautionary article that describes the problems that HSR could cause if not integrated into communities with local transit options and dense development.  Jacksonville could learn many things from this.  I don't know how far along the California HSR is, or if it is still progressing, but that will be a case study for the rest of the country in either a what to do or what not to do kind of way.  A train on the Chicago to St. Louis line hit 111 mph yesterday, which is a milestone for that future HSR route.  With All Aboard Florida gaining momentum, Jacksonville can either contribute to or start to fix the sprawl problems that have been building for decades.

My favorite part of the article and something that is imediately applicable to Jax:

Proactive land use policies focused on increasing urban density coupled with incentives for transit-oriented development and suburban infill must be embraced by communities along high-speed rail lines â€" especially those with planned stops. This will help create a market for transportation and the subsequent development tied to it. Regional and local transportation planning initiatives that create infrastructure connecting pedestrians, bicycles and mass transit and place it on a level playing field with automobiles will reduce dependence on cars for commuting. Parking should be provided in garages, not lots, and it must be integrated into the development. And, finally, stations must be landmark, not utilitarian, structures that compliment their communities and welcome riders.

[PeeJayEss]

I don't think its the mode of transport that is the problem, its the location of stops. For instance, highways would not really be promoters of sprawl if they were all limited access and cars could only get on and off at major cities. It would not be convenient to move away from the city center unless there were stops throughout the burbs. Development will occur around stops, so the stops need to be located only in dense areas.

Not sure how many stops there are planned between SF and LA, but perhaps Palmdale should not be a stop. Regional rail from central LA out to Palmdale, etc, but should HSR really be designed for daily commuters?

[Tacachale]

I think it's possible to encourage both outward sprawl and inward density at the same time, especially when an area is growing. Road and rail projects in South Florida have made it relatively convenient to live as far north as West Palm and work in Miami, not to mention all the other towns and business parks in between. As such the Miami exurbs continue to sprawl north to the point that there's continuous low-density development for well over a hundred miles along the coast. At the same time, though, Miami's urban core has also boomed.

[Captain Zissou]

I think it's possible to encourage both outward sprawl and inward density at the same time, especially when an area is growing. Road and rail projects in South Florida have made it relatively convenient to live as far north as West Palm and work in Miami, not to mention all the other towns and business parks in between. As such the Miami exurbs continue to sprawl north to the point that there's continuous low-density development for well over a hundred miles along the coast. At the same time, though, Miami's urban core has also boomed.

What would be the goal of encouraging both? Miami is not dense or expensive enough to have the problems of Manhattan where very few workers can afford to live there.  Who is footing the bill for this northward expansion?  In a cash strapped and spread thin town like jax, we need some in town density badly in order to increase our tax base without having to shell out more for infrastructure, maintenance, and services.   

When Jax does get rail service, we need to invest heavily in TODs and QOL of the in town neighborhoods and central TODs.  Otherwise, this will only make it easier to live in Nocatee and work in southpoint or downtown.

PeeJ,  I think headways, price, and station locations would enable or prevent someone from using HSR for their daily commute.  If the ride from Palmdale to LA was less than $30, why wouldn't they use that to commute? Gas in southern california is approaching $7 a gallon and the congested freeways are taking up commuters time and reducing their fuel efficiency. So that 60 mile drive at 30 mph where you're getting 20 mpg at $7-8 a gallon makes a $30 train commute look pretty good.  Since HSR is meant to compete with airlines, I don't know what they would charge for a 60 mile commute, but it may be closer to $60 or $70.

[Ocklawaha]

Captain, IMO city/state built and operated TOD'S are a fraud on the taxpaying public. Put the line in correctly and PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT will take care of all of the TOD'S we can handle.

The lesson being quickly learned all across the country is 'transit first' and development follows, doesn't matter if that development is downtown or in the burbs.

[Tacachale]

I think it's possible to encourage both outward sprawl and inward density at the same time, especially when an area is growing. Road and rail projects in South Florida have made it relatively convenient to live as far north as West Palm and work in Miami, not to mention all the other towns and business parks in between. As such the Miami exurbs continue to sprawl north to the point that there's continuous low-density development for well over a hundred miles along the coast. At the same time, though, Miami's urban core has also boomed.

What would be the goal of encouraging both? Miami is not dense or expensive enough to have the problems of Manhattan where very few workers can afford to live there.  Who is footing the bill for this northward expansion?  In a cash strapped and spread thin town like jax, we need some in town density badly in order to increase our tax base without having to shell out more for infrastructure, maintenance, and services.   

When Jax does get rail service, we need to invest heavily in TODs and QOL of the in town neighborhoods and central TODs.  Otherwise, this will only make it easier to live in Nocatee and work in southpoint or downtown.

PeeJ,  I think headways, price, and station locations would enable or prevent someone from using HSR for their daily commute.  If the ride from Palmdale to LA was less than $30, why wouldn't they use that to commute? Gas in southern california is approaching $7 a gallon and the congested freeways are taking up commuters time and reducing their fuel efficiency. So that 60 mile drive at 30 mph where you're getting 20 mpg at $7-8 a gallon makes a $30 train commute look pretty good.  Since HSR is meant to compete with airlines, I don't know what they would charge for a 60 mile commute, but it may be closer to $60 or $70.

I don't think there's any "goal" at all, I think that's just how it happens sometimes. I think what they're seeing in South Florida is that (until very recently) the whole region was growing steadily, and the two biggest growth areas were the exurbs and the urban core. And there might have been some decline (or proportionately slower growth) in the older suburbs with people leaving for either newer suburbs/exurbs or the urban core.

I don't think anyone planned this or even really wants it. But as they keep building the roads, permitting development, and expanding Trirail service, sprawl continues even further, even as things are looking up for urban Miami.

[thelakelander]

My favorite part of the article and something that is imediately applicable to Jax:

Proactive land use policies focused on increasing urban density coupled with incentives for transit-oriented development and suburban infill must be embraced by communities along high-speed rail lines â€" especially those with planned stops. This will help create a market for transportation and the subsequent development tied to it. Regional and local transportation planning initiatives that create infrastructure connecting pedestrians, bicycles and mass transit and place it on a level playing field with automobiles will reduce dependence on cars for commuting. Parking should be provided in garages, not lots, and it must be integrated into the development. And, finally, stations must be landmark, not utilitarian, structures that compliment their communities and welcome riders.

The mobility plan does this with the mobility fee's credit adjustment system and land use policies that allow for a greater density along proposed transit corridors throughout the urban core and city.