Comments on: The Sprawling Effects of High-Speed Rail

By: Gabriel Ratener

Gabriel Ratener — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 05:10:54 +0000

Theoretically any mode of transportation can lead to sprawl. Of all options for long-medium distance travel, HSR is the least likely to contribute to sprawl. This is of course because high speed trains can be built to run on modified existing railroads at lesser speeds, thus making it possible for trains to run to and from city center. However stations are often built outside of cities, so to not have noise, property destruction, etc… in densely populated areas.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:14:37 +0000

“1 – outside the major centers = more clusters of village at much high dwellings/acre than traditional sprawl”

In other words, we get more beautiful streetcar suburbs and commuter villages, and fewer asphalt wastelands? :-)

Yes, seems like an improvement!

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:13:11 +0000

You have to remember how small the UK actually is. London to Birmingham is less than 150 miles, well within the distance people in the US commute BY CAR routinely.

Yes, rail lines of that sort of distance will create increased home values as commutes will be possible by train instead of car.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:28:15 +0000

Not to mention that cities connected to a large high-speed rail network will start to focus more on the education, beauty and transit-convienice in the city rather than the workforce. You see, for example: if you get a job in Seattle, and there is a bullet-train connecting the Eugene-Portland-Tacoma-Seattle-Vancouver Megalopolis, then that person is able to choose which city would be best to live in rather than focusing on how close he should move.

Basically, which HSRail, cities will try to appeal to those moving into the area.

By: J Price

J Price — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:22:58 +0000

HSR will provide access, and help create more efficient land use both in the big city destination and the stops in between where people can live in smaller towns.

To the authors point – Will people choose to live 1 – outside the major centers as a result, 2-live in the big cities, or 3 – stay-in-place? The answer is an ‘all of the above’ and more, as we continue to grow (even in a recession). But for each of these trends we need to be building more efficient:

1 – outside the major centers = more clusters of village at much high dwellings/acre than traditional sprawl
2- live in the big cities = more multifamily housing
3 – stay-in-place = retrofit housing for more residents per unit

And all trends toward less car dependant and parking garage-less transportation systems).

Look for major redevelopment in big cities near stations. Look for more dense commuter towns to be developed in the areas with good locals services. The other suburban and exurban areas without new transportation investment (and other community amenities) will likely decline.

We have already sprawled (for the past 50 years) and paid a handsome price, but now we tax-averse Americans, although car loving we may be, will not want, not can afford to continue to pay for the increasing costs of a ‘surburban nation’.

Now the challenge is to infill both in the urban centers, and connect suburban villages. In short, doing more with less funding, land space, energy, and personal vehicle mobility.. just like the rest of the world.

By: William A. Draves

William A. Draves — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:39:24 +0000

Mr. Freemark is way off base on this one. For “sprawl” one needs cars. And Gen Y won’t drive (is not currently driving), favoring trains and light rail. YES, one can commute long distances with high speed rail. YES, small and medium sized towns with a train station will grow and prosper. But people will live near the train station. No sprawl, just livable communities. Try again to find a downside to trains. The sprawl idea doesn’t fly.

By: FG

FG — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:48:08 +0000

I just read somewhere that when the Intercity trains were introduced in the UK house prices went up in a lot of cities served by it as they were now within commuting distance of London, and I’d expect similar to happen with HSR in the US as well. Of course, as someone said elsewhere, we don’t have the country charm quite like France, but plenty of small east coast towns and midwestern towns have their advantages and fans. I’m thinking the big old manufacturers houses from 1900-1960 or so which are far cheaper than urban suburbs.

By: FG

FG — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:45:28 +0000

The problem is most jobs are now in the suburbs and inaccessible to rail transit (as yet).

By: FG

FG — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:44:21 +0000

I’ve heard that France has some majorly low density suburban development – big boxes all the way.

By: Wad

Wad — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:22:08 +0000

Dejv, the issue isn’t so much locals finding a way to use stations. For Amtrak California, people find the stations just fine.

I also do expect the transfer of some job functions that would make the Central Valley a true job center. Its problem right now is that it has all of California’s high costs and very little of the relative economic attractiveness of the high-cost coastal areas. Putting the Central Valley within commuting distance could help correct that.

The Central Valley has cheap land, universities and a large labor pool, but that’s about it. This describes a vast cohort of American regions that are either fast-growing agricultural exurbs or desperate suburban and industrial regions in decline. The Central Valley cities are a mixture of both.

High-speed rail, despite the onerous capital costs, at least gives California one advantage in that it connects three populous state regions together. While the business plan seems to rely on day trips between Southern California and the Bay Area, this implies the Central Valley will be within commuting distance of both regions.

This locational advantage makes it feasible for businesses in high-cost coastal California to shift lower-value segments to lower-cost Central Valley while still retaining a connection to the higher-value area.

This would help businesses that have lower-value functions that for logistical reasons cannot shift the business unit out of state, and/or jobs that require frequent training or other constant contact between workers. Sectors that could see gains include healthcare and biosciences, law, finance and government.