Comments on: Rail Across America

By: Dana Gabbard

Dana Gabbard — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:20:15 +0000

Stats Dude, we have people now commuting from Victorville to L.A. At least with HSR we provide an option other than auto travel. Today folks who want to commute from San Diego to L.A. can use the train. And guess what? Amtrak has a monthly pass for the Surfliner just because some people do so. The worries of some enviros that Fresno will become a bedroom community for L.A. and the Bay Area seems somewhat exaggerated.

By: Stats Dude

Stats Dude — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:09:05 +0000

Good points Dan.
It's critical to anticipate these impacts and mitigate them at the beginning of the planning process, not after the build process.

Perhaps Palmdale was a bad example. I was thinking of California City as a new bedroom community for Los Angeles as maybe a better example.

By: Dan W.

Dan W. — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:00:35 +0000

I see the Palmdale/Lancaster issue a bit differently. (It is already possible to take Metrolink between Palmdale/Lancaster and Downtwon.)

SCAG is predicting three million more new people in Los Angeles County over the next 30 years. That means more people everywhere, including Palmdale/Lancaster. With cheapter land out there, that area is likely to continue to grow. There is a possibility now before overdevelopment to develop it in a greener way. HSR will offer another alternative to driving an automobile.

By: David Galvan

David Galvan — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 03:13:57 +0000

Ah, I see. Well, what you're talking about is really just amount of energy/resources used per person. In the U.S., we have become used to a luxuriously high ratio. I'd wager there is not much to be done about it. Some day, people in the U.S. won't be so rich relative to other countries, and some other country will be #1. But for now that's the way it is. Obviously, the denser the population, the less energy/space used per person. But we can't all live in superdense cities. It's hard to have a lifestyle where you don't impact the environment at all. People alter their environment to suit their needs. Dam that river, chop down that forest, farm food in that field. It's how we survive. Of course, there are ways to minimize our impact, and I'd bet that HSR has more benefits than detriments on that front. Although, I have heard people wondering about how a fully-grade-separated HSR would become a wall going through the central valley that could alter the travel/migration patterns of some land animals. Don't know how serious it is though.

By: Stats Dude

Stats Dude — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:19:00 +0000

Good points David,

However, I was referring to destruction of the local environment, excessive use of water and energy to cool such a large structure in the desert heat. Damage to endangered species, the physical collapse of the water tables (the Palmdale/Lancaster area has already had problems with the water tables collapsing).

By: David Galvan

David Galvan — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:33:34 +0000

If someone decides to live in palmdale and commute to L.A. via HSR, I don't see anything wrong with that. Ecologically, it's much better than them driving the distance in a gas-powered car.

HSR is sustainable eco-friendly public transportation. Of course development will be encouraged along such transit lines. But just because this will enable people to live farther from their jobs doesn't mean it's not sustainable. The mode of transport is important here: electric powered train, not gas-powered car.

By: Stats Dude

Stats Dude — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:24:40 +0000

But what are the unintended consequences? One may be sprawl.

In the L.A. area, people don't commute by distance, they commute by time.

If one can buy cheaper property farther out, and still benefit by a short commute, then the dream of a $250,000 house consisting of 3,500 square feet on a half acre for only one or two people can exist.

Of course, that dream is a nightmare for ecologic sustainability.