The Wreckoning Is Coming at You: Inside the Trainwreck Studio
-thumb-110x110-461780.jpg)
Simply Wrong Food: IHOP's Holiday Pancakes
Hiking off Mulholland in Studio City: Fryman Canyon Park
Found in L.A.: Medical Marijuana Ditched in the Curb
-thumb-110x110-461916.jpg)
Alice Cooper, Ace Frehley @ Nokia Theater 10/28/09
Conceptual view of a generic high speed rail station interior. | Photo by NC3D for the California High Speed Rail Authority
This weekend, it was reported that the Sierra Club is still undecided on Proposition 1, which would authorize a $9.95 billion bond for High Speed Rail (as in less than three years to train it from Los Angeles to San Francisco). Sierra, along with the Conservation League, feel that the train's route through the Pacheco Pass between the Central Valley and San Francisco would cause sprawl in the otherwise underdeveloped region. They rather see it go via another route that is already in a developed area.
High Speed Rail advocates fought back on blogs and with good points. The California High Speed Rail Blog opines:
These worries are baseless. Gilroy and much of southern Santa Clara County have strict urban growth boundaries. If those places were going to sprawl they would have already done so given their proximity to the job center and hot housing market of Silicon Valley. HSR doesn't change that dynamic.Nor does it change the fact that sprawl is facing hard times. Sprawl is bad, but it isn't a force of nature. It is instead a product of three major factors: cheap oil, cheap credit, and favorable land use laws. The first is disappearing for good, thanks to peak oil. The second doesn't exist now, and may never return...
And all of this points to transit-oriented development... and an easier way to get to the Gilroy Garlic Festival.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
My experience of Sierra Club folks today is that they are all total NIMBYs. They care about the environment only to the point that they have a nice place to vacation and that nothing interferes with their property values.
I totally disagree.
Sprawl is sprawl. And sprawl is irreversible. The pro-rail rebuttal is fairly weak on this point, and amounts to "trust us, it isn't likely to happen."
"as in less than three years to train it from Los Angeles to San Francisco"
I enjoyed this typo because that's how long it will take to get anything going on this new proposal...
The reason environmentalists are opposed to Pachecho alignment is not just about sprawl. The travel time for trips between the Bay Area and Sacramento through Pachecho is way too slow: around 1hr 40 minutes, vs. around just 45 minutes with the Altamont alternative.
For Northern Calif., the Altamont alignment would bring direct relief to the most congested regions: I80, I580, I680, whereas the Pacecho route has no such benefit as it goes through areas that are (for now) completely undeveloped.
Also, Altamont is much less expensive in the long run.