high speed rail's effect on population distribution in secondary urban areas

8/8/2019 High Speed Rail's Effect on Population Distribution in Secondary Urban Areas

1/70

High Speed Rail's Effect on Population Distributionin Secondary Urban Areas

An Analysis of the French Urban Areas and Implications for theCalifornia Central Valley

A Planning ReportPresented to

The Faculty of the Department ofUrban and Regional Planning

San Jos State University

In partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the

degree Master of Urban Planning

by

Brian StankeJune 2009


2/70


3/70

Table of Contents

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. i

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... iii

List of Charts.................................................................................................................................. iii

Index of Tables................................................................................................................................ v

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... vi

Chapter 1: Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1Background

National ContextIncremental vs. True High Speed Rail

Research QuestionRelevance

HypothesisMethodsReport Structure

Chapter 2: Existing Research on High Speed Rail's Effect on Population Distribution..........7OverviewMain Themes and Debates

Economic sectors most attracted to HSR station areasMarket size necessary to justify HSR serviceHSR's effect on economic development as a function of city size, network location, anddistance from central citiesEffect on residential location and commutingFactors increasing attractiveness of city centersGreenfield HSR sites

HSR as a city regeneration toolAbility of HSR to create co-cities that act as one marketImpact of HSR on overall growth rates

Conclusion

Chapter 3: California High Speed Rail Proposal ....................................................................... 17OverviewProposed AlignmentsProposed Station Areas

SacramentoStocktonModestoMercedFresnoBakersfield

Projected Services, Travel Times, and RidershipProjected Service LevelsTravel TimesRidership Projections

Conclusion

Chapter 4: Empirical Analysis of Population Distribution in French Urban Areas.................33OverviewMethodology

High Speed Rail and Population Distribution i


4/70

Case CitiesData and Methodology

Case City ResultsSummary Information on Selected Urban AreasLyonLe MansNantesLille

FindingsComparing the Distribution Patterns of Urban AreasComparison with non-TGV cities

Conclusion

Chapter 5: Conclusions............................................................................................................... 57Effect on Population DistributionLimitationsImplication for California Station LocationsPotential for Future Studies

Reference List.............................................................................................................................. 59

ii High Speed Rail and Population Distribution


5/70

List of Figures

Illustration 1-1: CA HSR network........................................................................................................... 1

Illustration 2-1: TGV Sud-Est map....................................................................................................... 13Illustration 3-1: Northern Central Valley Alignments and Stations........................................................ 17Illustration 3-2: Southern Central Valley Alignments and Stations........................................................ 18Illustration 3-3: Sacramento station site and "Railyards" development zoning..................................... 20Illustration 3-4: Stockton Cabral station site......................................................................................... 21Illustration 3-5: Amtrak Briggsmore site............................................................................................... 22Illustration 3-6: Modesto Village One - Land Use Plan......................................................................... 23Illustration 3-7: Modesto Village One Circulation Diagram................................................................... 24Illustration 3-8: Downtown Modesto site.............................................................................................. 25Illustration 3-9: Merced downtown station site..................................................................................... 26Illustration 3-10: Downtown Fresno station site visualization............................................................... 27Illustration 3-11: Bakersfield station site............................................................................................... 28Illustration 4-1: TGV network map........................................................................................................ 36

List of ChartsChart 4-1 Rates of Population Growth over time - Lyon....................................................................... 37Chart 4-2 Distribution of Study Area Population Over Time Lyon...................................................... 38Chart 4-3 Population Growth Distribution Per Interval Lyon.............................................................. 38Chart 4-4 Weighted and Gross Densities over time Lyon.................................................................. 39Chart 4-5 Growth Rates over time Le Mans ..................................................................................... 41Chart 4-6 Distribution of Population over time Le Mans.................................................................... 41Chart 4-7 Weighted and Gross Density over time Le Mans.............................................................. 42Chart 4-8 Population Growth Distribution per interval Le Mans......................................................... 42Chart 4-9 Population Rate over time Nantes..................................................................................... 44Chart 4-10 Distribution of Population over time Nantes.................................................................... 44Chart 4-11 Weighted and Gross Density over time Nantes............................................................... 45Chart 4-12 Population Growth Distribution per interval Nantes......................................................... 45

Chart 4-13 Rates of Population Growth Over Time Lille.................................................................... 47Chart 4-14 Distribution of Study Area Population over time Lille....................................................... 47Chart 4-15 Weighted and Gross Density over time Lille.................................................................... 48Chart 4-16 Population Growth Distribution per interval Lille.............................................................. 48Chart 4-17 Population Share of Central Sub-area Pre-/Post-TGV....................................................... 49Chart 4-18 Weighted Densities of HSR Cities...................................................................................... 50Chart 4-19 Percentage of Urban Area Growth in Central Sub-Area by period..................................... 51Chart 4-20 Percentage of Urban Area Growth in Central Sub-Area over time..................................... 51Chart 4-21 Population Share of Central Sub-area all cities.................................................................. 53Chart 4-22 Weighted Densities of all Cities.......................................................................................... 53Chart 4-23 Percentage of Urban Area Growth in Central Sub-Area by period..................................... 54Chart 4-24 Percentage of Urban Area Growth in Central Sub-Area over time..................................... 55

High Speed Rail and Population Distribution iii


6/70

iv High Speed Rail and Population Distribution


7/70

Index of Tables

Table 1-1 HSR and semi-HSR systems planned or built in the U.S. 1980 2009.................................2

Table 1-2 Semi- (Incremental) versus True High Speed Rail................................................................ 4Table 2-1 California Metropolitan Area Populations.............................................................................. 9Table 2-2 HSR Express Train Travel Times........................................................................................ 11Table 3-1 Potential CA HSR Station Locations................................................................................... 19Table 3-2 Estimated Peak Condition Total Travel Times (Door-to-Door) between City Pairs by Auto,Air, Conventional Rail, and HSR......................................................................................................... 29Table 3-3 Sensitivity Tests for High-Speed Rail.................................................................................. 30Table 4-1 Characteristic of Selected Urban Areas.............................................................................. 35Table 4-2 Percentage of Urban Area Growth in Central Sub-Area HSR cities................................... 50Table 4-3 Characteristic of Selected Urban Areas.............................................................................. 52Table 4-4 Percentage of Urban Area Growth in Central Sub-Area all cities....................................... 55

High Speed Rail and Population Distribution v


8/70

Acknowledgments

I am grateful for the assistance of my faculty advisor, Dr. Shishir Mathur, Associate Professor atSan Jose State University. Dr. Mathur's support and feedback was invaluable over the course of thisproject. I would also like to thank Institut National de Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (INSEE)for their data and online tools, without which this project would not have been possible.

vi High Speed Rail and Population Distribution


9/70

Chapter 1: Introduction


Background

High speed rail (HSR) is a new mode of travel that has revived passenger rail service around theworld in the past forty years and become one of the basic technologies of the twenty-first century(Givoni 2006 p. 594). Givoni defines high speed trains as, high capacity and frequency railwayservices achieving an average speed of over 200 kph (Givoni, 2006 p. 609).

Over ten systems have been developed and operated in other countries (Campos, Rus, and Barrn,2006). The Japanese system was the first in the world, starting in 1964. Since then additionalsystems have been built in Asia in Korean,Taiwan, and China over the last ten years.In Europe, France has operated the TGVHSR service since 1981. Stating with theSud-Est line to Lyon the TGV four lines withadditional segments under construction.Germany and Italy also constructed HSR

services in the early 1990s and a trans-European network is now being developedwith lines in France, Germany, Italy, Spain,Belgium, Britain, and the Netherlands.These existing networks can provideimportant information to planners in the USabout the performance and developmenteffects of HSR service in the cities andregions they serve.

The proposed California HSR systemstretches more than 700 miles from SanFrancisco, Oakland, and Sacramento in thenorth to Los Angeles and San Diego in the

south (see Illustration 1-1). The proposedCAHSR system will have the capacity tocarry approximately 116 million passengersannually (Authority and Administration2005b, 1). The alignment will run throughCalifornias Central Valley connecting thefast-growing cities of Bakersfield, Fresno,Merced, Modesto and Stockton, all of whichare outside the metropolitan areas forCalifornia's central cities. With speeds inexcess of 200 mph, the travel time fromSan Francisco to Los Angeles is estimatedat approximately 2.5 hours and the system would carry between 32 million and 58 million intercitypassengers annually by 2020 (Authority and Administration 2005a).1

National Context

The California project is one of six high-speed and semi-high-speed projects in the United States thatis in planning or was constructed in the last fifteen years.

1 The California HSR Authority has developed different ridership scenarios based on changes in factors suchas fuel cost or increased travel time due to congestion on roads and at airports. The base case is 32 millionpassengers on HSR with ridership estimates as high as 58 million by 2020.

High Speed Rail and Population Distribution 1

Illustration 1-1: CA HSR network

Source: CAHSRA http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/


10/70


Table 1-1 HSR and semi-HSR systems planned or built in the U.S. 1980 2009

Corridor Power Top Speed / Average Speed

R.O.W. Length Service(roundtrips)

Status

NorthEastCorridor AcelaExpress

Electric 150 mph (240km/h) / 72 mph(116 km/h)

Upgradedexisting R.O.W.mixed traffic

456miles /734 km(totalcorridor)

DCNY 16;NY Boston9

Built New Haven toBoston extension 1996- 2000

Keystone renewal

Electric 110 mph (177km/h) / 66 mph(105 km/h)


104miles /166 km

14roundtrips

Built Rehabilitationto Harrisburg 2004 -2006

California Electric 220 mph (375km/h) /

New exclusivetrack with mixed trafficsections near SF& LA

700miles /1,190 km

172roundtrips

In preliminaryengineering $8billion bond approvedNov. 2008

Florida Turbine

/Electric

150 + mph (240

+ km/h) /unknown

Exclusive Unknown 12 +

roundtrips

In planning All

activity on hold since2005

Midwest Diesel 110 mph (177km/h) / unknown


2,313miles /3,722 km

Unknown In planning

Southeast Diesel 110 mph (177km/h) / unknown


Unknown Unknown In planning

Sources: CAHSR Authority, Amtrak, Wikipedia, Federal Railroad Administration, North CarolinaDepartment of Transportation

To date only two semi-high speed (average speeds below 200 km/h) rail services, Amtrak's Acela andKeystone, have been built and put into service in the United States. Both of those cases have involved

the rehabilitation and/or extension of rail lines once owned by the Penn Central Railway and electrifiedin the early 20th century.

Northeast Corridor

The Northeast Corridor between Washington D.C., New York, and Boston, Massachusetts, hosts thehighest speed rail service in the United States and the largest expansion of electrified rail service inthe last 60 years. The first semi-high speed rail service between Washington D.C. and New York wasthe 125 mph Metroliner service launched in 1969 New York and Washington D.C. with a non-stopschedule of 2 hours and 30 minutes, and Turbo service between New York Grand Central Terminaland Boston South Station with a 3:44 running time. The Metroliner was made possible by the HighSpeed Ground Transportation Act of 1965 which funded the development and purchase of the semi-high speed Metroliner electric multiple unit (EMU) train sets and rail lines upgrades (Transportation2008; Wikipedia 2008b). The next decade the aging infrastructure fell into disrepair adding hours to

the travel times up and down the corridor. The rehabilitation of the Northeast Corridor and extensionof the electrification from New Haven, CT to Boston was a multi-step, multi-decade process that beganwhen the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 was signed into law creating theNortheast Corridor Improvement Project (NECIP) (North Carolina Department of Transportation 2008).The NECIP rehabilitated the southern section of the corridor from Washington D.C. to New York butopposition from the Reagan Administration and budget cuts in 1983 meant the planned extension ofelectrification from New Haven to Boston was cancelled (Office of Legislative Research 1994).

2 High Speed Rail and Population Distribution


11/70


In 1994 the Federal Railroad Administration issued the Northeast High-Speed Rail ImprovementProject for the extension of electrification to Boston and major renewals and upgrades to the tracks toreduce travel times to three hours between New York and Boston. The new semi-high-speed AcelaExpress train service began in late 2000. Despite the completion of the electrification, purchase ofnew high-speed trainsets and track upgrades to allow speeds of up to 150 mph in limited sections, thethree hour goal was never met. As of 2003 the master plan goal of a three hour trip time was no longerbeing funded by the Federal Government, nor actively pursued by Amtrak (General Accounting Office2004).

Despite the promise shown in the late 1960's, the Northeast Corridor has stalled over the last fortyyears. Despite over 20 years of effort, and the expenditure of $4.6 billion in federal funds the currentAcela Express schedule of 2:35 min DC New York and 3:42 minutes New York Boston is fiveminutes slower and two minutes faster than the 1969 Metroliner and Turbo services respectively(Administration 2007; Amtrak 2008a, 2008b). While a dozen countries around the world havedeveloped true highspeed networks and services the United States stagnated, only rebuildingexisting semi-HSR services.

Keystone Corridor

The second semi-high speed service implemented in the United States is the Keystone Servicebetween Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and New York via Philadelphia. The story of rail service on theKeystone corridor mirrors that of the north section of the Northeast corridor in many ways. TheKeystone Corridor between Harrisburg and Philadelphia was owned by the Pennsylvania Railroadand electrified in two stages in 1915 and the early 1930's. After the passage of the High SpeedGround Transportation Act of 1965 several attempts were made at creating high speed or semi-highspeed service from the mid-60s to the mid-80s but all failed. A joint Amtrak-State of Pennsylvaniaproject to restore the line and introduce 110 mph service was finally undertaken in 2004-2006.

According to Mathur and de Cerreo (2006), the first attempt at semi-high speed service was made in1967, when a proposal by Westinghouse Air Brake Company (WABCO) presented to thePennsylvania Commerce Department a study on HSR. The study proposed implementing HSRservice between Philadelphia and Ohio, with trains that could run up to 150 mph, on a right-of-way(ROW) but the state rejected this for a proposal to jointly fund the purchase of electric-powered

Capitaliner coaches, identical to the Metroliner coaches being implemented on the NEC. (Cerreoand Mathur 2006, 56). The bankruptcy of Penn Central in 1970 terminated the agreement before thecoaches could be purchased. The corridor eventually received the original Metroliner coaches onlyafter they were replaced by the second generation versions on the Northeast corridor.

In 1976 the line was transferred to Amtrak, which initially invested in restoring the line but let itdeteriorate over the 1980's. In 1980 Pennsylvania joined the Interstate High Speed Intercity RailPassenger Network Compact which included the states of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan,Missouri, New York, Tennessee, and West Virginia. The legislature unanimously passed, andGovernor Dick Thornburgh (R) signed, legislation establishing the Pennsylvania High Speed IntercityRail Passenger Commission (PHSIRPC). The Commission created reports in 1985, 1987 and 1989but was effectively ended by Governor Robert Patrick Casey (D, 19871995) who cut thecommission's staff in 1987 (Cerreo and Mathur 2006, 58-62). In this paper Mathur and de Cerreostate, No reason was publicly stated; there was speculation that airline interests may have been

involved, but this was always denied. Ridership fell by two thirds over the course of the 1980's from1,024,700 to 334,963 yearly passengers. By 1988 electric service was suspended and diesellocomotives were used instead (Cerreo and Mathur 2006, 57) (Dawson 1993). By 2004 most of thetrack was limited to a maximum speed of 70 miles per hour (113 km/h), except for a few 90 mile perhour (145 km/h)) sections and many curves and interlocking had even slower speed restrictions(Wikipedia 2008a).

A $145 million joint project between Amtrak, the national passenger railroad company, the FederalTransit Administration and the State of Pennsylvania rehabilitated tracks, electrification, and signaling.



12/70


The work allows speeds of up to 110 mph and a 30 minute reduction in running times betweenHarrisburg and Pennsylvania from two hours to an hour and 35 minutes (Transportation 2006). Likethe more famous and heavily used Northeast Corridor, the history of the Keystone Corridor has beenone of long-term stagnation. Waves of investment and deterioration over the past forty years have leftthe line in somewhat better shape than the late 1960s. The difference has been only marginal and notthe step-change in speed and frequency that true high speed rail services have brought to othercountries.

Other Systems

The history of high speed rail, or even semi-high speed outside of the old Penn Central system, in theUnited States has been one of disappointment and abject failure. Not one high-speed networkproposal has been funded or constructed. All proposals for HSR in Florida and Texas have failed inthe face of opposition, lack of federal support, and the withdrawal of support, or outright opposition,from state officials. The Chicago Hub network in the midwest has not been funded outside of theconstruction of two short semi-high speed demonstration lines in Michigan and Illinois (Administration2008).

Incremental vs. True High Speed Rail

The two services discussed above and most new high speed rail proposals in the United Statestoday would not qualify as HSR under Givoni's definition of average speeds in excess of 200km/h (125mph). These incremental HSR / Semi-HSR networks have several characteristics that differentiatethem from true HSR networks:

Table 1-2 Semi- (Incremental) versus True High Speed Rail

Element Incremental Semi-HSR True HSR

Track / right-of-way Upgrades to existing, tight turns, gradesunder 2%

New, wide turns, up to 3.5% or 5% grades

Traffic Mixed intercity, commuter and freightoperations, often of freight-owned tracks

Many track sections exclusive to HSR intercityand semi-HSR commuter/regional trains

Power System Diesel, turbine, or electric New high speed-capable electrification

Crossings Allowed at grade with four way gates No grade crossings allowed

Sources: Authority 2005a Table 3.0-1, Caltrain (http://www.caltrain.com/engineeringstandards/index.html)

Incremental HSR uses upgrades to existing tracks, sometimes double-tracking a a single line, rather awhole new rail line. Very often the curve radii for such tracks do not allow for speed over 110-125 mph,as is the case for much of the North East Corridor. Semi-high speed, regular speed,commuter/intercity, and freight trains also all share the same track. This is different than most HSRlines where the high speed lines and used exclusively by HSR trains, and possibly some semi-HSRcommuter trainsets. The HSR trains may exit to regular speed lines as necessary to reach urbanstations or destinations beyond the HSR line, but do not share track with classic trains on the new highspeed tracks. The axis heavy loads of freights trains cause the shared tracks to violate the tighttolerances needed for 300-375 km/h (185220 mph) operation (CAHSR Authority 2005a, 2-272-29).Due to current Federal Railroad Administration rules regarding crash-worthiness standards, mixedtraffic freight trains have a large impact on train weight and hence performance. Several incrementHSR systems propose to use diesel-electric or turbine powered trains that can achieve maximumspeeds of 175 240 km/h (110-150 mph). By contrast true HSR trains are capable of commercialservice between 300 350 km/h (187 220 mph). Unlike the Amtrak lines discussed above theproposed California would operate at the high average speeds and frequencies that would qualify astrue HSR (Givoni, 2006 p. 609).



13/70


At this time the California HSR network is the only proposal for true HSR service in the country that isbeing actively pursued and has a dedicated funding source available. In November of 2008 the votersof California passed proposition 1A which approved the sale of $10 billion dollars in general obligationbonds by the state to construct the proposed HSR network.

Research Question

HSR are high investment long-term infrastructure projects meant to substantially change travelpatterns. Beyond the travel mode change this paper seeks to evaluate if HSR station have an effecton the where growth is located within an urban area. Urban areas in France were selected for theanalysis because of the age and extent of the French HSR system and similarities in populationdensities with California. Specifically:

1. Has HSR service caused the distribution of growth in French urban areas to shift towards thecentral urban area close to the HSR station? Which are the factors that may intensify such aneffect?

2. How should California Central Valley cities best locate their stations in light of the abovefactors?

Relevance

The metropolitan areas around the Central Valley host cities for the California high speed rail network(Bakersfield, Fresno, Merced, Modesto and Stockton) are all projected to absorb a substantialpercentage of the states population growth between 2010 and 2050 (Finance 2004). All of these cities'transportation systems are currently very automobile-dominated with resultant low-density highway-oriented development (Burchell et al. 1998). The land-inefficiency, cost, danger, and pollution of suchdevelopment poses a series of environmental, health, and economic challenges to the state(Cieslewicz 2002). Despite these problems the local leaders in all of these communities seek to attractgrowth in residents and business as a way to improve the economies of their areas, and see the HSRnetwork as an alternative that would attract growth to their regions. At the same time environmentalgroups across the state are very concerned that the HSR network may in fact increase the rate ofhabitat and farmland loss if it results in the acceleration of the current HOD growth pattern of the

Central Valley (Nelson 2006). Many local leaders and business interest are interested in attractingadditional economic opportunities to their areas. Therefore an important question whether HSRservice would accelerate current population dispersal trends or change those trends.

Hypothesis

The effect of high speed rail services in other countries has been that economic and population growthin outlying metropolitan areas is redirected towards the central city in which the station is located(Harman 2006; Sands 1993; Vickerman 1997). The addition of a High Speed Rail station to secondarycities changes the location and urban form of growth by redirecting growth from the outer edges of thecity and other parts of the metro region towards the area around the station (Rietveld et al. 2001;Willigers, Floor, and Wee 2005). The arrival of HSR service led to centralization of informationeconomy, retail, and hotel activity around the city center and station area of the host city at theexpense of outlying area within the same metropolitan area (Sands, 1993; Harman 2006). Similarlythe introduction of HSR service to the California Central Valley will lead to the slowing of populationdispersal and potential the re-concentration of population within the central cities of urban area thathave HSR stations.

Methods

The current study reviews the existing body of literature on HSR's effect on urban development andperforms analysis on population data for select urban areas with HSR service. Existing literature is



14/70


examined for what lessons can be learned from the experience of other countries regarding growthinducement by HSR and optimal HSR station location. The population and density trends anddistribution from 1968 to 2006 are analyzed for four French urban areas that have had HSR inoperation for over ten years.

To measure the effect of HSR service on the distribution of business and residential growth in hostcities I will obtain population and density data for cities in selected urban areas in the years before andafter the start of HSR service. Each urban area is divided into central, medium, and outer areas.Population indicators used include:

Growth rates by sub-area; Percentage of total area population increase/decrease accommodated by each sub-area; Percentage of urban area in each sub-area; Gross and weighted density and weighted/gross density ratio

These measurement are compared by sub-area over time to evaluate if the distribution of growth ischanging. The weighted density and the gross/weighted density ratio also shows if the population ofthe urban area is dispersing more homogeneously across the landscape, or concentrating in everdenser clumps of high population areas (Bradford 2008). Population trends in the four urban areaswith HSR are compared against each other and two urban areas with limited HSR service.

Report Structure

Following portions of this paper are organized into four chapters. Chapter two reviews the availableliterature on HSR's effect on urban development and growth distribution, and potential implications ofthose studies for California. Chapter three evaluates whether the proposed alignments and stationsand current planning around those location does or does not support attempts to accommodate andtake advantage of HSR. Chapter four then analyzes the growth patterns of French cities since theintroduction of HSR service to measure if HSR service correlates with changes in urban area growthdistribution. Chapter five summarizes the findings of this paper, discusses study limitations,opportunities for further research, and the policy implications of this paper's findings.



15/70

Chapter 2: Existing Research on High Speed Rail's Effect on Population Distribution

Chapter 2: Existing Research on High Speed Rail's Effect onPopulation Distribution

Overview

The following literature review discusses main themes, debates, and findings related to HSR's impacton development and economic growth including: regional economic growth, the comparative effectson HSR and non-HSR cities based on size and location, long-distance commuting, business location,regional competitiveness, and the relative attractiveness of city centers.

The literature review first establishes the need for additional research regarding the developmentimpacts of HSR. Next, main themes and debates regarding HSR services' development impacts areidentified. Subsequently, the hypothesis of this paper is compared to existing research to evaluate if itis supported or contradicted by the current literature. Finally, the literature review draws conclusionsabout the current state of research regarding HSR services effect on spatial development.

Main Themes and DebatesResearch on the effects of HSR networks is still rather thinly developed. Because HSR lines serveboth local and inter-regional traffic, and most often are located at the heart of large urban cities, theeconomic and urbanization effects of HSR are complex and multi-faceted. The main urbanization andeconomic foci and debates have been:

Which economic sectors are most attracted to HSR (Sands 1993; Knox 2006; Blum et al. 1997;Bonnafous 1987)

The market size necessary to justify HSR service (Vickerman 1997; Rus 2006)

How city size and location in relation to the HSR network affects development and economicimpacts (Bonnafous 1987; Harman 2006; Haynes 1997; Preston 2006; Rus 2006; Sasaki et al.1997; Vickerman 1997; Willigers 2005)

Creation of HSR commute suburbs (Preston 2006; Riley 2007; VEF 2007; Rietveld 2001)

HSR effect on the attractiveness of city centers (Knox 2006; Willigers 2003)

The development of greenfield HSR sites (Bertolini 1998, 167-8; Givoni 2006, 605; Haynes1997, 70; Sands, 1993)

HSR as a city regeneration tool (Harman 2006, 12; Rietveld 2001, 11-12; Vickerman 1997, 36;Willigers 2005, 5)

The ability of HSR to create co-cities (Knox 2006; Blum et al. 1997), and

HSR's effect on overall growth rates (Sands 1993; Knox 2006)

Economic sectors most attracted to HSR station areasThe range of businesses that are attracted to areas with high levels of HSR services is still an area ofdebate. Researchers define a range of market segment from very narrowly to broad segments. Knox(2006) only looks at information economy firms. Sands (1993) includes information economy plusretail and hotels. They see these sectors as the only ones that would consider the HSR network as acriterion in selecting new locations. Blum, Haynes, and Karlsson (1997) view the market very broadlyby including all specialized service producers who require face to face meetings and large markets tosupport specialization. The leisure and retail sectors are included as well, since those sectors would



16/70


benefit from induced leisure travel. Blum et al. (1997) theorize that land consuming industries currentlylocated in the central metropolitan area would relocate because of HSR to more peripheral areas ofHSR network. Such industries would relocate to areas that use the HSR service to maintain traveltimes to existing clients and suppliers comparable to that of the old location, but with lower land cost(Blum et al. 1997). Bonnafous notes the special attraction of HSR station areas for satellite offices offirms, as evident in the decision of several national and international firms in Nantes and Lyons,France, to locate close to HSR stations (Bonnafous 1987; Sands 1993).

Implications for Central Valley

The Central Valley currently lags the state in terms of the employment categories most attracted toHSR station areas. According to the California Employment Development Department, in 2006 FresnoCounty had only two third the proportion of employment in professional service, finance, andinformation sectors as Los Angeles County. Other smaller counties most likely have even smallerpercentages of the their economies in such business sectors. Therefore, the economic impact of HSRmay be lesser for Central Valley cities than in the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Areametropolitan areas because of their economic sector mix.

Market size necessary to justify HSR service

The economic business case for HSR is to connect large central cities to each other or to sufficientlylarge regional cities with few intermediate stops (Vickerman 1997; Rus and Nash 2006). This meansthat the end points of most high speed lines are large cities. Several researchers place the ridershipthreshold at approximately 12 15 million riders a year. Rus and Nash (2006) estimate that anisolated 500 km line would need approximately 12 million annual trips to justify the construction of theline solely on the travel and time savings benefits. Vickerman (1997; 31-33) places the minimumregional city size at 750,000 people in order to reach 12 15 million riders. Lower ridership lineswould be viable if they are constructed to relieve over-capacity infrastructure instead of new orexpanded highways or airports. Coto-Milln, Inglada, and Rey (2007) comparative economicevaluation of the net present benefit of two Spanish HSR lines illustrated the factors needed for aneconomically successful system. The line connecting Madrid (population 5.5 million) to Seville (pop.1.1 million) results is a negative net present value under all sensitivity tests. The line connectingMadrid to Barcelona (pop. 4.9 million) would generate a positive net present value under all sensitivity

tests. Therefore, in the Spanish case of an initial, isolated, unique gauge2

HSR line in a middle incomecountry, a multi-million person regional city was needed to anchor the first stand alone line.


The proposed California system far exceeds the market necessary for HSR to be a justified on traveland time savings benefits. As shown in Table 2-1 main cities and metropolitan areas of Los Angelesand San Francisco connected in the first phase are far larger than the minimum necessary size to

justify HSR service. Further two Central Valley cities and metro areas included in the first segmentmay be large enough to justify a HSR system connecting them to one of the major metropolitan areasin their own right. Finally the Sacramento metropolitan area and nearby Stockton also have largepopulations that justify extension of the network to include them.

Ridership for the CA HSR system is projected tobe between 87 and 119 million by 2030 (Authority2005a). Beyond the very high amount of benefits riders of the network would enjoy by connecting such

high population areas, the system would also provide major congestion relief benefits. These wouldinclude reducing the number of short haul intrastate flights from Los Angeles, San Francisco, andOakland airports which are all approaching or at capacity. Diversions from auto travel would releasecongestion on I-5 and Route 99. Goods movement would also be improved by the HSR network'sability to carry parcel service and night time medium-weight freight trains (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade& Douglas 2004, 6).

2 The Spanish HSR lines are standard gauge, unlike the wider Iberian gauge used on all other rail linesthroughout Spain and Portugal.



17/70


Table 2-1 California Metropolitan Area Populations

First Phase City Population Metro Area Population

Los Angeles 3,849,368 12,950,119

San Francisco 744,041 7,236,391

Fresno 481,035 1,002,284

Bakersfield 323,213 780,711

Central Valley Extension

Sacramento 467,343 2,103,956

Stockton 325,308 625,892Source: United States Census

HSR's effect on economic development as a function of city size, network location, anddistance from central cities

One of the most important themes in the research on the economic impacts of HSR is the differentialimpacts of HSR on large and small cities, and those on the network versus those off of it. Acomplicating factor in discussion of the topic is the differing objectives various researchers bring to thetopic. Some researchers such as Kim (2000) in Korea explore the potential use of HSR as a tool fordispersion from the central areas to the periphery. Japanese researchers have modeled to determineif additional HSR will lead to dispersion in Japan (Sasaki, Ohashi, and Ando 1997). Many Europeancommentators are concerned about how to lessen inequalities between the central areas of Europeand the periphery, or possible inequalities created between connected and bypassed cities (Rus 2006;Vickerman 1997). In the U.S. planning context a big focus of Smart Growth is to re-concentrate growthinto existing urban areas and away from the periphery, reducing sprawl. What is a negative outcomefrom one perspective may be the desired outcome of another research.

Three criteria have been found to determine HSR service's potential impact on secondary cities: citysize, network location, and distance from central cities. All three of these criteria interact to determine

the development potential of a city.The natural market for HSR services, and hence its effect on the development of a secondary

metropolitan area, is greatly impacted by the travel time between a secondary city and the connectedprimary city (usually the capital city). According to Harman (2006) three travel time bands exist:

Primary Market: 1.5 2.5 hours Commuting Market: 1 hour or less Longer distance market: Over 2.5 hours

In the 1.5 to 2.5 hour travel market HSR very successfully competes for business and leisure travelagainst both autos and airplanes. Trip times of under 2.5 hours allow same day business travelbetween cities where it was not possible before, except by plane. The French and Spanish cities ofLyon, Nantes, and Seville are all regional cities that experienced high ridership growth after HSRbrought them within the primary market time band of Paris or Madrid (Harman 2006, 6-8). At travel

times of less than one and a half hour, HSR servicestravel time advantage begins to fade incomparison to auto travel, as the private auto s low access time begins to outweigh its low speed.

HSR services can induce long-distance commuting when they connect smaller cities to majoremployment centers with travel times of less than an hour. Le Mans, Tours, and Lille in France;Puertollano and Ciudad Real in Spain; and the Svealan line (Eskilstuna area) in Sweden are exampleof cities that became commuter feeders to larger cities connected by HSR. Finally, HSR trips of over2.5 hours serve a significant market, though a smaller one than those under 2.5 hours. Trips of over2.5 hours are focused on leisure travel, weekend getaways and the such, but also includes aconsiderable market share for business travel, including business tourism (conferences) (Harman



18/70


2006, 7-9). HSR services' ability to provide high comfort levels, more productive travel time, and alonger continuous time en route are the keys to HSR's competitiveness in the longer travel timemarkets (Vickerman 1997, 33). In this case the longer percentage of the trip on-board is an advantageagainst the airline travel with its highly segmented trip where so much time is spent going to airport,then check in and boarding, a short flight, debarking, then travel from airport.

The size of a city and its metropolitan area has been identified as a critical factor in how HSR serviceaffects the development of that city. As previously stated, Vickerman (1997) found that a city needed apopulation of at least 750,000 to justify the construction of a HSR line to serve that city. Large citiesthat act as regional centers seem to benefit far more from economic development related to HSR thansmaller cities (Harman 2006; Givoni 2006, 606). One initial fear when HSR service started from Paristo Lyon, France was that regional firms would be drawn away to Paris. In the case of Lyon it was thereverse; regional firms used the TGV to penetrate the Paris market and grow while many internationalfirms located national branches in Lyon (Bonnafous 1987). The contrast between the large-scaledevelopment of Lyon's Part-Dieu neighborhood and Vendome, France's relative lack of developmentshows how critical a factor city size is (Hayes 1997).

The Lyon Part-Dieu TGV station, developed as part of the Part-Dieu urban neighborhood area, hasbeen a great transportation and economic development success. Land values in the neighborhoodincreased as office demand rose 5.2% per year between 1983 and 1990 for a total growth of 43%(Haynes 1997, 70). Lyon Part-Dieu was able to attract firms from competing cities in the same regionsuch as Grenoble and Geneve, and from other parts of Lyon (Rietveld 2001, 9). In the case of TGVSud Est the literature (Rietveld 2001, 11-12; Willigers 2005, 5) indicates that the HSR servicestrengthened Lyon at the expense of other cities in the region. Further it developed a strong new CBDaround Lyon Part-Dieu at the expense of stagnating growth in the adjacent old center.

Preston et al. (2006) pointed out Ashford, England's small size (pop. 110,000) and role as, a mediumsized market town, not a regional centre on a par with Cologne, Lille, Lyon or Seville as the reason itgained little new development by virtue of it being on the Eurostar line (Preston, Larbie, and Wall2006, 8). The opening of the final phase of HS1 and the new Ebbsfleet station has resulted in the lossof direct HSR service from Ashford to Brussels and the 50% reduction in service to Paris. IronicallyAshford is projected to benefit far more from the launch of domestic train service on HS1 linking it withLondon. This is because Ashford's economic links to London and rest of Southeast England are far

more important than its links to Paris and Brussels. The importance in city size is shown by thecontrast between the nearly immeasurably small impact Eurostar service has had on Kent, the effectthe HS1 project had on the new London terminal station. Bringing Eurostar service to the refurbishedSt. Pancras station in London is estimated to have brought 10bn ($20.64 billion) in private investmentinto the local station area (Milmo 2007).

Knox (2006) theorizes that the introduction of HSR services leads a regional city's economy to shiftfrom being a generalized local center to a specialized producer in certain domains in the national orinternational economy. A city needs to have a sufficiently large service economy and number ofspecialized service providing firms to truly take advantage of this change in economic relations thatincreased integration brings.


As shown by Table 2-2, the completed High Speed Rail network would put all Central Valley stations

within an hour of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, and/or San Jose. The two primary jobcenters of California, Los Angeles and San Francisco, would be within an hour or every San JoaquinValley stop except Fresno. Bakersfield and Palmdale would both be within travel time necessary forlong-range commuter service to Los Angeles. Palmdale is pushing to grow as a commuter destinationand boost its local airport. There is a question however if downtown Bakersfield would develop as aregional economic center or become a bedroom community of commuter condos for people working inLA. For the Northern San Joaquin Valley stations of Stockton, Modesto, and Merced travel times arehighly dependent on the ultimate route chosen between the Bay Area and San Joaquin Valley. ThePacheco Pass alignment would put all three stations within an hour of San Jose, and the Altamont



19/70


alignment within an hour of San Francisco as well (Authority 2005a).

Table 2-2 HSR Express Train Travel Times

Travel Times Fresno Bakersfield Sacramento Los

Angeles

San

Francisco

San Jose

Fresno - 0:35 0:53 1:19 1:15 12:45:00AM

Bakersfield 0:35 - 1:25 0:47 1:47 1:17

Sacramento 0:53 1:25 - 2:09 1:40 1:10

Los Angeles 1:19 0:47 2:09 - 2:30 2:00

San Francisco 1:15 1:47 1:40 2:30 - 0:30

San Jose 0:45 1:17 1:10 2:00 0:30 -

Source: California High Speed Rail Authority Final EIR 2005,Table 2.6-1 p. 2-24

The Central Valley cities fall into two categories. The small population sizes and/or nearness to the

Bay Area and Sacramento metropolitan areas suggests than Stockton, Modesto, Merced, andPalmdale would all develop as components of and as commuter feeders to those metropolitan areas.The Altamont outing of the CAHSR network could lead to the integration of the Bay Area andSacramento into one large metropolitan area. Fresno and Bakersfield have the size and distance fromLos Angeles than they may develop as independent regional centers. Fresno as the largest city andonly one beyond and hour travel time from San Francisco or Los Angeles is the most likely to develop.

For Fresno and/or Bakersfield to take advantage of HSR service several conditions must be met. Thecities must pro-actively plan for the development of the HSR station area. A positive growth climatemust exist at the time regeneration activities are undertaken. Secondly the cities must have or attractthe economic sectors that would take advantage of HSR service. This maybe a large challenge asneither Fresno nor Bakersfield are known as attractive places for knowledge economy firms, high endservices, or tourism. This will make any regeneration efforts especially dependent on coordinatedgovernment actions to transform the local economy, as were undertaken in Lille, France.

Effect on residential location and commuting

As previously mentioned, HSR services that provide a travel time of less than an hour to a majoremployment center can attract long-range commuters. The effect of HSR services on a labor marketare two fold. First the service allows current residents of the cities to commute to the other city,eventually leading many of them to move to the city they work in. Second, residents who live and workin the same city may move to a more distant location they find more desirable that is now HSRaccessible (Blum et al. 1997). Blum et al. (1997) calculates the economic benefit of HSR commutingby looking at the equilibrium between the communing costs and existing wage differences betweendifferent regions. Theypoint to the network of German cities connected by HSR lines as an examplebut only describes a theoretical, mathematical model rather than providing any real world casestudies.

Examples of HSR commuting can be found in Spain, France, and Sweden, and internationally alongthe Eurostar and Thalys lines connecting London, Paris, and Brussels. The Svealand line in Swedenbetween Ekilstuna and Stockholm led to increased ridership by a factor of seven, and increased railsmarket share, from 6 percent to 30 percent (Froidh 2005). Similarly, the Spanish HSR service (AVE)from Seville to Madrid has seen the growth of substantial commuter ridership from Ciudad Real andPuertollano to Madrid on the AVE. This has led to an increase in through trains from Ciudad Real toMadrid from 18 in 1992 to 47 in 2005 (Preston 2006, 4). The effect of French HSR (TGV) commutingon land prices in Vendme is disputed in the literature with some studies showing no effect and others



20/70


showing a 30 percent increase in prices. An increase in commuting one or more days a week fromLyon and Le Mans to Paris has also been observed. Lille has become a bedroom community forworkers commuting to Paris, Brussels, and London (Rietveld 2001). According to press reportsEnglish prefer to buy properties in the old town or near the station (Riley 2007; VEF 2007).


The proposed California HSR network will open up the majority of Central Valley station cities to thepossibility of long-range HSR commuting. As discussed in the previous section, the smaller citieswithin an hours travel distance of Los Angeles or San Jose are the most likely to develop as commuterbedroom communities.

Factors increasing attractiveness of city centers

Several authors note numerous positive direct and indirect impacts of HSR on the attractiveness ofcity centers it serves. First, the centers benefit most from increased accessibility offered by direct citycentertocity center travel. The presence of a new or renovated HSR station can also add an imagepremium to an office address (Willigers 2003). Both factors help city centers compete with airportlocations which have benefited from the above factors associated with air travel. Another importantfactor is that new HSR infrastructure frees up track space on the conventional network for increased

commuter and regional rail service. Because of the speed mismatch between commuter and expressservice, the freed capacity is disproportionate to the number of trips converted. This allows cities toincrease commuter and regional services and hence their labor market size (Knox 2006).

A second aspect of business location is that those businesses that have customers and employeeswho travel via rail service place a far higher premium on accessibility to rail services than one wouldexpect, based on the percentage of customers or employees using rail service (Willigers 2003). Forexample a firm where only 25% of the customers or employees use rail service would value a locationnear a rail station far higher than one next to freeway access. Willigers (2003) believes this is becausetravelers arriving by rail experience greater obstacles traveling a long distance from a station, thancustomers arriving by auto experience traveling traveling a long distance from the nearest off-ramp.Therefore, firms that have a sizable minority of customers and/or employees using rail service willprioritize rail access in their locational decisions over auto access, even if most customers and/oremployees use autos. This in turn, means that an increase in the percentage of customer contacts

and/or employees that use rail service to access a business will have a disproportionate effect onincreasing the attractiveness of a station area locations for that company.

A third important aspect of HSR services is the effect that they can have on the local transportationnetwork. Harman notes that of the twenty tram/light-rail systems outside of Paris, most built in the lastten years, eighteen are in cities with regular TGV service. Likewise ICE station cities have a tramway,regional rail system (Schnellbahn), or both (Harman 2006, 19). The concentrated travel demand andinner city location of most HSR stations and the subsequent need for high quality and capacitytransport connecting across the city are seen as a major impetus to the creation or expansion of localrail service. This in turn increases the accessibility and attractiveness of the city center.


Increasing the attractiveness of Central Valley city centers may be one of the most profound impactsthe CA HSR will have on the Central Valley. The travel to work market of the Central Valley is currentlydominated by drive alone to work (Bureau 2003). This auto dominated system means city centers arerelatively disadvantaged as auto mobility creates a relatively flat accessibility gradient compared to theconcentrated accessibility nodes created by transit or walking. This leaves city centers without anaccessibility advantages over other locations and unable to create a sufficient density of employmentdestinations to create positive agglomeration effects without negatively impacting (auto) accessibility.CA HSR stations will create points of very high intercity accessibility that, if located in city centers, willcreate accessibility and image advantages for those centers (Willigers 2003). Additionally, if theconcentrated travel demands created by the HSR stations and downtown development leads cities to



21/70


reintroduce tram service, as has happened in France (Harman 2006, 19), it will have substantialimpacts on the accessibility and development potential of city centers.

In the debate over the California HSR bond initiative it was argued that California is not ready for HSRbecause the local transit networks are not as developed as in western Europe or East Asia. Howeverthe experience of many smaller TGV cities in France was that TGV service preceded, and may haveprecipitated, local tramway service. The Central Valley cities of Fresno and Bakersfield hadtram/service service in the past and have had official discussions regarding rebuilding a tram/streetcaror light rail network. It is likely that the construction of downtown HSR stations in both cities wouldincrease local efforts to reintroduce local rail transit.

Greenfield HSR sites

The history of greenfield HSR development in France is one of failure. The TGV Sud Est from Paris toLyon, and the surrounding Rhone-Alps region, was the first European HSR project beginning servicein 1981 (Illustration 2-1). It directly connects Paris andLyon, the first and second largest metropolitan areas inFrance. HSR services also branch off the line to serveadditional locations such as Dijon, Grenoble, and Geneva.

The line included three new stations: Le-Creusot, Mcon-Loch, and Lyon Part-Dieu. The first two stations aregreenfield stations located outside of the respective towns.The third is the new main rail station for Lyon. The stationsat Le-Creusot (population 26,283) and Mcon-Loch (pop.34,469) are what Bertolini refers to as an exurban 'desertstation', with nominal TGV frequencies and poorconnections to both the local transportation networks andeconomic activity centres (Bertolini 1998, 167-8). Bothstations are basic platforms and park and ride lots, with ashuttle train connection to the regional rail system. Little tono development has occurred at these stations despiteover 20 years of TGV service (Givoni 2006, 605; Haynes1997, 70). Similarly, the TGV-Picardie station built as part

of the TGV Nord line in 1993 has attracted no developmentaround it, and its nickname of the beet field station stillapplies as it is still surrounded by agricultural fields 14years later.3 Sands' review of greenfield Shinkasen stationsin Japan showed that the station areas only developed intonew urban centers after subway service was extended tothe station (Sands 1993). This is a situation unlikely to everoccur in the United States as only a handful of the largestcities in the country have subway systems.


The implications for the Central Valley are very important. If California's experience is like that ofFrance, greenfield stations would not spur office or residential development but remain largelyignored. Greenfield stations outside of Central Valley cities would probably result in no developmentbenefits for those cities and poor ridership from such stations. Stations would be much better placed inexisting downtowns where city regeneration effect would be most effective (Harman 2006).

Upon further reflection the reasons for the failure of greenfield development are rather clear. Theeconomic sectors most attracted to HSR (information economy, specialized services, hotels, andspecialized retail) are all attracted to city center locations. A greenfield site offers none of the proximity

3 As verified by the author through Google Earth satellite imagery on 16 Dec. 2007.


Illustration 2-1: TGV Sud-Est map

Source: TGVweb http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/map.html


22/70


benefits or amenities such sectors look for. Ex-urban office parks and sprawl developments are basedon complete automobile-dependence, hence there is little incentive for them to locate next to a railstation.

One crucial difference between the CAHSR proposal and the TGV is that a commuter service overlayis explicitly planned for the CA network whereas the TGV service has not had services designed forcommuters. This does open up the possibility that greenfield stations could be used as park-and-ridestations. Therefore the sprawl inducing effect of HSR stations would be directly tied to the amount ofsubsidized parking provided at stations for commuters.

HSR as a city regeneration tool

HSR services have been an integral part of several successful city regeneration efforts. As mentionedabove, the Lyon Part-Dieu station area dominated the market for new office space and hotels in thedecades after TGV service began extending the center. It further cemented Lyon's position as thedominant regional center of the Rhones-Alps region (shown in Illustration 2-1 above) (Rietveld 2001,11-12). Grenoble and Dijon were able to develop their stations areas as well but were not able toattract development from the surrounding region or Paris (Willigers 2005, 5).

Lille, France on the Paris London branch of the TGV Nord line is another example of successful city

regeneration created in part by the introduction of HSR service. The Lille-Europe station and adjacentbusiness park, retail center (Eurolille), hotels, public housing, and conference center have successfullyredeveloped a former military base and extended the city center (Harman 2006, 12). The regenerationof the region has also extended to the nearby towns of Roubaix (Euroteleport) and Tourcoing. Harmanremarks on the importance of municipal and regional planning in these outcomes:

The selection of the location for the high-speed line station is critical. It must bedeveloped in line with a master plan, one that fits high-speed rail into the strategy for the city as awhole. The station location has to fit with the city strategy. The opportunity for regenerating rundownand disused areas may include railway land and redundant industrial areas (Harman 2006, 12).

Vickerman (1997, 36) concurs with the need for regional planning, but also hypothesizes that theEuropean HSR network will increase the concentration of economic activity in Europes majormetropolitan areas, rather than assist regional cities connected to the networks.


The placement of stations for the CA HSR network will be critical for Central Valley cities. The largercities: Sacramento, Fresno, Bakersfield, and Stockton, have the most to gain economically. The citiesand their county and regional planning agencies should engage with the California Authority inplanning the placement of each station, as well as upgrades to, and planning for development in thesurrounding area.

Ability of HSR to create co-cities that act as one market

Because of its ability to provide for rapid intercity trips, several researchers theorize that in the rightconditions HSR service can unify the labor markets of several close by cities to act as a single city.Blum et al. (1997) theorized that several medium-sized cities if connected to each other by HSRservice at approximately 20 to 40 minutes travel time could gain the market agglomeration benefits of

a single large city. A more concrete application of this idea was put forward by Knox (2006) in hisevaluation of the potential economic impact of HSR service on cities north of London. He puts forwardManchester Leeds and Glasgow Edinburgh as potential co-cities that could integrate theireconomies through HSR connections.


The potential for development of co-cities in the Central Valley seems low. The two largest cities,Fresno and Bakersfield are approximately 105 miles apart, 35 minutes travel time. The city pairs ofStockton Modesto and Modesto Merced are the closest at approximately 27 and 37 miles apart,



23/70


respectively. However, both pairs seem too small and close to the larger Bay Area metropolitan areato form a distinct co-city.

Impact of HSR on overall growth rates

The existing research does not claim that HSR services affect the overall growth rates for an entire

region. Reviewing the extensive history of the Japanese Shinkasen HSR networks Sands (1993)found a correlation between cities served by HSR and higher growth rates. This was true comparingboth with and without access to new expressways, though the highest growth rates were for areas thatreceived both HSR service and an expressway. The data was not able to show whether therelationship was causal, or HSR had been planned to run through high growth areas. Preston, Larbie,and Wall's case study on Ashford, Britain along the Eurostar line also showed higher growth rates thanthe overall region, but not high enough to be statistically significant (Preston 2006). Using economicmodeling Knox showed that theoretically HSR systems should have a slight effect on growth rates,and reviewed cases showing similar results (Knox 2006). These included comparing station and non-station cities in the Tokaido core area (Tokyo Nagoya Osaka) in Japan and the location of Lyon,Nantes, and Le Man in France.


The California Central Valley is predicted to have a higher population growth rate than California as awhole over the next thirty years. As such the biggest question being studied by regional metropolitanPlanning organization and organizations such and the Great Valley Center is how to accommodateexpected growth, not how to increase or decrease future growth rates. Concerns about HSR causingsprawl then should focus on how HSR service will affect growth patterns, not overall growth rates.

Conclusion

A review of the existing literature tends to support the author's hypothesis that the effect of HSRservices in other countries has been that new growth in outlying metropolitan areas is redirectedtowards the station area and those areas within easy access of the high speed rail station; and thatthe addition of a HSR stations to secondary cities changes the location and urban form of growth byredirecting growth from the outer edges of the city and other parts of the metro region towards thearea around the station. A review of the existing literature also shows the need for additional research

examining the effect of HSR on urban development patterns. Far more studies and data have beencollected about the transportation effects of HSR than the urban development effects. Further theliterature shows a large bias towards pre-construction modeling rather than post-facto evaluation ofHSRs development impacts. Most studies of post-facto development also provide little to nodocumentation of their data sets or sources. The available data however tends to point that HSRservices benefit large and medium cities rather than small intermediate ones. Further, auto-dependentgreen field stations have been an absolute development failure in France and Japan (when a subwayis extended to the station it becomes a TOD not a greenfield Edge City). The effect of HSRcommuting on development patterns is still unclear. Whereas press reports suggest the trend is toboost prices in the centers and station area of commuter cities, no in-depth analysis of the effect ofHSR on residential growth has been conducted.



24/70



25/70

Chapter 3: California High Speed Rail Proposal


Overview

This chapter will examine the proposed California High System Rail (CAHSR) system focusing on theCentral Valley portion of the network. It will place the California proposal in the context of HSR in theunited States. Alignments and stations locations will be examined for their suitability and potential fordevelopment.

The proposed California HSR network stretches more than 700 miles from San Francisco, Oakland,and Sacramento in the north to Los Angeles and San Diego in the south (Illustration 1-1). Theproposed CAHSR system will have the capacity to carry approximately 116 million passengersannually (Authority and Administration 2008a). The alignment will run through Californias CentralValley connecting the fast-growing cities of Bakersfield, Fresno, Merced, Modesto, Stockton, andSacramento, (Illustration 3-1, 3-2) all of which are outside of California's main metropolitan areas ofLos Angeles, San Diego, and the San Francisco Bay Area (Authority, 2005a). With speeds in excess


Illustration 3-1: Northern Central Valley Alignments and Stations

Source: CAHSR Authority 2005a, Figure 2.6-33


26/70


of 200mph, the travel time from San Francisco to Los Angeles is estimated at approximately 2.5 hoursand the network would carry between 87 million and 119 million intercity passengers annually by 2030(Systematics et al. 2007).4 The HSR network, if considered as one project, would be the largest publicworks project in California's history.

Proposed Alignments

There are two possible alignments for the CA HSR network in the Central Valley which would impactthe location of stations. The track alignment and station locations for most of the system were decidedin 2005 when the program-level environmental studies were completed. The alignment between theSan Francisco Bay Area and the Central Valley will go from Merced to San Jose through the PachecoPass, although the litigation regarding that decision is still ongoing.

4 The California HSR Authority has developed different ridership scenarios based on changes in factors suchas fuel cost or increased travel time due to congestion on roads and at airports. The base case is 87 millionpassengers on HSR with ridership estimates as high as 119 million by 2030.


Illustration 3-2: Southern Central Valley Alignments and Stations

Source: CAHSR Authority 2005a, Figure 2.6-32


27/70


As seen in illustrations 3-1 and 3-2, the CA HSR network will be built along a combination of twoexisting freight rail alignments through the Central Valley (Authority and Administration 2005a). FromSacramento the line will parallel Union Pacific (UP) Railroad alignment to downtown Stockton. Fromthere two alignments are possible depending on which route is taken into the San Francisco Bay Area.If the Altamont Pass route is taken the HSR line will continue to parallel the UP line to downtownModesto. If the Pacheco Pass route into the Bay Area is chosen the line will switch south of Stocktonto parallel the BNSF railroad line. While the route through the Central Valley is often referred to as theroute 99 corridor the HSR route would generally not run parallel to in the right-of-way of state route99. Route 99 follows the UP line through most of the Central Valley while the HSR would use theBNSF line right-of-way. North of Fresno the BNSF alignment runs east of route 99 and west of itbetween Fresno and Bakersfield. It is preferred over the UP alignment because it goes less throughdeveloped urban areas, would has less construction issues, and costs hundreds of millions less(CAHSR Authority 2005a, 6A-13-17).

Proposed Station Areas

The HSR network will have six stations in the Central Valley. Of these at least four of these will belocated in city center locations: Sacramento, Stockton, Fresno, and Bakersfield. The other twolocations, Modesto and Merced, may be located in city center locations or peripheral/green field

locations depending on future studies and the selection of which alignment, UP or BNSF, to use in theCentral Valley.

Table 3-1 Potential CA HSR Station Locations

City Name of Station Center/ Periphery/ Greenfield Final Location?

Sacramento Sacramento Valley (Downtown) Center Yes, Final

Sacramento Power Inn Road Periphery No, Dropped

Stockton ACE (Downtown) Center Yes, Final

Modesto Southern Pacific (Downtown) Center No, Preferred

Modesto Amtrak Briggsmore Greenfield/Periphery No, Potential

Merced Southern Pacific/UPRR (Downtown) Center No, Preferred

Merced Castle AFB Periphery No, Potential

Merced Municipal Airport Periphery/ Greenfield No, Potential

Fresno Downtown Center Yes, Final

Visalia* Visalia Airport Greenfield No, Potential

Hanford* Downtown Village No, Potential

Bakersfield Truxton (Downtown) Center Yes, Final

Bakersfield Golden State Periphery No, Dropped

Bakersfield Bakersfield Airport Greenfield No, Dropped

* The CA HSR Authority has not made a final determination if a stop will be constructed or not between Fresnoand Bakersfield



28/70


Sacramento

The Sacramento HSR station would be located at the current Amtrak station at the edge of theexisting central business district (CAHSR Authority 2005a). Several factors were used in selectingdowntown as the preferred location. The station location would maximize connectivity by tying inregional and local transit. It is the hub for regional and inter-state rail routes and already connected to

the local light rail and bus networks. The station is also within walking distance of the existingdowntown central business district. All of these elements maximize the ridership potential of the site.The downtown site was also the preferred site of both the City of Sacramento and the SacramentoCouncil of Governments. Alternate site at Power Inn Road several miles southeast of the city centerwas found feasible but dropped as inferior to the downtown site.

Since 2004 the wisdom of selecting the downtown site has been demonstrated by the creation of theRailyards redevelopment plan. The City of Sacramento has created a specific plan and signed adevelopment agreement with a master developer to redevelop the adjacent rail shops and yards as amassive infill transit-oriented development, the Railyards. The rail lines will be realigned and thehistoric rail station moved to become part of an expanded rail station serving Amtrak, HSR, commuterrail, and light rail service. The master developer, Thomas Enterprises, calls the proposed developmentan urban, mixed-use, transit oriented community on 240 acres; an area as large as the existing


Illustration 3-3: Sacramento station site and "Railyards" development zoning

Source: Thomas Enterprises (http://retail.thomasent.com/railyards/downloads.html)


29/70


downtown central business district" (Enterprises 2008). It offers the possibility of adding enoughresidents, destinations, and access options to give Sacramento's downtown the critical mass it needsto regenerate and thrive. The 2006-2009 real estate crash that the Central Valley is currentlyexperiencing may put some of the plans on hold. The addition of HSR service to the Sacramentostation would provide an additional value add that would improve the viability of transit-orienteddevelopment at the Railyards.

Stockton

The Cabral station in downtown Stockton is the preferred location for the San Joaquin County HSRstation. The downtown station is currently used by the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) regional railservice and the Amtrak California San Joaquin service from Sacramento to Bakersfield. It also isnear the Stockton SJRTD Transit Center for the local bus system and has good freeway access(Authority 2005a, 6A-12). A second location in Stockton has been proposed but its chances ofhappening are unclear. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has requested that the

Authority also consider a station site to the east of Stockton along the BNSF rail line (Authority 2005a,6A-12). Currently the state-supported Amtrak San Joaquin train serves two stations in Stockton. The

first is the old Southern Pacific (SP) Cabral station on the UP line on the eastern edge of thedowntown. This station serves ACE trains and those San Joaquin trains going to/from Sacramento. In2002-2003 the Cabral station was rehabilitated and became the offices for the San Joaquin RegionalRail Commission, which runs the ACE. The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission commissioned aconcept plan in 2005 the Robert J. Cabral Station Neighborhood Revitalization Plan by OpticosDesign. This plan looks at ways to improve the neighborhood and access to the station (OpticosDesign 2005). Given these investment levels ACE looks to continue using the station over the longterm. The California State Rail Plan 2007-08 to 2017-18 contains a line item in the unconstrainedcapital project list for a $4.4 million renovation of the Cabral station (California Department of


Illustration 3-4: Stockton Cabral station site

Source: Opticos Design 2005, 2-7


30/70


Transportation 2007, 22). The first phase of the revitalization project was undertaken in the 2007/8budget year (California Department of Transportation 2007, 161).

The second Stockton train station is on the BNSF line south of the downtown and serves San Joaquintrains going to/from Oakland. Caltrans, the manager for the San Joaquin service, was investigatingmoving the all San Joaquin trains out of the current two stations to a new station on the BNSF line(Authority 2005a, 6A-12). The California State Rail Plan 2007-08 to 2017-18 contains a $7.5 millionline items in the unconstrained capital project list for the design and construction of a new station.

Of the two potential stations the downtown ACE station is clearly the superior location for capturing theeconomic development benefits of a HSR service. It is located at the edge of the city center and withinwalking distance of many destinations. The surrounding area is also composed of 300 foot by 300 footblocks ideal for creating a highly walkable urban district (Opticos Design 2005, 2-1 2-7). An edge ofcity center location was an important component of the success of HSR station placements in Lyon,Lille, and Nantes. A new San Joaquin station on the BNSF line east of the BNSF/UP line intersectionwould be at least a mile and a half from the downtown and separated from it by highway 4. Such aslocation would be a completely separate destination and would not gain and synergies from itsintegration into and interaction with the existing downtown. As of 2008, it appears that the CAHSRAuthority is only considering the downtown Cabral/ACE station (Authority and Administration 2008a).

Modesto

Two possible station locations are being considered for Modesto, one downtown on the UP line andone at the Amtrak Briggsmore station at the eastern edge of Modesto (Illustration 3-5). The 2005Environmental Impact Report (EIR) selected the Briggsmore station as the preferred location but thesubsequent process for selecting the preferred route into the San Francisco Bay Area reopened thequestion. If the Altamont alignmentwas chosen, the UP line would beused through the Central Valley.However if the Pacheco Pass routewas chosen the BNSF right-of-waywould be used. If a hybrid or dualroute is chosen it is unclear which

right-of-way would be used for theMerced to Stockton HSR line. TheFinal Bay Area to Central ValleyHigh-Speed Train (HST) ProgramEnvironmental ImpactReport/Environmental ImpactStatement (EIR/EIS) identifies thedowntown Modesto site as thepreferred alternative using theUnion Pacific RR alignment but didnot completely rule out otheralignments or sites (CAHSRAuthority 2008a, S-22).

The Amtrak Briggsmore location is aperipheral and partially greenfieldlocation on the eastern edge ofModesto. The land to the east of thestation is undeveloped farmland.Many of the parcels to the west ofthe station are vacant with otherscontaining low intensity


Illustration 3-5: Amtrak Briggsmore site

Source: CAHSR Authority 2005a, Modesto Briggsmore Fact Sheet


31/70


development such as light industry. Single-family housing developments are to the south andsouthwest of the site.5 The small size of Modesto's existing city center and the over 4 mile distancebetween it and the Briggsmore station would probably would not gain synergies from its integrationinto and interaction with the existing downtown. A potential benefit of the Briggsmore location is that iswould provide a transfer location between CA HSR and any San Joaquin train service that continuesafter HSR service is extended to Sacramento.

The undeveloped area to the west of the BNSF line and north of Briggsmore Avenue is covered by theVillage One Specific Plan:

The Village One Specific Plan provides for the development of the Citys first Urban Village, apedestrian-oriented, mixed-use planned community on approximately 1,784 net acres (1,840gross acres) of land comprised of about 170 parcels in the northeastern portion of ModestosUrban Area. Village One will include 7,000-8,000 housing units, a 40-acre Village center, four

joint school/park sites and a 220-acre Business Park (Modesto 2007, I-1).

5 Based on author's first hand observations in the 2001 confirmed with Google Earth satellite photo analysis inJanuary 2008.


Illustration 3-6: Modesto Village One - Land Use Plan

Source: Modesto 2007, II-50, Figure II-1

Station


32/70


The researcher finds that the plan, while embracing some neo-traditional development ideas, tends tocompletely ignore the potential of the Amtrak site as a transit-based node and anchor for newdevelopment. The first half mile area immediately west of the station is zoned as Industrial/Businesspark with a maximum floor Area ratio of 0.25 and an outright ban on residential (Modesto 2007, II-2).Such zoning destroys the value of the land by legally foreclosing any possibility of transit-orienteddevelopment. This ensures that exclusively auto-dependent uses that ignore the HSR station are theonly allowed uses. Even if a central business district (CBD) style high density walkable office withretail were to become economically feasible, it would still be limited by the 0.25 FAR ratio, whereas aFAR of 4.0 or higher would be necessary for a CBD. Such a zoning is inappropriate for a TOD near anintercity rail, and future commuter rail, station. It would be wildly inappropriate for the area surroundinga HSR station.

The Village Center mixed use commercial district for Village One is both far too small and distantfrom the train station. Only 50 units are planned for mixed use buildings at Village Center. The Multi-Family Residential zones of the Village Center will be medium low density at only 26.25 dwelling unitsper gross acre. Such densities are one quarter of what is recommended to create a lively self-sustaining urban neighborhood (Jacobs 1961, 211). The specific plan's proposal of 8,000 units spreadover 1,784 net acres comes out to approximately 4.48 units per acre. How anything mixed-use orpedestrian-oriented could be created at such an extremely low density is questionable. The center islocated in the middle of the plan area, approximately a mile and a half from the Amtrak station. Thisdistance is made even longer by the poor connections provided by the proposed street network.


Illustration 3-7: Modesto Village One Circulation Diagram

Source: Modesto 2007, II-51, Figure II-2

Station


33/70


The Village One street network is not designed to provide a good, direct connection to the Amtrakstation or to create a high-quality urban streetscape. The proposed street network provides no directroute between the station and the Village Center either (Modesto 2007, II-51). Rather than a directboulevard running west northwest from the station to the center people coming from the station musttravel south along an access road to an auto-only expressway running west, then use a combinationof auto-only expressways and arterials to reach the center. The design of proposed expressways andarterial roadways is very auto-oriented and not conducive to walking, bicycling, or to creating qualitystreetscape. Instead of urban boulevards that would allow high traffic volume and quality streetscapesthe expressways are designs based on an auto-only highway model (Modesto 2007, II-52-53).Theprofiles and designs of many minor arterial, collector, and residential street is better, in generalconformance with current best practice (Modesto 2007, II-55-64). Finally the overall specific plan doesnot include any provision for the funding of local transit improvements or services. Other infrastructure

systems, such as sewer and roads, have specificcapital plans for the construction and operation(Modesto 2007). Future transit service isexpected to use space on the street network butno concrete funding source provide for transit. Nodevelopment fees are planned to pay for thecapital cost, nor is an improvement district orhomeowners' fee planned to fund the operation ofa local transit system for the neighborhoods in th

high speed rail's effect on population distribution in secondary urban areas

Documents