Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

Our latest headlines

Want more? Dive into the archives.

About Us

David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.

About California Progress Report.

Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).

Books

Prop 1A and High Speed Rail's Role in Fighting Dependence on Oil and Sprawl in California

By Robert Cruickshank

In the comments to a previous article we saw an old claim get revived - that somehow Prop 1A and HSR would induce sprawl. The entire argument is absurd.

If you were concerned about sprawl in the first place, you're likely to also understand the need to reduce carbon emissions, reduce pollution, and wean California off of oil. So why on earth would you argue against a project that will cut 12 billion pounds of carbon emissions per year or save 12.7 million barrels of oil every year? The Sierra Club endorsed Prop 1A after a very thorough and detailed discussion. They were satisfied that Prop 1A will not add to sprawl, and understand that we would be crazy to miss this vital opportunity to build sustainable mass transit.

This opportunity is not likely to return anytime soon if we miss it. High speed rail will help bring millions more Californians on ALL our passenger rail systems, from bullet trains to Amtrak California to commuter and urban rail. Prop 1A will provide Amtrak California and Metrolink with badly needed additional funding. Voting against Prop 1A means voting against improving alternatives to oil.

But we can go further. Sprawl is NOT a force of nature. It is a product of three factors: cheap oil, cheap credit and favorable land use laws. Cheap oil is a thing of the past. Cheap credit is, as we all know from this last week, gone as well. Even with a bailout, we are highly unlikely to see a return to the lax lending practices, fueled by cheap credit, that enabled the most recent binge of Central Valley sprawl.

As to the last point, land use rules are going to have to change regardless of Prop 1A's fate. Defeating Prop 1A isn't going to eliminate sprawl, far from it. But to eliminate sprawl, you need to provide opportunities for urban density and transit-oriented development. Portland, Oregon provides the model. Portland has strict anti-sprawl rules, but these were only successful because Portland promoted urban density. Providing passenger rail has been the key to that. In short, if you want to stop sprawl, you need to give people another option.

HSR is that other option. Without HSR Central Valley cities will have less incentive to channel development to city centers and will lack the infrastructure to make it happen even if they chose to do so.

That's not all. The state legislature is also planning to link land use, sprawl, and global warming via Sen. Darrell Steinberg's SB 375. Prop 1A contains a provision forbidding construction of a station at Los Banos, a key demand of anti-sprawl advocates. Some HSR deniers claim that doesn't mean much since the Legislature could reverse it - but the Legislature can reverse virtually anything, including CEQA, including the AB 32 global warming reduction bill. That doesn't stop us from rightly pursuing strong legislative action and defending it once we get it.

Environmental justice activist Van Jones recently explained the need to move from opposition to proposition. If you want to stop sprawl, you need to propose something better. HSR is that "something better." Folks who hate sprawl will love Prop 1A and high speed rail, one of the most revolutionary anti-sprawl measures in California history.

Robert Cruickshank is a historian, activist, and teacher living in Monterey. He is a contributing editor at Calitics.com and works for the Courage Campaign, in addition to teaching political science at Monterey Peninsula College. Currently he is completing his Ph.D. dissertation in US history, on progressive politics in San Francisco in the 1960s and 1970s. A native Californian, he was raised in Orange County and educated at UC Berkeley.

Posted on September 28, 2008

Comments

Author states here, "This opportunity is not likely to return anytime soon if we miss it. High speed rail will help bring millions more Californians on ALL our passenger rail systems, from bullet trains to Amtrak California to commuter and urban rail. Prop 1A will provide Amtrak California and Metrolink with badly needed additional funding. Voting against Prop 1A means voting against improving alternatives to oil."

Funny, this initiative is supposed to REDUCE traffic on airlines and on I-5 & HWY 101 between the Bay Area and LA...

EXACTLY where AMTRAK's Coast Starlight Trains and AMTRAK California's San Joaquin Trains serve TODAY.

So the proposed new HSR will essentially compete with these existing trains and either limp along not breaking even OR putting this existing service out of business.

(And as HSR as proposed does not follow the HWY 101 corridor, it will eliminate any train service that currently exists here (Coast Starlight) as it needs the LA-OAK portion of riders to make IT viable).

HSR has no current (or viable) business plan, no agreement to right of way sharing with the UP railroad, no security improvement over airports, a NEW 400 mile plus scar on the land itself, it's final route configurations isn't even settled yet and ZERO private enterprise involvement; the taxpayers will take all the risk...

And all so the LA-Bay Area folks will have a "better" way to commute between the two locations. The notion of multiple stops in the Central Valley is a fallicy as that would dillute the advantage of HSR, yet this is the "carrot" for the Central Valley to go along with this along with the "stick" as it needs HSR to grow it's infrastructure and avoid "urban sprawl".

The Central Valley is growing NOW without HSR thank you very much while it enjoys riding the existing train service it already has.

Not anti-HSR, pro DOING IT RIGHT, and this isn't it: A bond issue (not real money is it?) to support a plan that isn't even finalized to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars in a time of already mismanaged government finances and an unstable economy.

Spend any $$ on the improvement of EXISTING roads that are already bought & paid for while pushing towards alternative fuel personal transportation: Everyone will still have their own car for day-to-day needs even if HSR, used for the in comparison low volume of business trips or vacation/weekend travel, is in place.

Posted by: Jay Gould at September 28, 2008 10:59 AM

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker