Caltrans Settles Environment Lawsuit, Cancels High Desert Freeway Project

[Bobby5280]

I read an article a day or two ago on a business web site which described how most American cities are now functionally insolvent, thanks in large part to many of the incentives they use to attract new businesses and industry. The article was kind of an attack on American suburban sprawl, noting low little revenue per acre is generated compared to a property in a dense urban center.

Many towns and suburbs are vying to create all kinds of new, accelerated growth but it often isn't productive growth that can pay for itself. The communities inviting the growth somehow have to pay for the infrastructure to support these new businesses, but won't see any revenue from those businesses to support the infrastructure roll-out for many years. In some cases, the big box store development might close before the incentive period expires. That risk has increased greatly due to online retailers.

What this article didn't mention is how the current dense urban model in American cities is not sustainable for the long term either due to the soaring living costs. Regardless of where anyone lives all Americans depend on a lot of low wage earning employees to keep the wheels rolling on our way of life, like people working in restaurants making burgers for us to eat on our lunch breaks. I don't know how something like a McDonalds can even exist in a place like New York City. Do the employees commute a couple hours each way just to flip burgers? Or do several of them cram into one apartment?

[nexus73]

I read an article a day or two ago on a business web site which described how most American cities are now functionally insolvent, thanks in large part to many of the incentives they use to attract new businesses and industry. The article was kind of an attack on American suburban sprawl, noting low little revenue per acre is generated compared to a property in a dense urban center.

Many towns and suburbs are vying to create all kinds of new, accelerated growth but it often isn't productive growth that can pay for itself. The communities inviting the growth somehow have to pay for the infrastructure to support these new businesses, but won't see any revenue from those businesses to support the infrastructure roll-out for many years. In some cases, the big box store development might close before the incentive period expires. That risk has increased greatly due to online retailers.

What this article didn't mention is how the current dense urban model in American cities is not sustainable for the long term either due to the soaring living costs. Regardless of where anyone lives all Americans depend on a lot of low wage earning employees to keep the wheels rolling on our way of life, like people working in restaurants making burgers for us to eat on our lunch breaks. I don't know how something like a McDonalds can even exist in a place like New York City. Do the employees commute a couple hours each way just to flip burgers? Or do several of them cram into one apartment?

That question you ask about where do the workers live is important.  In the SF Bay Area, a school district had to build its own apartment complex so they could get the needed teachers.  If a teacher's salary (middle class) cannot provide housing, then the minimum wage sector workers are going to sink out of sight, leaving the well off with no one to serve them.  Money can only buy happiness when one knows where to shop but close the shop and there goes the happiness...LOL!

It will be interesting to see how this all settles out.  Got any ideas on how it will?  I sure don't!

Rick

[Max Rockatansky]

Regarding how people with low incomes live in dense and expensive areas I can hit on that from some of my own experience.  Most people who are working entry level jobs either live with family or have roommates to share the cost of rent, I had to do the latter in my early adult life.  For some people I suppose that mode of living is fine but I absolutely hated having almost no privacy and solitude.  Once I got established in what I do I was able to get further and further from having to live in a big city or even metro area.  Granted, I what I'm describing about high urban living costs is a new phenomenon, there are all sorts of old time stories about industrial cities in the Mid-West that were similar. 

Regarding urban sprawl, that has proliferated greatly since freeways began being built.  A lot of people want to blame urban sprawl on the freeway but it has just as much to do with dense living conditions and high costs.  I'd argue that freeway development sped up the pace of urban sprawl but wasn't the cause of it.  People eventually on a large scale were going to want more livable and less costly living space eventually.  What tends to kill the suburban life style is the absurd and unlivable commute times many of the big Metro Areas have. 

Somewhat topical to this discussion, I've been offered two transfers to the Los Angeles/Inland Empire Area and San Diego once.  In my particular case I had those cities in my area of responsibility already from Phoenix.  It was way more livable to drive from Phoenix when I could dictate my travel times and just spend a week in a hotel every month.  Someone recently asked me again about a big city, as much I was interested in the opportunity I was equally less interested in the metro area because it was too densely populated with a high living cost.  I suppose at the end of the day a lot of folks don't have those choices which is why projects like the High Desert Corridor get proposed in the first place. 

[sparker]

Hell had the Division of Highways backed down during the 1960s when groups started aggressively objecting to potential projects in the mainstream they might still be here. 

I take it that the premise here is that the DOH would have remained a singular agency instead of being "absorbed" into the broader Caltrans back in '73 if only they had been more accommodating to the groups objecting to their freeway-deploying activities, particularly in urban settings.  If that consolidation had happened 2-3 years later during the first Jerry Brown administration, I'd be in full concurrence; but it happened during Ronald Reagan's 2nd term as governor -- and, if anything, freeway construction as a whole was proceeding as with previous years.   The legislature was also more of a mixed bag then as well, with Republicans' and Democrats' dominance of either chamber shifting every few electoral cycles.  The truth was that the fiscal problems endemic to transit agencies reached a head in the late '60's, and the state was dispersing funds to shore them up in any case; it was decided that since the state was in fact the funding agency of record, that all transportation-related expenses should be addressed under one umbrella.   The "hand-slapping" of the DOH actually occurred with class-action lawsuits and other court cases; while the agency had come under criticism from some urban-based jurisdictions and urban legislators, most of the urban freeway mileage at that time (save Sacramento) was already on the ground in 1973; it could be safely said that when Interstate funds became available at the beginning of 1957, the DOH judiciously elected to prioritize the more expensive urban mileage over rural segments (the polar opposite of many midwest states!), getting most of those out of the way by the time organized protest movements peaked in the '70's, except for the notable cases in San Francisco.  That paid off for L.A., San Diego, and the remainder of the Bay Area; the proof of that particular pudding was the protracted negotiations for the Interstate "add-on" (part of the '68 additions) I-105/Century Freeway across south-central metro L.A. that delayed the project and drove the costs skyward -- and, of course, the ill-fated I-710 Pasadena extension, also with an "add-on" corridor.   Of the '57 designations, the L.A. mileage essentially went of without a hitch except for the NIMBY protestations about the routing of I-210 in the decidedly wealthy La Canada/Flintridge area (that happened when I was in high school in Glendale and through a couple of my college years, so I had a front-row seat to the negotiations). 

In short, Caltrans was formed from the DOH, the state aviation authority, and a smattering of lesser agencies simply to place fiscal responsibility and authority within one agency -- at least ostensibly for efficiency and cost-saving.  It wasn't until several years later that internal conflicts effectively truncated road building for a few years, only to come back with a change of administrations -- but with a more bare-boned cost structure that emphasized penny-pinching measures.       

[Max Rockatansky]

Hell had the Division of Highways backed down during the 1960s when groups started aggressively objecting to potential projects in the mainstream they might still be here. 

I take it that the premise here is that the DOH would have remained a singular agency instead of being "absorbed" into the broader Caltrans back in '73 if only they had been more accommodating to the groups objecting to their freeway-deploying activities, particularly in urban settings.  If that consolidation had happened 2-3 years later during the first Jerry Brown administration, I'd be in full concurrence; but it happened during Ronald Reagan's 2nd term as governor -- and, if anything, freeway construction as a whole was proceeding as with previous years.   The legislature was also more of a mixed bag then as well, with Republicans' and Democrats' dominance of either chamber shifting every few electoral cycles.  The truth was that the fiscal problems endemic to transit agencies reached a head in the late '60's, and the state was dispersing funds to shore them up in any case; it was decided that since the state was in fact the funding agency of record, that all transportation-related expenses should be addressed under one umbrella.   The "hand-slapping" of the DOH actually occurred with class-action lawsuits and other court cases; while the agency had come under criticism from some urban-based jurisdictions and urban legislators, most of the urban freeway mileage at that time (save Sacramento) was already on the ground in 1973; it could be safely said that when Interstate funds became available at the beginning of 1957, the DOH judiciously elected to prioritize the more expensive urban mileage over rural segments (the polar opposite of many midwest states!), getting most of those out of the way by the time organized protest movements peaked in the '70's, except for the notable cases in San Francisco.  That paid off for L.A., San Diego, and the remainder of the Bay Area; the proof of that particular pudding was the protracted negotiations for the Interstate "add-on" (part of the '68 additions) I-105/Century Freeway across south-central metro L.A. that delayed the project and drove the costs skyward -- and, of course, the ill-fated I-710 Pasadena extension, also with an "add-on" corridor.   Of the '57 designations, the L.A. mileage essentially went of without a hitch except for the NIMBY protestations about the routing of I-210 in the decidedly wealthy La Canada/Flintridge area (that happened when I was in high school in Glendale and through a couple of my college years, so I had a front-row seat to the negotiations). 

In short, Caltrans was formed from the DOH, the state aviation authority, and a smattering of lesser agencies simply to place fiscal responsibility and authority within one agency -- at least ostensibly for efficiency and cost-saving.  It wasn't until several years later that internal conflicts effectively truncated road building for a few years, only to come back with a change of administrations -- but with a more bare-boned cost structure that emphasized penny-pinching measures.     

I was more getting at the often unintended long term effects of attempting to downsize/consolidate government agencies which often was a staple of how Reagan (this is a minor political take related solely to the topic of roads in California) ran things at every level of governance.  All that money being spent coupled with the push to build in expensive urban areas first certainly didn't help ward off those that would have said the DOH was operating out of control or without restraint.  Granted hindsight is always 20/20 but it seems Caltrans is far less focused (and seemingly less aggressive) of an agency because it has it's hands so other avenues of transportation aside from highways. 

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^
The view that the current Caltrans lacks focus -- particularly in terms of a consistent approach to just about anything concerning their highway network (besides a fond desire to get rid of as much urban surface mileage as feasible) -- is pretty accurate.  All one has to do is peruse any of the last two or three STIP's to see what the agency's current charge is -- the level of expenditure on local items outside the state system has seen a marked increase with each 6-year timeframe -- for both local road/street projects and transit provision.   The agency seems to have virtually relinquished their traditional leading role in even interregional projects; it seems like more and more impetus begins at the local/MPO level, with Caltrans simply becoming the vehicle that organizes and provides the technical aspects of the various projects once they're in process.  Also, they seem to be attempting to keep a very low profile when it comes to road projects less they piss off the more PC/modern urban groups by appearing to favor that mode of transportation.   It's almost an outright miracle that a few significant projects such as the work on CA 58, the gradual upgrading of CA 99, 80/680/12 Cordelia Junction, and the expansion of I-5 in SE L.A. County have actually come about!  But there's so much left to do -- even if big urban road projects are now non-starters -- commercial traffic continues to increase on the various interregional connectors -- which is the current driving force now that what emphasis on roads that remains has shifted outward from the denser urbanized areas.  With the current trend toward items delivered from regional hubs (Amazon, Walmart, etc.) the sheer volume of commercial movement to address just consumer needs -- in addition to the usual volume of B-to-B activity -- tends to highly tax, if not overwhelm, the state's roadway connections.  Even addressing a few longstanding discrepancies -- a 58/14 freeway connector, the Los Banos 152 bypass (and other sections of that route as well!), full extension of CA 58 to I-5 -- plus others scattered around the state -- would go a long way toward ameliorating, if not resolving, many in-state needs.  But I certainly concur that the agency needs to regain some of its former level of focus to do so -- hopefully, that'll start with the individual districts and work its way back up the chain to Sacramento HQ.   They need to come to the realization that despite the fervent wishes of a few, automotive commercial, recreational, and workplace travel -- regardless of the fuel source -- isn't going to disappear anytime in the near future, and that they're the ones that will need to deal with that reality. 

[Plutonic Panda]

Caltrans and California will once again focus on road and freeway expansions as they will have no other choice. It is a matter of time before this anti freeway/road diet crap comes to a head and once it does I believe sanity will prevail again.

[Max Rockatansky]

Caltrans and California will once again focus on road and freeway expansions as they will have no other choice. It is a matter of time before this anti freeway/road diet crap comes to a head and once it does I believe sanity will prevail again.

To that end some of the apathetic mindset has been abated by recent maintenance concerns and some large public support for some of the projects that Sparker described.  Nothing really tends to ebb one way or another for an indefinite period of times, usually DOTs tend to changes in response to public wants and/or needs.   As an example; Michigan used to be the National punching bag for not maintaining roads, especially as "Pure Potholes"  became an internet meme.  While that perception still exists I'd argue that MDOT has done a very good job in the past two decades bringing the State Trunklines back towards an acceptable standards.  I'd say Caltrans is in a similar position right now that MDOT was two decades ago, only time will tell of some of the changes happening now will stick.  SB1 at least in my area has been a huge help, even though it was unpopular due to all the clauses about mass transportation. 

[skluth]

FWIW, I would not have voted for SB1 without the mass transit provisions. I'm a firm believer in both improving the both roads and transportation systems for those who don't use cars for whatever reason. There are valid business arguments for supporting mass transit, including making sure employees can actually get to work. I know a lot of readers here are against mass transit and think we should just build new highways. I get similar blowback from the other side when I post on urbanist sites where some idiots want to destroy all cars and force everyone to use mass transit and bicycles. We need both, even if you don't use one or the other. Not everyone is going to Uber when they don't have a car.

Getting back to the topic at hand, a transit line parallel to the High Desert Highway would have allowed many families who have one person working in LA to own one car mostly for local use and use mass transit for work commutes to LA. The highway corridor would have coordinated planning so that future high density developments and commercial districts would be concentrated around interchanges and transit stations rather than the haphazard development we now see along the 18/138 corridor. I agree with those who think this highway is needed. I'm disappointed it's not being built, even with the mass transit ROW preserved for a system to be built later rather than being built concurrently. From my POV, we just blew a great chance to build the core of a smart, integrated transportation network to serve people and businesses from Palmdale to Victorville.

[nexus73]

FWIW, I would not have voted for SB1 without the mass transit provisions. I'm a firm believer in both improving the both roads and transportation systems for those who don't use cars for whatever reason. There are valid business arguments for supporting mass transit, including making sure employees can actually get to work. I know a lot of readers here are against mass transit and think we should just build new highways. I get similar blowback from the other side when I post on urbanist sites where some idiots want to destroy all cars and force everyone to use mass transit and bicycles. We need both, even if you don't use one or the other. Not everyone is going to Uber when they don't have a car.

Getting back to the topic at hand, a transit line parallel to the High Desert Highway would have allowed many families who have one person working in LA to own one car mostly for local use and use mass transit for work commutes to LA. The highway corridor would have coordinated planning so that future high density developments and commercial districts would be concentrated around interchanges and transit stations rather than the haphazard development we now see along the 18/138 corridor. I agree with those who think this highway is needed. I'm disappointed it's not being built, even with the mass transit ROW preserved for a system to be built later rather than being built concurrently. From my POV, we just blew a great chance to build the core of a smart, integrated transportation network to serve people and businesses from Palmdale to Victorville.

Bingo!  You hit the nail on the head with your proposal.  Might as well get things set up before all that land fills up, which it most certainly will. 

Rick

[sparker]

FWIW, I would not have voted for SB1 without the mass transit provisions. I'm a firm believer in both improving the both roads and transportation systems for those who don't use cars for whatever reason. There are valid business arguments for supporting mass transit, including making sure employees can actually get to work. I know a lot of readers here are against mass transit and think we should just build new highways. I get similar blowback from the other side when I post on urbanist sites where some idiots want to destroy all cars and force everyone to use mass transit and bicycles. We need both, even if you don't use one or the other. Not everyone is going to Uber when they don't have a car.

Getting back to the topic at hand, a transit line parallel to the High Desert Highway would have allowed many families who have one person working in LA to own one car mostly for local use and use mass transit for work commutes to LA. The highway corridor would have coordinated planning so that future high density developments and commercial districts would be concentrated around interchanges and transit stations rather than the haphazard development we now see along the 18/138 corridor. I agree with those who think this highway is needed. I'm disappointed it's not being built, even with the mass transit ROW preserved for a system to be built later rather than being built concurrently. From my POV, we just blew a great chance to build the core of a smart, integrated transportation network to serve people and businesses from Palmdale to Victorville.

Bingo!  You hit the nail on the head with your proposal.  Might as well get things set up before all that land fills up, which it most certainly will. 

Rick

Seems like the gist of the argument against the HDC was the increased potential for additional housing filling up the area between Palmdale/Lancaster and Victorville/Hesperia.  What mitigated against that with the HDC plans was a deliberate lack of interchanges along the tolled facility -- essentially nothing between 47th Avenue in Palmdale and US 395 except for a single interchange to serve the existing community at Lake Los Angeles (which has been and is primarily a retirement site).  If, as I expect, local pressure will eventually result in a more conventional freeway facility along CA 138 and CA 18 -- and it most likely will feature a multitude of interchanges -- it'll be the type of thing that does enhance the chance of residential development.  But the employment situation out in the desert isn't likely to expand much beyond its current meager pickings unless somehow defense spending increases multifold (even the presence of WalMart's major SoCal distribution center in Victorville can't supply that many jobs); most living out there endure the commute down, alternately, I-15 or CA 14.  Putting massive housing tracts near Lake L.A. or even up against the mountains near Pearblossom or Littlerock isn't really in the cards; infill within a few miles of the major N-S arterials (14, 395, 15) is considerably more feasible -- and even popular -- than further expansion into that 40 miles of effective nothing between the existing (sub/ex)urban boundaries.  Commuters, particularly hourly workers, are willing to endure the 50 miles between Victorville and the employment centers in Fontana and Ontario for houses still hovering around $200-250K -- but to add another 20-odd miles to that would likely be a bridge too far unless the housing would be much cheaper (well below $140-150K) as well as reasonably attractive.  At present the economics of building housing anywhere in CA mitigate against that happening -- so developers' eyeing of that stretch of land straddling the L.A.-S.B. county line is something that won't likely happen in the foreseeable future -- there's just too much remaining open land between the existing tracts nearer the routes heading over the hill.   

[Plutonic Panda]

Caltrans and California will once again focus on road and freeway expansions as they will have no other choice. It is a matter of time before this anti freeway/road diet crap comes to a head and once it does I believe sanity will prevail again.

To that end some of the apathetic mindset has been abated by recent maintenance concerns and some large public support for some of the projects that Sparker described.  Nothing really tends to ebb one way or another for an indefinite period of times, usually DOTs tend to changes in response to public wants and/or needs.   As an example; Michigan used to be the National punching bag for not maintaining roads, especially as "Pure Potholes"  became an internet meme.  While that perception still exists I'd argue that MDOT has done a very good job in the past two decades bringing the State Trunklines back towards an acceptable standards.  I'd say Caltrans is in a similar position right now that MDOT was two decades ago, only time will tell of some of the changes happening now will stick.  SB1 at least in my area has been a huge help, even though it was unpopular due to all the clauses about mass transportation.

The mass transit part was ultimately one of the reasons I almost voted no mainly because I didn't see any big ticket projects to mass transit made possible from SB-1 but even if there were some I'm not a huge fan of mass transit being directly subsidized from revenue made from cars like gas taxes or tolls. I'd rather other means of funding was had for mass transit. The road network in California is so bad especially on a local level that every penny possible from user fees should go to maintenance. I'd argue expansion but for the time being that would open a can of worms and preservation is most important right now.

[PastTense]

I take it that the premise here is that the DOH would have remained a singular agency instead of being "absorbed" into the broader Caltrans back in '73 if only they had been more accommodating to the groups objecting to their freeway-deploying activities, particularly in urban settings.

The U.S. Department of Transportation was created in 1966-1967. Basically the vast majority of states followed this pattern in the next few years. I think this was the impetus for California creating a statewide DOT, not local factors.

[don1991]

Regarding how people with low incomes live in dense and expensive areas I can hit on that from some of my own experience.  Most people who are working entry level jobs either live with family or have roommates to share the cost of rent, I had to do the latter in my early adult life.  For some people I suppose that mode of living is fine but I absolutely hated having almost no privacy and solitude.  Once I got established in what I do I was able to get further and further from having to live in a big city or even metro area.  Granted, I what I'm describing about high urban living costs is a new phenomenon, there are all sorts of old time stories about industrial cities in the Mid-West that were similar. 

Regarding urban sprawl, that has proliferated greatly since freeways began being built.  A lot of people want to blame urban sprawl on the freeway but it has just as much to do with dense living conditions and high costs.  I'd argue that freeway development sped up the pace of urban sprawl but wasn't the cause of it.  People eventually on a large scale were going to want more livable and less costly living space eventually.  What tends to kill the suburban life style is the absurd and unlivable commute times many of the big Metro Areas have. 

Somewhat topical to this discussion, I've been offered two transfers to the Los Angeles/Inland Empire Area and San Diego once.  In my particular case I had those cities in my area of responsibility already from Phoenix.  It was way more livable to drive from Phoenix when I could dictate my travel times and just spend a week in a hotel every month.  Someone recently asked me again about a big city, as much I was interested in the opportunity I was equally less interested in the metro area because it was too densely populated with a high living cost.  I suppose at the end of the day a lot of folks don't have those choices which is why projects like the High Desert Corridor get proposed in the first place.

As many of us know, decentralization in Southern California was initially made possible by the Pacific Electric Trolley System.  Once car ownership became available to the masses, freeways were inevitable to allow people to get between their workplaces in Downtown LA and the newly created suburbs.  Even more important with defense industry jobs in El Segundo and Long Beach (McDonnell Douglas).  If anything, freeways helped Downtown remain relevant longer.  People would have continued living in the suburbs anyway but they remained connected to the core via the automobile.

Ironically, most other developing countries are increasing their pace of freeway building.  Globally, this is the future.  Eventually California will catch up, once people grow tired of the continued deterioration of our infrastructure.  Even with freeways that move less than 5 MPH, most travel is still done by private automobile, not mass transit.

The 138 corridor will fill in as the demand for housing will not abate.  Once it does, that freeway will get built - toll or no toll.  Hopefully they do the smart thing like they did with the 210 and leave some room.  It really is sad when established neighborhoods have to be torn down (like Westpark in Bakersfield for the Centennial 58 Freeway).  That was so unnecessary had the freeway just been built when it was first planned.

[sparker]

As many of us know, decentralization in Southern California was initially made possible by the Pacific Electric Trolley System.  Once car ownership became available to the masses, freeways were inevitable to allow people to get between their workplaces in Downtown LA and the newly created suburbs.  Even more important with defense industry jobs in El Segundo and Long Beach (McDonnell Douglas).  If anything, freeways helped Downtown remain relevant longer.  People would have continued living in the suburbs anyway but they remained connected to the core via the automobile.

Ironically, most other developing countries are increasing their pace of freeway building.  Globally, this is the future.  Eventually California will catch up, once people grow tired of the continued deterioration of our infrastructure.  Even with freeways that move less than 5 MPH, most travel is still done by private automobile, not mass transit.

The 138 corridor will fill in as the demand for housing will not abate.  Once it does, that freeway will get built - toll or no toll.  Hopefully they do the smart thing like they did with the 210 and leave some room.  It really is sad when established neighborhoods have to be torn down (like Westpark in Bakersfield for the Centennial 58 Freeway).  That was so unnecessary had the freeway just been built when it was first planned.

Regarding how people with low incomes live in dense and expensive areas I can hit on that from some of my own experience.  Most people who are working entry level jobs either live with family or have roommates to share the cost of rent, I had to do the latter in my early adult life.  For some people I suppose that mode of living is fine but I absolutely hated having almost no privacy and solitude.  Once I got established in what I do I was able to get further and further from having to live in a big city or even metro area.  Granted, I what I'm describing about high urban living costs is a new phenomenon, there are all sorts of old time stories about industrial cities in the Mid-West that were similar. 

Regarding urban sprawl, that has proliferated greatly since freeways began being built.  A lot of people want to blame urban sprawl on the freeway but it has just as much to do with dense living conditions and high costs.  I'd argue that freeway development sped up the pace of urban sprawl but wasn't the cause of it.  People eventually on a large scale were going to want more livable and less costly living space eventually.  What tends to kill the suburban life style is the absurd and unlivable commute times many of the big Metro Areas have. 

Somewhat topical to this discussion, I've been offered two transfers to the Los Angeles/Inland Empire Area and San Diego once.  In my particular case I had those cities in my area of responsibility already from Phoenix.  It was way more livable to drive from Phoenix when I could dictate my travel times and just spend a week in a hotel every month.  Someone recently asked me again about a big city, as much I was interested in the opportunity I was equally less interested in the metro area because it was too densely populated with a high living cost.  I suppose at the end of the day a lot of folks don't have those choices which is why projects like the High Desert Corridor get proposed in the first place.

Near its western terminus, the HDC followed a path previously reserved for the 1994-rescinded "Metropolitan Bypass" along CA 138.  That alignment had been adopted in the mid-60's, so nothing was built along a 2-block wide path between central Palmdale and the old Lockheed "skunk works" research/development site.  The HDC as originally planned, with rail in the median between a 3+3 road configuration, would have essentially occupied one block width (likely right down the middle, leaving room for frontage stuff).  But since it's cut back to rail only -- and the "worst case analysis", HSR, would likely only be half to 2/3 the original width; there's room to snake in a CA 138 freeway which would curve down parallel to the existing Palmdale Blvd/47th Avenue alignment of the current route.  IMO, eventually a freeway will be built parallel to CA 138, just not under the auspices of the existing HDC authority.  Now -- whether, once in San Bernardino County, it stays along 138 or shifts to CA 18 due east to Victorville is yet TBD; since any such activity is unlikely to occur within the next 15 years or so, it'll remain a mystery for the time being. 

Nevertheless I stand by my assessment that any near-to-mid-term housing development north of the San Gabriels will probably be configured as infill rather than expansion between the L.A. and San Bernardino County desert population centers.  When I left Hesperia in 2012, that was one of the principal planning topics; the four incorporated cities were in basic agreement about the desirability of infill -- and the major regional developers were in concert with that -- probably because the closer to I-15 or CA 14 the property, the more that it would bring on the market.  Outward development brings addition costs of dragging utilities out past their current service areas, which would have to be built into the price of any residence -- but that would be up against the opposing force of even cheaper housing to offset commute costs.  Eventually the margins won't be practical for development without massive employment shift to nearby areas -- and the Inland Empire has yet to "fill up" with such; deployment of new facilities there is ongoing.  Right now the tracts extend 2-3 miles west of US 395 in both Victorville and Adelanto, and only east about to Avenue 60-64 in Palmdale (and most Lancaster development is west of the old Sierra Highway).  I wouldn't expect that to shift until the vacant lands within the already developed areas are reasonably full. 

And Max is on to something --  there's something of a "chicken vs. egg" dichotomy about housing development either preceding or following roadway development in a given area.  I did a study regarding that issue back in the early '90's; the conclusions (historically, statistically, and even anecdotally!) were that if there's an existing road facility of reasonable capacity serving an area -- and that area is economically favorable for development -- then development will likely occur.  Also -- if a new-terrain facility of, again, reasonable capacity is constructed into a region -- and the same economic factors are present -- and the local jurisdictions support or at minimum don't obstruct such development via taxes, zoning, and other obstacles -- then development is also likely to occur.  But capacity increases on existing facilities has only a marginal effect on housing expansion.  In short, if a multilane highway already serves an area, that is usually sufficient to promote housing given the market needs for such -- and because a conventional highway can also host amenities such as shopping areas, services, etc., it could be considered to be something of a benefit in that regard.  Commuters, especially long-distance ones (40+ miles/direction), tend to be "vicinity-centered" -- e.g., once an Ontario-employed worker gets out to Hesperia or Victorville via I-15, she or he considers it to be "home territory" once off the freeway, even if it means there's another 8-10 miles of surface street in the commute.  Except for the HDC-extension CA 18 expressway planned to bypass Apple Valley around its north side, there hasn't been much push for limited-access E-W corridors to serve the existing housing areas.  The length of the commute seems to be internalized rather quickly by those having to endure it.  But even with that there are limitations; once past "old" Apple Valley, there's little in the way of discernable development.  About 12 miles distant from I-15 seems to be about the limit; with CA 14 in L.A. County, it's more like 6-7 east of the freeway and 8-10 to the west.  That still leaves 30-odd miles in between the edges that consists of widely spaced old housing stock, only interrupted by the Lake Los Angeles retirement community.  The original HDC plans, which lacked interim interchanges save for Lake L.A., likely wouldn't have prompted any development in heretofore "pristine" areas; but if a freeway is ever deployed within shouting distance of present CA 138, all bets are off as regards interchange spacing, adjacent zoning standards, etc.  At least with the HDC one could be assured that the facility wasn't development-friendly.  But with current (and likely future) budget restrictions, it'll likely be at least 15-20 years before any major corridor upgrades are even on the table -- so that 30 miles of unreclaimed desert will remain as such for the foreseeable future.             

[don1991]

As many of us know, decentralization in Southern California was initially made possible by the Pacific Electric Trolley System.  Once car ownership became available to the masses, freeways were inevitable to allow people to get between their workplaces in Downtown LA and the newly created suburbs.  Even more important with defense industry jobs in El Segundo and Long Beach (McDonnell Douglas).  If anything, freeways helped Downtown remain relevant longer.  People would have continued living in the suburbs anyway but they remained connected to the core via the automobile.

Ironically, most other developing countries are increasing their pace of freeway building.  Globally, this is the future.  Eventually California will catch up, once people grow tired of the continued deterioration of our infrastructure.  Even with freeways that move less than 5 MPH, most travel is still done by private automobile, not mass transit.

The 138 corridor will fill in as the demand for housing will not abate.  Once it does, that freeway will get built - toll or no toll.  Hopefully they do the smart thing like they did with the 210 and leave some room.  It really is sad when established neighborhoods have to be torn down (like Westpark in Bakersfield for the Centennial 58 Freeway).  That was so unnecessary had the freeway just been built when it was first planned.

Regarding how people with low incomes live in dense and expensive areas I can hit on that from some of my own experience.  Most people who are working entry level jobs either live with family or have roommates to share the cost of rent, I had to do the latter in my early adult life.  For some people I suppose that mode of living is fine but I absolutely hated having almost no privacy and solitude.  Once I got established in what I do I was able to get further and further from having to live in a big city or even metro area.  Granted, I what I'm describing about high urban living costs is a new phenomenon, there are all sorts of old time stories about industrial cities in the Mid-West that were similar. 

Regarding urban sprawl, that has proliferated greatly since freeways began being built.  A lot of people want to blame urban sprawl on the freeway but it has just as much to do with dense living conditions and high costs.  I'd argue that freeway development sped up the pace of urban sprawl but wasn't the cause of it.  People eventually on a large scale were going to want more livable and less costly living space eventually.  What tends to kill the suburban life style is the absurd and unlivable commute times many of the big Metro Areas have. 

Somewhat topical to this discussion, I've been offered two transfers to the Los Angeles/Inland Empire Area and San Diego once.  In my particular case I had those cities in my area of responsibility already from Phoenix.  It was way more livable to drive from Phoenix when I could dictate my travel times and just spend a week in a hotel every month.  Someone recently asked me again about a big city, as much I was interested in the opportunity I was equally less interested in the metro area because it was too densely populated with a high living cost.  I suppose at the end of the day a lot of folks don't have those choices which is why projects like the High Desert Corridor get proposed in the first place.

Near its western terminus, the HDC followed a path previously reserved for the 1994-rescinded "Metropolitan Bypass" along CA 138.  That alignment had been adopted in the mid-60's, so nothing was built along a 2-block wide path between central Palmdale and the old Lockheed "skunk works" research/development site.  The HDC as originally planned, with rail in the median between a 3+3 road configuration, would have essentially occupied one block width (likely right down the middle, leaving room for frontage stuff).  But since it's cut back to rail only -- and the "worst case analysis", HSR, would likely only be half to 2/3 the original width; there's room to snake in a CA 138 freeway which would curve down parallel to the existing Palmdale Blvd/47th Avenue alignment of the current route.  IMO, eventually a freeway will be built parallel to CA 138, just not under the auspices of the existing HDC authority.  Now -- whether, once in San Bernardino County, it stays along 138 or shifts to CA 18 due east to Victorville is yet TBD; since any such activity is unlikely to occur within the next 15 years or so, it'll remain a mystery for the time being. 

Nevertheless I stand by my assessment that any near-to-mid-term housing development north of the San Gabriels will probably be configured as infill rather than expansion between the L.A. and San Bernardino County desert population centers.  When I left Hesperia in 2012, that was one of the principal planning topics; the four incorporated cities were in basic agreement about the desirability of infill -- and the major regional developers were in concert with that -- probably because the closer to I-15 or CA 14 the property, the more that it would bring on the market.  Outward development brings addition costs of dragging utilities out past their current service areas, which would have to be built into the price of any residence -- but that would be up against the opposing force of even cheaper housing to offset commute costs.  Eventually the margins won't be practical for development without massive employment shift to nearby areas -- and the Inland Empire has yet to "fill up" with such; deployment of new facilities there is ongoing.  Right now the tracts extend 2-3 miles west of US 395 in both Victorville and Adelanto, and only east about to Avenue 60-64 in Palmdale (and most Lancaster development is west of the old Sierra Highway).  I wouldn't expect that to shift until the vacant lands within the already developed areas are reasonably full. 

And Max is on to something --  there's something of a "chicken vs. egg" dichotomy about housing development either preceding or following roadway development in a given area.  I did a study regarding that issue back in the early '90's; the conclusions (historically, statistically, and even anecdotally!) were that if there's an existing road facility of reasonable capacity serving an area -- and that area is economically favorable for development -- then development will likely occur.  Also -- if a new-terrain facility of, again, reasonable capacity is constructed into a region -- and the same economic factors are present -- and the local jurisdictions support or at minimum don't obstruct such development via taxes, zoning, and other obstacles -- then development is also likely to occur.  But capacity increases on existing facilities has only a marginal effect on housing expansion.  In short, if a multilane highway already serves an area, that is usually sufficient to promote housing given the market needs for such -- and because a conventional highway can also host amenities such as shopping areas, services, etc., it could be considered to be something of a benefit in that regard.  Commuters, especially long-distance ones (40+ miles/direction), tend to be "vicinity-centered" -- e.g., once an Ontario-employed worker gets out to Hesperia or Victorville via I-15, she or he considers it to be "home territory" once off the freeway, even if it means there's another 8-10 miles of surface street in the commute.  Except for the HDC-extension CA 18 expressway planned to bypass Apple Valley around its north side, there hasn't been much push for limited-access E-W corridors to serve the existing housing areas.  The length of the commute seems to be internalized rather quickly by those having to endure it.  But even with that there are limitations; once past "old" Apple Valley, there's little in the way of discernable development.  About 12 miles distant from I-15 seems to be about the limit; with CA 14 in L.A. County, it's more like 6-7 east of the freeway and 8-10 to the west.  That still leaves 30-odd miles in between the edges that consists of widely spaced old housing stock, only interrupted by the Lake Los Angeles retirement community.  The original HDC plans, which lacked interim interchanges save for Lake L.A., likely wouldn't have prompted any development in heretofore "pristine" areas; but if a freeway is ever deployed within shouting distance of present CA 138, all bets are off as regards interchange spacing, adjacent zoning standards, etc.  At least with the HDC one could be assured that the facility wasn't development-friendly.  But with current (and likely future) budget restrictions, it'll likely be at least 15-20 years before any major corridor upgrades are even on the table -- so that 30 miles of unreclaimed desert will remain as such for the foreseeable future.             

You'd be surprised.   I watched western Bakersfield mushroom well before Westside Parkway was a for-sure plan.  The housing came in anyway and the developers just helped build wide arterials to substitute for the freeways. 

This is what is happening in the High Desert as well.  Hesperia, Victorville, and Apple Valley are marching well east of I-15 using a widened Bear Valley Road and Main Street.  In Palmdale, Pearblossom Highway (which Google maps incorrectly identifies as CA-122) is a main corridor for new housing development.  West of CA-14, Palmdale is growing fast, relying on wide arterials. 

In Riverside County, Hemet, San Jacinto, and other areas east and west of I-215 have seen significant growth without any assurance of new freeways.  Mid-County "Parkway" and the future CA-79 Freeway in Hemet / San Jacinto will help but those roads were only confirmed a few years ago.  West of I-215, there is much more uncertainty, with the best hope being an "Ethanac Expressway" which will be more of a hybrid expressway / upgraded arterial than anything.  But I guarantee you those housing developments are going in.

Along the 138 and points north and south between Palmdale and Victorville / Adelanto / Hesperia, I believe the housing will come first and developers will agree to fund arterial expansion in exchange for being able to build.  Once things get critical, the freeway will be built.  I hope there is some plan to at least preserve ROW.

[skluth]

Thanks to CAHWYGUY for posting a link to Metro's proposal to shift HDH funds to high speed rail on his California Highways page. I thought this thread might be a better place to discuss this.

First, I want to say I still think the highway should be built. I'm not big on new freeways and have even argued elsewhere on AA Roads for freeway removal in select locations. However, this is a highway that will inevitably be needed so it's best to get it right early while the land is mostly undeveloped.

I will say that if this moves forward, I would like enough ROW retained for a possible parallel freeway or expressway. A coordinated transportation corridor will help concentrate commercial and denser residential development near stations and interchanges serving a wide variety of economic levels. I do like HSR aspect, though I think a heavy commuter rail (with some non-stop express trains for the Las Vegas tourists) running at 80-100 mph between stations would be an reasonable, cheaper option.

From my POV, the most important item for the present is identifying the corridor and starting land acquisition. Retrofitting anything is a pain in the butt for planners (I minored in Regional Planning ages ago) and having an identified, prepared corridor is the #1 defense against future NIMBY opposition. It can also build momentum to actually build what's planned. I know state finances are tight right now with COVID-induced job and business losses reducing incoming money and half the state aflame, but obtaining the corridor and starting any environmental impact analysis can still be done.

[kkt]

I'd like to see the HSR project built.  HSR is in the 200 mph range, and it's essential for superior travel times to cars.  A medium speed rail project won't get a comparable ridership.  How much use would the freeways get if their maximum speed limit were 45 mph?

[mgk920]

I'd like to see the HSR project built.  HSR is in the 200 mph range, and it's essential for superior travel times to cars.  A medium speed rail project won't get a comparable ridership.  How much use would the freeways get if their maximum speed limit were 45 mph?

Any intermediate stations will have bypass tracks that will allow trains that are running 'express' (no stops between their terminals) to safely blow through at full track speed.  Assuming that this is built, it will use the CAHSR (California High Speed Rail) line that is planned to run between Palmdale and Los Angeles Union Station via CA 14 (Soledad Canyon), which will involve extensive tunneling.

Yes, I also believe that the CA 18/138 corridor will require major highway upgrades as time passes, regardless of what the enviros have to say about it.

Mike

[kkt]

Hm.  I wonder why they made that choice.  HSR can go up or down steeper grades than most railroads, so tunneling should be less necessary.

[sparker]

I'd like to see the HSR project built.  HSR is in the 200 mph range, and it's essential for superior travel times to cars.  A medium speed rail project won't get a comparable ridership.  How much use would the freeways get if their maximum speed limit were 45 mph?

Any intermediate stations will have bypass tracks that will allow trains that are running 'express' (no stops between their terminals) to safely blow through at full track speed.  Assuming that this is built, it will use the CAHSR (California High Speed Rail) line that is planned to run between Palmdale and Los Angeles Union Station via CA 14 (Soledad Canyon), which will involve extensive tunneling.

Yes, I also believe that the CA 18/138 corridor will require major highway upgrades as time passes, regardless of what the enviros have to say about it.

Mike

IIRC the HSR project between L.A. and Palmdale utilizes the existing Metrolink (former UP/SP) line from LAUPT to the desert -- with some upgrades, but the HSR itself will slow down to generally south of 100mph over that line; that was a compromise to avoid extensive (and ridiculously expensive) property acquisition in metro L.A.  The line will be "straightened out" as much as possible, although right now it snakes through Soledad Canyon and utilizes a long tunnel between Sylmar and Newhall (which will itself likely require a parallel facility).  The actual 200 mph HSR commences near Lancaster and is intended to extend over the Tehachapi Mountains to Bakersfield via a series of tunnels and excavation; it'll head up the valley from there.   

Over in another thread it was mentioned that the timing of the interest in the rail portion seems to "dovetail" with the start of construction on the Victorville-Vegas semi-high-speed passenger service (private financing); extending the service west into L.A. County at Palmdale would allow it to connect with not only the HSR path but also Metrolink's Antelope Valley line (which as per above will be upgraded to accommodate HSR).  The upshot is that if that happens, the service could conceivably extend itself to LAUPT -- or simply utilize Metrolink or eventually the state HSR for the same purposes.   Potentially it could also allow Metrolink to extend east to Victorville for commute purposes -- although in reality most commuting from the Victor Valley area heads straight down I-15 to employment centers in the Inland Empire.  But BNSF has yet to be convinced to allow Metrolink to use its tracks over Cajon Pass to extend service from San Bernardino out to the desert due to scheduling issues (that's part of the rail line's "Transcon" container "conveyor belt", with virtually constant freight movements in both directions -- I should know; I lived a half-block from those tracks for three years!).  That being said -- it's likely that the first usage of any Victorville-Palmdale trackage along the HDC alignment would most certainly be related to the Vegas service. 

Hm.  I wonder why they made that choice.  HSR can go up or down steeper grades than most railroads, so tunneling should be less necessary.

Regardless of the specific physics involved with HSR, it's still steel wheels on steel rails, so there's still a traction and/or "slippage" factor involved with rail gradients -- even with the momentum achieved at 200 mph, a train will slow down to some degree when a hill -- particularly when grades over 2-3% (a 2 to 3 foot elevation gain over 100 feet of track) are encountered.  The current joint BNSF/UP line paralleling CA 58 over the Tehachapi grade maxes out at about 2.2% eastward -- considered the practical maximum for efficient freight movement; in this case, it moves, on average, about 15-20 mph uphill for a loaded 120-car container train with five distributed-power 4000 HP locomotives doing the work.  That's why a completely new offsite alignment for HSR, utilizing extensive tunneling and very high-radius curvature, is in the process of design -- to maintain speeds of at least 170 mph, a maximum 2% grade can be employed with curvature radii of roughly a mile, heavily banked.  Arguably the Tehachapi section will be the most costly to construct of all the planned HSR mileage, with Pacheco Pass alongside CA 152 a close second.     
 

[mgk920]

See https://hsr.ca.gov/high_speed_rail/maps/project_sections_stations.aspx
(This is seriously interesting!)

Palmdale-Burbank, the drawings that I have seen over the past couple of years are for a new-ROW full-speed HSR line to run between Palmdale and a planned station in the Burbank area that would involve extensive tunneling.  They are currently evaluating engineering alternatives on this section.

https://hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/statewide_rail/proj_sections/palmdale_burbank/Palmdale_Burbank_New_Alternatives_Only.pdf
(dated 2018)

Beyond this section:
Burbank-Los Angeles Union Station, preferred alternative (this looks to be mostly a combination of upgraded existing tracks and newly laid tracks within the existing ROW):
https://hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/Burbank_to_LA.pdf

Palmdale to Bakersfield, via Tehachapi Pass (alternatives are still being evaluated on this section):
https://hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/Bakersfield_to_Palmdale.pdf
(dated November, 2019)

Enjoy!

Mike

[sparker]

See https://hsr.ca.gov/high_speed_rail/maps/project_sections_stations.aspx
(This is seriously interesting!)

Palmdale-Burbank, the drawings that I have seen over the past couple of years are for a new-ROW full-speed HSR line to run between Palmdale and a planned station in the Burbank area that would involve extensive tunneling.  They are currently evaluating engineering alternatives on this section.

https://hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/statewide_rail/proj_sections/palmdale_burbank/Palmdale_Burbank_New_Alternatives_Only.pdf
(dated 2018)

Beyond this section:
Burbank-Los Angeles Union Station, preferred alternative (this looks to be mostly a combination of upgraded existing tracks and newly laid tracks within the existing ROW):
https://hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/Burbank_to_LA.pdf

Palmdale to Bakersfield, via Tehachapi Pass (alternatives are still being evaluated on this section):
https://hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/Bakersfield_to_Palmdale.pdf
(dated November, 2019)

Enjoy!

Mike

I knew that there was a tunnel alternative that broke away from both CA 14 and the existing Metrolink line and emerged somewhere around Sun Valley or Pacoima, but the "cheap-out" option of rebuilding the Metrolink line to accommodate about 90-110 mph all the way from LAUPT to Palmdale was the front-runner as of a couple of years ago, which would have slowed down the overall trip from SoCal to the Bay Area by about an hour or so.  Looks like they've gotten back to the original 200 mph concept with the requisite tunneling and viaducts needed to do so in the available topology -- which, except for the inevitable cost overruns, is a step in the right direction for the entire concept -- i.e., if it's truly going to be HSR, don't cripple it with intervening segments of slow-speed travel.  Contrary to how the concept was "sold" to the public circa 2007-08, the ridership for HSR is likely to be drawn from those currently utilizing airline travel (largely meaning Southwest, with a little Alaska Air mixed in).  While it might shave off a few solo-driver trips from I-5 or US 101, my best guesstimate is that if and when completed the effect on highway use will be marginal at best.  If someone has things to schlep between the metro areas that can't be stowed in luggage, they're still going to make the trip with their vehicle.  HSR will get those folks who (a) want to try it as a novelty -- maybe they'll like it and use it as a regular air travel alternative, (b) with all else equal would rather not deal with airports, TSA, airport parking, etc., (c) fearful of flying and only do so for business or emergency reasons (d) don't have Teslas that they want to try out on I-5 just to see what electric 0-60 will do for them (if the CHP didn't have radio communication, a model S would render them toast in short order!).    But riders will still need to get to a HSR station in a fashion similar to that of any collective transportation mode (interesting that one's planned to be integrated with the Burbank airport -- I'm old enough to remember that as Lockheed Field!).  It's just difficult to see a unique ridership group for HSR -- and the prospect of significantly reducing over-the-road trips isn't terribly bright.   

But I wonder if any of the structures or tunnels on the rail line will be named after Jerry Brown!

[mgk920]

Yea, any slow zones or intermediate station stops will render the entire system non-competitive with airlines for traffic between its terminals at LAX (et al) and SFO (et al).  I fully expect the intermediate stations to all have tracks that bypass their platforms that will allow trains that are running 'express' between the terminals to safely blow through them at full track speed.

As for a 'Jerry Brown Tunnel', howabout one of those short ones that will be drilled in the Tehachapi Pass part of the system?

(DUCKS and RUNS!!!!    )

Mike

[sparker]

Yea, any slow zones or intermediate station stops will render the entire system non-competitive with airlines for traffic between its terminals at LAX (et al) and SFO (et al).  I fully expect the intermediate stations to all have tracks that bypass their platforms that will allow trains that are running 'express' between the terminals to safely blow through them at full track speed.

As for a 'Jerry Brown Tunnel', howabout one of those short ones that will be drilled in the Tehachapi Pass part of the system?

(DUCKS and RUNS!!!!    )

Mike

Yet......at the north end of the system (from Gilroy to S.F.) the plans still are for the HSR to "piggyback" on Caltrain's tracks, which will be improved to "quasi-high-speed" -- but nothing approaching the 200 mph standard for the rest of the system.  The first step in this process -- which also involves converting Caltrain to an all-electric operation -- is underway; the supports for the overhead catenary are being erected along the Caltrain line; it's gotten as far south as the Curtner Ave. overpass south of downtown San Jose; the local rag has claimed that those supports will reach Gilroy by late October.  They're pretty large and impressive (looking like the stuff seen on the Northeast Corridor from D.C. to Boston), obviously sturdy enough to withstand a pantograph (electric pickup arm atop the locomotive) rolling along at 120-150 mph, which is what's projected for the Gilroy-to-San Jose segment.  At least if the HSR project fails or is indefinitely postponed, Caltrain will have some decent infrastructure with which to work!

And since his electoral base was in NorCal, I'd expect either a tunnel or viaduct in the Pacheco Pass area to bear Jerry Brown's name.