Future of Transports (San Diego, Fresno, Sacramento: sales, 2009, new house)

[JakeInSoCal]

I was reading around the internet on CA transportation infrastructure and I saw how many more highways CalTran is still plaining to build. They cut many because of new need for public transit. Smart Growth is a new type of green planning that many cities are using but the cities of CA aren't gripping for some reason. Freeways cost lots of money, especially interchanges. And of all places in the U.S. you'ld think CA would be using it most because of our love and grip to the automobile to get anywhere. Our cities mainly LA are basically just known for our huge freeway expanse. Our region of Southern CA has an estimeted pop of about 18 million and in the next few decades rise to 30 million. And I guess the freeways dont improve anything much cause LA always has a jam somewhere. Same with San Diego and I think the bay area has bad jams. I also remeber CalTran thinking of putting in a super fast train that goes through city and country that could get you to SanFran from SD in 3 hours. But it would take about 20 years and cost BILLIONS. I'm just looking for any new info and stats on what dirention our region is going in?!

[FresnoFacts]

You might be interested in reading this study. It was produced by the UC Davis Sustainable Transportation Center, part of the Institute of Transportation Studies.
Achieving Sustainability in California’s Central Valley
UC Davis News & Information :: New UC Davis Study Asks: How Green Is Our Valley?
ITS-Davis: Achieving Sustainability in California’s Central Valley

The study looked at the application of sustainable growth policies in the Central Valley from Bakersfield to Redding. The Central Valley will absorb a large part of California's future growth, growing from 7 million to 12 million people in the next 30 years.

Putting in place good policies now will correct past mistakes and try to avoid the problems you mentioned exist elsewhere as the Central Valley region grows.

The authors looked at 100 cities in the Valley in terms of their application so far of sustainable growth policies. There were 50 different concepts looked for, ranging from transportation planning to land use. Each city got 1 point for each concept in place today.

The top 5 out of the 100 Central Valley cities:
Fresno 33 points (out of 50)
Sacramento 31.5 points
Davis 30 points
Visalia 29 points
Roseville 28 points

Although Fresno might seem a strange top city, there are a lot of things being put in place to manage future growth in a "smart" way.

For example, Fresno is going to start spending over $1 million per year for the next 20 years just on new bike paths and walking trails. The money is from a transportation sales tax, some of the tax will build/expand freeways but some is going to other uses like the bike paths, public transit, working toward installing streetcars or light rail, etc.

[JakeInSoCal]

Thanks that info was actually really good. The question is all of SoCal though. I always wondered how green planning works. But California is just always growing. Anymore info on public transports will be good.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

I seriously doubt that population growth will continue much longer in this state. Ten years from now we'll be like the Rust Belt, losing overall, and even immigration won't be sufficient counter that. You can take so called smart growth and stick it where the sun don't shine, things like this are the nails in the economic coffin of the Formerly-Golden State.

[JakeInSoCal]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

I seriously doubt that population growth will continue much longer in this state. Ten years from now we'll be like the Rust Belt, losing overall, and even immigration won't be sufficient counter that. You can take so called smart growth and stick it where the sun don't shine, things like this are the nails in the economic coffin of the Formerly-Golden State.

I wouldn't be all that sure. People like it here. THey don't know exactly whats wrong with it like we do. Poeple will keep coming and natives sadly keep leaving.

[stillkit]

The success of public transportation is entirely a factor of population density. It's not the overall number of people which is critical, it's how many per square mile and the LA/Inland Empire area is only just now reaching a density which will support public transportation.

Unfortunately, since it was not planned for in the beginning, now there are right of way issues which will probably make a truly effective system impossible.

As for the Central Valley? I hope someone is watching all that farm land. If the population swells there, every new house built will displace a key component of our food chain. California literally feeds the rest of the nation and covering up all those farms with roads and houses will a disaster.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by stillkit

The success of public transportation is entirely a factor of population density.

Population density is a factor, but not the sole factor. The transition from electric urban and interurban rail, in the 1920s, was fueled (pardon my pun) by cheap and plentiful petroleum.

If you check the history of electric urban rail, it served many areas with far lower population densities than today.

As for the Central Valley? I hope someone is watching all that farm land. If the population swells there, every new house built will displace a key component of our food chain. California literally feeds the rest of the nation and covering up all those farms with roads and houses will a disaster.

Agreed. You can't eat concrete.

However, there were many agricultural areas that were hurt by government programs that favored Cal agribusiness. For example, in central Pennsylvania, I saw abandoned canneries. It was explained to me that it was no longer profitable to raise vegetables and process them locally, when "cheap" (subsidized) transportation could bring in subsidized California products.

As fuel prices rise, I suspect that will change.

[JakeInSoCal]

Originally Posted by stillkit

As for the Central Valley? I hope someone is watching all that farm land. If the population swells there, every new house built will displace a key component of our food chain. California literally feeds the rest of the nation and covering up all those farms with roads and houses will a disaster.

The problem is developers keep making new communities into every ounce of flat enough land they find. Now if you satrt building into the Central Valley then your just dumb has hell. The problem is they just keep going with commercials "OH come to California, move here everyone"

[FresnoFacts]

The problem is also that many cities in the state are limiting housing growth.

Consider that the state just sued Pleasanton for limiting its future housing, because it will create a jobs/housing imbalance.

Pleasanton voters in 1996 limited the city to only 29,000 housing units total. The city now has 27,000 housing units so only 2,000 more homes or apts can be built.

But the city is also updating its master plan to add 45,000 new jobs within the city limits by 2025.

The state is suing, saying a city cannot plan for that many new jobs and then not plan for housing a significant portion of the workforce. Basically Pleasanton wants other areas (like the Central Valley) to house those employees.
State sues Pleasanton over housing limit

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by stillkit

As for the Central Valley? I hope someone is watching all that farm land. If the population swells there, every new house built will displace a key component of our food chain. California literally feeds the rest of the nation and covering up all those farms with roads and houses will a disaster.

Having recently driven through the farmland area, between LA and Sacramento on I-5 and 99, I couldn't believe all of the farm land that has been taken out of production due to water limitations. The concrete and development doesn't seem to be the primary farm problem.