Over at Wired Magazine, Jason Kambitsis has an article that’s getting lots of coverage around the transit blogs. In the article, he argues HSR is a “conduit of sprawl”:

It’s fast, it’s efficient and it is the future of transportation, but will high-speed rail cause sprawl? Yes, it could, warn some urban planners. Despite the promise of creating more densely populated urban centers, high-speed rail could do quite the opposite by making it easier for people to live far from urban centers…. But that convenience could increase emigration from California’s urban centers to the exurbs and beyond. In other words, it could lead to more sprawl.

Kambitsis’s article isn’t a piece of HSR denial – he supports the concept and understands its place in a 21st century economy and transportation network. But he looks at places like Bakersfield and Fresno and argues that HSR could produce sprawl, unless steps are taken to mitigate against it:

Proactive land use policies focused on increasing urban density coupled with incentives for transit-oriented development and suburban infill must be embraced by communities along high-speed rail lines — especially those with planned stops. This will help create a market for transportation and the subsequent development tied to it. Regional and local transportation planning initiatives that create infrastructure connecting pedestrians, bicycles and mass transit and place it on a level playing field with automobiles will reduce dependence on cars for commuting. Parking should be provided in garages, not lots, and it must be integrated into the development. And, finally, stations must be landmark, not utilitarian, structures that compliment their communities and welcome riders. Grand Central Station in New York is an excellent example.

If you’ve been reading this blog since 2008, however, you’d know that I’ve already been advocating for exactly those kinds of TOD policies. Californians For High Speed Rail prefers downtown stations built with TOD precisely for this purpose, to channel growth inward and help mitigate against sprawl.

But in my posts on HSR and sprawl, I’ve identified other factors that suggest the concern is not only misplaced, but leaves out some other rather important factors that suggest it will actually be quite difficult for HSR to produce sprawl.

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 will be as well – rates are low right now, but loans are hard to get, and virtually everyone expects rates to rise very soon. Even with a bailout, we have not seen 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 HSR. Stopping HSR 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, which prioritizes TOD and helps cut down on sprawl. Prop 1A contained a provision forbidding construction of a station at Los Banos, a key demand of anti-sprawl advocates.

Another element in the anti-sprawl battle is a recent court ruling invalidating a housing cap in Pleasanton. Such housing caps produce sprawl by forcing housing growth to happen elsewhere, especially the Central Valley. Now cities in places like the Bay Area and the SoCal core will have to add more housing.

More anti-sprawl rules would help ensure that sprawl is dead in the Central Valley. These rules would include restoration of state funding for the Williamson Act, which enables local governments to buy land to keep it as open space or in agricultural use. It’s been a key anti-sprawl tool, but has been defunded by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in recent budget cuts.

In other words, there’s a lot of tools out there, existing and potential, to help push back against sprawl. Combined with good station locations, the ongoing rise in oil prices, and the lack of cheap credit, there’s every reason to believe HSR will not produce sprawl.

UPDATE: Eric Fredericks of the CHSRA added this in the comments: