Why California should see its high-speed rail project through

Broken ground. Image: Getty.

In California, there is now a serious proposal afloat to divert dedicated high-speed rail money from the construction effort predominantly taking place in the San Joaquin Valley, located in the state’s centre. It would go instead to what are known as “bookends” projects in the San Francisco Bay Area along the peninsula between San Francisco and San Jose (if not beyond) on Caltrain, and on Metrolink in the southern part of the state between Anaheim and Burbank. Caltrain and Metrolink are heavy rail, commuter-train operations.

If this proposal gains traction and funds are actually diverted – billions, I hear – the commuter-rail services in question will reap substantial improvement benefits. But what the state’s mid-section will be left with, I suspect is a 119-mile-long rail corridor connecting small rural villages (Madera and Shafter in this case) with the one large city in between (Fresno), and one built to high-speed rail standards but bereft of high-speed-rail trains. In lieu of actual and true high-speed rail, America’s national passenger rail service provider, Amtrak, is the entity most likely to use this section of track. And the trains will most probably be diesel-powered to boot.

Should this become the reality, I believe California high-speed rail can forever be kissed goodbye. The motivation and urgency for seeing the entire project through will, in all likelihood, fall by the wayside.

There are myriad reasons why mid-state bullet train construction should continue.

Firstly, Golden State voters apparently thought what was coming down the pike was a network of high-speed tracks linking Los Angeles/Anaheim and San Francisco (520 mile Phase 1), with separate extensions to San Diego and Sacramento (280 mile Phase 2) to follow, covering a distance of 800 miles in all. It is a grand plan to say the least.

No secret, meanwhile, is that the high-speed-rail program has faced staunch opposition. It’s been hamstrung by mismanagement and cost overruns. It’s been litigated against. All these factors are partly responsible for construction delays; all have slowed building progress.

California high-speed rail building in the Valley commenced 16 June 2015 on the Fresno River viaduct in Madera County; the formal ground-breaking took place on 6 January 2015 in Fresno. In the latest plan, high-speed rail is being constructed between Madera and Shafter, covering a distance of 119 miles, with the expectation that ultimately 171 miles of track in Bakersfield (in the south Valley) and Merced (in the north Valley) will be completed. The intent here is to provide electrified high-speed train service to those city-pairs no later than 2028.

The proposal in question seeks to redirect between $5bn and $6bn to the bookends sections, leaving a total $20.4bn, of which $14.4bn to $15.4bn will be expressly for high-speed rail construction work in the valley. Arguably, constituents should be provided with what initially they thought they would be getting. At this late date, to do – or settle for – anything less than the full allocation just isn’t right.

Moreover, with Bakersfield-to-Merced a key part of the initial California bullet-train operating segment – a so-called high-speed rail “starter” line if you like – will come five key stations: Bakersfield, Kings/Tulare, Fresno, Madera and Merced. The last of these could serve University of California students, faculty and staff there well.

These new stations provide an incredible opportunity for location-efficient, medium- to high-density, mixed-use, transit-oriented development to sprout, providing tremendous potential for increased bullet-train ridership. This will in no way be a “train to nowhere” as some have suggested.

Case in point: at Merced, there are plans for a new multimodal “union” station, served not only by high-speed trains but Altamont Corridor Express trains too. High-speed train riders and others will be provided with the means to travel to San Francisco Bay Area destinations, most notably San Jose, via the ACE connection.

For the uninitiated, via bullet-train construction work, dollars by the billions have been injected into the state economy.

And, let’s not forget the quality of San Joaquin Valley air. The region, year after year, sees some of the worst air pollution in the country. The Valley has consistently topped the American Lung Association’s most air-polluted list. In response, not only is the project being built using the most environmentally-friendly equipment and methods going, but electric trains running on nothing but renewable energy – solar and wind power, for example – will do much to reduce fine particulate matter and ozone and other pollutant emissions in air further, as well as to contribute to the state meeting its greenhouse gas emissions-reduction goals. Where else do you find that?

With increased numbers of train riders, drivers on paralleling motorways will feel the impact – there will be less motor vehicle traffic. To some degree there will be less need to build additional runways and gates at airports in state, even as its population grows an estimated 25 per cent from 40 million today to an estimated 50 million by mid-century.

Once in full swing, the train will be a momentum generator for driving further bullet-train development along with patronage numbers both in the north and south state – make no mistake.

There is that now-popular expression coming immediately to mind: “Build it and they will come.”

Alan Kandel is the author of the ebook, “The Departure Track: Railways of Tomorrow”. You can buy a copy here.

 
 
 
 

Here’s how we plant 2 billion more trees in the UK

A tree in Northallerton, North Yorkshire. Image: Getty.

The UK’s official climate advisor, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), recently published a report outlining how to reduce the 12 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions that come from land use by two thirds by 2050. Alongside recommending cutting meat and dairy consumption by 20 per cent, the report calls for the annual creation of up to 50,000 hectares of broadleaf and conifer woodland for the next three decades. This would increase forest cover from 13 per cent to at least 17 per cent – a level not seen in Britain since before the Norman invasion.

Reforestation at that rate would mean creating roughly the area of the city of Leeds every year for the next three decades. At typical stocking densities of 1,500 stems per hectare, the ambition is to establish some 2.25 billion additional trees. Given that the UK, as with most of Europe, is in the grip of ash dieback, a disease likely to prove fatal for many millions of native ash trees, the scale of the challenge is massive.

On a crowded and intensively farmed island like Britain, unlocking a million and a half hectares of land will be no mean feat. But it’s not impossible – and is an unprecedented opportunity not only to tackle the climate crisis but also the biodiversity crisis that is every bit as detrimental to our wellbeing.

Trees and farms

One million and a half hectares is just 6 per cent of the mainland UK’s land area. To give some sense of perspective on this, 696,000 hectares of “temporary grassland” were registered in 2019. So if land supply is not the problem, what is? Often it’s cultural inertia. Farmers are firmly rooted to the land and perhaps understandably reluctant to stop producing food and instead become foresters. But the choice need not be so binary.

The intensification of agriculture has caused catastrophic declines in many species throughout the UK by reducing vast wooded areas and thousands of miles of hedgerows to small pockets of vegetation, isolating populations and making them more vulnerable to extinction.

Integrating trees with the farmed landscape delivers multiple benefits for farms and the environment. Reforestation doesn’t have to mean a return to the ecologically and culturally inappropriate single-species blocks of non-native conifers, which were planted en masse in the 1970s and 1980s. Incentivised under tax breaks to secure a domestic timber supply, many of the resulting plantations were located in places difficult or in some cases impossible to actually harvest.

Productive farmland needn’t be converted to woodland. Instead, that 4 per cent of land could be found by scattering trees more widely. After all, more trees on farmland is good for business. They prevent soil erosion and the run-off of pollutants, provide shade and shelter for livestock, a useful source of renewable fuel and year-round forage for pollinating insects.

The first tranche of tree planting could involve new hedgerows full of large trees, preferably with wide headlands of permanently untilled soils, providing further wildlife refuge.


Natural regeneration

Where appropriate, new woody habitats can be created simply by stopping how the land is currently used, such as by removing livestock. This process can be helped by scattering seeds in areas where seed sources are low. But patience is a virtue. If people can learn to tolerate less clipped and manicured landscapes, nature can run its own course.

A focus on deliberate tree planting also raises uncomfortable truths. Most trees are planted with an accompanying stake to keep them upright and a plastic shelter that protects the sapling from grazing damage. All too often, these shelters aren’t retrieved. Left to the elements, they break down into ever smaller pieces, and can be swept into rivers and eventually the ocean, where they threaten marine wildlife. Two billion tree shelters is a lot of plastic.

The main reason for using tree shelters at all is because the deer population in the UK is so high that in many places, it is all but impossible to establish new trees. This also has serious implications for existing woodland, which is prevented from naturally regenerating. In time, these trees will age and die, threatening the loss of the woodland itself. Climate change, pests and pathogens and the lack of a coordinated, centrally supported approach to deer management means the outlook for the UK’s existing treescape is uncertain at best.

An ecologically joined-up solution would be to reintroduce the natural predators of deer, such as lynx, wolves, and bears. Whether rewilding should get that far in the UK is still the subject of debate. Before that, perhaps the focus should be on providing the necessary habitat, rich in native trees.

A positive response would be to implement the balanced recommendations, made almost a decade ago in a government review, of creating more new habitat, improving what’s already there, and finding ways to link it together. Bigger, better, and more connected habitats.

But the UK is losing trees at increasing rates and not just through diseases. The recent removal of Victorian-era street trees in Sheffield and many other towns and cities is another issue to contend with. As the climate warms, increasing urban temperatures will mean cities need shade from street trees more than ever.

Trees aren’t the environmental panacea that the politicians might have people believe – even if they do make for great photo opportunities – but we do need more of them. Efforts to expand tree cover are underway across the world and the UK will benefit from contributing its share. Hitting the right balance – some commercial forestry, lots of new native woodland and millions of scattered trees – will be key to maximising the benefits they bring.

Nick Atkinson, Senior Lecturer in Ecology & Conservation, Nottingham Trent University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.