Section 3.18 Regional Growth

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.18-1 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

3.18 Regional Growth

This section describes the regulatory setting and affected environment related to regional growth. 

It discusses the potential growth-inducing effects of the Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated 

Alternative (F-B LGA). Due to the nature of regional growth impacts, the analysis in this section 

focuses on the four-county region of Kern, Fresno, Tulare, and Kings counties. Environmental 

impacts that would be created by any contribution of the high-speed rail (HSR) project to regional 

growth are examined in Section 3.19, Cumulative Impacts, and other sections of this Draft

Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), including 

Section 3.13, Station Planning, Land Use, and Development. This analysis evaluates projected 

statewide and regional population and employment growth trends to determine how the F-B LGA

could influence these trends, either directly or indirectly. Demographic analysis of population and 

employment growth are provided in the Draft Fresno to Bakersfield Supplemental Community 

Impact Assessment Technical Report (California High-Speed Rail Authority [Authority] and the 

Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] 2017).

This section also compares the F-B LGA to the complementary portion of the Preferred 

Alternative that was identified in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. As discussed in 

Section 1.1.3 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, the complementary portion of the Preferred 

Alternative consists of the portion of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Alternative 

from Poplar Avenue to Hageman Road and the Bakersfield Hybrid from Hageman Road to Oswell 

Street (further referenced as the “May 2014 Project”). Since the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Final EIR/EIS does not evaluate the May 2014 Project as a discrete subsection of the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Project (as it did for the Allensworth Bypass, for example), affected environment and 

impact summary discussion included in this section for the May 2014 Project has been 

extrapolated from the available information contained in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS.

Population and employment growth are closely linked to land use regulations and economic 

activity, which are addressed in Section 3.12, Socioeconomics and Communities, and Section 

3.13, Station Planning, Land Use, and Development. Section 3.12, Socioeconomics and

Communities, includes a discussion of economic impacts on the cities and counties. Section 3.13, 

Station Planning, Land Use, and Development, includes a discussion of how growth is addressed 

in local land use regulations. 

3.18.1 Regulatory Setting

The following federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and agency jurisdiction and management 

guidance are relevant to regional growth. 

3.18.1.1 Federal

The HSR project is required to comply with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) for analyzing direct and indirect growth effects. Please see Section 3.18.2.1 of the Fresno 

to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: page 3.18-2) for a discussion of

NEPA requirements for analyzing these effects. 

3.18.1.2 State

The HSR project is required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 

requirements for analyzing growth effects. Please see Section 3.18.2.2 the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: page 3.18-2) for a discussion of CEQA

requirements for analyzing growth. 
Section 3.18 Regional Growth

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.18-2 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

3.18.1.3 Regional and Local

The following regional and local laws, regulations, and guidelines are relevant to this regional 

growth analysis: 

• San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Roadmap

• Kern Council of Governments (KCOG) 2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable

Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)

• Kern County General Plan

• City of Shafter General Plan

• Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan

Please see Section 3.18.2.3 the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 

2014: pages 3.18-4 through 3.18-10) for a discussion of the regional and local plans that are 

applicable to the proposed F-B LGA. Any local policies and regulations that have been updated or 

added since those discussed in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and 

FRA 2014), as well as any plans that apply specifically to the F-B LGA that were not included 

previously, are discussed in Table 3.18-1. In addition to these plans, the City of Bakersfield is 

currently preparing an HSR Station Area Plan, as discussed in Section 3.13, Station Planning, 

Land Use, and Development.

Table 3.18-1 Local Land Use Policies

Policy Title and Status Summary

Kern County

2014 RTP/SCS (KCOG 2014) –

Updated Plan

The RTP/SCS is a 26-year blueprint that establishes a set of regional 

transportation goals, policies, and actions intended to guide development of 

the planned multimodal transportation systems in Kern County. The RTP/SCS 

identifies the HSR project as a whole as a future transit option in the region, 

and supports state and federal actions that would increase accessibility to 

passenger rail service. 

2014 Regional Housing Needs 

Assessment (KCOG 2014) – 

Updated Plan

Government Code Section 65584 requires the Department of Housing and 

Community Development to provide its determination of the region’s projected 

housing needs to the KCOG. It is the KCOG’s responsibility to allocate the 

projected needs for the unincorporated areas of Kern County and to each of 

the 11 incorporated cities. This document examines the status of housing in 

Kern County and proposes a housing allocation based upon market forces 

consistent with the KCOG traffic and air pollution analysis databases for Kern 

County.

City of Shafter

Gossamer Grove Specific Plan 

(City of Shafter 2014) – New 

Plan, Applies Only to F-B LGA

Gossamer Grove is designed as a planned community on 953.4 gross acres 

in the southeastern portion of the city, in an area traversed by an approximate 

1.2-mile segment of the F-B LGA. This development aims to convert

agricultural land to urban uses characterized predominantly by suburban-type 

residential densities, with community amenities that will serve local 

neighborhood needs and which will be integrated into neighborhood centers.

Source: Authority and FRA 2016

3.18.2 Methods for Evaluating Impacts

This analysis considers potential environmental effects of regional growth that would occur over 

the short-term due to HSR project construction and the long-term due to HSR project operation. 
Section 3.18 Regional Growth

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.18-3 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

3.18.2.1 Study Area

The study area for the analysis of impacts related to regional growth comprises Kern County, 

including the incorporated cities of Shafter and Bakersfield, and the unincorporated community of 

Oildale. This impact analysis discusses most environmental impacts by geographic area (at the 

county and city level). 

Although some economic data sources provide economic data (such as total employment and the 

unemployment rate) for cities, most describe the correlation between various economic sectors 

only at the county level. County-level information includes data for the unincorporated parts of the 

county as well as for the cities.

For the incorporated cities of Shafter and Bakersfield, changes in demographic and economic 

data between 2000 and later years are based on both (1) changes that occurred inside their 

incorporated boundaries, as defined in 2000, and (2) changes related to the expansions of these 

boundaries that occurred after 2000. Shafter and Bakersfield annexed large areas of land into 

their incorporated boundaries between 2000 and 2010, and are continuing to expand 

geographically.1 Changes in the population, housing, and other metrics in these two cities are, 

therefore, affected by changes in the incorporated boundaries for these cities. As a result, 

demographic and economic data showing population increases between 2000 and 2010 for these 

two cities reflect increases related to changes inside the cities’ jurisdictional boundaries as well as 

changes related to incorporating newly annexed areas. Increases in population are, therefore, 

higher than those related purely to births, deaths, and relocations.

3.18.2.2 Short-Term Growth Effects

Construction spending for the HSR project would result in short-term, direct construction jobs and 

additional indirect and induced jobs. Direct employment refers to the jobs created to construct the 

project and primarily involves employment in the construction sector. Indirect employment refers 

to the jobs created in existing businesses in the region (e.g., material and equipment suppliers) 

that provide goods and services to project construction. Induced employment refers to jobs 

created in new or existing businesses (e.g., retail stores, gas stations, banks, restaurants, service 

companies) that supply goods and services to workers and their families.

This analysis includes estimates for the number of direct, indirect, and induced short-term jobs

that would be created in the region as a result of HSR project spending during the construction 

period. The short-term job creation estimates were used to evaluate potential employment effects 

and associated population growth that could occur in Kern County as a result of additional 

available jobs. The methodology used to determine short-term growth effects follows the 

approach used in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: page 

3.18-10). However, this analysis evaluates employment effects in Kern County alone, as opposed 

to considering the entire region evaluated in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, and 

uses updated data sets and multipliers in order to provide up-to-date estimates of short-term job 

creation for both the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA.

2 For a detailed discussion of the 

methods and data used to evaluate short-term growth in the region, refer to Appendix A.4, ShortTerm Job Creation Methodology, of the Draft Fresno to Bakersfield Section Supplemental 

Community Impact Assessment Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2017). 

1 According to the incorporated boundaries that were used by the U.S. Census Bureau for the 2000 and 2010 Censuses, 

the cities of Bakersfield and Shafter expanded by 29.1 and 10.0 square miles, respectively. The incorporated boundary for 

Shafter expanded from 17.9 to 27.9 square miles, while the incorporated boundary for Bakersfield expanded from 114.6 to 

143.7 square miles.

2 The cost per worker used in this analysis to estimate the number of direct short-term jobs that would be created by HSR 

project spending is lower than that used in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section CIA. This lower cost per worker results in 

higher estimates for the number of direct jobs. This analysis uses the revised cost per worker to estimate the number of 

direct short-term construction jobs under both the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA to ensure comparability between the 

two alternatives.
Section 3.18 Regional Growth

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.18-4 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

3.18.2.3 Long-Term Growth Effects

The HSR project would result in the creation of long-term jobs and associated increases in 

population in areas served by the project. As growth impacts would be regional, the analysis of 

long-term, operations-induced growth focuses on Kern County and determines how the HSR 

project could influence projected county employment and population growth trends, either directly 

or indirectly. 

This regional growth analysis considers growth from the HSR project when considered in 

combination with projected growth without the HSR project, which are the projected conditions 

under the No Project Alternative. Unlike the analyses for most of the resource areas in this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS, this analysis is cumulative in nature and makes a comparison between 

the future conditions under the HSR project versus the No Project Condition.

The HSR project would result in the creation of direct, long-term jobs associated with operation 

and maintenance of the project. It would also indirectly generate new jobs related to the following: 

• Jobs created to support these new workers

• Businesses attracted to the region as a result of the project

• Existing businesses in the region that expand as a result of the project

The generation of long-term employment would also affect population growth, as new residents 

move into Kern County to fill these jobs.

These growth effects were considered in the 2010 Cambridge Systematics growth inducement 

study, which provided estimates of induced population and employment that could occur through 

the year 2035 as a result of the HSR project in each affected county along the entire HSR project 

(Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2010). These estimates are the same as those used in Section 

3.18, Regional Growth, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 

2014: page 3.18-33). The following summary describes key steps of the evaluation:

• Define Transportation Investments. The analysis used the future baseline (year 2035)

conditions of the No Project Alternative and the economic modeling process to forecast the

incremental increase in transportation investments associated with the HSR project.

• Estimate Transportation Benefits. Using results from the California Statewide High-Speed

Rail Travel Demand Model, benefits such as reduced travel times and costs of the HSR

system for air, highway, and conventional rail trips were estimated using travel demand

model results. Congestion, pollution, and crash reduction benefits and accessibility benefits

were directly estimated using travel demand model results for the HSR system in comparison

with the No Project Alternative. Mode shift benefits arising from the introduction of HSR

service are estimated by scaling benefits calculated for the statewide program EIR/EIS using

HSR ridership and other output from the travel demand model.

• Estimate Reasonably Foreseeable Direct Economic Benefits that would Induce Growth.

Direct economic impacts were evaluated for the following three categories:

− Business Cost Savings. Reductions in travel time and cost for long-distance business

travelers and commuters benefiting from the transportation improvements sufficient to 

result in their relocation to the study area.

− Business Attraction Effects. New and relocated firms taking advantage of market 

accessibility improvements provided through transportation investments associated with 

the project.

− Amenity (Quality of Life) Changes. Non-business travel time and cost benefits and other 

societal benefits that improve the attractiveness of the region to a sufficient degree that 

residential and business growth would occur.

• Determine Total Economic Impacts for Regions and Counties. All direct economic

impacts have the potential to create additional multiplier effects on the regional and statewide

economies of California. Total regional impacts are estimated using the Transportation
Section 3.18 Regional Growth

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.18-5 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Economic Development Impact System-Regional Dynamics macroeconomic simulation 

model. For this analysis, total economic impacts included population and industry-specific 

employment. 

This information was used to allocate county-level population and employment for each county, 

and to develop estimates of county population and employment growth that would occur as a 

result of the project.

The growth and development forecasts are based on HSR ridership assumptions at the high end 

of the potential ridership range. Accordingly, the growth analysis evaluates a reasonable worstcase scenario in that it represents the higher potential growth-related impacts from the HSR 

project.

Impacts of induced growth were evaluated based on the infill potential and magnitude of land 

needed to accommodate the population and employment growth. The analysis of land 

consumption estimated the population and employment growth that could fit inside the urban 

growth boundaries delineated by Shafter and Bakersfield and Kern County in their current general 

plans. The population, employment, and land consumption estimates were then reviewed to 

characterize the nature and magnitude of potential secondary impacts on the human and natural 

environment.

3.18.2.4 Methods for Evaluating Effects under NEPA

Although NEPA regulations require evaluation of direct and indirect growth effects, they do not 

require separate analysis or offer specific guidance with respect to evaluating growth-inducing 

impacts. Instead, these effects are evaluated in terms of the direct and indirect effects to specific 

resource areas (e.g., direct and indirect effect of regional growth on air quality). As such, this 

section provides analysis of the growth effects for use in other sections of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS (e.g., cumulative effects analysis). 

3.18.2.5 Methods for Evaluating Effects under CEQA

Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to, “Discuss the ways in which the 

proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional 

housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” This section further states 

that, “Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring 

construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects.” This section, 

therefore, provides a discussion of potential growth effects of the HSR project and whether or not 

they would contribute to the need for new facilities, construction of which could cause significant 

environmental effects. 

3.18.3 Affected Environment

The affected environment describes the context for evaluating impacts. This context is used to 

better understand existing conditions in the study area and to assess the direct and indirect 

growth effects under NEPA and the level of significance of these growth effects under CEQA. 

This section presents the affected environment for jurisdictions and unincorporated communities 

that would be affected by either the May 2014 Project or F-B LGA. Both of these alternatives 

would traverse portions of Kern County and the cities of Shafter and Bakersfield, while the F-B 

LGA would also traverse a portion of the community of Oildale. The existing setting for all of these 

geographic areas in terms of population, employment, and housing is presented here. Updated 

regional information is also provided for comparison with the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014).

3.18.3.1 Summary of the May 2014 Project Affected Environment

The affected environment for the May 2014 Project is similar to that of the F-B LGA. The May 

2014 Project would affect Kern County and the cities of Shafter and Bakersfield. These 

communities would also be affected by the F-B LGA, and are therefore discussed as part of the 

affected environment for the F-B LGA. 
Section 3.18 Regional Growth

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.18-6 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

3.18.3.2 Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

Economic Recession of 2008 through 2009

The economic recession of 2008 through 2009 had substantial effects on income and 

employment in the region. Kern County experienced declines in average and median incomes

during this period and the following years. The average income in Kern County returned to 2007 

pre-recession levels in 2012, and the median income returned to 2007 pre-recession levels in 

2014. Poverty rates have risen in Kern County following the recession, from 18.1 percent in 2007 

to 24.8 percent in 2014, and have neither returned to pre-recession levels nor started to trend 

downward (Authority and FRA 2016). 

Unemployment rates in Kern County show a trend of recovery from the recession, peaking at 

15.0 percent in 2011 and dropping to 11.0 percent by 2014 (Figure 3.18-1). These rates, 

however, are still above the pre-recession rate of 10.0 percent in 2007. For more information 

about income and employment during and following the recession, refer to Sections 3.18.2.2, 

Employment, and 3.18.2.3, Unemployment Rates. A detailed discussion is also provided in 

Section 4.4.1, Economic Recession of 2008 to 2009, in the Draft Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Supplemental Community Impact Assessment Impact Report (Authority and FRA 2017: pages 4-

21 through 4-23). 

9.3% 9.2% 10.0% 9.2%

13.1%

14.6% 15.0%

14.0%

12.3%

11.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Figure 3.18-1 Unemployment Rates in Kern County from 2005 to 2014

This data on average and median incomes and unemployment rates indicates that Kern County’s 

economy has been recovering from the recession of 2008 through 2009, with incomes returning 

to pre-recession levels and unemployment rates approaching pre-recession levels. The 

percentage of people below the poverty line, however, has been increasing, indicating a shift in 

the distribution of income. This change may be related to changes in the types of jobs available. 

In recent history, the agricultural industry has been the fastest-growing source of jobs in Kern 

County. Although these jobs support a large portion of the community, they are generally lowpaying and often seasonal, with annual wages averaging $24,200 dollars in 2013 (Milken Institute 

2015).

Population

Table 3.18-2 shows the population in 2000 and 2010 for the state, the region, Kern County, the 

cities of Shafter and Bakersfield, and the community of Oildale. The annual average increase in 

population for Bakersfield was 4.1 percent, while in Shafter this annual average increase was 3.3

percent. In the community of Oildale, this annual average increase was 1.7 percent. As discussed 

above, some of the population increase in Shafter and Bakersfield is due to expansions of their 

incorporated boundaries. The population in the unincorporated area of Kern County increased at 

an annual average rate of 1.1 percent per year, similar to the rate experienced in California of 1.0 

percent. 
Section 3.18 Regional Growth

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.18-7 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 3.18-2 Population Increase in the F-B LGA Study Area, 2000–2010

Area Population in 

2000

Population in 

2010

Change from 

2000 to 2010

Annual Average 

Increase

Kern County 661,645 839,631 26.9% 2.7%

City of Shafter 12,736 16,988 33.4% 3.3%

Community of Oildale 27,885 32,684 17.2% 1.7%

City of Bakersfield 247,057 347,483 40.6% 4.1%

Unincorporated1 267,411 297,932 11.4% 1.1% 

Four-county Region 1,958,534 2,365,242 20.8% 2.1%

California 33,871,648 37,253,956 10.0% 1.0%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 and 2010 1 The Community of Oildale is unincorporated and is, therefore, taken into account in the “Unincorporated” population area.

Table 3.18-3 shows the population estimates for the years 2010 through 2035 for the state, the 

region, Kern County, the cities of Shafter and Bakersfield, and the community of Oildale. These 

estimates indicate that the populations of Kern County, the cities of Shafter and Bakersfield, and 

the community of Oildale, are projected to increase at a higher average annual rate than the 

population of the state of California. Over this 25-year period, population is projected to increase 

in Kern County by 55.1 percent, while the state’s population is expected to increase by 22.8

percent. The cities of Shafter and Bakersfield are projected to have a 134.9 and 107.1 percent 

increase in their populations, respectively, over the same period. The KCOG found that the rate 

of inbound migration to Kern County from other counties in California was higher than the rate 

experienced statewide, thereby contributing to higher growth rates experienced in this county 

(KCOG 2015). 

Table 3.18-3 Population Projections in the F-B LGA Study Area, 2010–2035

Area Population in 

20101

Population in 

2035

Change from 2010 

to 2035

Annual Average 

Growth Rate

Kern County 839,631 1,302,0002 55.1% 2.2%

City of Shafter 16,988 39,9003 134.9% 5.4%

Community of 

Oildale

32,684 N/A N/A N/A

City of Bakersfield 347,483 639,4003 107.1% 4.3% 

Four-county Region 2,365,242 3,389,0004 43.3% 1.7%

California 37,253,956 45,747,6455 22.8% 0.9% 

Sources: 1 U.S. Census Bureau 2010 2 Kern Council of Governments 2015 3 Kern Council of Governments 2014 4 Fresno Council of Governments 2012 5 California Department of Finance 2014

N/A = Not available. The Kern Council of Governments does not provide population projections for the community of Oildale. 

The population projections for 2035 presented in Table 3.18-3 are slightly different from those 

shown in Table 3.18-2 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 

2014: page 3.18-14) because they have been updated to the most recently available information. 

The California Department of Finance (CDOF) has updated its population projections to use 2010 

Census data as a benchmark. This update resulted in a reduction of the CDOF’s long-range

population forecasts for the state and counties because the actual 2010 figures were lower than 
Section 3.18 Regional Growth

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.18-8 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

they were projected to be in the previous forecasts that were published in 2007 (Pitkin and 

Meyers 2012). 

Employment

Table 3.18-4 provides information on employment by industry for the region and for Kern County, 

including both historical data and projections of future employment. Total industry employment 

counts the number of jobs by the place of work. This table compares 2000 and 2013 data from 

the U.S. Census Bureau to evaluate past trends, and 2012 baseline data and 2022 projections 

from the California Employment Development Department (CEDD) to evaluate anticipated future 

growth. The data sets are compared separately because they were obtained from different 

sources and contain some variances. 

In 2013, for both the region and Kern County, the largest employment sector was educational 

services, and health care and social assistance. The second largest sector was agriculture, 

forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining (Table 3.18-4). Between 2000 and 2013, total 

employment increased by 27.4 percent in the region and 28.8 percent in Kern County. In both the 

region and the county, the largest gain over this period was in the agriculture, forestry, fishing and 

hunting, and mining sector. This sector accounted for 46,895 new jobs in the region and 21,824 

new jobs in the county. The region and county both experienced declines in the wholesale trade 

and information sectors. 

Based on employment projections by the CEDD, between 2012 and 2022 the two sectors 

expected to contribute the most new jobs in both the region and Kern County are the (1) 

educational services, and health care and social assistance sector and the (2) agriculture, 

forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining sector (Table 3.18-4). These two sectors currently 

employ the most workers in the region and county, representing approximately 41 percent of jobs 

in the region and 42 percent of jobs in the county. The CEDD data indicate that these same 

sectors will continue to account for over 40 percent of the jobs in the region and county in the 

future. Other employment sectors with strong growth include the professional, scientific, and 

management, administrative, and waste management services sector, and the arts, 

entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services sector. 

Table 3.18-4 Kern County and Regional Employment by Industry 2000–20221

Industry Four-county Region Kern County

2000 2012 Projected 

2022

2000 2012 Projected 

2022

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, 

and mining

161,400 161,7002 184,4002 56,500 67,700 75,300

Construction 26,700 28,9002 35,9002 11,600 16,700 19,100

Manufacturing 53,700 52,700 62,200 10,800 13,400 16,400

Wholesale trade 22,100 25,500 28,800 5,700 8,400 9,900

Retail trade 72,700 81,400 91,700 23,400 27,900 31,300

Transportation and warehousing, and 

utilities

22,600 27,600 33,400 8,400 9,100 12,000

Information 8,900 7,600 7,900 2,500 2,700 2,900

Finance and insurance, and real estate 

and rental and leasing

26,000 26,300 31,200 7,600 8,700 10,100

Professional, scientific, and management, 

and administrative and waste 

management services

57,800 65,500 84,800 22,300 26,500 33,300
Section 3.18 Regional Growth

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.18-9 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Industry Four-county Region Kern County

2000 2012 Projected 

2022

2000 2012 Projected 

2022

Educational services, and health care and 

social assistance

141,300 176,8003 212,3003 44,600 57,9003 68,5003

Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and 

accommodation and food services

50,400 61,900 75,700 16,500 21,600 26,500

Other services, except public 

administration

20,500 21,500 23,900 6,700 7,200 8,300

Public administration 84,500 90,4003 100,7003 27,800 31,7003 34,5003

Total employed civilian population 16 

years and over

748,600 827,800 972,900 244,400 299,500 348,100

Sources: CEDD, 2016a and 2016b 1 This data set represents the total employed civilian population over the age of 16 by industry. Any person with more than one occupation is 

classified into their primary occupation and counted only once. 2 CEDD data for the construction industry in the counties of Kings and Tulare were combined with mining and logging, with total projected 

employment of 1,100 and 6,100, respectively. These jobs were included in the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining sector, and, 

therefore, construction jobs that are included in these totals have been included in this industry. 3 Government jobs that were related to education were included in this category, while all other government jobs were assigned to the public 

administration sector. 

As discussed in Section 3.18.2, Affected Environment, the economic recession of 2008 through 

2009 affected employment in Kern County. Although average and median wages have recovered 

to pre-recession levels, the percentage of people below the poverty line has increased and 

remains above pre-recession levels, indicating a shift in the distribution of income. As discussed 

previously, this may indicate a long-term shift related to the increase in lower-paying, seasonal 

agricultural jobs. 

Table 3.18-5 shows existing and projected 2035 total employment in Kern County, the region, 

and the state. The region is projected to experience an annual average job growth rate that is 

larger than the state as a whole. Between 2015 and 2035, employment is projected to grow by an 

annual average growth rate of 1.0 percent in the region and 1.1 percent in Kern County. 

Table 3.18-5 Regional Long-Range Employment Projections, 2013 and 2035

Area Employment Change from 2015 

to 2035

Annual Average 

Growth Rate 2015 2035 

Kern 353,6001 433,0002 22.5% 1.1%

Four-County Region 984,4001 1,176,2263 19.5% 1.0%

State 17,798,6001 20,381,0004 14.5% 0.7%

Sources: 1 CEDD, 2016 2 KCOG, 2015 3 KCOG, 2015; Fresno Council of Governments, 2014; Tulare County Council of Governments, 2014; Authority and FRA, 2014 4 Authority and FRA, 2014

Unemployment Rates

Unemployment rates in the region have historically been higher than that of the rest of the state. 

As discussed in Section 3.18.2, Affected Environment, the economic recession of 2008 through 

2009 resulted in increased unemployment in the following years. These rates have been declining 

since their peak in 2011, but as of 2014 had not yet reduced back to pre-recession levels. As 

indicated by these rates, Kern County’s economy has been improving since the recession, and 

has largely recovered from the impact to unemployment rates (Authority and FRA 2016).
Section 3.18 Regional Growth

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.18-10 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 3.18-6 shows the annual civilian labor force (the number of working people) and 

unemployment rates in 2010, 2014, and 2015 for the state, the region, Kern County, the cities of 

Shafter and Bakersfield, and the community of Oildale. County unemployment rates were higher 

than those at the state level, at 15.7 percent relative to the state’s 12.2 percent in 2010, and 10.2

percent compared to the state’s 6.2 percent in 2015. Unemployment rates were lower in Shafter 

and Bakersfield and higher in Oildale than for Kern County in 2010, 2014, and 2013, respectively. 

Table 3.18-6 Regional Labor Force Characteristics

2010 2014 2015

Kern County

Civilian Labor Force 371,500 394,800 393,800

Percent Unemployment Rate 15.7% 10.4% 10.2%

City of Shafter

Civilian Labor Force 6,800 7,300 7,300

Percent Unemployment Rate 13.5% 8.9% 8.7%

Community of Oildale

Civilian Labor Force 15,300 15,000 15,000

Percent Unemployment Rate 21.2% 13.3% 13.1%

City of Bakersfield

Civilian Labor Force 166,000 180,600 180,200

Percent Unemployment Rate 14.1% 9.3% 9.1%

Four-County Region

Civilian Labor Force 1,073,500 1,092,700 1,099,800

Percent Unemployment Rate 16.4% 11.4% 10.5%

California

Civilian Labor Force 18,336,300 18,827,900 18,981,800

Percent Unemployment Rate 12.2% 7.5% 6.2%

Source: CEDD, 2016c 

Housing Demand

Table 3.18-7 shows the number of existing and projected housing units in Kern County, the 

region, and the state. In 2013, the predominant housing type in Kern County was the single-family 

home, and the average household size was 3.19 persons (U.S. Census Bureau 2013b, 2013c). 

Section 3.12, Socioeconomics and Communities provides more information on existing housing 

characteristics in the region. Based on population projections, housing needs will increase by 

47.3 percent in Kern County between 2013 and 2035. In 2010, approximately 29,757 housing 

units were vacant in the county, which represents about 10.5 percent of the available housing 

stock (CDOF 2014).
Section 3.18 Regional Growth

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.18-11

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 3.18-7 Existing and Projected Housing Units

Location 2010 2035 Change Annual Average Growth Rate

Kern County 284,3671 421,0002 48.0% 1.9%

Four-County Region 785,4611 1,052,1943 34.0% 1.4%

California 13,670,3041 15,560,4233 13.8% 0.6%

Sources: 1 CDOF, 2015 2 KCOG, 2015 3 United States Census Bureau, 2013b

The 2035 four-county region housing estimates are based on the population estimate contained in Table 3.18-2, divided by the 2013 average 

household size of 3.22 and 2.94 people per household in the region and state, respectively. 

3.18.4 Environmental Consequences

This section describes construction and operation impacts associated with the May 2014 Project 

and the F-B LGA as they relate to regional growth. 

3.18.4.1 Summary of Analysis for the May 2014 Project

The Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014) analyzed potential

regional growth impacts associated with implementation of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of 

the HSR project, including the portion comprising the May 2014 Project. For short-term 

construction effects, the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS evaluated the number of 

short-term jobs that would be created in the region based on construction of the entire segment 

from Fresno to Bakersfield. These numbers are not comparable with the F-B LGA alignment, so 

an updated analysis was performed for the May 2014 Project, corresponding with the F-B LGA 

endpoints and construction schedule. 

Long-term operations impacts, however, are regional in nature and relate directly to operating 

cost, which are similar for all HSR alternatives. Operation of any of the alternatives would, 

therefore, result in similar direct effects on employment and indirect effects on housing demand, 

farmland conversion, and urban development. Accordingly, the results of the analysis of longterm effects presented in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS apply to both the May 

2014 Project and F-B LGA. 

The results of the updated short-term construction effects analysis and a summary of the longterm operations effects evaluated in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS are 

presented here.

Construction Effects

The analysis in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (2014: pages 3.18-20 and 3.18-

21) shows that construction of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the HSR project, including the

portion comprising the May 2014 Project, would result in new, short-term construction-related 

employment and increases in sales tax revenues related to construction expenditures. 

Construction could temporarily disrupt agricultural activities, and acquisition of agricultural parcels 

prior to construction would remove land from production. The amount of agricultural land in the 

region that would be disturbed by construction, however, would be small in comparison to the 

agricultural base. Section 3.12.4.1, Summary of Analysis for the May 2014 Project, in Section 

3.12, Socioeconomics and Communities of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS briefly describes the 

anticipated changes in tax revenues due to the May 2014 Project. 
Section 3.18 Regional Growth

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.18-12 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Short-term employment effects are related to the specific cost of constructing the May 2014 

Project, and are therefore evaluated separately here. As the May 2014 Project would require 

approximately the same amount of time to construct as the F-B LGA, a six-year time horizon was

used for this analysis, corresponding with the anticipated time horizon for the F-B LGA. Table 

3.18-8 provides estimates of the number of jobs that would be created in Kern County if the May 

2014 Project were to be constructed, including direct jobs related to construction of the rail, 

station, and maintenance facility; indirect jobs in existing businesses that provide goods and 

services to project construction; and induced jobs in new or existing businesses that supply 

goods and services to workers and their families.

Table 3.18-8 May 2014 Project Employment Impacts during Construction

Direct Employment

(annual job years)

Indirect and Induced Employment

(annual job years)

Total New Employment

(annual job years)

Year 1 350 317 667

Year 2 1,052 953 2,005

Year 3 1,713 1,552 3,265

Year 4 1,713 1,552 3,265

Year 5 1,052 953 2,005

Year 6 350 317 667

Total 6,230 5,644 11,874

Source: Authority and FRA, 2017

The total direct, indirect, and induced employment over the six-year construction period for the 

May 2014 Project would be 11,874 annual job years in Kern County.

3 This includes an increase 

of 6,230 direct annual job years in the construction sector and 5,644 indirect and induced annual 

job years in other economic sectors. During the peak period of construction, the May 2014 Project 

would create 1,713 direct construction jobs and 1,552 indirect and induced jobs. As concluded in 

the Draft Fresno to Bakersfield Section Supplemental Community Impact Assessment Impact 

Report (Authority and FRA 2017: pages 5-42 through 5-44), this increase would not be 

substantial enough to greatly attract workers to the region because the existing, underemployed 

construction work force would be expected to fill these jobs.

Operation Effects

Long-term growth impacts of the HSR project are regional in nature and relate directly to 

operating cost, which are similar for all HSR alternatives. Employment and population growth 

associated with the HSR project, as well as associated land use consumption, is therefore 

expected to be the same under all alternatives, including the May 2014 Project. Because 

operational effects relate to operation of the HSR system as a whole, the analysis of regional 

growth contained in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS relates to how operation of 

the entire system affects the four-county region, including Kern County. This section provides a 

summary of the overall findings, which are discussed at the regional level. It also provides

employment and population projections for the region and Kern County at the time of the 2010 

Cambridge Systematics growth inducement study, which was used for the analysis in the Fresno 

to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. 

3 An “annual job year” is equivalent to one person fully employed for one year.
Section 3.18 Regional Growth

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.18-13

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Employment

As discussed in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: pages 

3.18-30 through 3.18-31), operation of the HSR system is estimated to generate approximately 

47,400 jobs by 2035 in the region, approximately 17,200 of which would be in Kern County (Table 

3.18-9). This total would include the direct jobs to operate and maintain the HSR system, the 

indirect and induced jobs created to support new operations workers, and the additional jobs 

created as a result of the improved connectivity of the region to the rest of the state, which is 

anticipated to increase the competitiveness of the region’s industries and overall growth in the 

regional economy. 

Table 3.18-9 Regional Projected and Induced Population and Employment Growth

County 2035 No Project 

Projections

HSR Project

Induced Growth

Total 2035 HSR

Project Projections

Growth 

Inducement

Population

Kern 1,529,933 45,978 1,575,911 3.0%

Four-County Region 4,166,186 110,649 4,276,385 2.7%

Jobs

Kern 513,055 17,171 530,226 3.3%

Four-County Region 1,473,274 47,436 1,520,710 3.2%

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2010

The total projected increase in jobs related to HSR system operation was compared to the 2035 

employment projections that were available at the time of the 2010 Cambridge Systematics 

growth inducement study, which represent the number of jobs anticipated under the No Project 

Alternative. In the region, the new jobs associated with operation of the HSR system would 

represent a 3.2 percent increase above the 2035 projection of 1.47 million total jobs, and in Kern 

County they would represent a 3.3 percent increase above the 2035 projection (Cambridge 

Systematics, Inc. 2010). Given that unemployment rates in the region and Kern County have 

historically been higher than those of the state (Table 3.18-6), the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.18-30 through 3.18-31) concluded that jobs 

created directly and indirectly by operation of the HSR system, including the May 2014 Project, 

would provide employment opportunities for residents in the area and would not be growthinducing.

Population Growth

Operation of the HSR system, including the May 2014 Project, would contribute a 2.7 percent

population increase in the region compared to the 2035 population projection of 4.17 million for 

the region that was available at the time of the 2010 Cambridge Systematics growth inducement 

study. This increase would be small relative to the total growth projected to occur in the region by 

2035 under the No Project Alternative, which amounted to 76.1 percent between 2010 and 2035. 

Similarly, in Kern County operation of the HSR system would contribute a 3.0 percent population 

increase compared to the 2035 projection of 1.53 million, a small percentage relative to the 

projected 82.2 percent increase under the No Project Alternative between 2010 and 2035. 

The percentage increase in population in Kern County related to operation of the HSR system is 

expected to be slower than the percentage increase in employment in the county (Table 3.18-9). 

This trend is based on the likelihood that a number of the jobs generated by operation of the HSR 

system would be filled by area residents. Meanwhile, population increases are driven by the 

growth in indirect employment, which is spread out over time. Although operation of the HSR 

system would attract some new residents to the region, it would not lead to a wholesale shift in 

residential locations from the Bay Area and Los Angeles into the Central Valley, and any 
Section 3.18 Regional Growth

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.18-14 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

interregional shifts in residential locations are expected to be a small portion of the growth 

expected in the region (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2003). Therefore, operation of the HSR 

system, including the portion comprising the May 2014 Project, would not induce growth.

Land Use Consumption

As shown in Table 3.18-9, operation of the HSR system, including the May 2014 Project, would 

increase the population in the region by approximately 2.7 percent, or approximately 110,647

people over the 2035 population forecasted for the county in the 2010 Cambridge Systematics 

study. Based on typical population density for the San Joaquin Valley, the May 2014 Project

would require an additional 11,065 acres of land to support housing and necessary 

accompanying infrastructure, including commercial, office, transportation, parks, and schools, for 

the increased population associated with operation of the HSR system. As concluded in the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.18-32 through

3.18-36), under current city and county general plans in the region, communities in the region 

have adequate space to accommodate both planned growth by 2035 and induced growth 

associated with operation of the HSR system in their current spheres of influence.

Current land use trends would likely change with the presence of the HSR system, which is 

expected to result in additional population and employment near stations and to indirectly 

influence the regional development pattern. The research conducted for the Bay Area Program 

EIR/EIS found that market forces and complementary, regulatory-style efforts by other cities to 

encourage increased density and a mix of land uses near rail stations have been effective in 

attracting higher-density development (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2007). Operation of the HSR 

system would encourage increased densities that would result in compact urban development 

around the HSR stations, including the Truxtun Avenue station, and would tend to consolidate 

currently projected growth (under the No Project Alternative) and new regional employment and 

population around these stations. 

Although much of the population and employment growth in the station areas is a result of market 

forces, government involvement through a number of strategies can help to speed up the 

process, including higher-density mixed-use zoning. Given the dramatic population and 

employment growth projected in the Central Valley compared to the rest of the state under the No

Project condition, the presence of the Truxtun Avenue station would help direct a portion of this 

growth and the additional HSR-induced growth into higher-density and more sustainable 

development patterns, and help achieve the goals of the 2014 Regional Transportation 

Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy adopted by the Kern Council of Governments pursuant to 

Senate Bill 375, the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint, and the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan

(KCOG 2014; San Joaquin Valley Councils of Governments, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District, and Great Valley Center 2016; City of Bakersfield and Kern County 2007). 

Compared to the No Project Alternative examined in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: page 3.18-33), operation of the HSR system, including the

May 2014 Project, would encourage more compact, efficient land use in the region by serving as

an economic driver for higher-density infill development around downtown HSR stations. These 

effects would support anticipated regional land use policies consistent with the Sustainable 

Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Senate Bill 375), which aims to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks through transit-oriented design, and 

would assist communities in realizing goals set out in the regional transportation plans developed 

under Senate Bill 375. 

Consistency with Regional Growth Management Plans

The projected increase in population growth of 2.7 percent and jobs growth of 3.2 percent in the 

region would be consistent with regional growth management plans. The economic growth study 

conducted for the Bay Area Program EIR/EIS found that additional population growth would be 

driven by regional job growth (i.e., job growth internal to Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern 

counties) induced by the presence of the HSR system, rather than by population shifts from the 

Bay Area and Southern California. In general, HSR station areas would offer a more attractive 
Section 3.18 Regional Growth

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.18-15

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

market for commercial and office development than the same areas under the No Project 

Alternative examined in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 

2014: page 3.18-37). Research of urban rail systems elsewhere in the world found that industries 

needing large numbers of highly skilled and specialized employees are most attracted to rail 

station areas, and that a noticeable densification pattern is likely to emerge in the vicinity of HSR

stations under regular market forces (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2007). Such development 

patterns would be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and the KCOG’s

RTP/SGS (City of Bakersfield and Kern County 2007, KCOG 2014). As concluded in the Fresno 

to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: page 3.18-37), population growth 

in the San Joaquin Valley would, therefore, occur without the HSR system, and the HSR system

alone would not meaningfully induce substantial population growth beyond that already projected 

for the region.

3.18.4.2 Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

The following sections evaluate direct and indirect impacts of the F-B LGA, including short-term 

construction effects and long-term operation effects. 

Construction Effects

As discussed above for the May 2014 Project, construction impacts were evaluated for each year 

of the construction period. The resulting estimate includes the number of direct jobs created to 

construct the rail, station, and maintenance of infrastructure facility, as well as the indirect and 

induced employment. Table 3.18-10 shows the annual direct and the indirect plus induced 

employment estimates for the F-B LGA. 

Table 3.18-10 Employment Impacts during Construction

Year Direct Employment

(annual job years)

Indirect and Induced Employment

(annual job years)

Total New Employment

(annual job years)

Year 1 325 294 619

Year 2 977 885 1,862

Year 3 1,591 1,442 3,033

Year 4 1,591 1,442 3,033

Year 5 977 885 1,862

Year 6 325 294 619

Total 5,786 5,242 11,028

Source: Authority and FRA, 2017

Over the entire construction period, project expenditures under the F-B LGA would result in the 

creation of 5,786 direct and 5,242 indirect and induced annual job years, for a total of 11,028

annual job years that would be created by the F-B LGA in Kern County over these six years. It is 

likely that some of these jobs created over the entire construction period would be held by the 

same person for more than a year. During the peak period of construction, the 1,591 direct 

construction jobs created by the project would contribute an additional 9.5 percent to the 16,700

construction jobs documented in Kern County in 2012 (Table 3.18-4; United States Census 

Bureau 2013a). 

Based on Kern County’s 2015 unemployment rate of 10.2 percent and civilian labor force of 

393,800, there are approximately 40,200 unemployed workers in the county (Table 3.18-6). As 

with any large construction project, some influx of population is expected as workers arrive in the 

area seeking jobs. However, given the high level of unemployment in the communities overlain by 

the study area and the large number of construction workers currently on the job market, the 

majority of these new construction jobs would be filled by current residents of the area who 

possess the necessary construction skills. As a result, these new jobs would not attract a 
Section 3.18 Regional Growth

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.18-16 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

substantial number of new workers to the region, and therefore construction of additional 

community facilities would not be required to support this workforce. 

Operations Effects

Regional growth associated with the operation of the HSR system would be similar for all HSR 

alternatives, including the portion of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section made up of either the May 

2014 Project or the F-B LGA, because these effects are a result of the operation of the entire 

HSR system as a whole and are not dependent on the alignment of the HSR in the region. The 

employment and population growth and associated land use consumption that would occur as a 

result of the F-B LGA would, therefore, be the same as for the May 2014 Project. See Section 

3.18.4.1 for a discussion of the number of jobs and population growth that would result from 

operation of the HSR system, including the F-B LGA, as well as potential impacts to land use 

consumption and consistency with regional growth management plans. 

Since publication of the of the 2010 Cambridge Systematics study, the KCOG and other regional 

transportation planning agencies have updated their population and employment projections, 

which are used as the basis for the 2035 projections under the No Project Alternative. This 

section, therefore, provides updated analysis of impacts in the region and Kern County related to 

operation of the HSR system based on these updated projections, which incorporate 2010 

Census data. As discussed in Section 3.18.3.2, Population, these updated projections are lower 

than previous forecasts because the actual 2010 figures were lower than projected in the 

previous forecasts (Pitkin and Meyers 2012).

Employment

The May 2014 Project and F-B LGA would both result in approximately the same length of 

railroad tracks that would require maintenance, and one train station and one maintenance of 

infrastructure facility that would require operation and maintenance. The number of direct jobs

generated by operation of the HSR system and associated indirect and induced jobs would, 

therefore, be the same for the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA. Although the total number of new 

jobs would be the same, the percentage of total jobs in the region and Kern County in 2035 

represented would be smaller than previously presented. This is because the total projected 

employment in 2035 under the No Project Alternative is lower than projected in the 2010 

Cambridge Systematics growth inducement study. This applies to both the May 2014 Project and 

the F-B LGA.

Based on the updated 2035 projections, the 47,400 jobs that would be created in the region and 

17,200 jobs that would be created in Kern County as a result of operation of the HSR system

would represent a 4.0 percent increase above the 2035 projections under the No Project 

Alternative in each of these areas (Table 3.18-11). Given that unemployment rates in the region

and Kern County have historically been higher than those of the state (Table 3.18-6), operation of 

the HSR system, including the portion comprising the F-B LGA, would provide employment

opportunities for residents in the area and would not induce substantial growth beyond that 

already projected for the region and Kern County. Overall, it is expected that employment growth

from operation of the HSR system would be a net benefit for the region, as it would provide jobs

in areas that currently experience higher unemployment rates than those experienced in the 

state. 

Population Growth 

Although the population projections for 2035 are lower than previously projected, general 

characteristics have remained the same and additional population growth attributable to operation 

of the HSR system would make up a small percentage of the total population increase. Based on 

current projections, the estimated HSR-induced population increase would contribute a 3.3 

percent increase in the region and 3.5 percent increase in Kern County compared to 2035 

population projections under the No Project Alternative (Table 3.18-11). This increase would 

remain small relative to the total growth projected to occur in the region between 2010 and 2035

under the No Project Alternative, which amounts to 43.3 percent in the region and 55.1 percent in 

Kern County. 
Section 3.18 Regional Growth

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.18-17

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 3.18-11 Regional Projected and Induced Population and Employment Growth

County 2035 No Project 

Projections

HSR Project

Induced Growth

Total 2035 HSR

Project Projections

Growth 

Inducement

Population

Kern 1,302,000 45,978 1,347,978 3.5%

Four-County Region 3,389,000 110,649 3,499,649 3.3%

Jobs

Kern 513,055 17,171 450,171 4.0%

Four-County Region 1,473,274 47,436 1,223,662 4.0%

Sources: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2010; Kern Council of Governments 2015; Fresno Council of Governments 2012

HSR = high-speed rail 

As previously projected, the forecast population growth in the region and Kern County will occur 

at a higher rate than the rest of the state. According to the CDOF population projections released 

in 2014, California’s population is expected to increase by 22.5 percent between 2010 and 2035, 

far less than the 43.3 percent increase projected in the region and less than half the increase 

projected for Kern County (CDOF 2014). When compared to the No Project Alternative, the

additional 4.0 percent population increase in the region and Kern County would be small relative 

to the total growth projected to occur in these areas by 2035.

As described for the May 2014 Project, the percentage increase in population in Kern County

related to operation of the HSR system is expected to be slower than the percentage increase in 

employment in the county associated with the project (Table 3.18-9). This trend is based on the 

likelihood that a number of the jobs generated by operation of the HSR system would be filled by 

area residents. Additionally, this growth would be spread out over time and any interregional 

shifts in residential locations are expected to be a small portion of the growth expected in the 

region (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2003). Therefore, the F-B LGA, like the May 2014 Project,

would not induce substantial population growth beyond that already projected for the region and 

Kern County. 

Land Use Consumption

Operation of the HSR system, including the F-B LGA would induce growth, but not substantially 

beyond what is projected in city and county general plans. Compared to the No Project 

Alternative, the F-B LGA, like the May 2014 Project, would encourage compact, efficient land use 

in the region by providing an economic driver for higher-density infill development around 

downtown HSR stations, including the F Street Station. This higher-density development would 

increase opportunities for transit-oriented design, which could reduce greenhouse gas emissions

related to transportation. These effects would be consistent with regional land use plans and 

policies consistent with Senate Bill 375, and would assist communities in realizing goals in these 

regional transportation plans. For a detailed discussion of land use consumption effects 

associated with operation of the HSR system, refer to the Land Use Consumption subsection in 

Section 3.18.4.1, Summary of Analysis for the May 2014 Project.

Consistency with Regional Growth Management Plans

The projected increase in population growth of 3.3 percent and jobs growth of 4.0 percent in the 

region and 3.5 percent (population) and 4.0 percent (jobs) in Kern County would be consistent 

with regional growth management plans. The densification pattern is likely to emerge in the 

vicinity of HSR stations under regular market forces and would be consistent with the 

Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and KCOG RTP/SCS (City of Bakersfield and Kern County 

2007, KCOG 2014). As under the May 2014 Project, the F-B LGA would not meaningfully induce 

substantial population growth beyond that already projected for the region, and would, therefore, 

be consistent with regional growth management plans. For a detailed discussion of consistency 

with regional growth management plans, refer to the Consistency with Regional Growth 
Section 3.18 Regional Growth

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.18-18 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Management Plans subsection in Section 3.18.4.1, Summary of Analysis for the May 2014 

Project.

Summary

The F-B LGA, like the May 2014 Project, would result in new short-term jobs associated with 

construction. Many of these jobs would be filled by local residents and, therefore, would not 

induce substantial growth resulting in the need for additional community facilities. Operation of 

the HSR system, including the F-B LGA, would also result in additional long-term jobs and 

population growth in Kern County, but not substantially beyond existing 2035 growth projections. 

The anticipated densification pattern projected to occur in the vicinity of HSR stations, including 

the F Street Station, would help reduce land use consumption as the population grows and 

support opportunities for transit-oriented development, which could reduce greenhouse gas

emissions related to transportation. These changes are consistent with goals of regional 

transportation plans and regional growth management plans.