America's Coming High-Speed Rail Financial Disaster

Trainer wrote:For-profit industries take profit out of the system, while governmental agencies squeeze inefficiencies, political self-interest, kickbacks, redundancies, over-regulation, and corruption into it.

Well, to be a little more even-handed, you'd have to admit that for-profit industries do a fair share of squeezing corporate-officer-self-interest, kickbacks, redundancies and corruption into whatever system they participate in. And often the source of "over-regulation" is a for-profit industry seeking protection from competitors, rather than some over-zealous regulator. Look at agricultural regulation, and you'll find that the big ag companies are behind much of it, trying to prevent smaller competitors from getting started by raising enormously the capital costs of entry. In many states there are few or no licensed butchers for locally raised meat. The reputed justification is safety, yet it's been repeatedly shown that small butcheries not using the required techniques are nonetheless FAR cleaner than the large hog- and cattle-processing plants that do use them.

This is not because ideologically motivated legislators rose up as one and said "we must look into everything they do." It's not because repressive Democratic voters said "we must have a more regulated economy". Instead, it's a vote that most legislators on both sides of the aisle would rather NOT make (if you talk to them confidentially or after their career has ended), and most voters oppose. But any legislator who opposes it will immediately find his next opponent heavily financed by big agribusiness interests who want to continue to buy meat cheap from farmers who have nowhere else to sell it. The money won't finance ads defending the over-regulation of agribusiness. Instead, it'll finance angry attack ads, usually about some minor, basically irrelevant microcosm of a larger, important and/or emotional issue.

(This is not a partisan complaint. It happens on both sides of the aisle, federally and in every state in the union.)

ne plus ultra wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: The simple truth is that commuter rail can alleviate traffic congestion in major metropolitan areas, assuming of course that the pattern of urban development was based on commuter rail to begin with. In other words, commuter rail works best in an area where commuter rail has already been in operation for decades.

This is underappreciated. I do think there's a corollary. Commuter rail can work in area where commuter rail has already been in operation **or where there is a strong commitment to re-orienting land-use in like manner.**

If you're going to build virgin commuter rail, you should think about whether there is potential demand for denser dwellings around the suburban stations. I look at the Nashville experiment, where very little has been done to promote the sort of infrastructure that can make this sort of thing work. You need at minimum, a dry-cleaners, a small grocery or drug store with a bit of food and at least some apartment-scale residential housing either right at the station or within easy walking distance. Not necessarily at every station or anything, but you need to have it somewhere, and be moving towards it.

An interesting experiment can now be done with google maps. Try, for instance, entering in the google maps page the terms dry cleaners berwyn, il. In the resulting map, you can see 10 stations from Cicero to LaGrange/Stone Ave. There are dry cleaners either at or within a block of three the main Berwyn station, the main Riverside station, the main Brookfield station, and the Stone Ave. station. (though not the main La Grange station.) Some of the smaller stations (Congress Park, the Brookfield Zoo stop and Laverne Ave) don't see as many trains, so it's less surprising they don't have them. There's also grocer with a block of the Riverside, Brookfield, La Grange & Stone Ave. stations. You can then just grip and slide the map west, and you'll see the pattern continue at Western Springs, Hinsdale, Clarendon Hills (dry cleaner but no grocery), Downers Grove, Lisle. Again, you'll have to skip over some stops, but they're not the main stops of that suburb.

I'm not saying to subsidize this sort of thing. If you have to do that, maybe commuter rail isn't the right thing for your metro area. But look at zoning rules, particularly if they restrict height in the area immediately around the station or if they restrict mixed residential and commercial development; talk to developers and small retailers; talk to the community about why these things are valuable (why tall, dense building might be desirable in the station area, even if some people don't like it as well as shorter buildings). These are the sort of things that make taking the train a workable lifestyle. If everyone has to get in their car anyway as soon as they get of the train, most people won't want to bother. If some can walk home, or walk to get groceries and walk home; if others can pick up their cleaned suit and then drive straight home without making another stop, then it's much more likely to attract ridership.

At the risk of bringing up a subject that led to some sniping on all sides in another thread, it's interesting to note that there is now an I-Go car (a local car-sharing company like Zipcar) at the Des Plaines Metra station. While I'm not surprised to see I-Go cars in Evanston and Wilmette, both of which are on an "el" line, the Des Plaines car is the first at a commuter rail station. I wonder whether there'll be more.

But bottom line, yes, GNJW is right that commuter rail works best only in certain settings (or rather, ridership will be lower and the subsidy required will be dramatically higher if certain conditions aren't met).

Actually, I'd argue that parking is a far more important factor at suburban commuter rail stations than walkable residential and shopping venues around the station itself. Perhaps not in the inner suburbs, but for the outer suburbs, most commuters access commuter rail by driving to the station. Of course, this assumes that the commuter rail line in question is serving a dense urban core with a healthy employment base.

Of course, there is the issue of "re-orienting land-use," which is precisely what Portland, Oregon has done in an attempt to recreate the urban development patterns of the last century. To an extent, Portland has succeeding in creating an odd sort of streetcar, or should I say "light rail," utopia - although it has lowered the standard of living and the cost of doing business in Portland. Portland is a very expensive city to live in, in part because of the high housing costs associated with the artificial limits placed on development.

Yes, definitely, parking is very important. And don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you need to create a skyscraper canyon in a suburban commuter downtown.

But consider a train like Nashville's. Zoom in on the Hermitage station in google maps and you'll discover that there are only about 35 single family homes within walking distance, and nothing else at all. Within walking distance of the Donelson station, there's a sewing store, an Autozone and a rental car company, but no houses from which I'd want to walk there (the only ones that are close you'd have to hop a fence and then cross the tracks illegally to do it). They're only averaging about 150 riders/station. At that level, a handful of 3 and 5 story buildings within a few blocks could potentially provide more riders than everyone who is currently driving there. It's not that people in a town like Hermitage are unwilling to live in such quarters. They already exist - for instance, the Cherry Creek apartments. But they're a mile and a half away.

The development I'm talking about needn't be drastically more dense than most american suburban centers. It's a kind of living most suburbanites are at least familiar with - primarily walk-up, with a few small elevator buildings. Because building at this scale is less expensive than building homes or even townhouses, there is a financial incentive that can draw people, particularly the sorts of people that suburbia has but has trouble housing efficiently - like my recently divorced friend who works downtown and wants to live near his ex because of his son. He has no need of a suburban house, and his apartment near the station is ideal for him.

Yet in many places, it's illegal because of zoning laws, and plans for commuter rail often don't even consider such questions, even in places where it's likely popular opinion could be swayed.

I think you underestimate the degree to which the (relatively) successful, older commuter rail systems rely on this pattern of development, and not on a car-to-train pattern. The UP-North line is what it is today in Chicago because Evanston long since outgrew it's two-story look, because Winnetka has commuter apartments a short walk from its downtown, and because Highland Park has so many amenities right at the station. It only helped Oak Park's downtown to have a handful of tall buildings within 3 blocks of it's Metra station. The NW line is filled with towns following this dense center, low-density surroundings pattern. My station on the UP-North is one of the biggest in the Metra system, roughly 2,000 riders, and roughly 80 available parking spaces, this is about 1% of all Metra riders not embarking downtown, though it's 1 of about 230 stations. You cite the older systems. Denser development near the station is a big part of the reality of the older systems. Though again, you're right to say parking is also very important.

Your comment about Portland is close to Yogi Berra territory -- 'nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded'. Portland has grown by more than 50% in the last two decades. The business I own has lost two employees to the lure of Portland. Clearly there are people who disagree with you that the sprawl-fighting laws have lowered the quality of living.

Perhaps we need to think back to how the first railroads were built . Property , and the opening up of it for development played a big part in it .
While it might be abit much to expect property developers to pay for a railroad line , it certainly isnt out of line to ask them to contribute to the cost of building and maintaining a station . especially if local planning laws say any high density housing must be within waling distance of a railroad station .

David Benton wrote:Perhaps we need to think back to how the first railroads were built . Property , and the opening up of it for development played a big part in it .
While it might be abit much to expect property developers to pay for a railroad line , it certainly isnt out of line to ask them to contribute to the cost of building and maintaining a station . especially if local planning laws say any high density housing must be within waling distance of a railroad station .

The Jubilee line extension was paid for partly by the developers of Canary Wharf, a major new financial area in east London on the site of the former docks.

David Benton wrote:Perhaps we need to think back to how the first railroads were built . Property , and the opening up of it for development played a big part in it .
While it might be abit much to expect property developers to pay for a railroad line , it certainly isnt out of line to ask them to contribute to the cost of building and maintaining a station . especially if local planning laws say any high density housing must be within waling distance of a railroad station .

This and other recent posts in this thread make it sound like we're discussing commuter rail. Last I checked the thread was in the Amtrak forum (and probably should be in the High Speed Rail forum as that is the core topic). The development needs surrounding an Amtrak or HSR station are different from those surrounding a commuter rail station.

There are three distinct user types of each Amtrak/HSR facility ... most stations only see two of the types. One could refer to the three types as "coming", "going" and "passing".

"Coming" users just arrived on the train. Everything they are accustomed to having is somewhere else. They have luggage, credit cards or money and a reason for being where they got off the train. They need essential services: a place to eat and a way of getting somewhere else. The way to get somewhere else can be anything that works ... bus, rental car, taxi, local rail. Additional services could be a dry cleaner or laundrymat - perhaps even a hotel or conference center. Tourist information and help continuing their journey is key.

"Going" users are leaving on the train. They have a home near the station and got to the station somehow ... they could get home without the train. They could use local rail, buses or taxis to get to the station. They could also walk or get a ride from a friend. Otherwise they will need parking for their vehicle.

"Passing" users came on a train and will be leaving on a train. Their reason for being in the station is that the train didn't go far enough. They are transferring. If the layover is short they will need the basic services of food and entertainment (something to do or at least Internet connectivity) until they can board their next train. They don't need the way of getting somewhere else unless the layover is long and they need a hotel (and one isn't present).

Commuter rail stations have different users. Each user has a origin and destination ... they need an origin with easy access (bus, car, taxi, walking) and a destination with the same to connect their journey. The need for food services is minor ... they may need a snack or a coffee in the morning. Downtown stations may want to serve lunch for the community around the station. But most users are passing through as quickly as possible. Having retail around the stations is a good idea ... a dry cleaners where you can drop things off before going to work and pick it up on the way home. A drug store to get a prescription refill. Convenience stores. This level of retail may work at an Amtrak/HSR station as well but they are different users. For a commuter both ends of the journey are "home". They don't need as much support as a "coming" or "passing" Amtrak/HSR user.

The Amtrak stations I've visited vary. Most don't provide any services ... not even an on site employee. These sites are generally used by the "Going" users or people "Coming" who will be met by people who will take care of their needs. Some smaller places may have rental cars delivered to the station as needed. Larger stations have more facilities and may have rental cars and good connections to local transit. DC's Union Station is a good example of having it all.

If you really want to see what development is needed around an Amtrak/HSR station look at the competition: Airports.

justalurker66 wrote: "Coming" users just arrived on the train. Everything they are accustomed to having is somewhere else. They have luggage, credit cards or money and a reason for being where they got off the train. They need essential services: a place to eat and a way of getting somewhere else. The way to get somewhere else can be anything that works ... bus, rental car, taxi, local rail. Additional services could be a dry cleaner or laundrymat - perhaps even a hotel or conference center. Tourist information and help continuing their journey is key.

"Going" users are leaving on the train. They have a home near the station and got to the station somehow ... they could get home without the train. They could use local rail, buses or taxis to get to the station. They could also walk or get a ride from a friend. Otherwise they will need parking for their vehicle.

"Passing" users came on a train and will be leaving on a train. Their reason for being in the station is that the train didn't go far enough. They are transferring. If the layover is short they will need the basic services of food and entertainment (something to do or at least Internet connectivity) until they can board their next train. They don't need the way of getting somewhere else unless the layover is long and they need a hotel (and one isn't present).

This is far more key than a lot of people who plan these things seem to realize. The station needs to either be in downtown, or as easily accessible as downtown. People need to be able to get to the station and from the station easily without their cars, since if they have to deal with long term parking, they may think "I might as well drive there". Today I had an emergency business trip which involved me using the Water Level Route (a considered high speed corridor), and I thought about this a bit. I'll use Albany-Renns (my origin station) as an example of what should *not* be done with a HSR station:

-Albany has a pretty decent hub and spoke bus system. The problem is, the rail station is not at that hub, but rather on a spoke. This makes a majority of passengers require two buses to get to the station. To make things worse, the bus runs at 40 minute (midday) and 70 minute (evening and weekend) headways, completely ignoring the train schedule. This can add up to an extra hour for some trips to the station that can be done in 8 minutes by car. "Coming" and "going" users are forced to use cabs or waste good chunks of their day, killing any advantage in speed or convenience the train may have had over driving.
-The Albany bus terminal and Albany train station cannot easily be transferred between. This makes "passing" users have to stick with one mode of transportation. Conversely, Syracuse and Worcester both have intermodal stations, which I have used to transfer between intercity buses and trains, enhancing the usefulness of both. A HSR will probably attract more people from farther areas than standard speed Amtrak, so these connections become that much more valuable.
-The Albany train station has only a coffee shop with some bagels in the way of food. Hardly the hearty meal you've been waiting for on your journey. There is also no bar, a staple at most airports of any significant size, as well as large train stations.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:

• Time-pressed passengers may also find themselves frustrated at the end of their trip. Neither city is known for great public transportation, so travelers may discover that they have taken a fast train to a slow bus.

On the contrary, HART and LYNX are planning and developing LRT or BRT networks and the Orlando area is chugging along with a commuter rail project (SunRail). By the time this HSR actually opens, there should be plenty of great transit at destination. (Also, parts of Tampa are, in fact, walkable. And LYNX, far from being a "slow bus" is actually one of the most innovative and successful bus transit agencies in the SE if not NA in general. Check out their 7-day service to/from Orlando Internation and Disney. Well thought out schedule and the price is a STEAL. They have nice vehicles, too.)

george matthews wrote:

TAMPA — The drive from Orlando to Tampa takes only 90 minutes or so.

That depends on how much traffic there is.

This line only makes sense if it is a test track for the full-sized network that should follow - to Miami in one direction and Jacksonville-Talahasee in the other. But if the rest of the network is built, it makes perfect sense.

Don't forget about intermodal effects. I can guarantee you if this line gets built there will be bus service to the rail stations (unless they totally FAIL and make it difficult to service... but I think the government is big on intermodal these days) meaning that Orlando and Tampa will become regional hubs. For those of us who don't own cars, this will open up many more destinations than simply Tampa and Orlando.

Take an airline example: a bunch of destinations with small airports are connected by puddle jumpers. Service is infrequent and expensive. Then one of the city pairs gets upgraded to SWA shuttle service. Suddenly there are connecting puddle jumper flights from the two connected cities to all the other destinations. (Now, I could point out how network theory shows us that in some cases travel time will have gone up vs. the old schedule. But in this example, initial usage is under capacity, so availability/price/utilization will have all improved drastically. A tad different from a highway model. )

ne plus ultra wrote:

Trainer wrote:For-profit industries take profit out of the system, while governmental agencies squeeze inefficiencies, political self-interest, kickbacks, redundancies, over-regulation, and corruption into it.

Well, to be a little more even-handed, you'd have to admit that for-profit industries do a fair share of squeezing corporate-officer-self-interest, kickbacks, redundancies and corruption into whatever system they participate in.

Add legacies/reluctance to change for both. This can result in inefficiences and technological stagnation. Sure, in both private sector and government sometimes the new kid on the block comes along and changes everything but both big business and govt have their ways of putting off that day.

Which brings us back around to HSR. It is surely cheaper and easier to use existing ROW. But is it better? That's the question, isn't it?

I do submit to you that when Eisenhower built the interstates, America's Autobahn, Autobahn being German for "car railway", America went for the biggest, baddest new ROWs and infrastructure imaginable.

David Benton wrote:While it might be abit much to expect property developers to pay for a railroad line , it certainly isnt out of line to ask them to contribute to the cost of building and maintaining a station . especially if local planning laws say any high density housing must be within waling distance of a railroad station .

We've had a lot of success in the US with public/private partnerships to build stations with mixed use (ie, shops and restaurants and even civic spaces or event spaces) and high density housing next to it. The public entity may raise bond issues, becomes owner of the station, and pays off bonds with rents. The developer usually throws in the typical road/access/parking improvements and makes money renting the units or selling condos.

The "smart growth" meme has helped grease the wheels for the needed zoning changes. (Mid-century US zoning practices were and are an unmitigated disaster.)

What I hate are stations with giant apt. complexes but no amenities. Lame for a passenger and not really good for the area because it will never be a destination. One-way traffic is quite inefficient.

hs3730 wrote:-The Albany bus terminal and Albany train station cannot easily be transferred between. This makes "passing" users have to stick with one mode of transportation. Conversely, Syracuse and Worcester both have intermodal stations, which I have used to transfer between intercity buses and trains, enhancing the usefulness of both. A HSR will probably attract more people from farther areas than standard speed Amtrak, so these connections become that much more valuable.

Do you mean Worcester, MA, or some other Worcester? Springfield, MA is intermodal (thank heaven for that) but when I lived in Worcester in 2005 the Greyhound/PPL facility was behind the Putt-Putt RR switching yard, whereas the train station was about a fifteen minute walk away. If you didn't know the area, or if it was a night (dangerous) you might have a problem. Of course, there were cabs at Union Station and back then the fares were cheap. (Would you believe I never ONCE took a bus in Worcester? Not once! I walked or rode a cab & took commuter rail to work.)

FFolz wrote: Which brings us back around to HSR. It is surely cheaper and easier to use existing ROW. But is it better? That's the question, isn't it?
I do submit to you that when Eisenhower built the interstates, America's Autobahn, Autobahn being German for "car railway", America went for the biggest, baddest new ROWs and infrastructure imaginable.

Interstate highways weren't exclusively built in brand new ROWs. In many locales, the brand new Interstate was built on top of the existing highway, with just the existing ROW widened. Ever cross a major river where the old bridge carried traffic in one direction and the new bridge carried traffic in the other direction. That's just one example of using the existing ROW.
Check out the old US 66 route. In Illinois, I-55 follows it, only departing from the old ROW to bypass cities and towns. In Missouri, I-44 follows it mostly too. Large sections of I-40 in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico. Arizona, and California follow its old ROW.

FFolz wrote:

ne plus ultra wrote:

Trainer wrote:For-profit industries take profit out of the system, while governmental agencies squeeze inefficiencies, political self-interest, kickbacks, redundancies, over-regulation, and corruption into it.

Well, to be a little more even-handed, you'd have to admit that for-profit industries do a fair share of squeezing corporate-officer-self-interest, kickbacks, redundancies and corruption into whatever system they participate in.

Add legacies/reluctance to change for both. This can result in inefficiences and technological stagnation. Sure, in both private sector and government sometimes the new kid on the block comes along and changes everything but both big business and govt have their ways of putting off that day.

Which brings us back around to HSR. It is surely cheaper and easier to use existing ROW. But is it better? That's the question, isn't it?

I do submit to you that when Eisenhower built the interstates, America's Autobahn, Autobahn being German for "car railway", America went for the biggest, baddest new ROWs and infrastructure imaginable.

Actually, the Interstate Highway system was impressive only in terms of route mileage, as the engineering standards were actually quite unambitious compared to the German Autobahn system, which had been planned 30 years earlier.

As far as HSR, it seems unlikely there is any real justification for new, dedicated alignments in most North American travel markets. The NE Corridor is really the only truly suitable region for HSR, but even here, the same urban development that is a justification for HSR also constrains any notion of building new alignments. There is also scope for improvements, but to spend tens of billions to save Acela passengers ten minutes probably doesn't justify the taxpayer expenditure.

FFolz wrote:

David Benton wrote:While it might be abit much to expect property developers to pay for a railroad line , it certainly isnt out of line to ask them to contribute to the cost of building and maintaining a station . especially if local planning laws say any high density housing must be within waling distance of a railroad station .

We've had a lot of success in the US with public/private partnerships to build stations with mixed use (ie, shops and restaurants and even civic spaces or event spaces) and high density housing next to it. The public entity may raise bond issues, becomes owner of the station, and pays off bonds with rents. The developer usually throws in the typical road/access/parking improvements and makes money renting the units or selling condos.

The "smart growth" meme has helped grease the wheels for the needed zoning changes. (Mid-century US zoning practices were and are an unmitigated disaster.)

What I hate are stations with giant apt. complexes but no amenities. Lame for a passenger and not really good for the area because it will never be a destination. One-way traffic is quite inefficient.

Where is all of this "success in the US with public/private partnerships to build stations with mixed use?" The only real success stories belong to the era before public funding of passenger rail, such as the very successful sale of "air rights" over Grand Central Terminal tracks. Yes, there have been publicly funded station renovations, but they hardly have been money making propositions for the taxpayers. You need look no further than Kansas City Union Station to find a financial disaster.