Gas Prices, Houses, and Amtrak

Real estate markets, public transportation and Amtrak will be changing over the coming years if high gas prices move the US to a more European style living arrangement. But one thing to remember about the European style of social stratification: the long commutes are usually the burden of the poorer citizens and the rich reserve the short commutes for themselves. As I've said in the past... if the USA housing market had evolved like the European markets, Cabrini Green would be an enclave of the rich, due to its location close to downtown Chicago and Clarendon Hills would have the high-rise, low-rent housing projects with just enough public transportation provided to get the workers to their jobs.

Also, going back to the steam era, the railway station was commonly a transportation hub, but it also was a loud, smoky, smelly place and the neighborhoods surrounding it were either sooty industrial areas or similar low-rent properties. Today, with better and cleaner locomotion equipment, a location that is just minutes from a major transportation hub can be very desirable. In Seattle, Amtrak's King Street Station used to be surrounded by warehouses, Skid Row and Chinatown. Today , the Station neighbors condos, two major league sports stadiums, the International District and many new office projects.

As more and more cities revitalize their central cores, formerly irrelevant train stations--like King Street Station-- will become more convenient for travelers moving on intercity corridors. And while it may benefit Amtrak to have its stations located in the middle of the evolving, "New American City", the economic structure for commuter rail is very different from intercity service: commuter services are usually subsidized at a higher rate than Amtrak, they use different equipment and they operate on different schedules. So, it's fine for Amtrak to offer commuter tickets on trains that are arriving during commute hours, but it would be best for Amtrak and the local regions if commuter trains are controlled by regional authorities and not the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Especially if we are ever to see high(er) speed intercity services that really will lure travelers from their cars and the airports. HSR can't be making numerous enroute stops and still maintain a competitive speed, so the people using smaller stations are going to have to take a local train or bus to connect to a HSR stop.

But one thing to remember about the European style of social stratification: the long commutes are usually the burden of the poorer citizens and the rich reserve the short commutes for themselves.

No. The long commutes cost so much that only higher paid people can afford it. For example the train from Waterloo to Winchester on the Southwest Mainline is always crowded. Winchester has the reputation of being the place with the highest value houses in the southeast. Poorer people live closer to their work. (Though houses cost so much that a few years ago it was being reported that firefighters needed to live hundreds of miles away)

My social stratification statement is a generalization and, of course, subject to exception. But most Americans are somewhat puzzled by the reports from Europe of rioting in the suburbs of European cities. In the USA, most suburbs are a result of "white flight" following the urban riots of the 1960s. The idea that, in Europe, poor people live in suburbs seems very strange to many Americans. Most of Amtrak's premier trains that originate in downtown terminals also make a stop in the near suburbs to pick up passengers that don't want to make the trek into the "urban jungle", but will happily board a train that makes a stop in a convenient suburb. I haven't looked, but do European trains long distance or high speed trains also schedule a suburban stop 20 miles from the urban core, just to accommodate the suburbanites?

Vincent wrote:My social stratification statement is a generalization and, of course, subject to exception. But most Americans are somewhat puzzled by the reports from Europe of rioting in the suburbs of European cities. In the USA, most suburbs are a result of "white flight" following the urban riots of the 1960s. The idea that, in Europe, poor people live in suburbs seems very strange to many Americans. Most of Amtrak's premier trains that originate in downtown terminals also make a stop in the near suburbs to pick up passengers that don't want to make the trek into the "urban jungle", but will happily board a train that makes a stop in a convenient suburb. I haven't looked, but do European trains long distance or high speed trains also schedule a suburban stop 20 miles from the urban core, just to accommodate the suburbanites?

Those riots were not in "Europe" but in France.

French cities are surrounded by 1960s housing estates where the poor live. The inner cities are for richer people. I am not aware of any other country with this pattern, though Soviet era estates can be seen in Prague and other east European cities, which I do not know well..

The Paris banlieus (suburbs) are served by intensively worked double-decked local trains, as well as in some cases trams and an extended Metro.

The end of cheap oil will produce huge change in settlement patterns in the US.

Vincent wrote: In the USA, most suburbs are a result of "white flight" following the urban riots of the 1960s.

Huh?

Most American suburbs were founded in the 18th and 19th century as small rural farm and mill towns on roads between larger settlements that became cities. The towns fed the cities, and as the cities grew outward, the towns turned into suburbs. Most American suburbs were well established by 1910.

"White flight," indeed!

Vincent wrote:Most of Amtrak's premier trains that originate in downtown terminals also make a stop in the near suburbs to pick up passengers that don't want to make the trek into the "urban jungle", but will happily board a train that makes a stop in a convenient suburb.

Interesting point, Portland's Union Station was in, until recently, a pretty scary neighborhood, especially at night.

However, another poster noted Amtrak's offer of monthly passes which are available on the Cascades run from Portland-Eugene, and to a limited extent north of Seattle. There is no housing development near the Oregon City station (nor is it likely, next to I-205 and a Metro transfer station; the area is planned to have a "lifestyle shopping center" built nearby) or in Salem (most of the land is occupied by Willamette University or the SE corner of the State Capitol complex, or the Mission Street overpass).

Given the location of Salem's train station, it would actually make sense to relocate the station about a mile to the north closer to residential neighborhoods, where commuting by Amtrak (albeit only one train northbound to Portland, and one return trip southbound would work for most commuters) could be feasible. I've heard of people doing it, but not on a daily basis.

from Henry Kisor:
Most American suburbs were founded in the 18th and 19th century as small rural farm and mill towns on roads between larger settlements that became cities. The towns fed the cities, and as the cities grew outward, the towns turned into suburbs. Most American suburbs were well established by 1910.

You are very correct about the history of suburbanization and my point should be that until the post-WWII era, suburbs were essentially just small towns that were near large cities. Roads and trolley lines would connect the suburbs to the big city, but prior to WWII, the suburbs weren't usually considered "bedroom communities". After WWII is when the suburban building boom began and the suburbs became "home" for people who worked in the city. The "white flight" of the 1960s and 70s intensified the suburbanization movement and consequently intensified our transportation problems.

Wigwagfan:
What the heck is a "lifestyle shopping center" and how can we keep it from spreading?

All these comments are fairly widespread. Metrolink is experiencing the same situations and problems. Last year you could easily get a seat on Metrolink into Los Angeles, and now it is Standing Room Only. And the length of the train has just about doubled. Anyone smell a raise in carfare ? The price of the Diesel fuel has gone up too.

In London , you have the inner city which is now trendy , then the outer suburbs , Which are quite alot of housing estates etc . then you have the green belt , and outside that again , the many "villages" , or satellite commuter suburbs . so the people travelling the longest distance by train would be relatively wealthy . but the point is good , poorer people will be hit harder than richer ones . but at least they have good public transport options .

David Benton wrote:In London , you have the inner city which is now trendy , then the outer suburbs , Which are quite alot of housing estates etc . then you have the green belt , and outside that again , the many "villages" , or satellite commuter suburbs . so the people travelling the longest distance by train would be relatively wealthy . but the point is good , poorer people will be hit harder than richer ones . but at least they have good public transport options .

London itself is very complex. When people make enough money, and have children, they want to move to the "leafy suburbs" - roads with trees and some gardens. If they make a lot more money they move further out. The leafy suburbs are within the Underground area. Further out needs either suburban or outer suburban trains. The latter have toilets; the former, for the most part don't. But the whole Greater London and Southeast area has intensive rail services all day. The new flats in the inner area, such as Canary Wharf presumably are pied a terres for the over-rich.

When it comes to stops on the NEC, Boston fares well with two downtown stops and one (RT128) at the convergence of two major suburban highways. Given the number of people that I see boarding in both locales, Amtrak would do well to try to capture the transit/walk to station oriented urban crowd and the drive to station suburban crowd.

Regarding people fleeing the cities and not taking downtown-to-downtown trains, the NEC is a pretty good example of how such service is well patronized. The catch is that the cities themselves are destinations as well as origins for travel.

Vincent wrote:What the heck is a "lifestyle shopping center" and how can we keep it from spreading?

Have you heard of Bridgeport Village? (I-5, Exit 290, in Tualatin.)