FECI bringing back private passenger rail to US

[Zmapper]

From Reason and Rail: http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/03/ ... -back.html

Yes, a private freight rail company is getting back into the Passenger Rail business - 30 years since the last non-Amtrak intercity train ran. I couldn't believe it when I first saw it.

They have a website up: http://www.allaboardflorida.com/

A couple thoughts: First, the Florida East Coast railroad was one of the first companies to run their freight trains to a timetable, and they don't have to deal with long and slow coal trains. Therefore, their tracks are built and maintained to higher average speeds, helping passenger trains stay on a decent schedule.

If this succeeds, and it likely will considering that there is no other decent non-auto transportation option between Orlando and Miami, what will that mean for the rest of the country? If a private passenger service works between Orlando and Miami, then what about between Dallas and Houston, Chicago and St Louis, Atlanta to Charlotte, etc? Could this result in the slow death of Amtrak?

[Level Crossing]

As a corridor service, they aren't really competing with Amtrak.

And no, there are private RRs other than this one. The one that jumps to mind is the Saratoga & North Creek. This is, however, more tourist-oriented.

[teccuk]

That's really cool. Good luck to them. Hope it makes its money.

[Kevo00]

Interesting - hope it materialises!

[James Coote]

Maybe this has been covered before, but people aren't going to jump on a train if there are no decent onward connections. If the train only goes from Orlando - Miami, I'm not going to consider it for most journeys, (I'm going to have a car for that), so when I do want to do that specific route, I'll probably either forget it exists or shrug and say "but I can take the car, and I'm used to that"

[JamieLei]

Based on past history, unless they offer HSR, it will never work!

Ignored.

Maybe this has been covered before, but people aren't going to jump on a train if there are no decent onward connections. If the train only goes from Orlando - Miami, I'm not going to consider it for most journeys, (I'm going to have a car for that), so when I do want to do that specific route, I'll probably either forget it exists or shrug and say "but I can take the car, and I'm used to that"

I suppose if we compare it to airlines, it works out rather well. After all, travelling by airlines doesn't guarantee you onward connections and the majority of people take taxis or rent cars. As long as the same facilities are provided at the other end (which they normally are), then that shouldn't be so much of an issue.

[Gord]

To be honest, privitisation may be the only way that parts of the USA can get passenger rail. Railways are such a political football there...the is it/isn't it situation that has surrounded the Ohio 3C over the past few years is a good example of this...all seems to depend on who Ohio's governer is. Right now, it's been called off and funding rejected as far as I know.

Having said that, I lived in Columbus, Ohio for two years....and no-one there appeared to be fussed by passenger rail...all seem happy with their cars and their airport for getting about. The people I came in contact with is hardly representative though I know! And we're talking about one city...the attitude in Florda may be completly different.

[Dave]

I think the majority of America has an apathetic attitude towards public transport. Every bugger drives.

[Kevo00]

In most places you simply need a car to do basic journeys that you could walk for in other countries. Most buildings are designed for car access. They even have drive thru ATMs and pharmacy counters...

[Gord]

We knew of a drive through liqueor store in Columbus! (and yes...it was a drive through, not a mistake by me in the car!)

[James Coote]

Maybe this has been covered before, but people aren't going to jump on a train if there are no decent onward connections. If the train only goes from Orlando - Miami, I'm not going to consider it for most journeys, (I'm going to have a car for that), so when I do want to do that specific route, I'll probably either forget it exists or shrug and say "but I can take the car, and I'm used to that"

I suppose if we compare it to airlines, it works out rather well. After all, travelling by airlines doesn't guarantee you onward connections and the majority of people take taxis or rent cars. As long as the same facilities are provided at the other end (which they normally are), then that shouldn't be so much of an issue.[/quote]

By connections, I mean connecting more than two cities. If I want to travel to Tampa from Miami, building a railway between Maimi and Orlando isn't going to make me get on the train. I need to know I can get from my home city of A to any one of cities B,C,D,E, and F making minimal changes along the way

[JamieLei]

Oh yeah, of course.

But it's a start. And trains can do one thing that airlines can't - they can stop on the way without massive disruption, connecting intermediate towns too.

[Gord]

The issue with many cities in the US appears to be inner-city infrastructure for commuters for the city rather than inter-city links. Thats where the money needs to be spent I think anyway. (Again, my opinion is based on having lived in one city so it may seem naive when looking at the bigger picture. I'm aware that commuter rail in the north-east of the country is quite developed...and still developing)

I notice some cities such as Cleveland already have this. Some cities such as Columbus only have a bus service to rely on but an extenstive inner-city interstate road system. Phoenix has some sort of commuter rail now I believe?

[JamieLei]

What would be nice is more smaller trains from what I can see. In most cities, there's a good service in during the morning peak and out in the evening, usually formed of about 400 seats per train but that's it. A bunch of lightweight trains such as Class 172s would be ideal for a frequent shuttle.

I do realise that there are 2 problems that prevent the US from doing this:

(1) The US have very different crash and safety regulations that effectively ban DMUs. The BART extension using DMUs received special permission to do so I believe. Also if the line is being shared with those giant freight trains then the 100-car container train will always win vs. a 2-car Class 172 (which overlaps with the next point)

(2) Most commuter lines in the US don't seem to be run on their own tracks. Providing a 15 or even 30 minute frequency on the line effectively blockades the line for the flexibility that freight likes to have in the US. Amtrak can do it on the NE Corridor because they own the thing.

[Gord]

Your 2nd point is the whole problem in a nutshell Jamie.

[doktorhonig]

I missed passenger rail in Columbus. It was a pain in the ass to go to Canada from there by rental car, since we couldn't return the US-car in Canada and had to switch to a Canadian one.

[supermop]

As someone born in Columbus, and having spent much of my life there, I can vouch for the existence of many people who would like to see something more substantial than the bus network, although I'll argue that COTA does the best it can with its funding and mandate - they make an effort to accomodate cyclists with bike racks on buses, so that people do not necessarily need to drive to the bus route if they are too far to walk. There are also park and ride lots in the outer suburbs - but to be honest, from my parent's home in Dublin to the lot on Riverside Dr. takes about 1/3 of the time it would take me to just continue down riverside all the way downtown. Many mayors have tried to get the ball rolling on light rail or at least a street car, but one obstacle after another has prevented it going anywhere. The city's current push to just get more people living downtown (with cars but hopefully not using them daily) is about the best we can hope for now. The city has a ton of heavy freight lines, many double tracked radiating out in all directions - but the reason they are there is that they are heavily used by freight trains, and these companies are reluctant at best to share track with high density commuter service. Furthermore the FRA crash worthiness standards are fairly strict for mainline railroads, which is why so many commuter systems in the US still use heavy locomotives and stock, so you couldn't run small efficient trains of lightweight DMUs to get started. Those multiple units which can be used on the mainline are heavily reinforced, and/or run with the front car empty, as with the Budd EMUs used by New Jersey transit. Light rail, or heavy rail with lighter units would need dedicated right of way, are there are few possible corridors for that in the city, let alone money. Also, in terms of demographics, planning is hard. the inner suburbs and neighborhoods (Bexley, Grandview, Clintonville) are decently served by buses, and might benefit from street cars or light rail as well. The cores of the suburbs around I-270 that saw much of the growth in the 1970s-90s are also not too far away, and one could plan for light rail to neatly serve a few of these. However, a huge amount of growth in the 90s and 2000s has taken place on the edge of these suburbs and beyond, and there is really no way to serve these communities well with any system that Columbus could practically build even with an unexpected windfall of billions of dollars.

Would love to discuss transit policy in Ohio more, but I'm not one to talk; I voted with my feet and moved to a city that already had superb heavy-rail transit running 24/7 nearly everywhere I could want to go.

[doktorhonig]

Your last sentence is the most important one. Those who really want to rely on public transport move to areas where they can do that. People who live in areas without public transport often say "I would use it, if it was there". What they often mean is: "I would use it, if the buses would go every five minutes and are half empty". And in many cases they just want the bus to be there, so they can use it once a year, when their car is being serviced.

[Kevo00]

I notice some cities such as Cleveland already have this.

Cleveland's metro is truly woeful, even by US standards, consisting of two streetcar lines and a very light metro line running parallel to (very busy) Norfolk Southern freight lines. Infra is very minimal with basic wooden platforms, trains are two car EMUS, and traffic is apparently so light that you buy your ticket from a machine on the train! This is despite the line serving the University and Airport. The only good thing to be said for it is that it keeps the old railway station in the city centre going (though it is a dark hole reminiscent of New Street) while Amtrak use a portakabin on the waterfront. I must dig out some of my pictures...

[Kevo00]

Cleveland's metro is truly woeful, even by US standards, consisting of two streetcar lines and a very light metro line running parallel to (very busy) Norfolk Southern freight lines. Infra is very minimal with basic wooden platforms, trains are two car EMUS, and traffic is apparently so light that you buy your ticket from a machine on the train! This is despite the line serving the University and Airport. The only good thing to be said for it is that it keeps the old railway station in the city centre going (though it is a dark hole reminiscent of New Street) while Amtrak use a portakabin on the waterfront. I must dig out some of my pictures...

Chicago, New York, San Francisco Bay Area, Washington have great Metro systems by the way...

See the first sentence, second clause...