FECI bringing back private passenger rail to US

[Kevo00]

US standards are not very high ot start with...

And your point is?

[Ameecher]

Cheers for that, thank you.

There was never an insinuation that they were good.

[supermop]

I would go out on a limb and suggest that the system in New York is good even by global standards. The frequency in peak times is good, trains are long and run on standard gauge rail, and except for the old IRT division are built to standard loading gauge. The system runs 24 hours a day, with disruptions for construction only occurring in the middle of the night or on weekends. Even when a service is disrupted, you can still always get from one station to another as alternate service is provided. Trunk subway lines are all 4 tracks, so true express service is possible. The system is well integrated with local and express buses, but I never need to use them as there is almost nowhere in Manhattan or Brooklyn that is not within walking distance of a station.


That said, the 'US standard' is no where near that of New York. Somewhere like Seattle or Philadelphia is probably more reasonable, with Chicago, Boston, and DC being the 'exemplary' cities.

Americans in medium size cities are generally prepared to take light rail for certain occasions like concerts and sports games downtown, and the people of Columbus would certainly take advantage of such a system, if it went anywhere near their house. Assuming a line runs up from downtown through campus, Clintonville, to Worthington, people in Dublin and Westerville would drive over to take it for special events. However, anyone living in Hilliard or New Albany couldn't in their right minds justify anything other than just driving all the way in.

You have to start somewhere though...

[JamieLei]

I would go out on a limb and suggest that the system in New York is good even by global standards. The frequency in peak times is good, trains are long and run on standard gauge rail, and except for the old IRT division are built to standard loading gauge. The system runs 24 hours a day, with disruptions for construction only occurring in the middle of the night or on weekends. Even when a service is disrupted, you can still always get from one station to another as alternate service is provided. Trunk subway lines are all 4 tracks, so true express service is possible. The system is well integrated with local and express buses, but I never need to use them as there is almost nowhere in Manhattan or Brooklyn that is not within walking distance of a station.


That said, the 'US standard' is no where near that of New York. Somewhere like Seattle or Philadelphia is probably more reasonable, with Chicago, Boston, and DC being the 'exemplary' cities.

Americans in medium size cities are generally prepared to take light rail for certain occasions like concerts and sports games downtown, and the people of Columbus would certainly take advantage of such a system, if it went anywhere near their house. Assuming a line runs up from downtown through campus, Clintonville, to Worthington, people in Dublin and Westerville would drive over to take it for special events. However, anyone living in Hilliard or New Albany couldn't in their right minds justify anything other than just driving all the way in.

You have to start somewhere though...

Indeed. My experience of the New York Subway is that it is indeed fantastic, and even without the luxuries like PIS or pretty stations that we expect in Britain, it's still efficient, fast, and runs 24h.

[James Coote]

If people love their cars so much, how about park and ride schemes? Do they exist in the US?

[Zainy521]

Yep! Most suburban transit stations have parking lots, as those without probably wouldn't have many passangers.

[JamieLei]

Interestingly enough, I read a report recently (I'll post the reference if I can find it) that found that in Boston, park-and-ride stations actually LOWER surrounding house prices by quite a bit due to the high levels of disamenity (congestion, crime, noise etc) whereas walk-and-ride (ie, walk to the station but there's no parking) RAISE house prices by a few percent.

[doktorhonig]

Maybe the park & ride stations lower the house prices only in a rather small radius, but since they can reduce traffic, they raise house prices in a larger radius.
I wouldn't want to live next to a park & ride station myself, too.

[JamieLei]

When you have people on the pavements though, that generates additional neighbourhood characteristics. For example, convenience stores, small shops, parks, and a greater neighbourhood feel. With park-and-ride stations, you don't really get that from the majority of station users.

I'd love to do some research into how much people become "placeless" when they're taking any mode of transport other than walking. For example, I don't really think about what neighbourhood or location I'm in when I'm on the train, bus or car.

[doktorhonig]

Jep. But I actually think a lot about the neighbourhood when I'm on a tram.

[JamieLei]

I suppose that trams stop often, people get on and off every minute, and you're seeing the visible face of the community. When travelling by train or in the car (on by-pases etc), you're more likely to see the backs of factories, in ditches or underground. Of course travelling by Underground/Subway/Metro is a completely placeless experience, and one loses a sense of place until they arrive above ground again.

[doktorhonig]

True, but there's also a huge difference between bus and tram. The smooth motion of a tram makes it much more comfortable to look out of the window and enjoy the city.

[Gord]

Having used the L in Chicago, I found you get a real sense of the city travelling around the loop. Sometimes though it's fun not to see the city and then get a nice surprise when you emerge at street level. South Ferry subway station in New York is a good example with the view across to Staten Island and the mouth of the Hudson. If you come out of the right exit of Westminster Tube station in London, the first thing you see if the Houses of Parliament in all their glory. The hussle and bussle of Covent Garden is nice to suddenly appear in too, (as well as needing a sit down and a drink if I've taken the stairs up from platform level!)

On my more recent visits to London, I've done more walking rather than the tube because:

a. You enjoy the city more
b. It's free
c. Sometimes, it's such a long way down to the platform and then up again, it seems much less hassle to walk!

[EXTspotter]

I think the tube is pretty good in this sense in the areas which it is above ground. I know it is only one example but the northern line Edgware branch after coming out of the tunnels at Golders Green gives a good view over suburban North London. At least it gives a good view into the police training college at Hendon which is kind of interesting looking (at least the first few times)...

This is all redundant if there is someone sat directly opposite you though...

[JamieLei]

Found the reference about Boston housing prices.

Matthew E. Kahn (2007), 'Gentrification Trends in New Transit-Oriented Communities: Evidence from 14 Cities That Expanded and Built Rail Transit Systems', Real Estate Economics 35 pp155-182

Abstract: Over 25 billion dollars were spent between 1970 and 2000 in 14 major cities in the United States on the construction of new rail transit lines. This massive investment in rail transit construction and expansion allows me to study the con- sequences of local public goods improvements for communities nearby new stations. This article uses a 14-city census tract–level panel data set covering the years 1970 to 2000 to document significant heterogeneity in the effects of rail transit expansions across the 14 cities. Communities receiving increased access to new “Walk and Ride” stations experience greater gentrification than communities that are now close to new “Park and Ride” stations.

From the Conclusion:
Across the 14-city sample, new transit’s local impacts differ significantly. Some cities, such as Boston and Washington, DC, have experienced gentrification in communities with increased access to rail transit, especially communities treated with a new “Walk and Ride” station. In other cities, such as Los Angeles and Portland, I find no evidence of gentrification based on home price dynamics and shares of the community that are college graduates. Unlike “Walk and Ride” stations, communities close to new “Park and Ride” stations often experience increases in poverty.

[teccuk]

Found the reference about Boston housing prices.

Matthew E. Kahn (2007), 'Gentrification Trends in New Transit-Oriented Communities: Evidence from 14 Cities That Expanded and Built Rail Transit Systems', Real Estate Economics 35 pp155-182

Abstract: Over 25 billion dollars were spent between 1970 and 2000 in 14 major cities in the United States on the construction of new rail transit lines. This massive investment in rail transit construction and expansion allows me to study the con- sequences of local public goods improvements for communities nearby new stations. This article uses a 14-city census tract–level panel data set covering the years 1970 to 2000 to document significant heterogeneity in the effects of rail transit expansions across the 14 cities. Communities receiving increased access to new “Walk and Ride” stations experience greater gentrification than communities that are now close to new “Park and Ride” stations.

No s***. In other news dog bites man. UK / France see the same generally. Urban transit is 'cool', it attracts the young, the trendy, the artists etc.

Its doesn't matter. You're regenerating the urban fabric, gentrification is not the monster its made out to be. Anyway they paid the taxes to build the damn thing.

[61653]

I guess the thing with Park & Ride schemes is that they are by their very nature a system that relies on car ownership. If a P&R scheme is successful then road traffic in the immediate area will inevitably increase the more that people use it, and I suppose this would have a negative impact on those already living in the area, if it's not well-managed or if the infrastructure provided is inadequate to the level of use. A P&R won't necessarily reduce car use all that much overall, but is more likely to shift the car use from city centre. The outcome of the Boston study may well owe a lot to the culture and habits of car ownership and use in the US: There's a lot more space still free for development than the UK, so if a P&R scheme was to open in a semi-rural/suburban location the increased traffic levels would attract businesses whose model is designed to cater for drivers (Drive-Thru restaurants etc). Those already living within say a 2-mile radius of the new facility may still need a car to access it safely and conveniently due to it being designed with car use in mind. They would also suffer the ill-effects of more traffic on their doorstep. There's also the problem of those industries that would be drawn to open up in such a location have a tendency toward lower pay, so this would potentially over time lead the area to become more deprived.

[noofnoof]

Firstly, on the on the original topic.
I had heard there was need for construction of new track to reach Tampa/Orlando, and this gave them an excuse to tap into more container/other freight markets.

Secondly, on the new topic of American public transport.
Living in Australia is interesting. We're somewhat a mix between US and British attitudes on transit. All of our cities have frequent, electrified Commuter Rail/Metro systems. These run on tracks owned, usually, by the state government.
Australians still love their cars, though, and a lot needs to still be improved.

[GurraJG]

How is the public transit in smaller towns in Australia? I don't mean some remote 5 person village in the outback that's 400km from the nearest other small village of 5 people, but a decent sized town a few hours drive away from Sydney or Melbourne. Do those sorts of towns get decent public transport, or is more confined to the large, multi-million people type cities?

[noofnoof]

Way lame. It's like, well here's the bus that runs every 30 mins, 6.30am to 5.30pm.
When I stayed at my aunts house in Geelong, population 160,000, I once tried to catch the bus from here house, to Geelong station, The bus is every 30 minutes, the expecation is you drive.
My summary of my experience in Australia. If you're inner city in once of the capitals, the public transport is relatively good. Once you get to the sprawling suburbs, it ofcourse gets worse, and it's quite pitiful in the larger towns.
I for one am very lucky that my parents decided that paying a lot more money was worth it for living so close to the city. Trains to the City are every 10 minutes, and the buses are every 5.

One thing I don't get is how the Price of Gasoline in the US is so political? They're paying less than pretty much everywhere in the world, certainly less than in Australia, and way less than people in Europe. Heaven forbid it approach something vaguely similar to market value. Curse you Obama, you communist.