Rail Expansion Projects (Northeast)

[Brandon]

I would be rather amused if one of these people who think rail is a cure-all were given the task of designing a passenger rail system for Central Oklahoma.

Shoot, even central Illinois is a challenge for a rail system.  Once you're past Joliet, Kankakee, Aurora, or Rockford, it becomes hard to justify.  I'm of the opinion that the money being put into so-called high-speed rail would be better used on such systems as Metra for commuter rail.  Improving commuter rail in large urban areas (like Chicagoland/NE Illinois) would do more, IMHO, than a high-speed line between St Louis and Chicago.

[Nexis4Jersey]

You want my honesty opinion on Midwestern Rail as of Early April , ive lost all hope for a medium - Large network.  Although a few More connections to spur out of Chicago and i do see a 150mph+ spuring out form Chicago to somewhere.  In light of recent budget cuts proposed by Christie, where he wants to raise fares by 20-30% , I think we will see massive protest and turning on him.  He also didn't mention that NJ Tolls and Taxes are still paying for 3.5 billion $$ To widen the NJ TPK & GSP.  Which i find ridiculous, the MOM corridors would reduce the need for these widening projects and only cost 600 million and use existing ROW.   I hope he changes his mind , becuz the people of this state would go down without a fight.  The Metra system is getting money to upgrade , and improve services , maybe they should electrify more.

-Duke87 : That article nails it , the Govt needs to stop saying HSR outside the NE will be 110mph and even in the NE 110mph, actaully the I-91 corridor might by 110-140mph.

Some 150mph Acelas in Rhode Island

^ One day the whole NEC will be like that , form what i'm told in as early as 5-10 years and Really high Speeds (180mph) 15 years. 

I'm also tired of people form outside the Region and Country telling us how to build things and that Rail doesn't work.  It does , and the fact that your either jealous or ignorant makes me and other people mad.
~Corey

[Scott5114]

Well, rail doesn't work in most parts of the country. In the Northeast it works great, but when you have metro area of 1.2 million spread across three counties, the basic parameters which rail works well in simply don't apply. I'd love to see a workable rail plan for Oklahoma City, but the fact is...well, the city's just not set up for it to work properly. The city hit its growth stride well after the automobile was an established invention, so the city is inherently automobile-based.

[Brandon]

The Metra system is getting money to upgrade , and improve services , maybe they should electrify more.

Agreed that they should have more electric lines such as the Metra Electric (Millenium Station to University Park).  With the number of nuclear power plants here in Illinois, electricy for commuter rail (Metra and CTA) just makes sense, IMHO.

[mightyace]

I'm also tired of people form outside the Region and Country telling us how to build things and that Rail doesn't work.  It does , and the fact that your either jealous or ignorant makes me and other people mad.
~Corey

Well, then don't take federal money to build the stuff.  If you take federal money, all of us can have a say as the money comes from all of us.  

i.e. If you're using some of my tax money then, I do have a right to say so or at least my congressman and senators do.

If you generate all the revenue locally, state taxes, fees, and tolls; then you can tell us to kiss off.

P.S. And please stop calling everyone on this board who doesn't agree with you stupid, ignorant or a liar.

And, your claims of the rest of us being ignorant fall flat when you misspell words or use the wrong word.  In the sentence I quoted it should be...

the fact that you're either jealous

or

the fact that you are either jealous

[Nexis4Jersey]

Scott5114 : Rail can be molded these days to fit the area, as we see in Dallas , Denver , and Cali.   People will take it regardless of speed form what ive found , as long as its stress free and comfortable.

Brandon : Metra should have done that years ago , and replace there ugly fleet.  Maybe when BSNF goes Electric on a few Major lines that will speed up the Midwest Regional Rail network.

mightyace: I mean't general , if you live in England or anywhere the US , you shouldn't be allowed to give a input on what you should happen here.  I'm really talking about rail , but other things aswell. 

[mightyace]

mightyace: I mean't general , if you live in England or anywhere the US , you shouldn't be allowed to give a input on what you should happen here.  I'm really talking about rail , but other things aswell. 

I'm sorry but I still have to disagree.  The money from Washington, DC comes from all the people.  Therefore, I am perfectly in my rights to lobby my congressman or senators as to how much money gets sent to New Jersey and what gets done with it.  And, you have the same right as for Federal money headed for TN.

[J N Winkler]

I'm also tired of people form outside the Region and Country telling us how to build things and that Rail doesn't work.  It does , and the fact that your either jealous or ignorant makes me and other people mad.

Just a word to the wise:  if you let other people on Web forums or Usenet know that they can get your goat, it puts you at a tactical disadvantage and encourages them to supply further provocation.

[Nexis4Jersey]

I'm also tired of people form outside the Region and Country telling us how to build things and that Rail doesn't work.  It does , and the fact that your either jealous or ignorant makes me and other people mad.

Just a word to the wise:  if you let other people on Web forums or Usenet know that they can get your goat, it puts you at a tactical disadvantage and encourages them to supply further provocation.

True , i guess i should ignore but sometimes they pull sneaking things.

[Scott5114]

Scott5114 : Rail can be molded these days to fit the area, as we see in Dallas , Denver , and Cali.   People will take it regardless of speed form what ive found , as long as its stress free and comfortable.

Show me how you'd do rail in Oklahoma City then. Don't forget to serve the suburbs too; Norman is the third largest city in the state. I think that should you try making a plan for central Oklahoma, you'll understand what I'm talking about. If I'm wrong, then I'll eat my gaming badge.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Oklahoma City >
A commuter line can run form Norman to Downtown Oklahoma City, an Express EMU line like the one being planned in Denver , can run form Downtown to the Airport.  Thats as far i can see for Commuter Rail.  For Light Rail that Freight line that runs near I-235 / US -77 can be utilized for light Rail , just add 2 more tracks and electrify it.  Top Speed of Most LRT vehicles is 45-65mph and they accelerate quickly.  The Second line could run form West along an estibished freight corridor , same with the other one , build 2x more trax and electrify form Downtown to Royal Oaks or to Yukon.   A third line could branch off form the I-235/ US 77 line and head west along Route 3 in the Median , which they do in a few cities , LA , Phoenix ,Jersey City , Boston , etc.   A few loops of Streetcar lines could run in Downtown & easily tie into the light Rail & Commuter lines. 


Tulsa >
As for Tulsa , i saw there plans and they were stupid and wasteful, basically called for Gondolas and and something else which i would want in Tornado Alley.   A Emu line could run form Downtown to the Airport , a Commuter line could run form Downtown to Broken Arrow along the R-51 corridor.  A light Rail line could run Northeast along a Freight corridor next to US-75 form Downtown Tulsa to Zoo.  I'm still working on Light Rail dept in Tulsa its hard analyzing and studying data and input form my contacts out there.  But A Streetcar system could work in Downtown several streets like it does in Portland.


All & All High Speed Rail is a Good 10-20 years form every touching Oklahoma , but your 3 Largest cities will have a decent size network in 5-15 years.  Once one part of the city gets light Rail or one part of the Region gets commuter they all want it.  But i stress a Downtown system or line needs to be in place before the EMU or Commuter lines get built otherwise it will be a waste becuz you a system to give the commuters form those lines a way to get around.  Buses don't cut it these days , Light Rail & Commuter Rail attracts far more people then any bus line or even system.

~Corey

[Scott5114]

And here's what that plan misses out on: the largest employer in the Oklahoma City area (Tinker), as well as the two east suburbs. Also no access to the zoo, the Kirkpatrick Center, Remington Park, or the softball complex where they hold the national softball championships. Props for throwing a line out by Penn Square Mall, but the "ritzy" mall (Quail Springs) is without access. T

he fact is though even if you worked all of those into the system (very very expensive!), you'd still have several miles in between each line, so you'd have to either do some kind of elaborate park and ride thing, or people would have to walk on the order of 5 miles from the station to their house or workplace–the key point that makes rail not work for OKC. And if that's an issue people have to deal with, it's simpler for them to just take their cars the whole route on Oklahoma City's excellent freeway and city street grid.

[Stephane Dumas]

there some proposals from a light rail system in Detroit and some dream of "Motor City" to "Rail City"
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/02/from_motor_city_to_rail_city_c.html
http://detroityes.com/mb/showthread.php?t=4627
http://tinyurl.com/ydwcuev

and a slighty off-topic rail projects, the long awaited dream to link Alaska railroad with the rest of the continent via Canadian railroads http://alaskacanadarail.com/

[Chris]

The Dutch new High Speed Rail achieves an occupancy rate of only 8% after being a few months in operation. It serves a densely populated area, equal to that of NJ and greater than that of other states in the Northeast. During rush hour 100 out of 586 seats are taken, outside rush hour, this is only 25 out of 586 seats. I take it I don't have to mention what huge operational cost vs farebox recovery discrepancy this brings. It's hard to justify a $ 10 billion investment for an 80 mile high speed rail based on current usage. This must mean costs were underestimated and usage was overestimated, to justify the investment. Usage will eventually pick up, but never reach levels that justify a $ 10 billion HSR.

Let me quote a famous Danish professor Bent Flyvbjerg who did extensive research about large infrastructural projects and usage projections;

Despite the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on infrastructure development from roads, rail and airports to energy extraction and power networks to the Internet surprisingly little reliable knowledge exists about the performance of these investments in terms of actual costs, benefits and risks.

....

For rail, average cost escalation is 45% (SD=38), for fixed links (tunnels and bridges) it is 34% (62) and for roads 20% (30). Cost escalation appears a global phenomenon, existing across 20 nations on five continents. Cost estimates have not improved and cost escalation not decreased over the past 70 years. Cost estimates used in decision-making for transport infrastructure development are highly, systematically and significantly misleading.

...

Rail projects incur the highest difference between actual and estimated costs with an average of no less than 44.7%, followed by fixed links averaging 33.8% and roads with 20.4%.

...

Similarly, if we subdivide rail projects into high-speed rail, urban rail and conventional rail, we find that high-speed rail tops the list of cost escalation with an average of 52% (SD=48), followed by urban rail with 45% (SD=37) and conventional rail with 30% (SD=34).

The full report can be read here (PDF).

This is also the biggest financial risk to any DOT... If we continue down the current road of reactivating rail lines, and building new ones, based on underestimated cost and overestimated usage projections, soon DOT's will spend 90% of their budget to provide mobility to 5%. This is already visible in Europe where rail investment and operational costs are twice as high as road costs, but carry only 10% of the traffic. This translates to a 20 to 1 investment ratio. And they call that "smart" or "sustainable".

Another report of Flyvbjerg researched the over/underestimation of usage.

For rail, 75% of projects have actual traffic that is at least 25% lower than forecast traffic. 25% of projects have actual traffic that is at least 70% lower than forecast.

...

The upper and lower decile for rail show that only 10% of projects achieve the traffic forecast or more, whereas the lower 10% of projects achieve 20% or less of forecast traffic. For roads the figures are substantially more balanced.

. Actual ridership is on average 50.8% lower than forecast.
. Only two projects out of 22 achieved the forecast ridership.
. Three-quarters of projects achieved a ridership that was at least 40% lower than forecast.
. One-quarter of projects achieved a ridership that was at least 68% lower than forecast.

...

The analysis of construction costs show that urban rail projects on average turn out substantially more costly than forecast. At the same time the analysis of ridership show urban rail to achieve considerably fewer passengers than forecast and thus lower revenues. Urban rail is therefore economically risky on two fronts, both as regards costs and as regards revenues.

full report can be read here (PDF)

[Nexis4Jersey]

And here's what that plan misses out on: the largest employer in the Oklahoma City area (Tinker), as well as the two east suburbs. Also no access to the zoo, the Kirkpatrick Center, Remington Park, or the softball complex where they hold the national softball championships. Props for throwing a line out by Penn Square Mall, but the "ritzy" mall (Quail Springs) is without access. T

he fact is though even if you worked all of those into the system (very very expensive!), you'd still have several miles in between each line, so you'd have to either do some kind of elaborate park and ride thing, or people would have to walk on the order of 5 miles from the station to their house or workplace–the key point that makes rail not work for OKC. And if that's an issue people have to deal with, it's simpler for them to just take their cars the whole route on Oklahoma City's excellent freeway and city street grid.

Well i tried , thats just my input and i think i took it form the 2030 Plans , by then you will need a balanced system, i also thought your cities were layed out odd.

[Nexis4Jersey]

The Dutch new High Speed Rail achieves an occupancy rate of only 8% after being a few months in operation. It serves a densely populated area, equal to that of NJ and greater than that of other states in the Northeast. During rush hour 100 out of 586 seats are taken, outside rush hour, this is only 25 out of 586 seats. I take it I don't have to mention what huge operational cost vs farebox recovery discrepancy this brings. It's hard to justify a $ 10 billion investment for an 80 mile high speed rail based on current usage. This must mean costs were underestimated and usage was overestimated, to justify the investment. Usage will eventually pick up, but never reach levels that justify a $ 10 billion HSR.

Let me quote a famous Danish professor Bent Flyvbjerg who did extensive research about large infrastructural projects and usage projections;

Despite the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on infrastructure development from roads, rail and airports to energy extraction and power networks to the Internet surprisingly little reliable knowledge exists about the performance of these investments in terms of actual costs, benefits and risks.

....

For rail, average cost escalation is 45% (SD=38), for fixed links (tunnels and bridges) it is 34% (62) and for roads 20% (30). Cost escalation appears a global phenomenon, existing across 20 nations on five continents. Cost estimates have not improved and cost escalation not decreased over the past 70 years. Cost estimates used in decision-making for transport infrastructure development are highly, systematically and significantly misleading.

...

Rail projects incur the highest difference between actual and estimated costs with an average of no less than 44.7%, followed by fixed links averaging 33.8% and roads with 20.4%.

...

Similarly, if we subdivide rail projects into high-speed rail, urban rail and conventional rail, we find that high-speed rail tops the list of cost escalation with an average of 52% (SD=48), followed by urban rail with 45% (SD=37) and conventional rail with 30% (SD=34).

The full report can be read here (PDF).

This is also the biggest financial risk to any DOT... If we continue down the current road of reactivating rail lines, and building new ones, based on underestimated cost and overestimated usage projections, soon DOT's will spend 90% of their budget to provide mobility to 5%. This is already visible in Europe where rail investment and operational costs are twice as high as road costs, but carry only 10% of the traffic. This translates to a 20 to 1 investment ratio. And they call that "smart" or "sustainable".

Another report of Flyvbjerg researched the over/underestimation of usage.

For rail, 75% of projects have actual traffic that is at least 25% lower than forecast traffic. 25% of projects have actual traffic that is at least 70% lower than forecast.

...

The upper and lower decile for rail show that only 10% of projects achieve the traffic forecast or more, whereas the lower 10% of projects achieve 20% or less of forecast traffic. For roads the figures are substantially more balanced.

. Actual ridership is on average 50.8% lower than forecast.
. Only two projects out of 22 achieved the forecast ridership.
. Three-quarters of projects achieved a ridership that was at least 40% lower than forecast.
. One-quarter of projects achieved a ridership that was at least 68% lower than forecast.

...

The analysis of construction costs show that urban rail projects on average turn out substantially more costly than forecast. At the same time the analysis of ridership show urban rail to achieve considerably fewer passengers than forecast and thus lower revenues. Urban rail is therefore economically risky on two fronts, both as regards costs and as regards revenues.

full report can be read here (PDF)

Plz do not compare The Netherlands to NJ , your Railway usage has been higher then us for decades.   As for NJT , its the Largest Transit Agency in North America.  The Problem with Rail usage in my state is there are many broken links and missing networks , but help is on the way in the form of Private and Public money to build a Dream Light Rail network that would join almost every Major city in North Jersey via old Abandoned or Lightly used lines , Newark-Elizabeth , Newark-Paterson , Hudson-Bergen Light Rail extensions that will hook into the Cross-County DMU line which would hook into the Newark - Paterson Network, all these networks alone would pull an estimated 400,000 people, and the New Brunswick City rail , which would serve Universities and Colleges , and Rail lines.  And the Camden : Riverline network extension south.  The MOM network should be built sometime this decade and would service the growing Monmouth - Ocean - Middlesex Counties.  The West Trenton line would connect West Trenton Septa terminus , with Bridgewater and the Raritan Valley line , surprisingly alot people who live on this line either work in NYC or Philly.  On off peak hours NJT uses single level trains and during higher peak hours they use Bi-level.  NJT & other NE Rail Agencies would be profitable , if they didn't have to cover the Diesel Fuel costs of the Buses , but hopefully that will change.

[mightyace]

Plz do not compare The Netherlands to NJ , your Railway usage has been higher then us for decades.   As for NJT , its the Largest Transit Agency in North America.

I think Chris' point is that, rail transit is an expensive way to move people around and may not be financially viable.  And, if it's not viable in the Netherlands, then it won't be viable in New Jersey as you admit yourself that the rail usage is lower in NJ.  Therefore, NJT will need more public subsidies than the Netherlands on comparable lines.

NJT & other NE Rail Agencies would be profitable , if they didn't have to cover the Diesel Fuel costs of the Buses , but hopefully that will change.

I've never heard of a transit agency covering operating costs let alone making a profit especially when including capital costs (trains, stations, etc.).  Would you please cite the source of your assertion.

[Nexis4Jersey]

The fact of the matter is the Car Attitude in the Northeast & other parts of the Country is dying off slowly , people don't want the added stress of commuting to Work or School , they want a Alt option like Bus , Trains or even bike lanes in some cities now.  Chris has never been to the US to see this , he bases everything on observations , and guessing.  But if you ask almost anyone who lives in a dense Suburb or City here in the NE they want more Mass Transit.  NJT rents its stations out to private businesses , so the only thing thats at the station is the ticket machines.  Transit agencies need a little more Private investments , sadly roads suck most of that money up for now , but at least with Obama and hopefully future presidents the tides will turn.  Yes i did say the Rail usage is lower but could be and i beleave will be once key missing links like i said are finished.  NJT does use some of its fares to cover its Bus Diesel fuel bill , as do many other agencies in North America.

~Corey

[mightyace]

The fact of the matter is the Car Attitude in the Northeast & other parts of the Country is dying off slowly , people don't want the added stress of commuting to Work or School , they want a Alt option like Bus , Trains or even bike lanes in some cities now.

You're making some strong, incredible assertions.  But, I ask again, because I think you are mistaken (not lying), where is the evidence that what you assert is true?

Do you have an article, a poll or what?

It's time to put up or shut up!

[Nexis4Jersey]

Excuse me, .......Come up here and take the Temperature of the City and Suburban areas ,you live in the South .....I don't have a poll yet , but me and about 100 other Transit bloggers and researchers will survey urban & Suburban areas in the Spring, around the Northeast.  If you look at most NE cities the culture is already dying , and being replaced with Buses and Bikes , and Trains. 

[mightyace]

Excuse me, .......Come up here and take the Temperature of the City and Suburban areas ,you live in the South .....

Here we go with the personal attacks again.

<sarcasm>
A valid debating tactic of winning debators since time immemorial.
</sarcasm>


(Just for the record, I grew up in Northeastern, PA and went to grad school in Baltimore, so I'm not totally unfamiliar with the region.)

I don't have a poll yet , but me and about 100 other Transit bloggers and researchers will survey urban & Suburban areas in the Spring, around the Northeast.

<sarcasm>
Now, that's a recipe for a fair poll.  A poll on cars versus public transit taken by transit bloggers.  No vested interest here!
</sarcasm>

I want a poll from an accredited, neutral polling agency, thank you!

If you look at most NE cities the culture is already dying , and being replaced with Buses and Bikes , and Trains.  

How can you assert this?  You already said you have no evidence!

Your credibility with me is totally shot.

I refuse to answer you rants anymore unless you're willing to debate in a rational manor and back up your assertions.  

[Nexis4Jersey]

Why can't you research it yourself , look at Jersey City , Newark , Boston , Philly , Baltimore and the countless cities in the NE that are considering Alt types of Transport, NE lacks Rail but that will change by the end of this decade.

[mightyace]

Why can't you research it yourself , look at Jersey City , Newark , Boston , Philly , Baltimore and the countless cities in the NE that are considering Alt types of Transport, NE lacks Rail but that will change by the end of this decade.

As that was an intelligent response, I will answer.

I have but not in a way I can back up in debate here.

I'm not doubting that rail transit is being considered up there and probably will expand.  Heck, it's being considered here in Nashville.

What I haven't found in my research is anything that supports your assertion that cars will cease to be the dominant form of transportation and/or rail will be dominant.

[Nexis4Jersey]

I'm saying they will cease , but it will become more balanced at least up here ,  And the Majority of people support a Balanced system up here.  Its better for your heath also becuz it will encourage more exercise and will reduce Greenhouse gas.  & Honesty in many parts of the NE , you can't expand the Roads and Freeways.

[Chris]

The fact of the matter is the Car Attitude in the Northeast & other parts of the Country is dying off slowly

That is what you want, but the reality is different. Between 1999 and 2008, daily vehicle mileage in New Jersey increased by 11%. At the same time, the New Jersey population has grown by 3.5%. Dying off slowly? I don't think so. It increases faster than population, which means the car usage is actually increasing.

Chris has never been to the US to see this , he bases everything on observations , and guessing. 

Guessing? Scientific research! But that doesn't fit within your way of thinking, making vague statements that are hardly true, citing blogs and rumors that cannot be considered independent or objective. My uncle says things too, you know. Of course transit/rail-advocates will say that, it would be surprising if they didn't. However, facts do not support these claims. You keep coming up with claims without any factual support, while I cite legitimate sources and surveys. If anyone bases his opinions and claims on "observations" and guessing, it's you.