Even though this a Roadgeeking site , i thought i'd post some Rail expansion Projects some facts, etc. Becuz here in the Northeast we have or are expanding to have one of the most useful networks in North America. Some of you say its wasteful and doesn't work , but form i know it does work, becuz people are looking for ways to beat the traffic and not being the one driving them to work. By the end of this decade NJT and Septa will grow and restore at least 300 miles to both networks.
Railways that will grow
Maine : Growth & Upgrade there network (a few new Rail lines heading north form Portland and a possible streetcar system in Portland as well as the Downeaster tracks being upgraded.
New Hampshire : Upgrade ( The Downeaster route needs to be double tracked and the tracks need replacement.)
Vermont : Growth & Upgrade (mainly to one corridor and preparation of a Boston-Montreal High Speed line (110-140mph)
Connecticut : Massive Growth & Upgrades (the NEC needs to be rewired west of New haven and new Tracks are needed) & East of New Haven (curve straighting and triple tracks needed) & The New Haven-Hartford -Springfield High Speed Rail (110-140mph) and Commuter Corridor. Streetcar & light Rail networks are planned for New Haven , Stamford and Hartford, aswell as possibly Electrifying the Danbury Branch.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetransportpolitic.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F03%2Fconnecticut1.jpg&hash=62ffec0c2497698ef80bd87afe949a38f9a815b1)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetransportpolitic.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F04%2Fnew-haven2.jpg&hash=60fef10d1e33ff02a45451931e3035d3ce68dcd7)
Rhode Island : Grow (track doubling), New Light Rail & Streetcar routes in Providence and commuter rail. & Upgrades
Massachusetts : Grow ,(MBTA is planning a few more commuter lines aswell as a streetcar system in DT Boston , and there are rumors of a Beltway Railway around Boston Metro.) & Upgrades to the Downeaster route. Aswell as Metro Expansions
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetransportpolitic.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F07%2Fblue-line.jpg%3Fw%3D138&hash=b05578a6791d33c88c9fea4f8601c723ec8bf038)
Eastern Pennsylvania : Possible Massive Growth and Upgrades : Septa plans to restore service to Allentown and Reading , Harrisburg will start a commuter Service between Downtown Harrisburg & Lancaster along the keystone corridor and East along the I-81/78 corridor to Lebanon. Septa plans to overhaul 80% of its fleet,and replace Catenary. Amtrak plans to upgrade NEC speeds to at least 140mph and replace all the interlocks approaching 30th Station , so trains can enter faster. The Keystone corridor and all its stations will get a much need upgraded and the corridor will increase speeds to 140mph. A Streetcar network is planned for Philly and PATCO Expansion is planned. The Lackawanna Cut-off will be restored by 2012 or 13 , connecting Wyoming Valley with Hoboken Terminal & Inland Jersey Empire. The Raritan Valley Restoration to Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton is on hold , but the restoration to Philpsburg isn't , there would need to much work to be done , except a Bridge Replacement over the Delaware.
Possible Philly Extension
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetransportpolitic.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F04%2Fproposed1.jpg&hash=50389fdd37f1090f450e7abdb910e85fd49de1c3)
New Jersey : Massive Growth & Upgrades , NJT is slowly moving away form Commuter Rail Expansion and to Light Rail expansion, A Massive Network of Light Rail lines is planned to Connect Union County - Elizabeth - Newark - Inland Essex Empire - Paterson -Passaic-Hackensack, this entire Network i heard and assume will cost 4 billion $ and use abandoned or lightly used Freight lines. New Brunswick will also get a Cross-City Light Rail line , The Riverline is planned to Extend South to Glassboro and PATCO extend to Cherry Hill? The NEW ARC Tunnel to New York will allow more Trains and faster speeds aswell as allow people form the Passaic-Bergen County lines a one-seat ride to NY Penn. The MOM or Middlesex - Ocean - Monmouth County Network would consist of 2 Rail lines , one feeding into the North Jersey Coastal line and another via a flyover into the NEC line, it would also include a BRT along the congested US 9. The first phase of the Lackawanna Restoration will open this June , the Andover Station and over the Next 1-2 years the whole line with come back. NJT is pushing CSX , to allow them to use the West shore line , which runs form Albany to Port Newark, the section NJT would use for Commuter Trains runs form Secacuse JCT to Haverstraw ,NY with stops in Teaneck , Haworth , Orangeburg , etc. The West Trenton will get restored , it runs form West Trenton to Bridgewater and would allow NJT to free up space along the Congested NEC corridor. Upgrades to the NEC itself , will allow for Full Speed, replacement of the Catenary wires and straightening of Curves in Metropark & New Brunswick & Elizabeth , will allow Express Trains to hit 130mph. The Hudson-Bergen Light Rail is planned to extend form North Bergen JCT north along US 1/9 & NJ 67 to Tenafly and West to the Meadowlands / Xanadu complex.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetransportpolitic.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F05%2Fnorth-jersey.jpg&hash=9413eee183ce7622fb697b256d8b76985440f017)
(they are both 70% funded and the proposed freight corridors are now NJT Passenger connections)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwebspace.webring.com%2Fpeople%2Ftt%2Ftransit383%2Fnjt2020.gif&hash=7524903abbc7ef66f03c1b44866fb69d4e747bf5)
(all the yellow projects are done)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetransportpolitic.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F05%2Fsouth-jersey12.png%3Fw%3D150&hash=e0100971339b63eaa2520a4f07c922b12e618f91)
(the Glassboro Extension form what ikno should start this year.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetransportpolitic.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F06%2Flackawanna.png&hash=877d7f6aa7fd0671c90a4e5702d220c6f8164d03)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetransportpolitic.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F03%2Farc21.png&hash=912ad66f15b62c410653d8087e9cdb242e517ae6)
Delaware : Growth & Upgrades : Possible Streetcar system in Downtown Wilmington or LRT, Upgrades to the NEC , wire replacement and track upgrades
Maryland : MARC Penn line extending to Newark ,DE , and providing a Cheaper Alt other the Amtrak , so form Boston to DC in 10 years you will be able to take cheaper ALT. Expansion of Baltimore Light Rail network , including a Criss-city line , upgrades to the Tracks & wires to the NEC allowing greater speeds 170 is planning and replacement of the interlocks to allow faster Trains into Baltimore Penn.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetransportpolitic.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F04%2Fred-line-proposal.png%3Fw%3D150&hash=2b368c7bc99b19a0ea0085251d4b73033f052044)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tunneltalk.com%2Fimages%2FRed-Line%2FRed-Line-alignment.jpg&hash=c315bdfb1c37dbd3d01812313cfe3602c3d576f1)
Washington DC : Massive Growth and a few upgrades, there system is one of the fastest expanding in North America, they focused on Subways for the last 3 decades now its time for the surface transit to get overhauled , streetcar systems are planned for all over the City and Expansion the DC metro further out into the Suburbs and to Dulles In't Airport. The DC Metro is the second largest and buseit after NYC in North America. All the interlocks along the NEC in DC are planned to get upgraded. Aswell as Electrifying the Northeast Regional corridor to Richmond & Newport News.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetransportpolitic.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F11%2FNOVA-Overall-Map.jpg&hash=75ea16bbd0122f7f9f1a7a8fc7a96aa69c6bfdf7)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetransportpolitic.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F11%2FDC-Metro.jpg&hash=4e0e9c0d98ad8a84abf18562406d8c2b8999b212)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetransportpolitic.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F10%2FDC-Streetcar-Plan-Map.jpg&hash=e05908334d9d86e9bc9dbe959b9b8b21f6dcea93)
New York / Upstate : Light Rail & Streetcar projects are planned for Albany , Rochester , Syracuse and Buffalo. A High Speed Rail line (140 mph) is planned for the I-90 corridor between Buffalo and Albany , the Empire corridor received some FED HSR money for half of the work, since there is no flights between these cities the line is welcomed and is finally starting to happen, i have no date on the opening of this line.
New York City : The Second Ave Subway project & 7th Avenue Extension to the west side are the only Metro Rail projects in the city , the Second Avenue line is expected to have Daliy usage of 200,000 people and help congested traffic along second avenue. The 7th Avenue Extension will provide one of a few Cross-Manhattan Subway routes. Brooklyn & Queens have proposed a Streetcar & Light Rail network, Staten Island has proposed and Light Rail line on the West Shore , which would eventually run over the upgraded or New Bayonne Bridge and tie into the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail network. The LIRR East side acess tunnel is similar to ARC Tunnel it will allow 2-3x the Capacity of daily trains and at higher speeds. An upgrade and extension of Port Jervis line is in the works , to help relive congestion at NYC Airports.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetransportpolitic.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F06%2Fpicture-1.png%3Fw%3D131&hash=5467be389858452ef7fef2b7251adf843946f45b)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetransportpolitic.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F03%2Fstaten-island1.jpg&hash=e31f4d4cd258ed2e9c2cdae500c6b4578bf77e57)
As the Northeast Population and Urban centers continue to grow these projects whether all of them or the key projects happen will be needed to offset and balance the added congested to the roads and highways , although people on this forum would like to see us widen the Highways , in the process destroying thousands of homes and businesses and widening the highways in rural areas or forests. Majority of the new Growth can be handled with these projects , the Nimby is also smaller against Rail and Transit then Highways. To people who say it won't work , people are willing these days to save on Gas and have a less stressing commute, so they are willing to walk a few miles or Park & Ride at transit hubs. + I know you road-geeks like me would like a less congested road to film or take pictures on.
~Corey
While the DC streetcar plans and the Silver Line extension to Dulles are real, the rest of those supposed DC area plans you mentioned are pipe dreams from the owner of The Transport Politic. I commented when he posted about them a few months ago...
True , but thats still good for DC , my god such a large amazing system , the only thing you guys are missing down there is a Large Commuter Rail network echoing out form the Metro, VE Railways and MARC are ok , but they need to be expanded. I beleave the Trans-politic guy gets his ideas form Transit Plans each city and region has one for a 10-30 year outlook, so i don't think they are just made up.
Some do. Some don't. In DC, the only serious plans besides the streetcars and the Silver Line is the Purple Line in suburban Maryland. Most of what TransportPolitic put on his DC map is pipe-dream stuff.
I just read all of the 2020-40 plans for all these cities , he is correct on all of them, they are all planned or proposed by each region or state GovT.
Not the DC ones. Trust me...I live here and I've looked at them myself.
Are you sure , he gets them form the GovT plans , a few people told me and for what has already happened in DC , i think that is going to happen.
Yes I'm sure. Aside from the Silver Line and a planned streetcar along Columbia Pike, the "plans" he shows in Northern Virginia...especially a line along Route 7...are just conceptual ideas and are not serious proposals. The Glebe Rd "Purple Line" is VERY MUCH a pipe-dream.
I think the purple is going to happen , i remember reading it somewhere.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 08, 2010, 11:08:49 AM
Connecticut : {...} Streetcar & light Rail networks are planned for New Haven , Stamford and Hartford,
On the Stamford streetcar: don't hold your breath. It's a pipe dream that was conceived A) when the economy was booming and B) under a Democrat mayor. Both of those things have changed.
The line as conceived would be of limited length, along a corridor already served by buses (many of which are underused), and would require removing lanes from some major streets which, let me tell you, is a bad idea.
In short: porkbarrel project, pray nothing comes of it.
Quoteaswell as possibly Electrifying the Danbury Branch.
I would think double-tracking it and removing the grade crossings would be much more beneficial and much more important. Would also be a good idea for the New Canaan branch (which is already electrified).
I'd be tempted to say the same for the Waterbury branch, but that line isn't too well-used and has some bigger problems that you'd want dealt with first (no signals, short tiny ground-level platforms, sidings and yard trackage in such disrepair as to be unusable...)
QuoteNew York City : The Second Ave Subway project & 7th Avenue Extension to the west side are the only Metro Rail projects in the city , the Second Avenue line is expected to have Daliy usage of 200,000 people and help congested traffic along second avenue. The 7th Avenue Extension will provide one of a few Cross-Manhattan Subway routes.
Er... I think you mean 7
Line extension, not 7th Avenue. Which is just a waste of money at this point, considering that nothing is actually getting built at the Hudson Yards, and the station at 10th Avenue which actually would have been useful was axed. It's the next "Tunnel to Nowhere".
The city has been trying to build the Second Avenue subway to no avail for three-quarters of a century. They're actually digging right now, but the first section (which is only from 63rd St to 96th St) is already five years behind schedule...
QuoteThe LIRR East side acess tunnel is similar to ARC Tunnel it will allow 2-3x the Capacity of daily trains and at higher speeds.
The ESA and ARC projects are both quite welcome. Also, little known fact: there is provision in the construction of both for the two to potentially be linked together in the future. Probably will never happen, but it's a cool thought. :cool:
QuoteAn upgrade and extension of Port Jervis line is in the works , to help relive congestion at NYC Airports.
Another boondoggle. The problem with Stewart Airport is that it's just too far away from the city to be a practical alternative to Newark or JFK for most people. Westchester County Airport would be much more logical to beef up and put more transit out to, especially if for people whose business takes them not to the city itself but to someplace like White Plains or Stamford. But, sorry, it abuts Greenwich, and we can't let noisy airplanes come anywhere within twelve parsecs of those multimillion dollar mansions and estates, now can we? :-/
QuoteI think the purple is going to happen , i remember reading it somewhere.
Purple Line is only going to happen in Maryland, between the Red Line at Bethesda and the Orange Line at New Carrollton. It's a "desire" in the rest of Prince George's County, but a pipe-dream in Virginia.
I do agree fully with you duke 87 , The subway 7 extension is a waste of money , but when has the MTA not wasted money on retarded projects? The Stamford Streetcar is a pipe dream , but i don't think the New Haven / Hartford Light Rail is. I rather see the Waterbury branch electrified , i think it would be stupid to electrify the Danbury branch. Its a shame the ESA & ARC will probably be never linked , becuz that will force Amtrak to dig another tunnel , when it upgrades the NYC section of the NEC. The Port Jervis line to Steward Airport , defeats the Purpose of expanding the Rail network. I have found the purple line in plans , but it looks like other lines will go ahead of it.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 10, 2010, 11:27:25 AM
The subway 7 extension is a waste of money , but when has the MTA not wasted money on retarded projects?
I do believe the City of New York is bankrolling the 7 extension (it's Bloomberg's pet project), not the MTA.
Doesn't make it less of a waste of money, though.
QuoteI rather see the Waterbury branch electrified , i think it would be stupid to electrify the Danbury branch.
What makes Waterbury a better candidate for it than Danbury?
Becuz the Waterbury Branch or Line would one day continue to Hartford, and i checked the line is pretty much intact, just needs some doubling and Eventually Electrification. The Danbury line can use dual Locos , if the MTA or CT DOT every decides to order any. It seems once again NJT is leading the way in Railway up keep and Newer and and faster fleets.
It seems I'm one of the few people here who like the 7 Line extension. But as far as I'm concered there should be no light rail in any of the Five Boroughs. If MTA is going to add more rail service, it should be with the subways, the LIRR, and maybe Metro-North(although I can't imagine what else they could do with Metro-North in Manhattan or The Bronx.). I'm still not pleased that Boston, and DC sacrificed future road improvements for MBTA and WMATA, and now I'm concerned about New Haven.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 11, 2010, 01:46:10 AM
and maybe Metro-North(although I can't imagine what else they could do with Metro-North in Manhattan or The Bronx.)
There have been plans, which I'm not aware of the current state of (but I'm sure Nexis4Jersey will know), to dig a tunnel so that LIRR can get into Grand Central Station in addition to Penn Station.
Its underway , i found some pictures of it.
http://gothamist.com/2010/01/29/mta_photos_show_lirr_work_in_massiv.php?gallery0Pic=4#gallery (http://gothamist.com/2010/01/29/mta_photos_show_lirr_work_in_massiv.php?gallery0Pic=4#gallery)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgothamist.com%2Fattachments%2Fnyc_arts_john%2F012910cavern.jpg&hash=3fa503645d10dcb5b59adda7d68d7ef1910cddad)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgothamist.com%2Fattachments%2Fnyc_arts_john%2F012910lirr2.jpg&hash=92c0dacd6588bd1f6e8d919f659e6be01b6ecdbb)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgothamist.com%2Fattachments%2Fnyc_arts_john%2F012910lirr7.jpg&hash=fda1be134c665237777720d967a81cf314a6ecd9)
Service should begin in 2016 , and service for the New ARC tunnel should begin in 2017. Which leaves Amtrak , which gets the old tunnels , but i'm sure they'll have there NY Terminating trains use are new Tunnels and Station. Eventually Amtrak will need to replace there aging tunnels which are 100+ years old. The NEC keeps increasing in ridership each month and year, and NYC is the biggest speed and service choke point, every day theres at least 20 delays.
~Corey
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 11, 2010, 03:47:58 AM
Its underway , i found some pictures of it.
Thanks for the pictures.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 11, 2010, 03:47:58 AM
Eventually Amtrak will need to replace there aging tunnels which are 100+ years old. The NEC keeps increasing in ridership each month and year, and NYC is the biggest speed and service choke point, every day theres at least 20 delays.
No argument there. According to a recent Trains magazine article on Penn Station, even with the ARC tunnels NJT is building, it won't relieve capacity issues in the NEC for long since, as you pointed out, ridership continues to increase.
Another issue with the NEC tunnels is that the emergency exits are some narrow stairs which seriously limits their ability for people to use them if necessary due to an accident or terrorist action. Those new ARC tunnels should not have this issue as would any hypothetical NEC replacements.
Quote from: mightyace on February 11, 2010, 02:06:17 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 11, 2010, 01:46:10 AM
and maybe Metro-North(although I can't imagine what else they could do with Metro-North in Manhattan or The Bronx.)
There have been plans, which I'm not aware of the current state of (but I'm sure Nexis4Jersey will know), to dig a tunnel so that LIRR can get into Grand Central Station in addition to Penn Station.
You mean the Long Island Railroad East Side Aceess project.
http://mta.info/capconstr/esas/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Side_Access
That's not Metro-North.
SEPTA's plans for Philadelphia are interesting.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetransportpolitic.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F04%2Fproposed1.jpg&hash=50389fdd37f1090f450e7abdb910e85fd49de1c3)
I like the idea of restoring the Route 23 Trolley, and maybe even the Route 56 Trolley - both as Heritage Trolley lines I presume. Most of the others I have mixed emotions about. One thing I know is that they also want to merge the Subway-Surface Trolley Line's Eastwick Loop(for Route 36), and the SEPTA R1 Eastwick station together as the "Eastwick Transportation Center."
http://world.nycsubway.org/us/phila/regionalrail.html#r1air
BTW, when I was on the New Jersey Turnpike, I looked for the PATCO Speedline, but I never saw it. And if it was there, I probably didn't know if that was what it was.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 11, 2010, 01:12:06 AM
Becuz the Waterbury Branch or Line would one day continue to Hartford, and i checked the line is pretty much intact, just needs some doubling and Eventually Electrification.
It would make far more sense to go to Hartford from New Haven, as Amtrak already does - the line is currently active, and for the entire length either already has a second track, or clear ROW for one.
Meanwhile, the route from Milford is all single track with no clear ROW for a second one, from Waterbury on the existing track is abandoned (and not in usable condition), and the route is more convoluted anyway.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 11, 2010, 08:56:50 AM
Quote from: mightyace on February 11, 2010, 02:06:17 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 11, 2010, 01:46:10 AM
and maybe Metro-North(although I can't imagine what else they could do with Metro-North in Manhattan or The Bronx.)
There have been plans, which I'm not aware of the current state of (but I'm sure Nexis4Jersey will know), to dig a tunnel so that LIRR can get into Grand Central Station in addition to Penn Station.
You mean the Long Island Railroad East Side Aceess project.
http://mta.info/capconstr/esas/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Side_Access
Thanks to you, too. I didn't have that info handy and was busy on other things.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 11, 2010, 08:56:50 AM
That's not Metro-North.
Yep, you're right and I should know better. :banghead: It's gets confused in my mind since Metro-North and the LIRR are both part of New York's MTA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york_mta
QuoteHistory
Chartered by the New York State Legislature in 1965 as the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Authority (MCTA) it initially was responsible only for regulating and subsidizing commuter railroads, including the Long Island Rail Road and what is now the Metro-North Railroad. The MCTA changed its name to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) in 1968 when it took over operations of the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA), now MTA New York City Transit (NYCT) and MTA Bridges and Tunnels (B&T) respectively.
As you can see, the MTA also includes the subway and bus systems plus some of the regions many toll bridges and tunnels.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 11, 2010, 05:22:37 PM
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 11, 2010, 01:12:06 AM
Becuz the Waterbury Branch or Line would one day continue to Hartford, and i checked the line is pretty much intact, just needs some doubling and Eventually Electrification.
It would make far more sense to go to Hartford from New Haven, as Amtrak already does - the line is currently active, and for the entire length either already has a second track, or clear ROW for one.
Meanwhile, the route from Milford is all single track with no clear ROW for a second one, from Waterbury on the existing track is abandoned (and not in usable condition), and the route is more convoluted anyway.
True , The Need to first replace and Upgrade West of New Haven , that stretch between NY Penn New Haven is the slowest and in the worst condition, the Catenary and poles need replacing, there are rustic and look terrible. Interesting , idk , CT is a growing state with a Messed up Rail and Parkway network that is neglected.
Something worth reading (http://talkingtransportation.blogspot.com/2010/02/high-speed-rail-really.html) on the matter of rail improvements and Connecticut.
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.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 18, 2010, 02:49:17 AM
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.
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
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.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 18, 2010, 11:39:51 AM
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.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 18, 2010, 11:39:51 AM
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...
Quotethe fact that you're either jealous
or
Quotethe fact that you are either jealous
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.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 18, 2010, 07:47:49 PM
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.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 18, 2010, 11:39:51 AMI'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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 18, 2010, 07:56:48 PM
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 18, 2010, 11:39:51 AMI'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.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 18, 2010, 07:47:49 PM
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.
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
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.
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/
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;
QuoteDespite 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 (http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/COSTFREQ4.pdf) (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.
QuoteFor 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 (http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/Publications2007/URBANRAIL61PRINT.pdf) (PDF)
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 19, 2010, 10:47:52 AM
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.
Quote from: Chris on February 19, 2010, 06:23:20 PM
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;
QuoteDespite 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 (http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/COSTFREQ4.pdf) (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.
QuoteFor 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 (http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/Publications2007/URBANRAIL61PRINT.pdf) (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.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 19, 2010, 07:05:47 PM
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.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 19, 2010, 07:05:47 PM
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.
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
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 19, 2010, 11:08:40 PM
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!
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.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 19, 2010, 11:38:11 PM
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.)
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 19, 2010, 11:38:11 PM
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!
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 19, 2010, 11:38:11 PM
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. :banghead:
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.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 20, 2010, 12:25:22 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 19, 2010, 11:08:40 PM
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 (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/roadway/vmt.shtm) increased by 11%. At the same time, the New Jersey population has grown by 3.5% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey#Demographics). Dying off slowly? I don't think so. It increases faster than population, which means the car usage is actually increasing.
QuoteChris 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.
Quote from: Chris on February 20, 2010, 06:46:59 AM
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 19, 2010, 11:08:40 PM
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 (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/roadway/vmt.shtm) increased by 11%. At the same time, the New Jersey population has grown by 3.5% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey#Demographics). Dying off slowly? I don't think so. It increases faster than population, which means the car usage is actually increasing.
QuoteChris 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.
All i want is a Balanced System of Highways and Railways in the Northeast. And why are you so against that? We can't widen anything here , due to density and Environmental laws. Your reputation isn't looking very nice , i thought you of all people would support a balanced system....I guess not , i guess your one of those guys who thinks its ok to tear down entire neighborhoods and build an 10 lane freeway or cut down a huge chunk of a forest.
Quote from: mightyace on February 19, 2010, 08:33:53 PMI've never heard of a transit agency covering operating costs let alone making a profit especially when including capital costs (trains, stations, etc.).
I have heard of it, but not anywhere in the US. The London Underground does cover its operating costs from the farebox with enough left over to allow the issuance of bonds for Tube renovation and expansion. (This never happened due to Treasury opposition, however--the senior Treasury civil servants involved wanted PPP rather than bonding. The work was eventually contracted to two companies under PPP, one of which has already gone bust.) I think the Madrid Metro may be able to cover its costs without outside subventions too, but that is just guessing on my part (based partly on Line 1 being SRO for about three hours each in the morning and evening).
Operational costs and construction investment are two different things though. Even if you manage to break even with the operational cost, there is still the financial burden of the initial investment, which can be equal or greater than several years of operational income. Only a few Asian subway systems have a farebox recovery ratio greater than 100%. But that doesn't mean they are profitable in the end. Constructing the system in the first place isn't cheap either.
QuoteAll i want is a Balanced System of Highways and Railways in the Northeast. And why are you so against that? We can't widen anything here , due to density and Environmental laws. Your reputation isn't looking very nice , i thought you of all people would support a balanced system....I guess not , i guess your one of those guys who thinks its ok to tear down entire neighborhoods and build an 10 lane freeway or cut down a huge chunk of a forest.
Those are your own presumptions, I have never said that. I stated a number of facts why transit and rail can be a significant financial problem for Department of Transportation agencies, thus the American taxpayer, especially if it is based on misleading assumptions and projections.
So becuz of the cost and operating costs , we shouldn't expand? Thats a really dumb thing to say. Come here and spend a week drive around the NE and then tell me, we don't need more transit. Public projects will slowly drop , and more private and larger projects are coming. We can break operating costs if we breakdown the agencies , most agencies here are switching the Buses to hybrids and Electrifying more to save on fuel costs. :cool:
Private investment? What a chimera! Given the consistent discrepancy between projected and actual ridership, why should a private company take a punt on rail transit? Toll roads are a safer investment and quite a few of those have been going bust too.
Only private investment you're seeing in rail is with freight rail. Because that's the only place those private companies can see a profit. You MIGHT see private investment in public transit in cases where it would increase the real estate value of the company's holdings, but would only work for localized projects (i.e. streetcar/LRT/MAYBE heavy-rail) and not intercity rail.
A few Light Rail Projects here including the Mega Network system , will get the Majority of funding form Private , the Mayors of Jersey City , Newark , Elizabeth , New Brunswick , Paterson are for and are pushing for Light Rail transit.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 20, 2010, 08:42:18 AM
Come here and spend a week drive around the NE and then tell me, we don't need more transit.
The problem is transit
does not solve traffic problems. First of all, you'll see a shift from bus to rail-based transit, and from park/ride and carpool to transit. This barely reduces road traffic. Approximately 10% of the transit riders outside Manhattan are the so-called "choice travelers" i.e. people that could do that trip every day with the car as well. It is a myth that more rail-based transit solve traffic problems. Any traffic reduction is quickly absorbed by the natural growth of traffic, remember that 11% growth in 9 years I mentioned earlier.
That doesn't mean we should abandon passenger rail transport completely, but history and research shows us many cost and ridership projections should be taken with a huge grain of salt. The financial risk for the taxpayer is huge, especially in this day and age of transportation funding shortfalls.
And Chris will also tell you that despite a relatively intensive common-carrier passenger rail transport presence in Europe and the Netherlands in particular and the Netherlands' reputation for having some of the most expensive petrol in all of Europe, the BIGGEST transport problem in his home country is - - - traffic congestion, especially on the highways and motorways.
Do we need a well-balanced transport system in the USA? *OF COURSE!* BUT, the mixes and levels of service of the various modes must be well conceived and appropriate for the various locales (and the USA is a *HUGE* and vastly varied nation, indeed).
Cory, as you continue to live and have life experiences, from which you will accumulate wisdom, and I very much suggest that you enroll in university classes to study city planning and/or civil engineering, you will gain an appreciation for this, including the all-important public opinion inputs and reactions and learning about market nuances.
Mike
I honestly do not understand the love affair some people have with light rail. Really, light rail = buses - tires + rails.
Oh, and it costs more. Better to just go for BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) if simple bus service won't cut it but a subway line is too much.
The biggest concern, though, is one of safety. I don't like trains mixing and mingling with vehicular traffic and pedestrians. Accidents happen that way. We need to be removing grade crossings, not building new ones.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 21, 2010, 12:07:25 AM
I honestly do not understand the love affair some people have with light rail. Really, light rail = buses - tires + rails.
Oh, and it costs more. Better to just go for BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) if simple bus service won't cut it but a subway line is too much.
The biggest concern, though, is one of safety. I don't like trains mixing and mingling with vehicular traffic and pedestrians. Accidents happen that way. We need to be removing grade crossings, not building new ones.
It moves faster , looks sleeker and thats how attracts more people, Portland has a medium and growing to large Streetcar network in Downtown & they haven't had many accidents , same in Boston and here in Jersey City, people tend to drive more Cautionously around Light Rail & Streetcars.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 21, 2010, 12:49:18 AM
they haven't had many accidents , same in Boston and here in Jersey City, people tend to drive more Cautionously around Light Rail & Streetcars.
Maybe true, but it's still better when any rail can be grade separated from cars and trucks. Of course, it is more expensive to build without road crossings with tunneling being the most expensive.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 20, 2010, 07:13:46 AM
All i want is a Balanced System of Highways and Railways in the Northeast. And why are you so against that? We can't widen anything here , due to density and Environmental laws.
I haven't seen a balanced system of highways and railways in the northeast. Most of the time I see people slamming highways and deluding themselves into believing railways are the cure-all. Also, it's not that you
can't widen anything as much as it is you don't want to. I've seen plenty of roads that I knew needed to be widened before I was even old enough to drive, and yet instead of wideining those roads some developer plops a shopping center or housing development in the way. Also, too often the environmental laws are misued to obstruct road improvements(i.e.; Abraham Ribicoff vs. the Bayville-Rye Bridge and completion of the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway). Those same environmental laws are the reason we have that mess known as the Oakdale Merge. It's as if the people who tried to stop the previous NYSDOT proposal thought that by making the better interchange it would somehow lead to development Connetquot River State Park and Bayard Cutting Arboretum. Hogwash. The only thing that would've been built in the area is the road itself.
As an example of how roads can be built without that much environmental damage, you can just look at Sunrise Highway over the Patchogue River. When it was a four-lane highway, it was seven feet above water level. When the DOT widened it and installed service roads, they raised it to 20-feet above water level. Or, you could consider Interstate 70 at Glenwood Canyon.
D-Dey65 : I'm not saying there a cure all , we also need an HOV lane system on most highways and encourage Car sharing and pooling. But Rail Transit can shove half of this, having seen the majority of 2030 plans for the Northeast and seeing the progress being made in certain areas , a balanced system in some parts of the NE is less then 10 years away, for the whole NE 5-20 years away. I don't understand why you guys have such , anti-Rail thoughts, it doesn't make any sense. Environmental laws are not really mis-used , we grew to fast and outwards, which over the past 10 years has slowly stopped and people are moving back in, becuz its cheaper. Alot of Northeastern Cities and dense suburbs are starting to embrace rail and transit use and encourage smart growth development. Its more healthier to have a Railway cut through your city then a highway in the Noise pollution and air quality. The people on this forum who keep doubting future Rail and Transit will one day come to there senses. As for Long Island it needs more North-South Connecting Rail lines , East-West is pretty good, a few of those connections. The reason i think alot people still don't use rail here in the Northeast is there either lazy or they don't know how dense or flexible the systems are. The People outside the Northeast i think are jealous that we have Rail , so they often in my opinion try to put us down. The I-70 through Glenwood Canyon still left a footprint, yes it was small but still had an impact. Considering the Freight companies are willing to allow Passenger Agencies and private investment on there lines is a great thing and we should take full advantage of that, alot of our abandoned lines still have the original stations intact in good or bad conditions. We should also encourage like in some cities Biking , and Alt forms of commuting. environmentists and alot people are more warm to the idea of building more Transit and Rail then they are to roads and highways. Also tourists and out-of staters love Rail and it can increase the local economy growth.
mgk920 : I'm looking into that , maybe in September @ Rutgers if i can get in or Bergen Community College, or some other college.
mightyace : it varies city to city on the sharing , some cities have less accidents then others , for example Portland has very few accidents , but 1 line in Houston has alot. Most cities start out with mixing via Bus / Bike lands and then later down the road put in a Streetcar or Light Rail line, in that way it helps drivers slowly adjust.
~Corey
Nexis4Jersey, just because people are pro-road doesn't mean they're anti-rail. When NYSDOT considered replacing part of the Montauk Branch of the Long Island Railroad in the Hamptons with the Super-2 version of the Sunrise Highway extension, I thought that was a bad idea, and I would've thought it was a bad idea if they had done the same thing with a four or six-lane version. The HOV lane on the Long Island Expressway is crap(the one on I-95 in Northern Virginia is better), and making exceptions for vehicles with "Clean Fuel" stickers defeats the very purpose of the lanes. Also, if people in the south were so "jealous" and hostile towards light rail, as you claim they are, you wouldn't see it in places like Dallas, Houston, and Charlotte. My concern about light-rail in New Haven is that it may be used in sacrifice of the formerly proposed and should've been built Route 34 Expressway.
The thing is, there are places where light-rail can work, and places where it won't. New York City is one where it won't. Some have been planning to convert the West Hempstead Branch of the LIRR into a light rail line, but a lot of commuters and railfans don't like that idea.
And I'm sorry, but environmental laws have been misused to stop road improvements.
I strongly disagree with you about the New Haven thing , its ridiculous to build a Freeway in Downtown, it cuts neighborhoods and people , although i would support it , if it were underground. But since New Haven will become a new Hub over the next 10 years , Light Rail and some scarfices are needed like burying parts of I-95 along the waterfront like they did in Oslo, so the rebirth & reconstruction of the waterfront and city can really take off. I think that all urban freeways should be covered , and on top parks and buildings , i feel the same way about Rail yards. You can easily build a connector or major road to the south of the CBD, but a Light Rail & Streetcar system would encourage people to use more Rails , instead of cars.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 23, 2010, 11:09:26 AM
I strongly disagree with you about the New Haven thing , its ridiculous to build a Freeway in Downtown, it cuts neighborhoods and people,...
So does light rail and even heavy rail.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 23, 2010, 11:09:26 AM
.. although i would support it , if it were underground. But since New Haven will become a new Hub over the next 10 years , Light Rail and some scarfices are needed like burying parts of I-95 along the waterfront like they did in Oslo, so the rebirth & reconstruction of the waterfront and city can really take off.
Doing that forces more height limits for trucks.
D-Dey65 : not as much as a 10 lane freeway, an average train track is about the width of a half of a lane , Light Rail can easily be mixed into street traffic, the only time rail makes a bigger foot print is a Rail yard , but alot of yards around the US will be covered over the next 10-20 years with development and parts. Aside form that how does Heavy or Light Rail divide cities , unless its on an embankment like in Newark. Tunnels will not restrict that many trucks that it will become a problem , they can easily design it so its higher. So i guess you want a city like New Haven to be divided by highways and blocked form the waterfront?
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 23, 2010, 11:39:28 AM
D-Dey65 : not as much as a 10 lane freeway, an average train track is about the width of a half of a lane,
How often are contemporary light-rail right-of-ways used just for one track? From what I've seen, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail, and Newark Light Rail consist of two tracks. Besides that, I still disagree with getting rid of highway project and replacing them with either light-rail or rapid transit. I mentioned on other threads that my parents and I took a vacation to Long Island back around Christmas time, and the drive up was just fine until we reached Northern Virginia. If I-95 were extended through DC, and all the other highways that were supposed to have been built in Metro-DC during the 1960's and 1970's were built, the drive for myself and others would've been much easier. Plus in 2004, I took the AirTrain to JFK Airport and it was so slow, that it reaffirmed my belief that they would've been better off reviving the Clearview Expressway Extension to JFK. I also remember that in the 1990's some black construction workers lead a protest claiming the city was cheating them out of jobs, and realized that such a project would be a perfect opportunity for them.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 23, 2010, 11:39:28 AM
Aside form that how does Heavy or Light Rail divide cities, unless its on an embankment like in Newark.
The same way that a road can. If the Bushwick Expressway had been built through Brooklyn, none of the neighborhoods it would've went through would've changed their borders unless they wanted to. Williamsburg, Bushwick, and East New York aren't small enough to be swallowed up by such an expressway.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 23, 2010, 11:39:28 AMTunnels will not restrict that many trucks that it will become a problem , they can easily design it so its higher.
They could, unless some anti-highway zealots try to stop them, just as they want to stop the replacement for the Kosciuszko Bridge.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 23, 2010, 11:39:28 AMSo i guess you want a city like New Haven to be divided by highways and blocked form the waterfront?
No, I want people to be able to move through New Haven without having to rely solely on mass transit, or on just one or two roads.
The busiest railway system in Europe (the Netherlands) has a passenger mile footprint that is almost twice as large as the freeway network* (also the densest network in Europe). Overall, trains require more space. However, in certain urban settings, this is less of course. The main problem is occupancy rate. The busiest railway system in Europe has a occupancy rate of only 27%. To compare this to freeways, where the 6.00 - 20.00 usage is about 80 - 120% of capacity. The peak/off-peak difference is much larger in rail (and buses) than it is on freeways.
*
NL - freeways: 30 sq mi / 60 billion passenger miles
NL - rail: 38 sq mi / 10 billion passenger miles
thus the rail network requires 27% more space, but carries 6 times less passenger miles than the freeway network.
D-Dey65 : Yes & no , all the Light Rail networks in NJ & Future lines will use space given to them by the freight companies who have no purpose for it anymore. Same is said around the Northeast , freight companies are starting to reorganize there operations, and place them outside the CBD's and dense neighborhoods. Getting rid of that highway and renewing the CBD , should be a top priority, i guess you don't live next to a highway? Becuz if you did you would have a different opinion , like alot of my friends and family. The plan for New Haven is Streetcars , which would share the streets with cars and light rail would go 5-10 miles out into the surround dense suburbs. Massive redevelopments are being lined up around the old highway corridor , for what i heard it includes a few high rises and parks replacing parking and smart growth developments around the city could happen. The Airtrain is supposed to shuttle people back & fourth , not all rail is supposed to be super fast , and that comment makes you look like a whiner. People here and people have ridden rail tell me , and i'm sure you can find others that as long as its a decent speed , they don't care. The Air Train max's out @ around 55 mph , if it was slow its probably a malfunction which does happen although rarely. NYC doesn't need anymore Freeways , but it needs alot of missing transit links. Which some might happen this decade. Not really , Rail doesn't divide as much as , Freeways do , i guess you don't see my point , which is very easy to see. I doubt you'll get anti-Tunnel people on a Project that would connect the City with the waterfront, that statement holds little. Why would streetcars and light rail change how people move through New Haven? I doubt the people of New Haven want more traffic , espically form out of towner's. It would balance it out more , so the city could redevelopment more around Transit and Railways, and some roads. But i guess you don't understand how cities work. I'm not thinking 1-5 years down the road, but more like 5-30 years, becuz here in the NE where at a cross-roads. Do we build smartly and redevelop cities or do we continue to grow into the suburbs and build massive and freeways that will choke and scare away any major redevelopments? The NE is already has the highest density for people in the US and it will only get more crowded.
Chris : stop comparing your network to our network, its like comparing cheese form France to Cheese in Cali. Our tracks and trains and everything else here is different , and i have looked at your network. Also i tend to take your info these days with a grain of salt , after some many dutch friends say differently.
Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on February 23, 2010, 01:37:19 PM
Chris : stop comparing your network to our network, its like comparing cheese form France to Cheese in Cali. Our tracks and trains and everything else here is different , and i have looked at your network. Also i tend to take your info these days with a grain of salt , after some many dutch friends say differently.
I'll disagree. Chris has some very valuable things to say, and the comparisons are very valid, IMHO. Europe, being denser, has a much larger and more mature passenger (but not freight) rail network that seems to be the goal of many mass transit advocates. It is very much worth a comparison to see what they have done, and what mistakes to avoid.
Masterful discussion, this. Strawmen, well poisonings, blocks of text riddled with errors, unsourced data, the works. Action should be taken.
Forgive my backseat modding, but it's frustrating and I imagine other lurkers feel the same way.
Yeah, I think we're done here.