I'm ready to address some of your questions and comments from the first rail post so lets get to it.
Q. Is passenger rail viable in the Lehigh Valley as an extension of the NJ line?
A. Whether it's viable simply as a matter of extending the NJ line or not is a moot point since the only way we can create a Lehigh Valley regional rail system is if NJ Transit brings service to Phillipsburg first. We are in many ways dependent upon transit decisions in that state. Assuming this happens then yes, the passenger system is viable. There are over 29,000 people within a 1/2 mile of proposed Easton, Bethlehem and Allentown stations. This is considered walking distance for rail transit...people will only walk about 1/4 mile for bus transit. There are 98,000 within one mile, 256,000 within two and 1/2 miles, 384,000 within five miles and well over a half million within ten miles.
We also have traffic and demographic mappings of the routes and commuting costs from all LV metro areas to the proposed stations and the value of time savings for rail vs. current bus commutes based on train speed and regional median incomes. This doesn't even figure in the value of time gained for work on a comfortable train which is now lost if driving alone or cramped on a bus. There are also the huge economic potentials for transit oriented development (TOD) and the ridership capture potential for all those non-commuters who would take a train other places (or to Easton) if rail transit's convenience, frequency and predictability were known quantities.
Q. Where are we in terms having a plan for national rail; where are we for TARP funds, etc. so we can create rail jobs?
A. TARP or any other funding for the LV is not currently in the picture. The various funding mechanisms for rail are based on having a plan in place with so-called "shovel ready projects". The Midwest, Pacific Northwest and California are well along the way in that regard and it is not surprising
that the majority of the $8 billion ARRA (Recovery Act) money for rail is going there. The added benefit to these regions is that new federal policy - separate from the ARRA program - provides a new pool of matching funds (in the hundreds of millions) for states with previous investment in rail.
These investments have taken the form of public/private partnerships (PPP's) between the state or local passenger services - not Amtrak but in some cases systems operated by them - and the class I freight companies (CSX, Norfolk Southern, BNSF, CN and Union Pacific). We have not built a local coalition yet and this will need to happen if we are to proceed...although it's putting the cart before the horse at this point since the study isn't complete yet and needs to be guided in the right direction by people in Easton and elsewhere, who do not place great faith in the LV Planning Commission Director's desire to see this project succeed.
You also mentioned laying rail in Tampa. Just for the record, Florida is just about as screwed up a state as you could have for high speed rail. Thanks to Jeb Bush's meddling and the general buffoonery among the various local players they have next to nothing to show for twenty years of fiddling around. Don't expect to see anything on the ground there anytime soon.
Q. Prefacing this question with comments about limited park and ride opportunities in NJ, the question was; are there interests actively opposing passenger rail?
A. Some would believe that the private bus companies (Trans-Bridge perhaps) may be putting on a public face of indifference while obstructing things behind the scenes. LANTA may have been a part of this effort previously but I think they have come to grips with reality and now support rail and see a role in it for LANTA. The Rt 22 Coalition is always out there; touting their highway expansion plans. I was called in to meet with them a few years ago when I led a small delegation of pro-rail activists opposing the highway project. Based on PenDOT budgets and state-wide downscaling, I believe we'll see rail here before 22 is expanded, if it ever is. In any event, we need to keep a careful eye on all these entities as things progress.
Some people believe the freight haulers to be a major obstacle. This was true up until quite recently but a new philosophical paradigm is beginning to take hold and I wouldn't be surprised to see a few if not most of them - NS and BNSF particularly - get back into the passenger biz at some point. For now at least, they are only interested in benefiting their company's bottom lines (that's OK) and improving the rail infrastructure (through federal investment) and if this can be done by cooperating with new passenger entities they are ready to do it.
Q. What is this difference between high speed rail and improving regular passenger rail?
A. For simplicity's sake we can consider the President's definition of high speed rail (HSR) in America to be 125mph. Technically, high speed rail - TGV or bullet trains - is 200mph and up. Right now, almost no one is running above 130mph because it's against Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rules to exceed that speed on shared track. Acela Express train sets are capable of 200mph and run on Amtrak owned right-of-way in the Northeast Corridor, but rarely reach 150 and average around 88 for most trips. The rest of the fleet is considerably slower. This has a lot to do with technical limitations of the system, hardware and safety technology.
The term "HSR" as used by the government is more of a marketing campaign than a technical reality but that's OK because there are going to be few places in the country that can truly run at high speed and what we need to do now is bring the rest of the system up to previous standards of 80-90mph that we reached with regularity in the heyday of passenger rail 80 years ago. The real key to success - aside from speed - if you ask the people who run the systems, is frequency of service, dependability and rider amenities...but especially frequency of service. We have to stop treating our transit riding citizens like they are from a third world country. It's a disgrace.
Q. Doesn't the interruption of freight traffic effect the speed of current passenger service?
A. Yes. Actual train speeds can be quite high for certain portions of the trip but then the average can come way down because of siding delays (being bumped to a siding for interminable amounts of time due to freight traffic) or by slow orders (a requirement to slow down because of track problems ahead). The freights own the tracks that most passenger services run on and they control who will run and when. They have no incentive to do otherwise except in cases where PPP's are in place. Much of this delay could be alleviated by positive train control (PTC) and though expensive, this will be mandatory by 2015.
Responses to Comments
"High speed is confusing...90-110mph on shared track and 110-150 on dedicated track...reason we are unable to achieve high speeds has more to do with grade crossings/re-engineering for safety."
These are great observations. Different tracks have different rating classes. How high speed trains affect the rail infrastructure also changes with location and climate. Grade crossings are a major problem...people are extremely stupid and drive under or around older crossing gates or try to beat trains across unguarded crossings. People walk along unfenced tracks. There are thousands of these incidents a year and nearly 800 deaths. Motorists are at fault 90% of the time. We need major improvements or wholesale elimination of grade crossings to upgrade to higher speed services.
"If Obama sees need for national rail system it may move trains to new tracks and corridors...may use large rail hubs with massive, cheap parking."
We must be careful about parking availability and cost at rail stations. Too much of it priced too low will facilitate excess driving and partially eliminate the value of mass transit. TOD is dependent on understanding the relationships between being part of a larger system (node) and serving local needs as public places worth caring about and being in. There is a whole body of knowledge on this that is poorly understood by many local authorities, who just want to "get something done". Placemaking is the key to successful transit development. Easton needs to keep it's eye on ball in this regard.
On the separate track issue, it may happen in some areas where state or regional authorities are investing there own money to acquire unused rail lines or double track wider existing routes. It can't happen on a national scale without huge federal investment. Freight companies reinvest huge amounts of capital in their systems - far more than most manufacturing corporations do as a percentage of revenue, but they need incentive to do more. One could be a 25% tax write-off for further upgrades. The whole taxing structure of railroads is a draconian process resulting from the public backlash towards turn-of-the-century railroad robber-barons. We need to revisit the issue.
"I don't expect train service to change Easton much...people who commute are looking for rural/suburban living."
Easton's future will be dramatically improved with rail, just as it's past and present was dramatically retarded by it's loss. Regardless of current suburban settlement patterns, the future will dictate different arrangements whether we like what we have now or not. Even if most of suburbia were to remain viable (and I doubt that it will) the city would still benefit from a whole host of advantages that reliable travel choice would give to a lot of people currently lacking any choice but the single passenger car.
Next Post...The Lehigh Valley Transit Study-Draft Version
Posts
16 comments:
Dennis,Thank you for the most informative conclusive report on what I believe would be such a wonderful service.You helped me to understand more about it that our local officials and transportation people.I can just envision how the area would prosper with perhaps job opportunities in New Jersey and the ability to travel to other areas and not having to drive.It is no secret that the Lehigh Valley needs a better mass transit system because just to get to Allentown requires patience not to mention a degree in navigation.I have actually had buses just pass me by.I have friends who have to take 3 different buses to get to work. An on a personal note,my granddad was an engineer on the Erie Lackawanna Line and I have fond memories of the "Station" Another excellent job of a "Neighbor" educating me on a subject I didn't quite understand and now feel I understand and can only hope I get to see this in my lifetime.Kudos and chalk up another excellent post for "Neighbors" by DRL
Thanks Dennis for posting this insightful information.
Public transporation in America is woefully inadequate by federal, state, and local design and planning, to force out, and keep out, most people from living, working and shopping in cities and get them into private cars forever.
Sixty years of implementing this plan in America has worked, if we call that working (I don't). Today, more than two-thirds of Americans now live AND work outside city limits, and more than ninety-percent of shopping is performed outside city limits.
The opposite was true when I was born. This drastic change was created by federal initiative to build and support a car industry. This particular industry includes not only oceans of fossil fuels, but massive infrastructure, sales, insurance, maintenance, policing, jails, etc. to infinity, not to mention the largest and costliest public works project in the history of the world - the Interstate Highway System.
This car-centric design choice, rejected by other countries, has destroyed vast amounts of former farmland and demolished up to ninety-percent of historic architecture in American cities.
Having lived and worked in countries with excellent public transportation, for me the difference is truly shocking - not to mention the tremendous carnage in America due to dependency on private cars.
Restoration of good public transportation in America doesn't appear likely to ever happen, given the immense power and influence in Washington, D.C. of the industries associated with the private car.
The status quo, while not sustainable without costly subsidies, wars for oil, etc., is too entrenched to change until the last drop of oil is gone, or until an alternative energy source to propel the private vehicle is substituted, with the permission of the powerful oil lobby of course!
as for interests actively opposing passenger rail, i know that one of them is Transbridge. the reason i know is that two different drivers have told me that the family that owns the business sees passenger rail as a threat to their business will do whatever they can to try to stop it.
the funny thing is, both drivers were in favor of passenger rail, and didn't see it as a threat at all, but rather, figured that it would ease car congestion along their routes and make their job easier, which is now fraught with intensely stressful traffic situations, from reckless drivers, to accidents, to traffic jams from rubber-necking or reduced lanes because of road construction.
i think it is an irrational fear on behalf of Transbridge. i am assuming that when passenger rail gets going, it will be slightly more expensive that a bus, so those trying to save more money will continue to use the bus, whereas those who are spending gas and stress driving and parking in their cars (not to mention the maintenance that goes with regular commuting) will begin to take the train as a fast, stress-free alternative. the bus routes will be less congested and therefore the buses will be more reliable in their arrival times--it's win-win for everyone.
how nice is it to imagine people walking to the train, getting exercise in the morning on their way to work, and then sitting back and reading, listening to music, or sleeping until the train arrives? to be able to get to NYC or Philly in less than an hour? or to Washington DC in a few hours?
I am concerned about your last paragraph and some remarks here and elsewhere on line. We may be making some myths about rail travel and I want to point out some fallacies that many people have about rail and service to NYC.
1. There is a difference between commuter service and traditional rail passenger service. When you purchase a ticket on Amtrak, you purchase a seat. When you purchase a ticket on a commuter service, you purchase a place. After traveling for years to NYC and hanging on to straps and poles and seats, I don’t accept your description of rail travel as being and then sitting back and reading, listening to music, or sleeping until the train arrives. Commuter trains do not have such luxuries. Expect overcrowding during rush hours and forfeiting your seat to elderly, handicapped and pregnant passengers. Commuter trains are extremely uncomfortable. And, as you will see in the next paragraph, traditional rail passenger service is too expensive to substitute for commuter service.
2.There is a major problem with bringing rail service to Easton due to complex government funding requirements. Amtrak is a good example to demonstrate the point; Amtrak is suppose to charge fair costs and not rely on federal subsidies to reduce fares. If you wanted to travel from Philadelphia to New York, today, you can expect to pay anywhere from $67 to $143 for a one way ticket. If you want to travel SEPTA from Philadelphia to Trenton and NJ Transit from Trenton to NYC, you can expect to pay $20.50. Bus service is $19.00. The reason for the price discrepancy is Pennsylvania and Philadelphia fund SEPTA. New Jersey funds NJ Transit. If you bring train service to Phillipsburg, NJ, a rider can expect to pay $10 to $12 one way to NYC based on comparable distances and fares and New Jersey subsidies. If you extend that same train from Phillipsburg to Easton or a distance of 1,000 yards the fare would increase to $70. New Jersey is not going to support passenger service for people in another state. It cannot by law. So, we Pennsylvania residents are going to have to assume fair costs unless Pennsylvania supports reducing the fares. I cannot think of any reason why Pennsylvania taxpayers would support paying part of my train fare so that I can go to NYC and work. Pennsylvania does not even get the tax benefits of my working in NYC.
3.Everyone is convinced that train service to NYC will eliminate substantial traffic on I 78. NJ Transit studied this and the study is available on line. Only 800 cars out of 20,000 on I 78 in the morning are going to the city. The remainder is going to jobs in Hunterdon, Somerset and Middlesex counties. NJ transit believes that they can use train service combined with bus service to reduce these numbers. That is, a NYC bound commuter train will stop in communities along I78 where commuters will take buses to suburban office parks for their employment. That will be one slow train. In every conversation I have had with I 78 commuters, I am told the same thing. First, they will never take a train and bus to work. Second, my numbers are all wrong. The truth hurts.
continued
4.I don’t believe that the Trans Bridge owners need worry. All efforts by NJ Transit are about enhancing Park and Ride facilities and improving bus connections. PennDot is looking to build a new facility for 1000 cars along I 78. If New Jersey builds a bus only lane on I-78 commute time to NYC would be an hour for express service. There is no train that can duplicate that time on a comparable fare level.
5.There is this belief that train service will bring people to live in Easton. This belief has been countered by beliefs that the area will only see people wanting a suburban-rural living experience. There is no empirical data to back either belief. I have found that people wanting to commute long distances want rural habitats at cheap prices. There are many urban environments closer to NYC. Until someone actually studies the issue, don’t believe me or anyone else.
6.And, that brings me to my final point. Commuting is about time and quality of life. I commuted and invested much always trying to reduce by commute time and costs. I avoided communities that charged too much for parking and restricted nonresident parking. I looked for routes that offered fast service and multiple connections. I would drive my car part of the way and train the rest. I did not want to spend hours on a train; they are not as romantic as suggested. If we are serious about train travel we should lobby Pennsylvania to extend lines from Philadelphia to the Lehigh Valley. Once those lines are in place connecting train service could be extended throughout the Lehigh Valley. Once that network is established, it could be extended westward to Harrisburg. This concept is not hard to sell in this state because it connects the Lehigh Valley with Philadelphia. Once we have the rails and the trains it becomes easier to think about service to other areas including NYC.
Tim...I know our analysis is from lots of research you have done on the subject of urban depopulation and I agree with your concept. We could have given the auto companies a kick in the ass by refusing to bail them out or mandating that they open rail car production divisions in six months as a prerequisite to the money.
And don't anyone tell me it can't be done because the government mandated military production by the automakers during WWII and they did it without delay. There are currently zero companies producing rail cars in this country...the last one in Colorado closed a few years ago. Its nearly impossible to keep fleets updated and operating at capacity without American manufacturers and it's impossible to keep the manufacturer's going without steady order streams. We need to get this chicken-or-egg problem solved.
I am not as pessimistic on the future of rail in America. We just aren't in the right region to see the successes that are possible. Cost is relative. Do we want to pay for something that employs Americans, improves quality of life, creates a sense of hope and accomplishment by providing jobs of value and releases us from fossil fuel servitude? Sign me up. The alternative is our current situation...dumping billions into highway expansions (so we can go nowhere with more lanes) or down a rathole in Central Asia and the Middle East to sustain the unsustainable - with no end in sight.
DRL
Anon3:11...I'm not here to romanticize rail travel. All modes have their problems. I can get into some of your propositions in a later post...we need to clarify some confusions that you have rightly pointed out.
I will say this. Regardless of whether or not you like driving all or part way to work; whether or not people like suburban living or ex-urban living because it allows "driving to qualify" for cheap housing. The point remains that this way of life is coming to an end. The capital finance crisis, if nothing else, has exposed that dilemna for anyone who wishes to connect the dots.
Whether we now have the guts to admit it, stop approving new projects and condense back to the inner rings and urban centers or we just want to keep this brain-dead patient alive for another few decades and waste what's left of our national wealth on sustaining the unsustainable, the end truth is the same. We will be forced - one way or the other - to deal with these harsh realities: that suburban commuting, long haul trucking and most commercial discretionary air travel will not be available to us. The question we must ask is are we going to figure out another way to get around or just stay put?
DRL
i AM here to romanticize passenger rail--with a little dose of reality mixed in--that little dose of reality being 13 years in New York City riding MTA subways, NJ PATH trains, and the Long Island Railroad--all commuter trains. a passenger rail line from the Lehigh Valley to NYC, Philly, Harrisburg, D.C. would be nothing like the crowding on the NYC subways--there just isn't the population density here that is present there. on those trains it depends on what stop you live on as to whether or not you get a seat. when I lived in Astoria, Queens, I was at the end of the N line, and so always got a seat in the morning. now, catching the B/Q trains in Brooklyn from Newkirk at rush hour, i was lucky if i got a seat. but on the Long Island Railroad, it was much easier, and the seats were more spacious. i often read books on all three of these trains.
but when i can already sit back and read a book on a bus from Easton to NYC, i have no reason to not believe that i wouldn't be able to do the same on a train. the population is dense enough to support passenger rail, without being overcrowded like New York.
and i have always assumed that passenger rail would be making stops along the way, just like the bus, but traveling faster in between stops. you can already get to NYC in 90 minutes on the bus, with stops in Jersey. if a train can travel 100 mph in between stops, that will get you to your destination faster than a bus that can't travel more than the speed limit, and is further limited by traffic.
so yes, i romanticize it. i need a picture of a train that i can frame and hang by my bed so i can kiss it at night before i go to sleep. New York and Philly in less than an hour--ah, romance.
i AM here to romanticize passenger rail--with a little dose of reality mixed in--that little dose of reality being 13 years in New York City riding MTA subways, NJ PATH trains, and the Long Island Railroad--all commuter trains. a passenger rail line from the Lehigh Valley to NYC, Philly, Harrisburg, D.C. would be nothing like the crowding on the NYC subways--there just isn't the population density here that is present there. on those trains it depends on what stop you live on as to whether or not you get a seat. when I lived in Astoria, Queens, I was at the end of the N line, and so always got a seat in the morning. now, catching the B/Q trains in Brooklyn from Newkirk at rush hour, i was lucky if i got a seat. but on the Long Island Railroad, it was much easier, and the seats were more spacious. i often read books on all three of these trains.
but when i can already sit back and read a book on a bus from Easton to NYC, i have no reason to not believe that i wouldn't be able to do the same on a train. the population is dense enough to support passenger rail, without being overcrowded like New York.
and i have always assumed that passenger rail would be making stops along the way, just like the bus, but traveling faster in between stops. you can already get to NYC in 90 minutes on the bus, with stops in Jersey. if a train can travel 100 mph in between stops, that will get you to your destination faster than a bus that can't travel more than the speed limit, and is further limited by traffic.
so yes, i romanticize it. i need a picture of a train that i can frame and hang by my bed so i can kiss it at night before i go to sleep. New York and Philly in less than an hour--ah, romance.
DRL,
I don't accept your arguments.
I may agree that our long love affair with suburban rural living may be coming to an end. I may agree with you that development will return to the urban center and the inner rings.
Yes, there are a lot of communities between Somerville and New York City that will grow in density and become part of a new metropolis.
Easton is just too far out. It only works for that person who wants cheap housing or that suburban rural neighborhood. I don't see it as part of a future metropolitan New York City in a world that has sparse natural resources. Such was the case of Riverwalk; it would never work. People just did not want to ride two hours one way to live in a bus station.
The fact is that I tolerated the long commute for the benefit of what was at this end. When the cost in dollars and time becomes too great, I'll move closer to the city. Easton just is not worth giving up ten more hours a week of my life.
noel,
I enjoy your blog very much. In fact I gain more information from it than I do a local newspaper. Keep up the good work.
I accept the romanticism. It is what keeps us going in a complex world. I just wanted you to know that having walked in commuter shoes, my rose colored glasses were tinted as well as yours.
thanks, Anon--i tend to live by the radical notion that i can both think critically and have optimistic viewpoint at the same time. if i didn't, i wouldn't be able to put so much volunteer time into research and posting for the blog each day--but when i see people engaging, putting forth ideas and disagreeing congenially in civilized debate, i am inspired to keep going. despite my rose-colored glasses i really appreciate Anon 3:11's post, although i disagree in parts. this is how rich conversations and good debates get going, and good debate is the precursor to positive change, so keep it coming, everybody!
We need economic development in Easton - more jobs. More jobs will bring people to work here and more service businesses. We are all stuck living in a suburban community. We are forced to use our car for everything-going to the market, dry cleaning, hair cuts and all common tasks. Train service to elsewhere is not going to change that. We are still going to have to drive our car just to get a gallon of milk.
Anon 9:06--yes, that's why we also need our storefronts back, which means we need the city to aggressively market deconversion incentives for storefronts that previous administrations and zoning boards allow to be converted into apartments. The WW used to have storefronts on most corners in the neighborhood.
Also the WW used to have 7 trolleys to get around, so that people didn't have to rely on cars so much!
Trolleys
No engine noise.
No fumes.
Wouldn't it be great to have them back.
Reno Pesaresi
I am a little confused about some of the discussion. I have taken the existing line from Somerville to the city.
Plenty of seats. The problem was too many stops.
I think driving further down maybe Newark is a better strategy.
Certainly, A line from Phillipsburg would need to be an express of some kind to be usefull.
Post a Comment