I did not mean to challange the accounting and fiscal responsibility defnition of "paid for itself." I merely wished to interpret what was alleged in the article.
Regading Obama's forcing US citizens to pay for something "they do not want:"
I am not certain about these possibilities, but they are possiblities:
1. Do nothing. Airport and sky congestion becomes acute, airline ticket prices climb sky high, and flying becomes even more of a cattle-car experience. Driving always involved meeting some congestion along the way, and trip planning had best note it. Finally, with such massive increases in real costs, it looks like some high speed rail may even make it financially according to economics and not just social engineering. But increase suffering will be certain to result from the delay in getting these then economically justified systems on line.
2. Have a vision for the future and tax people to avoid a lowering of living standards in the future. But be careful to look at all costs and try to place real costs on an economic basis for the delays and congestion that would result from doing nothing.
Which is your choice?
Well-stated. To hear the resident naysayers on this forum, doing nothing costs us nothing and the status quo is just fine and will stay that way without any additional government costs. Seems unlikely to me.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Related blog: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/07/11/for-french-high-speed-rail-a-lower-cost-future-pondered/
TGV currently losing money now that they have to pay the "owner" of the ROW. Changes to include jamming more seats in and cutting some fares to compete with low cost air. (Sound familiar?)
Not sure where they are going to get the money for new equipment and routes.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Good article. Hardly an indication that HSR would be undesirable, but just to the contrary.
daveklepper I did not mean to challange the accounting and fiscal responsibility defnition of "paid for itself." I merely wished to interpret what was alleged in the article. Regading Obama's forcing US citizens to pay for something "they do not want:" I am not certain about these possibilities, but they are possiblities: 1. Do nothing. Airport and sky congestion becomes acute, airline ticket prices climb sky high, and flying becomes even more of a cattle-car experience. Driving always involved meeting some congestion along the way, and trip planning had best note it. Finally, with such massive increases in real costs, it looks like some high speed rail may even make it financially according to economics and not just social engineering. But increase suffering will be certain to result from the delay in getting these then economically justified systems on line. 2. Have a vision for the future and tax people to avoid a lowering of living standards in the future. But be careful to look at all costs and try to place real costs on an economic basis for the delays and congestion that would result from doing nothing. Which is your choice?
I like trains. I really do, and I think they are really, really cool.
But I have been in and out of and around passenger train advocacy since the late 1960's. Back then "we" were predicting that the sky was falling and that in the absence of new trains we would reach complete transportation gridlock. Hasn't happened. Do we adapt our advocacy position in consideration of the historical record? Do we examine closely why our dire predictions in 1969 did not come true, or do we maintain a "rolling horizon" on dire predictions as we will hit "limits to growth" at some point and we have to be right on this -- eventually.
What changed between then and now? Cars had gotten a lot more fuel efficient owing to, yes, government intervention, although we slacked off for a while with big SUV's when gas got cheap again, and it looks to be that cars are back on the path to getting more fuel efficient.
Road building has come to a near BANANA-NIMBY standstill. Cars have gotten a lot better brakes, and motorists have gotten accustomed to driving at road speed at much short separations before traffic clogs up. The highway death rate has declined slightly in the face of a doubling of the vehicle miles travelled.
Airliners have gotten somewhat more fuel efficient, but airline operations have gotten much more fuel efficient owing to airlines cramming in more seats and using essentially a computer fare-auction system to pack people into these seats. Air traffic control has adopted the common-sense procedure of "ground holds", which are as much fun as sitting in a siding waiting for a parade of Union Pacific freights to go by, but you hardly ever are "stacked up" and circling waiting to land. But airliners have gotten a lot bigger, so there is more capacity in the air traffic system. Airline operations have gotten much safer -- not completely safe, but think back to the accident rate back 40-50 years ago. One of the common-sense changes is airliners simply do not fly into thunderstorms -- they wait on the ground or go the long way around. Back in the day, they indeed flew through thunderstorms and sometimes suffered dire consequences.
What kind of changes to autos and airliners can we expect under the "do nothing" scenario, which means "do nothing about HSR" but do a lot of things with autos and airlines. Again, there is a lot of room for improvement for auto gas mileage and some room for improvement with airline fuel economy. We will probably "ease into" some kind of automated highway -- there are already luxury cars with computer vision that can spot lane markings and hold lane position and maintain safe following distances from other cars. There is a lot one can do with improved navigation systems to increase the traffic capacity of the airways.
I think we should have a discussion and debate as to whether HSR or other forms of trains are a more cost-effective or more desirable alternative to the many things we will do with cars and planes under the "do nothing" scenario. But this talk of "suffering" and "lowering living standards" -- we have been talking that way for years and years without meaningfully changing the minds of people apart from the narrow circle of ourselves within the advocacy community.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Saw this on the "Observation Car" blog. Obviously the French are squirming around a lot on the financial side after a privatization of sorts. This confirms a lot of what Sam1 is saying. Consider what would happen if our (US) highways were run the same way?
Apparently, the effort to get $4 billion for HSR failed in committee; and instead, the money will be diverted to highways where I'm sure there will be a profit shown. Same-o, same-o.
Paul Milenkovicdaveklepper I did not mean to challange the accounting and fiscal responsibility defnition of "paid for itself." I merely wished to interpret what was alleged in the article. Regading Obama's forcing US citizens to pay for something "they do not want:" I am not certain about these possibilities, but they are possiblities: 1. Do nothing. Airport and sky congestion becomes acute, airline ticket prices climb sky high, and flying becomes even more of a cattle-car experience. Driving always involved meeting some congestion along the way, and trip planning had best note it. Finally, with such massive increases in real costs, it looks like some high speed rail may even make it financially according to economics and not just social engineering. But increase suffering will be certain to result from the delay in getting these then economically justified systems on line. 2. Have a vision for the future and tax people to avoid a lowering of living standards in the future. But be careful to look at all costs and try to place real costs on an economic basis for the delays and congestion that would result from doing nothing. Which is your choice? I like trains. I really do, and I think they are really, really cool. But I have been in and out of and around passenger train advocacy since the late 1960's. Back then "we" were predicting that the sky was falling and that in the absence of new trains we would reach complete transportation gridlock. Hasn't happened. Do we adapt our advocacy position in consideration of the historical record? Do we examine closely why our dire predictions in 1969 did not come true, or do we maintain a "rolling horizon" on dire predictions as we will hit "limits to growth" at some point and we have to be right on this -- eventually. What changed between then and now? Cars had gotten a lot more fuel efficient owing to, yes, government intervention, although we slacked off for a while with big SUV's when gas got cheap again, and it looks to be that cars are back on the path to getting more fuel efficient. Road building has come to a near BANANA-NIMBY standstill. Cars have gotten a lot better brakes, and motorists have gotten accustomed to driving at road speed at much short separations before traffic clogs up. The highway death rate has declined slightly in the face of a doubling of the vehicle miles travelled. Airliners have gotten somewhat more fuel efficient, but airline operations have gotten much more fuel efficient owing to airlines cramming in more seats and using essentially a computer fare-auction system to pack people into these seats. Air traffic control has adopted the common-sense procedure of "ground holds", which are as much fun as sitting in a siding waiting for a parade of Union Pacific freights to go by, but you hardly ever are "stacked up" and circling waiting to land. But airliners have gotten a lot bigger, so there is more capacity in the air traffic system. Airline operations have gotten much safer -- not completely safe, but think back to the accident rate back 40-50 years ago. One of the common-sense changes is airliners simply do not fly into thunderstorms -- they wait on the ground or go the long way around. Back in the day, they indeed flew through thunderstorms and sometimes suffered dire consequences. What kind of changes to autos and airliners can we expect under the "do nothing" scenario, which means "do nothing about HSR" but do a lot of things with autos and airlines. Again, there is a lot of room for improvement for auto gas mileage and some room for improvement with airline fuel economy. We will probably "ease into" some kind of automated highway -- there are already luxury cars with computer vision that can spot lane markings and hold lane position and maintain safe following distances from other cars. There is a lot one can do with improved navigation systems to increase the traffic capacity of the airways. I think we should have a discussion and debate as to whether HSR or other forms of trains are a more cost-effective or more desirable alternative to the many things we will do with cars and planes under the "do nothing" scenario. But this talk of "suffering" and "lowering living standards" -- we have been talking that way for years and years without meaningfully changing the minds of people apart from the narrow circle of ourselves within the advocacy community.
You could take steps to reduce urban commuter traffic on the interstate highways, and just tweak the capacity constrained links. Build commuter rail, BRT, subsidize carpools, etc, etc.
You could take steps to convert truck traffic to rail, freeing up a lot of rural and a good bit of urban highway capacity for autos.
You could entice a more urban lifestyle by making parking expensive and transit cheap
You can pick some from column A and some from column B, depending on the particulars.
It most certainly isn't "HSR or death".
HarveyK400Saw this on the "Observation Car" blog. Obviously the French are squirming around a lot on the financial side after a privatization of sorts. This confirms a lot of what Sam1 is saying. Consider what would happen if our (US) highways were run the same way? Apparently, the effort to get $4 billion for HSR failed in committee; and instead, the money will be diverted to highways where I'm sure there will be a profit shown. Same-o, same-o.
And the same is true with LRT, commuter MSR and HSR: nearby land values skyrocket with a lot less land lost to highway ROW.
schlimm And the same is true with LRT, commuter MSR and HSR: nearby land values skyrocket with a lot less land lost to highway ROW.
That the "land values skyrocket" is a reason why I don't and in fact, cannot, live in proximity to commuter rail on the money I make in my line of work. When I was growing up, I lived here
which is about three blocks walk from Metra (old C&NW) North Line at the Glencoe Station. There is no way that I could ever live there or anywhere near there. I live far from my native Chicago in a "college town", five miles from work, to which I carpool but have the option of taking a bus.
So I guess subsidy for commuter rail is subsidy for wealth people. People of means value the commuter rail that much that the price of that real estate has been bid up beyond my parents imagining when they sold the place when my dad changed jobs. But those same people are not paying the full amount for what they value in that many people remote from the commuter rail are cross subsidizing it by paying tax to the RTA.
Sam1 had made the same remark about the French TGV serving the "power elite" with yes, a very convenient form of transportation for the uses it serves, supported by the general tax base.
Is this "corporate welfare"? "Welfare for the rich"? Yes, maybe so, and perhaps the economy development of the greater good requires some of this, a form of reverse "trickle-down economics."
Paul: Are you honestly saying you could not afford to live along any of the Metra lines in greater Chicago? The North Shore (where you grew up) has always been the home of the elite, but not all the other lines.
schlimm Paul: Are you honestly saying you could not afford to live along any of the Metra lines in greater Chicago? The North Shore (where you grew up) has always been the home of the elite, but not all the other lines.
Yes, honestly. Yes, the North Shore has always (like I lived there, and someone has to underline the word "always" otherwise I would not "get it") been "home of the elite." Where we lived, at the time and in relative terms, was the "po' part of town." Two of our neighbors were Village police officers, and although police are paid some semblance of a living wage, such was never considered the wealthy elite. At least it was the poor part of town then -- nowadays, fuggetaboutit.
When I was a wee tot we lived in Park Ridge. I don't think I could afford that either. One of my dad's long-time colleagues lived in Clarendon Hills -- I believe that is along the old Burlington 3-track "speedway" main line. I don't think so.
My dad worked as a research engineer, and I am pretty much in the same line of work. He was an immigrant who started out living and working within the Chicago city limits. He moved out to the 'burbs, not because he wanted to live "out there" and commute into the downtown. Rather, it was his job that moved out of the city and he moved into the suburbs to be closer to work. When we lived in walking distance to commuter rail, he never used it to get to work. I was the one person in the household who used commuter rail for 1) a downtown summer job, and 2) commuting to college.
Dad told me his peak take-home earnings adjusted for inflation happened in the late 1950's, early 1960's. Perhaps our ability to move to the home of the elite in 1970 was the result of saving those earnings. He remarked that since then his "real earnings" declined owing to increases in taxes and to inflation. He sold the North Shore house in 1977 when he changed jobs in the teeth of an economic recession and did not come out ahead, missing out on the skyrocketing land values in the times since then.
It is hard to make direct comparisons, but I believe I make a lot less than my dad in more or less the same line of work at the same age. Guys I went to school with and other engineers I have interacted with may have made a lot more money in the Chicago area. I am still working and these guys have "taken" age-50 early retirement.
I was once a railroad-commuting car-skeptical urban-living true believer. These days the automobile is my friend, allowing me to work far beyond the big city with its commuter trains and live reasonably close to where I work.
During the time we lived on the North Shore, my car-commuting poppa was involved in whatever research program was going on in the U.S. on HSR. One of his technical contributions was the constant-velocity coupling for the roller test rig for the US DOT test facility in Pueblo, Colorado. The big challenge for the coupling is that folks were serious about HSR and the test rig was spec'ed for 300 MPH operation. And for 50-ton axle load. And for both conditions at the same time (that's the gummint for yah).
Young son was a true HSR believer. I used to argue with Pop, "We need a second Interstate Network, only this one needs to be high-speed electrified rail!" Pop actually did the engineering studies on this stuff but was a little more skeptical.
When the family moved to Detroit in 1977, there was a lot of shuttling back between Chicago and Detroit for a while. We had the commuter railroad connection at one end to Northwestern Station (now Ogilvie Center), a walk to Union Station to take Amtrak to Ann Arbor, and then you had to leave a car at the train station as Detroit famously lacks any kind of commuter train or even suburban bus network. Amtrak offered excellent service with brand new Turboliners and later Amfleet coaches. But we got out of the habit because driving straight through took a couple hours off the trip.
Yes, honestly.
schlimm After reading the comments here and then the article, I almost would not have realized they were connected. For the usual naysayers, TGV is seen as a failure and clear evidence of why not to attempt something along those lines here. The fact that the French capital investment has been more than recovered is seen as not good enough. By way of contrast, I wonder what the time line has been on capital recovery for the Interstate Highway System or major air transport infrastructures here?
After reading the comments here and then the article, I almost would not have realized they were connected. For the usual naysayers, TGV is seen as a failure and clear evidence of why not to attempt something along those lines here. The fact that the French capital investment has been more than recovered is seen as not good enough. By way of contrast, I wonder what the time line has been on capital recovery for the Interstate Highway System or major air transport infrastructures here?
The capital investment hasn't been recovered. Please quit saying it was. They recovered the investment (at best) on one route, not the TGV system. It's a financial disaster. (As the high speed passenger trains are in China.) That's reality, live with it.
As to the US Interstate System, although we can't now imagine life without it, it should have been funded with tolls (AKA user fees). It was a mistake. People can't avoid mistakes, but they should learn from them, not repeat them. If the folks using HSR won't pay the full cost of HSR then it shouldn't be built. And there is very little indication that people will pay the full cost of HSR to use it.
schlimmAnd the same is true with LRT, commuter MSR and HSR: nearby land values skyrocket with a lot less land lost to highway ROW.
greyhoundsschlimm After reading the comments here and then the article, I almost would not have realized they were connected. For the usual naysayers, TGV is seen as a failure and clear evidence of why not to attempt something along those lines here. The fact that the French capital investment has been more than recovered is seen as not good enough. By way of contrast, I wonder what the time line has been on capital recovery for the Interstate Highway System or major air transport infrastructures here? The capital investment hasn't been recovered. Please quit saying it was. They recovered the investment (at best) on one route, not the TGV system. It's a financial disaster. (As the high speed passenger trains are in China.) That's reality, live with it. As to the US Interstate System, although we can't now imagine life without it, it should have been funded with tolls (AKA user fees). It was a mistake. People can't avoid mistakes, but they should learn from them, not repeat them. If the folks using HSR won't pay the full cost of HSR then it shouldn't be built. And there is very little indication that people will pay the full cost of HSR to use it.
To date, there has not been any long term, unregulated, "passenger only" transportation network built and operated that covers all it's costs. Perhaps an airline or two for a short period, or an isolated bridge or toll road here and there. So, what to do?
You can try to bright lines around things to isolate costs and expenses to get the best bang for the buck, but that's not always so easy to do. For example, Atlanta's airport serves a huge number of customers. Let's assume that the airlines serving Atlanta cover their costs and contribute enough to cover the costs of the airport's construction and operations - this is at least mostly true at the moment. However, passenger trips don't start or end at the airport. Most people get their by driving or MARTA. The urban highway network in Atlanta is a huge money loser as is MARTA. The subsidies to these lower the overall trip cost for fliers and increase demand for air travel. Some non-fliers are paying taxes to support airport access for the fliers. In this case, it's hard to draw bright lines around each mode with a revenue source to match. However, the overall economic benefit of the airport to Atlanta and the state pretty much swamp these concerns, so there's been no push to try to untangle the subsidies. We seem to like it this way.
I'm of a mind that the incremental approach toward higher speed passenger rail in the US is a reasonable way forward. Not too much risk. Good chance of winding up on the good side of cost - benefit analysis.
It would be easy to get a large comprehensive HSR network built in this country. All that would be required is for the companies that would be hired to build it to donate large amounts of money to the two largest political parties, like the defense industries do.
Think of it like tithing.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe VetThink of it like tithing.
Paul Milenkovicschlimm And the same is true with LRT, commuter MSR and HSR: nearby land values skyrocket with a lot less land lost to highway ROW. That the "land values skyrocket" is a reason why I don't and in fact, cannot, live in proximity to commuter rail on the money I make in my line of work. When I was growing up, I lived here which is about three blocks walk from Metra (old C&NW) North Line at the Glencoe Station. There is no way that I could ever live there or anywhere near there. I live far from my native Chicago in a "college town", five miles from work, to which I carpool but have the option of taking a bus. So I guess subsidy for commuter rail is subsidy for wealth people. People of means value the commuter rail that much that the price of that real estate has been bid up beyond my parents imagining when they sold the place when my dad changed jobs. But those same people are not paying the full amount for what they value in that many people remote from the commuter rail are cross subsidizing it by paying tax to the RTA. Sam1 had made the same remark about the French TGV serving the "power elite" with yes, a very convenient form of transportation for the uses it serves, supported by the general tax base. Is this "corporate welfare"? "Welfare for the rich"? Yes, maybe so, and perhaps the economy development of the greater good requires some of this, a form of reverse "trickle-down economics."
I'm probably two days late; but I just have to say neither Metra (UPN) or HSR are exclusively for wealthy people. There is a fairly wide range of income on both suburban and high speed rail. What's true is that while not representative of the total population for a region, rail passengers may be fairly close to the average income for employed people who commute to work. I think one thing the TGV has provided in contrast to Acela is a more aggressive marketing and capture of non-business, fare-sensitive, egalitarian travel.
HarveyK400 Paul Milenkovic schlimm And the same is true with LRT, commuter MSR and HSR: nearby land values skyrocket with a lot less land lost to highway ROW. That the "land values skyrocket" is a reason why I don't and in fact, cannot, live in proximity to commuter rail on the money I make in my line of work. When I was growing up, I lived here which is about three blocks walk from Metra (old C&NW) North Line at the Glencoe Station. There is no way that I could ever live there or anywhere near there. I live far from my native Chicago in a "college town", five miles from work, to which I carpool but have the option of taking a bus. So I guess subsidy for commuter rail is subsidy for wealth people. People of means value the commuter rail that much that the price of that real estate has been bid up beyond my parents imagining when they sold the place when my dad changed jobs. But those same people are not paying the full amount for what they value in that many people remote from the commuter rail are cross subsidizing it by paying tax to the RTA. Sam1 had made the same remark about the French TGV serving the "power elite" with yes, a very convenient form of transportation for the uses it serves, supported by the general tax base. Is this "corporate welfare"? "Welfare for the rich"? Yes, maybe so, and perhaps the economy development of the greater good requires some of this, a form of reverse "trickle-down economics." I'm probably two days late; but I just have to say neither Metra (UPN) or HSR are exclusively for wealthy people. There is a fairly wide range of income on both suburban and high speed rail. What's true is that while not representative of the total population for a region, rail passengers may be fairly close to the average income for employed people who commute to work. I think one thing the TGV has provided in contrast to Acela is a more aggressive marketing and capture of non-business, fare-sensitive, egalitarian travel.
Paul Milenkovic schlimm And the same is true with LRT, commuter MSR and HSR: nearby land values skyrocket with a lot less land lost to highway ROW. That the "land values skyrocket" is a reason why I don't and in fact, cannot, live in proximity to commuter rail on the money I make in my line of work. When I was growing up, I lived here which is about three blocks walk from Metra (old C&NW) North Line at the Glencoe Station. There is no way that I could ever live there or anywhere near there. I live far from my native Chicago in a "college town", five miles from work, to which I carpool but have the option of taking a bus. So I guess subsidy for commuter rail is subsidy for wealth people. People of means value the commuter rail that much that the price of that real estate has been bid up beyond my parents imagining when they sold the place when my dad changed jobs. But those same people are not paying the full amount for what they value in that many people remote from the commuter rail are cross subsidizing it by paying tax to the RTA. Sam1 had made the same remark about the French TGV serving the "power elite" with yes, a very convenient form of transportation for the uses it serves, supported by the general tax base. Is this "corporate welfare"? "Welfare for the rich"? Yes, maybe so, and perhaps the economy development of the greater good requires some of this, a form of reverse "trickle-down economics."
You know, that is the thing with some discussions, there is such a high level of exaggeration, and I guess do the same thing.
I was responding to a remark that commuter rail has an intrinsic value in that having it causes "land values to skyrocket." That in itself is metaphorical and bombastic. What does "skyrocket" mean anyway? Is this claim even open for discussion, perhaps making a counterclaim that the land values only "pressurized-water soda-bottle rocket" instead of "solid propellant-charge skyrocket"?
In response to the claim of skyrocketing land values, I responded with nostalgia and wistfulness that I would not be able to afford to live where I grew up, in walking distance to commuter rail, having pretty much the same education credentials and career as my father and degree of work experience at the time we lived there.
There are two things I take away from this life experience. I started out being rabidly pro-passenger train and anti-automobile, but the flexibility the automobile has given me to have secure employment, a nice place to live, and a reasonable commute time has shifted my perspective on things. Even in my dad's time, the family started out in the city and moved out of the suburbs to be closer to the job -- this is the kind of living and work arrangement that could be served by bus but would be a stretch for rail-based commuting.
The second thing is that if we are subsidizing commuter rail, but people are getting their money's worth for their tax dollar by having their land values skyrocket, perhaps we need a different system of finance for commuter (or HSR)?
Say, why don't we simply increase fares? It is kind of like all of these sales taxes increments to pay for sports stadiums. Why don't we just raise ticket prices? And yes, they probably still have the bleachers seats at Wrigley Field and so it is not just wealthy people who go to sporting events, but it is widely known that these new sports stadium projects are driven by providing "sky boxes", luxury seating for the very wealthy and for corporate entertaining that is said the grease the wheels of commerce, and the rationale for subsidizing the wealthy in this manner is "all of the money that game day brings into the community."
So if we don't raise fares, why don't we simply raise property tax rates, and raise them with special assessments, say, based on proximity to the stations? Suppose you didn't use the commuter rail, then sell your house with skyrocketed value to someone who places a higher value on the commuter rail. Maybe such a system would be closer to the gas-tax "user fee" concept that the highway people like to fall back on as somehow being a more "free market" way to finance roads?
In the end, my assertions and reasoning (and nostalgic wistfulness -- a good part of the railfan experience is nostalgic wistfulness, and it seems the authenticity of my wistful emotions is something open to dispute) agreeing that "land values skyrocket" is being challenged.
So, do we have a consensus that commuter rail does not cause land values to skyrocket any more than the general economy for a particular metro area, that the folks who have more convenient access to the Chicago Expressways have pretty much the same real estate values, all other things being equal, than the folks in walking distance to commuter rail?
Perhaps skyrocket is too strong, but land values in suburbs well-served by Metra are higher than towns off-line. I believe that has occurred in other places like Atlanta and Charlotte. It makes no sense to place a disincentive on the use of commuter rail + bus as opposed to building more expressway and highway capacity.
Paul MilenkovicSo, do we have a consensus that commuter rail does not cause land values to skyrocket any more than the general economy for a particular metro area, that the folks who have more convenient access to the Chicago Expressways have pretty much the same real estate values, all other things being equal, than the folks in walking distance to commuter rail?
The value of land for economic development of any type is directly related to the availability of transport - of all types (and other factors, too)! The manner and method of the development may be different, but the costs and benefits are tangled and those who reap may not be those who sow - depending on how you draw your control boundaries.
Paul Milenkovic So, do we have a consensus that commuter rail does not cause land values to skyrocket any more than the general economy for a particular metro area, that the folks who have more convenient access to the Chicago Expressways have pretty much the same real estate values, all other things being equal, than the folks in walking distance to commuter rail?
No consensus here. The area that our relatively new light rail goes through was in decline with express bus routes along a 4 lane road and a 6 lane interstate highway that parallel the rail path. Since the light rail line opened, it has seen a very significant growth with condo and mixed use development going on at almost every stop. High rise towers are going up at the stops closest to city center.
Time out!!!
...do we have a consensus that commuter rail does not cause land values to skyrocket (instead, let's say increase) any more than the general economy for a particular metro area...
...land values in suburbs well-served by Metra are higher than towns off-line...
Here's a post from a local website:
Metra parking in Glenview, Wilmette
Resume!
Paul Milenkovic.... The second thing is that if we are subsidizing commuter rail, but people are getting their money's worth for their tax dollar by having their land values skyrocket, perhaps we need a different system of finance for commuter (or HSR)? Say, why don't we simply increase fares? It is kind of like all of these sales taxes increments to pay for sports stadiums. Why don't we just raise ticket prices? And yes, they probably still have the bleachers seats at Wrigley Field and so it is not just wealthy people who go to sporting events, but it is widely known that these new sports stadium projects are driven by providing "sky boxes", luxury seating for the very wealthy and for corporate entertaining that is said the grease the wheels of commerce, and the rationale for subsidizing the wealthy in this manner is "all of the money that game day brings into the community." So if we don't raise fares, why don't we simply raise property tax rates, and raise them with special assessments, say, based on proximity to the stations? Suppose you didn't use the commuter rail, then sell your house with skyrocketed value to someone who places a higher value on the commuter rail. Maybe such a system would be closer to the gas-tax "user fee" concept that the highway people like to fall back on as somehow being a more "free market" way to finance roads? In the end, my assertions and reasoning (and nostalgic wistfulness -- a good part of the railfan experience is nostalgic wistfulness, and it seems the authenticity of my wistful emotions is something open to dispute) agreeing that "land values skyrocket" is being challenged. So, do we have a consensus that commuter rail does not cause land values to skyrocket any more than the general economy for a particular metro area, that the folks who have more convenient access to the Chicago Expressways have pretty much the same real estate values, all other things being equal, than the folks in walking distance to commuter rail?
....
Actually, the relationship between rail transit, suburban, hrt, and lrt but not bus, and land value has been documented and can be between 10-20%, the highest within 3/8-mile of the station. I for one would not characterize this as sky-rocketing. The Center for Neighborhood Technology in Chicago either did or have a part in the study 10-15 years ago. I'm sorry to be so foggy on the details.
A small group of us in Chicago are pretty much agreed that property taxes need to be a larger component in the tax structure, especially for transportation. We gathered out of concern for the recurring CTA "doomsday budget" scenario and inadequacy of funding strategies, particularly the reliance on a regressive sales tax. Even without a special tax assessment, the increased value of property would be captured in an acquisition-based assessment on sale price. The one area of disagreement is whether this should be based solely on the underlying value of the land (Henry George school) or include improvements.
The whole issue of taxation would deserve its own thread; and transportation is only a small part of it. Needless to say, many political special interests could be involved without campaign reform and abolition of corporate personhood as allowed in the Citizens United case.
Phoebe VetPaul Milenkovic So, do we have a consensus that commuter rail does not cause land values to skyrocket any more than the general economy for a particular metro area, that the folks who have more convenient access to the Chicago Expressways have pretty much the same real estate values, all other things being equal, than the folks in walking distance to commuter rail? No consensus here. The area that our relatively new light rail goes through was in decline with express bus routes along a 4 lane road and a 6 lane interstate highway that parallel the rail path. Since the light rail line opened, it has seen a very significant growth with condo and mixed use development going on at almost every stop. High rise towers are going up at the stops closest to city center.
jclassTime out!!! ...do we have a consensus that commuter rail does not cause land values to skyrocket (instead, let's say increase) any more than the general economy for a particular metro area... ...land values in suburbs well-served by Metra are higher than towns off-line... Here's a post from a local website: Metra parking in Glenview, Wilmette My wife and I both work in the loop. We have two girls who will be 4 and 1 this summer. We are looking to buy a house around 450K in places with good schools and not-so-hard commute.Could any one please tell me the commuter parking situation in Glenview and Wilmette? It seems to me in Wilmette it's all metered parking. What time in the morning it would be filled up? and how long is the waiting list for parking permit in Glenview?I am also looking at naperville. The express train runs actually faster here than either wilmette or glenview. But there's no hope in getting parking permit. but it seems to me that I can get house under 400k within 1mile of the station. I am thinking of biking to the station, at least in summer time. Maybe hard when it snows. thank you! Resume!
First, I am not in agreement that land value is so homogeneous, even in the same community and school district. I may have posted after you.
Second, the person might want to consider the west side of Wilmette with only a couple miles difference to Glenview as an alternative (pay the zone upgrade with occasional use). Based on more reliable weekday morning schedules, Wilmette (:23-:34) takes little longer than Naperville expresses (:33). However, Naperville takes significantly longer in the off peak; and of course, the zone fare is much higher and so is the Du Page County contribution toward that trip. Given the parking cost at Ravinia Park, the UPN might be a viable option from Wilmette.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.