No one has mentioned as an economic benefit the increase in the value of real estate near the stations. Light rail stations are common examples - Portland and Denver come to mind - sometimes called "Transit-Oriented Development". Technically known as and usually referred to by economists as the "exploitation" of land (a poor choice of words, IMHO), it's been the rationale for some rail services from the beginning of anything other than glorified mine tramways, and I anticipate it will also be true for HSR stations. John Kneiling wrote several columns about it. In the current (Nov. 2016) issue of Trains, the article (pp. 46 - 53) on the pending All Aboard Florida's Brightline service has a sidebar at the top right of page 51, captioned as "Miami's Valuable Legacy". From page 48, col. 2: "Florida East Coast Industries estimates over 4 million square feet of transit-oriented development will mushroom around new stations now under construction at Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach." According to the article, FEC and its parent, Fortress Investment Group LLC, are :"putting their money where their mouth is" by doing this project without any public funding or subsidy.
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_JrNo one has mentioned as an economic benefit the increase in the value of real estate near the stations.
I recall reading about Cleveland Union Terminal (CUT) and the fact that trolley lines were built out from the station with the specific goal of stimulating growth along those lines.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 Paul_D_North_Jr No one has mentioned as an economic benefit the increase in the value of real estate near the stations. I recall reading about Cleveland Union Terminal (CUT) and the fact that trolley lines were built out from the station with the specific goal of stimulating growth along those lines.
Paul_D_North_Jr No one has mentioned as an economic benefit the increase in the value of real estate near the stations.
Villa Park, on the C&NW, was primarily a traffic source for the old CA&E to transport workers to the adjoining Ovaltine factory. Two subdivisions in the town were specifically built for workers - Villa Park and Ardmore - were merged. Many locales located on the C&NW Galena division, though started as farm towns, grew as commuter towns and the railroad courted their business with stations designed for their needs.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
It's been nearly done to death in the various AAF threads. Something else that ought to be mentioned is the decrease (perceived and actual) in property values around where the HSR lines will run. Much LGV-style construction involves what might as well be a Chinese wall across neighborhoods and properties, with considerable noise even with the best cost-effective abatement, and little if any marginal utility whatsoever for the communities that are remote from its stations (unlike, for example, the corner of turnpike that goes through Linndale, OH!) but all the poor consequences that would follow a wreck or other accident.
The 'better' example for the benefits 'associated with stations' is probably not Cleveland, even though as the van Sweringen and other examples of development there are good. I would suggest Philadelphia, where excellent neighborhoods have grown up planned around heavy suburban lines, more than places like Connecticut where the "connectivity" to convenient commuter service but availability of large plots and houses makes development of Mr. Blanding's dream house and its emergent neighborhoods (and, today, perhaps, nouveau-McMansion PUDs) an attractive large-scale development opportunity.
I confess that when I studied architecture lo! these many years ago, I was fascinated by the overlap and fusion that would follow something like Roadtown built with a spine of light rapid rail, with a Garden City model for punctate commercial centers (what modern PUD developers like to call 'downtowns'). You'd still have the continuous road and its attractions between centers, and the use of motor vehicles for transportation that PPVs or walking couldn't support, with the distributed centers (and workplaces, etc.) built around the local rail. That's essentially how the suburban northeastern New Jersey neighborhoods I grew up in were structured, but now with the Garden City/Radburn residential neighborhoods carried away from the 'spine' of the transportation corridors, with all the traffic reduction, 'no roads crossed to get to school or other attractions', etc. that urban planners so love.
The key lesson from Philadelphia is that these don't have to be (as the original Roadtown implicitly was) the sort of googie-commercial-strip construction you see along many arterial roads, or the kind of massive white-city offices in splendid isolation you have in, say, Wilmington or Dallas/Ft. Worth. The catch is that coherent design has to be exercised from the earliest stages, the concept has to 'work' even from the first construction phases, and the social institutions that underpin a "city" or "neighborhood" have to be fostered and encouraged along with just the architecture (lest, for example, we institutionalize Seaside on a grand and hideous scale).
JPS1Running an ad on these forums is inappropriate. Just who do you think I should have notified?
This is America. And we aren't the Internet Police.
I don't like posting commercial ads for gain on forum sites. This one was not particularly irritating except for its excessive tone and potentially obsolescent, but leading, 'facts'. I see no harm in permitting it to start a thread, or for discussion of its merits. More to the point, perhaps, I see no harm in discussing the post itself, its rhetoric, its intentions, and its foibles -- or the motives of the OP in putting it up, as long as all this stays railroad-related (which it has).
I also think there is a place for satire and sarcasm in posting, although I do agree it should be limited and that I don't do a particularly good job of restricting my own tendencies in limiting it much of the time. More specifically, I thought the use of the phrase 'running to mommy' with respect to using the yellow-triangle dial-a-mod to be quite amusing in context, and making the point that he intended.
Yes, I think a discussion of potentially over-the-top claims for HSR can be valuable here. Yes, I think we can make fun of someone who thought posting a presentation on a magazine Internet board would advance the likelihood of peddling goods and services to HSR construction. And yes, if someone wants to report a post to the moderators, where's the harm? Let the moderators decide if they want to do something about it; that's their responsibility. What I don't like to see is an evolving pissing contest between posters who don't like how the discourse between themselves is working out -- that isn't something the TOS allows, or should allow.
RME schlimm Not very much is my sense, because if you had, you would have seen the ridership represents a pretty wide socioeconomic range of the population in those countries. This is true. On the other hand, little of the 'socioeconomic range' in those countries, or the demographics of their riders, or the structure of the governments financing the HSR, have any particular relevance to actual practice in the United States, so I suspect the 'coupling with error' may be considerably stronger on your part for advancing such an argument as if it were somehow authoritative. I would like very much to be wrong on all these points. But there has been very little evidence since I started looking at 'technology transfer' from European to American practice in the 1960s that I will be. On the other hand, I think much of your corridor argument (that reasonably-scheduled rail service will appeal to a wide demographic and produce useful social results) is accurate ... just not for much involving actual HSR instead of more modest (say, 110mph max) service.
schlimm Not very much is my sense, because if you had, you would have seen the ridership represents a pretty wide socioeconomic range of the population in those countries.
This is true. On the other hand, little of the 'socioeconomic range' in those countries, or the demographics of their riders, or the structure of the governments financing the HSR, have any particular relevance to actual practice in the United States, so I suspect the 'coupling with error' may be considerably stronger on your part for advancing such an argument as if it were somehow authoritative.
I would like very much to be wrong on all these points. But there has been very little evidence since I started looking at 'technology transfer' from European to American practice in the 1960s that I will be.
On the other hand, I think much of your corridor argument (that reasonably-scheduled rail service will appeal to a wide demographic and produce useful social results) is accurate ... just not for much involving actual HSR instead of more modest (say, 110mph max) service.
Cutting to the chase, I would ask why so to all three paragraphs. What is your basis for stating so authoritatively what appears to be mere opinion. I also notice you did not actually answer my prior questions of you.
JPS1 schlimm JPS1 tree68 Looks more like an ad to me... It looks like an ad to me too, so I flagged it to the moderator. Runing ads on these forums is inappropriate. Everyone should tell the moderator that this is a no no. It is an ad, as was pointed out long ago. One wonders if the topic were something else you'd go running to mommy? The term is moderator! You are the only one who appears to wonder! Your comment is inappropriate. If you don't think that the moderator should have been notified, you could have said so without the sarcastic put down. Running an ad on these forums is inappropriate. Just who do you think I should have notified?
schlimm JPS1 tree68 Looks more like an ad to me... It looks like an ad to me too, so I flagged it to the moderator. Runing ads on these forums is inappropriate. Everyone should tell the moderator that this is a no no. It is an ad, as was pointed out long ago. One wonders if the topic were something else you'd go running to mommy?
JPS1 tree68 Looks more like an ad to me... It looks like an ad to me too, so I flagged it to the moderator. Runing ads on these forums is inappropriate. Everyone should tell the moderator that this is a no no.
tree68 Looks more like an ad to me...
Looks more like an ad to me...
It looks like an ad to me too, so I flagged it to the moderator. Runing ads on these forums is inappropriate. Everyone should tell the moderator that this is a no no.
It is an ad, as was pointed out long ago. One wonders if the topic were something else you'd go running to mommy?
The term is moderator! You are the only one who appears to wonder!
Your comment is inappropriate. If you don't think that the moderator should have been notified, you could have said so without the sarcastic put down.
Running an ad on these forums is inappropriate. Just who do you think I should have notified?
Running an ad is inappropriate. However, everyone recognized that so there was no subterfuge. And it was about rail topics. So in answer, reporting to the moderator was really unnecessary, since the consequence would probably be locking an interesting thread. Sarcasm is not banned, especially when the referent is obvious. Calling it a put down was your personal interpretation, not my intention.
schlimm- Would you feel the same if the ad was for a multilevel marketing company? For better or for worse, I feel like the OP presenting this as something other than just an advertising rah rah rah piece is somewhat cheesy. It’s all the rage now for people to think they can use social media for promoting commercial enterprises. As yet, very few have figured out how to do it without it looking like just old fashioned advertising.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding schlimm- Would you feel the same if the ad was for a multilevel marketing company? For better or for worse, I feel like the OP presenting this as something other than just an advertising rah rah rah piece is somewhat cheesy. It’s all the rage now for people to think they can use social media for promoting commercial enterprises. As yet, very few have figured out how to do it without it looking like just old fashioned advertising.
Unfortunately, thses days most adverising is 'Targeted" to specific groups- By age or interest- If one is outside the Target area...You are left covered in cheese.
Well, as long as the topic is rail-related in a legitimate manner, i.e., NOT advertising a porn site by showing some obscene act on the open, rear platform of an observation car, this sort of ad/post is acceptable, IMO.
It wasn't until the last paragraph, when combined with the poster's screen name, that I took the piece to be any more than an op-ed item.
The rest just seems to be someone's opinion of HSR, garnished with some real or hypothetical facts.
If the OP had used a relatively neutral screen name, and left the last paragraph off, I wouldn't have seen it as an ad.
schlimmCutting to the chase, I would ask why so to all three paragraphs. What is your basis for stating so authoritatively what appears to be mere opinion. I also notice you did not actually answer my prior questions of you.
I have no basis for stating any of these things 'authoritatively' and I apologize for using language that conveyed that. I would argue that it is not 'mere' opinion but relatively well-informed opinion derived from a wide variety of historical sources and evidence, but I don't have either a proper citation list or preferences for you, so won't argue the point further in semantics.
(1) 'socioeconomic range' in, for example, China, would really only be relevant in the United States if we had a range of services comparable to those provided by the rather massive Chinese HSR project, with only the alternative modes of transport provided there, cost incentives, etc. I think even you will agree that financing such a thing here is far beyond even Chinese ability or will. Instead, I chose to look -- I think, realistically -- at the actual range of socioeconomic classes that would be riding HSR projects (and by this, again, I mean "HSR" by generally-accepted speeds, which really start around 150mph and not 125mph) in the United States.
As noted, I'd be delighted to see a wider mix of people using HSR once it has been built. And, in a sense, that was what your comment reflected (at least with regard to China) but I still fail to see the relevance when discussing how to pay for the initial buildout of hypothesizing that some similar range of socioeconomic participation will be observed during the early years of the built-out project's operation (where I strongly suspect the fares charged will either be priced out of most socioeconomic classes' range, or be subsidized to the necessarily meaningful extent by governments radically unlike any we have in this country now (with access to the necessary funding and no more attractive alternatives or opportunities for use of that funding).
(2) This really reflected two things: first, that nothing in the true high-speed range has really caught on here other than massively subsidized Northeast Corridor trains, of frankly laughable performance and reliability and not really patronized by too many socioeconomic classes from item 1; and second, that none of the projects to bring European or Asian high-speed trains to American markets in the past have been particularly successful either with respect to necessary trackwork or equipment to run on them, again with specific respect to accommodating a wide range of ridership outside of the well-heeled. (I could, I think, make the further point that no systems have been built even for the rich, and back that up with considerable history back to the Steffee speed survey data from the '60s and all the descriptive articles written about high-speed ground transportation in specialized and engineering publications since that time, but none of that is necessary for the questions you asked me.)
(3) We have often discussed the fact that gains from "HSR" in many of the logical 'corridors' that will support faster rail service do not justify the necessary (and very, very considerable!) extra costs and expenses over slower speeds and other much more simple operating changes. A relevant specific example is (and I can use that verb, I think, without having to qualify it based on my personal engineering credentials or whatever) the example of the British HST as compared to the APT projects. The latter produced only a 25mph improvement in service speed for dramatically higher construction cost, relatively more fragile and greatly more failure-prone design, and a host of other issues (which have been covered, in interesting fashion and often from first-hand experience, on the Advanced Passenger Train Yahoo Group). We have in fact had a recent couple of postings about the HST trains and the application of some of their 'lessons' to American practice, notably AAF service. We have also had some informed and specific discussion, looking at the proposed AAF routes and the existing/planned track improvements, that considered exactly where these trains would actually use their 125mph high speed effectively, as compared to ... well, the 110mph type of service that I mentioned as part of the last paragraph you were asking 'why so' about. If you don't use the high speed meaningfully, or have justifiable and actual promise of using it later (or following resale of the equipment, or within the effective anticipated service life of the trains, etc.) I think, and you'll have a hard time disproving, that a train capable of more efficient operation, or with a lower net cost, but that still provides acceptable point-to-point service time and ride comfort will produce the gains you were positing for HSR. Here in the United States, for the kind of corridors you think Amtrak should be concentrating on, given the kinds of improvement funding Amtrak (or interested private partners, etc.) cares to provide to develop them.
Forums supposedly have standards. They should be enforced, or they are meaningless. I supposed you could call that a form of policing. I see it as upholding the standards.
The moderators have stated on several occasions that they don't have time to monitor the site every minute of every hour of every day. So notifying the forum "cops" is just that. It says take a look. The participants don't have any authority to police the site.
It is a bit like speeding in my neighborhood. If I talk to my council person about it, little is likely to be done to fix the problem. But if many of my neighbors raise the issue, the council person is more likely to listen. That is why I suggested notifying the moderator if you - meaning the participants - believe the post was inappropriate.
Let's suppose that a thread on containers shipped by rail is opened. Would it be OK for the UP, CSX, JB Hunt, Schneider, Warner, Swift, etc., to post what in effect is an ad to the thread?
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Paul_D_North_Jr FEC and its parent, Fortress Investment Group LLC, are :"putting their money where their mouth is" by doing this project without any public funding or subsidy.
FWIW, the article about Brightpoint struck a positive chord with me. Seems like the right way things should be done.
One of the axes I have to grind with the more typical pie-in-the-sky solicitations for public cooperation is that promoters are frequently mum about any financial commitment they are willing to make. Most often coming across as little more than a fishing expedition, flaunting artist renderings and hoping to leverage those into a sizable public commitment, up front. Which once that commitment is made the plans inevitably get scaled back from the spectacular, with the promoter suddenly fiscally aware and hiding behind explanations that the drawings were "just conceptual".
If the tables were turned, and the promoter's speil was something more like "I have secured $600 million that I'm willing to commit, contingent upon the public paying an equivalent amount" ...I'd be far more at ease.
Convicted OneOne of the axes I have to grind with the more typical pie-in-the-sky solicitations for public cooperation is that promoters are frequently mum about any financial commitment they are willing to make.
What usually happens around here is the promoters look for what kind of tax deal they can get, and for how long. Most of the time they get some sort of "payment in lieu of taxes" (PILOT) agreement. They're still paying taxes, but at a fixed rate, instead of facing increasing assessments and increases in municipal budgets.
That, and hitting up the industrial development corporations for some cash to help the process along.
If nobody is willing to cut a tax deal or pony up some cash, these businesses tend to wander on to their next victim...
Larry,
We did pretty much that about 25 years ago. Tried to build a plactics plant in upstate NY. We needed that tax abatement/deferment to get 'over the hump' on startup. Would have employed 50 - 75 people in the Victor area but couldn't get the EDC/IDC people to go along as we weren't "high tech", just trash bags and stretch film. So we tried elsewhere, Ohio and Michigan. We weren't looking for a victim, we were looking for assistance at startup and willing to pay later.
edit: To bring it back to rail, We needed rail for resin - HSR wouldn't have helped.
BOB WITHORNWe weren't looking for a victim, we were looking for assistance at startup and willing to pay later.
Some of these businesses do get going, and keep going. Others seem to disappear as soon as the tax breaks disappear - sometimes still owing money on their IDC loan. It was those to whom the "victim" comment applies.
BOB WITHORN edit: To bring it back to rail, We needed rail for resin - HSR wouldn't have helped.
RME schlimm Cutting to the chase, I would ask why so to all three paragraphs. What is your basis for stating so authoritatively what appears to be mere opinion. I also notice you did not actually answer my prior questions of you. I have no basis for stating any of these things 'authoritatively' and I apologize for using language that conveyed that. I would argue that it is not 'mere' opinion but relatively well-informed opinion derived from a wide variety of historical sources and evidence, but I don't have either a proper citation list or preferences for you, so won't argue the point further in semantics. (1) 'socioeconomic range' in, for example, China, would really only be relevant in the United States if we had a range of services comparable to those provided by the rather massive Chinese HSR project, with only the alternative modes of transport provided there, cost incentives, etc. I think even you will agree that financing such a thing here is far beyond even Chinese ability or will. Instead, I chose to look -- I think, realistically -- at the actual range of socioeconomic classes that would be riding HSR projects (and by this, again, I mean "HSR" by generally-accepted speeds, which really start around 150mph and not 125mph) in the United States. As noted, I'd be delighted to see a wider mix of people using HSR once it has been built. And, in a sense, that was what your comment reflected (at least with regard to China) but I still fail to see the relevance when discussing how to pay for the initial buildout of hypothesizing that some similar range of socioeconomic participation will be observed during the early years of the built-out project's operation (where I strongly suspect the fares charged will either be priced out of most socioeconomic classes' range, or be subsidized to the necessarily meaningful extent by governments radically unlike any we have in this country now (with access to the necessary funding and no more attractive alternatives or opportunities for use of that funding). (2) This really reflected two things: first, that nothing in the true high-speed range has really caught on here other than massively subsidized Northeast Corridor trains, of frankly laughable performance and reliability and not really patronized by too many socioeconomic classes from item 1; and second, that none of the projects to bring European or Asian high-speed trains to American markets in the past have been particularly successful either with respect to necessary trackwork or equipment to run on them, again with specific respect to accommodating a wide range of ridership outside of the well-heeled. (I could, I think, make the further point that no systems have been built even for the rich, and back that up with considerable history back to the Steffee speed survey data from the '60s and all the descriptive articles written about high-speed ground transportation in specialized and engineering publications since that time, but none of that is necessary for the questions you asked me.) (3) We have often discussed the fact that gains from "HSR" in many of the logical 'corridors' that will support faster rail service do not justify the necessary (and very, very considerable!) extra costs and expenses over slower speeds and other much more simple operating changes. A relevant specific example is (and I can use that verb, I think, without having to qualify it based on my personal engineering credentials or whatever) the example of the British HST as compared to the APT projects. The latter produced only a 25mph improvement in service speed for dramatically higher construction cost, relatively more fragile and greatly more failure-prone design, and a host of other issues (which have been covered, in interesting fashion and often from first-hand experience, on the Advanced Passenger Train Yahoo Group). We have in fact had a recent couple of postings about the HST trains and the application of some of their 'lessons' to American practice, notably AAF service. We have also had some informed and specific discussion, looking at the proposed AAF routes and the existing/planned track improvements, that considered exactly where these trains would actually use their 125mph high speed effectively, as compared to ... well, the 110mph type of service that I mentioned as part of the last paragraph you were asking 'why so' about. If you don't use the high speed meaningfully, or have justifiable and actual promise of using it later (or following resale of the equipment, or within the effective anticipated service life of the trains, etc.) I think, and you'll have a hard time disproving, that a train capable of more efficient operation, or with a lower net cost, but that still provides acceptable point-to-point service time and ride comfort will produce the gains you were positing for HSR. Here in the United States, for the kind of corridors you think Amtrak should be concentrating on, given the kinds of improvement funding Amtrak (or interested private partners, etc.) cares to provide to develop them.
schlimm Cutting to the chase, I would ask why so to all three paragraphs. What is your basis for stating so authoritatively what appears to be mere opinion. I also notice you did not actually answer my prior questions of you.
1. You chose China HSR. A more similar situation would be Euroipe, where HSR has been enjoyed by many millions for decades.
2. Not sure what your point is. Acela is something less than true HSR, yet its revenue exceeds operational expenses by a large margin. I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe infrastructure costs don't need governmental help. Personally, I believe it could/should be done with tax-exempt bonds as states and municiplities and school districts do routinely.
3. Again, you chose a failed attempt at HSR (poor equipment design) in the UK, when there are several generations of very successful HSRs on the continent. It's lanalogous to pointing out the many examples of shoddy electrics (Lucas, as in Lemons?) in numerous British cars of the past as an indictment of all foreign autos when Japan and Germany have made reliable autos for years.
N.B.: I do not HRSR/HSR discussions need be limited to Amtrak, as the progress being made in the US is outside Amtrak control.
N.B.2: Incrementalism is better than nothing. 150mph is a more realistic goal than 200mph, IMO. Checking speeds on many ICEs on DB over the years, I've observed 250kmh/155mph maximum far more than 280kmh/174mph and it works fine. SNCF TGVs tend to be faster because of more dedicated HSR RoWs.
JPS1, so I flagged it to the moderator
Ever stop to consider that as the original poster's first post, the thread had to clear moderator review just to make it up on the board? (that "probationary" thingie)
I applaud the moderators for permitting this thread to continue in spite of your complaint. Really tired of just a few squeaky wheels trying to decide what the rest of us are allowed to discuss
[quote user="tree68"]
BOB WITHORN We weren't looking for a victim, we were looking for assistance at startup and willing to pay later.
Understood, wasn't defending, just referencing an experience. I agree with you on this. We were just one of those that tried to follow the rules but didn't offer enough "bling" for the 'officials' I guess.
Bob
Convicted One JPS1 , so I flagged it to the moderator JPS1 , so I flagged it to the moderator Ever stop to consider that as the original poster's first post, the thread had to clear moderator review just to make it up on the board? (that "probationary" thingie) I applaud the moderators for permitting this thread to continue in spite of your complaint. Really tired of just a few squeaky wheels trying to decide what the rest of us are allowed to discuss
JPS1 , so I flagged it to the moderator
I noticed the OP had a blue background on the left pane, the Mods have green
AGICO has engaged in producing rail fasteners for more than 50 years, we have professional team for developing and manufacturing rail fasteners such as rail joint, rail clip, rail fastening system, rail spike, rail tie plate, rail pad, rail clamp, rail nut, etc. We have our own quality inspection center and a full set of inspecting facilities for rail fastener before shipment to our clients.
Naturally on this forum, some members are more interested in who posted or in acting as junior moderators rather than examining any aspects of the content of the post. The post was obviously by a commercial rail equioment supplier. Most of us knew that at once. But here again is Bucky, now posting the OP's website description. Really useful, but who knows, maybe he'll start another obsessive argument with himself, this time about a Chinese conspiracy?
The original LGV (TGV line) was a rational solution to a problem. The existing main line from Paris to the south of France was posing a capacity constraint and a new line was needed anyway. The distances between the major population centres was optimal for high speed trains. The country through which the LGV was routed was largely sparsely populated but very hilly. By designing the line for the exclusive use of light trains with high installed power grades up to 4% could be tolerated.
The rational for the earlier Shinkansen in Japan was also based on objective capacity needs.
Many more recent HSR schemes, however, seem to be "politicians' projects", (covertly) designed to provide a politician with a lasting monument to himself /herself. A good example is the HS2 in England. This will link London and Birmingham, around 100 miles apart. The country between these places has many towns and villages, which means that there is considerable opposition to the scheme. Extensive tunnelling will be needed (expensive, and tunnels and very high speeds don't go well together for aerodynamic reasons). The maximum speed needed to achieve the rather modest journey time savings proposed is 225 mph. If capacity is the problem, HS2 is like trying to use a supersonic airliner to do the job of a Jumbo Jet.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.