There's a yin and yang to the valuable retail space angle, related to a rising tide lifts all boats. If the train station and necessary nearby yard facilities, especially for terminals, are in a location that draws lots of passengers, and has a demand for retail space, then the train station's real estate price probably also goes up.
If the demand for that real estate for non-rail purposes gets too high then there's a temptation to get rid of the train station, or reduce the amount devoted to trains, increase the amount devoted to retail or non-rail purposes, or relocate it somewhere else. We've got lots of examples, Miami comes rather quickly to mind. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Richmond Va, St Lois, Atlanta, except in those cases detour and backup moves might also have contributed or at least made excuses for the relocation.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
I disagree. I believe the train stations were moved because of the decline of passenger service. THAT is what made the property too valuable to just sit there idle. The old stations were pretty much abandoned. I have stood in that beautiful station in Richmond, after arriving in town at the Staples Mills Amtrak station that looks more like a Greyound facility. The original station is on a main road, the tracks are still there, and Amtrak runs a few hundred yards behind it. If passenger service improved, it would be very easy to put that station back into service.
This is the new Multimodal Station being designed in Charlotte. It will be served by Amtrak, CATS Purple Line commuter rail, Greyhound, CATS Trolley and CATS Buses.
It is in city center, fronting on one of the two main streets that cross at the center of the city, and is just a couple of blocks from Bank of America Stadium where the Carolina Panthers play.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
I think you are both right. The decline of passenger service plus the need to sell real estate to keep the boat afloat led to the relocation of passenger stations. Often it was combined with some route rationalization - abandoning passenger-only routes through cities such as Jacksonville, Albany NY, Savannah, Charlston, and Cleveland.
I'd guess that route rationalization had more to do with it than auctioning off real estate. Most of this activity took place in the 1960s and the locations it took place were generally in decline w/o much new construction causing much demand for real estate. For example, land for the train platformsat the Atlanta Terminal Station remains vacant to this day. The Union Station bldg in Albany stood vacant for about 20 years before it was redevelped.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Maglev Two more points on subsidies: express freight can add significant revenue to rail service. By shipping US mail on airplanes, the government is subsidizing airlines and denying Amtrak revenue. Also, retail outlets in train stations can provide important funding for improvements and expansion. I recall that "Duty Free Shoppers" was a major source of revenue for Honolulu International Airport. Of course, there are limited benefits from passenger traffic if a station sees one train every other day -- but get that frequency up to several trains a day, and see how much interest there is in renting retail space.
Two more points on subsidies: express freight can add significant revenue to rail service. By shipping US mail on airplanes, the government is subsidizing airlines and denying Amtrak revenue.
Also, retail outlets in train stations can provide important funding for improvements and expansion. I recall that "Duty Free Shoppers" was a major source of revenue for Honolulu International Airport. Of course, there are limited benefits from passenger traffic if a station sees one train every other day -- but get that frequency up to several trains a day, and see how much interest there is in renting retail space.
The U.S. Postal Service, which is a quasi-governmental business, selects the best alternative for shipping mail. Most mail in the United States goes via surface. Only that going relatively long distances goes via air. For example, all first class mail between Dallas and Houston goes on trucks.
In the early days of commercial aviation, prior to 1960, the U.S. Postal Office wrote air mail contracts that covered more than the actual cost of transporting air mail. They were in part a subsidy for the commercial airlines. But this is no longer the case. The contracts are competitive and reflect the actual cost plus a return on equity to transport the mail. They are not a subsidy; they simply reflect what airplanes do best, which is to transport people and high margin goods (mail) over long distances.
ns3010 We all know that, compared to the rest of the world, we are way behind in the race of high speed rail travel.
We all know that, compared to the rest of the world, we are way behind in the race of high speed rail travel.
During the 1960s, if I remember correctly, proponents of the SST (Super Sonic Transport) argued that we had to build one, and the federal government had to put up most of the money. If we did not do so, the Europeans would become the dominate commercial airplanes builder, and the U.S. aircraft industry would be relegated to second class status. Fortunately, it did not turn out that way. The Europeans built an SST, which from a commercial perspective was a dismal failure. They airlines that operated them never came close to breaking even on them let alone turning a profit. Eventually, as we know, the SST was retired.
The lesson to be learned from the SST debate is that the United States needs to adopt transport solutions that best fit its needs. What other countries are doing is irrelevant, other than the U.S. can sometimes develop insights from their best practices that might be applied here.
Given the cost of HSR, in particular, I believe the best passenger rail solution in the U.S., which is applicable only in high density corridors where the construction of addition highway and airway capacity is impracticable, is rapid rail, i.e. frequently scheduled trains running at an average speed of 80 to 85 mph.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im2O8V25Jmo
UPS is a private corporation that also chooses the best way to move packages.
Imagine how much better it would be on a HIGH SPEED train.
Phoebe Vet THAT is what made the property too valuable to just sit there idle. The old stations were pretty much abandoned.
THAT is what made the property too valuable to just sit there idle. The old stations were pretty much abandoned.
Those 2 sentences don't make much sense together. If the property was too valuable to just sit there idle then the tendency would be for it not to be idle, but you say they were abandoned. If they were abandoned then the property must not have been all that valuable.
Maybe I picked a bad example with Richmond, I didn't know that the old station was still there, I just knew that Amtrak relocated, I assumed one reason was because somebody had sold the old station. I also thought another reason was either the Florida and New Orleans routes worked better if they diverged from the Newport News route before downtown.
In your Charlotte example, where's the current Amtrak station relative to this proposal? I'm assuming the proposed Amtrak location is the big arrow in the middle of your graphic that says "canopy" and "future air rights development".
oltmannd
I remember speaking with an Albanian at the Rensalier station about why the station wasn't in downtown. He said that he liked the Rensalier location better, that downtown Albany didn't work for most of the population. Of course there's a chicken and egg argument there, did downtown die because the train left, did the downtown train station die because downtown died? And vice versa for restoring downtown and the downtown station.
Sam1 During the 1960s, if I remember correctly, proponents of the SST (Super Sonic Transport) argued that we had to build one, and the federal government had to put up most of the money. If we did not do so, the Europeans would become the dominate commercial airplanes builder, and the U.S. aircraft industry would be relegated to second class status. ... Given the cost of HSR, in particular, I believe the best passenger rail solution in the U.S., which is applicable only in high density corridors where the construction of addition highway and airway capacity is impracticable, is rapid rail, i.e. frequently scheduled trains running at an average speed of 80 to 85 mph.
During the 1960s, if I remember correctly, proponents of the SST (Super Sonic Transport) argued that we had to build one, and the federal government had to put up most of the money. If we did not do so, the Europeans would become the dominate commercial airplanes builder, and the U.S. aircraft industry would be relegated to second class status.
...
despite the US dropping out and England-France going ahead with the SST, a French company, Airbus, still managed to take a good deal of business away from US plane manufacturers, so I have to assume there are many other factors involved in high speed supremacy and overall transportation supremacy.
Which then supports the argument in your closing paragraph, maybe supremacy, or even adequacy, doesn't come so much from making trains go super fast, but rather trying to keep them from going so agonizingly slow as they do so often now.
Please allow me to rephrase.
Pretty much abandoned by the Railroads, who no longer needed a passenger station.
The current Charlotte Amtrak station is in a less than upscale neighborhood, in a NS yard. I believe it was their passenger station sometime in the past.
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=35.230802~-80.847756&style=h&lvl=15&tilt=-89.999983711037&dir=0&alt=3978.73510291148&cam=35.230802~-80.847756&scene=21382234&phx=0.0975383791466375&phy=-0.601828297866265&phscl=4.89778819368446&encType=1
The big arrow in the drawing is already an NS active ROW. They plan to move some tracks around to eliminate conflicts.
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=35.230802~-80.847756&style=h&lvl=18&tilt=-89.9999836886774&dir=251.495833853116&alt=571.115036007948&cam=35.230802~-80.847756&scene=-1&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1
The old Richmond Station is now a museum, that even includes some RR exhibits on the tracks.
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=37.553684~-77.449604&style=h&lvl=17&tilt=-41.8540882861176&dir=353.969220015603&alt=825.828811148182&cam=37.554603~-77.466946&scene=20635422&phx=-0.131051654234365&phy=0.480823186833282&phscl=1&encType=1
The ButlerI fear the distances are too great here in the States.
Phoebe Vet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im2O8V25Jmo UPS is a private corporation that also chooses the best way to move packages. Imagine how much better it would be on a HIGH SPEED train.
Of course UPS moves quite a bit of traffic by rail (intermodal) currently...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1 Phoebe Vet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im2O8V25Jmo UPS is a private corporation that also chooses the best way to move packages. Imagine how much better it would be on a HIGH SPEED train. Of course UPS moves quite a bit of traffic by rail (intermodal) currently...
Asuming there are viable HSR corridors, why not start with well cars with TGV-type trucks and electronic brakes? Adding fiberglass covers to reduce drag around different size, boxy, and often outside-ribbed containers poses issues for overhead power and transfer operations that need to be resolved. And design the electrical system for longer trains of multiple coupled blocks.
If the Soviets ever let market forces govern what they did, it would be interesting to know the answer.
If UPS or any other shipper had to wear the market cost of shipping by HSR, given its cost structure, they could not afford to do so.
Airbus may have learned a lesson or two from the SST, albeit how not to do it, but it is successful largely because it developed a business model that could compete with the American large commercial airplane manufacturers.
Sam1 If UPS or any other shipper had to wear the market cost of shipping by HSR, given its cost structure, they could not afford to do so.
That's what Fred Smith's college professor told him about his idea for FedEx.
Those who believe the "free market" determines whether we use airplanes or trains probably also think we live in a "democracy." I believe that "corrupt lobbyist" describes our economic policy; and I know that we are vulnerable to this because our nation is in fact a "federal republic."
For example: I took a tour of one of the power plants on Maui several years ago. One of the very expensive fixtures associated with the combustion turbine was a distillery for making pure water to quench the flame and reduce pollution. Our tour guide (Maui Electric Co. President) said that if airplane turbines were held to the same pollution standards, the price of air travel would be much higher. This illustrates that decisions regarding our economic infrastructure are not ruled by equitable scientific logic.
Our economy desparately needs logical, scientific, and environmentally sound policies. Unwarranted use of the Black-Scholes options pricing model (which assumes that extreme price changes are unlikely) caused the 1987 stock market crash. Recently, erroneous assumptions that multiple borrowers would never default simultaneously resulted in a global crisis. It does not make sense to argue against high-speed rail for economic reasons, because our economy does not make sense.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Phoebe Vet Sam1 If UPS or any other shipper had to wear the market cost of shipping by HSR, given its cost structure, they could not afford to do so. That's what Fred Smith's college professor told him about his idea for FedEx.
Fred Smith started FedEx with a solid, self sustaining business model. Unlike every HSR project in the world, he received zero subsidies from the government.
The first FedEx airplanes were relatively low cost, small, used jets. They were what the start-up business could sustain.
I was a pilot for an outfit in Hartford, Connecticut. I remember seeing the inaugural flight into Hartford, which used Brainerd Field, which had lower landing fees than Bradley International, and being impressed with the soundness of his business plan.
Successful business people understand the need for a cost effective, sustainable business plan if they want to succeed, which is unlike most government sponsored programs, where the primary skills of the managers is to manipulate the politicians into giving them more taxpayer money irrespective of the viability of their project.
I would love to have the names of the HSR's anywhere in the world that function without massive government subsidies and are able to charge market rates for their services.
By the way, how do you know what Fred Smith's college professor told him? Where you there?
America is a democratic republic. All sorts of people influence our society, including lobbyists, some of whom have more clout than others. In an authoritarian society the outcomes are influenced by lobbyists who tend to look a lot like military thugs. I prefer the kind that we have in the U.S.
In a sense we are all lobbyists. Every time we vote or write to one of our elected representatives, we are trying to influence the government to promote our interests.
Under the worse case scenario, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, airplanes contribute about three per cent of the emissions thought to contribute to climate change. Moreover, the newer engines coming on-line are far more efficient and environmentally benign today's engines.
I have no argument against high speed rail. I have an argument against using taxpayer money for a commercial activity that is only used by a very small percentage of the population and does not have a prayer of standing on its own.
As I have argued in other posts, the best outcome for the U.S. would be to slowly stop subsidizing all forms of transport and allow the most competitive forms to emerge in the markets that they are best equipped to serve. This is not likely to happen. But taking taxpayer money to build HSR is akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. At the end of the day the subsidy matrix grows and becomes more complex, with the taxpayers holding the bag.
Imperfect as it is a smartly regulated competitive market, in the long run, will force a better use of scarce economic resources than any other economic model.
Sam wrote "Imperfect as it is a smartly regulated competitive market, in the long run, will force a better use of scarce economic resources than any other economic model."
But our economy is not "smartly regulated." That is why there is a global economic crisis. Also, we are not a democracy in the sense that we do not vote on every issue; we elect a federal government to do that job.
A couple corrections to my previous post --
Indeed, "corrupt lobbyists" was not a good choice of terms. We have an economy that looks purely at profit; while ignoring scientific reasoning, environmental costs, and social disruption.
Also, in the forseeable future, rail travel should be logical for distances on the order of 1,000 miles or less. Surface speeds of 200 mph crossing the Rocky Mountains are very unlikely...
HarveyK400Asuming there are viable HSR corridors, why not start with well cars with TGV-type trucks and electronic brakes? Adding fiberglass covers to reduce drag around different size, boxy, and often outside-ribbed containers poses issues for overhead power and transfer operations that need to be resolved. And design the electrical system for longer trains of multiple coupled blocks.
Sam1Airbus may have learned a lesson or two from the SST, albeit how not to do it, but it is successful largely because it developed a business model that could compete with the American large commercial airplane manufacturers.
gardendance HarveyK400Asuming there are viable HSR corridors, why not start with well cars with TGV-type trucks and electronic brakes? Adding fiberglass covers to reduce drag around different size, boxy, and often outside-ribbed containers poses issues for overhead power and transfer operations that need to be resolved. And design the electrical system for longer trains of multiple coupled blocks.are you related to Trains magazine columnist John Kneiling? Sam1Airbus may have learned a lesson or two from the SST, albeit how not to do it, but it is successful largely because it developed a business model that could compete with the American large commercial airplane manufacturers.Formula for success: pay attention to everything they do, and make sure you do the exact opposite. It got George Costanza his job at the Yankees.
First off Airbus only seems successful. The new plane has fallen far short of sales expectations and is still unable to pay its way which means more heavy subsidies from the European governments behind this Company. Boeing on the other hand has a new plane the 787 Dreamliner that has firm sales on the books for over 900 planes and deliveries will begin in 2009. Maybe this time Airbus guessed wrong that bigger was better. Boeing still continues to sell newer versions of the 747 outpacing Airbus sales of there new plane 26 to 1. If you look carefully at Airbus sales there largest customers are the National carriers of the countries that build it. The new Airbus is being purchased for extremely long well patronized routes and few airports as this is written are capable of handling the new plane. The Boeing 737 is the most widely flown airliner in the world and continues to be a best seller as newer versions are built.
Al - in - Stockton
The niche for UPS on HSR would be as incremental traffic as part of their overnight network. There should be enough revenue in that to pay the incremental costs. It would be a relatively small part of the overall business.
I have not put the numbers to shipping UPS style stuff on HSR, primarily because I don't have access to good cost information. However, based on the published estimated numbers for the California HSR, if the incremental pricing reflected the true cost of HSR, I doubt that UPS or any similar carrier could afford to ship on it.
Last weekend I drove from Austin to San Antonio. I-35 was chockers. How nice it would have been to be able to go on a train. Unfortunately, there is only one train a day between Austin and San Antonio. It is the notorious late running Texas Eagle.
The U.S. would be better off if the passenger rail advocacy community urged planners and lawmakers to implement frequent, quick, economical, comfortable, and dependable passenger rapid rail in high density corridors, where there is a reasonable market for it, instead of harping about a super expensive high speed rail system that would be used by relatively few people.
We need affordable, workable solutions to our transportation problems. We don't need a system that will break the piggy bank just to say that we are keeping up with other countries that have different needs that require individual solutions.
passengerfan gardendance HarveyK400Asuming there are viable HSR corridors, why not start with well cars with TGV-type trucks and electronic brakes? Adding fiberglass covers to reduce drag around different size, boxy, and often outside-ribbed containers poses issues for overhead power and transfer operations that need to be resolved. And design the electrical system for longer trains of multiple coupled blocks.are you related to Trains magazine columnist John Kneiling? Sam1Airbus may have learned a lesson or two from the SST, albeit how not to do it, but it is successful largely because it developed a business model that could compete with the American large commercial airplane manufacturers.Formula for success: pay attention to everything they do, and make sure you do the exact opposite. It got George Costanza his job at the Yankees. First off Airbus only seems successful. The new plane has fallen far short of sales expectations and is still unable to pay its way which means more heavy subsidies from the European governments behind this Company. Boeing on the other hand has a new plane the 787 Dreamliner that has firm sales on the books for over 900 planes and deliveries will begin in 2009. Maybe this time Airbus guessed wrong that bigger was better. Boeing still continues to sell newer versions of the 747 outpacing Airbus sales of there new plane 26 to 1. If you look carefully at Airbus sales there largest customers are the National carriers of the countries that build it. The new Airbus is being purchased for extremely long well patronized routes and few airports as this is written are capable of handling the new plane. The Boeing 737 is the most widely flown airliner in the world and continues to be a best seller as newer versions are built. Al - in - Stockton
Airbus produces a large stable of commercial jet airplanes. The A-380 is just one of its offerings. Since 2000 Airbus has sold more airplanes in many of the intervening years than Boeing. North American operators of Airbus airplanes include United Airlines, US Airways, Jet Blue, Frontier and Air Canada. They are not government owned carriers. Nope, not Air Canada. It has been privatized. In fact, many of the so-called government owned airlines, i.e. Qantas, Air New Zealand, Air France, etc. have been privatized in part or wholly.
Sam wrote:
"The U.S. would be better off if the passenger rail advocacy community urged planners and lawmakers to implement frequent, quick, economical, comfortable, and dependable passenger rapid rail in high density corridors, where there is a reasonable market for it, instead of harping about a super expensive high speed rail system that would be used by relatively few people. "
Of course, an incremental approach is the only feasible option. Some first steps:
--Fix wrecked Amtrak cars
--Get moving on adequate station facilities in our largest city (New York)
Without correcting existing deficiencies, we will never be able to move forward. But unless we take some leaps -- like really starting to plan for a high-speed network -- the United States will alwys be in a catch-up mode.
Look at our pitiful 70-mph Acela trains -- they should have been prototypes for Amfleet replacements, and the Amfleet equipment sent to develop other high-density corridors. But no, our couple dozen Acela's with tray tables that send food flying onto your lap are the best we can come up with now. The "Intercity 225" trains I rode in England 15 years ago are superior to Acela (and they had a better name also). Maybe we should apologize for the Boston Tea Party and beg the Queen to help us travel from our largest city to our capital quickly, comfortably, and economically.
I agree with Sam1 on affordable solutions.
As I've written previously, much more than hourly service seems to be needed to begin to justify HSR given the initial Japanese and French successes. Freight and express are potential markets that may bring viability, or at least a more practical solution than more highway lane capacity. I am skeptical that HSR would be viable, even if more practical, in California or here in the Midwest.
I feel for Texans traveling between Austin and San Antonio. I agree that this corridor deserves more and better than the Eagle. Without track charts, I can only ascertain the approximate curvature along that corridor from aerial photos; and the picture ain't pretty. With traffic "chockers," maybe a lot of 60-70 mph curves would seem fast. New tilt trains that could run faster are expensive; but tilting running gear and lifts might be installed on wreck rebuilds.
Another point Sam1 made previously was the need to extend service beyond the city centers, perhaps to Georgetown north of Austin. For years I've urged extending Amtrak services through Union Station to the O'Hare Transfer station in the Metra North Central Line. Similarly, the Hiawathas need to be extended to Oconomowoc, Watertown, and Madison to boost intermodal use through the Milwaukee (Gen Mitchell) Airport Station, currently serving more as a suburban station.
There seems to be some confusion about the "old" stations in Richmond, VA. There are two "old"station, there is Broad Street, a large "beaux arts" structure that was used by the RF&P and the ACL. It is now the Virginia Science Museum. Broad Street Station was actually about 2 miles from downtown Richmond See:
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,1441160
Then there was Main Street Station, in the heart of downtown, used by the SAL and the C&O. This is used by Amtrak, for the Newport News trains, off the CSX. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Street_Station_(Richmond)
There was a third station, across the river used by the Southern RR, being Hull Street. Now owned by the Old Dominion Chapter, NRHS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_Street_Station
In Charlotte NC the old Southern RR station was on W. Trade Street, downtown. It was demolished as part of a track elevation project in the early 1960's (1963?) and the station was moved to a new facility north of downtown, next to the SR yard. That is the station Amtrak is still in. To show that "What goes around, comes around" Greyhound built their station in the late 60's on the site of the old SR station. This is the same land and building that has been bought back by the state (NCDOT & NCRR) and wil be the site of the new station that Pheobe has shown above.
Sam1 I have not put the numbers to shipping UPS style stuff on HSR, primarily because I don't have access to good cost information. However, based on the published estimated numbers for the California HSR, if the incremental pricing reflected the true cost of HSR, I doubt that UPS or any similar carrier could afford to ship on it. Last weekend I drove from Austin to San Antonio. I-35 was chockers. How nice it would have been to be able to go on a train. Unfortunately, there is only one train a day between Austin and San Antonio. It is the notorious late running Texas Eagle. The U.S. would be better off if the passenger rail advocacy community urged planners and lawmakers to implement frequent, quick, economical, comfortable, and dependable passenger rapid rail in high density corridors, where there is a reasonable market for it, instead of harping about a super expensive high speed rail system that would be used by relatively few people. We need affordable, workable solutions to our transportation problems. We don't need a system that will break the piggy bank just to say that we are keeping up with other countries that have different needs that require individual solutions.
Here's what I was thinking about handling parcels on HSR. Assuming $10 to ship a cubic foot package 500 miles, that's 2 cents per mile. If the typical passenger space is 2 x 3 x 8 feet - call it 50 cubic feet, then you can get a buck a mile for handling packages less handling costs to load, unload, etc, should leave you about the same rev/mile as a passenger. If most HSR clears costs ATR, then package business should be incrementally profitable.
But I agree with you and others about needing affordable, incremental solutions, not expensive home runs.
Anybody who'd like to see a presentation on the state of the industry, both frt. and passenger, check this out http://transportation.northwestern.edu/docs/2008/2008.11.18.McClellan.Presentation.pdf
Jim McClellan is a "true believer"...
Sam1 The U.S. would be better off if the passenger rail advocacy community urged planners and lawmakers to implement frequent, quick, economical, comfortable, and dependable passenger rapid rail in high density corridors, where there is a reasonable market for it, instead of harping about a super expensive high speed rail system that would be used by relatively few people. We need affordable, workable solutions to our transportation problems. We don't need a system that will break the piggy bank just to say that we are keeping up with other countries that have different needs that require individual solutions.
Amen Sam I agree 100%. True HSR in in the US is such a quantum leap forward that it is only a pipe dream of its advocates. Maybe some day but in the meantime concentrate efforts on more realistic and attainable goals - 1) dependable on time performance, 2) 70mph average speeds and 3) more frequent corridor service. Get train service up to a level that is reasonably comparable with auto travel and the riders will come.
Mark
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.