7 ms·

We also need to focus on the right problems. I know we all want fast trains, but if we're going through major cities we likely won't get that fast (unless we d

by rtpg 10y ago

We also need to focus on the right problems. I know we all want fast trains, but if we're going through major cities we likely won't get that fast (unless we do like the Shinkansen and build the entire train on a 3-story platform). If we're willing to spend $50 billion, let's spend that on some slower trains that connect cities anyways. Maybe you don't do LA-SF, but giving higher inter-connectivity is good. What happens in Japan is that train stations get built, and then the surrounding area is simultaneously developped with stores and other developments. So you build a train station in the middle of nowhere, but then build an IKEA + a mall. Suddenly people have a reason to take the train! And it helps the local economies too.

Sanddancer 10y ago
One of the problems is that the corridor in question is underserved in passenger rail right now. The only way to get between the two cities right now involves taking a train and a bus or two, because the rail company that owns the trackage between LA and Bakersfield doesn't want passenger trains running on it, and the rail company that owns the track between Ventura and San Jose would love to see passenger trains on that section of track halted as well. With such a hostile environment, it's difficult to build the interconnections that are needed for a modern rail system. Opening the Tehachapi Loop to passenger rail would be an alternative to a full passenger buildout, but you're never going to see BNSF agree to it.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Eminent Domain. Nationalize freight rail and lease it back at a reasonable rate.
- DrScump 10y ago
  doesn't want passenger trains running on it I think "can prioritize freight over passenger rail when schedules conflict" is a fairer description.
  - trome 10y ago
    Freight is easy, a few hour delay while you repair some trackage, move another 100 car train, etc. is far from the end of the world. Comparatively, getting BNSF or UP to switch gears and be timely for passenger rail service is very expensive, esp. since they do not have an internal culture that supports that.
- akiselev 10y ago
  California is an international trade, manufacturing, and agricultural powerhouse with several of the biggest ports in the western hemisphere that supply the entire country. I don't think it's unreasonable for the private rail owners to reject a much less predictable revenue stream. It's not on them to provide the capital for public transit and I'm not sure the benefits of forcing them would outweigh the economic cost.
kalleboo 10y ago
What also happens in Japan is that the train company owns that land, the mall, and maybe a couple apartment buildings nearby, so that they have an interest both in people riding the train and shopping at the mall (so e.g. the train company has an incentive to keep fares low enough to keep shoppers coming). A significant portion of Japanese train companies' income comes from retail real estate.
- vilhelm_s 10y ago
  According to this blog post[0] the same used to be true in the U.S.---light rail was payed for by property developers. Interestingly, he says this eventually led to the collapse of the Los Angeles street car system, because it was financed by the the increase in land value, and once the development was complete there was no longer a cash stream to pay for operating costs. [0] http://kontextmaschine.tumblr.com/post/144726791758/was-thinking-about-the-70s-as-one-does-in-this http://kontextmaschine.tumblr.com/post/144726791758/was-thin...
  - trome 10y ago
    Yeah, in China they lease the land out to the developments, so there is a constant revenue stream. That is illegal to do in nearly any other country though, the US included.
  - rtpg 10y ago
    This is slightly different from what Japanese companies do. Japanese train companies actually run the retail operations next to the stations in many cases, renting out store space to high-margin businesses like high-end clothing or other luxury goods. This also leaks into side businesses like credit cards (to support retail spending). These businesses are true conglomerates
Frondo 10y ago
They did that in Portland (I used to live there). They built the MAX line out to the airport, and put an Ikea and an outdoor shopping center there, and it was frickin awesome. People would even haul stuff from Ikea on the MAX! Everywhere they built the MAX line, shops and commerce would spring up around it. Of course, there's still a small, incredibly vocal contingent who opposes public transit no matter what. Happily, they were able to keep extending the MAX in different directions despite that small, vocal opposition. Portland got a lot wrong, especially with the homeless, but their public transit is just great.
- DrScump 10y ago
  There are other opinions: http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/05/28/portland-or-lrt-is-cost-ineffective-unable-to-operate-at-promised-frequencies/ http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/05/28/portland-or-lrt-is-c... They quote an operational farebox recovery rate of less than 28%, so taxpayers are subsidizing almost 3/4 of the operational cost plus all of the fixed costs and construction. (As disappointing as that it, it's still over 8 times better than VTA in the San Jose area!)
  - Frondo 10y ago
    In 2015, TriMet's farebox recovery ratio was 39.1%. Funnily enough, that blog post seems to have made up the numbers out of thin air. They quote a 2011 FRR of 27.8%, while TriMet's published numbers are 35.9%. Regardless, it's a public good. I simply wouldn't expect public transportation to make money, just like I wouldn't expect the court system or the DMV to make money. These things exist to benefit the city or state as a whole. I'm happy to pitch in. How much it should be subsidized is a fair question, but that it should be at all, not even a concern for me. (Source, TriMet's operations data: https://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/trimetridership.pdf https://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/trimetridership.pdf)
    - akiselev 10y ago
      Another factor to consider is the self fulfilling prophecy. Fiscal conservatives who are opposed to subsidizing public transportation throw up obstacle after obstacle, which drives up the cost and all but guarantees that the system will need to be subsidized, especially with underground mass transit. A single injunction stopping work for a few weeks while a judge reviews the case can cost an insane amount because you can't move the highly customized and now unutilized drill to an active work site or stop paying the highly specialized crew while they sit on their hands and maintain an imobile megamachine.

by rtpg 10y ago

Sanddancer 10y ago

One of the problems is that the corridor in question is underserved in passenger rail right now. The only way to get between the two cities right now involves taking a train and a bus or two, because the rail company that owns the trackage between LA and Bakersfield doesn't want passenger trains running on it, and the rail company that owns the track between Ventura and San Jose would love to see passenger trains on that section of track halted as well. With such a hostile environment, it's difficult to build the interconnections that are needed for a modern rail system. Opening the Tehachapi Loop to passenger rail would be an alternative to a full passenger buildout, but you're never going to see BNSF agree to it.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Eminent Domain. Nationalize freight rail and lease it back at a reasonable rate.
DrScump 10y ago
doesn't want passenger trains running on it I think "can prioritize freight over passenger rail when schedules conflict" is a fairer description.
- trome 10y ago
  Freight is easy, a few hour delay while you repair some trackage, move another 100 car train, etc. is far from the end of the world. Comparatively, getting BNSF or UP to switch gears and be timely for passenger rail service is very expensive, esp. since they do not have an internal culture that supports that.
akiselev 10y ago
California is an international trade, manufacturing, and agricultural powerhouse with several of the biggest ports in the western hemisphere that supply the entire country. I don't think it's unreasonable for the private rail owners to reject a much less predictable revenue stream. It's not on them to provide the capital for public transit and I'm not sure the benefits of forcing them would outweigh the economic cost.

kalleboo 10y ago

What also happens in Japan is that the train company owns that land, the mall, and maybe a couple apartment buildings nearby, so that they have an interest both in people riding the train and shopping at the mall (so e.g. the train company has an incentive to keep fares low enough to keep shoppers coming). A significant portion of Japanese train companies' income comes from retail real estate.

vilhelm_s 10y ago
According to this blog post[0] the same used to be true in the U.S.---light rail was payed for by property developers. Interestingly, he says this eventually led to the collapse of the Los Angeles street car system, because it was financed by the the increase in land value, and once the development was complete there was no longer a cash stream to pay for operating costs. [0] http://kontextmaschine.tumblr.com/post/144726791758/was-thinking-about-the-70s-as-one-does-in-this http://kontextmaschine.tumblr.com/post/144726791758/was-thin...
- trome 10y ago
  Yeah, in China they lease the land out to the developments, so there is a constant revenue stream. That is illegal to do in nearly any other country though, the US included.
- rtpg 10y ago
  This is slightly different from what Japanese companies do. Japanese train companies actually run the retail operations next to the stations in many cases, renting out store space to high-margin businesses like high-end clothing or other luxury goods. This also leaks into side businesses like credit cards (to support retail spending). These businesses are true conglomerates

Frondo 10y ago

They did that in Portland (I used to live there). They built the MAX line out to the airport, and put an Ikea and an outdoor shopping center there, and it was frickin awesome. People would even haul stuff from Ikea on the MAX! Everywhere they built the MAX line, shops and commerce would spring up around it. Of course, there's still a small, incredibly vocal contingent who opposes public transit no matter what. Happily, they were able to keep extending the MAX in different directions despite that small, vocal opposition. Portland got a lot wrong, especially with the homeless, but their public transit is just great.

DrScump 10y ago
There are other opinions: http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/05/28/portland-or-lrt-is-cost-ineffective-unable-to-operate-at-promised-frequencies/ http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/05/28/portland-or-lrt-is-c... They quote an operational farebox recovery rate of less than 28%, so taxpayers are subsidizing almost 3/4 of the operational cost plus all of the fixed costs and construction. (As disappointing as that it, it's still over 8 times better than VTA in the San Jose area!)
- Frondo 10y ago
  In 2015, TriMet's farebox recovery ratio was 39.1%. Funnily enough, that blog post seems to have made up the numbers out of thin air. They quote a 2011 FRR of 27.8%, while TriMet's published numbers are 35.9%. Regardless, it's a public good. I simply wouldn't expect public transportation to make money, just like I wouldn't expect the court system or the DMV to make money. These things exist to benefit the city or state as a whole. I'm happy to pitch in. How much it should be subsidized is a fair question, but that it should be at all, not even a concern for me. (Source, TriMet's operations data: https://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/trimetridership.pdf https://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/trimetridership.pdf)
  - akiselev 10y ago
    Another factor to consider is the self fulfilling prophecy. Fiscal conservatives who are opposed to subsidizing public transportation throw up obstacle after obstacle, which drives up the cost and all but guarantees that the system will need to be subsidized, especially with underground mass transit. A single injunction stopping work for a few weeks while a judge reviews the case can cost an insane amount because you can't move the highly customized and now unutilized drill to an active work site or stop paying the highly specialized crew while they sit on their hands and maintain an imobile megamachine.