- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
In the VP Debate thread, Bears postulated on the notion that because high-speed rail works in the Northeast, it should work in the Midwest. Rather than hijack that, here's a new thread to pick apart the business case....
You can't look at high speed rail in the Northeast, and assume it will be as successful elsewhere, particularly in the Midwest.
Trains work in the NEC because they go where the people already were.
Most population centers in the Northeast built out in the 1800's, and did so along the railroads. That's certainly the case in the WAS-PHL-NYC-BDL-BOS corridor. Post Civil War, those areas continued to grow. At the same time, there was also mass transit development that grew up in concert with the mainline railroads. A two-seat or three-seat ride to work was feasible just about anywhere within a 50 mile circle of Penn Station.
Chicago was incorporated in 1837, but really didn't experience explosive growth until the post-Civil War period. During the 50 years following, nine noteable fingers of growth radiating outward from the city, following the rail lines of the CNW (3), MILW (2), CBQ, CSSSB, CRIP, and IC. That continued to occur thru the 20's and WW-II. The mass transit and interurban networks in Chicago grew up in the same fashion that they did in NYC.
Then, the post-WWII housing boom hit.
In the Northeast, the railroads still managed to benefitted from that growth. There wasn't much greenfield space in between the existing radials, so the new housing growth wound up going further and further out. There was even less room for building lots of freeways. In one or two seat commuter markets over 30 miles, rail was still seen as more desireable than driving.
This is where history diverges...
In Chicago and most other cities in the midwest, there was considerable greenfield between the radials. Lots of room for freeways, and they didn't follow the same radials as the railroads -- instead, they created new radials, and housing development followed. That destroyed the remaining interurban networks (CNS&M, CA&E), and the notion of a two or three seat ride within the 40 mile circle around downtown.
Next, you had "ring-roads" bypassing the city entirely, and growth followed those as well. Last, in Chicago, secondary commercial centers were being developed. Schaumburg, Northbrook, Naperville, and Aurora were quickly attracting businesses who decided that being in downtown was was no longer attractive.
The same was occurring in places all up and down the East Coast as well, however they still were in relatively close proximity to the rail lines. That wasn't the case in Chicago. With the exception of Aurora, all of the alternative business centers was well off the rail lines...
Enough about Chicago...
St. Louis and Milwaukee grew in pretty much similar ways -- there was some early development along the rail corridors, and they had interurban networks, but most failed during the depression and WW-II, leaving a void for a regional rail network.
Why is this relevant?...
HSR can't stand on its own. You need local and regional transit for it to work, and local/regional transit only really work when there's a population density to support it.
That's why it is successful in the NEC, and could be successful on the west coast, where you've got growing local transit, and little greenfield left...
But in central Florida? Ohio? Wisconsin? Texas? The cities there have some dense populations, but they're widely dispersed, and with very few local transit options once you get there on the train.
If the lack of local transit means you're going to drive to the HSR station, pay to park, and pay to rent a car at the other end, then business case for travelers becomes loud and clear: it's probably still cheaper to drive yourself even with high gas prices.
I prefer to take public transit to/from work, and try to use it whenever I travel vs. renting a car. But it's not a viable option in a lot of places identified as spokes for HSR. Chicago, St. Louis & Minneapolis? No problem. But Milwaukee, Detroit or Indianapolis? Forget it. You're on a bus that might run once or twice an hour.
That's my first point/rant.
Now it's time for demographics....
Trying to compare STL to PHL, and MKE to BOS is a pretty specious argument that falls apart the moment you look at T-5 data.
From the 2010 census:
MKE has 1.7M, BOS has 7.5M
STL has 2.8M, PHL has 6.5M.
CHI has 9.6M, NYC has 22M.
Essentially, all the Midwest markets Bears mentioned are about 30% the size of the Northeast coast.
Next, you have to consider that few people ride the entire length of the NEC. Many enter/exit between the major dots. In the Northeast it is almost all built up between the major dots, and there's regional Acela or commuter rail available to allow a two-seat or three-seat ride entirely by rail, and without backtracking in many cases.
The Midwest? Mostly farm country between the dots. A very limited light-rail network in STL, nothing in MKE, and then there's the Chicago commuter rail network.
The network works if Chicago is the origin or destination. It doesn't work quite so well when it's just a waypoint.
All this said, the population densities of places like SFO-LAX-SAN look much better. They've got a similar landlocked situation, and local regional rail in each location. If SAT and HOU ever mature their local transit, it might work in the Texas Triangle, again because there's significant enough population *and* the ability for a two- or three-seat ride.
That's about all I have the patience for right now.
Comments and rebuttals welcome....
You can't look at high speed rail in the Northeast, and assume it will be as successful elsewhere, particularly in the Midwest.
Trains work in the NEC because they go where the people already were.
Most population centers in the Northeast built out in the 1800's, and did so along the railroads. That's certainly the case in the WAS-PHL-NYC-BDL-BOS corridor. Post Civil War, those areas continued to grow. At the same time, there was also mass transit development that grew up in concert with the mainline railroads. A two-seat or three-seat ride to work was feasible just about anywhere within a 50 mile circle of Penn Station.
Chicago was incorporated in 1837, but really didn't experience explosive growth until the post-Civil War period. During the 50 years following, nine noteable fingers of growth radiating outward from the city, following the rail lines of the CNW (3), MILW (2), CBQ, CSSSB, CRIP, and IC. That continued to occur thru the 20's and WW-II. The mass transit and interurban networks in Chicago grew up in the same fashion that they did in NYC.
Then, the post-WWII housing boom hit.
In the Northeast, the railroads still managed to benefitted from that growth. There wasn't much greenfield space in between the existing radials, so the new housing growth wound up going further and further out. There was even less room for building lots of freeways. In one or two seat commuter markets over 30 miles, rail was still seen as more desireable than driving.
This is where history diverges...
In Chicago and most other cities in the midwest, there was considerable greenfield between the radials. Lots of room for freeways, and they didn't follow the same radials as the railroads -- instead, they created new radials, and housing development followed. That destroyed the remaining interurban networks (CNS&M, CA&E), and the notion of a two or three seat ride within the 40 mile circle around downtown.
Next, you had "ring-roads" bypassing the city entirely, and growth followed those as well. Last, in Chicago, secondary commercial centers were being developed. Schaumburg, Northbrook, Naperville, and Aurora were quickly attracting businesses who decided that being in downtown was was no longer attractive.
The same was occurring in places all up and down the East Coast as well, however they still were in relatively close proximity to the rail lines. That wasn't the case in Chicago. With the exception of Aurora, all of the alternative business centers was well off the rail lines...
Enough about Chicago...
St. Louis and Milwaukee grew in pretty much similar ways -- there was some early development along the rail corridors, and they had interurban networks, but most failed during the depression and WW-II, leaving a void for a regional rail network.
Why is this relevant?...
HSR can't stand on its own. You need local and regional transit for it to work, and local/regional transit only really work when there's a population density to support it.
That's why it is successful in the NEC, and could be successful on the west coast, where you've got growing local transit, and little greenfield left...
But in central Florida? Ohio? Wisconsin? Texas? The cities there have some dense populations, but they're widely dispersed, and with very few local transit options once you get there on the train.
If the lack of local transit means you're going to drive to the HSR station, pay to park, and pay to rent a car at the other end, then business case for travelers becomes loud and clear: it's probably still cheaper to drive yourself even with high gas prices.
I prefer to take public transit to/from work, and try to use it whenever I travel vs. renting a car. But it's not a viable option in a lot of places identified as spokes for HSR. Chicago, St. Louis & Minneapolis? No problem. But Milwaukee, Detroit or Indianapolis? Forget it. You're on a bus that might run once or twice an hour.
That's my first point/rant.
Now it's time for demographics....
Trying to compare STL to PHL, and MKE to BOS is a pretty specious argument that falls apart the moment you look at T-5 data.
From the 2010 census:
MKE has 1.7M, BOS has 7.5M
STL has 2.8M, PHL has 6.5M.
CHI has 9.6M, NYC has 22M.
Essentially, all the Midwest markets Bears mentioned are about 30% the size of the Northeast coast.
Next, you have to consider that few people ride the entire length of the NEC. Many enter/exit between the major dots. In the Northeast it is almost all built up between the major dots, and there's regional Acela or commuter rail available to allow a two-seat or three-seat ride entirely by rail, and without backtracking in many cases.
The Midwest? Mostly farm country between the dots. A very limited light-rail network in STL, nothing in MKE, and then there's the Chicago commuter rail network.
The network works if Chicago is the origin or destination. It doesn't work quite so well when it's just a waypoint.
All this said, the population densities of places like SFO-LAX-SAN look much better. They've got a similar landlocked situation, and local regional rail in each location. If SAT and HOU ever mature their local transit, it might work in the Texas Triangle, again because there's significant enough population *and* the ability for a two- or three-seat ride.
That's about all I have the patience for right now.
Comments and rebuttals welcome....
