South Florida Transportation Part II

[CalleOchoGringo]

Originally Posted by xerxesjc28

A question about this.

I have heard or read, not sure if right, that back in the day when trolleys where used everywhere and trains where the main source of transportation that most of those trains where run by private companies. How is it that they were able to finance that back then? Why can it not be done now? Did the government help at all these companies start up or lay down tracks?

While we are on this, are there any modern day examples of countries with great mass transit systems which are owned and run by private companies? I believe Japan has private HSR service, but I am not sure if the companies bought and laid down the tracts all by themselves or had help from the government. I also don't know if the metro trains in Japan were entirely government or privately financed or a mixed of both.

I'm willing to bet some of that heyday of trolleys we before Henry Ford learned how to mass produce a $400 Model-T automobile. That kinda changed things after then.

I have heard that all HSR's on earth lose money (most of them ALOT of it) except for the Shinkansen rail line from Tokyo to Osaka. This is due to an exact mix of just the right variables to make auto travel between them difficult (mountains) and population density VERY high (thus high demand).

Medium speed rail OTOH is very economical and in most cases still gets you to your destination on time. But of course, the vast demand for rail in this country is for commuting from one side of town to the other, not getting you from city to city. If people are going less than 100 miles they will likely take their car. If people are going more than 600 miles they will likely take an airplane. So rail only works in that range window between them, unless it's freight that doesn't care how long it takes as long as it's done as cheaply as possible.

[DShoost88]

That "all HSR's on earth lose money" thought is total nonsense. Amtrak's HSR line, Acela, is a profitable corridor. Even the Northeast Regional Train line between Boston and DC (same alignment as Acela) is a profitable line. I haven't looked into it, but I have a pretty good feeling there are other HSR lines that operate at a profit, particularly in western Europe.

[exMiami]

??

[theEmbarcadero]

Originally Posted by exMiami

I think that some years Acela claims to be profitable but only on an operational basis. After capital costs Acela loses huge sums - same in Europe.

Basically Acela is not viable if not for the huge govt subsidies.

Who cares? Roads and runways are gov't subsidized....why not tracks???

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by theEmbarcadero

Who cares? Roads and runways are gov't subsidized....why not tracks???

As are "private" air lines. The government builds the airports, runways, parking and other transportation, handles security, and air traffic control and the airlines still have trouble turning a profit.

[xerxesjc28]

Weird I always thought that HSR around the world was almost always profitable while other local rail (subways, elevated, etc) always lose money.

[CalleOchoGringo]

The biggest difference is that roads and runways don't claim to make money. Everyone knows they are a cost but feel they are an investment in infrastructure, so they tolerate the cost. Most of those same people however don't feel that way about rails, they don't see the point in investing in what they see as a waste of money. Then again these are many of the same people that complain about traffic when they choose to move from house to house in the suburbs decade after decade.

As exMiami said before, you can't really call rail cost efficient without considering all the costs. No tricks of keeping government subsidies out of the equation to disingenuously call it profitable. If it truly were profitable, there would be at least a few private companies doing it. Moving freight by rail however IS profitable even after capital costs. That is why there ARE private companies that do that (CSX, BNSF, Union Pacific, etc...), but if I'm not mistaken Amtrak stands alone in this country as a carrier of passengers, and they get pretty hefty subsidies to stay alive.

Countries like USA, Canada, Austraila, Russia, etc... will always struggle to have thriving rail because unlike Europe, Japan and costal China, their cities are not close together and densely populated enough to create quite the demand for rail, they are spread out. Would you really take a high speed train from LA to Miami that took about 24 hours if you could do it on an airplane even if it costs slightly less? Neither would most people.

Not trying to be a negative nancy, just being pragmatic.

[spellbound]

CalleOcho--very well said.

A public/private partnership on urban transit would obviously be ideal, but attaining it another matter.

For starters, private interests are not in business (or wouldn't be for long) just to hand out Christmas presents to people. There has to be a profit motive---directly or indirectly.

Specifically in regards to Miami, I see SOME possibilities in that regard---but not a whole lot.

Let's be honest here.

South Florida's transit ridership numbers are mediocre at best. Our rail options (the ones we all love) run at daily numbers that a metro of similar size---Boston---exceeds every hour, let alone a London or NYC.

In that regard, I think we're pretty much Baltimore. About the same size system and identical trains .

BUT what about high-speed rail connecting our THREE airports? With connecting, cost-effective, street-level light rail to the three downtowns?

THAT might get some private partnership. THAT could work as a capital investment from both 'sides'

No private interest is going to invest in Metrorail. Ever.

But there are other options once we get past that. It's time we do.

[CalleOchoGringo]

We should also work to rezone and densify the areas around existing stations. This doesn't have to start in bad neighborhoods either. Vizcaya, CG, Douglas Road, Univ (South side) and S Miami stations can all use more density. I even think that the neighborhood around Culmer station is ripe for gentrification with it's location in relation to downtown. That should help increase the ridership numbers of metrorail quite a bit. And of course, there's nothing wrong with continuing to densify the CBD, and fighting to hold the UDB line (should help infill).

Keep in mind also that most of the problems in ridership numbers of the metrorail are not within it's control, nor where they ever. Miami has always been a very decentralized city with clusters of downtown's all over the place. Not many other cities have fewer citizens commuting to one dominant area (like the CBD) than Miami does. While this has helped keep down sharp traffic jams in certain directions somewhat, it has really just spread the traffic out all over the place and in some ways made it worse.

I still feel that Midtown & Miami Beach have the density and are close enough to the system make Metrorail connection to them a viable goal. And connection to Miami Beach should raise ridership numbers also for non residents of the beach that would like to go in that direction.

[ftlauddude]

That's why Boca Raton is a good example of what you're saying. That station 10 years ago was the fifth in the ranking. Now, with all these new development around it, it has moved up to the 3rd and soon to be second surpassed only by Metrorail. This could be applied to all Tri-rail/Metrorail stations. Sadly, not all our leaders think the same way.

[xerxesjc28]

..

[xerxesjc28]

Originally Posted by CalleOchoGringo

Countries like USA, Canada, Austraila, Russia, etc... will always struggle to have thriving rail because unlike Europe, Japan and costal China, their cities are not close together and densely populated enough to create quite the demand for rail, they are spread out. Would you really take a high speed train from LA to Miami that took about 24 hours if you could do it on an airplane even if it costs slightly less? Neither would most people.

Not trying to be a negative nancy, just being pragmatic.

Between LA and Miami no. But why not between Tampa,Orlando, and Miami. Or between all of Texas's big cities. National HSR going from the west coast to the east coast would be dumb. But there is no reason why regional HSR could not work. There could be a bunch of cities in the Midwest, Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, The three C's of Ohio, which could be connected by HSR.

And of course the closest thing to HSR rail in the USA is basically this, the Acela connects a bunch of cities in the NE region of the USA.

[theEmbarcadero]

I would take a train from Miami to LA.

I once rode Amtrak from Washington DC to California...

Capitol Express (to Chicago)
California Zephyer (to Cali)

I love riding the rails...even if it is just Metrorail!!!

[xerxesjc28]

I do TOO! I recently rode the tri-rail for the first time, it was awesome. I used to have classes at Wolfson campus in Downtown, and instead of just taking the bus straight there I would get off when my bus got near a Metro Rail stop and take the train into downtown. But I think you and me are the exception, most people would not ride a train from Miami to LA.

[CalleOchoGringo]

Originally Posted by xerxesjc28

Between LA and Miami no. But why not between Tampa,Orlando, and Miami. Or between all of Texas's big cities. National HSR going from the west coast to the east coast would be dumb. But there is no reason why regional HSR could not work. There could be a bunch of cities in the Midwest, Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, The three C's of Ohio, which could be connected by HSR.

And of course the closest thing to HSR rail in the USA is basically this, the Acela connects a bunch of cities in the NE region of the USA.

The main reason I see why inter-city rail in this country won't work is because of the "last mile problem". The one thing the just about every European city has that almost no American city has is ubiquitous mass transit in every city. Sure our cities have mass transit but, aside from NYC, no city here really gives you the sense that you can truly give up your car and get just about anywhere in the city. This is especially true of Southern US cities. Can you imagine leaving your car in Miami and getting around in Tampa or Orlando? Maybe if you JUST want to go to Disney world and the station is close or their's a shuttle. But if you expect to get elsewhere or, God forbid, go multiple places in the city...good luck! Yes they can just rent a car but then what's the point? Just save the money and take your own.

Basically you need good INTRA city rail in both source and destination city before INTER city rail will flourish. Otherwise people will never get over their fear of being stranded once they get to their dest city.

[DShoost88]

Originally Posted by CalleOchoGringo

Sure our cities have mass transit but, aside from NYC, no city here really gives you the sense that you can truly give up your car and get just about anywhere in the city.

Boston?

Philly?

D.C.?

In essence, the major US cities that are served by Acela high speed rail have contributed to and benefited from it becoming Amtrak's most profitable route because the passengers generally have given up there cars and are able to get about anywhere in the city.

NYC may be a poster child and our biggest city and blah blah blah, but I believe credit should be given where credit is due.


















































Sorry. I'm a Patriots fan.

[xerxesjc28]

Originally Posted by CalleOchoGringo

The main reason I see why inter-city rail in this country won't work is because of the "last mile problem". The one thing the just about every European city has that almost no American city has is ubiquitous mass transit in every city. Sure our cities have mass transit but, aside from NYC, no city here really gives you the sense that you can truly give up your car and get just about anywhere in the city. This is especially true of Southern US cities. Can you imagine leaving your car in Miami and getting around in Tampa or Orlando? Maybe if you JUST want to go to Disney world and the station is close or their's a shuttle. But if you expect to get elsewhere or, God forbid, go multiple places in the city...good luck! Yes they can just rent a car but then what's the point? Just save the money and take your own.

Basically you need good INTRA city rail in both source and destination city before INTER city rail will flourish. Otherwise people will never get over their fear of being stranded once they get to their dest city.

You make a very good point. Though I will still think HSR might work for the NE and maybe the Mid West, don't most large cities in those areas have a pretty good basic transportation system (buses that cover most of the city at least). The SE, from all I have read has, with a few exceptions, the worst mass transit system in the nation. Not including places with far too low a population for mass transit.

[spellbound]

Originally Posted by DShoost88

Boston?

Philly?

D.C.?

Yes, yes, and yes...and I've lived in all three.

I have a car and enjoy the convenience of it when needed but I could easily get by without it. Hard to put an actual percentage on it but I'd guesstimate I drive about 90% less than I did in South Florida. In D.C. I had to drive a bit more living further out but had I been right in the city it would have been the same. Didn't have (or need) a car in Boston.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by CalleOchoGringo

We should also work to rezone and densify the areas around existing stations. This doesn't have to start in bad neighborhoods either. Vizcaya, CG, Douglas Road, Univ (South side) and S Miami stations can all use more density. I even think that the neighborhood around Culmer station is ripe for gentrification with it's location in relation to downtown. That should help increase the ridership numbers of metrorail quite a bit. And of course, there's nothing wrong with continuing to densify the CBD, and fighting to hold the UDB line (should help infill).

South Miami's politicians have been working feverishly to restrict the area around the South Miami metrorail station to 3 stories because they fear this very thing. Coral Gables would never allow the south side of US-1 near the University station to densify either. Coconut Grove residents thought the world was coming to and end and reverted to full kill-home-depot mode (with density as the new target) when a few midrises were proposed on the north side of US-1 near the Coconut Grove station.

The only way this could happen is if the County was able to over-rule the local zoning ordinances around its metro-rail stations. I'm sure it would make for a fun court fight.

[exMiami]

Originally Posted by dave8721

As are "private" air lines. The government builds the airports, runways, parking and other transportation, handles security, and air traffic control and the airlines still have trouble turning a profit.

When you buy an airplane ticket, on average you are paying pretty close to the true cost of that flight. There are federal taxes and fees tacked on to cover TSA, security, air traffic control, runway construction etc. Broward and Dade do not subsidize MIA or FLL with tax dollars whatsoever. The airport budgets are covered by revenue received from rent charged to airlines, as well as concession ret/revenue, parking etc.

in contrast, when you buy an Acela ticket from Boston to DC, you are buying a ticket that is heavily subsidized by tax dollars. If not, no one would take Acela.

Unfortunately the economics of building a new high speed rail route between most major US cities such as Dallas-Houston or even Miami-Orlando just do not work. Even assuming best case ridership and cost scenarios, the cost per passenger is still many multiples of just transporting them by air.