Fort Wayne passenger service floated, again

[Saturnalia]

IMHO:

Ten dollar per gallon gasoline will change a lot of the dynamics of passenger railroad service in the US.

Ten dollar per gallon fuel oil makes cross-ocean shipping of inexpensive consumer goods impractical.

The push for "clean" energy will collapse the coal industry in this country as sure as the strikes of the 40's & 50's did.

The bottom line is in the not to distant future passenger rail service will become a large proportion of rail revenue that it is today.

$10 gas might not happen as soon as many think/hope it will. We've been hearing for years when our known reserves will run out, and at one point is was like 2020. Funny thing is, we keep finding more! Most people don't know there are HUGE deposits of oil and natural gas under California. But politics there is keeping it locked up, with very little exploration. Bottom line is, even with major growth, the United States has more than enough oil & natural gas in the ground here to sustain us for over 100 years. Think about this: there is more oil and natural gas known but still untapped in the ground under this great nation than ALL OIL & NATURAL GAS EVER BURNED by humanity.

I foresee us burning hydrocarbons cleaner as the more likely option over abandoning hydrocarbon fuels, at least through the 21st Century

And looking even farther forward, towards the 22nd Century, we're looking at Fusion power, which would eliminate all need for hydrocarbon fuels. Science Fiction? Sure, but look at what we have now no one else thought of 30 years ago...

[Typhoon]

IMHO:

Ten dollar per gallon gasoline will change a lot of the dynamics of passenger railroad service in the US.

Yes it will. It will make passenger railroads that still run on diesel less competitive than the new wave of cars that will be here in a couple of years.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsk ... -next-car/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsk ... this-year/

http://www.chron.com/cars/article/Cheap ... 583621.php

[nathansixchime]

Indiana PAY for train service? What are they smoking over in Ohio? They're balking at supporting the Hoosier State ... Indiana isn't going to buy Ohio a train.

You do realize that the state of Indiana put down $200,000 under the previous governor for the Indiana portion of the Chicago-Michigan line, right?

In what year?

The Michigan Line work in Indiana project I was referring to was $71.4 million in federal funds ... 100% federal money.

Can you accurately give a year and a project that you are alleging Governor Daniels gave $200k for? And then explain why you raise $200k as if it was anywhere near the impact level of Indiana buying Ohio a train?

It was fairly recent. I'll be happy to provide some documentation, though the term "alleging" is pretty strong, as I actually first learned of it from the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission a few months ago.

.

For all of the transit in Chicago there is a reason why there are huge and numerous parking structures in the Loop

Perhaps you are one of those hip people who think not having a car is cool. I'm not.

Not necessarily. I love my Jeep.

I've lived in Los Angeles (1.5 years), Chicago (4), and Spencerville and Fort Wayne, Indiana, in between, so that's exposure to everything from 101 gridlock, Metra, Amtrak, and the L, and Amish buggies.

Chicago is a perfect example of a city with options based upon your needs. For a 2 month period I actually kept my car in Hammond, rode the South Shore back to the loop and out again as needed, though mostly to save on the hefty parking fees downtown for anything longer than ten minutes.

The folks that use Metra and ride from Naperville every morning and evening have cars in the suburbs, but transit to them is about options, which it is for me too. That's why so many transportation developments use the term "multi-modal" despite it being perhaps the most sexless way of talking about transit options.

Urban Hipsters are the exception, not the norm.

I don't get the hipster hate. I put my tight pants on one leg at a time just like you...

But consider empty nesters. They are...urban old people.

http://www.fortwayne.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ ... /320104744

Can you imagine leaving a home in a sprawling suburban subdivision to live in a condominium in downtown Fort Wayne?

Brian and Trish Ellis could. In fact, when they heard the old Anthony Wayne Building downtown was being converted into luxury high-rise condominiums, they couldn't wait to find out more.

“We both lived in the suburbs our whole life,” Trish Ellis said. “When we heard about this, we came racing down here last November.”

http://boston.curbed.com/archives/2012/ ... boston.php

These baby boomers are willing to pay six- and seven-figure premiums for less space than they owned before elsewhere to be in what's become one of the most charming—and physically accessible—cities in America. They are moving into Boston in trend-piece-worthy droves.

--

When I moved to Indy, I looked into living 'downtown' because I thought it would be 'fun'. When I saw the prices for rent down there, I quickly realized that I couldn't afford it. That was working full time with the railroad, which isn't exactly a 'low paying' occupation.

While you quote Chicago, Boston, New York, etc as having 'strong urban cores' they are also probably 3 to 4 times larger than the largest city on the route (Columbus). You aren't going to get the population density in downtown Fort Wayne as you could in those metropolis you mention. Even downtown Indy is dying.

But, we circle back to the competitiveness of cities. A doctor can earn a rather comfortable living in Chicago and have every single amenity one would want, from bike to plane, suburb to condo. A doctor can earn a similarly comfortable living in Fort Wayne, for perhaps a bit less, but have what in comparison to Chicago?

This is not a young people trend -- it's established professionals, CEOs, doctors, machinists, techs, web developers being recruited by everything from the biggest hospitals to Vera Bradley, which is actively grabbing people from Boston, or Lincoln Financial who are recruiting folks from Philadelphia or Boulder, Colorado. One of the most common questions for new employees in this area is "why would you move to Fort Wayne?" A good question in the future will be "why do you stay?"

Big box retail and giant urban infill developments have a dark side, but even the Union Station development, is cited as the catalyst that prompted development nearby as an example of "setting the table." (I did a lot of studying on this a few years ago, don't have the links or PDFs offhand, but it does demonstrate the issues of the chicken vs. egg scenarios with urban development, specifically that which Indy is facing.)

For a similar illustration you could use Parkview Field in downtown Fort Wayne, which was built when the city already had a baseball stadium outside downtown along Coliseum. Now, in addition to the 6-8000+ visitors every game night, you can point to a number of businesses and private enterprises that have sprung up as a direct result of that one major million dollar gamble. It has to start somewhere, and it doesn't always work.

This article touches on some of your point:

http://www.indianaeconomicdigest.net/ma ... leID=56541

It’s never been easy, but the past decade has seen important strides: roughly 5,000 more residents live downtown now than in 2000, wooed by new condos and apartments within walking distance of growing retail and cultural attractions. There are now 25,000 downtown residents—but still a long way from the 40,000 city leaders want by the end of the next decade....

...But simple access won’t be enough to double the pace of downtown residential growth in the next decade. City leaders past and present say that, for Indianapolis to have any shot at reaching its goal—and to give a sustaining base of patrons to downtown’s institutions—the city must continue to add new attractions, remove barriers and perhaps even reach out to a huge group of people who have largely shunned downtown living: families with children.

Here's a point that's been alluded to, but not cited specifically. Outside of the foamers and the politicians, who are the other advocates for passenger rail in areas like Warsaw and Fort Wayne? They're employers, primarily those involved with one of Northeast Indiana/Fort Wayne's biggest industry, from medical device manufacturers whose employees utilize US 30 or airport connections, to hospitals who want to get good doctors to come here and stay here. Take, OrthoWorx in Warsaw for example: http://orthoworxindiana.com/news/2011/02/3792/

As far as comments about Class 1 participation goes, I totally agree on the potential for the buck stopping there. What I don't understand is the outright submissiveness of efforts to answer these very real issues, developments, and evolving economic/cultural issues.

We can laugh at hipsters and "urban development" all we want, but it's not as if this desire for passenger rail or connected urban cores just came out of the sky or originated in a Koolaid factory somewhere. People who have no business giving a darn about trains are largely saying the same thing: we want transit options.

KL

[CSX_CO]

These baby boomers are willing to pay six- and seven-figure premiums for less space than they owned before elsewhere to be in what's become one of the most charming—and physically accessible—cities in America. They are moving into Boston in trend-piece-worthy droves.

Fort Wayne is not Chicago, is not Boston, is not anywhere 'big'. You state that people are moving out of Philly to Boston. That's moving from one metropolitan area for another. Mostly because Philly is dying, another large metropolitan area that is experiencing a massive loss of residents, jobs, etc. Fort Wayne, I'm sorry to say, is not trendy. It is not 'hip'. It will never be the massive metropolitan area that New York, Boston, Chicago, LA, et al is. Even Metro Indy doesn't measure up to those places, but it is getting better. If Metro Indy, with NBA and NFL franchises, Indianapolis Museum of Art, State Museum, Eijeljorg (spelling), NCAA HQ, etc etc etc can't be a 'hip' place, what on earth makes you think Fort Wayne, out in the middle of corn fields, is going to take over?

Comparing what METRA does on daily basis to some 120 mph railroad across Indiana is comparing apples to oranges. People living on METRA lines in the suburbs still have cars, and still drive into Chicago when they need to. I living in Northern Illinois for 10 years while growing up, and the 'sprawl' is reaching Belevedere now. I had neighbors who would drive into western suburbs of Chicago from Rockford to work each day. METRA didn't benefit them, but they chose to live that far out to avoid the problems of the suburbs. METRA still doesn't get any closer to Rockford then Harvard, despite the sprawl spreading further and further west. Despite that massive growth, any attempts to jump start service out that far end with a whimper because of the costs.

We can laugh at hipsters and "urban development" all we want, but it's not as if this desire for passenger rail or connected urban cores just came out of the sky or originated in a Koolaid factory somewhere. People who have no business giving a darn about trains are largely saying the same thing: we want transit options.

The thing about Fort Wayne is it isn't big enough to NEED transit options. It is not Chicago, it is not Boston, it isn't New York. If you want train service, petition AMTRAK to put a train back on. You don't 'need' 120 mph railroad to be 'hip' and 'modern'.

Here's my problem. I own a postage stamp lot in a housing development. Even with a Hoosier Homestead Tax Credit I pay $2800 a year in property taxes. I have LESS than an acre. 40% of my check goes to Federal income taxes, railroad retirement, RR health care, State AND Local income taxes. I made less last year then the year prior, paid more in taxes, and still owed another $1500 to the Government. I DO NOT want to have to pay more to fund some dream railroad.

If the 'urban centers' are so interested in the railroad, then you all should not have any problem floating a 2, 5, 10% 'special tax' for Allen County (and surrounding ones that will be directly served) like Marion County has for the loan on the Colts Stadium. IIRC Marion County, and surrounding 'satellite' counties have a food and drink tax of either 4 or 6% on purchases in restaurants. To me, that seems like fair way to pay for the railroad you all want so badly.

In addition, people in Condo's and Apartments aren't paying nearly as much in property taxes proportionally, so its easy for them to spend 'OPM' on some project to seemingly make their lives better. If they're living 'car free', then they aren't paying the gas tax that goes to fund highways, railroads, buses, etc. The things they sooooo badly want other people to pay for so they can use cheaply. They shouldn't get a 'free ride' in funding 'their' railroad.

After all, if you float that special tax, surely all those people you say are coming will help pay for it. If those 'city centers' are willing to pay for the project, then knock yourselves out. My money is already stretched thin as it is, and Uncle Sam is looking for ways to get more out of me. I'll be darned if I want my hard earned money going for some dream 120 mph railroad so a 'new generation' can use it when they feel like it.

As far as comments about Class 1 participation goes, I totally agree on the potential for the buck stopping there.

Excuse me if I'm ignorant, but don't you think its a bit of a case of putting the cart before the horse in asking for moeny, without even seeing if the owners of the ROW you intend to use will even let you? There again, the 'proposal' doesn't even consider the biggest issue of WHERE its going to be, and the feasibility of it being on CSX property. Yet, GIVE US MONEY.

What I don't understand is the outright submissiveness of efforts to answer these very real issues, developments, and evolving economic/cultural issues.

It comes down to money. Who is going to pay for it. Its not submissiveness, its about the tax payers absolutely fed up with the waste in the Government on all levels, and finally saying 'enough'.

Bottom line is no passenger railroad is going to support itself. My tax money is already wasted enough as it is, I don't want it wasted on something like this. Again, if those counties being served directly want to float special taxes to pay for it, then go for it. I don't expect Fort Wayne to pay for improvements in Indy, nor should Fort Wayne expect me to pay for improvements up there.

That's the problem with the voting structure in this country. The population centers get what they want, while the rest of the state (the vast majority property owners) get left holding the ever increasing property tax bills for the rest of the state. Look at Michigan. What Detroit wants, Detroit gets. People like my parents, who's property tax bill has tripled in the 20 years they've lived there, get to pay for what they want.

Practice Safe CSX

[nathansixchime]

Fort Wayne is not Chicago, is not Boston, is not anywhere 'big'. You state that people are moving out of Philly to Boston. That's moving from one metropolitan area for another.

I cited two articles of vastly different cities to show that the trend exists in the Bostons as well as the Fort Waynes that demonstrate varying age groups moving out of suburban areas and into downtowns. That doesn't mean that Fort Wayne and Boston are twins -- not at all. And I didn't say folks were moving from Philly to Boston, but that Fort Wayne is recruiting people from Philadelphia for jobs.

I don't presume Fort Wayne taking over, I presume it and the Northeast Indiana region to be getting more competitive in terms of quality of life offerings, talent/education, infrastructure, and economic development in general. How those chips eventually fall is unforeseen, but the unemployment rate is below the national average and the per capita income nose-dive is reversing. It is not about hip. It is not about cool. Reversing the 20% decline in per capita income has been the number one issue for the NE Indiana region of late, and that is the climate on which these topics like mass/passenger and "urban development" find footing.

I didn't draw comparisons to Metra and Indiana passenger rail, just noted that even Metra passengers own cars. And many of those commuters on the L own cars, too. And some goofs like me parked their car in Hammond when they lived downtown. What they have with 2.3 airports, Metra, Amtrak, the Dan Ryan, and the L...are options.

We can laugh at hipsters and "urban development" all we want, but it's not as if this desire for passenger rail or connected urban cores just came out of the sky or originated in a Koolaid factory somewhere. People who have no business giving a darn about trains are largely saying the same thing: we want transit options.

The thing about Fort Wayne is it isn't big enough to NEED transit options. It is not Chicago, it is not Boston, it isn't New York. If you want train service, petition AMTRAK to put a train back on. You don't 'need' 120 mph railroad to be 'hip' and 'modern'.

Not this second, perhaps, but how does one plan one's infrastructure for the next 20 years?

Here's my problem. I own a postage stamp lot in a housing development. Even with a Hoosier Homestead Tax Credit I pay $2800 a year in property taxes. I have LESS than an acre. 40% of my check goes to Federal income taxes, railroad retirement, RR health care, State AND Local income taxes. I made less last year then the year prior, paid more in taxes, and still owed another $1500 to the Government. I DO NOT want to have to pay more to fund some dream railroad.

Understood, and as a freelancer my quarterly taxes are no fun either (especially with out of state income) and up until recently, self-funded insurance and health care. The out of satte taxes on my RJ Corman payroll alone were pretty gnarly in comparison.

In addition, people in Condo's and Apartments aren't paying nearly as much in property taxes proportionally, so its easy for them to spend 'OPM' on some project to seemingly make their lives better. If they're living 'car free', then they aren't paying the gas tax that goes to fund highways, railroads, buses, etc. The things they sooooo badly want other people to pay for so they can use cheaply. They shouldn't get a 'free ride' in funding 'their' railroad...

It comes down to money. Who is going to pay for it. Its not submissiveness, its about the tax payers absolutely fed up with the waste in the Government on all levels, and finally saying 'enough'.

A lot of people complained about the ballpark in downtown Fort Wayne. "Why would I pay for a ball park that downtown can use?" But what critics of trail funding, downtown development, and other QoL initiatives don't appreciate is that these efforts benefit communities as a whole, and not just the small segments in which they're located. They influence property values, employment, infrastructure and "added value" improvements, though the direct one-hand-to-the-other economic impact is not as immediate or obvious. Some cities will claim over a million dollars annually. As an example, $500,000 to lay some asphalt becomes multiplied how many more times? It bleeds over into businesses, events, property selection. I think as we like to touch the granite and brick that does the work, not talk about the frilly "niceities" or "meta-impact" of larger efforts, though they're just as real as tangible I-69.

The philosophical debate of getting to choose where our tax money goes assumes we ever really get to. "Government waste" may be one of the most subjective terms and attitudes of the last decade, and whereas I could list things I'm not keen for my tax money to go to, I also realize the tax revenue is not opinion based. Whether it's education, defense, transit, it's a darn shame that the immediacy of public opinion is often so far removed from the decisions themselves.

While we're spending money, be happy to meet you at Kilroys sometime, and it can be the one in Bloomington...

[nathansixchime]

Further information on Indiana's minimal-but-symbolic investment in passenger rail, passed along from an MDOT rep:

Source: http://greatlakesrail.org/~grtlakes/ind ... m-overview

"In August 2011, MDOT and its partnering state agencies were selected for a $3.2 million federal grant from the Federal Railroad Administration’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program to complete this project. MDOT and its state partners provided the required 20 percent matching funds for a total study cost of $4 million."

Three states contribution equals $600,000. The additional $200,000 was contributed by a private company.

[MagnumForce]

Both of you make excellent points and as someone who lives in the Fort Wayne sphere of influence I agree that Fort Wayne has gotten so much better in the last decade. If I go to a town that has anything I have a choice between Toledo and Fort Wayne and now with 24 it is less than an hour to either and more and more I find myself going to Fort Wayne far more than Toledo for all the reasons Kelly said. That said I don't believe the population could support multiple high speed trains daily with any form of high ridership. Now a normal speed daily train I could get behind but I feel it would have to serve mote Northern Indiana population centers.

[MagnumForce]

Just to add, the new 24 is the best public works project in this area in my lifetime.

[railroadchoad]

I think it is important to keep in mind what terminology is important to use in this debate. I think that any potential rail service in the CHI-FTW-COL corridor would be higher-speed conventional equipment. Think: what Illinois and Michigan are developing. Any thoughts of bullet trains can be blamed on ignorant journalists and other ill-informed members of the general public.

[MagnumForce]

Did you see the group's proposal? They are sure making people think true high speed.

[conrailman75]

They have been using that term "high speed rail" for as long as I can remember. Even I know that if this proposal ever gets built(and you won't convince me until I see the first train running on it) it was going to be higher speed rail and not the high speed rail they have in the rest of the world.

[justalurker66]

The thing about Fort Wayne is it isn't big enough to NEED transit options. It is not Chicago, it is not Boston, it isn't New York. If you want train service, petition AMTRAK to put a train back on. You don't 'need' 120 mph railroad to be 'hip' and 'modern'.

Not this second, perhaps, but how does one plan one's infrastructure for the next 20 years?

Responsibly. Not by following railroad plans that allege to "pay for themselves" with very few lines ever coming close to breaking even. Profitable public transit is rare.

[conrailman75]

The thing about Fort Wayne is it isn't big enough to NEED transit options. It is not Chicago, it is not Boston, it isn't New York. If you want train service, petition AMTRAK to put a train back on. You don't 'need' 120 mph railroad to be 'hip' and 'modern'.

Not this second, perhaps, but how does one plan one's infrastructure for the next 20 years?

Responsibly. Not by following railroad plans that allege to "pay for themselves" with very few lines ever coming close to breaking even. Profitable public transit is rare.

+1

[railroadchoad]

Did you see the group's proposal? They are sure making people think true high speed.

I did but I also think someone said that a high schooler could have produced that promotional material. It looked like the publisher of the darn thing used a bunch of stock photos of generic European (is it ICE, TGV? Who knows!) That stuff is swell but it isn't what is going to be attainable in this neck of the woods even if there was the political will. The highER speed stuff is what is attainable. Improvements to the existing physical plant and conventional equipment and you are in business (To say nothing of agreements with a particular anti-passenger freight railroad and paying for it all). To get what is pictured: lots of new ROW, stringing catenary, closing assloads of crossings...ain't going to happen. Part of the hysteria of the opposition if fueled by the pie-in-the-sky imagery used by those proposing the service!

[Saturnalia]

European mass transit works largely due to a lot of travel being medium-sized distances. Not short enough to drive, not long enough to fly. Like the 200-600 miles market. Even if your train goes 200 mph non-stop, it will still be over 12 hours NYC to LA. Not going to happen when flying, even with airport time, takes far less time. And the airport infrastructure is already there. Oh yeah, and the population density is much greater, like we have with the NEC...I think this thread has done a good job of outlining the weaknesses at this point of HSR in the US, and you can add speed over distance to that list!

[howeld]

Why is everyone so hung up the train making money. As it has been said no transportation pays for itself. I worked on the Fort to Port project. Indiana and Ohio have spent nearly 1 Billion dollars on US 24 between Ft Wayne and Toledo over the last 20 plus years to complete the project. Now that was much cheaper per mile as it was new highway and traffic didn't need maintained. Near my home Ohio is spending 150mil for 9miles of Interstate 75 that will not even add any capacity at all. How are these highway projects ever going to pay for themselves? No one blinks an eye at the cost for a highway.

Our population is growing and people need to move. Not everyone will ride a train but if enough do that a new highway or additional lane isn't needed, that is a net savings to all tax payers weather you will use the train or not. It is much cheaper to build a railroad corridor than it is to build a highway. The state DOTs need to give all forms of transportation equal attention when warranted.

Does this corridor need 110-130mph with dozen train each way? Nope don't think so. But would a 2-4 trains running 79mph have nice healthy ridership that would warrant future improvements? Absolutely!

[Saturnalia]

Does this corridor need 110-130mph with dozen train each way? Nope don't think so. But would a 2-4 trains running 79mph have nice healthy ridership that would warrant future improvements? Absolutely!

Maybe, but that is not what this group is proposing!

[howeld]

Does this corridor need 110-130mph with dozen train each way? Nope don't think so. But would a 2-4 trains running 79mph have nice healthy ridership that would warrant future improvements? Absolutely!

Maybe, but that is not what this group is proposing!

Pulled directly from their website:
"The proposed system would operate twelve trains each way per day, including at least six express schedules. With modern diesel equipment running at speeds of up to 110 miles per hour to start, the three-hundred mile trip between downtown Chicago and downtown Columbus would normally require only three hours, forty-five minutes (express service), or four hours (local service). Track and safety improvements in a potential future phase would support speeds up to 130 mph and a downtown Chicago to downtown Columbus express time of three hours, twenty minutes."

[justalurker66]

Why is everyone so hung up the train making money.

Because the proponents of the project (see the study) claim that the train will be self sufficient and make money. We all know better.

How are these highway projects ever going to pay for themselves? No one blinks an eye at the cost for a highway.

We blink ... but highway projects are easier to spread around. While it may seem that most of the highway dollars are going for some road project in a major city where the benefit is unknown without reading the studies, states and the federal government can do enough road projects in each area so few people feel left out. (Unless of course, they don't use roads or recognize the importance of roads.)

Train projects such as Chicago to Columbus spend a lot of money on a path. Half of the trains won't even stop at half of the cities that will be fortunate enough to have service and there are plenty of towns where the proposed train will never stop.

If Chicago to Columbus could be funded alongside of a Chicago to Toledo improvement and a good Chicago to Indianapolis (and maybe Cincinnati) line then perhaps more of the state could support it. (Gotta find a way to make Terre Haute and Evansville area Hoosiers happy too for full acceptance.) But asking Hoosiers to buy Columbus a train to Chicago? Especially based on a flawed presentation that claims it will "pay for itself"? Good luck with that.

[Y@]

Just to add, the new 24 is the best public works project in this area in my lifetime.

QFT.