Which cities will see the largest growth/improvement of their Rail systems? (Subway, Light Rail, Commuter Rail, etc)? (downtown, neighborhood)

[SEAandATL]

Originally Posted by TheProf

In Europe and Japan, they are open to experimenting with all types of modes. The 19-mile airport maglev is quite interesting. But unlike the United States, these countries' main investments are in rail -- LRT and even HRT in cities and HSR between cities. And it's not just the industrial powers. Even places like Morocco have built/are developing HSR and rapid transit systems. I'm glad to finally see actual tangible HSR movement in California and Florida and, hopefully, Texas will be moving soon. I'm hopefully that Biden/Buttigieg can at least jump start high or higher speed rail projects in other parts of the country.

You mean Brightline? The good thing about that is it's a private company, so they don't have to rely on the government. The proposed Texas Central is that as well.

[mpier015]

Originally Posted by _Buster

Yes. if you were watching only the beginning, that was just downtown streets near the entrance to the busway. The actual MLK East busway is actually more of a BRT than maybe any other system, at least that I know of, in the USA. It's a totally bus dedicated highway, with stations at intervals. No other vehicles are allowed on it , even HOVs. I don't think there are any stoplights on the entire busway until it gets downtown. The travel times are quick on this busway, and it basically connects to the T light rail in downtown.

Pittsburgh also has two other busways, but those two are not as quick since they don't have full dedicated ROW along the whole length.

I think the Orange Line in LA is probably the best BRT in the country.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by mpier015

I think the Orange Line in LA is probably the best BRT in the country.

If it didn't have all those grade crossings, I might agree.

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by TheProf

In Europe and Japan, they are open to experimenting with all types of modes. The 19-mile airport maglev is quite interesting. But unlike the United States, these countries' main investments are in rail -- LRT and even HRT in cities and HSR between cities. And it's not just the industrial powers. Even places like Morocco have built/are developing HSR and rapid transit systems. I'm glad to finally see actual tangible HSR movement in California and Florida and, hopefully, Texas will be moving soon. I'm hopefully that Biden/Buttigieg can at least jump start high or higher speed rail projects in other parts of the country.

Trust me I know. I used to spend my summers in Caracas

[atadytic19]

I know this just opened and covid had ridership way down but it's odd seeing it so empty

https://youtu.be/RdJiHIhsQrE

What is even more odd is seeing pedestrians.
I thought yall said people don't walk in Uptown?

[mhays25]

Wow, the Galleria is looking desolate! Every couple blocks a pedestrian, or two on one occasion.

But the bus line looks well done. An area like that that's spread out and not fun to walk in but also dense enough to have a critical mass of people should be a BRT sweet spot.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by masssachoicetts

Boston has the GLX, South Coast Expansion, new Red/Orange LIne Cars, and updates to all the signaling. But is that enough to compete with some of these systems that are rapidly expanding?

Originally Posted by newgensandiego

Short answer: No.

Does not compare with LA or Seattle.

I'll actually say that for the timeframe of 10, 15 years from now, Boston is probably one of the top contenders in terms of drastically improved rail systems. They don't have that many major construction projects on the docket aside for a current light rail extension and some commuter rail improvements and they really only have one major subway extension plan which is extending the Blue line to connect to the Red, but what Boston does have is an extremely low-hanging fruit and one that only a handful of other cities in the US have. That very long hanging fruit is an extensive, existing network of commuter rail that can take a series of relatively small projects to quickly become a hybrid commuter rail / rapid transit network such as the S-Bahn found in Berlin, RER in Paris, or what you see with BART in the Bay Area and how parts of the Washington DC Metro system works.


For Boston, those steps would be to create a North-South rail link tunnel between its two current terminal stations for its commuter trains and electrifying those branches, piecemeal if necessary, so that there is fairly frequent service throughout the region and especially frequent service within the most urban parts where multiple train services might share tracks. About a half dozen other US cities have that possibility (those other ones are Baltimore, Chicago, DC, East and South Bay of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York; Philadelphia technically already has this but it for some reason just isn't run that way), but Boston might have the best pathway there given the primacy of the Boston metropolitan area to the state, fairly good state finances, having nearly the entire system within one state's jurisdiction, existing electrification on a portion of the route, and a pretty clean and clear tunnel box without much utility relocations for the tunnels passageway.

[masssachoicetts]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

I'll actually say that for the timeframe of 10, 15 years from now, Boston is probably one of the top contenders in terms of drastically improved rail systems. They don't have that many major construction projects on the docket aside for a current light rail extension and some commuter rail improvements and they really only have one major subway extension plan which is extending the Blue line to connect to the Red, but what Boston does have is an extremely low-hanging fruit and one that only a handful of other cities in the US have. That very long hanging fruit is an extensive, existing network of commuter rail that can take a series of relatively small projects to quickly become a hybrid commuter rail / rapid transit network such as the S-Bahn found in Berlin, RER in Paris, or what you see with BART in the Bay Area and how parts of the Washington DC Metro system works.


For Boston, those steps would be to create a North-South rail link tunnel between its two current terminal stations for its commuter trains and electrifying those branches, piecemeal if necessary, so that there is fairly frequent service throughout the region and especially frequent service within the most urban parts where multiple train services might share tracks. About a half dozen other US cities have that possibility (those other ones are Baltimore, Chicago, DC, East and South Bay of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York; Philadelphia technically already has this but it for some reason just isn't run that way), but Boston might have the best pathway there given the primacy of the Boston metropolitan area to the state, fairly good state finances, having nearly the entire system within one state's jurisdiction, existing electrification on a portion of the route, and a pretty clean and clear tunnel box without much utility relocations for the tunnels passageway.

I don't understand how the NSRL hasn't got approved yet. It costs 30 billion to electrify it and add the tunneling but at the same time, the economic benefits would far outweigh the costs. Not to mention the amount of people who would able to live in/around Boston.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by masssachoicetts

I don't understand how the NSRL hasn't got approved yet. It costs 30 billion to electrify it and add the tunneling but at the same time, the economic benefits would far outweigh the costs. Not to mention the amount of people who would able to live in/around Boston.

It also opens up the very pricey real estate that the platforms and interlocking the terminal stations have for development and makes the area around pretty much every commuter rail station a very viable TOD area. It's also a linkage that can draw support from neighboring states as it also allows for through-running of regional interstate rail so their representatives would probably help vote in federal funding as well. It's wild that something that would seem like a no-brainer is still just on the docket. However, there's at least a lot of people pushing for it and it is one of those infrastructure projects that for its cost could very quickly and fairly efficiently create a sea change in improving the rail transit system in Boston which is why I think Boston is actually a viable answer for the timeline given of 10 years and 15 years. Of course, the cities I mentioned also have that ability, but they have their own problems with Philadelphia and then Boston having the easiest pathways towards a solve.


For a through-running regional transit system to quickly take off, these cities have the possibility of doing so and with the following impediments:


Boston:
- already owns most of the tracks and almost all of it is within the state of MA and RI has what would probably be a sympathetic government to doing their part
- one of its lines is already electrified due to Amtrak electrification though rest are not electrified
- only one agency to have to sign on and convince
- cost is mostly in the tunnels and electrification
- decent population and economic growth so there is demographic and economic pressure to allow such
- short tunneling needed that's also mostly cleared out as a clean dirt pathway from the Big Dig days
- project in line with greater regional incentive to link states by transit
- the Boston area is definitely a large political driver within the state




Chicago:
- network is mostly in one state and also one agency for almost all lines save for the Indiana service
- partially electrified along one service
- through-running should be relatively easy to connect multiple lines as some lines share terminal stations coming from different directions or the terminal stations are fairly close to each other
- not great demographic growth trends and pretty bad state and city finances
- does not own vast majority of its commuter rail line tracks but instead must negotiate with multiple private freight operators--that and city/state finances are its main issues
- large political driver within the state, but contentious relationship with other parts of the state and there is a significant population within Illinois outside of Chicagoland who do not seem to like their largest city very much




DC/Baltimore:
- more limited in the number of existing commuter rail routes it cana leverage compared to the others
- not just agency differences in jurisdiction, but also multiple state-level differences to coordinate
- limited electrification



Los Angeles:
- no electrification
- single agency and state control of agency as well as most important bits within a single county
- does not own vast majority of its commuter rail line tracks but instead must negotiate with multiple private freight operators--that and city/state finances are its main issues
- is currently looking at through-running at its core terminal (Union Station) though it's a bit messy
- no to limited existing commuter rail goes through densest part of urban area such as most of Central LA and most of the Westside



New York:
- heavily balkanized transit agencies and split among multiple states
- mostly publicly owned track
- electrified, but to different standards
- some existing through-running capability for LIRR/NJT, but that's also good evidence of how balkanized the system is since that's been the case for a long time and still there is no through-running passenger service
- some geographical technical constraints that can be costly
- metropolitan area may be as populous as the state, but a large part of the state is outside the metropolitan area commuter shed and the relationship is contentious




Philadelphia:
- already has through-running capabilities (and actually has it from two different axes)
- already electrified though electrified somewhat idiosyncratically
- mostly publicly-owned tracks
- only very slight balkanization with NJT on the other side of the river which only runs one non-electric service to Philadelphia
- has had these conditions for a while and has recently been posting population gains in even the core city
- no, seriously, this one should be easy, what the ****?
- oh that's right, PA has a lot of people outside the Philadelphia commuter shed in state and the relationship isn't always great




San Francisco:
- all in one state, but heavily balkanized transit agencies and counties with their own fiefdoms
- has an odd incompatible broad gauge system in BART that can't be leveraged with other existing rail infrastructure
- decent population and economic growth so there is demographic and economic pressure to allow such
- geography makes connecting most urban parts really technically expensive
- mishmash of track ownership, but not as highly geared towards private ownership as Chicago is


Any of these cities getting to fare standardization and a through-running frequent commuter rail system where the price of fare goes down (made up for with volume since frequencies can go way up and therefore far more people served) and a much more efficient system with each line getting at least 15 minute frequency which would result in half that time or less to become rapid transit systems wherever a set of tracks is served by more than one line essentially gets heavy rail rapid transit system of very extensive reach and at a relatively low cost for the service provided could vault themselves up in terms of how improved their rail transit system is. The question then is if any of them will reach that point within the next decade or decade and a half. Technically, Philadelphia has by far the easiest pathway towards this, but Boston has more political control and will in some respects to drive state funding into running this kind of thing though will have to pay more for the technical aspects to make this work.

[stanley-88888888]

https://www.pbs.org/video/basic-blac...cott-and-mbta/