Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was actually going to mention that. I think I good trial would be to extend the line in phases. First to Munster or Dyer. Study the ridership for a few years and then if necessary, extend to Saint John. I don't think it should be extended all the way to Lowell as of yet because the population there is sparsely located. However dense areas like Munster and Dyer (north of 30) as well as the western and northwestern parts of Schererville and Highland could really use an extension to at least Munster.
Well it seems like this is starting to gain some steam. This plan has been modified (as I suggested and predicted way before ) And now calls for the line to only be extended to Dyer with new stations in Dyer and Munster.
The only thing is that it seems like construction costs are so high. I know that the flyover in Hammond is going to cost a lot and so are the stations (and replacing rail that has been removed...but I also wonder, will the part of the service use overhead wires or a diesel? I think diesel would be better (aesthetically as well). What does everyone think about all of this?
Last edited by Northwest Indiana; 07-03-2011 at 12:19 AM..
I don't know if a shorter line would have any more support then the longer proposal. The biggest problem with any South Shore expansion is that it is a money loser. A big money loser. Fares would cover only about 30% of expenses. So 70% has to come from somewhere. That's $30 million a year according to the estimates in the Times, I doubt Dyer and Munster can afford to subsidize that alone. Also as most employed people in NWI don't work downtown it would be hard to justify it for the few that would use it. The shortfall would increase over time as well, and estimates for these types of projects are always far too low, so the actual figure would be higher then the 30 mil. It would also add to losses on the present South Shore line as many commuters would transfer from the existing to the new line. So there may not be any more riders then now.
Presently nobody is going to vote for or allow any tax increases of any kind. I know I would vote against any increases during a recession.
I think we need to look at something far more affordable. Valpo is doing it with the Chicago Dash, that is, express buses. That is the solution for the time being and maybe forever.
Pluses: 1. If we wanted it, could be set up in a very short time, maybe in a couple of months at most. 2. Fairly low start up costs, no need to purchase anything! Hire private operators with their own buses, start with short term leases on parking lots for pick up locations. 3. Flexible, if a pick up location is unpopular, it is discontinued, if popular private operator brings in more buses and more pick up times. 4. More flexible locations. Each town could have its own pick up point, far more then just Munster and Dyer. No stops, just load up a bus load and drive downtown, or Oak Brook, Naperville, Schaumburg or where-ever a full bus load would be feasible. 5. Lower operating costs, no stationhouse, no agents (buy tickets online, by mail or on bus), no rails, no expensive construction projects. Low maintenance costs. 6. Good service would likely mean it could support itself with high enough ticket prices (but not too high to be unaffordable). If profitable, local government doesn't even have to be involved, a private operator could just do it.
I like trains like many on this message board, they can be pretty cool. But like most mass transit, they are not cost effective for the most part. 30 percent is just too low a number to expect taxpayers to cover the rest. If express buses don't attract enough riders we would know that more rail would be foolhardy.
I don't know if a shorter line would have any more support then the longer proposal. The biggest problem with any South Shore expansion is that it is a money loser. A big money loser. Fares would cover only about 30% of expenses. So 70% has to come from somewhere. That's $30 million a year according to the estimates in the Times, I doubt Dyer and Munster can afford to subsidize that alone. Also as most employed people in NWI don't work downtown it would be hard to justify it for the few that would use it. The shortfall would increase over time as well, and estimates for these types of projects are always far too low, so the actual figure would be higher then the 30 mil. It would also add to losses on the present South Shore line as many commuters would transfer from the existing to the new line. So there may not be any more riders then now.
Presently nobody is going to vote for or allow any tax increases of any kind. I know I would vote against any increases during a recession.
I think we need to look at something far more affordable. Valpo is doing it with the Chicago Dash, that is, express buses. That is the solution for the time being and maybe forever.
Pluses: 1. If we wanted it, could be set up in a very short time, maybe in a couple of months at most. 2. Fairly low start up costs, no need to purchase anything! Hire private operators with their own buses, start with short term leases on parking lots for pick up locations. 3. Flexible, if a pick up location is unpopular, it is discontinued, if popular private operator brings in more buses and more pick up times. 4. More flexible locations. Each town could have its own pick up point, far more then just Munster and Dyer. No stops, just load up a bus load and drive downtown, or Oak Brook, Naperville, Schaumburg or where-ever a full bus load would be feasible. 5. Lower operating costs, no stationhouse, no agents (buy tickets online, by mail or on bus), no rails, no expensive construction projects. Low maintenance costs. 6. Good service would likely mean it could support itself with high enough ticket prices (but not too high to be unaffordable). If profitable, local government doesn't even have to be involved, a private operator could just do it.
I like trains like many on this message board, they can be pretty cool. But like most mass transit, they are not cost effective for the most part. 30 percent is just too low a number to expect taxpayers to cover the rest. If express buses don't attract enough riders we would know that more rail would be foolhardy.
Roads are heavily subsidized , most people don't realize this.... Mass Transit subsidizes are often only half of Road Subsides. They also produce Dense Developments along there corridors , mostly with Rail transportation..... That brings in millions for the local towns with the stations. Rail also doesn't need to be replaced every 4 years like asphalt , it generally lasts 50 years , wires last 60 years without needing to be replaced. Diesel is not idea , it may seem cheaper , but down the road when costs rise , you'll regret it.
Roads are heavily subsidized , most people don't realize this.... Mass Transit subsidizes are often only half of Road Subsides. They also produce Dense Developments along there corridors , mostly with Rail transportation..... That brings in millions for the local towns with the stations. Rail also doesn't need to be replaced every 4 years like asphalt , it generally lasts 50 years , wires last 60 years without needing to be replaced. Diesel is not idea , it may seem cheaper , but down the road when costs rise , you'll regret it.
OK, some problems with your analyses. Much too general for the area too.
A. We got the roads in NW Indiana already, the rail doesn't exist. Roads are subsidized by their users namely by gas taxes, transit users aren't taxed for their use of transit except for the fare which doesn't cover the cost. Everyone uses roads, less then 1% of Americans use mass transit on a regular basis, in fact less then 5% of American's have ever set foot on any mass transit. That means that 95%+ of traffic is cars, trucks on roads so it should get most of the money since it is paying for everything. Transit users don't pay the full cost of their ride, auto owners do. In northwest Indiana we aren't even close to the 1% transit use. Not even close, and a new SS line wouldn't increase it by much, if anything.
B. The South Shore hasn't generated any "high density" development in NW Indiana, and it never will. Not even in "urban" areas like Hammond and Gary. Why? Because buyers in NW Indiana prefer low density, even medium density has few takers in the area. Plus if there would be additional property taxes (not guaranteed by any means) from bigger development, it is more then eaten up by higher expenses.
C. Maintenance is no cheaper with rail then roads. Rail doesn't even have any other users besides the trains so it has to pay the full cost. Things wear out no matter what they are.
D. Rail is a money loser from day 1 (at least here they don't try to hide it, most of these project hide the costs). It's not going to "save" money or get cheaper. It doesn't make money and would require taxpayers to foot the bill most of whom would never use it.
E. Express buses are cheaper, far more flexible and have low start up costs and little maintenance. Rail has huge start up costs, needing its own network of rails, real estate and buildings. It wouldn't lower car traffic in most towns as people would drive for example from St. John to the station in Dyer. An express bus could pick them up somewhere IN St. John saving a drive to Dyer.
Sorry, no matter which way you paint it, mass transit via rail really can't work for NW Indiana and we need to stop pretending it could. Economics are what they are. Express buses would be affordable and more user and taxpayer friendly.
OK, some problems with your analyses. Much too general for the area too.
A. We got the roads in NW Indiana already, the rail doesn't exist. Roads are subsidized by their users namely by gas taxes, transit users aren't taxed for their use of transit except for the fare which doesn't cover the cost. Everyone uses roads, less then 1% of Americans use mass transit on a regular basis, in fact less then 5% of American's have ever set foot on any mass transit. That means that 95%+ of traffic is cars, trucks on roads so it should get most of the money since it is paying for everything. Transit users don't pay the full cost of their ride, auto owners do. In northwest Indiana we aren't even close to the 1% transit use. Not even close, and a new SS line wouldn't increase it by much, if anything.
B. The South Shore hasn't generated any "high density" development in NW Indiana, and it never will. Not even in "urban" areas like Hammond and Gary. Why? Because buyers in NW Indiana prefer low density, even medium density has few takers in the area. Plus if there would be additional property taxes (not guaranteed by any means) from bigger development, it is more then eaten up by higher expenses.
C. Maintenance is no cheaper with rail then roads. Rail doesn't even have any other users besides the trains so it has to pay the full cost. Things wear out no matter what they are.
D. Rail is a money loser from day 1 (at least here they don't try to hide it, most of these project hide the costs). It's not going to "save" money or get cheaper. It doesn't make money and would require taxpayers to foot the bill most of whom would never use it.
E. Express buses are cheaper, far more flexible and have low start up costs and little maintenance. Rail has huge start up costs, needing its own network of rails, real estate and buildings. It wouldn't lower car traffic in most towns as people would drive for example from St. John to the station in Dyer. An express bus could pick them up somewhere IN St. John saving a drive to Dyer.
Sorry, no matter which way you paint it, mass transit via rail really can't work for NW Indiana and we need to stop pretending it could. Economics are what they are. Express buses would be affordable and more user and taxpayer friendly.
A. The Gas taxes only cover half the road costs , Europeans pay the real cost of maintaining roads and highways there also better then ours and safer. IN , has a great Rail network in use , just not for Passenger Rail yet..... But converting is easy and cheap. 15% of Americans use Mass Transit daily , with the highest usage being in the Coastal Northeast where half the population and growing uses it. You have to start building or rebuilding a system somewhere. You can't expanding the roads forever , you not to offer people the option of Rail or Bus.
B. Development laws need to change in IN , like other states have done. NJ was the first and we've seen positive results , Developments now surrounding most Train stations and ridership on the entire state system is nearing 2 Million. NY , CT , MN , CA , BC , ON , MA , MD , OR , and IL have or are working on statewide TOD plans and rules.... Even the suburbs are becoming dense where i live , but in a sustainable way.... The same can be done anywhere in the US.
C. Rail overtime is cheaper then roads , you don't need to plow rails , or replace tracks or wires every 4 years , or replace rolling stock every 4 years... These things last for decades and if done right , cost half that or very little compared to roads..
D. Roads are a money loser , which you ignore that....Tax payers have to pay for roads they'll never use... Why should Rail be any different?
E. 2 Trains can take 30 buses off the roads , and spur developments.... Buses are good up intill a point , and they add to congestion after this point. When the cost of Fuel goes up so does the fare , not so much with Rail. Rail costs are big at first , but overtime there much lower then roads....
- I think you need to travel outside of IN to other parts of the Country , it works in the NE and West Coast and there building a network in the Denver Metro why can't it work in NW IN? Denver was mostly low density intill they added the other Rail lines... You have to start somewhere.... Rail is more of an economic driver then Buses are , look at the Northeast for that. Most of the Satilite cities that are connected to the Mega Cities like NYC , Philly , DC or Boston are recovering and stable economy wise.
Sorry but you are missing my points completely, Nexis4Jersey.
You don't live in Northwest Indiana, and I do. I sell real estate everyday, so I know what most people are looking for here. The vast majority prefers a single family house. This area has little to no demand for high density living, in fact that's the reason many move here. If anything people here would prefer even less density. A fair amount of home buyers here don't even want a house that is next to a duplex or apartment building! As I said before the existing SS hasn't gotten any developers to build anything bigger near the existing stations so why would they in Dyer and Munster. Residents would oppose anything bigger then what is here already, and the demand just isn't there so I doubt there would be much in the way of condos.
NW Indiana isn't the Northeast US by any means. It won't be either. The current daily ridership of the South Shore is about 11,000. That's out of a population of nearly 700,000. Pretty low numbers to be running a whole railroad for, no wonder it went bankrupt a few times before they stuck the government with it. While NW Indiana has become more popular for commuting in the last couple of decades it isn't the majority of employment by any means. I doubt it would increase ridership by much, as many riders would switch from the existing line to the new one since they live closer to the proposed stations. I doubt more the 3,000 would ride a line from Munster and Dyer on a regular basis. Most people work in NWI.
Rail is not cheap. The construction costs just to the two towns would be half a BILLION dollars. That's not chump change. Plus it would need a $30 mill a year from somewhere to cover the losses. This reason alone is enough to sink this project. There is no $30 million sitting around here doing nothing. That is reality.
This project has very little chance of happening. The numbers aren't even close. It is also unpopular for the most part.
richb -valid comment - your on the money about developers not building in places like hammond etc already in nwi-
seems like people think a train station is an automatic boom for a development .
imho i believe it is just a tactic by the supporters of mass transit -sure there are places where this is true but all in all its not
tend to agree with you about people wanting to be in less dense places who are on the move
i also see a migration trend that is of a person who cant obtain a home- alot of folks are looking for rentals
my sole purpose for the ext would be to get people off the roads , which in turn could and would save lives
all in all i really dont see this line happening to valpo , i could see the line run thru munster and dyer
this subject can be debatable in so many directions
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gaining Steam
) And now calls for the line to only be extended to Dyer with new stations in Dyer and Munster.
