Other People's Rail: Amtrak, commuter rail, rapid transit news & views outside New England

Riverside said:
Caltrain's electrified service is now in operation. Among other things, it looks like this will reduce travel time by 5 minutes on the express service and by 25 minutes (!) on local service. Setting aside the "inside baseball" around how the thing came to fruition, hopefully from a PR perspective this will provide an easy-to-understand case study when making the pitch for electrification to the public here.

Example of local coverage: https://abc7news.com/post/caltrain-...ervice-san-francisco-silicon-valley/15333842/
Click to expand...
The time savings depend a lot on the number of stops. A Caltrain local has 22 (!) stops due to the length of the trip between San Fran and San Jose, so that's a whole lot of time spent in acceleration that the EMU's can help with a lot. The Baby Bullet expresses with 8 stops, much less so. On the T there wouldn't be nearly such incredibly dense stop rosters on any given line, so most of the time savings would be on the order of 15-20% rather than the 25% Caltrain achieves on its locals. The NEC Commission, for example, estimated an 18% reduction on Providence Line schedules and a 16% reduction on Wickford Jct. schedules using EMU's of similar class to what Caltrain is using. And that's on a line with not a lot of stops. So the average T line would probably do a little better.
 
Wonder if the feds would ramp up a rail electrification program with a 90 (or 80) fed - 10 (20) state/local split in the vein of the interstate highway program given how promising this works for such a corridor?
 
The smaller lift would be permitting funding shifts. Permitting states to do what MA did with the Inner Belt funds would permit states to rethink transportation, but the highway lobby would scream bloody murder.
 
Riverside said:
Caltrain's electrified service is now in operation. Among other things, it looks like this will reduce travel time by 5 minutes on the express service and by 25 minutes (!) on local service. Setting aside the "inside baseball" around how the thing came to fruition, hopefully from a PR perspective this will provide an easy-to-understand case study when making the pitch for electrification to the public here.

Example of local coverage: https://abc7news.com/post/caltrain-...ervice-san-francisco-silicon-valley/15333842/
Click to expand...
I dunno, there's a good chance they (meaning anti-transit people) will seize the high cost of Caltrain's electrification as a reason not to do it, rather than a lesson on how to do it better. Why learn to do the project right when you can try to persuade people not to do it at all? That was, after all, mostly the reason that NSRL was pitched as "too expensive" by very selective pricing estimates for construction.

The time/money-wasting by the MBTA on BEMUs is itself not a good sign.
 
aquaticko said:
I dunno, there's a good chance they (meaning anti-transit people) will seize the high cost of Caltrain's electrification as a reason not to do it, rather than a lesson on how to do it better. Why learn to do the project right when you can try to persuade people not to do it at all? That was, after all, mostly the reason that NSRL was pitched as "too expensive" by very selective pricing estimates for construction.

The time/money-wasting by the MBTA on BEMUs is itself not a good sign.
Click to expand...
Hell, the pro-transit people seize on it. Caltrain-HSR Compatibility Blog, the transpo blogosphere standard-bearer for all things Caltrain, pretty much has a hive mind to want to bustitute the Gilroy tail they hate BEMU's so much.
 
Maine DOT and the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority taking another go at extending Downeaster service between Brunswick and Rockland with another RFP:
www.pressherald.com

Maine seeks new operator to revive Rockland Branch rail line

The Department of Transportation is seeking to restore freight service and that could help the Amtrak Downeaster resume its effort to add passenger service from Brunswick to Rockland.
www.pressherald.com www.pressherald.com
 
Transit systems are targeting fare evaders to win back riders leery about crime

…

As transportation hubs across the country attempt to win back riders who haven’t returned since the pandemic — 26% as of September 2023 — one major obstacle is the sometimes inaccurate perception that transit crime is on the rise. Many systems are bulking up enforcement and targeting their efforts on people who try to ride without paying.

MetroLink has begun adding 8-foot (2.4-meter) metal gates to ensure customers can’t enter the platform without a valid fare card. That’s a major change from the honor system the two-state light rail had employed since its inception in 1993, with fares only enforced through onboard spot checks and the threat of fines for repeat violators.

Transit systems in other metropolitan areas such as New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and San Francisco, already required upfront payments, but lately they have been fortifying the entrance gates to curb the temptation for riders to simply hurdle a turnstile.

…
Click to expand...
 
There is less current national data about the link between crime and fare evasion. However, people who didn’t pay a fare accounted for nearly 94% of those arrested for violent crimes on the Los Angeles Metro from May 2023 through April 2024. Metro is testing taller fare gates and some stations now require customers to tap a card when they exit as well as enter.
Click to expand...

94% is more extreme than I would have guessed.
 
sean99090900 said:
94% is more extreme than I would have guessed.
Click to expand...
That statistic is worded in a way to make it seem extreme.

Also from the article:
As Janno Lieber, chairman and CEO of New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority, explained, “not every fare evader is a criminal” but virtually all criminals “evaded the fare.”

94% of those arrested for a violent crime were also fare evaders. NOT 94% of fare evaders are violent criminals.
 
JeffDowntown said:
94%f those arrested for a violent crime were also fare evaders. NOT 94% of fare evaders are violent criminals.
Click to expand...
I think that was very clear in the article

Almost every violent crime being committed by someone not supposed to be there is surprising. I would have expected drunken brawls or whatever from the (probably) majority of paying riders to have accounted for more than 6% of the total violence.
 
sean99090900 said:
I think that was very clear in the article

Almost every violent crime being committed by someone not supposed to be there is surprising. I would have expected drunken brawls or whatever from the (probably) majority of paying riders to have accounted for more than 6% of the total violence.
Click to expand...
OK, but does stopping fare evaders (most of whom are not violent criminals) actually keep the violent criminals out of the system? Or do the violent criminals just pay the fare, and then get violent like they want to anyway? Or do they just get violent outside the fare gates rather then inside (still a big problem to the system)?

Making the violent criminals pay the fare does not suddenly make them model citizens. And frustrated violent criminals in the fare lobby does not sound like a great plan to me.
 
JeffDowntown said:
OK, but does stopping fare evaders (most of whom are not violent criminals) actually keep the violent criminals out of the system? Or do the violent criminals just pay the fare, and then get violent like they want to anyway? Or do they just get violent outside the fare gates rather then inside (still a big problem to the system)?

Making the violent criminals pay the fare does not suddenly make them model citizens. And frustrated violent criminals in the fare lobby does not sound like a great plan to me.
Click to expand...
These are empirical questions that I can't answer a priori. LA Metro is already stepping up enforcement so we will have some more definitive answers soon.

It's at least not unreasonable that crime could drop, if it takes significantly more effort to get into a subway car, then maybe the mentally ill will be more likely to hang around a shelter. That's another at least plausible story with a different prediction then yours. Plus, LA is much more of a car city than we are, so I imagine increasing ridership will depend heavily on either safety or safety theater to get people out of their personal vehicles. LA Metro's plan to start it's own police force is, if properly implemented, conductive to security before and after the gates, alongside their function to ensure fare compliance.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Making the violent criminals pay the fare does not suddenly make them model citizens. And frustrated violent criminals in the fare lobby does not sound like a great plan to me.
Click to expand...
Fare enforcement makes me think of the issues in NYC right now. Fare evasion is a problem even on a cultural level, but the City/NYPD's response is to spend $150mm to recoup around $104,000. And, as we can see, citizens can die over others evading the fare.

The best way to do fare enforcement is to have conductors/checkers on the trains themselves asking for proof of purchase while the vehicle is in motion, similarly to the system on the recently opened Seattle light rail or on buses. If American police treat it like a traffic stop, that's what we're going to get.
 
thepixelnation said:
Fare enforcement makes me think of the issues in NYC right now. Fare evasion is a problem even on a cultural level, but the City/NYPD's response is to spend $150mm to recoup around $104,000. And, as we can see, citizens can die over others evading the fare.

The best way to do fare enforcement is to have conductors/checkers on the trains themselves asking for proof of purchase while the vehicle is in motion, similarly to the system on the recently opened Seattle light rail or on buses. If American police treat it like a traffic stop, that's what we're going to get.
Click to expand...
Thinking that controlling fare evasion is going to fix crime in a transit system feels like magical thinking to me.

The true criminal, intent on committing crime on the subway, (pick pocket, snatch and grab, etc.) will pay the meagre fare to get access to their targets.

The individuals with mental health issues (some of whom do commit violent crimes during psychiatric breakdowns) are going to have their breakdowns in the fare lobby, rather than on the trains or platforms. But stopping fare evasion does not make them go away. And having mentally ill people stacked up in the fare lobbies won't do much to instill confidence in the system.
 
JeffDowntown said:
The individuals with mental health issues (some of whom do commit violent crimes during psychiatric breakdowns) are going to have their breakdowns in the fare lobby, rather than on the trains or platforms. But stopping fare evasion does not make them go away. And having mentally ill people stacked up in the fare lobbies won't do much to instill confidence in the system.
Click to expand...

Agreed with the broader point, but I'm not sure I agree that this isn't preferable. Easier to monitor a lobby than every train car, and I believe regular riders would rather quickly pass by this individual than spend 30 minutes in a train car with them.
 
KCasiglio said:
Agreed with the broader point, but I'm not sure I agree that this isn't preferable. Easier to monitor a lobby than every train car, and I believe regular riders would rather quickly pass by this individual than spend 30 minutes in a train car with them.
Click to expand...
I will grant you that point. Also, you could deploy NYC-style interventions in the lobby area to try to get those people the help they need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top