PBS's The American Experience on the construction of Grand Central first aired in February. Special appearance by Jill Jonnes.
Interestingly, it discusses how the construction of the terminal was financed by leasing the air rights - one of the first times this was done, and something real estate developers and train agencies have been trying to replicate around the city ever since.
I definitely appreciate lots of things about Grand Central, but I do wish it still had a nice big train shed.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
The RER as a development tool
Why are so many real estate executives on the MTA board? Because transportation drives real estate development, and they want to control that. So did the French government, and the Paris municipal government, and the regional government of the Ile-de-France, in the 1960s. They had particular ideas about where they wanted people to live and work, and they set about making it easy for them to do that.
Of particular interest was the planning and construction of five new towns in the Paris suburbs, with the idea of concentrating and organizing the new population of the region: Cergy-Pontoise, Marne-la-Vallée, Sénart, Evry and Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines. There were also the two airports in Orly and Roissy, the business district in La Défense, and the new peripheral and suburban campuses of the University of Paris.
Alon Levy's proposal for an RER-style system in New York ties together every single commuter rail line. However, if you look at the map of commuter rail lines in Paris (PDF), you will notice that even after forty years, only a small number (lettered A-E on the map) have been converted to RER service. The RER program is very precisely targeted to achieve specific development goals. The first four lines served all these centers, as follows:
Line A: Cergy-Pontoise, Marne-la-Vallée, La Défense, University campuses VIII, X and XII
Line B: Orly and CDG airports, University campuses XI and XIII
Line C: Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Orly airport, University campuses IX and XII
Line D: Sénart, Evry, University campuses VIII, XII and XIII
Line A in particular included an entirely new branch to serve the new town at Marne-la-Vallée. It attracted so many passengers that within ten years it was transporting more than 55,000 passengers per hour in each direction at peak times. I have been told that during the late 1980s and early 1990s it was the most crowded line in the world.
The long-term value of the RER is potentially debatable: the poorer Paris suburbs are notorious for the extreme alienation of their residents, and we can speculate that the RER had some role in that. An anonymous Wikipedia author alleges that because residential development has been concentrated east of Paris and job development to the west, there is a commute imbalance resulting in overuse of the A line.
That said, it seems to have been fairly successful at accomplishing at least some of our goals. All RER lines except the Malesherbes branch of the D line have service at least half-hourly, and large sections of the suburbs are within walking distance of an RER station. According to the INSEE (PDF), car ownership in the Paris suburbs is 77%, compared with 45% for the city itself and 81% for the country as a whole. I'd like to get the comparable numbers for the New York region, as well as figures for pollution, energy usage and carnage, to make a full comparison, but these figures make a good impression.
As I wrote in my earlier post, I think we need to think out in more detail the reasons for any of these regional rail improvements. That thinking out can quantify some of the potential benefits more and lead to better prioritization of the steps involved in implementing such improvements, and hopefully to a better chance of selling them to politicians and the public.
Of particular interest was the planning and construction of five new towns in the Paris suburbs, with the idea of concentrating and organizing the new population of the region: Cergy-Pontoise, Marne-la-Vallée, Sénart, Evry and Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines. There were also the two airports in Orly and Roissy, the business district in La Défense, and the new peripheral and suburban campuses of the University of Paris.
Alon Levy's proposal for an RER-style system in New York ties together every single commuter rail line. However, if you look at the map of commuter rail lines in Paris (PDF), you will notice that even after forty years, only a small number (lettered A-E on the map) have been converted to RER service. The RER program is very precisely targeted to achieve specific development goals. The first four lines served all these centers, as follows:
Line A: Cergy-Pontoise, Marne-la-Vallée, La Défense, University campuses VIII, X and XII
Line B: Orly and CDG airports, University campuses XI and XIII
Line C: Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Orly airport, University campuses IX and XII
Line D: Sénart, Evry, University campuses VIII, XII and XIII
Line A in particular included an entirely new branch to serve the new town at Marne-la-Vallée. It attracted so many passengers that within ten years it was transporting more than 55,000 passengers per hour in each direction at peak times. I have been told that during the late 1980s and early 1990s it was the most crowded line in the world.
The long-term value of the RER is potentially debatable: the poorer Paris suburbs are notorious for the extreme alienation of their residents, and we can speculate that the RER had some role in that. An anonymous Wikipedia author alleges that because residential development has been concentrated east of Paris and job development to the west, there is a commute imbalance resulting in overuse of the A line.
That said, it seems to have been fairly successful at accomplishing at least some of our goals. All RER lines except the Malesherbes branch of the D line have service at least half-hourly, and large sections of the suburbs are within walking distance of an RER station. According to the INSEE (PDF), car ownership in the Paris suburbs is 77%, compared with 45% for the city itself and 81% for the country as a whole. I'd like to get the comparable numbers for the New York region, as well as figures for pollution, energy usage and carnage, to make a full comparison, but these figures make a good impression.
As I wrote in my earlier post, I think we need to think out in more detail the reasons for any of these regional rail improvements. That thinking out can quantify some of the potential benefits more and lead to better prioritization of the steps involved in implementing such improvements, and hopefully to a better chance of selling them to politicians and the public.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Terminal approach capacity and the Paris RER
In thinking about Paris and New York in the context of Alon Levy's guest posts at the Transport Politic (one, two, and my reply, and Jarrett's), one of the big differences that struck me between the two commuter rail networks is the approach tracks to the stations. Paris's are huge: the six main line stations had between six (Austerlitz) and fifteen (Nord) from the city limits to the stations. This number of tracks continues until the various lines branch off. Only the small lines had less: four for Invalides, two for Vincennes and two for Sceaux.
By contrast, here in NYC, we had a maximum of four tracks at five stations: Grand Central, Penn (for the LIRR), Bay Ridge, Hoboken and Jersey City. All the rest have or had two, and the Empire line has only one track over the Spuyten Duyvil bridge.
In the comments to my previous post, Adam writes, "in order for a rail terminal to be effective, it must have six tracks going into it at least." If he's right, it's not surprising that commuter rail in New York has been less effective than in Paris. It also points to the benefits that Alon's plan could bring to commuter rail in New York.
However, I will point out another difference between Paris and New York. There were some lines that were entirely taken over by the RER, like the Sceaux line, and their central terminals were converted into simple stations on the new lines. Most of the RER is made of lines that used to terminate in one of the six main-line stations, however. Some of them were rerouted into totally new alignments within the city: for example, the Saint-Germain line was run through the RER A tunnel instead of to the Saint-Lazare station. This was essentially what the Pennsylvania Railroad did in 1910. The rest were diverted into new through-stations built underneath their former terminals, such as the RER D, which connected lines from the Nord and Lyon stations. This is more or less what the LIRR East Side Access plan is doing under Grand Central, except that the line isn't going through.
The result of this is that in Paris the capacity of the old stations is pretty much untouched. Every new RER line represented an indisputable increase in central capacity. However, Alon's plan takes capacity from the existing Penn Station trackage for the through tracks. I think that the increased capacity from through-running would more than make up for it, but I felt it was worth noting.
By contrast, here in NYC, we had a maximum of four tracks at five stations: Grand Central, Penn (for the LIRR), Bay Ridge, Hoboken and Jersey City. All the rest have or had two, and the Empire line has only one track over the Spuyten Duyvil bridge.
In the comments to my previous post, Adam writes, "in order for a rail terminal to be effective, it must have six tracks going into it at least." If he's right, it's not surprising that commuter rail in New York has been less effective than in Paris. It also points to the benefits that Alon's plan could bring to commuter rail in New York.
However, I will point out another difference between Paris and New York. There were some lines that were entirely taken over by the RER, like the Sceaux line, and their central terminals were converted into simple stations on the new lines. Most of the RER is made of lines that used to terminate in one of the six main-line stations, however. Some of them were rerouted into totally new alignments within the city: for example, the Saint-Germain line was run through the RER A tunnel instead of to the Saint-Lazare station. This was essentially what the Pennsylvania Railroad did in 1910. The rest were diverted into new through-stations built underneath their former terminals, such as the RER D, which connected lines from the Nord and Lyon stations. This is more or less what the LIRR East Side Access plan is doing under Grand Central, except that the line isn't going through.
The result of this is that in Paris the capacity of the old stations is pretty much untouched. Every new RER line represented an indisputable increase in central capacity. However, Alon's plan takes capacity from the existing Penn Station trackage for the through tracks. I think that the increased capacity from through-running would more than make up for it, but I felt it was worth noting.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Detective mystery
Tonight on PBS's History Detectives: Boxcar Home. Watch it online or check your local listings. Stay tuned for the thrilling plot twist toward the end.
Bonus: look at the tops of the freight engines.
Bonus: look at the tops of the freight engines.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
I remember traffic jams
There have been a number of stories lately about cities undergoing "planned shrinkage": mostly in Rust Belt cities like Detroit, Flint and Youngstown, where the population has been declining precipitously and in response, city governments have begun "landbanking," keeping abandoned and foreclosed properties instead of selling them at auction. This is a sensible response to a situation where, Planetizen blogger John Kromer writes, "no one expects postindustrial cities to return to the population levels that existed at mid-twentieth century."
On the other hand, why not? It's true that the factories that once drew people to these cities have mostly gone out of business, but the fact is that these towns have three very important things: water, the relics of pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, and a climate where large numbers of people can survive without air conditioning.
This is more than can be said for, well, most of the South and Southwest. California's Central Valley is drying up, and the Colorado River is in for some trouble. The sprawling exurbs have been the worst hit by rising gas prices. Everyone expects energy costs to rise, and that will have a huge effect the large elderly populations in Florida, Arizona and Southern California. California is already seeing its population growth slow.
If I were President... No, wait, I understand that it's hard for the President to change the country's direction much more than he is right now. If I were Dictator, I would figure out which parts of the country are really sustainable given current trends. Not moronic extrapolations of past trends, but what we can realistically expect in the future. I would divide the country up into at least two zones.
In the "least sustainable" zone, all subsidies for housing, jobs and transportation would immediately cease, and a radical plan would be put into place. The walkable cores of every town that has one would be preserved for a sustainable population level, and all abandoned or foreclosed structures in the sprawling exurbs would be dismantled and salvaged.
In the "most sustainable" zone, any plans to shrink sprawly areas would continue, but walkable urban areas would be strengthened and enlarged to make room for the migrants and refugees from Scottsdale and Orlando. Money saved by not funding highway expansion in LA could instead be spent on buses in Ohio.
Of course, I'm not the Dictator, or even the President. That's probably a good thing. But I hope that the President and his advisors are thinking about things like this. And I hope that the next time transit and livable streets advocates report on things like transit shortfalls, highway widenings and planned shrinkage, we can connect them to other environmental issues like water and the effects (not just the causes) of energy shortages and climate change.
On the other hand, why not? It's true that the factories that once drew people to these cities have mostly gone out of business, but the fact is that these towns have three very important things: water, the relics of pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, and a climate where large numbers of people can survive without air conditioning.
This is more than can be said for, well, most of the South and Southwest. California's Central Valley is drying up, and the Colorado River is in for some trouble. The sprawling exurbs have been the worst hit by rising gas prices. Everyone expects energy costs to rise, and that will have a huge effect the large elderly populations in Florida, Arizona and Southern California. California is already seeing its population growth slow.
If I were President... No, wait, I understand that it's hard for the President to change the country's direction much more than he is right now. If I were Dictator, I would figure out which parts of the country are really sustainable given current trends. Not moronic extrapolations of past trends, but what we can realistically expect in the future. I would divide the country up into at least two zones.
In the "least sustainable" zone, all subsidies for housing, jobs and transportation would immediately cease, and a radical plan would be put into place. The walkable cores of every town that has one would be preserved for a sustainable population level, and all abandoned or foreclosed structures in the sprawling exurbs would be dismantled and salvaged.
In the "most sustainable" zone, any plans to shrink sprawly areas would continue, but walkable urban areas would be strengthened and enlarged to make room for the migrants and refugees from Scottsdale and Orlando. Money saved by not funding highway expansion in LA could instead be spent on buses in Ohio.
Of course, I'm not the Dictator, or even the President. That's probably a good thing. But I hope that the President and his advisors are thinking about things like this. And I hope that the next time transit and livable streets advocates report on things like transit shortfalls, highway widenings and planned shrinkage, we can connect them to other environmental issues like water and the effects (not just the causes) of energy shortages and climate change.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
"Atlantic Yards" project will shrink the yards themselves
Since we're on the subject of central rail terminals and track capacity...
Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards project was supposed to benefit everybody: he would renovate and expand the Long Island Railroad's Vanderbilt Yard, build the tallest building in Brooklyn (designed by Frank Gehry!), bring pro sports back to the borough, build condos for the rich and affordable housing for the poor, and provide millions for the MTA.
Some people were skeptical, and it turns out that almost all of those promises have been broken. If you needed another reason to oppose this stinking heap of corruption, the Atlantic Yards Report tells us that the latest iteration of the plan would not actually enlarge the Yards so that they could store 76 cars instead of 72; instead, it would shrink them down to 70 cars or less.
LIRR president Williams let that slip in a Senate hearing in May, in which she said that it was settled on as part of a "value engineering exercise" with Ratner's staff. Gee, I'm so glad she's in control of the entire MTA now. Thanks, Senator Smith!
Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards project was supposed to benefit everybody: he would renovate and expand the Long Island Railroad's Vanderbilt Yard, build the tallest building in Brooklyn (designed by Frank Gehry!), bring pro sports back to the borough, build condos for the rich and affordable housing for the poor, and provide millions for the MTA.
Some people were skeptical, and it turns out that almost all of those promises have been broken. If you needed another reason to oppose this stinking heap of corruption, the Atlantic Yards Report tells us that the latest iteration of the plan would not actually enlarge the Yards so that they could store 76 cars instead of 72; instead, it would shrink them down to 70 cars or less.
LIRR president Williams let that slip in a Senate hearing in May, in which she said that it was settled on as part of a "value engineering exercise" with Ratner's staff. Gee, I'm so glad she's in control of the entire MTA now. Thanks, Senator Smith!
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Niantic Bridge gets stuck...
The Day has the story. Fortunately, it was in the position where it disrupted boat traffic (mostly recreational) not train traffic. Anyone up for a little proactive redundancy, in case it gets stuck in the wrong position before they can replace it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)