Personal revelation regarding rail travel

[Greg]

Driving home yesterday, I was remembering back growing up in a small town in Florida what business was like on U.S. Highway 90 for my father's general store. This was before Interstate 10 was opened. I remember vividly that business was booming and it would take several minutes to be able to get an opening in traffic before I could cross 2-lane U.S. 90...

When the interstate opened, the great majority of the traffic was moved off of U.S. 90 and went to Interstate 10. Business declined, life got slower and it was easier to cross the road. As much as I like the interstate system in this country, I think that small towns drying up was possibly an unintended consequence of the opening of the interstate system.

It would seem that improved and restored rail service could possibly help restore some of the economies lost from these small towns after the interstate opened. I understand it wouldn't put as much traffic back through small towns as was lost to the interstate system, but it sure seems like it could and would help tourism and general economic development in many of these "off the beaten path" areas. Is my thinking flawed here?

 

[transit54]

When the interstate opened, the great majority of the traffic was moved off of U.S. 90 and went to Interstate 10. Business declined, life got slower and it was easier to cross the road. As much as I like the interstate system in this country, I think that small towns drying up was possibly an unintended consequence of the opening of the interstate system.
It would seem that improved and restored rail service could possibly help restore some of the economies lost from these small towns after the interstate opened. I understand it wouldn't put as much traffic back through small towns as was lost to the interstate system, but it sure seems like it could and would help tourism and general economic development in many of these "off the beaten path" areas. Is my thinking flawed here?

I don't think it was the interstate per se that caused smaller towns to erode. But I think its a very well studied phenomenon that in the past fifty years our community and urban planning has been virtually non-existent mostly as a result of the dominance of cars as a means of transportation.

What you're basically arguing for is increased transit-oriented development. Think of it this way - if you put a train station somewhere along the road you mentioned, is it a place that people could get off the train and walk to stores, shops and things to do? Is it an environment that has sidewalks, and that embraces the pedestrian, as much as the automobile? If not, then a train station isn't going to help much. But compact, pedestrian friendly development, when coupled with transportation access, has been shown to revitalize many areas. Most towns in this country have abandoned the downtown model and instead developed around large roadways with little pedestrian access and have embraced big box stores over community businesses. Many communities are just duplicates of the same corporate chains laid out in different fashions - why would anyone bother to go there?

But if you create an environment that embraces local, unique businesses, and is designed in a way that encourages people to spend time in that area (instead of just driving from point to point), then people will come and (in general) it's been shown that property values tend to rise with this sort of development.

That's a big reason why I love living in Vermont. People here really embrace local, unique businesses and public spaces. It's a place that's really preserved its downtowns and its sense of community. I spent some time last summer taking the train to various towns in Vermont for a day, just walking around and spending time in them.

I general, I think compact, pedestrian oriented development and quality public spaces do lead to increased community and encourage economic development. For example, Waterbury, VT (pop 5,300), Brattleboro, VT (pop 11,491), etc. All these are thriving small towns that offer a great quality of life.

 

[the_traveler]

While it is true that having a station in a small town is an asset to bring tourism to the area, I think that most people would go to larger cities. They would be more likely to go to cities like LA, PDX, WAS or even DEN or DAL, then to Westerly, RI, Walnut Ridge, AR or Havre, MT. And as much as I like KIN, unless you have a car or take a bus, it's kind of hard to get to/from the station to shopping or a place of interest!

 

[Greg]

When the interstate opened, the great majority of the traffic was moved off of U.S. 90 and went to Interstate 10. Business declined, life got slower and it was easier to cross the road. As much as I like the interstate system in this country, I think that small towns drying up was possibly an unintended consequence of the opening of the interstate system.
It would seem that improved and restored rail service could possibly help restore some of the economies lost from these small towns after the interstate opened. I understand it wouldn't put as much traffic back through small towns as was lost to the interstate system, but it sure seems like it could and would help tourism and general economic development in many of these "off the beaten path" areas. Is my thinking flawed here?

I don't think it was the interstate per se that caused smaller towns to erode. But I think its a very well studied phenomenon that in the past fifty years our community and urban planning has been virtually non-existent mostly as a result of the dominance of cars as a means of transportation.

What you're basically arguing for is increased transit-oriented development. Think of it this way - if you put a train station somewhere along the road you mentioned, is it a place that people could get off the train and walk to stores, shops and things to do? Is it an environment that has sidewalks, and that embraces the pedestrian, as much as the automobile? If not, then a train station isn't going to help much. But compact, pedestrian friendly development, when coupled with transportation access, has been shown to revitalize many areas. Most towns in this country have abandoned the downtown model and instead developed around large roadways with little pedestrian access and have embraced big box stores over community businesses. Many communities are just duplicates of the same corporate chains laid out in different fashions - why would anyone bother to go there?

But if you create an environment that embraces local, unique businesses, and is designed in a way that encourages people to spend time in that area (instead of just driving from point to point), then people will come and (in general) it's been shown that property values tend to rise with this sort of development.

That's a big reason why I love living in Vermont. People here really embrace local, unique businesses and public spaces. It's a place that's really preserved its downtowns and its sense of community. I spent some time last summer taking the train to various towns in Vermont for a day, just walking around and spending time in them.

I general, I think compact, pedestrian oriented development and quality public spaces do lead to increased community and encourage economic development. For example, Waterbury, VT (pop 5,300), Brattleboro, VT (pop 11,491), etc. All these are thriving small towns that offer a great quality of life.

Your writing is very thought provoking. As a matter of fact, the railroad was just behind my father's store and the highway just in front of it....one block separated the two..plenty of sidewalks, but no businesses now. Thank you for your well thought-out posting.

 

[transit54]

While it is true that having a station in a small town is an asset to bring tourism to the area, I think that most people would go to larger cities. They would be more likely to go to cities like LA, PDX, WAS or even DEN or DAL, then to Westerly, RI, Walnut Ridge, AR or Havre, MT. And as much as I like KIN, unless you have a car or take a bus, it's kind of hard to get to/from the station to shopping or a place of interest!

Well, that's sort of what I'm saying with the development needing to be oriented around the station. If you can't walk from the station, people are not going to use it as a means to visit said town.

For example, take compare KIN and BRA (Brattleboro, VT). Other than some office buildings nearby, what's around KIN? Not much. It's very suburban style development. Whereas with Brattleboro, the station is in a downtown area. Now, granted, Brattleboro is twice the size of Kingston (according to census.gov). Compare that to Waterbury, VT (WAB), which is about the same size as KIN population wise. All of the development is along Route 100 and within walking distance of the station.

Now, the other important aspect is multiple frequencies. In a small town, one is not going to have a tremendous amount to do, so they'll likely not want to spend the whole day. With small town tourism, your really not trying to get someone to decide to go to Waterbury, VT over New York City. But by providing transportation links and a walkable environment, you can get people from nearby cities (like me in Burlington) to come and visit. For instance, there's a great brewpub in Waterbury known as the Alchemist. Last year several friends and I took a commuter bus to Waterbury, had dinner and sampled the beer, then walked to the train station and headed back to Burlington. It was a thoroughly enjoyed trip by everyone, and it probably would have never happened had the area been differently developed or without necessary transportation. There are several great brewpubs not too much further than Waterbury that I've never gone to, mostly because they sit in very rural areas that I'd have to drive to.

I do the same thing with Montpelier, which is similarly walkable. The train station is a bit of a hike from downtown (about a 20 minute walk through nothingness, but there is a bike path most of the way).

 

[transit54]

Your writing is very thought provoking. As a matter of fact, the railroad was just behind my father's store and the highway just in front of it....one block separated the two..plenty of sidewalks, but no businesses now. Thank you for your well thought-out posting.

You're very welcome! Urban and community planning and development is a real interest of mine. There's a ton of books out there on this sort of thing if you want to learn more. For instance, most modern development you see looks like this: STREET - SIDEWALK - PARKING - STOREFRONT. Whereas, in older cities and in pedestrian oriented places, the development you see looks like this: STREET - SIDEWALK - STOREFRONT - PARKING. Putting parking behind stores makes a huge difference in the walkability of a place. It creates a more walkable environment - a pedestrian can stroll up the sidewalk and look at various stores and maybe decide to stop in one. That's inhibited by a parking lot, and placing the lot out front indicates a preference for vehicle, rather than pedestrian business.

I was once in Quincy, IL and it was a really eye opening experience. I was staying at a relatively new motel in the downtown area and was planning to take the Illinois Zephyr the next morning to Chicago. Having the afternoon to kill, I decided to walk around downtown and try and find some food. I walked through blocks and blocks of downtown development and there wasn't a soul around. About half the shops were empty, and I couldn't find a single person to eat. It was a pretty nice downtown area, though. Quincy is a small city with almost exactly the same population as Burlington city proper. I could count on one hand home many people I saw and there was very little traffic on the road. I kept asking myself, "Where is everyone?"

I finally wandered about 10 blocks outside of downtown to a four lane road. It was packed with cars! There were people driving everywhere, huge big box stores and pretty much the entire line of corporate restaurants - everything from fast food to Fridays, UNOs, Outback, etc. Parking lots were jam packed and hundreds of cars would pass me every few minutes. I ended up eating at Fridays, I believe, and stopped in a Walmart for some supplies.

Quincy, like many places, had abandoned their downtown almost completely and now structured their city around a major roadway, strip malls, and big box stores. It was really my first experience with a place like that.

If we want to encourage community businesses, walking, transit, and rail, we need to begin to restructure how we organize where we live and where we spend our money.

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

Your writing is very thought provoking. As a matter of fact, the railroad was just behind my father's store and the highway just in front of it....one block separated the two..plenty of sidewalks, but no businesses now. Thank you for your well thought-out posting.

You're very welcome! Urban and community planning and development is a real interest of mine. There's a ton of books out there on this sort of thing if you want to learn more. For instance, most modern development you see looks like this: STREET - SIDEWALK - PARKING - STOREFRONT. Whereas, in older cities and in pedestrian oriented places, the development you see looks like this: STREET - SIDEWALK - STOREFRONT - PARKING. Putting parking behind stores makes a huge difference in the walkability of a place. It creates a more walkable environment - a pedestrian can stroll up the sidewalk and look at various stores and maybe decide to stop in one. That's inhibited by a parking lot, and placing the lot out front indicates a preference for vehicle, rather than pedestrian business.

I was once in Quincy, IL and it was a really eye opening experience. I was staying at a relatively new motel in the downtown area and was planning to take the Illinois Zephyr the next morning to Chicago. Having the afternoon to kill, I decided to walk around downtown and try and find some food. I walked through blocks and blocks of downtown development and there wasn't a soul around. About half the shops were empty, and I couldn't find a single person to eat. It was a pretty nice downtown area, though. Quincy is a small city with almost exactly the same population as Burlington city proper. I could count on one hand home many people I saw and there was very little traffic on the road. I kept asking myself, "Where is everyone?"

I finally wandered about 10 blocks outside of downtown to a four lane road. It was packed with cars! There were people driving everywhere, huge big box stores and pretty much the entire line of corporate restaurants - everything from fast food to Fridays, UNOs, Outback, etc. Parking lots were jam packed and hundreds of cars would pass me every few minutes. I ended up eating at Fridays, I believe, and stopped in a Walmart for some supplies.

Quincy, like many places, had abandoned their downtown almost completely and now structured their city around a major roadway, strip malls, and big box stores. It was really my first experience with a place like that.

If we want to encourage community businesses, walking, transit, and rail, we need to begin to restructure how we organize where we live and where we spend our money.

".....could not find a single person to eat........? Well, good Gpd man, I guess they were running in fear!

I met you in Boston and I had no idea of your Hannible Lechter tendencies. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You seemed like such a nice, normal guy.

 

[volkris]

Seeking to use rail to pump up small town economies sounds nice on the surface, but it comes with one huge gotcha: the core goal of transportation is to move people and goods, not to provide welfare to local economies. Sometimes these goals can work hand in hand, but all too often politicians will fall for the urge to score political points at the expensive of quality service.

Really, Amtrak is pulled in a billion different directions already, starting from getting people to their destinations fast and ranging through providing a scenic experiences to being environmentally positive and accessible as a public utility. All of these competing goals make it harder for the organization to succeed, and every additional goal makes it just a little bit harder.

It's better to forget about using Amtrak as a means of economic development and simply focus on running a rail system, letting the small towns live or die... and remember, as hard as it may be to say, sometimes a place has simply outlived its usefulness.

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

Good innovative thinking outside the box here.

But one possible problem is the time it would add to the overall long distance train schedule. Making the train even less competitive against the exress bus and the auto..

I did live through the introduction of the interstate highway and it seemed to me that it had a serious effect on the train. That, plus innovations in airline service and the loss of the U.S. mail contract (mail used to be carried in passenger trains).

The thoughts about how this would work well in Vermont made sense. I think that would be good. But I would not want to take this approach with the silver trains, for example,and the OP probably did not mean it would. They definately need the speed.

The trains which survived into the Amtrak era were already the faster trains on ther own respective routes.

 

[Greg]

Seeking to use rail to pump up small town economies sounds nice on the surface, but it comes with one huge gotcha: the core goal of transportation is to move people and goods, not to provide welfare to local economies. Sometimes these goals can work hand in hand, but all too often politicians will fall for the urge to score political points at the expensive of quality service.
Really, Amtrak is pulled in a billion different directions already, starting from getting people to their destinations fast and ranging through providing a scenic experiences to being environmentally positive and accessible as a public utility. All of these competing goals make it harder for the organization to succeed, and every additional goal makes it just a little bit harder.

It's better to forget about using Amtrak as a means of economic development and simply focus on running a rail system, letting the small towns live or die... and remember, as hard as it may be to say, sometimes a place has simply outlived its usefulness.

Very good points Volkris...I understand the core goal, but the execution can be adjustable with the right economics i.e. having good long distance trains to get people where they need to go in a reasonably short period of time, complemented by "locals" serving the local communities as basic transportation rather than traveling long distance. It would be nice if we didn't have so much sprawl as we have now, I think. A logical consequence of the provision of transportation is economic development. We've seen that with the way we build our roads and the development around interstate interchanges. I appreciate your and all the rest of the responses and I wish our policy makers would consider some of these writings. The mindset in this country regarding how we transport ourselves and how we live would have to undergo a sea-change to accomplish some of the goals and thoughts listed here, but I sure enjoy dreaming and hoping.

 

[rrdude]

I don't think it was the interstate per se that caused smaller towns to erode. But I think its a very well studied phenomenon that in the past fifty years our community and urban planning has been virtually non-existent mostly as a result of the dominance of cars as a means of transportation.

Oh yes it did, 100 and 110% it did. You just had to LIVE thru it to witness it. I don't think that is debatable at all.

Now, the next question(s) is. Was it inevitable? And further, was it a good thing. Obviously NOT for the small business owner, but for other, oh yeah it was..........

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

I don't think it was the interstate per se that caused smaller towns to erode. But I think its a very well studied phenomenon that in the past fifty years our community and urban planning has been virtually non-existent mostly as a result of the dominance of cars as a means of transportation.

Oh yes it did, 100 and 110% it did. You just had to LIVE thru it to witness it. I don't think that is debatable at all.

Now, the next question(s) is. Was it inevitable? And further, was it a good thing. Obviously NOT for the small business owner, but for other, oh yeah it was..........

Look at it this way:

before interstates the fastest trains from Chattanooga to Atlanta took 3 hours

driving took about 3 hrs 45 minutes.Bus probably about the same.

After the interstate was completed the car took two hours, and the non stop bus about 2 hrs 10 minute.

Yep, as I said on an earlier post, it took its toll, plus the other two factors noted in my earlier post.

 

[transit54]

Seeking to use rail to pump up small town economies sounds nice on the surface, but it comes with one huge gotcha: the core goal of transportation is to move people and goods, not to provide welfare to local economies. Sometimes these goals can work hand in hand, but all too often politicians will fall for the urge to score political points at the expensive of quality service.
Really, Amtrak is pulled in a billion different directions already, starting from getting people to their destinations fast and ranging through providing a scenic experiences to being environmentally positive and accessible as a public utility. All of these competing goals make it harder for the organization to succeed, and every additional goal makes it just a little bit harder.

It's better to forget about using Amtrak as a means of economic development and simply focus on running a rail system, letting the small towns live or die... and remember, as hard as it may be to say, sometimes a place has simply outlived its usefulness.

I agree. I think what I'm trying to say is that a community has to develop itself into a desirable destination if it wants to increase tourism and grow economically. It also has to have transportation links, be they bus, highways or rail. Compact, walkable, well designed development historically has shown to increase property values and create desirable places to live and do business. Take the current housing crisis for example - what areas have lost the most value? They were typically suburban and exurban locations, and locations in cities that haven't done much in the way to revitalize themselves (not to say that areas such as NYC have seen large decreases in property values, but you haven't seen the wholesale abandonment of neighborhoods that other places have). Towns and cities that have made the effort to develop themselves as desirable places to live and work generally have fared much better.

But yes, to a certain extent places come and go, and some outlive their usefulness. But there are still a great number of places that still are useful and somewhat populated but which have just given way to sprawl and strip malls and generally squandered any opportunity to develop unique, desirable places to live.

 

[Karl]

Urban planning and transportation planning go hand in hand. Historically cities and towns grow based on a transportation nexus, a port, portage, crossroads, etc. As transportation changes so does the needs for and viability of a town. Haphazard transportation changes (freeways, random train locations) are going to have unpredictable results both to urban viability and to sucess as a transportation network. One example is the depression of many small western crossroads on the Interstate system which served truckers. Much of that is a result of the 70-75 mph speed limit vs 55. More throughput means less trucks (in addition to more piggyback on rail) and fewer stops with less dollars stopping to support those towns. One of the issues with the USA is the lack of a national transportation strategy, which also heavily interfaces with an energy strategy. Amtrak currently suffers from not having a significant place in what we are now doing, but is supported in a large extent as an obvious "ace in the hole" for when we do adopt a rational efficient energy/transportation strategy.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Most interesting, lots better than a seminar or urban studies class @ a university where most so called "urban planners" were trained. Currently the City I live in, Austin, has a reputation for a "cool" place to live, people are still flocking here (there are a few jobs but the high tech boom is so over!)but when they arrive they find the sprawl that could be anywhere, grid locked traffic, rising prices, idiotic politicians that posture and issue press releases that claim "were preparing for the future, were gonna be just like Portland,Oregon etc. etc." Already the oldtimers here, the ones than can afford it etc. are starting to move away to smaler towns. As the old sayin goes "the bloom is off the rose!"Austin was a very desirable place to live and work,now its just like anywhere else with all the typical urban problems and nothing is being done to solve them!

You know youre in trouble when the big economic news is that a new Wal-Mart will be opening soon and most of the jobs that are open are service jobs that are tourist related and pay minimum wage or below! (tips anyone!)The University of Texas is laying people off, cutting classes, closing down artistic venues and is paying its coaches millions of dollars! (Hook 'em Horns!")We are going to re-elect probably the dumbest Gov. this side of Sister Sarah,

so that tells you what you need to know about Texas! (The state just announced all State agencies must cut their budgets 5% which means service cuts and staff layoffs are on the way, California redux!) Rents and housing prices continue to rise, taxes too!

Since Im retired, soon as my lease ends Im one of those that plans to move to a small town up on the Highland Lakes that is still a going concern , as Lyndon Johnson said: "Where they know where youre sick and care when yolu die!"

And while its not Amtrak there is the Hill Country Flyer on weekends and IF IT EVER STARTS RUNNING? there will be the legendary RED LINE to get to/from the city!

The ideal situation is to be retired and fininacially comfortable (that doesnt include me! :lol: ) or able to work from home, I know lots of folks lucky enough to do this so they can live in places that are like Vermont and other desirable places to live! (Texas even has a few but NONE of our cities qualify,

they have all of the problems of the other older urban areas without the resources or will to change things!My prediction is well be like the rust belt in 20 years, Detroit redux!)

 

[the_traveler]

I agree with the above. With the railroads and the interstates, I am not likely to stop in Austin (nothing personal) but am more likely to stay on the train or road. When driving cross country, I did stay overnight in IIRC Grand Island and Hastings - but never went into town. I just went far enough off the interstate to get to the hotel! I arrived late at night and left early the next morning. Those towns could have had an attractive downtown, but I would not have known it!