Why doesn't Rochester have a commuter rail system? (Buffalo, Irondequoit: upper-class, real estate)

[Marcolo]

I know there's always talk about reviving the subway in the city--with concern that it will end up as a multimillion dollar boondoggle that serves to shuttle criminals around the ghettos.

Fine. But then why doesn't Rochester have a commuter rail? Most healthy cities tend to have them.

A commuter rail lets people walk or drive to a station, where they can park and ride into the city or to work. They cover more ground than a subway, faster. They're more attractive to middle- and upper-class riders. And they spur development around the stations--residential, commercial, and retail.

Look at a map. Existing railroad lines already connect most of the area's major destinations--from Kodak Park to the airport to Fairport Village to downtown. So it would cost much less to put a system in Rochester than it would in some other cities.

I've said before, like a lot of American cities, Rochester is too car-dependent. Gas may go down a bit, but the days of cheap fill-ups are gone for good. Plus, the more street life Rochester gets, the lower the crime and the easier it is to retain young people in the area.

Hasn't anyone ever discussed building a commuter rail system?

[skbs]

Originally Posted by Marcolo

I know there's always talk about reviving the subway in the city--with concern that it will end up as a multimillion dollar boondoggle that serves to shuttle criminals around the ghettos.

Fine. But then why doesn't Rochester have a commuter rail? Most healthy cities tend to have them.

A commuter rail lets people walk or drive to a station, where they can park and ride into the city or to work. They cover more ground than a subway, faster. They're more attractive to middle- and upper-class riders. And they spur development around the stations--residential, commercial, and retail.

Look at a map. Existing railroad lines already connect most of the area's major destinations--from Kodak Park to the airport to Fairport Village to downtown. So it would cost much less to put a system in Rochester than it would in some other cities.

I've said before, like a lot of American cities, Rochester is too car-dependent. Gas may go down a bit, but the days of cheap fill-ups are gone for good. Plus, the more street life Rochester gets, the lower the crime and the easier it is to retain young people in the area.

Hasn't anyone ever discussed building a commuter rail system?

It even extends into the more rural areas of Palmyra/Macedon... that would extend the commuter transportation and cut down on gas for everyone... I actually mentioned this on another thread but it was completely ignored... If cold/snowy places like Chicago can do it somewhat successfully~it is more than possible here... have the RTS Bus System build off of each train station and that would allow people to get from pt A to pt B w/o a car... they could hop on the rail and then catch a bus to work... or play... whatever... I totally agree with this. There are so many areas of Rochester where the rail system runs through alraedy... everyone knows to avoid Fpt Village because of it LOL... if we could take advantage of it I think it would help our economy and bring business to Rochester. The problem would the be transportation FROM the station to other locations since most of Monroe/Wayne Co is not walkable outside of the town centers...

here's a link to the thread I was talking about where previously mentioned...it was a discussion on a similar topic... a subway....
http://www.city-data.com/forum/roche...er-subway.html


Here is a map of the CSX of Monroe County... it says it goes out to LYONS to the East out to Batavia (and as Buffalo way) to the West
http://www.rochester-railfan.net/ima...!CR_ZTS/z7.jpg

[Rochester-WNY]

Love your ideas my friend. Keep them coming.

[Marcolo]

What would really benefit rochester is a PERT system (not the goofy thing in Webster, a real one): Personal Rapid Transit

Basically, you go to a station, press a button, and a small (3- or 4-person) car comes up and takes you directly to your destination. No stops, no other riders. Much, much lower capital costs than rail, plus greater use and acceptance--because it's convenient like a car, and you don't have to worry about safety inside the train.

That may still be a ways off. But perhaps Rochester could get some serious funding if it wants to be a guinea pig, and build a PERT system instead of a regular subway.

A commuter rail, of course, can be built now, with readily available equipment.

[skbs]

Originally Posted by Marcolo

What would really benefit rochester is a PERT system (not the goofy thing in Webster, a real one): Personal Rapid Transit

Basically, you go to a station, press a button, and a small (3- or 4-person) car comes up and takes you directly to your destination. No stops, no other riders. Much, much lower capital costs than rail, plus greater use and acceptance--because it's convenient like a car, and you don't have to worry about safety inside the train.

That may still be a ways off. But perhaps Rochester could get some serious funding if it wants to be a guinea pig, and build a PERT system instead of a regular subway.

A commuter rail, of course, can be built now, with readily available equipment.

I am not even aware of the GOOFY THING IN WEBSTER...

I think the rail is a more realistic idea for the time being.

[breezy1]

It seems like a huge challenge with public transportation when a community does not a particular area where jobs are concentratrated that public transporation targets (i.e, downtown). In Rochester, most people are traveling all over the place to get to work --- there would need to be a huge system that can get persons from one suburb to another rather than just from the outskirts into downtown. And then you would need a good secondary transport system (i.e., buses) if you're dropped of at a station that is not within walking distance to your actual place of work.

[Marcolo]

Originally Posted by breezy1

It seems like a huge challenge with public transportation when a community does not a particular area where jobs are concentratrated that public transporation targets (i.e, downtown). In Rochester, most people are traveling all over the place to get to work --- there would need to be a huge system that can get persons from one suburb to another rather than just from the outskirts into downtown. And then you would need a good secondary transport system (i.e., buses) if you're dropped of at a station that is not within walking distance to your actual place of work.

As I think someone else has discussed, transportation doesn't work that way. It's simply no longer going to be possible for people to live absolutely anywhere they want to, and companies to put up offices any random place they wish, then expect the entire planet to bend over backwards to connect the two.

Transportation networks encourage development and boost real estate values around the stations, so future growth in jobs and housing occurs in smarter places.

Suburbs just can't keep expanding. In fact, across the entire country the newest and furthest-out suburbs are collapsing.

And yes, buses need to link rail stations to local stops. That would make the bus system a lot more efficient, faster, and more appealing to people other than the high schoolers and public assistance recipients who are its exclusive users now.

[Rochester-WNY]

www.RochesterTrolley.com

[Marcolo]

Originally Posted by Rochester-WNY

www.RochesterTrolley.com

Interesting--thanks.

Those look cute. Are they too cute? I'm talking about viable alternatives to cars for commuting, shopping and recreation--not tourist attractions.

[garmin239]

The trolley looks like a good idea but the routes are flawed. I see no route for the eastern suburbs such as Irondequoit, Webster and Penfield. This would very easy to accomplish in Irondequoit since there is already a trolley bed running through it.