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.
Given that most Americans are suburbanites (50%) wouldn't it make sense to focus mainly on commuter rail rather than intra city/metro (or even inter city) rail? It seems so much time is spent on developing light rail within a city, but given that our highways are so full it might be money better spent to focus on commuter rail.
Given that most Americans are suburbanites (50%) wouldn't it make sense to focus mainly on commuter rail rather than intra city/metro (or even inter city) rail? It seems so much time is spent on developing light rail within a city, but given that our highways are so full it might be money better spent to focus on commuter rail.
While commuter rail may sound like a good idea due to its low implementation costs, there are some drawbacks as well. The main drawback is that if existing freight train ROW isn't near any ridership generators (downtown areas, malls, stadiums/arenas, and other major employment centers), then ridership for commuter rail will be much lower than for light rail and the return of investment will be much slower.
Many transit surveys have shown that commuters prefer access and frequency over speed. Poor access is one of the main weaknesses of commuter rail due to being restricted to existing freight train ROW, and frequency is much lower than light rail.
Given that most Americans are suburbanites (50%) wouldn't it make sense to focus mainly on commuter rail rather than intra city/metro (or even inter city) rail? It seems so much time is spent on developing light rail within a city, but given that our highways are so full it might be money better spent to focus on commuter rail.
commuter rail is only useful for downtown bound commuters; and often get a lot lower ridership than intracity lines
commuter rail is only useful for downtown bound commuters; and often get a lot lower ridership than intracity lines
Yup! Transit should be focused in areas where thrt is a density of destinations. Commuter rail doesn't generate trips all day and tends to be in one direction.
commuter rail is only useful for downtown bound commuters; and often get a lot lower ridership than intracity lines
Exactly. Transit agencies should not focus solely on implementation costs or speed without factoring the potential ridership compared to light rail. Light rail can generate far greater ridership because it isn't dependent on existing freight train right of way (which was never designed for transit purposes in mind), and can serve potential ridership generators such as shopping malls, stadiums/arenas, universities, and other major employment centers.
My lines would serve most of the largest suburbs' downtown areas, some of the major shopping malls, some colleges, and other points of interest (such as Melrose, the unofficial gayborhood of the Phoenix metro area). Commuter rail would never serve these areas.
Transit should be focused on providing transit effectively. Commuter transit is often very effective although a focus on commuter rail is rather stupid most places. Most places simply don't have the ridership to justify commuter rail. Rather the focus should be on bus service. The point isn't to provide transit service to everyone. It's to provide transit service that's effective. An out and back commuter bus that makes 2-3 times runs a.m. and p.m. during peak commute hours can be very effective. It doesn't work for people that don't work downtown or for people that work swing shifts and that's perfectly fine. Running a commuter bus at 11 p.m. to accommodate p.m. workers who get off at 10:30 is great if there's ridership to support it. If not, and there usually isn't, so what.
Commuter rail is a good idea. It attracts a higher percentage of users than a bus, and has a lower cost per unit length. It attracts riders going much longer than the 10 km length of many light rail lines. Some important considerations: more parking is required at outlying stations, and the downtown area must have a high percentage of the regions employment. If all that's downtown is government, media and an occasional law firm, it wouldn't be as useful.
Commuter rail is a good idea. It attracts a higher percentage of users than a bus, and has a lower cost per unit length. It attracts riders going much longer than the 10 km length of many light rail lines. Some important considerations: more parking is required at outlying stations, and the downtown area must have a high percentage of the regions employment. If all that's downtown is government, media and an occasional law firm, it wouldn't be as useful.
That's the problem - what about ridership generators and employment areas besides downtown? Shopping malls, colleges, stadiums/arenas, etc.? You need to include them all. Commuter rail would not serve those locations, because the railroad companies never designed their systems with public transit in mind.
Transit surveys have shown that commuters prefer frequency and access over speed. Poor access and frequency are the main weaknesses of commuter rail.
Commuter rail cannot serve all destinations, but if it can serve employment, that is usually the longest trip made on a regular basis. Typically shopping malls are within 15 minutes, whereas commutes to work over an hour are common. Trips to sports stadia, museums and theatres may be longer than work trips, but are typically not made frequently. Furthermore commutes to work often occur during peak hours. Very often it would cost more to add additional lanes to an existing freeway, only used four hours a day, than to establish a commuter rail line.
I already mentioned that there needs to be a strong employment market downtown. And certainly enough parking at stations, as they often attract riders a good distance from the stations; and shuttles to local employers close to, but not walkable from, stations.
Given that most Americans are suburbanites (50%) wouldn't it make sense to focus mainly on commuter rail rather than intra city/metro (or even inter city) rail? It seems so much time is spent on developing light rail within a city, but given that our highways are so full it might be money better spent to focus on commuter rail.
Yes, there should be a greater focus wherever the demand is, like low-density suburbs.
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.
