Dallas and Portland Lightrail vs. Boston and Philly Communter rail (largest, comparison)
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.
The suburbs of Philly and Boston are on another level compared to Dallas and Portland as far as public transit goes. Philly's delco and mainline suburbs are serviced by light rail and its Jersey suburbs are serviced by light and heavy rail and the entire metropolis is serviced by commuter rails, Boston is even better. Portland and Dallas have a llllooooonnnngggggg way to go to reach the level of developed east coast cities, this is a silly comparison. You should have just said light rail vs commuter rail. In my experience light rail is good for areas that are already heavily developed but lack adequate rail transit for its density, because light rail can be built cheaply, quickly, and without tearing up the place. Light rail is mostly supplemental. Commuter rail differs from city to city, SEPTA's is completely electrified, has a rather high density of stops, and is the nation's fastest. In the inner suburbs where lines converge, the service to CC Philly is near urban heavy rail frequencies. As far as using it to run around town, that makes no sense considering most of the burbs are built around a commuter rail station SEPTA stations define metro Philadelphia, in most suburbs anything you need or want is within walking distance so there is no need for a supplimentary light rail, it would be a waste of money. Now if you wanted to visit a friend on the otherside of the metro, how you get there all depends on where the friend lives, bottom line SEPTA and MBTA are the only two transit agencies in the US that run all forms of PT. So again the cities comparison is silly. As for spurring developement, light rail is a cheap and simple fix, like duct tape, but unless it's connected to a jobs center like a mall or cbd its only value is basically asthetic. Commuter Rail otoh developes out of workforce demand so it is always connected to the primary job center(s) and thus always encourages developement, seeing as wealthy white collar workers do not want to be taxed by the city nor send their kids to those abysmal public schools and would rather not pay for private school. There are countless examples of these "old" TODs all over metro Philly. Places like doylestown, jenkintown, norristown, conshy, media, narberth, ambler etc.
The suburbs of Philly and Boston are on another level compared to Dallas and Portland as far as public transit goes. Philly's delco and mainline suburbs are serviced by light rail and its Jersey suburbs are serviced by light and heavy rail and the entire metropolis is serviced by commuter rails, Boston is even better. Portland and Dallas have a llllooooonnnngggggg way to go to reach the level of developed east coast cities, this is a silly comparison. You should have just said light rail vs commuter rail. In my experience light rail is good for areas that are already heavily developed but lack adequate rail transit for its density, because light rail can be built cheaply, quickly, and without tearing up the place. Light rail is mostly supplemental. Commuter rail differs from city to city, SEPTA's is completely electrified, has a rather high density of stops, and is the nation's fastest. In the inner suburbs where lines converge, the service to CC Philly is near urban heavy rail frequencies. As far as using it to run around town, that makes no sense considering most of the burbs are built around a commuter rail station SEPTA stations define metro Philadelphia, in most suburbs anything you need or want is within walking distance so there is no need for a supplimentary light rail, it would be a waste of money. Now if you wanted to visit a friend on the otherside of the metro, how you get there all depends on where the friend lives, bottom line SEPTA and MBTA are the only two transit agencies in the US that run all forms of PT. So again the cities comparison is silly. As for spurring developement, light rail is a cheap and simple fix, like duct tape, but unless it's connected to a jobs center like a mall or cbd its only value is basically asthetic. Commuter Rail otoh developes out of workforce demand so it is always connected to the primary job center(s) and thus always encourages developement, seeing as wealthy white collar workers do not want to be taxed by the city nor send their kids to those abysmal public schools and would rather not pay for private school. There are countless examples of these "old" TODs all over metro Philly. Places like doylestown, jenkintown, norristown, conshy, media, narberth, ambler etc.
But the stops are so far apart on commuter rail. You can't use commuter rail for intercity travel like light rail. Im talking more about a city like King of Prussia in Philly having 8 or more light rail stops in it with TOD on each so people could get around the city on rail transit never needing to go into Philly unless they want to.
With most metro trying to go car-less in urban corridors outside the city limits, would you say they should focus on building light rail in suburban cities rather than commuter rail? Im speaking about suburban cities with the density to sustain a light rail line. What do you think a sustainable density would need to be in those suburbs?
I'd argue that you need both. We've established that light rail is great for getting around intracity/intrasuburb, but if you really want to be car-free, you need to have a regional system as well. Few people live their lives entirely within their little suburb. Ideally you'd have your local light rail system connecting to a more regional rail system to get you to the central city or other communities elsewhere in the region.
As far as densities are concerned, for commuter rail, you'd likely have high densities near the major stations, and lessening density as you move outward. An LRT system would probably result in less nodal/clustered density, and more of an even spread of medium-to-high density. A single commuter rail station could generate tens of thousands of riders a day, while light rail stations could be viable with several hundred or a thousand riders a day. If you want a project, I'm sure the Institute of Transportation Engineers has a manual with trip generation rates for various land uses, and you could probably cobble together an "ideal density" of residences and office space within a 1/4 mile radius to support transit stations.
[quote=MDAllstar;20596646]But the stops are so far apart on commuter rail. You can't use commuter rail for intercity travel like light rail. Im talking more about a city like King of Prussia in Philly having 8 or more light rail stops in it with TOD on each so people could get around the city on rail transit never needing to go into Philly unless they want
I see what you mean, ultimately living close to where you work in order to curb sprawl. In that case the Philly area does have a problem with job sprawl, thanks in part to KoP and the handful of other major malls around the region poaching from CC. In KoP's case, its more like a place where people work rather than live, something like tysons corner. People live there, but its daytime population dwarfs its evening population several times over. In order to fix that KoP would have to improve public transit, which I think they plan on doing by extending the Norristown HSL(light rail) out there and more importantly they would have to build affordable housing especially considering most of the jobs are service sector. The affordable housing coupled with light rail service to KoP would face politcal opposition by the local and regional powers that be, because it would further harm CC and would change the immediate KoP area fairly drastically. I could see either a LR or affordable housing happening but not both, for the reasons I stated above. Anyway I work in CC but live in a suburb, I own a car, but never have to use it because I work downtown. In the Philly area trying to go from suburb to suburb in a timely manner is a pain if not impossible without a car unless its a suburb that lies on your line, It has a very core-centric metropolitan transit design, isn't the dmv metro the same way?
But the stops are so far apart on commuter rail. You can't use commuter rail for intercity travel like light rail. Im talking more about a city like King of Prussia in Philly having 8 or more light rail stops in it with TOD on each so people could get around the city on rail transit never needing to go into Philly unless they want
I see what you mean, ultimately living close to where you work in order to curb sprawl. In that case the Philly area does have a problem with job sprawl, thanks in part to KoP and the handful of other major malls around the region poaching from CC. In KoP's case, its more like a place where people work rather than live, something like tysons corner. People live there, but its daytime population dwarfs its evening population several times over. In order to fix that KoP would have to improve public transit, which I think they plan on doing by extending the Norristown HSL(light rail) out there and more importantly they would have to build affordable housing especially considering most of the jobs are service sector. The affordable housing coupled with light rail service to KoP would face politcal opposition by the local and regional powers that be, because it would further harm CC and would change the immediate KoP area fairly drastically. I could see either a LR or affordable housing happening but not both, for the reasons I stated above. Anyway I work in CC but live in a suburb, I own a car, but never have to use it because I work downtown. In the Philly area trying to go from suburb to suburb in a timely manner is a pain if not impossible without a car unless its a suburb that lies on your line, It has a very core-centric metropolitan transit design, isn't the dmv metro the same way?
Actually, Tyson's Corner is getting 4 metro stations now which will be done in 2013 with phase 1 of the silver line. They are actually building a ton a residential high rises everywhere in Tyson's Corner now in preparation for the metro's arrival.
DC doesn't have any light rail lines yet but a few lines are about to be built that all run east and west for the suburbs. The purple light rail line is going to connect 4 metro legs across the northern part of the system. The corridor cities transit way is going to connect to the end of one red line leg and move north through Gaithersburg and Germantown Maryland.
The fight over development in the city vs. the suburbs is interesting though. How do people feel about having multiple downtown nodes in Philly? Doesn't Philly have the population to support CC no matter what gets built in the suburbs? I would think they offer something different.
I'd argue that you need both. We've established that light rail is great for getting around intracity/intrasuburb, but if you really want to be car-free, you need to have a regional system as well. Few people live their lives entirely within their little suburb. Ideally you'd have your local light rail system connecting to a more regional rail system to get you to the central city or other communities elsewhere in the region.
As far as densities are concerned, for commuter rail, you'd likely have high densities near the major stations, and lessening density as you move outward. An LRT system would probably result in less nodal/clustered density, and more of an even spread of medium-to-high density. A single commuter rail station could generate tens of thousands of riders a day, while light rail stations could be viable with several hundred or a thousand riders a day. If you want a project, I'm sure the Institute of Transportation Engineers has a manual with trip generation rates for various land uses, and you could probably cobble together an "ideal density" of residences and office space within a 1/4 mile radius to support transit stations.
I agree that you need both. Portland and Dallas have both though. The question is should those light rail lines extend beyond the city limits or should they stop at city limits allowing commuter rail to go into the suburbs? I think an argument could be made for light rail being the better sustainable mode for green urban living rather than commuter rail.
I'd argue that you need both. We've established that light rail is great for getting around intracity/intrasuburb, but if you really want to be car-free, you need to have a regional system as well. Few people live their lives entirely within their little suburb. Ideally you'd have your local light rail system connecting to a more regional rail system to get you to the central city or other communities elsewhere in the region.
As far as densities are concerned, for commuter rail, you'd likely have high densities near the major stations, and lessening density as you move outward. An LRT system would probably result in less nodal/clustered density, and more of an even spread of medium-to-high density. A single commuter rail station could generate tens of thousands of riders a day, while light rail stations could be viable with several hundred or a thousand riders a day. If you want a project, I'm sure the Institute of Transportation Engineers has a manual with trip generation rates for various land uses, and you could probably cobble together an "ideal density" of residences and office space within a 1/4 mile radius to support transit stations.
Absolutely, a light rail rail that cant connect to the inner city is not that great except in a micro environemnt. Some regional rail lines do ok, the main line rail line in the Western burbs of Philly is a decent example which stops (some only a mile apart) in the town centers that run along the corrider, with many residential, retail, and commercial options at each stop (hell even Americas first so-called suburban town center called suburban square in Ardmore PA). But on the point the questions seems to limit to a specific goal without fulfilling on another viable transit option to actually travel greater distances. Also both Boston and Philly have light rail lines.
I agree that you need both. Portland and Dallas have both though. The question is should those light rail lines extend beyond the city limits or should they stop at city limits allowing commuter rail to go into the suburbs? I think an argument could be made for light rail being the better sustainable mode for green urban living rather than commuter rail.
Only if they cohesively link to all areas and you assume no one will commute longer distances. Even with the great plans in DC to get from Tysons to Fairfax for example would not be very viable on the expanded rail plan. That requires a hugely intensive light rail and heavy/regional (to me interchangeable on certain aspects further afield especially) to link all places. It seems the light rail in select more densly populated areas with some sort of faster higher volume mood for longer travel works well and DC seems to be embracing this, but I could not see light rail being a solely sustainable option in any metro of significant size.
Also I think you downplay the utility of regional rail. it can move many people very effeciently over long distances and can have TOD at stops with density, really in most ways is very similar to METRO utility outside of the core. Cities like Boston and Philly (or even a NYC) use Regional and Heavy rail in tandem to perform similar functions to the more modern Hybrid systems like the Metro/Marta/bart
Only if they cohesively link to all areas and you assume no one will commute longer distances. Even with the great plans in DC to get from Tysons to Fairfax for example would not be very viable on the expanded rail plan. That requires a hugely intensive light rail and heavy/regional (to me interchangeable on certain aspects further afield especially) to link all places. It seems the light rail in select more densly populated areas with some sort of faster higher volume mood for longer travel works well and DC seems to be embracing this, but I could not see light rail being a solely sustainable option in any metro of significant size.
Also I think you downplay the utility of regional rail. it can move many people very effeciently over long distances and can have TOD at stops with density, really in most ways is very similar to METRO utility outside of the core. Cities like Boston and Philly (or even a NYC) use Regional and Heavy rail in tandem to perform similar functions to the more modern Hybrid systems like the Metro/Marta/bart
I think a combination of modes is ideal. But I don't think commuter rail can get you a couple blocks like light rail can. Heavy rail is expensive and almost nobody is building it. So light rail is the only option for neighborhood to neighborhood travel. To truly get away from the car lifestyle, I think transit needs to address trips to the store, restaurants, friends house, even colleges etc.
Heavy rail is the obvious choice for city limits in Philly and NYC but for their suburbs to emulate that, they need a cheaper alternative. Wouldn't light rail allow for the same lifestyle and transit access in the suburbs their core city downtown's offer? I wouldn't include DC in this since it's the only city that builds heavy rail way into the suburbs. San Fran's Bart isn't really for San Fran proper and Atlanta's Marta barely leaves city limits into the suburbs. I brought up DC's light rail lines because he/she asked about our transit system but I don't think DC's transit network fits this since it already goes into the suburbs.
I don't use light rail on a daily basis so I don't have the same experience as people in your cities. I was just wondering which design is better for urban living in the suburbs since light rail is the big thing these days. What do you think about the plans for light rail in King of Prussia? Do you think it will hurt center city like the other guy said? I would think they offer completely different things.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 08-24-2011 at 09:36 PM..
I think a combination of modes is ideal. But I don't think commuter rail can get you a couple blocks like light rail can. Heavy rail is expensive and almost nobody is building it. So light rail is the only option for neighborhood to neighborhood travel. To truly get away from the car lifestyle, I think transit needs to address trips to the store, restaurants, friends house, even colleges etc.
Heavy rail is the obvious choice for city limits in Philly and NYC but for their suburbs to emulate that, they need a cheaper alternative. Wouldn't light rail allow for the same lifestyle and transit access in the suburbs their core city downtown's offer. I wouldn't include DC in this since it's the only city that builds heavy rail way into the suburbs. I brought up DC's light rail lines because he/she asked about our transit system but I don't think our DC's transit network fits this since it already goes into the suburbs.
DC is suppose to build light rail in the suburbs but that hasn't happened yet so there is nothing to compare. I don't use light rail on a daily basis so I don't have the same experience as people in your cities. I was just wondering which design is better for urban living in the suburbs since light rail is the big thing these days.
Philly already has light rail in its suburbs, it also has heavy rail in the form of PATCO, even then people mostly just use them for work and school. People just dont go out and waste money like they used to. If you need to hop on a train to go a few blocks, than you are a lazy mofo. Most places even in the burbs are built so you can walk to any necessity if need be, but they also accomodate the car, and most people drive, so there you have it. Now the McMansion subdivisions of the exurbs are a different story, but nobody living out there has to or wants to walk anywhere, if they could go the rest of their lives without seeing another human except for their family, that would be a dream come true for them.
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.
