Next city/metro to gain commuter rail system? (places, population, Boston)
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 city center as a workplace is on the decline. Who wants to spend 2+ hours of their day commuting if it's unnecessary? Plus, people will always choose to commute via car unless traffic/parking becomes unbearable. More people working remote means less traffic and more parking, which means no one really cares about rail anymore. It's like arguing over which city has the most telephone booths. The future is remote work and living wherever you want unless you have one of the few jobs that requires you to be in an office.
Kind of my point. It was rejected. Now there may be valid reasons but these plans aren't normal in American cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flamadiddle
The city center as a workplace is on the decline. Who wants to spend 2+ hours of their day commuting if it's unnecessary? Plus, people will always choose to commute via car unless traffic/parking becomes unbearable. More people working remote means less traffic and more parking, which means no one really cares about rail anymore. It's like arguing over which city has the most telephone booths. The future is remote work and living wherever you want unless you have one of the few jobs that requires you to be in an office.
Commutes don't have to be 2+ hours, people don't have to work downtown, and regardless what people think, there are jobs where bodies matter. Everyone isn't some fancy office worker who can work from home. People drive because its easier, not because of traffic.
It's actually like arguing that our subsidizing of highways and gas has fueled an increase in autobile use. Which is factually true.
I guess you will get served by virtual waiters from now on.
Commutes don't have to be 2+ hours, people don't have to work downtown, and regardless what people think, there are jobs where bodies matter. Everyone isn't some fancy office worker who can work from home. People drive because its easier, not because of traffic.
It's actually like arguing that our subsidizing of highways and gas has fueled an increase in autobile use. Which is factually true. I guess you will get served by virtual waiters from now on.
Actually, yes. All those jobs will be going away in the future. Automation and robots are the double whammy. Hotel workers, gone too. Hilton now lets you make a reservation, get a digital key, check-in and check-out without ever interacting with a human. IT workers used to justify going into the office to install/configure/reboot servers/network gear. That's no longer needed because most of that stuff is in the "cloud" and they use WebEx, Zoom or MS Teams to collaborate. Self driving cars/trucks/delivery (taxi's too) will further minimize traffic (and human presence) in the city, on and on... so why would anyone dump millions (or billions) into a rail system that's no longer needed?
Last edited by JMT; 03-28-2021 at 08:30 PM..
Reason: North America only
I definitely disagree that it's common for American cities to implement a plan like this. Do cities like St. Louis, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Tampa, Orlando, San Antonio, Nashville, Charlotte, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Virginia Beach have plans as extensive? Especially considering smaller cities around the 1m mark, who can still sustain rail transit but usually have a useless 1 mile trolley or nothing. Part of my point was that we have metro areas around 1 million that aren't even planning regional rail but by your take, this plan for Austin just run of the mill.
Portland, Salt Lake City, and San Diego are the outliers here.
To clarify, I meant it was common for regions around 2 million--even more so for ones that are rapidly growing--to embark on a more ambitious transit master plan (or for them to feature one already). Not necessarily to the same extent that Austin is (which is why i mentioned multiple times that its in the top 25%).
Can I humbly point out that is a correct assessment?
First Quartile: Portland, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Austin
Second: Baltimore, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Cleveland
Third: Charlotte, Tampa, San Antonio,
Fourth: Nashville, Virginia Beach
Also, let's not forget that even if Austin has an ambitious plan, it is still currently behind many others on this list. Baltimore has had a subway, light rail, and good commuter rail. Cleveland has an urban rail system and arguably the best BRT line in the country. Pittsburgh has one of the largest (and first) real BRT systems in the US. Austin has a low ridership, nine-station line.
Austin's plan is ambitious in part because it is playing catch up. That shouldn't detract with how impressive it is, but it's important to put things in context. In reality, Austin really only shines compared to sprawling southern metros with unimpressive transit networks (Tampa, Virginia Beach, Nashville, San Antonio, Orlando).
Last edited by newgensandiego; 03-28-2021 at 07:11 PM..
To clarify, I meant it was common for regions around 2 million--even more so for ones that are rapidly growing--to embark on a more ambitious transit master plan (or for them to feature one already). Not necessarily to the same extent that Austin is (which is why i mentioned multiple times that its in the top 25%).
Can I humbly point out that is a correct assessment?
First Quartile: Portland, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Austin
Second: Baltimore, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Cleveland
Third: Charlotte, Tampa, San Antonio,
Fourth: Nashville, Virginia Beach
Also, let's not forget that even if Austin has an ambitious plan, it is still currently behind many others on this list. Baltimore has had a subway, light rail, and good commuter rail. Cleveland has an urban rail system and arguably the best BRT line in the country. Pittsburgh has one of the largest (and first) real BRT systems in the US. Austin has a low ridership, nine-station line.
Austin's plan is ambitious in part because it is playing catch up. That shouldn't detract with how impressive it is, but it's important to put things in context. In reality, Austin really only shines compared to sprawling southern metros with unimpressive transit networks (Tampa, Virginia Beach, Nashville, San Antonio, Orlando).
FYI in 2018 Austin and San Diego had identical frequencies of "commute by car"... That's kind of sad for San Diego's "first quartile" system.
But regarding this thread, what Austin is investing in is urban light rail, not commuter rail. There are some upgrades to the existing commuter rail line to allow for higher capacity and frequency, but that's really a footnote of the overall plan.
Last edited by whereiend; 03-28-2021 at 08:14 PM..
The CapMetro rail nine-station line isn't anything impressive but its low-ridership is largely due to design flaws within the system.
-- It is only one rail through much of its route meaning trains have to wait at stations to pass each other thus adding more headway times in the commute.
-- It uses diesel locomotives instead of electrified rail meaning stations have to be spread pretty far apart to make most efficient use of fuel.
-- Stations were only designed for the two car train making it impractical to add cars to the train. The actual train does get full during commute hours but its impossible to add more cars / capacity.
-- It suffers from last-mile connectivity issues at some stations due to:
------ No parking at some stations
------ Ineffective bus transfers
------ Doesn't always go where all commuters are going
------ No connection to the airport
It's impossible for me to predict what the $9 Billion Plan will ultimately realize for Austin but it appears that it will be far more integrated and functional than the current cap-metro commuter rail.
For a metro of approximately only 2 million I would say Austin's plan is pretty ground breaking. Does it contend with other transit enabled cities like Seattle, Baltimore, D.C. ect? No. But its definitely punching above its weight for a city its size.
The CapMetro rail nine-station line isn't anything impressive but its low-ridership is largely due to design flaws within the system.
-- It is only one rail through much of its route meaning trains have to wait at stations to pass each other thus adding more headway times in the commute.
-- It uses diesel locomotives instead of electrified rail meaning stations have to be spread pretty far apart to make most efficient use of fuel.
-- Stations were only designed for the two car train making it impractical to add cars to the train. The actual train does get full during commute hours but its impossible to add more cars / capacity.
-- It suffers from last-mile connectivity issues at some stations due to:
------ No parking at some stations
------ Ineffective bus transfers
------ Doesn't always go where all commuters are going
------ No connection to the airport
It's impossible for me to predict what the $9 Billion Plan will ultimately realize for Austin but it appears that it will be far more integrated and functional than the current cap-metro commuter rail.
Agreed. Another issue is that Cap Metro (despite owning the tracks) has to allocate a substantial amount of time on the line for freight. It was also built on existing tracks, and the route really makes no sense for mass transit. I think the red line will get a bit better with the upgrades that are planned (mainly double tracking and longer trains/stations), but when the orange and blue lines are done it will be a minor auxiliary line in comparison to those two. I live in walking distance to a red line station though, so I will be happy if they can get the frequency a bit better. As is I generally prefer to use the bus or a bike.
Agreed. Another issue is that Cap Metro (despite owning the tracks) has to allocate a substantial amount of time on the line for freight. It was also built on existing tracks, and the route really makes no sense for mass transit. I think the red line will get a bit better with the upgrades that are planned (mainly double tracking and longer trains/stations), but when the orange and blue lines are done it will be a minor auxiliary line in comparison to those two. I live in walking distance to a red line station though, so I will be happy if they can get the frequency a bit better. It will be nice for soccer games if nothing else.
Yes the red line seems to zig and zag all over central Austin before heading Northwest making for a longer commute for those heading to Lakeline and Leander area. I actually purchased in Leander right by the station as I wanted to have access to the rail. It works out better than paying the tolls for commutes to the Domain and avoids traffic. It's a bit of a long ride to Downtown though.
Actually, yes. All those jobs will be going away in the future. Automation and robots are the double whammy. Hotel workers, gone too. Hilton now lets you make a reservation, get a digital key, check-in and check-out without ever interacting with a human. IT workers used to justify going into the office to install/configure/reboot servers/network gear. That's no longer needed because most of that stuff is in the "cloud" and they use WebEx, Zoom or MS Teams to collaborate. Self driving cars/trucks/delivery (taxi's too) will further minimize traffic (and human presence) in the city, on and on... so why would anyone dump millions (or billions) into a rail system that's no longer needed?
Perhaps ask the experts who are still designing rail projects.
The hotel guests can use the train, same with the people who clean the rooms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newgensandiego
To clarify, I meant it was common for regions around 2 million--even more so for ones that are rapidly growing--to embark on a more ambitious transit master plan (or for them to feature one already). Not necessarily to the same extent that Austin is (which is why i mentioned multiple times that its in the top 25%).
Can I humbly point out that is a correct assessment?
First Quartile: Portland, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Austin
Second: Baltimore, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Cleveland
Third: Charlotte, Tampa, San Antonio,
Fourth: Nashville, Virginia Beach
Also, let's not forget that even if Austin has an ambitious plan, it is still currently behind many others on this list. Baltimore has had a subway, light rail, and good commuter rail. Cleveland has an urban rail system and arguably the best BRT line in the country. Pittsburgh has one of the largest (and first) real BRT systems in the US. Austin has a low ridership, nine-station line.
Austin's plan is ambitious in part because it is playing catch up. That shouldn't detract with how impressive it is, but it's important to put things in context. In reality, Austin really only shines compared to sprawling southern metros with unimpressive transit networks (Tampa, Virginia Beach, Nashville, San Antonio, Orlando).
I must've misread that part of your post because I didn't come away with that conclusion.
Sure, it's a correct assessment I guess, but I'm not intimately familiar enough to comment. But that's moot now.
Baltimore should have those things as it was bigger than Austin for a couple hundred years. Same with Cleveland and Pittsburgh. But I don't know if I would call those systems impressive for the size and urbanity of those regions.
I just took another look and Baltimore seems to have a more extensive system than I thought but Cleveland and Pittsburgh seem about on par.
Sprawling metros dominate a huge part of America though. The south has by far the most people in the country. It's impressive for the region as well as the country in my opinion.
Last edited by JMT; 03-28-2021 at 08:32 PM..
Reason: North America only
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.
