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.
Hopefully anyone with an open mind will agree there's not one universal solution for every city. We're not able to start with a blank slate and design some utopian urban environment; each metro will have it's own special considerations. I believe that providing heavily subsidized transportation that enables people to travel long distances cheaply is a misguided approach. This is not "green" at all, no matter what the mode of transportation, and only encourages more sprawl.
For large and sparse metros like one I live in (Phoenix) my feeling is that a combination of redeveloping the inner core, plus (continuing to) build satellite employment centers in suburban locations. The right solution in my mind is getting people closer to the places they frequent... work, schools, shopping.
The problem with fixed rail is its inability to adapt to changing demographic, employment and settlement patterns. Does rail follow development or induce it? This is an old an argument as there is, similar to the one that's been heard for a century in road planning. Note that most commuter rail (suburban variety, not in-city transit) - on both sides of the Atlantic - was consciously undertaken to stimulate development of "garden suburbs" (UK) or their equivalents in North America.
I lived in San Francisco when BART was being built, and remember meetings with entities like the Association of Bay Area Governments where BART was ballyhooed as leading to lower traffic congestion; the Bay Bridge was frequently mentioned. Of course, it was immediately clear after BART opened that traffic on the bridge hadn't decreased a bit, while on the other hand, the outer suburbs - places like Orinda or Walnut Creek - could and did embark on aggressive pro-growth zoning and infrastructure development, since more people perceived them as being more accessible to employment centers in Oakland and San Francisco.
This story is repeated all over the world, and is often associated with the theory that congestion reaches an equilibrium point, before which people are willing to endure X minutes/hours of commute time and after which they do something else -change jobs, change location, change hours, or change travel mode (car to bus, bus to train, whatever.) "If you build it, they will come."
The other issue with fixed rail is the so-called "last mile" problem. A light rail trip that takes, say, 30 minutes to go from one part of the Seattle area to downtown, becomes less attractive when the rider has to walk (in the dark and rain) 20 minutes from home to get to the train stop, then another 20 minutes (in the dark and rain) to get to his/her job, or in reverse that night.
Technology and settlement patterns are transforming our cities and urban regions faster than we realize. We now have electric cars, buses and trucks that don't pollute, and in a few years - ten at most - we're likely to see autonomous vehicles showing up every day. New cars already come with collision avoidance technology built in; and IMO it's only a matter of time (again, I wouldn't be surprised if it's under a decade) that current HOV lanes on freeways or arterial streets could be re-tasked to accommodate vehicles with these integrated into autonomous modes, reducing headway (spacing) and allowing higher average speeds on existing roadways. You already have bus-priority lanes on arterial streets where the buses have transponders that turn the lights green as they approach, thereby increasing the through-put of the roadways significantly.
And the virtue of these systems is that most of them will rely on very modest public expenditures (you own your own "smart" car) and can be implemented very quickly, as opposed to fixed infrastructure like rail that takes decades to plan and implement, and more decades to pay off. For the same billion dollars in transit bonds, you can buy a helluva lot of electric buses and run them on city or suburban streets OR on freeways, and they'll be on the road in a year instead of twenty. And if demographics change or some major employer chooses to relocate someplace where it's going to take decades and billions to access by rail, well, the buses can get there on opening day.
Transport technology is evolving so rapidly, and is both changing and reflecting society's changes (think about it - Uber, Lyft, Zipcar...) that investing billions in 19th or 20th century systems seems ill-advised. Talk about fighting the last war...
Location: Was Midvalley Oregon; Now Eastside Seattle area
13,072 posts, read 7,508,849 times
Reputation: 9798
Seattle and environs need light rail as the area gets built "up" rather than built "out". Redmond where I live, is seeing +2000 apt units/yr. A project (spring 2021 completion) near us, will have 102 units in O.4ac. It will be 2 blocks from a light rail station, 2 blocks from an express bus to Microsoft and Downtown Seattle. It will have fewer parking spaces than apt units.
Seattle and environs need light rail as the area gets built "up" rather than built "out". Redmond where I live, is seeing +2000 apt units/yr. A project (spring 2021 completion) near us, will have 102 units in O.4ac. It will be 2 blocks from a light rail station, 2 blocks from an express bus to Microsoft and Downtown Seattle. It will have fewer parking spaces than apt units.
While I agree, LRT is not commuter rail. Commuter rail is Metro North, LIRR, NJT Rail, Chicago Metra, LA Metrolink, SEPTA Regional Rail, Caltrain, MARC.
A commonality for cities with robust commuter rail is that the major city of the region has a fully-formed downtown with adequate public transit within it. Therefore, the individuals taking commuter rail use their personal cars for daily activities in their home area. They drive to the commuter rail station closest to their suburb. Once the rail gets them into the urban downtown of the core city, there are efficient buses/subways/light rail that serve to shuttle the commuter rail riders to their final destinations.
Union Station LA connects to numerous bus lines, DTLA shuttle buses, a light rail, and two subways.
Metra connects to the L.
NJT and LIRR connect to the subway at Penn Station.
LIRR connects to the subway at various points in the boroughs, especially Jamaica and Atlantic Terminal.
Metro North connects to the subway at Grand Central.
SEPTA RR connects to buses and subways at 30th St, 15th St, and 11th St.
Caltrain connects to buses in SoMa, and soon, I believe, will be connected to the new MUNI Metro subway.
MARC connects to the DC Metro in DC and numerous buses in Baltimore. I'm not a MARC expert, but I believe some of its Baltimore stations connect to some type of rail as well? I'm not positive.
I know Boston has a version, but I'm not sure how it works or what it is.
Commuter rail is not built to serve daily short trips. Its function is to shuttle suburbanites into the urban core of the city as quickly and efficiently as possible. However, in order to complement the commuter rail, the urban core must have adequate local transit. Besides those listed above, very few cities have the urban core transit capable of perfecting this system. The only other possibilities are Seattle, Portland OR, Minneapolis, maybe Dallas, maybe San Diego, maybe Atlanta, DC could use a lot more, and maybe a few others.
So my answer to this poll is yes, we need more commuter rail in the US. However, commuter rail should follow urban core transit. The latter must be perfected or at least vastly improved upon in each city before commuter rail makes sense. Eventually, the commuter rail will make sense in other cities as they improve their public transit infrastructure.
Yes! Lower cost per km, it can reach way out, and because it doesn't travel the highways everyone else does, can be faster. Of course it will not be the total solution. There are many systems operating in the US, my favorite is the Rail Runner in Albuquerque/Santa Fe. Ride it if you get the chance. Metro areas that could particularly benefit: Houston, Atlanta, Columbus, Phoenix.
Really-it's a question for the consumers. If they are willing to pay fares that allow rail to operate profitably (or at the least-break even, with enough left over for expansion/updates), sure build it. Now-how many light rail or subway systems are self-sufficient? It appears that the demand isn't really even there, if people aren't willing to pay enough for the operation of the system.
Wow, this thread exploded quickly! Thanks so much for your input!
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown
I think the OP is talking about inter-city rail (Amtrak). Commuter rail is transport from the city center and the suburbs of a metro area. Examples of commuter rail agencies are: Chicago's Metra and NYC's Metro-North and LIRR.
I was referring to both. Thank you! I thought both counted as commuter rail, though.
Mass transit works for a very small percentage in very few cities, and the costs are astronomical given ridership and it requires a major reorganization of how Americans currently live. There might be a better way, but I don’t think commuter rail is the panacea.
And yet before 1920s, 90% of all travel, urban, and interurban, was by electric traction rail. In fact, most cities built their suburbs based on the streetcar, in the 1890-1920 time period.
Streetcars required no parking space, and fit well in the compact urban designs of the 19th and early 20th century.
The transition to the automobile caused more reorganization of the American lifestyle than anything else.
Since the cost of land won't be going down, and petroleum won't become more cheaper over time, it's a good bet that the automobile / petroleum / pavement hegemony is going to eventually collapse.
Why?
Because every population doubling requires a doubling of food production, and that can only happen if populations consolidate, and farmland it expanded / reclaimed from the suburbs. And in high population density development, there is only one mode that can handle the load - electric traction rail.
Want to get ahead of the line?
Relocate to a small town on a rail line or former rail line, conveniently close to your vocation so you don't need a car. Get ready for some shocks as the country gets "back on track."
Really-it's a question for the consumers. If they are willing to pay fares that allow rail to operate profitably (or at the least-break even, with enough left over for expansion/updates), sure build it. Now-how many light rail or subway systems are self-sufficient? It appears that the demand isn't really even there, if people aren't willing to pay enough for the operation of the system.
Just so you know, there are only two urban rail transit systems anywhere in the world I'm aware of that turn an operating profit: Singapore's Mass Rapid Transit and Hong Kong's Mass Transit Railway.
The latter does so in part by collecting rent from buildings erected on land MTR owns around its stations.
We built the Pacific Railroad by giving the railroads land they could sell in the 1860s. We do not allow our urban mass transit agencies to profit in similar fashion. Maybe we should.
Union Station LA connects to numerous bus lines, DTLA shuttle buses, a light rail, and two subways.
Metra connects to the L.
NJT and LIRR connect to the subway at Penn Station.
LIRR connects to the subway at various points in the boroughs, especially Jamaica and Atlantic Terminal.
Metro North connects to the subway at Grand Central.
SEPTA RR connects to buses and subways at 30th St, 15th St, and 11th St.
Caltrain connects to buses in SoMa, and soon, I believe, will be connected to the new MUNI Metro subway.
MARC connects to the DC Metro in DC and numerous buses in Baltimore. I'm not a MARC expert, but I believe some of its Baltimore stations connect to some type of rail as well? I'm not positive.
I know Boston has a version, but I'm not sure how it works or what it is.
A little assistance on those last two:
The Baltimore Metro misses both of the commuter rail stations in downtown Baltimore, but the Central Light Rail Line serves both Penn and Camden stations - Penn Station via a spur. A shuttle train runs between the two stations.
Boston has two commuter rail networks, like Philadelphia used to have: one serves northern and western suburbs and terminates at North Station, and the other serves southern and western suburbs and terminates at South Station. (Amtrak trains also originate at both stations, but South Station is the city's gateway to the country outside New England.) There are MBTA rail rapid transit stations directly connected to both, and the Silver Line bus rapid transit also stops at South Station. Many in Boston argued that the Big Dig should have included a North Station-South Station rail link a la Philadelphia's Commuter Tunnel, and even though that didn't happen, there are still efforts (I belive fitful right now) to build one anyway.
Quote:
Commuter rail is not built to serve daily short trips. Its function is to shuttle suburbanites into the urban core of the city as quickly and efficiently as possible. However, in order to complement the commuter rail, the urban core must have adequate local transit. Besides those listed above, very few cities have the urban core transit capable of perfecting this system. The only other possibilities are Seattle, Portland OR, Minneapolis, maybe Dallas, maybe San Diego, maybe Atlanta, DC could use a lot more, and maybe a few others.
So my answer to this poll is yes, we need more commuter rail in the US. However, commuter rail should follow urban core transit. The latter must be perfected or at least vastly improved upon in each city before commuter rail makes sense. Eventually, the commuter rail will make sense in other cities as they improve their public transit infrastructure.
In addition to those listed above, the following US cities also have commuter rail service:
Albuquerque (RailRunner)
Austin (Capital MetroRail)
Dallas/Fort Worth (Trinity Railway Express; a second line is being built to serve the I-635 corridor in the northern Dallas suburbs)
Hartford/New Haven/Springfield (CTrail; Shore Line East from New London to New Haven)
Miami (Tri-Rail)
Minneapolis (Northstar)
San Diego (Coaster)
Seattle (Sounder)
The (San Francisco) Bay Area also has Altamont Commuter Express, which connects to BART at one of its stations in the East Bay.
The three cities listed below have commuter rail service to their downtowns by virtue of being located on commuter rail systems focused on another larger city nearby:
Newark, NJ (NJ Transit to Hoboken and New York Penn Station)
Trenton, NJ (NJ Transit to NY Penn and SEPTA Regional Rail to Philadelphia)
Wilmington, DE (SEPTA Regional Rail to Philadelphia - the State of Delaware contracts with SEPTA to operate the line that used to terminate in Marcus Hook, PA., across northern New Castle County to Newark, on the other side of Wilmington)
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.
