Today I was at local MPO or Metropolitin Planning Organization that determins were the bucks will be spent. This is for a Midwest City in Ohio. They told me that even though we have 2,000,000 People in our Metro Area that we do not have the Population density to support Commuter Rail[?]. But Boston has 2.5 million Metro and Baltimore has about 1.9 Million and they have Commuter rail.
They were willing to spend 22,000,000 a mile to put in a extra lane of freeway but not spend the money on Commuter rail…So What kind of POP density do we need? Do we wain till the Urban Sprawl gets so bad that we cant breath anymore[B)][}:)][:p][V]
I would opine that it’s not the density but the travel that determines the need for light rail. You could have tremendous density, but if most people work within a short distance of home, or if the travel patterns are not linear (ie, people live all over the place and work all over the place) light rail makes little sense.
What needs to be proved is that there are “feeder” areas with enough population density to provide riders to areas of sufficient employment density. That’s why I mention the “linear” connotation. That will take a substantial survey, which may have already been done, hence the decision.
The reason another lane of highway may make sense is exactly because people live all over the place and work all over the place. Building a mass transit system to meet those needs may actually cost much more than the highway, and not have the ridership to even begin to support itself. May sound strange from a railfan, but you have to consider the business case for each.
That might be what it takes. Not so much air quality as traffic delays. Commuter systems are generally paid for with sales tax increases or bonds issued in the county/state, and the voters are not always willing to pony up the extra bucks.
Do the existing rail systems go where the commuters live? Is there track capacity to add commuter trains? That will make a difference too…
A couple of other points:
Is there interest enough to guarantee that the trains that run will be reasonably full, including whatever service runs off-peak?
Is there sufficient congestion that OTHER groups than riders would be willing to bear the cost of light or heavy rail to alleviate it? (This is a somewhat unrecognized, but very powerful means of motivating interest in rail).
Also: Is the anticipated development pattern, or ‘suburban sprawl’, developing routes or demand that might be ‘worthy’ of rail connection by the time all the route studies and construction have been done for a rail project (which will take a number of years)?
Baltimore’s non-subway commuter rail (MARC) Connects it with another large city, Washington DC. MARC mainly connects communities to DC so that peopl ewho work in DC can get there (Explaining why no commuter trains run on weekends). Weather or not you should look into a commuter line really depends on where it goes and why its gong there. if it is a quick inexpensive way to get to work in a city that would take twice as long to drive to on a busy freeway, where a large amount of people would rather u8se the trains than the road, That would work. the local MARC station has over 500 parking spaces for a fairly small city, and it is filled up every weekday. Population dosn’t matter, the amount of people that could and would regularly use it does.
This Midwest Ohio city wouldn’t by any chance be Columbus because the population density will never be big enough for commuter rail here. Compared to other cities I have lived in these clowns seem to like commuting in their own vehicles.
Yes Mark, and then there’s Minneapolis, truely one of the exceptions of which you speak.
I would have to say that cost was high at around $700 million, capacity medium (the new Bombardier cars can pack about 200 per unit). Stops are frequent with 17 in just over 11 miles when complete, and speeds both high and low.
The downtown portion of the line consists of 4 stops in about a mile and a half, in the center of the street (what’s left of it). The speed is around 20 MPH, and the overhead wire is hung low tension, trolly style.
Beyond the Metrodome ot the south, the line travels along a dedicated right of way for the most part, at speeds of up to 50 MPH, wired with high tension catenary. There is a half mile stretch of low speed street running between 50th street and the VA Hospital, but no stops. The entire line really serves a very small portion of a metropolitan area with a population near 2 million.
The political background of this line may be the most interesting part of all. The man who finally got it done, after over 20 years of bickering and stagnation, was none other than Jesse “The Governor” Ventura, a political independent.
Almost by definition, the population of the inner city in major metropolitan areas is politically democratic. Republicans live in the burbs. This line doesn’t come close to the burbs, it cuts through the city until it gets to the airport, then passes through an office park, and dumps into the Mall of America. It’s riders however, may be more politically diverse, as many will be from out of town, given the nature of the stops along this route.
Commuter rail may be next, but the plan involves the use of the BNSF mains, and is meeting with some heavy resistance. The current Governor is in favor of the plan, and is working on it. He happens to be a republican. Oh well.[swg]
There are exceptions to this, but it seems to me that the busiest commuter rail operations are those that existed before the development of city freeways. If Chicago is a valid example, the commuter lines tended to languish at post WW II levels until the freeways filled up. My guess is that the political feasibility of investing in upgrades and expansions for systems in this category was greater due to the support base of existing riders. Spend some tax money on my ride and that is OK with me. For the driver, money will be spent on your highways too, but keeping those people who ride the trains in the trains will keep them off your highway.
I am pretty sure the Midwest Ohio city is Cincinnati. With family living there I am fairly familiar with the situation. To the best of my knowledge, Cincinnati never had a comuter rail service. Perhaps at the height of the pre-Amtrak passenger service, there may have been some commuting by train, but that is so far removed in time as to have no relavance to today’s commuter.
This purely from limited personal experience, but it does not seem to me that the slow traffic “rush hour” period last very long, and off ru***raffic moves quite well. (I’d guess 65-75 MPH in a 55 zone is pretty good).
That leaves a situation where many drivers are wondering “What’s the problem?” Those who do get caught up in rush hour may be thinking “Why do they talk about spending money on rail service I am sure I’ll never use? They should take MY gas tax money, and fix the mess on MY highway”.
I have not seen the actual studies, but the Cincinnati media has noted that the cost of expanding the freeway system to meet traffic forecasts is in the billions, and the establishment of commuter rail may provide needed capacity at much less cost. I won’t argue that the studies are right or wrong, but even if that conclusion is correct, it will not produce any particular added public support. I think there is a tendency of the majority of us to want
Mark
Agreed. When I said languished, I ment that they sort of ran without much growth, change in structure, or significant improvements. That is not to say that there weren’t exceptions. The CNW’s gallery car commuter fleet is an example. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think there was any public funding of that initial conversion. Of course the old equipment may have been mostly baling wire and bubble gum, but I can’t imagine that the numbers alone would have dazzled a stock buyer. I often wondered if Ben Heineman didn’t at least consider that the CNW served the more affluent suburbs, with more “makers and shakers” and stock buyers than average.
The forum started with asking if population density is the key factor, and you and others responded that it is important, but many other things come into play. My comments were to one element, that is, my GUESS at the thought process of John Q Cincinnati Commuter. Will that ever change? You could check with Los Angeles commuters.
Jay
Louisville,Ky has debated this for several years. And still has not come up with concrete plans. The city and couny mereged about a year and a half ago,we are like the 16th largest city in the U.S. All we have is a broken down bus service.
It would seem that the "city fathers"do not want to spend the money!
I possibly should have mentioned,that the headquarters for the bus service,is in the old “Union Station”[:(]
Because cities and suburbs grew up around railroad stations. People lived and worked within walking distance of the station. Which also makes for pleasant neighborhoods with schools and stores in walking distance. I grew up near a station and had a much richer environment than kids growing up in bedroom communities.
City planners know this and want to create density around stations. BART planners envisioned dense neighborhoods around BART stations. Public and politicians at the time didn’t get it but it’s happening thirty years later because people are sick of 2 hour commutes and boring neighborhoods.
Commuter rail could work if multi-story apartments, condos, and office buildings could be located and rented out near the stations.
[quote]
Originally posted by jeaton
Mark
Agreed. When I said languished, I ment that they sort of ran without much growth, change in structure, or significant improvements. That is not to say that there weren’t exceptions. The CNW’s gallery car commuter fleet is an example. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think there was any public funding of that initial conversion. Of course the old equipment may have been mostly baling wire and bubble gum, but I can’t imagine that the numbers alone would have dazzled a stock buyer. I often wondered if Ben Heineman didn’t at least consider that the CNW served the more affluent suburbs, with more “makers and shakers” and stock buyers than average.
The forum started with asking if population density is the key factor, and you and others responded that it is important, but many other things come into play. My comments were to one element, that is, my GUESS at the thought process of John Q Cincinnati Commuter. Will that ever change? You could check with Los Angeles commuters.
Jay
Having lived in both SoCal and Silicon Valley, allow me to add my comments. One of the problems with commuter rail in the LA area is that the Greater Los Angeles area is so spread out. Los Angeles and the surrounding area were served for a number of years by the Pacific Electric. This worked fine before the freeway and the urban sprawl it allowed, since there was a defined population center surrounded by small towns separated by rural areas. The PE went everywhere. Contrast this to the San Francisco Peninsula, which has always had a sharply defined commute corridor, which could be served by a single line. There have always been very well defined geographical limits as to what can be done on the SF Peninsula, There are only two freeways north from San Jose to SF. LA is covered with them. San Francisco has a sharply defined city center. LA is spread all over the place. Geography plays a large part in the equation.
“WOW” I just had a sudden "flashback"of Louisville’s “Union Station”,Pictures that David P. Morgan took during Derby time a few years ago.
Very good,&unique!
I would suggest asking the planners what specific metrics they relied upon in their determination that there was inadequate population density. Ask what specific statistics and research was done to support this conclusion. If they don’t give you an adequate response I would make a Freedom of Information Act request to their agency and any other public agencies involved.
LC
One other suggestion. Check with the American Public Transit Association at www.apta.com, concerning information they can provide about the appropriate metrics and analysis used to determine the need for commuter rail service or other public transit.
LC
Gary-You have a point on growth following the routes. Look at maps of the Chicago Metropolitan Area of any era showing the incorporated boundries of the suburbs and you can spot the commuter rail corridors, even if the rail routes aren’t shown.
Andre-San Francisco and LA are interesting contrasts that illustrate the complexities of the issue. For SF, the central city and geographic situation lends itself to commuter rail. However, I would argue that the fact that the SP’s commuter service survived the post WW II auto boom and subsequent freeway building impacted public sentiment to favor or at least accept public ownership and tax expenditures for that service. Regular riders of that service probably constituted a base support for the shift from private to public ownership. Those drivers who couldn’t or wouldn’t use the train may have accepted the concept of public ownership because it was something in place that seemed to work OK, and viewed spending some taxpayer money to avoid more cars coming on already crowded highways as an acceptable option.
Of course LA is a much different situation. I think it was Mayor Tom Bradley that said the LA Metro Area is a bunch of suburbs looking for a city. In the highly decentralized environment people are commuting in every direction. The PE didn’t survive the automobile age, and that service is hardly remembered, let alone providing any basis of rider support.
So why did their commuter train service get started? Certainly air polution problems played a small part, but a serious citizen commitment to solve that problem would find hybrids outnumbering SUV’s. My guess is that drivers became frustrated that the ever expanding freeway system did not to seem to provide any relief from traffic congestion. With that came an acceptance to the spending of public money on something, anything that might start to provide a solution to the problem.
Now here is my uneducated view. An honest study could show that a given
Jay,
The North Shore line from Chicago to Milwaukee was ruined because the Chicago Transit Authority didn’t want competition for the El. Commuter rail in San Francisco’s East Bay and North Bay was killed off because the State of California outlawed passenger ferries as bridges were built, they didn’t want competition for bridge tolls. Without ferries East and North Bay lines couldn’t get people to SF. LA’s PE was bought up and torn down by GM and street car lines nationwide were shut down.
People argue these lines failed because ridership declined but that was a result of losing political battles to more powerful interests who then mortally wounded these lines.
Commuter rail survived on the SF peninsula because of the San Francisco Freeway Revolt in the fifties. The same California planners who paved LA were doing the same thing to SF, freeways along all SF’s waterfront, Interstate 280 North to the Golden Gate Bridge, East to the Bay Bridge, and a freeway hub in Golden Gate Park with spokes in all directions. Voters saw this would ruin their neighborhoods and stopped construction. If these freeways had been built the State would have spent too much money to takeover rail service on the Peninsula.
North of SF there are no alternatives to commuting besides US 101, traffic stands still much of the day. The old Northwestern Pacific line was bought for commuter rail but for 20 years hasn’t been able to get Marin and Sonoma counties to agree
I think the very best transit systems that I have ridden are in Washington D.C. and in San Francisco/ Bay area, also where I grew up in Cleveland.
Yes its true, rail service has to serve between two definate points or in some type of corridor. The very best transit systems, I believe, all have one thing in common: The trains are main conduits, and busses extend the usefull range of the stations. When bus lines compete with trains, the bus routs become long and dificult to manage resaulting in long waits. This happens in San Diego, but mostly because of geography. Also when trains try to be the sole source, stops multiply, and then so does the waiting.
When trains and busses work together, bus routes become short enough to the point you never have to wait more than a few minutes. You can then travel a few minutes, and transfer to a train, which is fastest for moving you to the general locatrion of where you are going, and again wait a few minutes for a bus to your final destination.
I challenge that any city that integrates closely trains and busses, probably has a very good transit system.
Right that is the real problem. Mass transit can’t adequately serve most areas because of the population and work area distribution.
Even with heavy ridership mass transit doesn’t “pay for itself”. The riders are not willing to pay the cost. There may, however, as others have said, be justification be valid reasons for building and subsidizing them. There is no blanket correct answer.
Freeways are not really free. They have traditionally been paid for by an user fees (the gas tax and other fees) which the users have been willing to pay. In the past these taxes and fees more than covered the cost to build and maintan. Then the policitions noticed the pot of money and came up with other ways to spend it. They initatially justified taking the money for other transportation related projects. They still do, but it is hard to see how many of the projects are really related to transportation. They always want more money so the user fees have climbed. While some “planners” talk about raising fees enough to force people out of their cars, the politicans and even most of the “planners” really don’t want that. It would “kill the goose” that pays for their pet projects.
In California the decision was made to limit the building freeways during the Gerry Brown administration. The philosphy is “If you don’t build it they won’t come” and to encourage other modes of transportation. It has not worked. The freeway system has not grown adequately (I am talking mainly about the rural areas and smaller cit
Commuter rail in the Chicago area retrenched during the early postwar era on only a handful of services. The North Shore Line never competed with the CTA, it only used the L for its connection to the Loop. Its main competition was C&NW and MILW, both in suburban and long-haul service; and, of course, the automobile. The CA&E’s cause of death was more complex but the automobile was both directly and indirectly more prominent in its demise.
In both cases, there was a vocal demand for the service to continue, but nobody seemed too willing to put up any money to pay for it. City vs suburb politics was also a factor, since no one in the suburbs was too willing to take up the CTA on its offers to operate the services provided a subsidy for operating losses was supplied.
At any rate, the other suburban operators (primarily C&NW, CB&Q and MILW) were able to handle the additional passengers from both lines after abandonment.