What kind of Population Density do you need for Commuter rail?

[Anonymous]

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]

[tree68]

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.

[MP57313]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Hobo1971
Do we wait till the Urban Sprawl gets so bad that we cant breathe anymore[B)][}:)][:p][V]

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...

[Overmod]

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)?

[Anonymous]

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.

[cpbloom]

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.

[Big_Boy_4005]

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]

[jeaton]

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 simple, straight forward solutions to complex problems. If the freeway is jammed, add more lanes. Don't bother me with a more complicated solution. What we want may not be what we need. We tend to join with like minded individuals and vote for political candidates who seem to share our views. The political affiliation is incidental.

We should be cautious about blaming politicians for getting us into any mess. As Pogo said (and after years is still my favorite), "We have met the enemy, and he is us".



Jay

[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

[locomutt]

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"[:(]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

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.

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.

[andrechapelon]

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.

The differences don't just impact heavy rail commuters. San Francisco retained its trolley lines (not to mention the cable cars - which are actually used by people who aren't just tourists) because it made sense in a small geographical area, while LA got rid of its trolley system. Los Angeles has had to build a commuter rail system almost from scratch (both heavy and light rail) while San Francisco's remained intact. When CalTrain took over the SP line on the Peninsula, it had been used as a commuter line for nearly 100 years. Population shifts and industrial buildup on the Peninsula have actually enhanced commuter rail as it's now essentially bi-directional. People who are taking the train to work don't necessarily head into SF. Southbound morning rush hour commute trains can be as heavily used as their northbound counterparts. This enhances equipment utilization as an early morning northbound train becomes a midmorning southbound train (and vice versa). An idle train gathers no revenue.

I haven't lived in SoCal for over 30 years. It's changed a lot. Metrolink lines now go to a lot of destinations (as far out as Lancaster, San Bernardino, Riverside and Montalvo), but they don't operate on weekends (with a couple of exceptions). However, the average daily ridership is only 34,000 (sorry, I lost the link to this statistic) which equates to about 700,000/month (based on a 22 day work month). CalTrain, in June 2003, carried 684,000 and operates on a daily basis with a single line http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/2004/08/16/business/6506375.htm - you'll have to register. I have to admit, I was a bit taken aback by this. Basically, CalTrain carries as many passengers as MetroLink and does it on a single line in an area of smaller population. Goes to show you how addictive the automobile is.

Rail transport, to be competitive has to be reasonably convenient. San Jose, at the south end (well, technically trains do go to Gilroy) of the CalTrain line started building its light rail line in the late 1980's. I lived within walking of one of the stops. I only used light rail once. Why? Because the quickest way to get to the stop on foot was to walk down a road on which the powers that be never considered building a sidewalk. I would have used light rail instead of my car if I didn't have to walk through mud in the rainy season to get to it. Even more ridiculous, at one time, I lived within WALKING distance of work. It would have been good for me. Did I walk? No. There were no sidewalks on which to walk. Walking in the gutter isn't an option for most people. How can people be expected to get out of their cars if it's a pain in the rear to get to the nearest transit stop? Rail by itself isn't the answer. It has to be coordinated with other forms of transport including the lowly sidewalk. It's really ridiculous when I can drive through rural Scotland and see paved walkways on the roadside extending for miles and be in a major urban area in the US and have to walk in the street. All forms of transport have to be coordinated, otherwise all you've got is a disconnected mess.

Whoops. This is starting to become a polemic. Time to quit.

Andre

It's really kind of hard to support your local hobby shop when the nearest hobby shop that's worth the name is a 150 mile roundtrip.

• Reply