Puplation density to support Commuter rail

[Anonymous]

One thing that is becoming obvious in all of these comments citing examples of different cities, is that they all have problems that are unique to each of them.

Whatever the problems to be solved may be, it looks like the solutions are not simple.

Trains have advantages and limitations, and so do busses.

This is why I believe a system that can let trains do what they do good - move lots of poeple from (only)A to (only)B quickly; and let busses do what they do good - stop at your corner, will probably supply an answer.

[Anonymous]

For a somewhat theoretical presentation on this subject, but one that has many statistics and analyses that are quite accessible, you may want to check this out:

www.people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/ eng/gallery/TGchapter6_Concepts.ppt

[railman]

I'll agree that there needs to be a Point A and a Point B. However, I;ll keep preaching the gospel that if there is a network, they will come. When trains go where people want, they will ride.

[DSchmitt]

It seems to me that for a commuter RR to really work, the population density of an area is not what counts. What matters is that there are relatively dence nodes of population with relatively un-settled spaces in between. The Pacific Electric worked well until the spaces between the towns filled in. The populations must also have a need or desire to leave their node and travel to another on the route in large enough numbers to justify the operation.

Stations too close together are inefficient, but living next to the tracks will do you no good if the nearest station is too far away. If you need your buggy to get to the station, it might be better to drive directly to your destination.

Another problem is the distribution of the ridership in time. Although the rush hour has gotten longer in recent years, ridership is still generally concentrated into two periods of a few hours each five days a week, but most operating costs continue through the slack periods of the day. Usually at least two crews (8 hour shifts) are needed for the daytime communte (one morning and one evening). Some operations have tried to reduce shift lengths paying workers only for the hours they a work. Others have tried split shifts. Neither go over well with the workers and unions. Another question is nightime service. Do you shut down or pay to run nearly empty trains.

[Anonymous]

It's not the cities alone that have public transportation issues. The tiny Adirondack village I live in was at the very end of a bus system run and subsidized by Essex County but the route to our side of the county was cut from the budget last winter. Though it only came through twice a day, it was the only affordable means of public transportation, especially for senior citizens living in the senior housing where the route ended. To do any kind of shopping now, other than picking up a few items like milk & eggs at the small grocery store, you either drive or take a cab or bicycle to Saranac Lake 6 miles away. Round trip is $16.00 by cab. And even then, there is nothing that remotely resembles a department store where you might buy a pair of socks or a shirt at a reasonable price.

I imagine those that relied on the bus must feel like prisoners in their own home now.

Wayne

[Anonymous]

The distribution of population in a metropolitan area is also important. In many of the New England cities, people live closer into the city and need a form of transportation to get them around the city. Many cities, especially in the southeast, are experiencing urban sprawl with a commercial core to the city that everyone has to get to for work, while living a good 20-30 miles outside of the city. This causes for a transit system that sprawls out into the suburbs that gets people in and out of the city quickly. I think the Washington, D.C. Metro is a good example of this; it spreads out from Washington for everyone to get in with a core in the city where everyone is going.

[oltmannd]

The problems of "sprawl" development caused by highway transportation have given rise to something called "smart growth", but what exactly that is depends on who you ask and who has a dog in what hunt....

[oltmannd]

Once the population arranges itself around a highway network, you will never have the population density to support commuter rail or rail transit. You can't! The highways don't have enough capacity to support it!

Those older NE cities that are "built out" are configured the way they are BECAUSE the commuter rail/transit network came first. For example, the World Trade Towers could have only existed because of the transit network already in place. Moving 20,000 people to one place in an hour would require a 10 lane highway and a 100 acre parking lot.

Similarly, the transit lines in NYC were NOT built by the gov't to move existing population. They were built out into rural areas (in the early 1900s) to support land development and housing construction. The return on investment from building the transit line came from the increased land value. They guy who made the money from the land was the same as the guy would built or pushed the building of the transit line.

We have the same thing going on in cities like Dallas and Atlanta now, except the gov't builds the roads at taxpayer expense and the land owners reap the benefit. Our urban highways have generally not been built to move exisiting population - 95% of all traffic on urban interstates is induced, that is, it wouldn't have existed if the roads had never been built.

The problem in Atlanta is two fold. We're out of room to widen highways, which are now 6-7 lanes wide (each direction) in many cases and we have many, many "code orange" smog days, primarily due to auto emmissions. So, what do you do? You analyze all your options and do cost/benefit analysis. Doing nothing results in increased congestion and worse pollution, so you have negative benefits at no cost. Building more highways is very expensive because they are already built out to the limits of the ROW and you have still have air quality issues to deal with. You look at ITS to help keep traffic flowing, but unless you go to the "way out there" technology, you're still stuck with ~2000 vehicles per lane hour, max. You also look at commuter rail over exiting routes, expanding exiting rapid transit, express bus svc, etc. When this was done in Atlanta, the commuter rail option, all by itself, was found to have the best cost/benefit ratio. However, since the costs are incurred by gov't, including on going operating expenses, and the benefits are enjoyed by the entire population, the state has not moved on constuction.

I think if you build commuter rail in places like Dallas and Atlanta, you will eventually get land use nearly identical to that in those older NE cities. It would be interesting to know if LA has seen any increse in development around their new commuter rail network and/or land values along the route vis-a-vis the metro area avg.

[daveklepper]

I don't agree about this idea of commuter rail and light rail just to keep up appearances. Buses simply do not do the whole job to get people out of their individual occupancy cars i nto space saving, polution saving, congestion saving and fuel saving pulic transit. Rail does the job. The real proof is the LA area.

[Anonymous]

The Champlain Flyer didn't last long at all, it had a chance though.

[Anonymous]

I dont think the population has anything to do with the need for rail service really.

Think of the Vermont commuter transit system and various other routes like in syracuse, NY these places are not that populated.

[Anonymous]

Cleveland is a nice city about 5 months out of the year the other 7 months its cold and wet and snowy...The Invention of air condtioning helped the south by making it more atractive to work and live there

[Anonymous]

In my opinion ....

Alvin Toffler coined the term "demassification" (in "Future Shock"?) to capture a fundamental strategic reality of U.S. economic evolution. In this view, Henry Ford's River Rouge complex might be seen as the apex of the classical industrial center of mass production, giving way to geographically dispersed plants linked by "just-in-time" supply chains, all feeding an economy of rapidly changing and individualized styles and preferences. (Toyota, for example.)

A comparable picture of metropolitan populations can be drawn. Compare New York and the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex, for example. The former with high population density, for sure, but static to declining population. And with strong centrifugal forces (tragically amplified by 9/11) at work, with major employment centers moving to New Jersey ... and Texas ... and India. The information technology revolution is rendering New York a life-style choice, not an inherently strong economic center. The commuter rail network in New York is a very valuable, sunk capital investment, built for a different era.

Contrast New York with Dallas-Ft. Worth. Stereo-typically Western resource and trade-based economy through the 1960's, powerfully transformed into a national corporate center by DFW Airport in the 1970's. Real-estate rich, low population density, flexible and well-educated work force ... powerfully shaped by the Western ethos of individuality and personal mobility. But still driven in some ways to emulate New York, central city bank and energy towers sprang up in the 70's and early 80's, only to be emptied (figuratively) by the oil, real estate, and banking busts of the mid-80's. But there never had been Brooklyn- or Bronx- or Yonkers-type populations to support commuter rail. Instead, I-35, Central Expressway and Dallas North Tollway served adequately.

The freeway network was developed consistently from the 1950's: First, I-35E, I 35W, the Dallas-Ft. Worth Turpike (now I-30) and the LBJ Freeway. Then the network of highways to serve DFW Airport actually began to weave the Metroplex together. It became quite feasible for Arlington residents to work in Las Colinas (Irving), the emerging corporate and technical center.

Then came the remarkable telecom/information technolgy transformation of the 1990's, centered on the "Telecom Corridor" of North Central Expressway and the extended North Dallas Tollway. The Grand Prairie secretary who lost her job in the downtown Dallas bank found her new one at Nortel in Plano. Didn't have to move; didn't have to try to fit together three bus routes; didn't have to wait for population density to develop in support of a rail line. Sure, she has to spend more time behind the wheel, but Central has been widened. If it's backed up, she takes the Tollway instead, using the TollTag to avoid slowing at the toll plazas. Her boss just bought a Lexus with radar-controlled cruise control and lane monitor ... she figures she'll have a Camry with those and more before she retires. Of course, she just got laid off at Nortel ... but Arlington is booming .. looks like the Cowboys will build their new stadium there. I-20, here I come!

But the Texans still have some New York commuter rail envy. DART was built; the Trinity Railway Express runs every day between Fort Worth and Dallas (Shucks, what's $250,000,000 to look up-to-date! Fifty buses on I-30 to do the same job would have been so passe!); and some politicians are drumming up a half-cent sales tax boost for ... you guessed it ... a Metroplex-wide commuter rail system on old railroad rights of way.. It may well get done, because appearances are important, and the cost is relatively small.

In the meantime, back in the real world ... Toll roads and toll lanes are sprouting. Drive the President George Bu***urnpike from Plano to Irving for a spectacular view of the rapidly emerging urban landscape of the 21st century. You aren't in Hackensack anymore, Dorothy! Smart-highway technology is blooming at your local auto dealer; and the CEO of the next corporate relocator can assure his directors that the cleaning ladies for the new headquarters campus will ride to work on gleaming bi-levels and buses, being dropped off right next to the 3,000 car parking building.

In my opinion ... commuter rail was for a different era with different needs. Yes, New York envy and nostalgia and political interest groups will still be served, but in the real world, Atlanta and Denver and the Twin Cities and Houston and Charlotte and San Diego and Salt Lake and DFW ... will flourish in a still demassifying America ... their growth only modestly slowed by the drag of a half-cent sales tax for keeping up appearances.

[daveklepper]

Cleveland had quite an interurban network, with the Lake Shore paralleling the NYC to Toledo and providing local/commuter service to western suburbs. There was interurban service to Akron and to Eirie, PA. Also Chagrin Falls. There was interchange freight service with the steam railroads. The Shaker Hieghts two-line system out of Terminal Tower survived, runs today with Breda light rail cars, and has been extended on the other side of the Terminal Tower to a Waterfront Line, evening serving the Amtrak station but not the middle of the night time that Amtrak currently arrives and departs. This light rail system shares tracks with the postwar East-West heavy rail rapid that terminates on the western end at the airport. I understand that ridership on the light rail is heavier than on the heavy rail line (2 lines vs 1?) The transit system is building a bus right of way on Euclid Avenue, the very heaviest of the old streetcar lines with three-truck 100 fot long articulated cars (2-man, of course) that were probably the larges streetcars that ever ran on a USA street (not counting interurbans). This right of way is supposed to be able to be converted to light rail in the future.

What density supports commuter rail? Isn't that dependent on how much other transit service is available? Detroit has no rail transit whatsover except its small downtown people mover and s talking about commuter rail. Milwaukee has no rail transit. But Kenosha, much smaller, has a downtown streetcar line and is connected by commuter trains to Chicago, with enough service so reverse commuting is possible. Burlington, VT, may be the smallest city with commuter service. Wilmington, DL, has commuter service but is integrated into the Philadelphia SEPTA system, and Providence has a similar arrangement with Boston. The options in Cleveland might include expansion of the rapid or light rail systems sharing RR rights of way, in addition to the possiblity of commuter trains. There has been talk of expanding Shaker's two lines further east and south for years. Some of the right of way exists. Also there is talk of a heritage line with museum equipment using the tracks rebuilt when the Superior Avenue bridge was rebuilt and serving a trendy restaurant and disco and art type neighbordhood, connecting it to downtown for tourism.

[Anonymous]

I am too young to remember, but the Erie used to run a train to Solon.

The idea of a railcar to Solon has come up, but never happened.

It's been a few years since I've been to Cleveland, but the downtown is stronger than ever, the flats, once a no man's land is now a center of shopping and entertainment.

Restoration began on the terminal tower's lower floors (to the trains below street level) in the late eighties/nineties.

A new stadium - Losing teams?

I believe interurbanes ran as far as Marblehead, Sandusky. Their Row's are wonderfull paths today through lakefront neighborhoods on the west side.

What was the name of the Doctor accused of killing his wife in the fifties? The movie the fugitive was based on the story from national headlines.

Cleveland is a funny city goegraphically - its about 75 miles east to west along the lakefront, but relatively narrow N-S.

[Anonymous]

Cleveland had a great streetcar System and one of the largest in the US.
What happened was the that the powers to be said that we could consiladate the streetcar lines into a Heavy rail high speed rapid transit system. There were about 4-5 lines planned but only one built...(The Red Line to the airport from the near east side thru downtown Cleveland) Streetcars were shutdown in antisaption of the heavy rail system that bonds were aproved by the taxpayers but the County Engineer sat on the issue(?) because like Robert B Moses he loved the idea of freeways and the System was never built. There was also car vs. streetcars in that there were a number of new drivers in the 1950s that did not know how to drive with streetcars and so they were viewed as a nucence. But in places were they had there own right of way or had heavy ridership they stayed untill the bitter end. or in the case of the shaker rapid they upgraded to light rail.

[Anonymous]

The Mystery midwest city is......Cleveland Ohio.

Cleveland had a history of commuter rail although limited on the following lines-
NKP- From Westlake to Mentor from 1940 to 1960something...Startted during WW2 to address Wartime gas shortages...Used modifyed boxcars as a intresting way to meet the need. Commuters did not seem to mind because it was a short 30 min ride for most of them.
Erie-Clveland-Youngstown from 1930 something to 1977 this line was used by workers in the Terminal Tower Complex many of which worked for the Erie railroad. When the Erie Pulled its regional headquarters from Cleveland So went 1/2 the riders
Pennsy- The Hanna was a once in and once out service to Clevelands south east suberbs up untill 1959. The service was stopped at the same time WW2 vets were buying bungalows in garfield,maple hts and Bedford.
B&O-Ran service to Akron going thr the route of the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad today. Service was slow but hey so was the pace of life up untill 1962 whenthe service stopped.
NEW YORK CENTRAL-In addition to its name trains it had all stops locals that were reported to run up untill mid 1960s that doubled as Commuter trains.Even name trains stoped at local stops if the passenger made a stink about it.
CUT- Electrified line from Collinwood to What was a rural area in Clevelands west side- This parreled the current Red line and was used by local commuters and had 20 90mph electric Loco in its stable.

Acording to the latest Population reports Clevelands metro poluation of 2,000,000 is to remain the same untill 2040.
Against Commuter Rail- Older Population that will be out of the workforce and retiring soon
Current population is moving out into rural areas that are far way from the center city.
It is Now tradition to go to collge as far away from mom and dad as possible
Kids are leaving city even if they attend many our fine local collages to go to more exciting citys.
Poor Cleveland School System or more like the burbs have built a School system to entice homebuyers away from city
Old line industrys such as steel and rubber are going south and overseas ans thus the clerical jobs that go with them.
The Internet means that people could work out of there own home instead of commuting.
We lost our last downtown department store last year- at one time we had 7 HUGE downtown department stores.
Losing baseball and Football team
In Favor Of Commuter Rail-
Existing infrastructure of 8 routes Comming into Cleveland although the problem here is that its is used heavly by Freight.
Low cost of housing and low cost of living compared to east coast.
Well Educated Workforce with 5 Collages.
Large Downtown Terminal that could be reconverted though Parker would have to be Moved out.
There are still a number of Fortune 500 Companys here.
Hospitals and Education, Legal are the growing workforce in the Central City
But low paying service jobs are more likely to use buses or Rapids then Commuter rail.
Large Poor Black transit dependent population that would like better transit service to get to new jobs in Suburburan Office Parks.
More Against-A Number of County Commisners hold real estate trests in Outying areas want more freeways to see there land get develpoped[8)]