Indianapolis might be getting a new mass transit system... According to the news. The govener doesen' seem to approve of this, but let's not get into politics here. If Indianapolis does get a new mass transit system would it use any existing corrador's? Or would it just lay down new rail? Also would it be like a 4ft 8 and 1/2 inch deal like Metra for instance or a lite rail job?
Keep Em' On The High Irons! Justin
The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.
Indianapolis had a decent streetcar system until after WWII. They never had PCCs, but did have 180 lightweight modern-looking BrilL Peter Witt streetcars.
While I am not sure about transit. I did speak with a volunteer with the Indiana Transportation Museum, and he told me that there was some talk of using some of the ex Monon and NKP lines into the Indy area, that was in the spring of 08. Granted a lot has happened since then.
Thank's for the replies! I guess we will see what turns out in the next few months.
I wonder if Indianapolis is the biggest U.S. Metro area to have no rail form of commuter transit: no commuter trains, RT or LRT?
a.s.
I'd guess that Honolulu's is the biggest (pop-wise) city in the US without any rail transit today. They are in the process of developing the designs, etc. for a rail tranist line, but that's still a few years away.
Art
Seems to me Honolulu had a plan for an elevated line from the downtown area to Waikiki since about 1970?
al-in-chgoI wonder if Indianapolis is the biggest U.S. Metro area to have no rail form of commuter transit: no commuter trains, RT or LRT? a.s.
Here's a list of top population centers based on 2007 census numbers. Its interesting to look at total population, density and think about the types (modes) of transit provided in each city:
Interesting stats, Paul. Thank you! - a.s.
City and metro area population figures get a little crazy with rail service. Large areas make it difficult and inconvenient to reach the train. A suburban stop can attract quite a few riders who otherwise would be discouraged by having to travel downtown to board. You chose the central city population which is valid in some ways; but it does not reflect the total potential market.
AL: Another way of looking at population is more indicative of what actually is possible passengers. The metropolitan statistical areas because some citys are politically artificially constrained (Atlanta , SFO, DC,BOS, etc for example).
I certainly didn't mean to imply that population alone determines the availability of rail transit. The posts about population density and the size of political jurisdictions show the importance of other factors, too. It is interesting, though that Indy is the biggest (or 2nd biggest--not sure how to score San Antonio) city w/o same, taking only the cities above Indy into account. In the rest of the list, less than half have rail transit. I am not sure if Arlington, TX is on Dallas's DART system or the TRE, or nothing at all. I guess I should count Nashville for the time being.
BTW does Detroit have anything rail other than the center-city people mover? - a.s.
PAUL: AL: My point about population is more to do with total population and the density. Extreme examples is the NYC is very dense narror streets, lots of lower income persons; and Phoenix - Tuscon is very spread out with wide streets, two cars in every hosehold, for the most part. These factors must be considered whenever building any public transportation system.
Hi Al -
Detroit has been dreaming about a Woodward Streetcar for ages. There is some notion to build a privately-financed heritage line (out to the Amtrak Station), and perhaps someday to include a longer line (out to the fairgrounds, just as the DSR Woodward line used to do) running over the same tracks in the center city. But, for now rail transit in Detroit is just the people-mover that you mentioned.
My post was about the modal types based on density of population, not justifying transit options based on local populace income or size of streets, etc. There are MANY factors that go into deciding to install or extend rail based transit with its considerable infrastructure costs including politics, tax base, business interest or opposition, NIMBY, and the list goes on.
See the list resorted by density (descending) and the types of modes supported. With the glaring exception of Atlanta, only those cities (or city pairs like SF and Oakland) with very high pop density support subways or elevated mass transit. Does the density "require" this mode in order to efficently serve the community, or is it the other way around -- providing medium rail transit enables density to increase along the routes? I'm not a land use planner or Civil Engineer, just pondering the chicken or egg first question.
PAUL: Since your last post omitted Atlanta I need to dispute some of your conclusions. Overall density does not count as much as specific density.
1. I believe that any transit mode needs to do planning of stations with the metric of number of residents 1,2,3,4,5 miles from a station disallowing any overlay.
2. The same computation needs to be made for number of office positions available at the same distances.
3. Some factor needs to be added for the amount of parking at stations supplied.
4. Reduction of item 2 based on availability and ease of access to office parking.
5. The success of Charlotte's CATS system may be item 2 above.
6. Since I've spent much time in Atlanta and Miami I can tell you the population density using items 1 and 2 above is much lower in Miami. Miami's direct access to TRI-RAIL supplies much of item 1 above from locations outside of Miami. Atlanta's MARTA has two lines that extend out of the city into Fulton County and two into DeKalb county. Those outlying stations (approx 10+) are all at high density population areas with one exception and all have a large number of parking spaces. However the Atlanta airport (not high in population) has 10% of total MARTA boardings (item 2 ). HAVEN'T SEEN THE BREAKDOWN OF PASSENGERS vs airport workers.
blue streak 1PAUL: Since your last post omitted Atlanta
Here's Atlanta's data from my original post which was on the same page -- just needed to scroll up
blue streak 1I need to dispute some of your conclusions.
Which conclusions? I thought I was asking a question...oops, I hate when this happens.
blue streak 1Overall density does not count as much as specific density.
Or the density of my mind, I guess. -- Just kidding with you.
blue streak 11. I believe that any transit mode needs to do planning of stations with the metric of number of residents 1,2,3,4,5 miles from a station disallowing any overlay. (Uh, yup, we agree) 2. The same computation needs to be made for number of office positions available at the same distances. (I guess so, I added a disclaimer that I was no land use planner -- your comment makes sense) 3. Some factor needs to be added for the amount of parking at stations supplied. (Another debate for another thread -- probably the one titled "theres never enough parking at a station") 4. Reduction of item 2 based on availability and ease of access to office parking. (Oh Kay....) 5. The success of Charlotte's CATS system may be item 2 above. (Sounds good to me) 6. Since I've spent much time in Atlanta and Miami I can tell you the population density using items 1 and 2 above is much lower in Miami. Miami's direct access to TRI-RAIL supplies much of item 1 above from locations outside of Miami. Atlanta's MARTA has two lines that extend out of the city into Fulton County and two into DeKalb county. Those outlying stations (approx 10+) are all at high density population areas with one exception and all have a large number of parking spaces. However the Atlanta airport (not high in population) has 10% of total MARTA boardings (item 2 ). HAVEN'T SEEN THE BREAKDOWN OF PASSENGERS vs airport workers. (I've never ridden Miami;s system, but have used Marta repeatedly -- only because of the airport connection, otherwise I'd probably never have used it in my lifetime. Not sure if we are agreeing in a highly creative way, but I'd like to think so.)
2. The same computation needs to be made for number of office positions available at the same distances. (I guess so, I added a disclaimer that I was no land use planner -- your comment makes sense)
3. Some factor needs to be added for the amount of parking at stations supplied. (Another debate for another thread -- probably the one titled "theres never enough parking at a station")
4. Reduction of item 2 based on availability and ease of access to office parking. (Oh Kay....)
5. The success of Charlotte's CATS system may be item 2 above. (Sounds good to me)
(I've never ridden Miami;s system, but have used Marta repeatedly -- only because of the airport connection, otherwise I'd probably never have used it in my lifetime. Not sure if we are agreeing in a highly creative way, but I'd like to think so.)
ALL I was trying to get comments on was whether the decision to switch modes of rail transport from LRV (PRW-at-grade or Street Running) to a dedicated elevated or below grade system was dependent on let's just say "density" of ... population, office space, commuting patterns, etc. I'm not talking about the "NEED" for transit, but the "TYPE" of transit installed. Historically, it seems like "dense" territories (however measured), OR those with very high throughput would go with a subway or elevated type mode.
paulsafetyHistorically, it seems like "dense" territories (however measured), OR those with very high throughput would go with a subway or elevated type mode
I guess we are both on the same page. my post is what I get after two hours sleep. I agree with you conclusions. Some how your Atlanta figures do not come up on my computer,.
al-in-chgoI wonder if Indianapolis is the biggest U.S. Metro area to have no rail form of commuter transit: no commuter trains, RT or LRT?
Heh, you haven't even scratched the surface. Consider the great network of interurban railroads that existed in the Midwest - Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois. Now consider the two dozen cities that have joined the rail-transit fraternity in the last 25 years. NONE of them are in those four states.
I'm not counting the St. Louis system extension into suburban Illinois, nor the tiny systems in Detroit.
Now, as for those city population numbers -- they are extremely distorted and not useful, because they show the population of the cities proper (which is determined by lines on a map) rather than the metro area. For instance, Indianapolis's territory includes most of its suburbs, whereas San Francisco proper is a tiny 7x7 mile square dwarfed by an endless sprawl of suburbs. Metro population makes a lot more sense, when you're talking about transit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Combined_Statistical_Areas
Oh, I would include St. Louis for the same reason as Houston. Even though they are "glam" lines that seem to have been built simply so their respective home cities can say they have one, they do carry passengers. IIRC my original query extended to all rail transit. Chicago hasn't got a bit of LRT but we have many heavy-rail commuter systems as well as the L. - a.s.
What is a "glam" line?
I rode a good portion of Metrolink a couple years ago and generally impressed how it served the region and carries a fair volume of passengers. Light rail has worked for cities where available abandoned railroads provided the right of way for a substantial part of the line largely segregated from local streets.
Coincidentally, the density of the corridor served produced insufficient demand to warrant higher capacity fully segregated heavy rail transit. In Europe, LRT has been developed as a temporary pre-metro service.
I use that to mean an LRT line that was built more to show off or impress tourists or to fill a "me, too" motive than to serve the people who live and work in that area. Houston's line often gets tagged that way, particularly since it parallels downtown city streets very closely, making for a high incident of crashes. St. Louis' criticism is that a terminus at the airport on the Illinois side (sorry, don't recall exact name [Mid-American?]) was a kind of line to nowhere. If, in the future, air traffic jumps at that airport, then the LRT line will be seen as a great infrastructure facility in place. But not now.
L.A.'s many lines strike me as pretty useful, although some people think there was a "glam" factor in making the Wilshire line a subway, and it is the Blue Line, I think, that has had some personal safety problems. Which is anything but glamorous.
There are a large number of traction fans who are actually very anti-transit. For them, traction is none but a nostalgic hobby. They wouldn't be caught dead on real transit, and they don't follow issues too closely. When push comes to shove, they are just like any other sprawlburban American - it's all about the private automobile.
Anyway when I hear transit described as "glam", those are the people I think of :)
Though I won't deny some rail lines perform vastly under expectation, and/or were built full knowing they would not be traffic dazzlers. For many cities, that is the link to the airport. How is a line that people only use when they fly somewhere, supposed to compete for traffic count with a line people use twice a day? It doesn't. OK, so airport connections are "glam". But it's a good thing. Airports OUGHT to get exceptional service, since a visit to the airport is the one event in modern suburban living where people separate themselves from their automobiles for any stretch of time.
Airports can also be big employment centers, you need a fair number of employees to run an airport, so there can be a good number of people who do use the line twice a day.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
gardendance Airports can also be big employment centers, you need a fair number of employees to run an airport, so there can be a good number of people who do use the line twice a day.
Atlanta's MARTA station boards over 10% of all rail passengers every day and its spread out all through the day. Draw your own conclusions. BW work shifts at any large airport are spread out throughout the day!!!!!!!!!!!
al-in-chgo biggest U.S. Metro area to have no rail form of commuter transit
The talk is getting "stronger" recently of a commuter system that would use CSX double track line between here {Muncie}, and downtown Indy. Several times recently it has been the headlines or a feature in our TheStarPress here in Muncie.
Believe Indy to Bloominton is being considered too. This has been discussed in the past, but it seems to be picking up a bit of "steam" lately. It really does seem to make sense with I-69 becoming very crowded morning and evening traffic wise. Plenty of accidents too...
The rail route is rather direct between here {Muncie}, and towards Indy including thru Anderson using the CSX route, ex Conrail, NYC.
Lots of commuting traffic between this area and Indy 5 days a week....mileage of roughly 60 to downtown. Flat open territory, one would think a commuter run could make very decent time.
Quentin
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.