Commuter Rail not a good starter choice?

The blog post was about serving the communities who would appreciate public transit, not about the technical differences between commuter and light rail. I think some responders have missed that point.

In and between densely populated areas, the light rail line is going to get noticed and used at all times, especially if it has short headways. Commuter rail is primarily only of interest to suburban commuters in the areas it serves, and only during certain hours. This automatically puts constraints on the usefulness of the service.

BostonChicken wrote:In and between densely populated areas, the light rail line is going to get noticed and used at all times, especially if it has short headways. Commuter rail is primarily only of interest to suburban commuters in the areas it serves, and only during certain hours. This automatically puts constraints on the usefulness of the service.

Not all commuter rail operations only run during the evening and morning commute peaks. For example, the TRE runs between Dallas and Fort Worth all day. I will agree with you that commuter rail runs with larger headways between trains than light rail. But that's amongst the reason why commuter rail was preferred in that corridor, less riders requiring less trains. I don't think there were many responding that are suggesting that commuter rail should always be preferred over light rail, what they're suggesting is that every corridor should be evaluated individually. That building light rail instead of commuter rail isn't automatically going to generate significantly more riders.

I agree with you, and I've been using a commuter rail system at all times of day myself personally (Caltrain). However, despite Caltrain being relatively well-established and fairly high prominence, there are quite a few people in the area who go about their lives unaware or only vaguely aware of it.

But the original author was talking about "starts": bringing rail-based transit back to a region. Of course every corridor needs its own analysis. But the original question was about if you are going to choose amongst possible already-analyzed corridors, which one?

Suppose the choice was $1 Billion for a light-rail line in an urbanized, densely populated area vs $1 Billion for a (longer) commuter rail line that serves a number of suburban areas?

If all else is equal, my argument is that the former is more worthwhile because it will be utilized by passengers for a variety of trips at a variety of times of day. It is more amenable to the kind of casual "ride-and-walk" experience that public transit is looking to encourage.

The commuter rail line will only be useful if the passengers have some way to get around at their destination -- that is presupposing some kind of public transit. And in the suburbs, the customers will probably end up driving to a park-and-ride station, which is not that wonderful an investment to begin with. Most people will only be willing to do all this for a certain, pre-planned form of travel.

Now on the other hand, if the commuter rail line can hit up several decently populated areas "on the way" where people may walk and board the train, then it could have the same kind of effect as the light rail line (much like Caltrain tries to achieve).

Alternatively, the light rail line can run fast and cover a good deal of ground and function like the commuter railroad in addition to its rapid transit purpose (I'm thinking of the Green "D" Riverside line in Boston).

In a way, Boston is facing that choice right now: Somerville Green Line extension vs South Coast Commuter Rail. Both have been tagged at about $1 Billion. There are other factors, of course. And it's not a "fresh start" for that city.

electricron wrote:Not all commuter rail operations only run during the evening and morning commute peaks. For example, the TRE runs between Dallas and Fort Worth all day

There are also LIRR's electric services, almost all of which operate 24/7 including weekends (exception is the West Hempstead Branch). Not all light rail operations run 24 hours a day; most do not.

electricron wrote:I will agree with you that commuter rail runs with larger headways between trains than light rail

Depends on the light rail system, maybe? HBLR's got longer headways than the High Line between Newark (NJ) and New York during peak times. Light rail will never generate the same amount of revenue either; it'll be very expensive to run.

BostonChicken wrote:I agree with you, and I've been using a commuter rail system at all times of day myself personally (Caltrain).
But the original author was talking about "starts": bringing rail-based transit back to a region. Of course every corridor needs its own analysis. But the original question was about if you are going to choose amongst possible already-analyzed corridors, which one?
Suppose the choice was $1 Billion for a light-rail line in an urbanized, densely populated area vs $1 Billion for a (longer) commuter rail line that serves a number of suburban areas? If all else is equal, my argument is that the former is more worthwhile because it will be utilized by passengers for a variety of trips at a variety of times of day. It is more amenable to the kind of casual "ride-and-walk" experience that public transit is looking to encourage. The commuter rail line will only be useful if the passengers have some way to get around at their destination -- that is presupposing some kind of public transit.
Now on the other hand, if the commuter rail line can hit up several decently populated areas "on the way" where people may walk and board the train, then it could have the same kind of effect as the light rail line (much like Caltrain tries to achieve).
Alternatively, the light rail line can run fast and cover a good deal of ground and function like the commuter railroad in addition to its rapid transit purpose (I'm thinking of the Green "D" Riverside line in Boston).
In a way, Boston is facing that choice right now: Somerville Green Line extension vs South Coast Commuter Rail. Both have been tagged at about $1 Billion. There are other factors, of course. And it's not a "fresh start" for that city.

You made some valid points. But you have forgotten that many of America's smaller cities thinking about building their first rail transit project have relatively small central business districts, small enough to be considered walkable, from a single station. Take Fort Worth for example. It's a short walk to anywhere in downtown Fort Worth from its Intermodal Transit Center (ITC). So, the need to have transit circulators isn't required, although FWTA provides buses anyways. Take Albuquerque as another example using buses for circulators. It's 63 miles between downtown Albuquerque and Santa Fe. Imagine running light rail that far.

And I suggest MBTA could afford to do both of the projects you mentioned if there were the political support to do so. It's not always one vs the other, sometimes it's which one should be first. The costs aren't usually the same, especially in smaller cities building their first rail lines, commuter rail projects are usually far cheaper.

electricron wrote: You made some valid points. But you have forgotten that many of America's smaller cities thinking about building their first rail transit project have relatively small central business districts, small enough to be considered walkable, from a single station. Take Fort Worth for example. It's a short walk to anywhere in downtown Fort Worth from its Intermodal Transit Center (ITC). So, the need to have transit circulators isn't required, although FWTA provides buses anyways. Take Albuquerque as another example using buses for circulators. It's 63 miles between downtown Albuquerque and Santa Fe. Imagine running light rail that far.

In general, smaller cities with small CBDs shouldn't be investing in rail transit at all and should instead focus on improving bus transit within their inner city to densify and expand it. The are of course some exceptions, the biggest being that there are other cities of relatively the same size or bigger that can be linked to by commuter rail (Fort Worth is one example). But if that's not the case, then from a planning perspective it isn't the greatest idea in the world to be encouraging suburban to downtown commuter service when your downtown is already woefully small and in need of stimulation. One good example of a medium sized city with a small CBD that screwed up with its rail priorities is Orlando. They of course chose to implement commuter rail to far flung suburbs rather than a light rail line serving the inner city and close by suburbs which would have bolstered downtown far more.

Another point -- Portland is smaller than Fort Worth. Portland's suburbs are far less far flung, relative to the population size, than Fort Worth's thanks to anti-sprawl practices and their CBD is considerably stronger. One of these practices to encourage inner city and CBD development was to implement light rail which focused on a much smaller distance and on more frequent, reliable service.

Long story short: rail transit should be thought just as much a development tool as it is a transportation tool.

amtrakowitz wrote:

electricron wrote:Not all commuter rail operations only run during the evening and morning commute peaks. For example, the TRE runs between Dallas and Fort Worth all day

There are also LIRR's electric services, almost all of which operate 24/7 including weekends (exception is the West Hempstead Branch). Not all light rail operations run 24 hours a day; most do not.

electricron wrote:I will agree with you that commuter rail runs with larger headways between trains than light rail

Depends on the light rail system, maybe? HBLR's got longer headways than the High Line between Newark (NJ) and New York during peak times. Light rail will never generate the same amount of revenue either; it'll be very expensive to run.

That all has more to do with the relative population they serve rather than the mode of transportation. Also, the amount of operational funds a system gets also plays a big factor in how late and often they run.