A Practitioner's Handbook for Conducting a Commuter Rail Case Study
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Project Title: A Practitioner's Handbook for Conducting a Commuter Rail Case Study NITC-XX-### by Ivis Garcia, PhD (PI) Mercedes Beaudoin Ja Young Kim Kathryn Terzano, PhD Metropolitan Research Center University of Utah for National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) P.O. Box August 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was funded by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC), in addition to The Wasatch Front Regional Council and The Ivory Boyer Real Estate Center at the University of Utah. Additional support and contributions came from Simon Brewer in the University of Utah’s Geography Department and from Danny Wall in the University of Utah’s Finance Department. Furthermore, we acknowledge and thank the anonymous peer reviewers who provided immensely helpful insights and corrections to this report. DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are solely responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the material and information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation University Transportation Centers Program and the partners mentioned above in the acknowledgements in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government and mentioned partners assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of the U.S. Government or the other partners. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Introduction Professional planners use a variety of information and knowledge sources to help make the most educated decisions. However, these sources often do not fully or clearly integrate cutting-edge planning research into planning practice. This report marries research and practice by developing a practitioners’ manual and computer- based toolbox for planning a new or evaluating an existing commuter rail system. The contents of this manual and toolbox reflect the research design and findings of the NITC-funded research project (NITC #778) entitled “The Effects of Commuter Rail on Population Deconcentration and Commuting: A Salt Lake City Case Study.” This study was the first of its kind to focus on a metropolitan area with a population below 3 million, and fills the gap of knowledge regarding how the intervention of a commuter rail system changes travel behavior and residential land use patterns. The resulting handbook and toolbox guides transportation and land use planners in smaller, rapidly-growing metropolitan areas considering commuter rail systems to make their communities more livable. Deliverables and formats of products of the handbook and toolbox are described in Table 1. Commuter Rails in The U.S.: Ridership Levels and Economic Impacts Transportation systems have the ability to transform human settlement patterns which can effect a range of social, economic, and environmental issues. The use of the commuter rail in the U.S. is no exception. Commuter rail refers to a rail corridor that connects downtowns and other major activity centers to peripheral, typically higher-income suburban developments within a greater metropolitan area. The average trip distance for commuter rail passengers reflects this metropolitan development pattern. The average commuter rail trip in the U.S. during 2013 was 24.7 miles, which is nearly five times the distance of light rail riders1. To cover these long distances efficiently, commuter rail service is characterized by high speeds and infrequent stops. These aspects of service, along with the train’s average seating capacity and size, differentiate them from other types of rail investments. The trains themselves are composed of either self-propelled cars, which run primarily on electricity, or cars hauled by locomotives which run on diesel fuel. This section of the handbook provides a brief history of commuter rail in the U.S., discusses the commuter rails and their ridership in modern day America, and how commuter rails can impact a community’s economics. Many of the U.S.’ cities developed in the 19th century around the construction of railways, which contrastingly expanded city sizes but also increased city density2,3,4,5. Then, the construction of the interstate highway altered the American landscape and travel abilities by facilitating automobile commuting between central cities and peripheral sprawling suburban neighborhoods which is now the dominate form of mobility for Americans6. As reported, both sprawl and automobile use have been linked with human morbidity and mortality as well as environmental issues 7, 8. Since the American Public Transit Association (APTA) first quantified the benefits of commuter rail in 1997, a plethora of research on the effects of commuter rail systems have been conducted nationwide9, 10, 11 and on individual commuter rail systems12, 13. Such research has fostered the U.S. federal government’s transportation demand management (TDM) policy initiatives to synergize air quality and energy conservation concerns into transportation planning processes, thus encouraging public transit. Average Annual Route Year System Major Cities Served Weekday Lines Stations Ridership Miles Open Ridership MTA Long Island New York 98,393,700 337,800 321 1834] 11 124 Rail Road New Jersey New York / Philadel- 86,383,800 323,400 398.2 1983 11 164 Transit Rail phia / Newark MTA Metro-North New York/ Yonkers/ 84,468,800 298,900 385 1983 6 122 Railroad Bridgeport Metra Chicago 74,381,900 290,500 487.7 1984 11 241 SEPTA Regional Philadelphia 37,132,500 134,600 280 1983 13 153 Rail MBTA Commuter Boston/ Providence 36,087,600 130,600 368] 1973 13 127 Rail San Francisco/San Caltrain 17,942,600 56,700 77 1987 1 32 Jose Los Angeles /San Ber- Metrolink 11,489,700 41,200 388[12] 1992 7 55 nardino Baltimore/ Washing- MARC Train 9,364,800 35,200 187 1984 3 43 ton, D.C. Virginia Railway Washington, D.C. 4,513,500 17,900 90 1992 2 18 Express UTA FrontRunner Salt Lake City/Provo 4,416,100 16,800 88 2008 1 16 [14] Miami/ Fort Lauder- Tri-Rail dale/ West Palm 4,389,600 14,400 70.9 1987 1 18 Beach NICTD South Chicago/ South Bend 3,614,200 11,800 90 1903 1 20 Shore Line Sounder Com- Seattle/ Tacoma 3,362,800 13,700 80 2000 2 9 muter Rail Trinity Railway Dallas/ Fort Worth 2,293,500 8,200 34 1996 1 10 Express NCTD Coaster San Diego/ Oceanside 1,748,200 4,900 41 1995 1 8[ San Jose/ Oakland/ Capitol Corridor 1,436,000 4,500 168 1991 1 15 Sacramento Keystone Service Philadelphia 1,340,600 4,400 104.6 ? 1 12 Altamont Corridor San Jose/ Stockton 1,179,400 4,600 86 1998 1 10 Express (ACE) New Mexico Rail Albuquerque/ Santa 1,062,700 3,400 97 2006 1 13 Runner Express Fe SunRail Orlando 540,700 3,200 31.7 2014 1 12 Capital MetroRail Austin 782,100 2,800 32[18] 2010 1 9 Northstar Line Minneapolis 721,200 2,500 40 2009 1 6 Shore Line East New Haven 658,300 2,200 59 1990 1 13 A-Train Denton 570,100 1,900 21 2011 1 6 Westside Ex- Beaverton 501,100 1,800 15 2010 1 5 press Service Boston/ Brunswick, Downeaster 494,900 1,100 148 2001 1 12 Maine Music City Star Nashville 256,700 1,000 32 2006 1 6 Ridership While the transit industry as a whole experienced ridership decline in the U.S. until the 1970s, commuter rail has continued to expand as a result of suburbanization, downtown revitalization, and unflagging public support9. Since commuter rail trips were first recorded in 1974, they have more than doubled, and the number of trips is still growing. U.S. Census data reveals that annual unlinked commuter rail passen- ger trips, meaning the number of times passengers board public transportation vehi- cles, grew to 480 million in 2013 which is a 17% increase since 20031. This number seems large, yet, commuter rail trips represented only 4.5% of all public transit trips in 2013. Still, these riders accumulated 11,862 passenger miles which accounts for 20 percent of all public transit passenger miles traveled in that year). Nationwide rid- ership currently hovers around 41,000 passengers each month, with the Metropoli- tan Transit Authority Long Island Rail Road leading at just over 8,100 passengers per month1. Many factors influence the use of commuter rail. The availability of parking spaces at park-and-ride lots, for example, is a critical aspect of the built environment that im- pacts ridership. Nearly 30% of rail passengers drive to stations and an additional 10 percent arrive as passengers of others’ private vehicles1 (APTA 2015). Ridership al- so responds to changes within the nearby Central Business District (CBD). A 10% increase in employment density in the CBD has shown to increase ridership by 7.1% 14. Other ridership influences range from shifts in the real estate market and gasoline prices, to the number of households within the radii of the system’s corridor, and household income15. The success of a commuter rail depends on its ability to attract riders, particularly commuters who would have otherwise drove. As a rail system, commuter rail experi- ence a network effect, which means the more complete the system and the more support it receives, “the more useful it is, the more riders it attracts, and the more it helps achieve planning objectives”16. Thus, commuter rail becomes more beneficial if planned in conjunction with supportive transit and land use policies that encourage ridership17. One such planning objective—economic development. The Economics of Commuter Rails As land use and economic development are intrinsically intertwined, so too are com- muter rail systems as they change land use when they are construction and effect how the surrounding land is perceived.