Interstate High Speed Rail & Rapid Transit - Part 5

Interstate High Speed Rail & Rapid Transit

Streetcars once dominated American commutes and met at busy train stations. Their success attracted powerful enemies who convinced federal, state and local governments to rip out most streetcars. Four cities were exceptions because they also built rapid transit lines underground and overhead, and changed from private to public ownership. In the 2000s, most state and local governments made rapid transit investment a priority. Now we need federal government making rapid transit a larger priority to reduce highway congestion, that as a bonus, helps Interstate High Speed Rail ridership.

Streetcars Needed To Evolve As Rapid Transit

America had the world’s largest streetcar systems and best intercity passenger rail through World War II. Once that war ended in September 1945, returning veterans got jobs and bought more homes in the suburbs, triggering the uptrend of car purchases. Many cities and states accelerated streetcar track removal as they built more avenues, boulevards and highways promoting “Car Culture.” In 1952, federal regulation cut the top speed of intercity passenger trains from about 120 mph down to 79 mph, without funding more railroad grade separations from automobiles.

SEPTA Girard Streetcar in Philadelphia, Rapid Transit

SEPTA Girard Streetcar in Philadelphia

In contrast, American leaders started funding Interstate Highways in 1956 and upgrading airports for faster, bigger and longer jet flights in 1958. They were right to invest in highways and aviation, but wrong to let auto-centric public policy subvert streetcars and intercity passenger rail.

Since 1956, driving on Interstate & State Highways has become a birthright of sorts. Americans couldn’t get enough of them until the 1990s, when 2+ million metro areas re-congested despite lane-widening projects. Even before security hassles after 9-11-01, major airports congested with regional flights. By 2010, we learned Part 4 that further Interstate Highway expansion, with relatively few exceptions, is dumb federal policy.

We can’t fault all of our leaders for this sorry state of affairs. To counter loss of streetcars in our cities before his assassination in November 1963, President Kennedy requested Congress to fund new rapid transit lines in large cities. In August 1964, President Johnson convinced Congress to start funding them. Based on 1964-67 federal funding applications, half a dozen more cities anticipated large rapid transit systems similar to Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia by 2008. Unfortunately, from 1965 to mid-1973, the Vietnam War drained away half of federal funding for rapid transit.

From 1973 to 1981, Presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter returned inflation-adjusted rapid transit funding to levels planned in 1965, but not enough to recover lost ground during the Vietnam War. As a result, cities that moved forward with rapid transit had to lengthen timelines. Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Seattle, St. Louis, Denver, Minneapolis, Cleveland and San Jose delayed or canceled rapid transit projects. Then things really got bad.

In 1982, President Reagan cut transportation funding as a percentage of federal spending, leaving most of the budget for highway and airport expansion. Following that lead, most states and cities focused federal funding applications on new highway and airport projects, dropping or downscaling funding applications for rapid transit projects. President Bush I continued the same transportation policy. Though President Clinton modestly increased transportation funding, he never returned transportation funding to the inflation-adjusted levels of 1973 to 1981. The misguided transportation policy of President Bush II was the same as Reagan-Bush I.

By 2010, our Federal Aviation System remained top-notch and our Interstate Highway System was accessible to 90% of the populace. Our Top 40 metro areas built 8-14 lane freeways to absorb most of the 97 million population increase from 1980-2010. But due to under-investment in rapid transit and Amtrak, Americans drive more vehicle miles per person than any other nation. Today, most of our large metro areas drown in traffic congestion and produce more transportation-related smog and greenhouse gases (GHG) than any other country. Since the 1990s, we’ve underinvested in highway and railroad bridge repair. Though the Obama Administration fixed as many bridges as it could with a stubborn Congress, the reckoning is upon us. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, 20% of our bridges are structurally deficient.

Between 1966-2008, America underinvested in rapid transit infrastructure and since the late 1990s, highway and railway bridge repair.

Only NYC remained at 55% or higher transit usage after World War II because it built the world’s largest rapid transit system to the world’s largest concentration of offices, hotels, residences, colleges, medical centers, retail centers and restaurants on an island. The nation’s most expensive tolls per mile and humongous parking fees discourage commute driving to the city-island of Manhattan.

The most expensive part of rapid transit infrastructure, downtown tunnels and underground stations, was already built in NYC, Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia. San Francisco, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Newark also preserved passenger rail tunnels leading to downtown. No other American metro areas had infrastructure suitable for conversion to rapid transit use.

U.S. Large Metro Area Transit Usage; credit Arturo Ramos

U.S. Metro Area Transit Usage; credit Arturo Ramos

Major cities in Europe and Asia confronted similar population-transportation issues. Take Paris, Madrid and Berlin, who opened rapid transit systems around the time of Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia. Instead of building 10-14 lane super-highways, those European cities built 6-8 lane freeways in urban areas and 4-lane tollways between metro areas that discourage single-passenger driving. With cost savings from fewer highway lanes, European cities upgraded many streetcar lines to limited-stop Tramways (Light Rail), upgraded Commuter Rail and built more Heavy Rail (Subway) lines to train stations in their central business districts.

Asian metro areas followed the transportation models of Paris, Tokyo and London. Consequently, 50-70% of Europe and Asia commuters in large metro areas use transit. They ride High Speed Rail between metro areas. Those public investments invited private development within and near Intermodal Transportation Centers. The combination of public and private investment also preserved storefronts that kept Central Business Districts vibrant. Equally important, they have far less vehicle emissions contributing to smog and GHG. Note: the infamous smog problem in China is from coal-powered electricity generation, not their fast-expanding electric Rapid Transit and High Speed Rail Systems.

Understanding Types of Rapid Transit We Need

Americans are not falling for one Jedi mind-trick. Human-Driven Cars and Autonomous Cars sharing mixed-traffic highway is not the answer to congestion because they still increase the number of cars on the road. Nor is there polling proof that Americans will yield their highway driving birthright to Autonomous Cars. In fact, personal injury lawyers are salivating at opportunity to sue on Autonomous Car accidents. Neither is their polling proof that Americans favor spending taxpayer dollars on Autonomous Car infrastructure ahead of Rapid Transit infrastructure in the next 30-40 years. That leaves private investors footing the bill for Autonomous Car infrastructure for decades.

By expanding rapid transit systems, NYC, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington and San Francisco-Oakland eliminated many highway bridge and freeway widening projects, while transporting more people per taxpayer dollar. More large metro areas must ramp up rapid transit investment to mitigate severe highway congestion by 2030.

Like metro area freeway-tollway systems, successful rapid transit systems are expensive and take a long time to build. They require adoption of best practices and planning savviness to avoid traps by Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) citizens, highway-centric critics and some (not most) short-sighted politicians. Lets examine Rapid Transit modes to understand how they can be the right fit for the right corridors.

In the rest of this article, “Metrorail” means Heavy Rail or Light Rail. I use the formal name Heavy Rail instead of subway or elevated track to differentiate it from Light Rail. That’s because Enhanced Light Rail has a certain percentage of subway and elevated track too. Consider these 2016 American cost factors and top speeds for rapid transit modes:

Heavy Rail: $200-700 million/mile, 50-86 mph, 75 seats/cabin, 4-10 cabins
Enhanced Light Rail: $175-250 million/mile, 25-55 mph, 75 seats/cabin, 3-4 cabins
Light Rail: $100-150 million/mile, 20-40 mph, 75 seats/cabin, 1-2 cabins
Enhanced Commuter Rail: $80-120 million/mile, 50-90 mph, 70-110 seats/cabin, 4-8 cabins
Commuter Rail: $30-50 million/mile, 35-79 mph, 70-110 seats/cabin, 3-4 cabins
Bus Rapid Transit: $25-50 million/mile, 20-60 mph, 50-75 seats/bus, 1 cabin
Streetcars: $45-60 million/mile, 9-12 mph, 40-75 seats/cabin

Electric-powered Heavy Rail, Enhanced Light Rail, Light Rail, Enhanced Commuter Rail and Streetcars produce no GHG or smog emissions where they run. Streetcars are not rapid transit. As more electric power plants convert from coal to natural gas, wind and solar as their fuel source, electric-powered rapid transit will further reduce total smog and GHG emissions. Natural gas and biofuel-powered Bus Rapid Transit and Commuter Rail will also reduce GHG and smog per passenger.

Existing track rights-of-way, number of trains to be purchased, number of new miles, number of tunnels & aerials to be built, size of stations, number of stations per mile, length of station platforms with patron shelter, amount of fencing, overhead electric wires or 3rd rail transmitting electricity are cost factors. Although its tempting to judge cost-effectiveness based one or two rapid transit lines in their first 5 years of operation, it often takes 20 years to see a line’s full impact diverting drivers and Transit Oriented Development in terms of:

(a) Weekday Patronage
(b) Patrons Per Mile
(c) Construction Cost Per Mile
(d) Drivers Diverted to Rapid Transit
(e) Transit-Oriented Development around stations

For context, it took 40 years of continuous building since 1945 for America to create the world’s most successful Interstate and State Highway Network by 1985. Similarly, about 40 years of continuous system expansion and frequency upgrades are required to gauge the larger benefits of a rapid transit system

Always Choose The Right Rapid Transit Mode

To maximize benefits, the appropriate rapid transit mode must be chosen, not the politically expedient. Viewed over a 20 year horizon, the best solution may be a $700 million project, rather than a $350 million project completed quicker.

Heavy Rail systems deliver the most (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) benefits named above. Heavy Rail lines are most expensive and take longer to build. They require tunnels and aerials to completely separate track from roadway, people and animals. They draw electricity from 3rd rail on the opposite side of patron platforms. To board/deboard patrons faster, they require station platforms level with train floors. Most Heavy Rail lines have stations 1/2 mile to 2 miles apart. Heavy Rail expansion is best suited in the population dense corridors of NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco-Oakland, Baltimore and Cleveland. Though Atlanta and Miami metro areas are not dense cities, they have 2 high-traffic corridors suitable for Heavy Rail lines.

NYC Metro train whizzing by; (c) SoulOfAmerica

NYC Metro heavy rail train whizzing by; (c) SoulOfAmerica

You can identify good Heavy Rail systems by route alignments in high-traffic corridors, Rush Hour trains every 2-6 minutes, multiple intersecting lines, patron shelter on platforms and good maintenance. Those factors are essential to high Weekday Patronage of Heavy Rail systems.

Though recovering from a dozen years of under-maintenance, Washington Metro is in all other respects, a successful rapid transit system. A Washington Heavy Rail line can pack 175 passengers per cabin in an 8-cabin train at 26 trains per hour to transport 36,400 passengers per hour. The Highway Capacity Manual, assumes average vehicle occupancy of 1.57 people, lists a single lane of highway capacity without RVs or trucks as 2,250 passenger cars per hour. Therefore, a 6-lane Interstate Highway filled with cars, RVs and trucks transports approximately 11,000 passengers/hour — that’s less than a third of one Washington Heavy Rail line. Washington Metro enabled DC to avoid the scars and higher maintenance of too many urban freeways.

Los Angeles Metro light rail train headed to Long Beach

Los Angeles Metro light rail train headed to Long Beach; (c) SoulOfAmerica

Enhanced Light Rail has good alignments, enough tunnels and aerials to prevent cars, people and animals from crossing 75-80% of their route, 1/3 mile to 1 mile distances between stations, and patron shelter on station platforms. Their light weight trains accelerate and brake faster, hence the name “Light Rail.” They employ traffic signal priority at roadway crossings. If 3 cabin trains run every 5-6 minutes in high-traffic corridors, a single line can transport 75-100,000 patrons per day. Such Light Rail lines cost 40-50% of a Heavy Rail line to build. Boston Light Rail system is a good example of how streetcar rights of way can be upgraded to form an Enhanced Light Rail system, as measured by Patrons Per Mile and Weekday Patronage. Enhanced Light Rail is well-suited to medium-traffic corridors that are growing.

Light Rail trains also run on dedicated track that is new or rebuilt from old Streetcar lines. Unlike Enhanced Light Rail, they have more roadway crossings per mile, no traffic signal priority at roadway crossings and stations 1/5 mile to 1/2 mile apart. Many have stops without station platforms, which slows boarding/deboarding and decreases patron safety. Their lack of/inadequate shelter discourages patronage. To avoid causing roadway traffic jams, they are limited to 2-cabin trains during commute hour and 1-cabin trains otherwise. They cost about 20-25% of Heavy Rail to build, but can transport up to 3,000 patrons per hour. Hence, Light Rail lines are best suited to stable medium-traffic corridors.

Enhanced Commuter Rail lines are Commuter Rail systems that have been upgraded by converting to electric-powered light weight trains that use catenary. Others may be upgraded using light weight Diesel Multi-Unit trains. They have additional overpasses/underpasses for higher average speed, higher on-time performance and safety. Upgraded Commuter Rail in NYC, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington-Baltimore and San Francisco-San Jose attract Enhanced Light Rail patronage levels. Enhanced Commuter Rail is well-suited to growing medium-traffic corridors longer.

Commuter Rail lines are popular for their low construction cost by sharing existing tracks with freight trains. Since they are powered by diesel fuel, they don’t require overhead catenary or 3rd rail to supply electricity. But there are severe trade-offs. Few have station platforms for easy boarding-deboarding and patron shelter is often inadequate. It has more on-time performance and safety issues because there are too many places where cars, people & animals cross tracks. It takes longer to reach top speed and brake, which limits train frequency during commute hours.

Electric MARC commuter train that runs between Baltimore and Washington

MARC electric commuter train that runs between Baltimore and Washington

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) runs on dedicated guideway with or without traffic signal priority. BRT is cheaper to construct than Light Rail because it does not require tracks, overhead catenaries and few have dedicated aerials or tunnels. They usually have stations 1/4 mile to 1 mile apart. BRT has higher fuel & maintenance costs per patron. If BRT tries to match the passenger capacity of Light Rail, it will suffer even higher labor cost because it requires 3 times more drivers per passenger. Therefore, BRT is only suited for stable medium-traffic routes.

Streetcars share roadway with autos over most of their route. Since they only average 9-11 mph, Streetcars are not Rapid Transit. Instead, they are electric-powered transportation suited for 1-3 mile distances where speed is not a requirement. Various studies indicate that restored vintage and modern streetcars are rolling attractions that often entice Transit Oriented Development. Streetcars in New Orleans, San Francisco, Seattle, Memphis, Portland, Washington, Tampa, Atlanta, Cincinnati and Cable Cars in San Francisco prove those points. Since streetcar lines are relatively cheap to build, their construction is enjoying a resurgence in America.

Choose Alignment & Mode Types For All-Purpose Ridership

A study by Steven Higashide of TransitCenter found three common patterns of transit use: (1) occasional transit riders; (2) work commuters; (3) all-purpose transit riders. The study also found that:

• 80% of all-purpose riders walk to transit
• All-purpose ridership is stronger where it’s easy to walk or bike from home to transit stations
• All-purpose ridership is stronger where it’s easy to get from transit station to major destinations
• All-purpose ridership is stronger when service is every 10 minutes or less (though 6 minutes or less is preferred)
• All-purpose ridership is stronger when it provides access to many destinations
• All-purpose ridership is stronger when it provides adequate weather shelter for patrons
• All-purpose ridership is stronger when it provides a Transit train and BRT arrivals o smartphone app
• Too many metro areas over-commit rapid transit resources to work commuters in low-density suburbs

Steven Higashide concludes that its better to expand the right rapid transit mode and right alignment within denser population corridors to attract higher Weekday Patronage and Patrons Per Mile of Construction, even when its more expensive up front and takes longer to build.

RAPID TRANSIT AND HIGH SPEED RAIL COMPLIMENTARITY

Today, only 5 American metro areas have rapid transit systems that compliment High Speed Rail stations. When you step off an Amtrak Acela train in NYC/Newark, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore or Washington, a convenient transfer to rail rapid transit takes you within a quarter mile of most attractions in their central business districts.

Despite NYC’s 55% commuter percentage, transit fares and ad revenue only cover 55% of NYC Metro operating expenses. Taxpayers pay the difference for fares low enough to attract a staggering 10 million Metro patrons/day. Due to decades of NYC Metro & Commuter Rail expansion, taxpayers saved money by not having to build more highways and bridges, which are far more expensive to construct and maintain. It allows many New Yorker families to buy one fewer car and keep this 21 million-person metro area humming.

NYC Grand Central Terminal, the great hall

The great hall in NYC Grand Central Terminal; (c) Soul Of America

NYC demonstrates the value of Transit-Oriented Development in and around train stations. It transformed the neo-gothic Grand Central Terminal into a 700,000-daily rider Intermodal Transportation Center bustling with restaurants, hotel and shopping mall activity from dawn to midnight. NYC Penn Station features Amtrak-HSR, Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, buses, Uber/Lyft/taxis and shuttles that attract 430,000 daily patrons as well. NYC recently opened two Heavy Rail extensions and an awe-inspiring World Trade Center Transportation Hub. A grander, more efficient Penn Station replacement, Moynihan Station, is coming. By 2020, NYC will burst through 11 million daily rapid transit passengers.

America has the opportunity to elevate Chicago, Boston, Washington, Philadelphia and San Francisco-Oakland metro areas to 35-45% transit usage, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Seattle and Portland metro areas to 30% transit usage and the rest of our Top 45 Metro Areas to 20-25% transit usage by 2035.

Chicago, opened America’s first elevated Heavy Rail line in 1892 and later added subway Heavy Rail lines and a substantial Commuter Rail system. Chicago’s Heavy Rail system goes to both airports and its Heavy Rail and Commuter Rail network transport a combined 1.1 million daily patrons. Along with bus patronage, 30% of Chicagoans commute by transit.

To raise rapid transit patronage, the city is replacing old trains, restoring stations, expanding three Heavy Rail lines and building a BRT circulator connecting Amtrak, Heavy Rail and Commuter Rail lines at Union Station, Oglivie Transportation Center, The Loop, Millennium Park and Navy Pier. In 2017, three 110 mph Amtrak lines from Chicago Union Station run more frequently to Milwaukee, St. Louis and Detroit. A Master-planned Chicago Union Station and nearby Thompson Transit Center will connect via underground tunnel that will enable the same train from Minneapolis and Milwaukee to pass-through Chicago, then head to St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland or Indianapolis. The resultant intermodal transportation center will anchor a growing Midwest HSR network.

Boston’s rapid transit system began in 1897. By the 1980s, their transit culture resisted new Interstate Highway ripping through too many communities. Boston chose to balance Heavy Rail, Light Rail, Commuter Rail, BRT and Highway construction. South Station converted to an Intermodal Transportation Center for Amtrak Acela, Heavy Rail, Light Rail, Commuter Rail, BRT, taxi and shuttle service. As a result, Boston enjoys 800,000 daily rapid transit patrons and a more vibrant downtown. Now Boston is extending two rapid transit lines, and enhancing South Station capacity and amenities. By 2020, Boston Metro Area will likely serve 900,000 daily rapid transit patrons.

Philadelphia’s rapid transit system began in 1907. The city converted 30th Street Station to an Intermodal Transportation Center for Amtrak, Heavy Rail, Light Rail, Commuter Rail, taxi and shuttle service. Philadelphia has 575,000 daily rail transit patrons and claims a portion of 280,000 daily New Jersey Transit patrons riding in NYC-Newark-Phildelphia corridor. As more federal funds arrive, Philadelphia is upgrading old stations and plans to expand rapid transit lines.

Metro-Center Station in Washington

Metro-Center Station in Washington; (c) SoulOfAmerica

Opening its first Heavy Rail line in 1976, Washington executed rapid transit expansion better than any American city, save NYC. Its Heavy Rail lines traverse high density districts to high-traffic destinations. Washington Union Station has transformed into an Intermodal Transportation Center connecting Amtrak HSR, Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, buses, shuttles, taxis, rental cars and tour buses. Dramatic public space, a shopping center, food court and cinema have made it a tourist attraction near the U.S. Capitol. Metrorail and Metrobus enable 40% of DC residents go without cars and streetcars are returning to DC. The next Heavy Rail expansion to Dulles International Airport opens in 2019. Though Washington Metro requires ongoing renovation, by 2020 it will likely transport over 900,000 daily rail transit patrons.

San Francisco-Oakland opened their first Heavy Rail line in 1972 and crossed under San Francisco Bay in 1974. In 1980, San Francisco converted 4 Streetcar lines to Light Rail. In 1987, Commuter Rail service began in 47-mile San Francisco-San Jose corridor. Today, Heavy Rail, Light Rail, Commuter Rail, Streetcars, Cable Cars and Ferries attract over 650,000 daily patrons. In 2018, Salesforce Transit Center opened for BRT, Greyhound, Megabus, shuttles, local buses taxis/Uber/Lyft and bicycles. By 2019, San Francisco expands Enhanced Light Rail to Chinatown. By 2022, Enhanced Commuter Rail service launches in San Francisco-San Jose corridor with faster and quieter electric trains. By 2025, BART Heavy Rail reaches San Jose train station, turned Intermodal Transportation Center. By 2027, San Francisco will upgrade all Light Rail lines and tunnel to Salesforce Transit Center for California High Speed Rail and Enhanced Commuter Rail between Downtown San Francisco and San Jose. By then, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Metro Area is on pace for 900,000 daily rapid transit and ferry patrons.

Metro areas listed below have less than 40 years of continuous rapid transit building. As a result, their patronage and Transit Culture is immature compared to where it will be in 2030-40.

From 1964 to 1985-ish, Los Angeles rejected federal rapid transit funding in order to get more federal highway funding. Now it suffers the nation’s worst traffic congestion, most economic productivity lost from traffic congestion, and worst vehicle emissions. LA finally opened two Light Rail lines, one Heavy Rail line, one BRT line and a couple Commuter Rail lines between 1990-95. LA voters flipped the script in 2008 and 2016 when they voted for enough sales tax funding to accelerate and sustain rapid transit construction. Los Angeles Union Station, adjacent to Downtown LA, became an intermodal transportation center for Amtrak, Heavy Rail, Enhanced Light Rail, Commuter Rail and BRT lines and anchor to 400,000 daily commuters. In 2019, Enhanced Light Rail will go to Metro LAX Airport-Century Station and the Downtown LA-Long Beach line is being upgraded to Enhanced Light Rail status. By 2021, all Light Rail going to Downtown LA conveniently connects for transfers. By 2023, Heavy Rail extends to Beverly Hills and an LAX People Mover goes to Metro LAX Airport-Century Station. By 2026-27, Heavy Rail extends to Century City and Westwood — the home of UCLA. LA leaders aim to complete many projects for the 2028 Los Angeles Summer Olympics.

Metro Aviation-Century Station serving LAX, under construction

Metro Aviation-Century Station serving LAX Airport, under construction; credit Los Angeles MTA

The challenge LA leaders face is to avoid bad expedient projects before the 2028 Olympics and 2132-33 California High Speed Rail opening to Burbank-Los Angeles-Anaheim corridor. If great LA only builds smart projects, it can attract a 1.5 million person rapid transit system similar to this 2040 Los Angeles Rapid Transit Vision Map.

By 2020, freeway-sprawled Dallas-Fort Worth, Atlanta and Houston are forecast to become our 4th, 6th and 7th most populous metro areas, respectively. All three lie in intercity passenger rail corridors designated to receive federal HSR funding.

Dallas opened its first Light Rail line in 1996 and converted its Union Station into an intermodal transportation center for Amtrak, Standard Light Rail and Standard Commuter Rail. Today, its combined rail transit draws 100,000 daily patrons and extends to DFW Airport. More Light Rail extensions are coming. Nearby Fort Worth opens an Enhanced Commuter Rail line to DFW airport in 2018. By 2020, Dallas Light Rail will likely attract 125,000 daily patrons between the largest business districts, tourist attractions, colleges, medical centers, Intermodal Transportation Center and both airports. When gasoline cost and parking fees double, Dallas will have Rapid Transit capacity ready for about 500,000 daily patrons.

Atlanta MARTA subway at North Avenue

Atlanta MARTA subway at North Avenue

In 2004, Houston opened its first Standard Light Rail line and blew away patronage forecasts on a Patrons Per Mile basis. Consequently, Houston voters authorized an extension and four more Standard Light Rail projects. The extension and two new lines opened in 2015-17. In oil-centric Houston, the 4th Standard Light Rail line is facing opposition from NIMBYs who want more pointless highway widening. Given such opposition, the 4th line is unlikely to open before 2023. At that time, Houston METRORail will likely attract 100,000 daily patrons and establish momentum for expansion to both IAH and HOU Airports. Given that groundbreaking aproaches for a privately-built HSR line to connecting Dallas to Houston by 2021-22, anticipate Houston pursuing federal funds for an intermodal transportation center connecting Texas HSR, Amtrak, Light Rail, Commuter Rail, taxis and shuttles at a downtown Houston location.

Atlanta opened its first Heavy Rail line in 1979 and today draws 220,000 daily patrons. Atlanta is adding Light Rail, Commuter Rail and Streetcar lines that will intersect with its Heavy Rail system. Momentum is building for a Atlanta Intermodal Transportation Center in downtown. If so, Atlanta Rapid Transit might reach 325,000 daily patrons by 2022, with capacity to double patronage when gasoline and parking costs double.

For decades, older voters nationwide, acting on racial stereotypes and not understanding the benefits to their metro areas, resisted rapid transit systems. Younger voters fed up highway congestion and wanting to reduce car expenses, smog and GHG, are voting for rapid transit projects. Pollsters predict that the impact of younger voters will be felt to a larger degree in the 2018 and 2020 elections.

Seattle, Baltimore, Miami-Fort Lauderdale, Denver, Portland, San Diego, Honolulu, Buffalo, Orlando, Raleigh-Durham, Cleveland, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Charlotte, Minneapolis, Austin, Norfolk-Virginia Beach, Salt Lake City, Sacramento, Las Vegas, Tulsa, Columbus, Jacksonville, Buffalo, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Omaha and Richmond metro areas have also re-ignited or begun the multi-decade building of effective rapid transit systems.

Unwilling to make rapid transit investment now, Cincinnati, Memphis, Tampa, Oklahoma City, Milwaukee and Hartford metro areas will regret not starting the construction process sooner.

Building More & Smarter Rapid Transit Will Help HSR Succeed

BRT, Light Rail and Commuter Rail have important roles to play in medium-traffic corridors of large metro areas and in 1 to 1.5 million person metro areas. Since federal transit funds have been insufficient to present, too many metro areas have chosen BRT, Standard Light Rail or Standard Commuter Rail projects in dense corridors better suited for Heavy Rail, Enhanced Light Rail or Enhanced Commuter Rail. Metro areas can avoid the huge construction mistakes of others. Here are two name-withheld examples to avoid.

Politicians chose a $325 million BRT line for low cost and construction expediency, instead of the $750 million Light Rail option that would have taken 2 years longer to build. A dozen years later, politicians in the same high traffic corridor are requesting a $1 billion conversion to Light Rail for more patron capacity and to integrate with the expanding Light Rail system. In another misguided example, a Light Rail line was so poorly conceived that it failed to qualify for Federal Transit funding and encouraged companies to leave the city. To be specific, politicians chose a 23-mile single-track Light Rail line though wooded area that restricted trains to 17-minute frequency, bypassed the metro area’s 3rd largest business district, bypassed five colleges, and crosses over the Heavy Rail line without connecting to it. On Downtown streets, the Light Rail runs as slow as a Streetcar.

If politicians could count on 50% Federal Transit funding, contingent on choosing the right alignments, right transit modes and interconnecting other rapid transit lines, there would be more Heavy Rail, Enhanced Light Rail and Enhanced Commuter Rail. We would see more Patron Per Mile levels approaching those for Boston Heavy Rail and that of San Francisco Light Rail.

Storefront streetscapes are vital to the economic and social health of cities that anchor large metro areas. High concentrations of storefronts near rapid transit stations are a key reason that people find NYC, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington and Boston attractive to live in and visit. The growth of transit-oriented storefronts and smart business district planning are also making Los Angeles, Seattle, Oakland, Denver, San Diego, Atlanta and Portland attractive to more residents and visitors.

We need our next Congress and President combination to boost rapid transit funding levels. If so, our Top 20 Metro Areas can increase to 30-60% transit usage and our Top 21-50 Metro Areas can increase to 20% transit usage by 2035. With that kind of federal investment anchoring state, local and private investment, we can mitigate highway traffic congestion, reduce smog and GHG emissions, while cutting another 0.8 billion barrels of oil/year from Transportation use by 2035.

See how new time, speed and patronage dynamics should help shape Interstate High Speed Rail progress in America.

Interstate High Speed Rail Progress

Close Comments

Share Comments With Fellow Travelers:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.