Interstate High Speed Rail and Rapid Transit

To reduce Highway & Hub Airport congestion, air pollution and help slow Global Warming, Rapid Transit Culture must spread across America like it has in Europe and Asia. America needs far more Modernized Commuter Rail, Metro Heavy Rail, Metro Metro Light Rail & Bus Rapid Transit lines complementing our growth in High-Speed Rail & Modernized Regional Rail — Thomas Dorsey, Soul Of America

Rapid Transit Naming Conventions

Before a mild dive into America’s Rapid Transit needs, naming conventions that nod to Europe’s Rapid Transit nomenclature are in order.

Depending on the naming convention of each American transit agency, “Metro Rail” means Metro Heavy Rail, Metro Light Rail or both in America.

In Europe, only Metro Heavy Rail is called “Metro Rail.” Metro Light Rail is called “Tram.” Since commuters use all forms of transit, Commuter Rail is more accurately called “Suburban Rail.”

Amsterdam, Lyon, Budapest, Berlin, Prague, Zurich, Milan, and Vienna feature the best European Tram systems based on coverage density per mile and 3-6 minute frequencies. Despite averaging only 15-25 kmph (9-16 mph) they attract higher ridership than most Metro Heavy Rail Systems in America.

With the exception of Amtrak Keystone line, Amtrak Regional lines are the cheapest version of Regional Rail that lack modernization. Most Amtrak Regional lines lack electrification, track & signaling upgrades, a very large percentage of railroad over/underpasses, small street closures and fencing.

With few exceptions, America’s Commuter Rail lines also lack sufficient modernization. Yet American transit agencies started name-changing Commuter Rail to Regional Rail when they switched to electric trains while lacking track & signaling upgrades, a very large percentage of railroad over/underpasses, small street closures and fencing.

Though Commuter Rail to Regional Rail share track & signaling infrastructure, key distinctions are that Commuter Rail (Suburban Rail) travels shorter distances with more stops/mile and higher frequencies to/from suburbs, while Regional Rail travels longer distances with fewer stops/mile between regional cities at higher speeds and includes luggage space.

Since the 1974 Oil Embargo, “Most of Europe” (France, UK, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Austria) accelerated modernization of Suburban Rail and Regional Rail by replacing diesel-powered locomotives with electric trains that accelerate & brake faster but do not emit air pollution.

Since the 1990s, Europe has been adding more railroad over/underpasses per mile, small street closures, fencing, upgraded tracks & signaling, and raising station platforms level with train floors for faster entry & exit. On average, their Modernized Regional Rail lines run at higher speeds, higher frequencies, higher reliability, and higher safety.

Today, Paris features Modernized Suburban Rail lines (RER) running 110-140 kmph (68-87 mph) with 150-350 roundtrips/weekday. France has many Modernized Regional Rail lines (TER) running 160-120 kmph (99-124 mph) with 12-22 roundtrips/weekday. Some run up to 350 kilometers (217 miles).

Mimicking the ridership success of Paris, London, Madrid and Berlin, Most of Europe is on pace for Modernized Suburban Rail running 110-140 kmph and Modernized Regional Rail running 160-200 kmph by 2045.

In North America, NYC, Toronto, Montreal, San Francisco Bay Area, Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, and Baltimore-Washington Commuter Rail plan similar modernization projects but conflate Europe’s “Suburban Rail” naming convention by calling them “Regional Rail” upgrades.

Mexico City bucks that naming trend with a Fully-Modernized Suburban Rail line having complete railroad over/underpasses, fencing, electric trains on upgraded tracks & signaling for suburban commutes called “Tren Suburbano.”

Since this series aspires for America to catch up with Europe’s Sustainable Passenger Transportation, I call upgraded Commuter Rail “Partly or Fully-Modernized Commuter Rail.”

For example, Caltrain is Partly-Modernized Commuter Rail line with modern electric trains, modern overhead electric wire (catenary), upgraded tracks & signaling, Quad Gate Systems and Traffic Signal Priority to support 79 mph and 52 roundtrips/weekday.

But Caltrain (and California HSR) needs 38-39 more railroad over/underpasses, 5 small streets closures, and complete fencing to replace Quad Gate Systems to support 90 mph Caltrain & 110+ roundtrips/weekday. California HSR trains needs to reach 100 mph in the same route.

Another example, Amtrak Keystone Regional line is Party-Modernized Regional Rail status. Its modern electric trains and signaling are certified for operation up to 125 mph. Today, its 104-mile route has complete railroad over/underpasses, small streets closures, and fencing to support 110 mph and 13 roundtrips/weekday.

But Amtrak Keystone still needs upgraded catenary, upgraded tracks, additional track to pass Commuter trains, and curve-easing to sustain 125 mph and 17-20 roundtrips/weekday.

Rapid Transit Modes in America

Commuter Rail

In America, most commuter trains run on railway shared with freight trains or Amtrak trains. Much of that railway has 1-track segments limiting the speed and the frequency of trains traveling in opposite directions.

Commuter Rail supports 25-40 mph Average Speeds but has lower schedule reliability, because autos & people cross tracks at too many places and often lacks automated train control. They typically run 1 per hour Peak and every 2 hours Off-Peak.

By 2029, most U.S. commuter trains will use diesel-electric locomotives for lower smog & greenhouse gas emissions. But most trains are still heavy and not aerodynamic and therefore, consume more energy per mile.

Construction Cost Per Mile is very low and Operational Cost Per Mile is low, matching its “Bargain Basement” service level.

Modernized Commuter Rail

Modernized Commuter Rail requires 2 Main Tracks plus intermittent Siding Track for skip-stop passenger trains and freight trains to pull aside.

In North America, most electric commuter trains draw current by extending pantographs to overhead electric wire (catenary). In NYC metro area, some electric commuter trains also draw current from a 3rd rail. Depending on stops per mile, electric commuter trains run at 25-45 mph Average Speeds.

Modernized Commuter Rail has more railroad over/underpasses and street closures for higher safety & schedule reliability, along with 8-30 minute train frequency. Station platforms support 6-12 cabin trains for 600-1800 rider capacity per train.

Since station platforms level with train floors enable faster entry & exit to save 1-2 minutes per stop, Montreal, Toronto, Chicago, NYC, Newark, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore-Washington, San Francisco-San Jose, and Los Angeles already have or plan to add them in Commuter Rail modernization programs.

Construction Cost Per Mile is Medium because they are already have rail Rights-Of-Way; Operational Cost Per Mile is Low-to-Medium, depending on train frequency.

Metro Heavy Rail

Metro Heavy Rail Trains draw electric current from a 3rd rail and station platforms are level with train floors. Most have Automated Train Control, but still utilize drivers. Viaducts, tunnels and fencing completely separate trains from automobiles & pedestrians for 25-35 mph Average Speeds and high schedule dependability.

Stations are large to support 5-10 cabin trains having 900-2400 rider capacity. Their trains have 3-8 minute Peak frequency and 8-15 minute Off-Peak frequency. A single Metro Heavy Rail line can transport 4-5 times more commuters/hour than a 6-lane freeway.

New York City and Mexico City have, by far, the two highest ridership Metro Heavy Rail systems in North America. Toronto and Montreal Metro Heavy Rail systems are next.

As Washington, Chicago, San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Metro Heavy Rail systems expand and increase train frequencies by 2032, anticipate significant boosts to their Ridership Per Mile.

Construction Cost Per Mile is high and Operational Cost Per Mile is high. But when ridership is high, Benefits over Costs are high too.

Metro Light Rail

Metro Light Rail Trains draw current by extending pantographs to overhead electric wire. Boston, Seattle, Houston, Portland, Sacramento, St. Louis, Charlotte & Phoenix have low station platforms level with train floors, while other Metro Light Rail systems have high station platforms level with train floors.

They have dedicated lanes and line segments with railroad over/underpasses and street closures for 18-35 mph Average Speeds. Traffic Signal Priority can reduce travel times on surface-running Metro Light Rail/Trams by 10-15%. Recently, some Metro Light Rail systems in America have begun employing Traffic Signal Priority at some roadway crossings.

To support 3-5 cabin trains at peak, stations are small-to-medium size (200-400 feet). A cabin can hold 175 riders for 350-875 rider capacity/train. In 2026, the 4 best Metro Light Rail trains in America improved to 4-10 minutes Peak frequency, 8-20 minutes Off-Peak frequency. In the early 2030s, San Francisco plans to optimize 5 Metro Light Rail lines to support 6-minute Peak frequency.

Construction Cost Per Mile is medium; Operational Cost Per Mile is medium.

Automated Metro Rail

Automated Metro Rail features Automated Transit Operation with driverless trains, station platforms level with train floors, and platform screen doors synchronized with train door openings & closings for safety. Central transit centers remotely monitor their operations.

Automated Metro Heavy Rail features 6-8 cabin trains and long stations. Automated Metro Light Rail features 3-4 cabin trains and short stations that cost less to build. Both types can feature 2-3 minute Peak frequency, 4-6 minute Off-Peak frequency with high schedule reliability.

Like Metro Heavy Rail, Automated Metro Heavy Rail draws electricity from a 3rd rail and feature fencing, viaducts and/or tunnels to completely separate from automobiles and pedestrians. Depending on stops per mile, they average 25-35 mph. Automated Metro Heavy Rail’s Construction Cost Per Mile is a tad higher than Metro Heavy Rail, but yields a Low Operational Cost Per Rider.

Paris has 3 Automated Metro Heavy Rail lines. Los Angeles has committed to open an Automated Metro Heavy Rail line in the mid-2030s.

Vancouver Skytrain is an example of Automated Metro Light Rail, though it uses electricity in a rare manner for locomotion and braking. Automated Light Metro Light Rail’s Construction Cost Per Mile sits between Metro Heavy Rail and Metro Light Rail, but yields the Lowest Operational Cost Per Rider. Toronto, Ottawa and Monterrey (Mexico) are adding Automated Light Metro Rail lines.

Due to their high ridership and Low Operational Cost Per Rider, most Rapid Transit advocates now lobby for Automated Metro Heavy Rail and Automated Metro Light Rail projects. Montreal, Queens-JFK Airport, and Honolulu also feature Automated Metro Heavy Rail systems.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

BRT requires Dedicated Busway and has fewer over/underpasses and street closures than Metro Light Rail. Many have colored lanes to distinguish from other roadway lanes, pedestrian bulbs for safety, and covered stations for commuters.

In North America, many BRT systems have a percentage of traffic lanes shared with automobiles and few have Traffic Signal Priority for 12-20 mph Average Speeds.

BRT has 60-80 rider capacity and typically run at 6-10 minutes Peak frequency, 12-20 minutes Off-Peak frequency. Station platforms are level with bus floors for faster entry & exits. When cyclists load bikes on the front, however, they reduce Average Speeds.

When BRT runs on bio-fuel, Construction Cost Per Mile is clearly lower the Metro Light Rail. Due to fewer riders per driver than Metro Light Rail and high maintenance costs for buses, Operational Cost Per Mile is high.

When BRT runs on electricity, Construction Cost Per Mile is close to Metro Light Rail. Due to fewer riders per driver than Metro Light Rail and high maintenance costs for buses, Operational Cost Per Mile is also high.

By 2040, a large percentage American BRT systems transition to electric power, increasing their Actual Construction Costs Per Mile much closer to Metro Light Rail. Inflation makes their electric conversions more expensive than building Metro Light Rail at the outset.

An example is LA Metro BRT G Line that cost $350 million to open in 2005. Today, it’s undergoing a $670 million upgrade for 2 overpasses, Quad Gate Systems, Traffic Signal Priority, plus a Dedicated Bikeway with landscaping. Later conversion to Metro Light Rail will add $1.4-$1.7 billion costs.

If LA Metro G Line was initially Metro Light Rail, cost would have been $925 million. Adding the same $670 million upgrade, would have saved taxpayers $700 million to $1 billion for other Metro projects.

Streetcars

Vintage Streetcars in New Orleans, San Francisco, Dallas, Savannah, Tampa and Memphis have been good for tourism but they are not Rapid Transit. They transport less than 60 riders per car and run at low frequencies. Excluding Toronto, San Francisco and New Orleans, no Streetcars in North America run better than 15 minute frequencies, nor have multiple lines for significant urban coverage.

Modern Streetcars in America have longer distances between stops like Trams in Europe, but typically run in mixed traffic like local buses and do NOT have Traffic Signal Priority at roadway crossings. Average Speed is 8-10 mph in America. In 1-car configuration, Modern Streetcars have about 60 rider capacity.

Over 2027-30, Philadelphia is converting its Vintage Streetcars to low-platform Metro Light Rail with higher capacities and frequencies.

Toronto has a large Multi-Streetcar system that attracts 224,000 daily ridership. San Francisco Streetcar & Cable Car system attracts 15,000 daily ridership. Other Streetcar systems in North America attract only 600 to 9,000 daily ridership.

Highways Wrecked Many Black, Brown & Poor White Communities

American Auto Culture came into dominance just after World War II, when more national and state highways sprouted around America. Buses began their swift replacement of streetcars. The Highway Lobby and sympathetic politicians abused Auto Culture to convince most American voters that we only needed new highways and boulevards.

After World War II ended in 1945, many states began highway projects. Cities and counties accelerated boulevard projects. In 1956, federal funding of the Interstate Highway System attracted more state funding and supercharged middle-class White Flight, Suburban Sprawl, and the death of Streetcars.

That federal policy promoted matching state funds and property Rights-of-Way from states & counties. The primary beneficiaries were white veterans using the GI Bill to purchase new homes in the suburbs. The direct results accelerated middle-class White Flight and suburban sprawl.

By constructing the nation’s largest freeway network and promoting it in movies and on television, LA became the poster child for Highway Expansion and Suburban Sprawl that spread Americans further from downtown offices, retail, colleges, and medical centers. Other metro areas embraced LA’s approach, which  increased Vehicle Miles Traveled from suburbs.

A side effect was destruction of stable Black & Brown communities plus some poor White communities by plowing new highways through them. But unlike white communities, over a million Black & Brown veterans from World War II were denied full benefits from the GI Bill to gain a measure of benefit from suburban homes.

By 1962, the Kennedy Administration noticed that “Suburban Sprawl & Middle-Income White Flight” were draining tax revenue and retail jobs from the nation’s big cities. Unfortunately, JFK did not have sufficient influence to convince Congress to fund Urban Mass Transit projects before his assassination on 22 November 1963.

In summer 1964, the Johnson Administration convinced Congress to honor one of JFK’s vision policies by introducing the Urban Mass Transit Administration and commit to future funding for a dozen Metro Heavy Rail projects in big cities.

When the Vietnam War ramped up in 1965, however, Rapid Transit funding was cut. Only NYC, Boston, Chicago, Washington, Baltimore, San Francisco-Oakland, and Miami proceeded with Metro Heavy Rail projects and system upgrades. Los Angeles, Houston, Cleveland and Seattle canceled Metro Heavy Rail projects. Atlanta Metro Heavy Rail received Seattle’s project funding.

In contrast, Interstate Highway funding continued without slowdown. As income-stable urban communities were mutilated by freeways in the 1960s-70s-80s, higher smog, and lower home values chased away middle income residents. Was it worth it?

Our federal, state & county politicians never funded Rapid Transit projects on par with Highway projects. Excluding Manhattan, even NYC Metro Area’s Rapid Transit Network falls short of the mesh-like Per Square Mile coverage of Paris or Tokyo. A prime example is the recently approved Brooklyn-Queens Interborough Express should have been completed by 2000.

Consequently today, commuters dride wider congested freeways for lower Peak Hour speeds that sap our economic productivity. We need more cars per household commuting to work, hospitals, colleges and shopping areas. Highway and boulevard congestion keep smog & greenhouse gas emissions high despite more Remote Work and Electric Vehicles.

Population growth, More Cars Per Household, Excessive Highway Widening, and Suburban Sprawl are increasing Vehicle Miles Traveled. Metro area highways that used to average 25-30 mph at Peak Hour have dipped to 18-21 mph at Peak Hour.

San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Phoenix, Miami, San Diego, Seattle, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Denver, and Minneapolis metro areas have proven that highway widening beyond 8 lanes induces more suburban sprawl and Vehicle Miles Traveled only 2-3 years later. Hence, building 20-26 lane freeways like Houston and Dallas is insane on the membrane.

Nor will Autonomous Vehicles solve highway congestion in the next 50 years, as article by The Conversation explains.

Excessive Highway Widening, Anathema to Rapid Transit

From 1964 to 1974 during the Vietnam War, our federal, state & county politicians maintained high funding levels for Highway and Hub Airport expansion, but cut Rapid Transit project funding. After the Vietnam War, Rapid Transit funding never reached the inflation-adjusted levels promised in 1964.

This chart by TheTransportPolitic.com only covers 2010-19, but accurately characterizes America’s 1964-2025 Highway over-investment compared to Rapid Transit under-investment.

Highway Expansion has interconnected America’s metro areas and formed “Highway Mesh Networks” within metro areas having 2M+ population. Arguably, that expansion has been good for our macro-economy despite destruction of many urban communities..

The Fools Gold of Excessive Highway Widening, however, increases traffic congestion, smog & greenhouse gas emissions by inducing more Vehicle Miles Traveled and suburban sprawl further distant from city centers. Excessive Highway Widening also undermined Rapid Transit project funding and ridership in high activity corridors.

America’s Lack of Rapid Transit Mesh Networks

When one examines the high-ridership Rapid Transit systems of Europe and Asia, we can deduce that 2 million population metro area needs at least 8 Rapid Transit lines radiating & criss-crossing the city center to major activity centers. Call it a “Rapid Transit Mesh Network.” Excluding 21-million pop. NYC Metro Area, only 6 American metro areas have 8+ Rapid Transit lines of any type forming a Mesh Network:

10M pop. Chicago Metro Area – 8 Heavy Rail, 12 Commuter Rail lines
4.9M pop. Boston Metro Area – 3 Heavy Rail, 11 Commuter Rail, 5 Light Rail lines
6.1M pop. Philadelphia Metro Area – 3 Heavy Rail, 12 Commuter Rail, 4 Light Rail lines
6.3M pop. Washington Metro Area – 6 Metro Heavy Rail, 5 Commuter Rail, 1 Light Rail (u/c) lines
7.5M pop. San Francisco Bay Area 5 Metro Heavy Rail, 3 Commuter Rail, 8 Metro Light Rail lines
19.0M pop. Los Angeles Metro Area – 2 Metro Heavy Rail, 7 Commuter Rail, 4 Metro Light Rail lines (+1 UC)

Like robust Highway (freeway & tollway) Mesh Networks, it takes decades to build robust Rapid Transit Mesh Networks. Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia have partial Rapid Transit Mesh Networks because most of their infrastructure completed before 1946. Washington and San Francisco Bay Area have continuously attracted federal and state funding since 1964 to form “Partial Rapid Transit Mesh Networks.”

Cleveland opened its first Metro Heavy Rail line in 1955. Atlanta, Baltimore, and Miami opened their first Metro Heavy Rail lines in the 1970s-80s. In 1981, San Diego opened America’s first Metro Light Rail line.

President Reagan & Bush I Transportation policy ignored most Metro Heavy Rail projects because racist attitudes at many state and county levels would not approve 40-45% state & county matching funds attract 55-60% federal funds over 1981-92.

Consequently, NYC, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco Bay Area, Atlanta, Baltimore, and Miami Metro Heavy Rail expanded at a snail’s pace and Cleveland Metro Heavy Rail line froze. Many metro areas downscaled to less expensive, lower capacity, less frequent Metro Light Rail projects.

Recently, many counties voted for sale tax-funded Rapid Transit projects. Even with more Metro Light Rail lines under construction/operating in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Houston, Phoenix, Denver, Seattle, San Diego, Portland, Cleveland, St. Louis, Sacramento, Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City, Charlotte, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Newark, Buffalo, and Norfolk, they aren’t expanding to form Rapid Transit Mesh Networks or increasing frequencies fast enough.

The primary culprit is federal under-funding that does not trigger more state & county funding. Secondary culprits are nuisance (unwarranted) lawsuit delays by NIMBYs.

Many cities building Metro Light Rail as a substitute for Metro Heavy Rail should instead, consider Automated Metro Light Rail in their high & medium activity corridors.

Though politicians appreciate Streetcar’s ability to attract nearby Transit-Oriented Development, that mode shares traffic lanes with automobiles and is too slow, low capacity, low frequency to attract high ridership. That is why it’s disappointing to see Atlanta, Salt Lake City, Seattle, and Charlotte add Modern Streetcars before expanding Metro Heavy Rail, Automated Metro Light Rail or Metro Light Rail.

High Frequency & Vibrant Station Areas, Critical for Ridership

After Rapid Transit Mesh Networks cover most activity centers in a metro area, high frequency train schedules are the next most important factor to attract ridership.

In France, I like the examples in Paris, Lyon, Marseille, and Toulouse where Metro Rail and Trams run at 3-4 minute Peak frequencies and 6-8 minute Off-peak frequencies. Riders who miss a train, know the next one is coming shortly. Suburban Rail at 10-15 minute frequencies also convinces commuters to switch from driving and parking hassles.

Excluding NYC, Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, Chicago and Honolulu metro areas, America’s Metro Heavy Rail and Automated Metro Light Rail projects have halted for now. In contrast, European Metro Rail and Tram lines are expanding to business centers, more residential districts, medical centers, colleges, and sports venues.

Metro and Tram stations in Most of Europe typically have surrounding residences, offices, cafes and shops. Their commuters go to “places”, not just Point A to Point B.

Most European children are conditioned to commute on Rapid Transit and transit buses alone or with schoolmates. As adults, driving is optional to them, so most highways remain 4-6 lanes which are less costly to maintain than our wider highways. Their cities need fewer soul-sucking parking lots.

Vibrant Rapid Transit Mesh Networks in Europe

How many rapid transit lines are appropriate for our large & medium metro areas? American metro areas should follow the best practices of European metro areas.

Shortly after the October 1973 OPEC Oil Embargo, European metro areas accelerated Suburban Rail, Metro Rail & Tram projects to form mesh networks that attract over 60% of commuters. Along with Paris, several rail maps linked below illustrate several other successful Rapid Transit Mesh Networks by metro area population in Europe:

1.1M Nice metro area – 3 Trams, 3 Suburban Rail lines
2.3M Lyon metro area – 4 Heavy Rail, 7 Trams, 5 Suburban Rail lines
3.2M Rome metro area – 3 Heavy Rail, 3 Trams, 7 Suburban Rail lines
4.7M Berlin metro area – 9 Heavy Rail, 24 Suburban Rail lines
4.9M Milan metro area – 7 Heavy Rail, 9 Suburban Rail lines
6.0M Madrid metro area – 12 Heavy Rail, 3 Trams, 9 Suburban Rail lines
14.7M London metro area – 11 Heavy Rail, 3 Tram, 15+ Suburban Rail  lines

Vibrant Rapid Transit Mesh Network Still Possible in America

Rapid Transit Mesh Networks in the medium & large metro areas of France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK enable people to average significantly fewer Vehicle Miles Traveled by car because they have high-frequency, comprehensive of coverage. Their Rapid Transit Mesh Networks have formed a Transit Culture that rivals Automotive Culture in metro areas.

One example of Rapid Transit benefits in Europe’s largest metro areas is they place residents within 1/4 to 1/3 mile of a Metro Rail or Tram Station and 1/4 to 3 miles from Suburban Rail, Regional Rail and sometimes, High-Speed Rail stations. They enhance large stations to form vibrant Intermodal Transit Centers with more retail, dining and passenger amenities.

America lacks commitment to build Rapid Transit in metro areas. As of 2025, America’s Top 53 Metro Areas have 1+ million population. Our Top 36 Metro Areas have 2+ million population. Yet most have no Metro Heavy Rail or few have more than 1-2 Metro Light Rail lines.

Our 1.0-1.9 million population metro areas should have 3 Metro Light rail lines. Those at 2-2.9 million population should have 4 Metro Heavy Rail/Metro Automated Rail lines, 2-3 Metro Light Rail lines and 1-2 Modernized Commuter Rail lines. Our 3-5 million population metro areas should have 6 Metro Heavy Rail/Metro Automated Rail lines, 3-4 Metro Light Rail lines and 2-3 Modernized Commuter Rail lines. All our 5+ million population metro areas should have robust Rapid Transit Mesh Networks.

NYC, anchored by Manhattan, is America’s only metro area that attracts 55% of daily commuters. Its hyper-dense population supports 24 Metro Heavy Rail lines, 12+ Commuter Rail lines, and 2 Metro Light Rail lines for very high ridership. NYC Rapid Transit saved taxpayer money by avoiding 3-to-4 times more land-taking for highway lanes and avoiding more highway tunnels & bridges that are more expensive to maintain.

Making Rapid Transit a Funding Priority

In 1998, NYC Grand Central Terminal transformed into an Intermodal Transportation Center bustling with retail & hotel activity. Opened in 2003, AirTrain between Queens and JFK Airport in NYC became America’s first Automated Heavy Rail line. phase 1 of Second Avenue Subway (Metro) opened in 2017 and Phase 2 expands to Harlem in 2032.

Online urban planners and transportation planners are educating citizens to to halt destruction from excessive freeway widening and accelerate Rapid Transit projects. Though the pandemic accelerated Remote Work that decimated Transit ridership, in 2026, most transit ridership is steadily recovering.

In 2021, Moynihan Hall expanded New York Penn Station capacity and features HSR, Regional Rail, Commuter Rail, and Metro Heavy Rail that attract very high ridership. It joins the awe-inspiring Grand Central Terminal and World Trade Center Transportation Hub. NYC Metro Heavy Rail is advancing towards 3-6 minute frequencies and modernizing Commuter Rail towards 10-15-minute frequencies, helping NYC be America’s most visited international destination.

Chicago has been modernizing Metro Heavy Rail for over a decade. Now it’s expanding a long-delayed Metro Heavy Rail line, modernizing Commuter Rail, and building a BRT circulator connecting Amtrak, Metro Heavy Rail & Commuter Rail lines. More recently, it plans to upgrade Chicago Union Station and connect underground with Oglivie Transit Center for convenient transfers between those transportation modes.

Boston South Station, an Intermodal Transportation Center, is upgrading  with more office & retail space to better host more Amtrak HSR & Regional Rail, Modernized Commuter Rail, Metro Heavy Rail, Metro Light Rail, Intercity Bus passengers. Boston recently extended 2 Metro Light Rail lines, and is modernizing Metro Heavy Rail and Commuter Rail stations.

Philadelphia 30th Street Station, an Intermodal Transportation Center, is upgrading with more office & retail space to better host more Amtrak HSR & Regional Rail, Metro Heavy Rail, Metro Light Rail, and Intercity Bus passengers. Philadelphia is also modernizing Metro Heavy Rail and Commuter Rail infrastructure to provide better service.

Washington Union Station is upgrading its intermodal transportation center with residential, office & retail space over its tracks to improve Amtrak HSR & Regional Rail, Commuter Rail, Metro Heavy Rail, and Intercity Bus service. Maryland and Virginia Commuter Rail modernizations and a Metro Light Rail line in the northern suburbs should complete in the early 2030s.

San Francisco’s Salesforce Transit Center is situated only 1.5 blocks from Metro Heavy Rail (BART), Metro Light Rail, Vintage Streetcars & Cable Cars, and 3 blocks from trans-bay Ferries. By 2032-33, a short rail tunnel will enter Salesforce Transit Center for electric-powered commuter trains and later, high-speed trains, while BART extends to downtown San Jose’s Intermodal Transportation Center.

Over 2024-27, LAX Metro Transit Center opened for Metro Light Rail connections to Inglewood, Leimert Park Village, Santa Monica, Culver City, USC, and downtown LA. Metro Light Rail lines expanded to LAX and Pomona. LAX Airport People Mover opens to LAX Metro Transit Center. A Metro Heavy Rail line extends to Los Angles Museum District, Beverly Hills & Century City. By 2028, a Metro Heavy Rail extends to Westwood near UCLA in time for the 2028 Los Angeles Summer Olympic Village.

Over 2029-50, more Metro Light Rail lines open. More electrification and railroad over/underpasses will modernize Commuter Rail and Amtrak Regional Rail heading to upgraded Los Angeles Union Station. Los Angeles is building & upgrading more Rapid Transit mileage than any other North American metro area as it heads towards a Rapid Transit Mesh Network similar to my vision map below.

Prioritize Funding to Top 20 Rapid Transit Metro Areas

Despite being the world’s only superpower capable of the most construction after World War II, America is woefully behind in Rapid Transit construction, causing productivity loss in our urban a& suburban areas.

China, Japan, North Korea, Taiwan, France, Germany, UK, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark and Austria already have dozens of Rapid Transit Mesh Networks. Nor does our Rapid Transit progress compare to the large metro areas of Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Chile, India, Thailand, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Egypt and Turkey.

On the chart below, 200 kilometers equates to 124 miles and America is building less than 50 combined miles of Metro Heavy Rail & Metro Light Rail in 2026.

In total, that’s shamefully low Rapid Transit progress in the world’s richest nation.

Yonah Freemark of The Transport Politic and Urban Institute studied the importance of Rapid Transit and increasing local bus frequency in 100,000+ population urban areas. His study reveals a strong correlation between people with no Rapid Transit access and low-frequency local bus service to higher unemployment levels. Consider that correlation as America’s Top 70 Metro Areas sprint to 2+ million population by 2050.

To avoid cutting local bus service while modernizing Commuter Rail, and expanding Metro Heavy Rail, Automated Metro Rail & Metro Light Rail, America needs $100 billion of annual combined federal, state & county transit funding.

Given their limited/absence of Rapid Transit Mesh Networks and reasonable population density over 2027-2032 , Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco-Bay Area, Philadelphia, Boston, Seattle, Miami, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Washington, Baltimore, San Diego, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Atlanta, Houston and Phoenix need much more Rail Rapid Transit funding and TOD around stations to drive up Ridership Per Mile.

NYC is already focused on two Metro line extensions and through-running Modernized Commuter Rail that expand its Mesh Network and Ridership Per Mile. Dallas, Portland and Denver have modest Mesh Networks that need significantly more station TOD to boost Ridership Per Mile before further expansion.

If our politicians invest wisely, local buses synchronized with greater Rapid Transit Mesh Networks can attract 25-40% of daily commutes in our Top 70 Metro Areas by 2050, with NYC growing to 65%.

In summary, America must accelerate Rapid Transit infrastructure progress and be complementary partners to High-Speed Rail and Regional Rail projects described in Part 6.

Part 6: Interstate High Speed Rail Progress