Those rush-hour commuter trains wouldn't do everything everybody wants (see today's story with lots of reader comment). They wouldn't take you to the basketball game or to the restaurant or the airport.
Still, according to a new study, they would be awfully attractive for thousands of students and workers every day.
That's partly because the Triangle is expected to keep growing like crazy. And it's pretty clear that we aren't going to come up with the money to expand our roadways fast enough to keep pace. So every drive to work will take longer and longer in coming years.
Commuter rail would be relatively cheap to build because we don't need much in the way of new tracks or land or environmental studies: $2 million to $9 million a mile for capital including the trains themselves, cf $50 million a mile for electric-powered light rail.
The full study looked at service from Greensboro to Goldsboro with a side track from Hillsborough to Chapel Hill. Not so much demand east of Wilson's Mills or west of Durham.
It predicted 11,150 daily riders by 2022 for the full 140-mile line.
But most of these riders, 8,238 of them, were concentrated on 50 miles between Durham and Wilson's Mills (fyi, that's east of Clayton). So that's where the first trains would be likely to start running.
That compares to ..
2,500 riders today on San Jose's 86-mile Altamont Commuter Express
4,200 on San Diego's 41-mile NCTD Coaster
8,900 on Seattle's 80-mile Sounder Commuter Rail
9,400 on the 34-mile Dallas-Fort Worth Trinity Railway Express
12,400 on Miami's 72-mile SFRTA Tri-Rail
The recommended fare would be set by zones. A trip that starts and stops in the same zone is recommended at $2. Into a second zone, $3. (That's the expected average fare, $3.) A third zone, $6, all the way to $10 for 6 zones.
How big is a zone? Raleigh is shown in the middle of a fare zone that runs for six stops from Morrisville/RDU to Garner. Wilson's Mills is at the eastern end of the next zone.
So it's $2 to ride from Garner to Morrisville, if that's your thing. It's $3 from Clayton or Wilson's Mills to Cary or Morrisville.
Durham, RTP and West Durham are in the first zone west of Morrisville. So Raleigh to Durham or RTP for example is a $3 ride.
The study authors say their assumptions are based partly on plans for big improvements in Triangle bus service. More bus routes will help make more neighborhoods accessible to rail stops.
Current plans don't include buses directly serving all the proposed 11 Triangle rail stops. Presumably our transit agencies would decide to provide those sensible bus connections, and the study authors say this would boost ridership further for commuter trains.
Maybe the predictions are wrong. Maybe the Triangle won't grow like crazy, as it has been doing for the past 30 years.
When I checked the history of growth predictions a few years ago I found a consistent trend: when forecasters predict how fast the Triangle will grow in the future, they're almost always proven wrong.
We usually find that we have grown faster than they predicted.
Bruce Siceloff reports on traffic and transportation. A News & Observer reporter, editor and blogger since 1976, he took over the
Comments
sounds fine
Wed, 05/12/2010 - 23:22 — FlowerpowerThe fare sounds fine, but isn't it moot? Because the commuter train WILL NEVER HAPPEN! It's just a pipe dream! The highways will continue to pack up, and THE COMMUTER TRAIN WILL NEVER HAPPEN!
Good points
Wed, 05/12/2010 - 18:38 — BruceSiceloff (author)There are costs with this, but are they astronomical? In this case it's almost entirely existing (not new) infrastructure -- the tracks now used by freight and a few Amtrak trains.
Adding commuter trains on existing tracks could mean getting new value out of an old investment -- not at zero cost of course, but for less than the cost of a new road or a new rail line. There would be some new infrastructure -- rail platforms, and a double track added between Cary and Durham (on existing railroad right-of-way).
For toll roads and for commuter trains and other kinds of transit that are showing up as new options, it's up to individual commuters to decide whether it's worth it to switch.
Of course most folks will stick with their cars, but the marketing study predicts that thousands would opt for rush-hour trains. We'll find out if they're right.
Economics of driving
Wed, 05/12/2010 - 12:48 — rudy1kenobiBut in any economic decision, you've got to compare the economics to another option. Let's look at a drive from Clayton to Cisco in RTP. That's 37 miles one-way. If you're getting 30 mpg (which almost nobody is getting now, but maybe in a few years they will) and paying $3.50 a gallon (which isn't the current price, but surely will be within the next year or so), you're already spending $4 each way on gas. Add in insurance and maintenance/wear and tear on your car and each day's commute easily costs you $8-10. And then you're stuck in traffic at least twice a week, and you yourself have a pretty chance of being in a fender-bender, and then even when things go smoothly it's a 37 minute drive each way in which you can't actually DO anything because you're driving (you can talk on your cell phone, sure, but that's going to bump up your risk of being in a wreck).
Whereas on the train, you might pay the same $8-10 for each day's commute, but you get to sit there and start your work day early, read a book or the paper, check e-mail, surf the web, whatever. What's that worth to the rider? Only each rider can decide, but if you're already at the breakeven point on purely economic terms, and you get some intangible benefits, the train will be a no-brainer.
more economics of driving
Wed, 05/12/2010 - 14:24 — herdingcats@ rudy1kenobi:
I'm with you on the gas expense, and I agree that it will even likely go up in the coming years. However, in factoring in the cost of insurance/wear tear/fender benders on the car are you assuming that ONLY your commute is responsible for these costs, and that they actually add another $4 to $6 a day? Or that the train will cause you to ditch your car entirely, which is really the only way to avoid the insurance/maintenance expenses on your car?
And what about us working parents who don't commute in a line, or even a circle, each day, given complications in schedules concerning other family members (who, if they also rode the train, would increase my family's overall cost)? I'm still preferring my own minivan to the train, as nifty and efficient as trains are. . . though I do wish it got better gas mileage, spewed less CO2, and came with a personal chauffeur!
More economics of driving
Wed, 05/12/2010 - 16:20 — rudy1kenobiHerdingcats,
You're right - simply owning a car incurs costs of insurance, maintenance, etc. And ditching your car entirely just isn't a good option. Recognizing that, I only threw in $0 to $2 for those costs. If you go back and look at the range of what I estimated, it was from $8 (gas only at $4 each way) to $10 (gas plus some portion of the costs of ownership).
And I don't disagree about the complications created by family commitments, doctor visits, etc etc. Trains and buses won't suit everybody or every day. In my own case, I have lots of options available to me, including mass transit, bicycle, and private car. I use each as it suits the day's needs. The net effect is that my family spends less on commuting, lowers its emissions and dependence on foreign oil, and puts a little less traffic on the road. Not perfect but if everybody had these kinds of options and used them regularly (not every day, just regularly), we could make some real progress.
economics of commuter trains
Wed, 05/12/2010 - 12:04 — herdingcatsI take issue with the insinuation that the fare will be affordable, at $3 a ride for many commuters. First of all, that's $6 round trip, and second of all that does not factor in the cost of taking these proposed new buses to get commuters to the train stations. Assuming that costs another $1 or $2 each way, you're now looking at $8 to $10 a day for most riders. Factor in the current cheap-to-nonexistent cost for parking in RTP and many other triangle business locations, and I'm predicting that unlike in cities like Miami and SF, where parking is quite pricey, many of us personal freedom-loving travelers will actually choose to stick with our cars.
BTW, the comparison of the Triangle with each other city on your list (except for Dallas, which is quite a bit larger in population and area than the Triangle) also does not work for me. The geography of all of them (except Dallas) involves a natural coastline, which encourages more density of population. Denser populations = more congestion and more expensive parking, thus increased "cost" of commuting by car. We don't have those high driving costs here in the Triangle. Again, I'm betting a lot of people will stick with their cars, even if we do all agree to pay the astronomical costs of building this new rail infrastructure.