Agenda - Council Work Session - 09/24/2013

Home

Rank by Ridership 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Mir 22 23 24 Table 1-1 U.S. COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEMS RANKED BY RIDERSHIP Sy stem Long Island Rail Road Metra Metro -North Railroad New Jersey Transit Rail MBTA Commuter Rail SEPTA Regional Rail Caltrain Metrolink MARC Train Virginia Railway Express Tri-Rail NICTD South Shore Line Sounder Commuter Rail A -Train Trinity Railway Express UTA FrontRunner NCTD Coaster New Mexico Rail Runner Express Altamont Commuter Express Shore Line East Northstar Line Capital MetroRail West side Express Service Music City Star Source Economic & Planning Systems, Inc Commuter Rail TOD Major Cities Served New York Chicago New York New York.Philadelphia Boston Philadelphia San Francisco/San Jose Los Angeles Baltimore/Washington D.C. Washington D.C. Miami Chicago Seattle/Tacoma Denton Dallas/Fort Worth Salt Lake City San Diego Albuquerque San Jose New Haven 1V1inne apolis Austin Beaverton Nashville Average Weekday Route Year Ridership Miles Stations Opened 352,000 700.00 124 1836 304,700 495.00 240 1984 298,500 384.00 120 1983 276,459 951.00 162 1983 130,600 368.00 133 1973 127,200 289.00 150 1983 41,400 77.00 32 1987 39,600 512.00 55 1992 33,700 187.00 43 1984 19,200 90.00 18 1992 163,300 72.00 18 1987 12,100 90.00 20 1903 10,100 80.00 9 2000 8,600 21.00 6 2011 8,200 34.00 10 1996 5,800 44.00 8 2008 5,000 41.00 8 1995 3,900 97.00 13 2006 10 1998 13 1990 6 2009 9 2010 1,600 15.00 5 2010 1,000 32.00 6 2006 3,000 86.00 2,200 59.00 2,000 32.00 Commuter rail TOD opportunities are also different than those associated with light rail or heavy rail systems due to its more limited scope, both in terms of frequency of service as well as the portion of the region that easily can be accessed by transit. Both factors limit the accessibility premiums that translate to increases in real estate market demand and higher land values. The nature of the commuter -freight rail corridor can also be less compatible with adjacent TOD. The sound levels associated with diesel locomotives and horns are louder, there are often larger transit parking fields, and the frequency of freight rail trains all creates land use impacts that are less compatible with residential and office -based employment development. The existing land development pattern in commuter rail corridors is also often not compatible with TOD, as it can include manufacturing and distribution uses requiring direct rail service as well as other heavy industrial uses which have located near like uses and away from residential and community serving commercial uses. Despite these limitations, there remains a great deal of interest in TOD at commuter station locations, and in particular on these newer lines where the land use and development pattern is less fully built out. There are a number of principles that apply to capitalizing on TOD opportunities at commuter rail station locations. A station area plan is key as it provides direction for the preferred land uses to be developed within a station influence area over a long- term time horizon of 20 to 25 years. The typical area of influence is approximately a half -mile radius modified by logical roadway and geographic features. In addition to the land use element, the plan should be grounded by a market study that identifies the potentials for TOD land uses. 1-5