Agenda - Economic Development Authority - 01/25/2018

Home

Rank by Ridership Table 1-1 U.S. COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEMS RANKED BY RIDERSHIP Sy stem 1 Long Island Rail Road 2 Metra 3 Metro -North Railroad 4 New Jersey Transit Rail 5 MBTA Commuter Rail 6 SEPTA Regional Rail 7 Caltrain 8 Metrolink 9 MARC Train 10 Virginia Railway Express 11 Tri-Rail 12 NICTD South Shore Line 13 Sounder Commuter Rail 14 A -Train 15 Trinity Railway Express 16 UTA FrontRunner 17 NCTD Coaster 18 New Mexico Rail Runner Express 19 Altamont Commuter Express 20 Shore Line East Northstar line 22 Capital MetroRail 23 West side Express Service 24 Music City Star Source: Economic & P lanning Systems, Inc. Commuter Rail TOD Average Weekday Route Major Cities Served Ridership Miles 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 nneapolis Austin Beaverton Nashville 352,000 304,700 298,500 276,459 130,600 127,200 41,400 39,600 33,700 19,200 163,300 12,100 10,100 8,600 8,200 5,800 5,000 3,900 700.00 495.00 384.00 951.00 368.00 289.00 77.00 512.00 187.00 90.00 72.00 90.00 80.00 21.00 34.00 44.00 41.00 97.00 Year Stations Opened 124 240 120 162 133 150 32 55 43 18 18 20 9 6 10 1836 1984 1983 1983 1973 1983 1987 1992 1984 1992 1987 1903 2000 2011 1996 8 2008 8 1995 13 2006 3,000 86.00 10 1998 2,200 59.00 13 1990 2,000 32.00 9 2010 1,600 15.00 5 2010 1,000 32.00 6 2006 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