# What is a reasonable distance for commuter rail?



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 26, 2010)

Just how far can a commuter rail serve to be efficient? For example, although LIRR runs their train all the way to Montauk and Greenport, being 100 miles away, it isnt efficient to commute all the way from there.

So what is the reasonable distance that commuter rail should serve? I say about 80 miles.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Oct 26, 2010)

NICTD sells multiple ride tickets for South Bend to Chicago commuters. The Amtrak Hiawathas have daily commuters from Chicago to Milwaukee and vica versa. Both are about 90 miles. So commuter rail is certainly feasible for that distance.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 26, 2010)

Washington to Perryville is right around 90 miles as well and very popular.

Washington to Martinsburg, WV is about the same distance and much, much slower (yet still popular).


----------



## jis (Oct 26, 2010)

Also depends on the speed of the train in question. Scads of people commute from Lille to Paris by TGV, on which it is a 1 hour ride, for something like 140 miles.

In the US commuting from new York to Philadelphia is not unheard of either, which is over 90 miles.

Also whether something is called a commuter service or regional service, seems to some extent to be a matter of arbitrary definition in a relatively densely served rail network.


----------



## Ozark Southern (Oct 26, 2010)

jis said:


> Also depends on the speed of the train in question. Scads of people commute from Lille to Paris by TGV, on which it is a 1 hour ride, for something like 140 miles.
> 
> In the US commuting from new York to Philadelphia is not unheard of either, which is over 90 miles.
> 
> Also whether something is called a commuter service or regional service, seems to some extent to be a matter of arbitrary definition in a relatively densely served rail network.


We must also consider that not everyone is going to be commuting end to end. That 100-mile railroad serves many stations, and I would venture to guess that the vast majority of those commuters are travelling to stations maybe 20-30 miles apart. So a commuter railroad can feasibly be very long, as long as the population density will support it.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 26, 2010)

Chicago Metra never goes any more than 50 miles away. And even that they go sparingly, not a full time service, only during rush hours and very few at off peak times. To Kenosha.

I cant see any average American commuting from 90 miles or further away.

I ask this to see if MBTA extension to Springfield is feasible.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 26, 2010)

Regardless of what you see, many, many Americans commute from 90 or more miles away.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2010)

Well, there are people who commute from Old Saybrook to New York...


----------



## MrFSS (Oct 26, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Regardless of what you see, many, many Americans commute from 90 or more miles away.


Ask Saxman how far he commutes to go to work!


----------



## Trogdor (Oct 26, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Chicago Metra never goes any more than 50 miles away. And even that they go sparingly, not a full time service, only during rush hours and very few at off peak times. To Kenosha.


Metra runs where it does because that is the extent of the Regional Transit Authority (except for Kenosha). To go any further would require more Illinois counties to join the RTA.



> I cant see any average American commuting from 90 miles or further away.


Define "average American." I'm sure the "average" American probably doesn't commute by rail at all, yet we still have commuter trains. So...what's your point?

The issue isn't whether you'll get 50% of a population (or whatever arbitrary number you or anyone else may come up with) to use a service. It's whether or not you'll get enough usage for it to be reasonably effective given its cost (and that is something that will always be subject to debate).



> I ask this to see if MBTA extension to Springfield is feasible.


The real issue isn't about distance (pilots and flight attendants, for example, may live a thousand miles from where they work), or necessarily even travel time (there are people in some cities with ****-poor public transit who have to take two or three buses and ride an hour and a half each way to get to/from work, and are traveling less than 10 or 15 miles each way), but rather where the population lives, and where people work.

Take a look at California, and you'll see people that commute long distances each day to/from work, because housing in certain cities tends to be so expensive, that the people that work there couldn't possibly afford to live there.

So, the question is, do enough people live in Springfield and work in Boston (or vice versa) to make it worthwhile to have regular commuter service between the two cities? Do enough people make that commute on a daily basis that would benefit from having a few trains in each rush hour go back and forth?

The issue of what is "commuter" is not one that is defined by distance.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Oct 26, 2010)

I believe that the distance isn't so much the deciding factor, its about how much time, or how many transfers they have to make. The better the schedules the more people will begin to use it.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Oct 27, 2010)

Long Train Runnin said:


> I believe that the distance isn't so much the deciding factor, its about how much time, or how many transfers they have to make. The better the schedules the more people will begin to use it.


Depends on the Population densities and connecting cities and towns.........there still planning lines here in the Northeast that will be 100+ miles. But those will connect large cities and towns.


----------



## Eric S (Oct 27, 2010)

I would suggest that travel time is at least as important, and probably more important, as distance.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 27, 2010)

Travel time and distance goes hand in hand though, the further you are longer it will take. Simple math.

Even if we do invest in high speed lines, no commuter rails will be using them. And Im not counting trains like San Joaquin as commuter trains.


----------



## jis (Oct 27, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Travel time and distance goes hand in hand though, the further you are longer it will take. Simple math.
> 
> Even if we do invest in high speed lines, no commuter rails will be using them. And Im not counting trains like San Joaquin as commuter trains.


Why won't people use HSR to commute? They are used everywhere else in the world, and actually even in the US (e.g. people do use the Acela from NY to Philly quite regularly). E.g. TGV from Lille to Paris, The HSR service to Southeast of England over HS-1. I am afraid you are artificially restricting the notion to fit some preconceived idea that you have instead of considering what is common practice in various systems.

Also the math is not that simple because trains do travel at different speeds on different routes thus making commutes over longer distance more practical on higher speed lines than on lower speed lines.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 27, 2010)

I am talking about trains operated by regional agencies though.


----------



## Eric S (Oct 27, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> I am talking about trains operated by regional agencies though.


Why does it matter what entity operates the trains? That just creates an artificial constraint that may have little to do with the actual commuter market.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 27, 2010)

Because in theory agencies operated by the federal government can get more fundings than the one operated by the state. Regional agencies will never receive enough to create their own high speed rails nor is there a good reason to.


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Oct 27, 2010)

I can think of a few long rail commutes I've done (not every day tho):

1. Sacramento to Oakland (Capitol Corridor): 80 miles

2. Stockton to Oakland (San Joaquin): 80 miles

3. Stockton to San Jose (ACE Train): 80 miles

4. Portland Maine to Boston (Downeaster): 100 miles


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Oct 27, 2010)

I can think of a few long rail commutes I've done (not every day tho):

1. Sacramento to Oakland (Capitol Corridor): 80 miles

2. Stockton to Oakland (San Joaquin): 80 miles

3. Stockton to San Jose (ACE Train): 80 miles

4. Portland Maine to Boston (Downeaster): 100 miles


----------



## AlanB (Oct 27, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Because in theory agencies operated by the federal government can get more fundings than the one operated by the state. Regional agencies will never receive enough to create their own high speed rails nor is there a good reason to.


If indeed the leaked reports are correct, NJ's governor just killed a project that included a $3 Billion grant from the Fed. Amtrak only gets $1.5B or so each year.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 27, 2010)

If Amtrak ever gets enough funds to build high speed rail trains they are going to have to get 10 times more than what regional transit agencies use.


----------



## jis (Oct 27, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> If Amtrak ever gets enough funds to build high speed rail trains they are going to have to get 10 times more than what regional transit agencies use.


And yet, it is two regional rail organizations namely CA HSR and Florida HSR, and not Amtrak, that are getting the HSR funding, and you still insist that regional organizations will not get HSR funding. This thread is becoming more and more surreal by the moment IMHO.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 27, 2010)

Quite a few years ago, the Memphis Press Scimitar looked for the longest distance daily commuter into Memphis. There were many in the 50 plus mile range, The longest distance was a person the commuted from near Iuka, Mississippi to a place in Midtown Memphis. Just at 100 miles, most of it on two-lane highway. Long commutes do happen. Have a relative that did 50 miles one way for something like 15 years. If you ride Caltrain between San Francisco and San Jose, there are people that are getting both on and off at all the stops, regardless of didrection. The average load may be higher on the San Francisco end, but the ridership is far from into and out of SF only.

Time is a consideration, and along with cost probably far more important than distance. Generally it appears that the commute volume drops off significantly at some point between 45 minutes and one hour.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 27, 2010)

jis said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> > If Amtrak ever gets enough funds to build high speed rail trains they are going to have to get 10 times more than what regional transit agencies use.
> ...


I am not suggesting that they are not going to get it at all. I'm suggesting that the regional transit agencies such as MTA and MBTA will never be able to create their own high speed rail lines nor will they have reason to. CA HSR and FL High speed rails arent going to be built by LAMTA and HART respectively. The two agencies arent going to run it.


----------



## MattW (Oct 27, 2010)

So you're saying that if MNRR wanted to run 125mph trainsets, they couldn't? Aren't the Alp46as that NJT is taking delivery of (finished?) capable of 125mph (even if they aren't run that fast yet)?


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 27, 2010)

MattW said:


> So you're saying that if MNRR wanted to run 125mph trainsets, they couldn't? Aren't the Alp46as that NJT is taking delivery of (finished?) capable of 125mph (even if they aren't run that fast yet)?


I dont think they can.


----------



## jis (Oct 27, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > So you're saying that if MNRR wanted to run 125mph trainsets, they couldn't? Aren't the Alp46as that NJT is taking delivery of (finished?) capable of 125mph (even if they aren't run that fast yet)?
> ...


Of course anyone is free to think anything, but the fact is that ALP-46As are capable of running at 125mph. They are intended to do so after the MLVs are certified for 125mph. Other Regional agencies like MARC already run at 125mph. NJT's dual powered ALP-45DPs are also going to be capable of operating at 125mph in electric mode.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 27, 2010)

jis said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> > MattW said:
> ...


Well obviously the machine is capable, but is it allowed?


----------



## saxman (Oct 27, 2010)

MrFSS said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless of what you see, many, many Americans commute from 90 or more miles away.
> ...


My commute is about 1,100 miles and about 4 hours door to door. Of course I do this only about once a week and I'm probably far from the ordinary commuter.


----------



## jis (Oct 27, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Well obviously the machine is capable, but is it allowed?


As has been mentioned before currently NJT does not run trains at 125mph. However, NJT specifically ordered it with 125mph capability, which would suggest that they are not lying when they say they intend to use it at that speed on the NEC, specially for outer zone NEC expresses. Notwithstanding that MARC, a much smaller regional agency than NJT, already operates at 125mph.

If you define "commuter service" to be a service that at most travels 90 miles and does not travel at too high a speed, and is operated only by regional agencies, then by definition that is what is commuter service. However, most people do not define commuter service that way, nor in practice do they restrict commuter service within those parameters.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 27, 2010)

jis said:


> If you define "commuter service" to be a service that at most travels 90 miles and does not travel at too high a speed, and is operated only by regional agencies, then by definition that is what is commuter service. However, most people do not define commuter service that way, nor in practice do they restrict commuter service within those parameters.


This reminds me of one of my favorite cartoons:







I also find it interesting that MARC pretty much breaks all of your preconceived notions about what commuter rail should be.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 27, 2010)

As far as I know MARC does not run over 200 MPH, none of the lines and pretty sure neither Matinsburg nor Perryville is over 100 miles away from DC.

I never even said commuter rail had any specific definition. I am just saying, regional transit agencies are not capable of building high speed rails nor do they need to. Even with high speed lines hardly anyone is going to commute from 200 miles away.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 27, 2010)

It's easy to win an argument when you change the definitions to suit you.

MARC runs 125 MPH and over 80 miles, which you've claimed earlier in the thread.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 27, 2010)

Ryan said:


> It's easy to win an argument when you change the definitions to suit you.
> 
> MARC runs 125 MPH and over 80 miles, which you've claimed earlier in the thread.


Never said anything about that. I knew MARC ran fast commuter trains but they still dont serve areas outside 100 mile radius.

Or 90.

Even with 125 mph trains they arent going to be consistently that velocity.


----------



## Trogdor (Oct 27, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> As far as I know MARC does not run over 200 MPH,


Who ever said anything about 200 mph?



> none of the lines and pretty sure neither Matinsburg nor Perryville is over 100 miles away from DC.


Perhaps they aren't. But in the very opening of this thread, you cited LIRR routes that are 100 miles long, yet said that commuter trains shouldn't run that distance.



> I never even said commuter rail had any specific definition. I am just saying, regional transit agencies are not capable of building high speed rails nor do they need to. Even with high speed lines hardly anyone is going to commute from 200 miles away.


Now, who ever said anything about commuting from 200 miles away? In one post you wondered if a Springfield (I'm assuming Massachusetts, though you didn't specify)-Boston commuter line was feasible. That's just shy of 100 miles. There are already 100-mile-long commuter routes in this country, as you pointed out in the opening post.

Now that numerous people (including yourself, in your very first post, ironically) have contradicted your ideas, you're trying to change your stance just so you can be "right" with your argument.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure what the purpose of this thread is. But, I think we can safely say that nobody would commute 100,000,000 miles per day, and no commuter agency would ever get funding to build HSR line capable of running 6,375 mph. But if we find any people that do, or any trains that can run that fast, we won't count them because they don't count for the purposes of the argument I'm making.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 27, 2010)

Im not trying to argue anything. And I am going with the definition of high speed rail as anything that goes over 200 million, now this naturally means Acela is not a high speed rail, but I am also assuming US will eventually build one.

Just wondering if the idea of commuter train from Boston to Springfield is plausible. I mean if ran by your regular MBTA diesel locomotive, will people find it convenient in terms of time to get to Boston or to arrive to Springfield from Boston?

Now I admit I may have contradicted my post saying 90 mile commute or higher sounds pretty uncommon but it does happen, I know that part.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 27, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Just wondering if the idea of commuter train from Boston to Springfield is plausible.


Then perhaps you should have started a thread asking that question, rather than spend 37 posts playing word games.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 27, 2010)

Maybe, but someone brought up TGV so...


----------



## George Harris (Oct 27, 2010)

> I am going with the definition of high speed rail as anything that goes over 200 million, now this naturally means Acela is not a high speed rail, . . .


OooooKayyyy: On this basis, the Shinkansen sytem is not high speed rail. In general they top out at 270 km/h = 168 mph. The original TGV trains topped out at 300 km/h = 186 mph. Only in the last few years has anybody gone to running 350 km/h = 217 km/h. Forget the well publicised TGV run in April 2007 that got up to 574.8 km/h = 357.2 mph. Lots of planning and special features. Also lots of instrumentation and analysis. If you wnat the results, you would find that it would be easier to get the secrets of the French Atomic Bomb easier.

Using the 200 mph as a basis, then the Shinkansen is not high speed rail. The first TGV was not high speed rail. We are off into the land of nonsense now. This is playing Calvinball.

The Japanese truly are the grandfathers of modern day high speed technology, theory, and operation, and yet you are creating a definition that shuts them out of the game. I think it is time to adjust theory based on known reality, not ignore known reality where it disagrees with theory. By the way, that thought process is not unique. There is a lot of it in most fields, even where the theory can easily be disproven experimentally.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 27, 2010)

Really? 168? Never knew that.


----------



## jis (Oct 27, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Im not trying to argue anything. And I am going with the definition of high speed rail as anything that goes over 200 million, now this naturally means Acela is not a high speed rail, but I am also assuming US will eventually build one.


Goes over 200 million what? Assuming you meant 200mph, why did you choose 200mph and not 186mph which is the speed at which most of the world's current HSR systems top out? Why not 150mph? Because you want to make sure that Acela is not HSR? Or is there another cogent reason? It seems like you just try to pick up random numbers out of thin air and then carry on arguing about them, and mid-discussion you change the numbers and the discussion. That is not a very constructive way of having a purposeful discussion I am afraid.



> Just wondering if the idea of commuter train from Boston to Springfield is plausible. I mean if ran by your regular MBTA diesel locomotive, will people find it convenient in terms of time to get to Boston or to arrive to Springfield from Boston?


You can see a five page worth of discussion of this very subject on railroad.net here. Go knock yourself out


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 28, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Because in theory agencies operated by the federal government can get more fundings than the one operated by the state. Regional agencies will never receive enough to create their own high speed rails nor is there a good reason to.


NJ Transit and the MTA both operate with a level of funding that, if proportioned to current route miles, would allow Amtrak to run all the long distance rail routes various people have been dreaming about for the past 40 years. Actually, forget the proportioning thing. They could still do it without that. The idea that commuter rail is underfunded for excessive capital projects is... misguided. I'll just say three words to counter that: East Side Access.

I make my living building office chairs out of car seats and then selling them on Saturday and Sunday at the Englishtown Auction Sales flea market 20 miles or so from my home. I have several friends there that commute to this as their only place of business from places as far away as Williamsport, 205 miles away.

That Williamsport gal gets up at 3 in the morning to get there by 7:30 in the morning, works from 7:30 until about 4:00, and drives back. I will, hopefully, be moving out soon, and I'm looking to buy a home in the Hazleton/Bloomsburg area- its the rust belt, land is cheap, and I need a lot of land for my manufacturing business. I'll be commuting 140 miles to work, twice a week.

If there was a rail line that would take me from Hazleton to Englishtown (even with connections) when I don't have new product to hall, you can bet your arse I'd use it!


----------



## rrdude (Oct 28, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> As far as I know MARC does not run over 200 MPH, none of the lines and pretty sure neither Matinsburg nor Perryville is over 100 miles away from DC.
> 
> I never even said commuter rail had any specific definition. I am just saying, regional transit agencies are not capable of building high speed rails nor do they need to. Even with high speed lines hardly anyone is going to commute from 200 miles away.


You can bet your arse that if true HSR was available for a commuter run of 200, hell, even 300 miles, I would be the first to use it. But it would *have to be* true HSR, which sometimes, is counter to "commuter rail". But it could logistically be done, economically? Well, that's another question........


----------



## rrdude (Oct 28, 2010)

Trogdor said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I know MARC does not run over 200 MPH,
> ...


Thank you, you have made my night. "Good Night, and Good Luck"


----------



## acelafan (Oct 29, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Just wondering if the idea of commuter train from Boston to Springfield is plausible. I mean if ran by your regular MBTA diesel locomotive, will people find it convenient in terms of time to get to Boston or to arrive to Springfield from Boston?


Maybe we are getting hung up in the definition of commuter rail. Boston is a natural destination being the largest city, but passengers may use a proposed Springfield extension to travel to Worcester or other intermediate stations on the way to Boston. Or, people in Worcester could take the MBTA train to Springfield and then connect to Amtrak's service to Hartford or other places in Connecticut. Right now, people living in between Worcester or Springfield have to drive to one of the two cities to take an Amtrak intercity train; the MBTA extension to Springfield would provide an alternative option to driving and potentially gain other riders in central and western Massachusetts, especially if there was any sort of coordination of schedules between the agencies.

If the Worcester-Springfield and Springfield-New Haven corridor is ever truly modernized (electrified?) then I'd argue it could be equally as fast traveling Worcester-Springfield-New Haven as opposed to Worcester-Boston-New Haven.

Commuter rail does more than just provide commuters a ride to work; it is an important link in a unified rail transportation network for all sorts of travelers.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Oct 29, 2010)

acelafan said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> > Just wondering if the idea of commuter train from Boston to Springfield is plausible. I mean if ran by your regular MBTA diesel locomotive, will people find it convenient in terms of time to get to Boston or to arrive to Springfield from Boston?
> ...


Worcester would become the JCT for 2 other lines , the Woonsocket line and the Ayer line which would run limited trains acting as a connector to the Fitchburg line. Worcester would also have a line to New London , i asked Massdot if they like my purposed 2040 plan they said all but 1 line was under review or in there long term state wide plans. Springfield would become the JCT of 2 lines and Amtrak of course , Greenfield line and New Haven - Springfield line. Lawrence would become the JCT of 2 lines the Manchester / Lawrence line and Haverhill line. Boston is a pull for now in Mass , but the other cities will have there turns later this decade and the next. Of course Boston will always be New England's hub.


----------



## Pastor Dave (Oct 31, 2010)

I'm currently living in the borough of Mt. Pocono, PA - 90 miles from New York Penn Station. We have 10 buses leaving each day for the Port Authority that would arrive before the business day begins. I also hear of the back-ups at the bridges and the tunnels entering Manhattan on the radio.

Unfortunately, much of the track between the Poconos and Manhattan has either been removed or is unserviceable. But, in the long-term, reviving commuter rail for our 90 mile trip would seem to make some sense.

Dollar wise I cannot comment. I am not an economist (some say I'm not much of a pastor either :help: But, a commuter bus pass is $137.50 per week and over the long-haul I think commuter rail could be as cost effective. Then again, I could be wrong.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Oct 31, 2010)

Pastor Dave said:


> I'm currently living in the borough of Mt. Pocono, PA - 90 miles from New York Penn Station. We have 10 buses leaving each day for the Port Authority that would arrive before the business day begins. I also hear of the back-ups at the bridges and the tunnels entering Manhattan on the radio.
> 
> Unfortunately, much of the track between the Poconos and Manhattan has either been removed or is unserviceable. But, in the long-term, reviving commuter rail for our 90 mile trip would seem to make some sense.
> 
> Dollar wise I cannot comment. I am not an economist (some say I'm not much of a pastor either :help: But, a commuter bus pass is $137.50 per week and over the long-haul I think commuter rail could be as cost effective. Then again, I could be wrong.


Those 10 buses are less than 4 train cars full, do all buses leave at same time from same location and arrive at same final destination.

If railroad had to run 3 different trains on same route each only 2 cars long but with a two man crew the cost already would be more than those few buses.

add to that track maintenance etc and you see than more passengers would be needed.

expect a rail commuter pass for 90 miles to be a bit higher than bus.

as for how long should Commuter distance be, as for railroad it depends if all commuters go end to end or to various locations on same line.

For instance a commute from Old Saybrook to New York may be a bit much, but going from Old Saybrook to Stamford or Bridgeport is very doable, despite the train continouing on to New York with other commuters.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 31, 2010)

Dutchrailnut said:


> expect a rail commuter pass for 90 miles to be a bit higher than bus.


Not necessarily, MARC charges $82.50 a week for Perryville to WAS, and $95.00 for Martinsburg to WAS.

It's also a good bet that with higher capacity than the busses, trains would end up carrying more people, so the rest of your comments really don't apply.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 31, 2010)

Dave,

First, I believe that there are more buses from elsewhere within the Poconos than just what serves Mt. Pocono.

Second, Martz prices itself out of the market to some extent. Martz buses run a similar distance to Tran-Bridge which works the I-78 corridor, yet tickets are far more expensive for a ride of the same distance.

Third, it has long been the case that bus ridership is never a predictor of train ridership. There is a mindset of many that a bus isn't an acceptable form of transit, while a train is acceptable.

Fourth, the return of the train to the Poconos wouldn't just serve that market either. It will also be picking up riders from northwestern NJ.

Fifth, my mom works for a new home builder in the Poconos. After prices for houses and important things like that, one of the most often asked questions is "when will the train get here?"

So personally, and many studies seem to bear it out, think that any trains that run to Scranton will have no trouble finding enough ridership to justify their existence. No doubt some Martz riders will jump ship, while others will remain with Martz. And Martz may even pick up a few more riders. But certainly with the horrible traffic conditions in NJ, long before you ever get near NY, will convert many drivers into train riders.

By the way, while they're still a long ways from the Poconos, restoration of the first few miles of this line has started in NJ.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 31, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Third, it has long been the case that bus ridership is never a predictor of train ridership. There is a mindset of many that a bus isn't an acceptable form of transit, while a train is acceptable.


There are many examples of this floating around. Dallas DART is one. The Caltrain services are another. WMATA in the DC area is an overwhelming example. In fact by this time, the DC area would simply congeal with buses if they had to carry the WMATA ridership.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 31, 2010)

George Harris said:


> WMATA in the DC area is an overwhelming example. In fact by this time, the DC area would simply congeal with buses if they had to carry the WMATA ridership.


It would also be a whole lot more expensive too! Consider that the METRO move 2 times as many people as the buses move, yet it costs $515.8 million to run the buses and $755.7 Million to run the Metro. For just $200M more the Metro moves double the number of riders.


----------



## had8ley (Oct 31, 2010)

I know of a few people who make it from Albany to NYP daily and Hudson has seen a big influx in commuter numbers~ nice town, nice surroundings...nice place to live !


----------

