Mass Transit Planning

[Anderson]

Today, I got a gift of sorts in the form of an overview of the transportation planning "vision" in my area. Included in the mix were:

-Three separate commuter rail lines.

-A large "light rail" network, likely incompatible with the aforementioned commuter lines (if I had to guess).

-Two streetcar lines.

-A ferry network.

-And, just to top things off, a "rapid bus" line that seems to have been thrown in for good measure (as I'm assuming that the whole vision would be integrated with the existing bus system).

The map as proposed is, granted, a multi-decade plan/wishlist, but it brings to mind an odd (albeit relevant) question: When talking about "intermodal" transport systems, how many modes is too many modes to make work together effectively? It seems that when you reach some point, you'd either run into inefficiencies in the underlying operation (having to manage 20 different types of equipment that don't even share the same general structure) or start forcing so many transfers that folks just say "screw this". Some of the parts also seem redundant (you've got light rail running around the commuter line...yes, it goes more places, but it's a tangled mess as well when you look at the map...and wouldn't it be easier to stick to streetcars or light rail in most cases, or to just do "heavy rail" overall?

 

[TransitGeek]

Remember that it may well be that different agencies will be tasked with different aspects of the operations. It's common for commuter rail to be run by a different agency than local rail and bus services, and for ferries to be similarly separated.

As far as having too many modes, the real question is whether the modes are doing the job they're supposed to do. If you've got demand for each one in the corridors they're planned to run in, and they serve the purpose that mode is supposed to serve, I say the more the merrier! That said, it does kind of sound like your local transpo agency is being a bit faddish in their planning. I can't imagine that an area with (I'm assuming) none of the above at present has the kind of particularistic data on transit travel patterns that they'd need to assign all those modes to specific spots in their infrastructure.

For more on modes and the roles they play, I recommend Jarret Walker's excellent Human Transit blog. Read the last couple of weeks, as he's right in the middle of a conversation about transit geometry and the use of various modes in places around the network.

 

[Trogdor]

Without knowing what area you're in, it's hard to say. As TransitGeek said, if they each fill a purpose for the route they're on, then it's not a bad thing.

The real question is whether each mode is truly the best one for the corridor, or whether they really are thrown in for the sake of including another mode.

Commuter rail is good for long-ish commutes (say, 45 minutes to an hour or more, depending on the area) with high potential ridership. Heavy rail is good for shorter rides in really dense zones (though you don't mention heavy rail in your list).

Light rail and streetcar are essentially the same thing (or, at least, they can be). Streetcars tend to operate more local service (like buses on rails), sometimes (but not always) in mixed traffic, whereas light rail tends to be more like your limited-stop service. In general, light rail vehicles will be larger than streetcars, but there's no rule that they have to be. The track and electrical systems (assuming overhead power) are often built to the same standards, so one could, theoretically, interchange equipment.

Ferries, well, obviously if you have large bodies of water where building a rail bridge or tunnel would be expensive or impractical, then your alternative is a boat.

BRT is good for areas that don't have the ridership potential to justify the high cost of rail, or for systems that don't have the money to build rail, or where obstacles (from NIMBYs to terrain, among others) would hamper attempts to build light rail.

Now, one thing is whether the systems complement each other (they feed a logical terminal which could be a destination in itself, or they intersect each other in such a way that would offer greater network coverage through transfer opportunities), compete with each other (BRT and light rail in the same basic corridor, maybe a few blocks apart), or if they really are intermodal for the sake of being intermodal (i.e. one mode, such as light rail, ends in the middle of nowhere where nobody would ever have a reason to go, and everybody has to get off and transfer to the BRT to continue their journey).

San Francisco is an example of a city that has most of the above (I don't think they have BRT, but they have pretty much everything else), and all the modes work pretty well for their purposes. Seattle and Vancouver have some examples of most of the above as well.

Washington, DC, has many different modes (I think they have a BRT-ish type of service, even if it isn't true BRT, to go with their heavy rail commuter rail, bus, and planned LRT/streetcar systems).

Again, the real question is, does each route make sense, and does the mode proposed for each route make sense? If you can say yes, then I wouldn't see it as a problem.

 

[George Harris]

Today, I got a gift of sorts in the form of an overview of the transportation planning "vision" in my area.

Which is what and where?

 

[Anderson]

I'm in Hampton Roads. The story here is increasingly complicated as I got to read through the EIS for increased Amtrak service in the region (I think it was a Tier 1 document) which went with adding six trains down on Southside and just adding one on the Peninsula. Basically, nobody seems to be on the same page as anybody else at any given time around here...which is probably not a big shocked when you've got nine cities and two counties that are a part of this, at a minimum.

 

[jis]

I'm in Hampton Roads. The story here is increasingly complicated as I got to read through the EIS for increased Amtrak service in the region (I think it was a Tier 1 document) which went with adding six trains down on Southside and just adding one on the Peninsula. Basically, nobody seems to be on the same page as anybody else at any given time around here...which is probably not a big shocked when you've got nine cities and two counties that are a part of this, at a minimum.

OTOH, if anything gets funded it will most likely be the EIS if approved by the designated RPAs (Regional Planning Authority) who get to select, accept or reject the proposed LPA (Locally Preferred Alternative) out of the EIS. So very often it is the EIS that is the means of getting everyone on the same page irrespective of what personal opinions or grudges they might hold.

 

[Anderson]

I'm in Hampton Roads. The story here is increasingly complicated as I got to read through the EIS for increased Amtrak service in the region (I think it was a Tier 1 document) which went with adding six trains down on Southside and just adding one on the Peninsula. Basically, nobody seems to be on the same page as anybody else at any given time around here...which is probably not a big shocked when you've got nine cities and two counties that are a part of this, at a minimum.

OTOH, if anything gets funded it will most likely be the EIS if approved by the designated RPAs (Regional Planning Authority) who get to select, accept or reject the proposed LPA (Locally Preferred Alternative) out of the EIS. So very often it is the EIS that is the means of getting everyone on the same page irrespective of what personal opinions or grudges they might hold.

Well, here's the rub:

Local planning people: "We want a long-term rail connection across the water from NPN to NFK and we want two separate commuter rail lines".

EIS: "Cross-river connection too expensive at $500-600m. Discard out-of-hand."

State Transportation Planning Folks: "Build $3 billion highway bridge to run freight across river."

Am I the only one that sees a dropped plot here? Granted, the bridge planned in the EIS was oddly placed (they said for environmental reasons) that they wanted to run it across at the JRB instead of putting it across at the MMBT (which would make routing the aforementioned commuter line easier to connect to the Norfolk Naval Base and downtown), and granted they have an obsession with light rail, but...the whole thing seems to be very filled with disconnects.