Can light rail double as commuter rail?

[IronTiger]

I made this a new topic from "Abandoned light rail track" because it was a topic that was worth discussing and I didn't want to hijack the thread (though it had long degenerated). The question is this: Houston is building a light rail system through the Inner Loop (and parts directly outside of it) to some degree of success, but every now and then the subject of commuter rail comes in, and that dredges up discussion ranging from skepticism (like how many people would actually ride it) to extremism (like demanding that HOT lanes or proposals be commuter rail).

I'm just going ahead and say that I believe that Houston needs some sort of commuter rail system, just to get that out of the way, but the question I want to ask is, do we need a separate commuter rail system to reach suburbs, or would the light rails do the trick? After all, the light rail can get to a pretty good speed, but is it the best way especially considering it would "slow down" in the city?

The popular notion that gets brought to mind is that Dallas tried that and the rail system hasn't exactly taken off. Part of the problem is it gets low ridership per mile which is something the Red Line used to pride itself on but is a terrible way of actually measuring success, and the other part of the problem is the way Dallas developed, through primarily automobile-based transportation, and the whole structure of the city makes it a bit less conducive to rail overall.

But doesn't RTD Light Rail (Denver) get decent ridership (86,900 daily ridership, 46 station system) as well as the Portland MAX (118,400 daily ridership with 87 stations)? To my knowledge, neither of those have separate commuter lines.

Instead, commuter lines are often cited for northeastern cities (if not Europe, which is another issue altogether) which not only "grew up" on trains (to illustrate, many of the Chicago suburbs were birthed as rail stations, not highway-based communities) but also much more densely packed with other cities. Chicago is close to Milwaukee, and the whole New York/Boston/Washington DC/Baltimore/Philadelphia juggernaut works well because of the proximity to each other (for a better comparison, imagine if Houston was on the Interstate 35 corridor somehow), so there's this bizarre idea that Houston needs its comprehensive inner-city light rail layout but also a second system for commuter rail. Even if downtown was the true center of town where the suburbanites commuted (it's not, what with the Energy Corridor, Uptown, and all), would it really work?

I think that it wouldn't, because with commuter rail, you're forcing people to transfer at certain points, and while you'll probably end up using transfers anyway depending on your work commute (depending on how complicated it is), it seems unnecessary, unless the commuter rail was longer than normal with not many other stops (Galveston and The Woodlands particularly, Sugar Land and Cypress area not so much). What do you think? Could the existing light rail system be expanded to commuter functions, or do you think another system is necessary? Before you answer, keep in mind that the freight lines would require major upgrades to become a commuter line (even if the railroad companies were okay with it), so if you're hinging on that, think again.

[BigFootsSocks]

What if commuter rail in Houston ran frequently, but with only 2 cars?

[cloud713]

Of course it would work. Yes it's a good idea (no transfers, LRT goes slow through the city anyways). I think a couple specific lines might be able to justify heavy rail but for the most part an LRT-commuter hybrid style system ouside of the loop would work just fine and connect people straight into our current system instead of forcing a transfer. Dallas' system hasn't been an instant hit because they didn't build where the people are, they built lines where it was easiest to get ROW, while hoping the people would one day move closer to the stations.

[Luminare]

Trains work better in a system of hierarchies. I don't know why this is so hard to understand! Why are people always looking for the cheapest solution when its also the worst possible. Light rail is good for local travel while commuter rail is for medium range travel and it goes up from there. I can only say travel to other places (as many as possible) to experience the various ways of doing things. There is definitely a middle ground which can be reached, but just settling with lightrail is the easy way out instead of properly developing a more sophisticated system especially since we have almost none currrently. I also know that this was born from that one thread talking about the test line Metro built for lightrail. OMG we...we can just use that....and and...then we can have COMMUTER RAIL! No people it doesn't work that way! Not slamming you for investigating a possible out IronTiger, but thats what this seems like. An out. An escape to something else rather than just sitting down and planning out a something that actually works. You can't frankenstein this stuff together.

[cspwal]

I think the question is could we use the light rail vehicles to do higher speed (66 mph) widespread stops outside 610, but then it feed in to the current system inside the loop.  Like what if the red line was extended, but only with 2 stops - Missouri City and Sugarland

[WestUdweller]

Since we are just now starting out with commuter rail, it should be the best of what's available now and not try to compare it to decades old systems around.  Do it right the first time and have the highest average MPH around.  Since we are starting from scratch, no reason not to. 

[Luminare]

Since we are just now starting out with commuter rail, it should be the best of what's available now and not try to compare it to decades old systems around.  Do it right the first time and have the highest average MPH around.  Since we are starting from scratch, no reason not to. 

 

Yeah because when you start to design new systems you just completely trash the old stuff. What? This isn't even how designing systems works? Yes we should create one that is unique to us, but those decades of "old systems" helps sets a foundation of knowledge that is transferable to here. Houston is a different city from most, but it isn't an anomaly and so far gone from other cities that we can't engineer or design with precedents in mind. No one said we were going to be using models from the 30's or 50's or whatever. Its the best tech possible, but utilize models of present and then design for the future. Thats how design works. The biggest hurdle is getting everyone past the current idea of what passenger rail is and the first thing they think of are freight train engines! The mistake we can not make though is just assume that we can carry lightrail to be a cure all solution. That model is destined to be a failure because yes sure it can go up to 60-70mph, but its sweet spot is in the 40-50's and best in local travel. Because houston is so expansive it would take forever to get around to far off places using light rail. Light rail would succeed as a part of a larger system.

[IronTiger]

Trains work better in a system of hierarchies. I don't know why this is so hard to understand! Why are people always looking for the cheapest solution when its also the worst possible. Light rail is good for local travel while commuter rail is for medium range travel and it goes up from there. I can only say travel to other places (as many as possible) to experience the various ways of doing things. There is definitely a middle ground which can be reached, but just settling with lightrail is the easy way out instead of properly developing a more sophisticated system especially since we have almost none currrently. I also know that this was born from that one thread talking about the test line Metro built for lightrail. OMG we...we can just use that....and and...then we can have COMMUTER RAIL! No people it doesn't work that way! Not slamming you for investigating a possible out IronTiger, but thats what this seems like. An out. An escape to something else rather than just sitting down and planning out a something that actually works. You can't frankenstein this stuff together.

See, the idea isn't to do it the cheapest way possible--a number of lines could've benefitted from being underground (water under the bridge, really), instead of screwing up roads and shooting itself in the foot by creating dramatic slowdowns.

To me, the second "commuter rail" system is an outdated concept, dating back to -and correct me if I'm wrong on this- real rail stops. I remember reading in a book that Chicago suburbs like Mount Prospect were originally true rail stops, and that figured into the commuter rail system today. Secondly, the "light rail to Sugar Land" would not work in its present state, as it would have to be double-tracked, be better integrated with the main line, and probably have to build elevated sections (because no one likes driving over 4 tracks). Plus, anything would integrate with park and rides, which does provide some of that hierarchy backbone that you refer to, and no one's suggesting that light rail be used for much farther destinations (The Woodlands or Galveston).

[Luminare]

See, the idea isn't to do it the cheapest way possible--a number of lines could've benefitted from being underground (water under the bridge, really), instead of screwing up roads and shooting itself in the foot by creating dramatic slowdowns.

To me, the second "commuter rail" system is an outdated concept, dating back to -and correct me if I'm wrong on this- real rail stops. I remember reading in a book that Chicago suburbs like Mount Prospect were originally true rail stops, and that figured into the commuter rail system today. Secondly, the "light rail to Sugar Land" would not work in its present state, as it would have to be double-tracked, be better integrated with the main line, and probably have to build elevated sections (because no one likes driving over 4 tracks). Plus, anything would integrate with park and rides, which does provide some of that hierarchy backbone that you refer to, and no one's suggesting that light rail be used for much farther destinations (The Woodlands or Galveston).

 

The way its actually used in Houston is the way its actually suppose to be used! Integrating it with the road system so that it is a quick and easy get on and get off mode of travel. its big enough like a commuter rail so that it can reach more places, but functions like a tram so that it fits into more places. The best examples of were light rail is successful is in these types of settings and gets the most ridership. Thats why the red line has been so successful, Its immediate accessibility. The thing is that Houston is just going to have to go through more growing pains because there are simply so many cars on the road and that respect between car traffic and train traffic just isn't there yet and probably would need a generation for people dealing with trains to be able to fully adjust. Its the right model, but in probably the most extreme set of circumstances (Houston).

 

"Commuter rail" is not outdated. Far from it. Again we live in the most extreme cases of decentralized cities, but guess what? That is changing. Areas developing like City Centre, etc... is the movement back to more centralized common areas and locations. You build the stations and design interesting spaces and places around those stations and it will be like gravity pulling everything towards it. Gradually the city starts to move in those directions. Thats another thing about all this too. The system has to be embedded into the city fabric and then the city begins to mold around it. It can't be some detached thing.

 

I agree that rail needs to be connected to park n rides, but they can't be subservient to park n rides needs and space. its again part of a bigger system. Thats why I think its unwise to just put it along freeways. That would just make rail a "get out of traffic free card" when it can reach so many more people at the source.

 

At least we can agree that light rail to far long locations is a warped idea. Its why I can't see it going to IAH. We would need express trains and commuter rail for that.

[Slick Vik]

I like houston's strategy what's the point of commuter rail if you can't get around once you arrive? Dallas is figuring that out and building streetcars in the city center.

[cspwal]

The idea should be to have any commuter rail system integrated into the light rail system.  Also, a big draw for a commuter train for normal commuters would be if taking the train was faster.  Faster means you don't have to wake up as early to fight traffic.  I think the point is though that we need both a decent network inside the loop and commuter rails going out.  The question is whether the commuter rail lines can just turn into a light rail line, or if you need to have the commuter rail be separated to go express to uptown, galleria, downtown, etc and make connections there.

[IronTiger]

The way its actually used in Houston is the way its actually suppose to be used! Integrating it with the road system so that it is a quick and easy get on and get off mode of travel. its big enough like a commuter rail so that it can reach more places, but functions like a tram so that it fits into more places. The best examples of were light rail is successful is in these types of settings and gets the most ridership. Thats why the red line has been so successful, Its immediate accessibility. The thing is that Houston is just going to have to go through more growing pains because there are simply so many cars on the road and that respect between car traffic and train traffic just isn't there yet and probably would need a generation for people dealing with trains to be able to fully adjust. Its the right model, but in probably the most extreme set of circumstances (Houston).

 

"Commuter rail" is not outdated. Far from it. Again we live in the most extreme cases of decentralized cities, but guess what? That is changing. Areas developing like City Centre, etc... is the movement back to more centralized common areas and locations. You build the stations and design interesting spaces and places around those stations and it will be like gravity pulling everything towards it. Gradually the city starts to move in those directions. Thats another thing about all this too. The system has to be embedded into the city fabric and then the city begins to mold around it. It can't be some detached thing.

 

I agree that rail needs to be connected to park n rides, but they can't be subservient to park n rides needs and space. its again part of a bigger system. Thats why I think its unwise to just put it along freeways. That would just make rail a "get out of traffic free card" when it can reach so many more people at the source.

 

At least we can agree that light rail to far long locations is a warped idea. Its why I can't see it going to IAH. We would need express trains and commuter rail for that.

I did not say that commuter rail was outdated, it's that the separate system for commuter rail (usually the same tracks for freight) was a bit of an outdated concept. That's not to say either that cities in the Northeast should ditch the concept entirely, for them, the dual system is grandfathered in.

I hope I didn't complicate anything with the railroads and the park and rides, because they are separate systems that run concurrently, not things to be cannibalized. That's why I've always been against placing commuter rails in the HOV/HOT lanes (generally, unless there's space, which would do well for 288S and 10W, not so much for others).

My belief is that cities which develop differently have different needs. That's part of the reason freeways are less important in Europe, because of the vastly different way they developed (after all, cities in Europe and Asia are hundreds of years old, not just a century or two, and to a lesser degree, cities in the Northeast.

Why is it then, that cities that developed their first rail systems in the 1980s and 1990s, like Portland, Denver, and even Minneapolis do not have auxiliary commuter rail? My argument is, simply, you don't need a separate system for the suburbs, only the stretch exurbs.

[mollusk]

BART is a newer build of commuter rail.  It coexists with light rail in San Francisco proper, and with bus systems in the East Bay and down the peninsula.  The only area where BART and the MUNI light rail follow the same path is through the Financial District (aka downtown).

 

A few things about commuter rail, at least in the classic sense, that make it superior to ramping up our light rail:  Because it is a system on its own ROW, it doesn't have the limitations on train length that we're stuck with on light rail because of the size of downtown blocks.  Also, they can open it up to speeds well in excess of what the light rail can do if pushed to its limit.  Finally, one can typically go from car to car while the train is moving (though why one would do so absent some sort of amenity in a different car is a bit perplexing).

[rechlin]

First, we should establish what is the difference between commuter rail and light rail. I can think of three differences:

 

1. Much greater distances between stops

2. Faster cars

3. More comfortable seating

 

The first has nothing to do with the type of rail cars being used.  The second is somewhat related, but because our light rail cars can go 66 mph, there is very little speed to be gained from a traditional commuter rail system (since we're not talking high-speed rail).  The third is only an issue with longer routes.  As I recall, the proposed commuter rail line to Missouri City is only something like 8 miles long.  There's no need for commuter rail cars for that short of a distance.

 

The northern terminus of the Red Line to the Woodlands is something like 25 miles.  That's getting close to seeing a benefit from more comfortable cars than we currently have, but it's probably right on the edge.

 

So I think there really is no difference for us at the present time between light rail and commuter rail other than the number of stops.  As long as any rail lines going outside 610 don't have frequent stops (stops at IAH, Spring, and the Woodlands for a north line, for example, or stops in Cypress and Jersey Village for a northwest line) and don't run on city streets, I think we can call them commuter rail even if we keep running the same cars on them.

[cspwal]

How fast do you think would be reasonable for a grade separated commuter train?  I was thinking more like 80-85 mph range when going flat out 

[cloud713]

First, we should establish what is the difference between commuter rail and light rail. I can think of three differences:

 

1. Much greater distances between stops

2. Faster cars

3. More comfortable seating

 

The first has nothing to do with the type of rail cars being used.  The second is somewhat related, but because our light rail cars can go 66 mph, there is very little speed to be gained from a traditional commuter rail system (since we're not talking high-speed rail).  The third is only an issue with longer routes.  As I recall, the proposed commuter rail line to Missouri City is only something like 8 miles long.  There's no need for commuter rail cars for that short of a distance.

 

The northern terminus of the Red Line to the Woodlands is something like 25 miles.  That's getting close to seeing a benefit from more comfortable cars than we currently have, but it's probably right on the edge.

 

So I think there really is no difference for us at the present time between light rail and commuter rail other than the number of stops.  As long as any rail lines going outside 610 don't have frequent stops (stops at IAH, Spring, and the Woodlands for a north line, for example, or stops in Cypress and Jersey Village for a northwest line) and don't run on city streets, I think we can call them commuter rail even if we keep running the same cars on them.

great post!

exactly my feelings as well.. the only difference between this commuter style rail and our light rail are the number of stations and the fact the ROW isn't in the middle of a street. and yeah The Woodlands (eventually extending to Conroe) could stand to have "real" commuter rail, along with a Galveston line, as IronTiger originally said, but beyond that (and maybe an inner city subway line down Westheimer branching north through west Midtown and then along Smith through downtown.. lol) i don't think Houston really has a need for "heavy commuter" rail. we should probably focus on LRT/commuter hybrid spurs off our LRT system that run straight onto the inner city light rail line (like the planned Missouri City route [that will hopefully one day be extended to Sugar Land?]). for instance, a Westpark hybrid commuter line could have every other train branch off north along the Uptown line or continue east merging onto the University Line.

[skwatra]

First, we should establish what is the difference between commuter rail and light rail. I can think of three differences:

 

1. Much greater distances between stops

2. Faster cars

3. More comfortable seating

 

You're missing an important factor: capacity. For a true commuter train, you are going to have more than 2 cars, and you won't be able to use the existing light rail stops.

 

Los Angeles is an example of a later built (compared to east coast) combination of light rail, heavy rail, and commuter lines built on extentions of each other, in a sprawled out city.

 

[IronTiger]

Well, California cities are another beast in themselves, having developed after the East but before the South. Back in the early 20th century, San Francisco had about 300k people compared to 44k for Houston (LA clocks in at about 100k).

[cloud713]

Yeah but the light rail vehicles carry 230 people each. That's 460 people for our double trains. During rush hour they might be able to get creative with connecting trains or just have a few 4 car trains run at peak hours between Fannin South and Missouri City/Sugar Land? But outside of possibly a few key runs in the morning and evenings I think the 460 person capacity is more than enough.

[skwatra]

I was just bringing up LA as an example since it hadn't come up in this thread. I understand its a different animal, but its a car-centric sprawling city with established system that is still expanding, with some successes and some failures.

 

Anways, i didn't realize our double trains can hold 460 passengers. The Park and Ride commuter buses hold 50 (seated)? Looking at the Gulf corridor, because I'm familiar with it and used to ride it often, they have 9 buses per hour peak, and they are mostly full with standing room on occasion. So one double train could hold an hour of today's capacity, impressive.

 

So as an example, if we were to extend the Purple line down to the Bay Area Park and Pool, that would be ~17 miles. Factoring in 2 stops (Fuqua and Monroe) and 60 mph between stops this would take ~25 minutes. Then add 22 minutes on the Purple Line current stops/schedule to get to Rusk, so 47 minutes total.

 

Current commute from the Bay Area Park and Ride to central downtown is ~40 minutes (barring no accidents in HOV or breakdowns).

 

[cspwal]

They can hold 460 passengers (double cars) but that includes standing room.  If you have an hour long commute into downtown from Sugarland, I don't think you're going to want to stand that whole way 

[Slick Vik]

I was just bringing up LA as an example since it hadn't come up in this thread. I understand its a different animal, but its a car-centric sprawling city with established system that is still expanding, with some successes and some failures.

Anways, i didn't realize our double trains can hold 460 passengers. The Park and Ride commuter buses hold 50 (seated)? Looking at the Gulf corridor, because I'm familiar with it and used to ride it often, they have 9 buses per hour peak, and they are mostly full with standing room on occasion. So one double train could hold an hour of today's capacity, impressive.

So as an example, if we were to extend the Purple line down to the Bay Area Park and Pool, that would be ~17 miles. Factoring in 2 stops (Fuqua and Monroe) and 60 mph between stops this would take ~25 minutes. Then add 22 minutes on the Purple Line current stops/schedule to get to Rusk, so 47 minutes total.

Current commute from the Bay Area Park and Ride to central downtown is ~40 minutes (barring no accidents in HOV or breakdowns).

Do you know LA had thousands of miles of streetcar tracks at one point? It only become car centric because of certain nefarious actions that took place.

[august948]

Do you know LA had thousands of miles of streetcar tracks at one point? It only become car centric because of certain nefarious actions that took place.

 

 

[IronTiger]

Don't encourage him.

[Ross]

Do you know LA had thousands of miles of streetcar tracks at one point? It only become car centric because of certain nefarious actions that took place.

 

Thousands? A single thousand, maybe. Good article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Electric

 

Keep in mind that most of the streetcar operations were gone by 1960, and, absent a time machine, are irrelevant to today's conversation, regardless of whether the causes of the decline were nefarious or because residents of cities in the South and Southwest realized that cars were a great thing that opened up a myriad of new lifestyle options.

 

[Slick Vik]

Thousands? A single thousand, maybe. Good article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Electric

Keep in mind that most of the streetcar operations were gone by 1960, and, absent a time machine, are irrelevant to today's conversation, regardless of whether the causes of the decline were nefarious or because residents of cities in the South and Southwest realized that cars were a great thing that opened up a myriad of new lifestyle options.

1500 miles of track. Not sure how lifestyles changed, if anything made them attached to their cars and took away movement to move around otherwise. There's a reason Los Angeles is spending billions on rail lines now, back to the future.

[mollusk]

As usual, everybody is right, and everybody is wrong, in the sense that it's a whole lot more complex than any one simple meme.  Here's a decent short article: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/06/be-careful-how-you-refer-so-called-great-american-streetcar-scandal/5771/

[IronTiger]

They can hold 460 passengers (double cars) but that includes standing room.  If you have an hour long commute into downtown from Sugarland, I don't think you're going to want to stand that whole way

Yeah, and there's one advantage of a "commuter rail" system that the current HOV/HOT lanes do not have...the advantage of two way traffic. Assuming it's not a complete failure, if it gets full enough (or at least enough so it's relatively comfortable for mass transit), then another train can be coming down the tracks for the next bunch.

 

I was just bringing up LA as an example since it hadn't come up in this thread. I understand its a different animal, but its a car-centric sprawling city with established system that is still expanding, with some successes and some failures.

 

Anways, i didn't realize our double trains can hold 460 passengers. The Park and Ride commuter buses hold 50 (seated)? Looking at the Gulf corridor, because I'm familiar with it and used to ride it often, they have 9 buses per hour peak, and they are mostly full with standing room on occasion. So one double train could hold an hour of today's capacity, impressive.

 

So as an example, if we were to extend the Purple line down to the Bay Area Park and Pool, that would be ~17 miles. Factoring in 2 stops (Fuqua and Monroe) and 60 mph between stops this would take ~25 minutes. Then add 22 minutes on the Purple Line current stops/schedule to get to Rusk, so 47 minutes total.

 

Current commute from the Bay Area Park and Ride to central downtown is ~40 minutes (barring no accidents in HOV or breakdowns).

That's still a very comparable route, especially clocking in other factors (parking vs. fares, unpredictable freeway patterns, etc.)

 

 

First, we should establish what is the difference between commuter rail and light rail. I can think of three differences:

 

1. Much greater distances between stops

2. Faster cars

3. More comfortable seating

 

The first has nothing to do with the type of rail cars being used.  The second is somewhat related, but because our light rail cars can go 66 mph, there is very little speed to be gained from a traditional commuter rail system (since we're not talking high-speed rail).  The third is only an issue with longer routes.  As I recall, the proposed commuter rail line to Missouri City is only something like 8 miles long.  There's no need for commuter rail cars for that short of a distance.

 

The northern terminus of the Red Line to the Woodlands is something like 25 miles.  That's getting close to seeing a benefit from more comfortable cars than we currently have, but it's probably right on the edge.

 

So I think there really is no difference for us at the present time between light rail and commuter rail other than the number of stops.  As long as any rail lines going outside 610 don't have frequent stops (stops at IAH, Spring, and the Woodlands for a north line, for example, or stops in Cypress and Jersey Village for a northwest line) and don't run on city streets, I think we can call them commuter rail even if we keep running the same cars on them.

Well, I was less concerned about cars than actual physically different tracks, because from my perspective, barring certain examples, commuter rail will run on the same 1435mm standard gauge track a freight train will run on, which usually involves the separate whole system from light rail (or whatever else), and that's not even Amtrak, which is more suited to the "80-85 mph" figure cited above. The few cars and well, weight, of the light rail make it easier overall to go up and down inclines to bypass roads (or go underground), while still being okay to cross roads at grade (being at-grade makes a whole lot easier for disability access, which is one of the challenges that NY has to deal with).

Logistically, one of the main things about, say, going to Sugar Land, is going outside the METRO jurisdiction and outside of the METRO tax, but the point is, I think it could double as commuter rail quite nicely.

[cspwal]

The light rail, at least in Houston, is the same standard gauge as the freight trains.  I'm sure though that is the only similarity they share with the freight rails - one's designed and mainted for a mile long train of 100 ton cars moving at 50 mph pulled by a diesel locomotive, while the other is designed for just two 50 ton passenger cars going up to 66 mph running off of over head wires.

 

Wasn't there something about Pearland's park and ride that Metro was going to operate, but couldn't because Pearland already had a high sales tax?  Would that have the same impact for Sugarland?

[Montrose1100]

I'm a little late to the party and it may be silly to compare our system to a system in Europe, but I've rode the Cologne light rail system enough to feel like I can make a fare comparison.

Anyways, it can work, but only so far. In the inner city, the stations are closer, and some are on the streets (even in some suburbs). Outside of the central core, the stations are less frequent and the tracks are separated from the street grid, allowing faster speeds. It works well, but only so far a distance. I could see the same system being implemented maybe within the the beltway here in Houston, but only if the tracks are off of the street grid. It could connect most of the business districts and suburban areas in the beltway.

Past the beltway we would need a seperate commuter rail. How we could connect the two would be a seperate task, but why not have both? Most cities do, and as far spread out as Houston is we would seriously need it. There's no way light rail would work as a commuter rail out to Katy, The Woodlands, Kingwood, Cypress, Clear Lake, Galveston, etc.