“There has not been a single case anywhere in the world where new roadways solved congestion”

[kylejack]

I would dispute that. I don't have hard numbers, but it definitely costs less to maintain a strip of concrete than a track *and* many dozen rolling stock rail cars. And it would get even worse if you look at the taxpayer cost per user (since that concrete moves a lot more people).

I'm not so sure about that. Keep in mind that you'll need to incorporate the cost of owning and maintaining a car into the taxpayer cost per user on the freeway side. Users of freeways or rail will end up paying for both the road/rail and the vehicle that runs on it one way or another.

[ToryGattis]

I'm not so sure about that. Keep in mind that you'll need to incorporate the cost of owning and maintaining a car into the taxpayer cost per user on the freeway side. Users of freeways or rail will end up paying for both the road/rail and the vehicle that runs on it one way or another.

No, actually, that's exactly why I said "*taxpayer* cost per user". Private costs are private costs. You can choose to drive a Prius or a Hummer, or ride a bus, vanpool, or carpool. Government's job is to move the most people at the lowest expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

Government's job is not minimizing total costs. If it was, it could also minimize housing costs by building nothing but concrete apartment towers and forcing us all to live in them, but that approach has been tried elsewhere in the world and failed pretty spectacularly.

Here's my argument for the right commuter transit solution for Houston, and it's most definitely not commuter rail.

http://www.chron.com...tro-4139396.php

[Slick Vik]

No, actually, that's exactly why I said "*taxpayer* cost per user". Private costs are private costs. You can choose to drive a Prius or a Hummer, or ride a bus, vanpool, or carpool. Government's job is to move the most people at the lowest expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

Government's job is not minimizing total costs. If it was, it could also minimize housing costs by building nothing but concrete apartment towers and forcing us all to live in them, but that approach has been tried elsewhere in the world and failed pretty spectacularly.

Here's my argument for the right commuter transit solution for Houston, and it's most definitely not commuter rail.

http://www.chron.com...tro-4139396.php

With all due respect, just having a bunch of buses are not the answer. They are slow, loud, uncomfortable, pollute, and have no right of way, they also move less people then rail at the same time period. Even the best bus rapid system in bogota has become a collosal failure because rail is the final answer. The whole world has figured that out, houstonians and San antonioans for that matter are too fiercely proud for their own good.

[ToryGattis]

With all due respect, just having a bunch of buses are not the answer. They are slow, loud, uncomfortable, pollute, and have no right of way, they also move less people then rail at the same time period. Even the best bus rapid system in bogota has become a collosal failure because rail is the final answer. The whole world has figured that out, houstonians and San antonioans for that matter are too fiercely proud for their own good.

Slow - 65mph nonstop in the HOV/HOT lanes vs. ~30mph commuter rail with stops. Then there's the transfers and walking with commuter rail vs. circulation among buildings by buses.

Loud - have you been on commuter rail?

Uncomfortable - have you been on commuter rail when it's full? People standing in the aisles strap-hanging? Or, God forbid, what happens in Tokyo with the train cramming?

Pollute - see earlier points about diesel and coal-based electricity for trains. Buses can run on hybrid drivetrains and natural gas.

No RoW - that's what an HOV/HOT lane is

And that doesn't even get into the astronomical costs of commuter rail.

As a compliment to the op-ed I linked to before, check out my TEDx talk starting at minute 8. It explains where commuter rail works and where it doesn't.

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2011/11/my-tedx-houston-talk-mostly-about.html

[IHB2]

this thread sure veered away from the point of the o.p.

"solving" congestion is not possible under any mode of transportation in a growing urban area, but I think it's interesting that most of the commenters here ignore the non-commuter traffic on the region's freeways/tollways. common sense (but I have no data) indicates the I-10 expansion accomodates more non-commuter traffic than the gain that might have been realized by reducing the # of commuter vehicles with the 1 rail line ROW that was eliminated.

[RedScare]

Slow - 65mph nonstop in the HOV/HOT lanes vs. ~30mph commuter rail with stops. Then there's the transfers and walking with commuter rail vs. circulation among buildings by buses.

Loud - have you been on commuter rail?

Uncomfortable - have you been on commuter rail when it's full? People standing in the aisles strap-hanging? Or, God forbid, what happens in Tokyo with the train cramming?

Pollute - see earlier points about diesel and coal-based electricity for trains. Buses can run on hybrid drivetrains and natural gas.

No RoW - that's what an HOV/HOT lane is

And that doesn't even get into the astronomical costs of commuter rail.

As a compliment to the op-ed I linked to before, check out my TEDx talk starting at minute 8. It explains where commuter rail works and where it doesn't.

http://houstonstrate...stly-about.html

I get the impression that you haven't been on buses...even commuter buses. I have, and they can be every bit as uncomfortable (actually, moreso) as commuter trains.

I've never wasted much time commenting on your "buses uber alles" op-ed, mostly because I know that no one took it seriously. But, your pipe dream is exactly that. The cost of running buses from all those park and ride lots to every employment center would be ridiculous. The ridership would be near zero for most of them. The ridership for the park and rides now are at those levels for a simple reason...the most densely populated employment center is downtown. Even those few park and ride buses that make an occasional trip to the Med Center or Greenway also stop downtown to make the trips worth it.

You, and other concrete loving pundits, make the same wrong assumption every time you make these arguments. You assume that the free market makes everything more efficient, including transit. And, frankly, you could not be more wrong. What makes transit more efficient is having more people going to the same place! In this sense, making transit flexible makes it less efficient. Making it rigid...and therefore predictable...allows people to rely on it. Predictability begets efficiency. Therefore, rail lines are more predictable than bus lines. This also applies to freeways. They are very predictable. Park and Rides do provide a good level of predictability due to the infrastructure currently employed. However, your claim that buses pulling into church parking lots and leaving full of commuters to various destinations is simply not going to happen. Why? Because there is no predictability. And commuters hate unpredictability.

You often make the argument about free markets and buses being flexible enough to change. What you always miss, or ignore, is that development seeks predictability. New subdivisions sprout where freeways are nearby. They would also sprout near rail lines. And, once laid, neither the freeway nor the rail line is going anywhere. Commuters like knowing that. What they do NOT like is Tory's Bus Service constantly changing bus routes and schedules to maximize his profits, which is exactly what your proposal would do.

It is not surprising that a consultant who loves to drive his car on freeways would have little insight into what commuters find important. But, for your suggestions to be taken seriously, you are going to have to try.

[RedScare]

I should probably point out that Tory and I agree on two pretty important points. One is that the Park and Ride system is a very good use of scarce transit resources, especially when measured against the cost of building commuter rail to each of the locations currently served by the Park and Rides. Two, we both agree that light rail in the fairly confined area of the inner loop employment centers is a proper use of rail transit. Where we diverge is in the efficiency of commuter buses from various suburban locales to numerous employment centers, as well as the folly of ignoring commuter desires of predictability, and worse, trumpeting "flexibility" as good in transit planning. Flexibility of routes is the enemy of high capacity transit. Tory's idea of running commuter buses all over town takes a well thought out idea of commuter bus transit to its inefficient extreme. It is as costly and foolhardy as replacing successful park and ride buses with commuter rail.

[ToryGattis]

The op-ed has actually gotten a lot of positive feedback, including from the Mayor.

Buses wouldn't run empty. If there's little demand on a route, don't run the route, or use a smaller vehicle with less frequent service. That's why the private market needs to be involved - to figure out where there is demand and meet it.

The HOT lanes, run correctly, should provide pretty solid reliability.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Employers are not going to suddenly re-centralize. Focusing transit on downtown (whether Houston, Dallas, or others) has not moved much if any employment growth downtown. "Build it and they will come" doesn't work.

[Houston19514]

The cost of running buses from all those park and ride lots to every employment center would be ridiculous. The ridership would be near zero for most of them. The ridership for the park and rides now are at those levels for a simple reason...the most densely populated employment center is downtown. Even those few park and ride buses that make an occasional trip to the Med Center or Greenway also stop downtown to make the trips worth it.

.

If there is not sufficient traffic to justify park and ride bus service to the non-downtown employment centers, how can anyone think there would ever be sufficient demand to justify commuter rail that would serve those employment centers?

[IHB2]

If there is not sufficient traffic to justify park and ride bus service to the non-downtown employment centers, how can anyone think there would ever be sufficient demand to justify commuter rail that would serve those employment centers?

good question. and Red and Tory both seem to acknowledge something that hopefully is coming into clearer focus for the rail at any cost proponents - TOD or any kind of urbanist-favored development doesn't necessarily follow the establishment of LRT circulator lines.

it may be the other way around - committing to the expense of both LRT and commuter rail may only make sense in a decentralized car city like Houston if it follows the development. that's the way it has always worked with highway capacity, and while that may be inefficient in addressing congestion (SH288 the latest example), it is highly efficient in directing scarce transportation tax $$$ to where they are most effectively spent.

[mfastx]

Not shut down - just riding mostly empty. Buses in HOT lanes also take pressure off, and can be used by cars the rest of the day too.

This is true, however this isn't the case in Houston today. The HOV lanes are closed most of the time and are only open during peak periods. Same for HOT lanes. The Katy Tollway is an exception.

I would dispute that. I don't have hard numbers, but it definitely costs less to maintain a strip of concrete than a track *and* many dozen rolling stock rail cars. And it would get even worse if you look at the taxpayer cost per user (since that concrete moves a lot more people).

Sure, taxpayers pay more money per rider for public transit than they do highways (I'm assuming this is correct) but in most cases around the country, the taxpayers cost per rider for rail is far less than the cost per bus rider. In Houston, METRO (tax payers) pay over $4 everytime someone gets on a bus, but METRO only pays around $1.50 every time someone gets on the Red Line. If you look at the data, you'll see those trends in other transit agencies around the country.

And considering that freeway expansion costs billions every few decades, I'm not quite so sure that freeways are cheaper per rider than public transit. They might be, but the numbers might be closer than you think.

[ToryGattis]

This is true, however this isn't the case in Houston today. The HOV lanes are closed most of the time and are only open during peak periods. Same for HOT lanes. The Katy Tollway is an exception.

Sure, taxpayers pay more money per rider for public transit than they do highways (I'm assuming this is correct) but in most cases around the country, the taxpayers cost per rider for rail is far less than the cost per bus rider. In Houston, METRO (tax payers) pay over $4 everytime someone gets on a bus, but METRO only pays around $1.50 every time someone gets on the Red Line. If you look at the data, you'll see those trends in other transit agencies around the country.

And considering that freeway expansion costs billions every few decades, I'm not quite so sure that freeways are cheaper per rider than public transit. They might be, but the numbers might be closer than you think.

The future model is round-the-clock HOT lanes like the Katy Tollway. But, yes, they way they are now they are not fully utilized. No reason they couldn't be, though, if Metro was willing to keep them open.

The per rider cost of bus vs. rail is a little misleading for two reasons. One is that ignores the very high capital cost of the rail. And two is that transit agencies have an obligation to serve a geographic area with buses. That means lots of very underutilized routes just to serve remote areas with little demand. Rail is (usually) only built where there is strong demand - the Main St. line being a great example. And that demand is enhanced by plugging in local bus routes with transfers.

[Slick Vik]

Slow - 65mph nonstop in the HOV/HOT lanes vs. ~30mph commuter rail with stops. Then there's the transfers and walking with commuter rail vs. circulation among buildings by buses.

Loud - have you been on commuter rail?

Uncomfortable - have you been on commuter rail when it's full? People standing in the aisles strap-hanging? Or, God forbid, what happens in Tokyo with the train cramming?

Pollute - see earlier points about diesel and coal-based electricity for trains. Buses can run on hybrid drivetrains and natural gas.

No RoW - that's what an HOV/HOT lane is

And that doesn't even get into the astronomical costs of commuter rail.

As a compliment to the op-ed I linked to before, check out my TEDx talk starting at minute 8. It explains where commuter rail works and where it doesn't.

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2011/11/my-tedx-houston-talk-mostly-about.html

Commuter rail is not 30 mph. I rode BART and skytrain recently and both were very fast. And I've never ridden a train that was louder or more uncomfortable than a bus. This comes from someone who goes to India often

[ToryGattis]

Commuter rail is not 30 mph. I rode BART and skytrain recently and both were very fast. And I've never ridden a train that was louder or more uncomfortable than a bus. This comes from someone who goes to India often

Net speed including stops. They of course go much faster than that between stops. The advantage of the express buses is they don't stop until they are circulating inside the job center.

This says they average 35-45mph. It's all about how many stops you have, how long you stop, and different accelerations of diesel vs. electric.

http://www.nefrla.com/What_is_Commuter_Rail.pdf

[RedScare]

Net speed including stops. They of course go much faster than that between stops. The advantage of the express buses is they don't stop until they are circulating inside the job center.

This says they average 35-45mph. It's all about how many stops you have, how long you stop, and different accelerations of diesel vs. electric.

http://www.nefrla.co...mmuter_Rail.pdf

It is more than a bit disingenuous to list the top speed for the buses, then turn around and claim you cannot use top speed for trains, but only average speed. The buses do not average 65 mph, either. And, if it is a non-stop route, you run into the same problem of low ridership that I mentioned earlier.

The fact is, all things being equal, commuter trains and express buses have nearly identical average speeds.

Just to use one non-stop bus example, the Park N Ride from Grand Parkway is a non-stop route on a brand new HOT lane into downtown. At 7:15 am, it takes 35 minutes to travel 26 miles to the first downtown stop at Smith and Prairie. This averages out to 44.5 mph for the trip. To get to the last downtown stop at Smith and St. Joseph takes 47 minutes, averaging 35 mph. Conveniently, this 35-45 mph average for the non-stop bus on a new HOT lane is identical to the "net speed including stops" that you quoted above for the commuter train.

[ToryGattis]

It is more than a bit disingenuous to list the top speed for the buses, then turn around and claim you cannot use top speed for trains, but only average speed. The buses do not average 65 mph, either. And, if it is a non-stop route, you run into the same problem of low ridership that I mentioned earlier.

The fact is, all things being equal, commuter trains and express buses have nearly identical average speeds.

I disagree. Consider the Galveston rail from Clear Lake they were considering a while back. The diesel train would have stopped every few miles to pick up commuters going downtown. 40mph net seems reasonable. The existing P&R service gets in an HOV lane and doesn't stop until it's downtown. Thinner routes just require smaller, less frequent vehicles to ensure sufficient ridership. Yes, the bus will obviously be going much slower once it exits and circulates in the job center, but the rail certainly doesn't drop you off anywhere near your building.

Of course, you could run express trains. But now you're talking about completely filling a train in one or two stops and then sending it downtown - not easy to do. Probably would require very infrequent trains. Certainly much lower frequency than buses.

[Houston19514]

It is more than a bit disingenuous to list the top speed for the buses, then turn around and claim you cannot use top speed for trains, but only average speed. The buses do not average 65 mph, either. And, if it is a non-stop route, you run into the same problem of low ridership that I mentioned earlier.

The fact is, all things being equal, commuter trains and express buses have nearly identical average speeds.

Just to use one non-stop bus example, the Park N Ride from Grand Parkway is a non-stop route on a brand new HOT lane into downtown. At 7:15 am, it takes 35 minutes to travel 26 miles to the first downtown stop at Smith and Prairie. This averages out to 44.5 mph for the trip. To get to the last downtown stop at Smith and St. Joseph takes 47 minutes, averaging 35 mph. Conveniently, this 35-45 mph average for the non-stop bus on a new HOT lane is identical to the "net speed including stops" that you quoted above for the commuter train.

It is equally disingenuous to compare the speed of commuter rail taking passengers only to the outer edge of downtown with the speed of commuter buses to their last stop downtown. A fair comparison must calculate the time of the entire commute; for commuter rail that will include either a transfer to light rail/bus or a long walk.

[RedScare]

It is equally disingenuous to compare the speed of commuter rail taking passengers only to the outer edge of downtown with the speed of commuter buses to their last stop downtown. A fair comparison must calculate the time of the entire commute; for commuter rail that will include either a transfer to light rail/bus or a long walk.

I only responded to Tory's post and examples. Therefore, your gripe is with him. I encourage you...and Tory...to make actual apples to apples comparisons. I will be anxiously awaiting your contribution to this topic.

[RedScare]

I disagree. Consider the Galveston rail from Clear Lake they were considering a while back. The diesel train would have stopped every few miles to pick up commuters going downtown. 40mph net seems reasonable. The existing P&R service gets in an HOV lane and doesn't stop until it's downtown. Thinner routes just require smaller, less frequent vehicles to ensure sufficient ridership. Yes, the bus will obviously be going much slower once it exits and circulates in the job center, but the rail certainly doesn't drop you off anywhere near your building.

Of course, you could run express trains. But now you're talking about completely filling a train in one or two stops and then sending it downtown - not easy to do. Probably would require very infrequent trains. Certainly much lower frequency than buses.

I'd love to consider the Galveston rail from Clear Lake as an example, but you have linked nothing for us to look at. You haven't even told us where the stops would be. You also haven't compared it to an actual P&R schedule. That was my point in the previous post. When you compare an actual functioning P&R to an actual train, the times aren't much different.

This may be a good time to compare both your argument for buses and the pro-rail arguments. Both of you make some good points. But, then both of you start making unsupported claims that undermine your arguments. Express buses (P&R) can be equally or slightly faster than commuter rail. They can also be slightly slower. Comfort is generally a wash. Trains are cooler, and get a slightly higher usage than buses due to rail bias. However, there is a huge initial investment in trains. And, the potential higher ridership (if any) is likely not enough to offset the huge initial investment.

The blanket statements and stretching of truths, coupled with outright untruths spouted by both sides of this debate really annoy me. Thus, my lively attacks on both of your arguments, even though both sides ignore it and continue to exaggerate the truth.

[Houston19514]

I only responded to Tory's post and examples. Therefore, your gripe is with him. I encourage you...and Tory...to make actual apples to apples comparisons. I will be anxiously awaiting your contribution to this topic.

Dude, you posted the disingenuous comparison. Pointing that out is a contribution to the topic. Why are you excused from making apples to apples comparisons?

[RedScare]

Still waiting for your contribution. But, since you cannot use google, let me point out that you've ignored the first half of my math, showing that the train and bus both average 45 mph to the first stop. A quick look at MetroRail's schedule shows that the Red Line runs from UH Downtown to the Downtown Transit Center in 7 minutes...5 minutes faster than the P&R bus takes to go the same distance down Smith. At 7:15 am, the rail runs on 6 minute headways. So, the average commuter would wait 3 minutes for the connection. This means the average commuter gets to the last stop in 10 minutes...2 minutes quicker than the P&R bus. So the average speed for trains and buses to the first stop would be 45 mph, and the average speed to the last stop would be 35 mph for the P&R bus, 37 mph for the rail commuter.

Next.

[Houston19514]

The blanket statements and stretching of truths, coupled with outright untruths spouted by both sides of this debate really annoy me. Thus, my lively attacks on both of your arguments, even though both sides ignore it and continue to exaggerate the truth.

If blanket statements and stretching of truths coupled with outright untruths so annoy you, a good first step might be to stop doing it yourself. And while you are at it, how about laying off the ad hominen attacks and other cheap rhetorical devices you are so fond of.

[Houston19514]

It is more than a bit disingenuous to list the top speed for the buses, then turn around and claim you cannot use top speed for trains, but only average speed. The buses do not average 65 mph, either. And, if it is a non-stop route, you run into the same problem of low ridership that I mentioned earlier.

The fact is, all things being equal, commuter trains and express buses have nearly identical average speeds.

Just to use one non-stop bus example, the Park N Ride from Grand Parkway is a non-stop route on a brand new HOT lane into downtown. At 7:15 am, it takes 35 minutes to travel 26 miles to the first downtown stop at Smith and Prairie. This averages out to 44.5 mph for the trip. To get to the last downtown stop at Smith and St. Joseph takes 47 minutes, averaging 35 mph. Conveniently, this 35-45 mph average for the non-stop bus on a new HOT lane is identical to the "net speed including stops" that you quoted above for the commuter train.

To do an apples to apples comparison of the two methods of commuting, one has to get the passengers to the same spot. If commuter rail were to cover the 26 miles to somewhere somewhat near the UHD MetroRail station (which is closer to downtown than seems likely for any commuter rail station), our passenger would have to switch to another mode to get to The Smith and Prairie neighborhood. 26 miles at the theoretical 40 MPH gets us to near the UHD station in 39 minutes. Generously assuming a 2 minute walk from the commuter station to the red line station, average 3 minute wait for a red line train, and a 1 minute ride on the red line. Total trip time for the 26 miles to Main and Preston/Prairie: 45 minutes. That is compared to 35 minutes to Smith and Prairie on the park and ride bus.

[Houston19514]

Still waiting for your contribution. But, since you cannot use google, let me point out that you've ignored the first half of my math, showing that the train and bus both average 45 mph to the first stop. A quick look at MetroRail's schedule shows that the Red Line runs from UH Downtown to the Downtown Transit Center in 7 minutes...5 minutes faster than the P&R bus takes to go the same distance down Smith. At 7:15 am, the rail runs on 6 minute headways. So, the average commuter would wait 3 minutes for the connection. This means the average commuter gets to the last stop in 10 minutes...2 minutes quicker than the P&R bus. So the average speed for trains and buses to the first stop would be 45 mph, and the average speed to the last stop would be 35 mph for the P&R bus, 37 mph for the rail commuter.

Next.

Your analysis fails. (1). The comparison of time to the first stop is not apples to apples. The commuter rail station near downtown will be the destination for essentially nobody. (2). You have ignored the fact that there is no proposal for a commuter rail station at the UHD red line stop. At the very best, the commuter rail stop would be in the area where the current post office sits, requiring some additional connection time you failed to include. (3) it is disingenuous to assume that our commuter rail would run at the very fastest speed of the universe of average commuter rail speeds. It seems far more likely to be closer to the mid-range (or less).

For example, In our own state, the TRE takes 57 minutes to cover the approximately 33 miles between downtown Ft worth and Downtown Dallas. 35 MPH

Metra North in Chicago takes about 1 hour 20 minutes to travel the approx. 41 miles from Waukegan to downtown Chicago. 31 MPH

[mfastx]

The per rider cost of bus vs. rail is a little misleading for two reasons. One is that ignores the very high capital cost of the rail. And two is that transit agencies have an obligation to serve a geographic area with buses. That means lots of very underutilized routes just to serve remote areas with little demand. Rail is (usually) only built where there is strong demand - the Main St. line being a great example. And that demand is enhanced by plugging in local bus routes with transfers.

That's fair enough. I, for one, do not propose rail lines that wouldn't have high ridership. I just would like to point out that having one rail line is usually more efficient than numerous parallel bus routes.

[RedScare]

While I appreciate someone FINALLY posting a little in depth analysis, as opposed to the numbers pulled from behind that we've been getting previously, I must point out some of your own apple to orange comparison...which, when it comes to comparing a hypothetical train to an existing bus route, is easy to do. The TRE runs from a downtown to the suburbs, and back to a downtown. The two downtowns are destinations, while the suburban stops are collector points. It does not compare easily to a Houston style route. Taking the Katy leg, you would have stops at perhaps Katy Mills, Grand Parkway and Highway 6, but then no stops until NW Transit Center and downtown. The train will run at 65 mph on those long runs, slower at the outer stops. The average speed will be closer to the 45 mph that was used in my example.

This is all still splitting hairs. The bulk of commuters tend to look at two factors when considering transit. Reasonable trip time and cost. 35 to 45 minutes is going to be reasonable coming from Katy. No one would refuse the train trip because someone on HAIF suggested that a bus trip might take 35 minutes. The other is cost. If the transit trip is $5, and the gas to drive is $4 and the cost to park is $6, transit will get strong consideration. The CEOs and upper managers won't consider it, but the thousands of secretaries and clerical workers will. And we know that a commuter train and a Park&Ride bus will both get them there in a reasonable time. The question then becomes cost to implement and ridership. Given the current cost estimates for rail, I don't see it replacing the sunk cost of an already functioning P&R. And that is really the only difference between the two.

[Slick Vik]

I think the best idea is to ask someone who was alive during the period of wide swaths of streetcars, and ask them how it was when buses took over.

[IHB2]

I think the best idea is to ask someone who was alive during the period of wide swaths of streetcars, and ask them how it was when buses took over.

it's likely that those survivors will talk more about their 1st car and the personal mobility freedom that mode of transportation afforded them.

[kylejack]

Slow - 65mph nonstop in the HOV/HOT lanes vs. ~30mph commuter rail with stops.

You need to start citing sources if you're going to talk numbers, because commuter rail in the United States typically travels 50-80 MPH. There may be certain troublesome segments where it goes 30 on turns or at difficult intersections, but that's not the norm.

[ToryGattis]

You need to start citing sources if you're going to talk numbers, because commuter rail in the United States typically travels 50-80 MPH. There may be certain troublesome segments where it goes 30 on turns or at difficult intersections, but that's not the norm.

I'll repeat again the same point from previously in this thread: 30-45 is the average net speed after including stops.