Filling in the rails
Atlanta's MARTA is exploring the possibility of adding in-fill stations to its existing rail lines as way of increasing ridership without adding new track (via Planetizen). Apparently the system has several long gaps between stations where a new stop could serve growing populations. The idea is "let's take the rail we already have and figure out how to serve more people" and increase revenues. But as those of us in Boston well know, there are significant challenges to building subterranean infrastructure in the middle of a living city, and cost is not the least of them. Apparently the concept is working well in Washington DC, which recently spent $120 million on an in-fill station. The question is whether the bump up in ridership is enough to justify the cost and effort.
A recent study of the MBTA's commuter rail system from the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston may shed some light on the question (via the Boston Globe). It suggests that the traditional approach of expanding rail lines further into the 'burbs is not very effective at increasing ridership. ("You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" seems appropriate here.) But over time, increases in population density does seem to correspond with increased ridership. So, if you can provide more/better service to areas where there is already a critical mass of population, then you just might achieve an increase in ridership. The study concludes
The data show that development patterns are governed by the dominant forces of the day. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, commuter rail service played a major role in shaping the land uses in the communities it served. But that does not seem to be the case today. Rather, the large investments in commuter rail have had, at best, modest positive impacts on ridership and land uses. ... Looking to the future, this means that providing new commuter rail facilities is not likely to produce significant changes in travel and land use patterns. Increases in density, on the other hand, might result in a higher share of people using transit to get to work. The data strongly suggest that commuter rail service can encourage but not spur these changes. This, in turn, suggests that efforts to increase density, reduce sprawl, and promote transit should start with local or regional land use policies and then link those policies with transportation plans.
Post Author:
ebs | 2:59 PM |
Link
|
TrackBacks
Interestingly the Rappaport report is being used by opponents of expanding rail service who interpret it as saying that a rail expansion isn't worth the investment because it neither significantly increases density around stations nor increases ridership. Granted, with a higher percentage of people driving than taking the train, the land use impacts of roads are more significant than those of rail. However, rail opponents fail to acknowledge that land use regulations around the lines and stations that were studied in this report have generally been far from transit supportive and that results could be very different if a coordinated land use and transit policy were put in place.
The Red line could use a few more stations:
-Georgia Ave at Seminary Road
-Wisconsin Ave At Bradley Boulevard
-Wisconsin Ave between Cordell Avenue and Battery Lane
-Rockville Pike at Pooks Hill or Alta Vista Roads
Great blog! Issue with the DC fill-in station at New York Avenue is that it was not underground, but was placed on or near track used as a rail yard (no digging.) Are you aware of other such plans?
