Traffic and the economic advantages of commuter rail

[shavastak]

I have a theory. It is this: cities with viable public transportation are wealthier. Someday I'll do some statistical analysis and see if there's any truth to it, but let me describe my theory.


In a city like mine, where there is no public transportation (I'm sorry, Raleigh, but your busses do NOT count), and where there are roughly two major commuter roads, it is possible, as happened this morning, for two car accidents to cripple about half the commerce in the city for most of the morning. Two accidents on Highway 40 caused me to get 5 miles in 40 minutes, give up in desperation, and take a two-lane alternate road which, while slow, wasn't as slow as the main road.

I can only think of the tens of thousands of people on that road and how many commercial enterprises had been slowed by those two traffic accidents, and as we all know, time is money, and in this day and age, the amount of money time is worth is ever increasing.

A good commuter rail system, while it would hardly solve the problem (just look at the traffic into Manhattan), would greatly reduce it, and give people a much-needed alternate route into work. At the moment, there are probably over 100,000 people who really can't use any route other than Hwy 40 into work. When Hwy 40 breaks down, it's like a major artery for the city getting clogged.

I hope Raleigh city officials are watching the news and hearing the traffic reports, and that at least oa few of them are yet again calling for a faster start to the building of the commuter rail system. We're supposed to have one by 2008 but I don't see any work even thinking of starting, so chances are we won't get one until 2012...or later...

C'mon Raleigh, RAIL! Or something! Sheesh.

Comments

[pyat.livejournal.com]

That could very well be true.

Toronto has a rail, subway and bus system. Traffic is still terrible, but that's because 1.8 million people come into the city every day, in addition to the 2 or so million residents going to work.

[mcmiller.livejournal.com]

It depends upon the geography of the city and its population distribution whether public transport is economical or not. Given Raleigh is a little spread out and not population dense (as I remember, it's been a while) it would not be in their advantage to construct a rail. Rails are for super high density or very very large cities.

Look at it this way - if the commuter rail came into town from say, three directions - first, it couldn't afford to have many stops downtown so you'd need a separate downtown transportation - and that secondary system can't be buses, because they depend upon the traffic grid too. Second, there's the traffic created by people commuting to the commuter rail stops out of town - the distance they travel to the rail station has to be signifigantly less than their commute would be otherwise they won't bother because with parking and waiting it would take them longer to get into town. Once downtown, they'd be without a car, once again relying on buses or local transit anyway. So let's say you go with a subway or elevated local transit system - that's taking up lots of space, the construction will take years, it will be a money sink for years and additionally, you've got traffic to all the metro stops, as well. That's why public transportation isn't terribly efficient in most of America. Unlike Europe and Japan, we're spread out so much that public transportation is actually more effort than driving.

(Realizes suddenly that she was listening when her dad worked for the Department of Transportation.)

[shavastak.livejournal.com]

Raleigh has gotten worse since you were here. It's more crowded, but it hasn't stopped sprawling. I agree that Raleigh will not be helped all that much by commuter rail unless that commuter rail is very very well planned (doesn't look good so far, btw). What Raleigh really needs to do is urbanize and find a way to contain the suburban sprawl. Suburban sprawl doesn't just lead to traffic problems - it's also an environmental nightmare.

Chances of that, unfortunately, are slimmer than the chances of getting commuter rail up by 2008. I don't see any signs that Raleigh is going to urbanize in the next twenty-five years at least. It'll only urbanize when it absolutely has to; unfortunately by then it'll be a nearly unbearable expense, instead of only extremely expensive, as it would be if we did it now.