accommodating long-term growth on north america's …docs.trb.org/prp/14-0889.pdf ·...

Accommodating Long-Term Growth on North America’s Commuter Railroads

John G. Allen (Corresponding Author) Transportation Consultant

5518 S. Harper Ave. Chicago, IL 60637-1830

773-955-1848 Email: [email protected]

(Former affiliation: Regional Transportation Authority, 175 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1550, Chicago, IL 60604)

Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultant

5305 Ashlar Village Wallingford, CT 06492

203-949-9700 Email: [email protected]

TRB Paper 14-0889

November 2, 2013 version Word count: 5,986 words (not including references), plus one figure and three tables for

an equivalent of 6,986 out of 7,000 words

Submitted for presentation and publication at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January 2014

1

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Accommodating Long-Term Growth on North America’s 1

Commuter Railroads 2 3

By John G. Allen and Herbert S. Levinson 4 5 6 The transit industry overall has experienced great declines in ridership since World War 7 II, from which it has only partially recovered since the 1990s. Commuter rail, by 8 contrast, is flourishing thanks to a combination of suburbanization, strong downtowns, 9 and continued public support. With a primary focus on older systems, this analysis 10 reviews changes in population, downtown employment, and ridership, and relates these 11 changes to the ways in which technology, public policy, ridership, and operations have 12 affected commuter rail. Since about the 1990s, commuter rail passenger miles in the US 13 have grown faster than the national highway vehicle miles traveled. Modern commuter 14 rail ridership is at (or beyond) earlier historic peak levels in 1929. 15 Commuter railroads have met the demands of growing ridership by using cars 16 with higher seating capacities, providing more frequent off-peak service, and adopting 17 such innovative operating plans as zone schedules. Even rehabilitating deteriorated 18 tracks has sometimes helped increase train throughput. These improvements have 19 enabled commuter railroads accommodate more customers, although capacity will have 20 to be increased where severe constraints exist. Continued public support will be essential 21 for the future of commuter rail in most metropolitan areas. 22

23

2


INTRODUCTION 1 In its long history since the mid-19th century, commuter rail – i.e., railroad service 2 carrying passengers within metropolitan areas– has played a major role in developing the 3 suburbs of large older cities, as it enabled people to live in what had been country towns 4 and work downtown. After experiencing sustained ridership losses between the late 5 1940s and the late 1960s, commuter rail has rebounded since the 1980s and become a 6 transit industry success story with its ability to attract and accommodate riders. Since the 7 start of the 21st century, US commuter rail passenger mileage has grown more rapidly 8 than overall highway vehicle miles. 9 Four interrelated factors—technology, public policy, ridership, and operating 10 improvements—underlie this growth in ridership. These improvements are analyzed, 11 with a focus on those older systems that cover the time span since the 1960s (as opposed 12 to newer systems in such places as Seattle, Wash., Salt Lake City, Utah, and 13 Albuquerque, N.M.). The development of these newer systems is an important 14 development in and of itself (1-3). Nevertheless, older systems still make the greatest 15 contribution to overall industry ridership. “Commuter rail ridership in North America is 16 dominated by the systems in the New York area where the busiest routes use electric 17 multiple-unit trains on dedicated tracks with little or no freight service” (4). To a lesser 18 degree, historically-established systems in Chicago, Ill. and Boston, Mass. are also 19 contributing to ridership growth, along with the somewhat newer system in Toronto, 20 Ont., Canada. 21 In several major metropolitan areas in the US and Canada, commuter rail is a 22 vitally important link between suburbs and densely-built city centers. Commuter rail has 23 played a large role in the growth of North America’s greatest metropolitan centers. Much 24 of the transit industry in North America has experienced great ridership losses since 25 World War II. Although early 21st century ridership increases are encouraging, they 26 suggest a more modest role for transit overall. Commuter rail, by contrast, has largely 27 turned suburbanization to its advantage. 28 29 30 TECHNOLOGY 31 Railroads appeared in North America in the 1830s, when steam locomotives and track 32 technology became viable. Commuter rail began in the mid-19th century when riders 33 were regularly taking local trains into major cities in the morning and home again at the 34 end of the day. Railroads added trains to better serve these customers (5). Since the late 35 19th century, suburban services (as commuter rail was historically known) became more 36 technologically specialized. 37 38 39 Propulsion 40 Technology has always played a major role in railroading generally and in meeting the 41 specific needs of commuter rail. Until the 1950s, steam locomotives dominated 42 commuter railroading except in New York and Philadelphia, Pa., where electric operation 43 predominated During the late 19th century, some railroads used tank engines (with the 44 fuel tender carried on the locomotive frame, not as a trailing car) on their suburban 45

3


services. These locomotives could operate in either direction and did not need to be 1 rotated at the end of their runs. 2 In the late 1880s and the 1890s, Frank Julian Sprague and other innovators 3 developed electric propulsion technology for streetcar and rapid transit systems. Electric 4 multiple-unit cars allowed trains of varying length to be easily assembled and reversed 5 without locomotives. Previously, locomotives had to run around trains at end points, 6 exacerbating congestion at terminals. Between the 1900s and the 1930s, railroads in New 7 York, Philadelphia, and to a lesser degree, Chicago and Montréal, Qué., Canada 8 electrified their commuter operations (6). Long tunnels (New York, Montréal), space 9 limitations (Philadelphia), environmental considerations (Chicago), and general operating 10 economies (New York, Philadelphia, Chicago) all led railroads to electrify. 11 Diesel technology swept the railroad industry between the late 1940s and the late 12 1950s. Initially, commuter services used diesel locomotives and self-propelled railcars. 13 Several railroads with smaller operations bought railcars, but when no reliable next-14 generation railcar emerged in the 1980s, these properties largely switched to locomotive-15 hauled trains (7). 16 Push-pull operation, another important technological development, started in 17 1960, allowing trains to be operated with the locomotive at one end of the train and a 18 passenger-carrying coach with a driving cab at the other end. This resulted in quicker 19 turnaround times at end points, and in lower operating costs. 20 21 22 Car Design 23 Higher-capacity cars allow railroads to carry more riders per train. In 1950, commuters 24 generally traveled on single-level cars with 2-and-2 seating (although 3-and-2 seating 25 was already common on some properties). Since then, higher-capacity designs have 26 increased passenger capacity and reduced overcrowding. Starting in the 1950s, 3-and-2 27 seating spread to almost all new single-deck cars in the Northeast. By the 1960s, air 28 conditioning became universal on new cars. 29 Railroads have also adopted double-deck cars (8). In 1930, the Long Island Rail 30 Road (LIRR) introduced cars with a single aisle and two seating levels. Although this 31 arrangement proved problematic, subsequent designs were better received. The Chicago, 32 Burlington & Quincy introduced the bilevel gallery car in 1950, and it soon became 33 Chicago’s standard design. In 1979, GO Transit in Toronto adopted an alternative design 34 with two full floors and an intermediate level over the trucks at the car ends. By the 35 1980s, most commuters outside the Northeast rode in bilevel gallery cars (Chicago, San 36 Francisco) or full-floor double-deck cars with an intermediate level over the trucks 37 (Toronto, Miami, Fla., Los Angeles, Calif.). 38 Since the 1990s, commuter rail authorities in Boston and Washington have 39 ordered double-deck equipment. The Long Island Rail Road and NJ Transit use double-40 deck cars on locomotive-hauled trains in tunnels to Penn Station, New York. However, 41 tunnels serving Brooklyn, N.Y.’s Atlantic Terminal and Center City Philadelphia require 42 single-deck equipment. There, cars with 3-and-2 seating are used to maximize capacity. 43 Similarly, Metro-North in New York operates single-deck cars. 44 Design changes to meet the needs of customers with disabilities, such as larger 45 restrooms and space for wheelchair tiedowns, are marginally lowering capacities on 46

4


newer cars. Nevertheless, commuter railroads will continue to use higher-density car 1 designs wherever possible. 2 3 4 PUBLIC POLICY 5 Commuter rail languished immediately after World War II on most Eastern railroads, and 6 faced serious difficulties by the 1970s even on the hitherto less-troubled Midwestern 7 systems. Privately-owned railroads cross-subsidized commuter service with freight 8 revenues, but some were even losing money on freight. Most railroads lacked the 9 resources to upgrade equipment, modernize stations, or to maintain their existing 10 commuter services. 11 Public concern over these conditions and the possible decline of railroad 12 commuting led to a change in the policy environment for commuter rail starting in the 13 1960s. By the 1980s, either regional transit agencies had been created to operate or 14 subsidize commuter trains, or state/provincial agencies had done so. Similarly, US 15 federal and some state and Canadian provincial governments funded capital 16 improvements. The benefits of these changed policies included: 17 18

• Stabilized, and in some cases, increased service levels 19 • Replacement of life-expired rolling stock 20 • Renewal of deteriorated tracks and stations 21 • Extensions of existing lines and, in some cases, new lines 22 • Acquisition by commuter rail authorities of some or all of various heritage 23

operations, thus facilitating major investment in their physical plants 24 • Development of new systems in several cities 25

26 Along with demographic, economic, and operating changes, these initiatives have 27 sustained services that otherwise might have been greatly curtailed or discontinued, and 28 enabled ridership to increase to levels scarcely imaginable in the 1970s. 29 30 31 RIDERSHIP 32 Commuter rail largely created the older suburbs of the largest older North American 33 cities. Travel demand for commuter rail in recent decades has largely resulted from 34 economically vigorous downtowns and growing suburban residential catchment areas 35 with many residents who work downtown, particularly in New York, and to a lesser 36 degree in Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Toronto, Montréal and San Francisco. At the 37 residential end, single-family housing has long dominated most suburban development, 38 although more recently a greater variety of housing types have become available. 39 Commuting by automobile becomes less satisfactory when peak highway demand 40 exceeds capacity and downtown parking becomes expensive and scarce. These 41 conditions help commuter railroads with fast, reliable service to attract riders. 42 Overall commuter rail ridership trends in recent decades indicate that traffic 43 congestion and continued metropolitan dispersion are making commuter rail more 44 attractive in the suburb-to-downtown travel market. On some lines (especially in New 45 York and San Francisco), reverse commuting has become substantial. Figure 1 shows 46

5


FIGURE 1 Change in Commuter Rail Ridership, Commuter Rail Passenger Miles, and Overall Vehicle Miles Traveled, United States, 1984-2011 (1990 = 100)

Source: (4), p. 9.12. NOTE: One mile = 1.609 km.


changes in ridership and passenger miles traveled for US commuter railroads between 1984 and 2010 with 1990 as a base, using aggregate data compiled by the American Public Transportation Association (9). Figure 1 also includes overall US vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Since the 1990s, commuter rail passenger miles have been growing at a faster rate than nationwide VMT. Although long-run data are neither fully continuous nor entirely consistent, an earlier Association of American Railroads data set shows overall US commuter rail ridership at 429 million in 1922, peaking at 438 million in 1929 and falling to 221 million in 1959, when that data set ends (10). Despite intervening data discontinuities and possible changes in definitions, these figures broadly resemble the modern data set, showing 267 million passenger trips in 1984, 328 million in 1990, and 464 million in 2010. This suggests that commuter rail ridership overall is around or even slightly greater than the earlier peak of 1929. There has been much population growth on the edges of major metropolitan areas between 1984 and 2010, and this is somewhat reflected in average trip lengths on commuter rail, which fluctuated between 21.4 and 24.3 miles during those years. The earlier data set shows average trip length increasing from 14.3 miles in 1922 to 20.5 miles in 1959. Most North America’s metropolitan areas with commuter rail have experienced ridership growth overall since World War II, although ridership declined until the 1970s. Table 1 shows 1950 and 2000 populations for US urbanized areas with commuter rail since 1950. For Montréal and Toronto, the 1951 and 2001 Canadian Census Metropolitan Area populations are shown. Table 1 also shows central business district (CBD) employment levels during two time periods: 1950-1990, and 1990-2000. In New York, the CBD includes all of Manhattan south of 59th St., which encompasses both the Downtown financial district and the larger, multiple-function Midtown area (directly served by Grand Central Terminal and Penn Station). Expanded CBDs have likewise been used for Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Toronto. The data in Table 1 include slower-growth regions (Detroit, Mich., Montréal), ones that have experienced dramatic growth (Los Angeles, Miami), and intermediate cases (Boston, Chicago). Downtown employment has also grown over the years, although at considerably slower rates than regional population and employment. Table 2 shows average weekday ridership for selected commuter railroads for 1967, 1981, and 2007 (14-17). All historically-established railroads are shown, plus newer operations in Dallas – Ft. Worth, Tex., Los Angeles, Miami, Toronto, and northern Virginia (space did not permit showing all properties). Although more recent data were available, 2007 was shown because ridership peaked then. (As Figure 1 indicates, the 2008 recession dampened ridership slightly.) Ridership has grown markedly since 1990. (The increase may be slightly larger than shown, because not all new-start operations are included.) Various studies have shown a correlation between downtown jobs and ridership, although system size and attractiveness also affect ridership. During the 1960s, subsidies sustained service and financed improvements on several commuter railroads. By the 1980s, state/provincial governments and/or regional agencies had assumed responsibility for all commuter operations. Finally, the 2007 data capture the situation shortly before the sharp energy price increases of mid-2008 and the

7


TABLE 1 Regional Population and Downtown Area Employment, Selected North American Commuter Rail Cities

Central Central Business Business Urbanized area Urbanized area District District Comm- Comm- population (A) population (A) employment employment uter uter 1950 US 2000 US 1950-1990 1990-2000 Rail Rail 1951 Canada 2001 Canada period period Service Service Region (thousands) (thousands) (thousands) (thousands) in 1950 in 2013 Boston 2,233.5 4,032.5 246 (B) 270 (C) Yes Yes Chicago 4,920.8 8,307.9 461 (D) 582 (C) Yes Yes Detroit 2,659.4 3,903.4 100 Est. 70 Est. Yes No Los Angeles 3,397.0 11,789.5 176 (B) 215 (C) No Yes Miami 458.6 4,919.0 30 (B) 50 Est. No Yes Montréal 1,150 3,426.4 Not available Not available Yes Yes New York 12,296.1 17,799.9 1,800 (E) 1,900 (E, F) Yes Yes Philadelphia 2,922.5 5,149.1 225 (B) 265 (C) Yes Yes Pittsburgh 1,533.0 1,753.1 100 (B) 110 (F) Yes No San Francisco 2,022.1 3,387.6 314 (B) 341 (C) Yes Yes Toronto 1,262 4,682.9 333 (G) 400 (G) No Yes Washington 1,287.3 3,933.9 315 (B) 400 (C) Yes Yes NOTE: A – US data for urbanized area (UZA); Canadian data for Census Metropolitan Area (CMA). B – Levinson, H.S. Urban Travel Characteristics. In reference (11). C – Transportation Research Board Subcommittee on Census Data for Transportation Planning, US Census Journey to Work Special Tabulations, January 2005. D – Chicago Area Transportation Study (now Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning). E – All of Manhattan south of 59th St., including Midtown and Downtown. F – From reference (12), also reference (13). G – Data from City of Toronto Employment Survey. Est. – Estimated.

8


TABLE 2 Average Weekday Ridership, Selected Commuter Railroads Modern Percentage commuter rail change, 1967 Region agencies (A) Circa 1967 (B) Circa 1981 (C) 2007 (D) to 2007 Boston MBTA 29,500 33,935 143,700 + 143.1 Chicago Metra 233,000 267,550 317,200 + 36.1 Chicago NICTD 12,000 9,000 13,600 + 13.3 Dallas TRE No service No service 9,300 Not applicable Detroit SEMTA 2,800 1,500 No service Not applicable Los Angeles Metrolink No service No service 40,400 Not applicable Miami Tri-Rail No service No service 12,600 Not applicable Montréal AMT 65,000 14,985 63,950 (F) - 1.6 New York LIRR 260,000 288,600 359,400 + 38.2 New York MNR (G) 140,000 183,500 289,400 + 106.7 New York NJT (H) 119,500 140,000 264,150 (F) + 121.1 Philadelphia SEPTA 113,000 103,750 128,600 + 13.8 Philadelphia NJT 700 No service 3,600 (F) + 414.3 Pittsburgh PAT 1,300 1,780 No service Not applicable San Francisco Caltrain 11,000 22,150 35,100 + 219.1 Toronto GO Transit 16,100 45,270 166,250 (E, F) + 932.6 Washington MARC 2,000 (F) 16,000 30,100 +1,405.0 Washington VRE No service No service 14,000 Not applicable Total, selected railroads 1,005,900 1,128,020 1,936,050 + 92.5 NOTE: A – Abbreviations are as follows: AMT – Agence Métropolitaine de Transport, LIRR – Long Island Rail Road, MARC – Maryland Transit Administration commuter rail, MNR – Metro-North Railroad, NICTD – Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, NJT – New Jersey Transit, PAT – Port Authority Transit (now Port Authority of Allegheny County), SEMTA – Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority (now Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation), SEPTA – Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, TRE – Trinity Rail Express, and VRE – Virginia Railway Express. B – Data from reference (7). C – Data from reference (8). D – Data from reference (APTA p. 5) except as noted. E – Estimated. F – Data from commuter rail agency. G – Hudson, Harlem and New Haven Lines only; West-of-Hudson services shown under NJ Transit. H – In addition to services within New Jersey, also includes West-of-Hudson services in New York State subsidized Metro-North but operated by NJ Transit.

9


economic recession of later that year, both of which affected ridership. For instance, 1 SEPTA registered 131,000 daily commuter rail trips during its high-ridership autumn of 2 2008, a level not seen since 1978, when there were more stations, more route-miles of 3 line, and approximately the same seating capacity. The 2008 recession generally reduced 4 ridership on commuter systems; however, railroads anticipate further ridership growth 5 with economic recovery. 6 On the other hand, three regions—Cleveland, Ohio, Detroit, and Pittsburgh, Pa.—7 lost their small commuter rail operations in 1977, 1984, and 1989, respectively. In 8 Detroit, commuter rail connected prosperous residential suburbs with a troubled 9 downtown. Cleveland’s single round trip on one line served a downtown with little 10 growth. Conversely, Pittsburgh suggests that even with geographic barriers and a strong 11 downtown, commuter rail may have difficulty if it serves industrial valleys rather than 12 residential suburbs. Also, Philadelphia’s diesel commuter rail services ended in 1981 and 13 1983. 14 Between the 1920s and the 1950s Boston converted several commuter rail lines to 15 rapid transit and light rail. More recently, though, it has extended commuter service to 16 railroad lines that had not had any for decades. 17 18 19 OPERATING IMPROVEMENTS 20 Most commuter railroads provide more service now than in earlier decades, even though 21 some lines have lost service (Boston’s Bedford and Woburn branches; the New York, 22 Susquehanna & Western in northern New Jersey). Service has occasionally been restored 23 where it had been lost earlier (Boston’s Old Colony lines; Philadelphia – Atlantic City). 24 Commuter railroads have found various ways to accommodate greater demand. 25 Even though few have increased track capacity greatly, several have added tracks 26 incrementally, as on parts of MBTA’s Lawrence-Haverhill line, Metro-North’s Harlem 27 Line third track project, LIRR’s Ronkonkoma Line double-tracking, Metra’s capacity 28 enhancements on the North Central and South West Services in Chicago, capacity 29 expansions on Metrolink in Los Angeles, and Caltrain’s additional tracks to allow 30 overtakes. The largest late-20th century capacity enhancement was Philadelphia’s four-31 track Center City tunnel, linking the former Pennsylvania Railroad and Reading 32 Company lines. LIRR’s East Side Access, under construction at this writing, involves a 33 new LIRR station at New York’s Grand Central Terminal to expand capacity and 34 geographic coverage. 35 There have also been occasional capacity reductions, such as the removal of the 36 third track between Clybourn and Evanston on the Chicago & North Western (now Metra 37 Union Pacific) North Line in the early 1980s, or the removal of the fifth and sixth tracks 38 between Roosevelt Road and 51st St. on the Illinois Central (now Metra Electric) in 1962. 39 40 41 More and Longer Lines 42 Various new-start services have been inaugurated, both in cities already enjoying 43 commuter rail cities (such as Chicago’s North Central Service) and in cities not 44 previously served by commuter trains (18). Toronto, Miami, Los Angeles and northern 45

10


Virginia are included in Tables 1 and 2 to show how these compare with long-established 1 properties, although other, smaller new operations are omitted. 2 Some extensions of lines (Chicago’s UP West Line; Boston’s Fitchburg Line), 3 and of electrification (Upper Harlem, Ronkokoma, and North Jersey Coast in the New 4 York area) have led to more trains traveling longer distances on existing lines. This may 5 affect overall on-time performance, as research has suggested a correlation between total 6 delays and trip length (19). 7 8 9 Park-and-Ride 10 Until the 1960s, commuter railroads assumed that most riders either walked to stations or 11 were driven by their spouses (“kiss-and-ride”). With closely-spaced stations in older 12 residential suburbs, several lines serving Boston, Philadelphia, New York, Chicago and 13 San Francisco were particularly effective at serving walk-on traffic. Feeder bus service is 14 a significant factor at many suburban stations, both for traditional and reverse commuting 15 (20-21). Where weather permits, growing numbers of riders are bicycling to the train. 16 Postwar changes in metropolitan growth and employment have made park-and-17 ride a crucial factor in accommodating customers. Major commuter railroads provide 18 extensive parking capacity. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 19 has around 32,000 spaces; GO Transit, 50,000; Metro-North, 60,000; and Metra, 90,000. 20 Metra sees the availability of parking spaces at many of its outlying stations as an 21 important constraint on its ridership (although on some properties, track capacity or 22 platform lengths limit their ability to serve more customers). Since the late 1980s, Metra 23 has opened several new stations in growing parts of its service area. These stations, such 24 as Route 59 (4,250 spaces) on the BNSF and Hickory Creek (1,100 spaces) on the Rock 25 Island District, were designed specifically for park-and-ride. 26 Similarly, Anderson-Woburn (over 1,500 spaces) on MBTA’s Lowell Line was 27 built as a park-and-ride station. Land acquisition has transformed the historically-28 existing Croton-Harmon and Southeast stations on Metro-North into major park-and-ride 29 venues (1,900 and 1,000 spaces). As an extreme example, parking at LIRR’s 30 Ronkonkoma station was expanded in 2010 to almost 6,100 spaces. 31 Whenever possible, new-start operations such as Toronto’s GO Transit and 32 Miami’s Tri-Rail locate stations to maximize park-and-ride capacity. In Philadelphia, 33 extensions since the 1970s (Hatboro to Warminster; Paoli to Thorndale) have helped 34 serve customers who need to drive to stations. Some stations have been relocated to sites 35 where more parking is available (LIRR Deer Park). 36 37 38 More Trains 39 Commuter railroads run more trains to accommodate more riders. Table 3 compares 40 service levels on various systems over time. The 1967 data show service levels just as 41 agencies in Boston, New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia were stabilizing commuter 42 rail service. The 1983 data show the effects of recession and government cutbacks on 43 service, particularly in Boston, and to a lesser degree in Chicago and Philadelphia. The 44 1990 data reflect a period of consolidation. Finally, the data for 2007 show significantly 45

46

11


TABLE 3 Weekday Revenue Trains, Selected Commuter Railroads 1 2 Modern Trains Trains Trains Percentage 3 commuter rail operated, operated, operated, change, 1967 4 Region agencies (A) circa 1967 (B) 1983 (C) 2007 (D) to 2007 5 6 Boston MBTA 328 222 471 + 43.6% 7 8 Chicago Metra 660 549 701 + 6.2% 9 10 Chicago NICTD 49 34 41 - 19.5% 11 12 Dallas TRE No service No service 48 Not applicable 13 14 Detroit SEMTA 6 6 No service Not applicable 15 16 Los Angeles Metrolink No service No service 145 Not applicable 17 18 Miami Tri-Rail No service No service 50 Not applicable 19 20 Montréal AMT 58 86 90 + 55.1% 21 22 New York LIRR 665 671 715 + 7.5% 23 24 New York MNR (E) 431 539 646 + 49.9% 25 26 New York NJT (E, F) 410 501 711 + 73.4% 27 28 Philadelphia SEPTA 786 624 708 (G) - 11.0% 29 30 Philadelphia NJT 14 No service 28 + 100.0% 31 32 Pittsburgh PAT 14 16 No service Not applicable 33 34 San Francisco Caltrain 44 46 96 + 181.8% 35 36 Toronto GO Transit (H) 52 85 118 + 126.9% 37 38 Washington MARC 18 22 83 + 361.1% 39 40 Washington VRE No service No service 29 Not applicable 41 42 Total, selected railroads 3,535 3,401 4,632 + 31.0% 43 44 NOTE: A – See Table 2 for commuter rail agency abbreviations. B – Data from reference (Dorin), 45 supplemented by Chicago & North Western public timetables. C – Data from reference (Dornan), 46 supplemented by public timetables for LIRR and Canadian properties. D – Data from public timetables. E 47 – Hudson, Harlem and New Haven Lines only; West-of-Hudson services shown under NJ Transit. F – 48 Also includes Atlantic City Line, serving Philadelphia rather than New York. G – Since 1984, SEPTA has 49 operated through service between former Pennsylvania Railroad and former Reading Company lines. To 50 provide this service, SEPTA operated a total of 487 trains, most of which were through-routed. In 2007, a 51 total of 708 trains served points beyond the core segment between 30th St. Station and Wayne Junction. 52 This latter figure is used for comparability with the earlier data. H – Most GO Transit trains run through 53 Toronto Union Station on the Lakeshore route between points east and west of Toronto, although a few 54 originate or terminate there. Smaller numbers of trains serve other lines; all of those trains originate or 55 terminate at Union Station. 56

12


increased service in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Calif., Toronto, and 1 Washington, D.C. 2 Overall, the number of trains on these properties increased 31.0% between 1967 3 and 2007, with only two still-existing operations running fewer trains. The other 4 historically-established systems have added service. The percent increases are modest on 5 Metra and LIRR (6.2% and 7.5%, respectively), but some increases are larger: 43.6% in 6 Boston, 55.1% in Montréal, and 126.9% in Toronto. MARC in the Washington – 7 Baltimore area had the greatest percent increase (361.1%). 8 9 10 Tracks and Scheduling 11 Commuter railroads accommodate passengers better by accelerating service where 12 possible, although such factors as speed restrictions, the close spacing of some stations, 13 track arrangements, ridership levels and station dwell times can only be addressed with 14 much capital investment. Dieselization and high-performance electric equipment have 15 helped speed operations since the 1950s and 1960s, respectively. 16 Track improvements have raised some operating speeds. During the late 1970s, 17 Chicago’s Regional Transportation Authority rebuilt the Rock Island’s greatly 18 deteriorated commuter operation. Boston’s Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 19 (MBTA) upgraded a larger system during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Eliminating 20 underused stops, as the Chicago & North Western did in 1958 with 22 of its then-88 21 stations, has been a factor in some instances. 22 Zone schedules involve the operation of batches of trains, each serving successive 23 zones of stations at the residential end (22-23). Zone schedules, found on such properties 24 as Metro-North, LIRR, NJT and Metra (particularly on the BNSF Railway and Metra 25 Electric), maximize efficient use of equipment and train crews. Unless overtaking is 26 possible, however, the longer the line is and/or the more trains that are operated in each 27 batch, the more time will be required between batches of trains. If providing zone 28 express service under those circumstances would cause excessive intervals between 29 trains, it may be easier to combine elements of zone express and skip-stop service (as on 30 Metra’s Union Pacific North Line and Milwaukee District). Metra’s Electric District fills 31 in the gaps between its batches of three suburban zone expresses with trains of its tenant 32 Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District. 33 34 35 DEVELOPMENTS IN VARIOUS REGIONS 36 Experiences in New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia show the importance of public 37 support. With its 1966 takeover of the bankrupt LIRR, New York State’s Metropolitan 38 Commuter Transportation Authority (MCTA), acquired the LIRR and instituted a 39 massive rehabilitation and modernization effort. In 1968 MCTA became the 40 Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) upon assuming responsibility for the New 41 York City Transit Authority, and acquired a completely new electric fleet for the LIRR 42 between 1968 and 1973. The former New York Central and New York, New Haven & 43 Hartford commuter lines were not fully under regional public control until 1983, but 44 MTA has also invested heavily in what is now Metro-North Railroad. 45

13


In New Jersey, state subsidies for commuter rail began in 1966. The state’s 1979 1 creation of New Jersey Transit (NJT) brought commuter rail, bus, and light rail under one 2 management. The 1983 transfer of responsibility for commuter rail from freight railroad 3 Conrail to agencies like NJT has greatly increased accountability, and there has been 4 massive state investment in commuter rail and other transit modes. 5 The City of Philadelphia began subsidizing commuter service within its 6 boundaries in 1958. In 1961 the program was expanded to three suburban counties, and 7 in 1965 it was extended to a fourth county by the Southeastern Pennsylvania 8 Transportation Authority (SEPTA), which assumed much ownership and took over 9 commuter rail operations in 1983. 10 Chicago, Boston, Toronto and San Francisco are examined in more detail, as they 11 exemplify the variety of experiences among commuter systems. 12 13 14 Chicago: Private Sector Improvements 15 Between the late 1940s and the late 1960s, most of Chicago’s larger commuter railroads 16 invested heavily in new equipment and other improvements. At the time, the midwestern 17 railroads operating most Chicago commuter trains were in better financial condition than 18 their northeastern counterparts and were still able to invest in new equipment (although 19 the financially troubled Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific continued to operate some older 20 cars). The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy pioneered the bilevel gallery car in 1950, and 21 the Chicago & North Western introduced push-pull operation in 1960 (24). These two 22 innovations remain crucial for commuter rail in the Chicago area today, and the latter has 23 spread worldwide. 24 During 1975 and 1976, the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) signed 25 purchase of service contracts with all of northeastern Illinois’ commuter railroads. In 26 1981, the authority became directly involved in operations when it was forced to take 27 over the Rock Island’s suburban service when that railroad was liquidated. Similarly, the 28 bankruptcy of the Milwaukee Road resulted in the 1987 takeover of that railroad’s 29 suburban service. 30 In 1983, state lawmakers reorganized the RTA as an oversight and funding 31 agency, creating Metra to take responsibility for commuter rail service. Building on the 32 foundations left by its predecessor railroads, Metra has helped develop a strong suburban 33 constituency for transit. The 1996 inauguration of the North Central Service was 34 followed in 2006 by the introduction of service enhancements on that line and the South 35 West Service, and by extensions of both the Union Pacific West Line and South West 36 Service. 37 38 39 Boston: Public Sector Transformation 40 Today, Boston is a major commuter rail city, but as recently as the early 1970s commuter 41 rail’s long-run future was uncertain. Boston’s commuter railroads peaked shortly before 42 World War I. The railroads withdrew trains seen as unnecessary during the war, and they 43 could not afford to reinstate much of this service during the 1920s (when commuter 44 railroads in New York, Philadelphia and Chicago were investing in electrification, adding 45 trains, and making other improvements). Financial reverses in the 1950s caused Boston’s 46

14


railroads to retrench further, culminating in the 1959 abandonment of passenger service 1 on the New York, New Haven & Hartford’s Old Colony lines to the southeast. 2 The 1964 creation of MBTA resulted in service being subsidized and stabilized. 3 But during the 1960s and early 1970s, MBTA sought to expand its rapid transit lines as 4 far into the suburbs as possible, seeing commuter rail as institutionally problematic and 5 saddled with deteriorating infrastructure (25). By the late 1970s, however, it was clear 6 that those plans exceeded available resources. To improve regional transit at an 7 affordable capital cost, MBTA modernized and replaced commuter rail equipment, and 8 bought most lines and facilities that Amtrak and freight railroads did not need. MBTA 9 bought most of the South Station lines in 1973, and much of the North Station lines in 10 1976 (acquiring options on most of the rest of the North Station-oriented routes in 2010). 11 Trains were added and lines were extended incrementally (26). By the late 1990s, 12 MBTA was using more double-deck cars to increase capacity. After 29 years, MBTA 13 restored commuter service on the heavily-rebuilt Old Colony in 1998. 14 Boston’s commuter rail system is still influenced by its history, with many stops 15 in older suburbs where there is little room to build large park-and-ride lots. Yet long-16 discontinued lines and segments have been restored to service, and operations (peak and 17 off-peak alike) have grown more intensive as people continue to travel to Boston’s strong 18 downtown. The commitment to rail continues with a major commuter and intercity rail 19 plan announced in 2013. 20 21 22 Toronto: Major New System 23 Historically, a few passenger trains served the Toronto area on schedules compatible with 24 commuters’ needs, but there was no true commuter service. Concerned with the capital 25 cost of building more highways, the Government of Ontario inaugurated GO Transit, a 26 coordinated set of commuter rail services in an east-west corridor through Toronto Union 27 Station in 1967. Feeder bus services were later added in the 1970s to complement the rail 28 system. As GO Transit was launched on lines with no previously-existing commuter 29 service, transportation officials sought to attract as many customers as possible without 30 elaborate new investment. Unlike Boston’s or Philadelphia’s historic suburban town 31 center stations, GO Transit stations are generally situated near major highways, with long 32 platforms, park-and-ride lots, and bus interchanges. 33 Initially, provincial officials began service with single-level coaches, locomotives, 34 and simple stations. There were hourly off-peak trains on the original east-west 35 Lakeshore line running through downtown Toronto, and approximately every 20 minutes 36 during rush hours. GO Transit has expanded its capacity by adding more cars with more 37 seats, and incrementally adding rail and bus services on the Lakeshore and other rail 38 corridors. There are now seven radial lines serving Union Station. Today, GO’s coach 39 fleet consists entirely of double-deckers, normally operated in ten- or twelve-car trains 40 (27-28). Service remains busiest on the Lakeshore line. Pending completion of an 41 environmental assessment, GO plans to electrify the Union Pearson Express airport 42 service, currently under construction, and will consider electrifying other lines in the 43 future. 44 GO Transit is the oldest and busiest commuter rail system fully developed by the 45 public sector. New-start operations in Miami, Los Angeles, San Diego, Calif., Seattle, 46

15


Wash., Vancouver, B.C., Canada, and Albuquerque, N.M. have adopted its double-deck 1 car type. 2 3 4 San Francisco: Transformation into Bidirectional Operation 5 San Francisco’s commuter railroad Caltrain has transformed itself from a traditional city-6 oriented operation into one that handles comparable levels of peak-period ridership in 7 both directions. The San Francisco – San Jose line was historically a well-patronized 8 double-track commuter route. Southern Pacific (SP) introduced air-conditioned gallery 9 cars and diesel locomotives in that year (although not push-pull operation). However, 10 daily ridership decreased from 12,000 in the late 1960s to 8,000 in 1976. 11 After SP initiated regulatory proceedings to discontinue service, the California 12 Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed financial responsibility for commuter 13 rail in 1980. New bilevel gallery cars acquired in the mid-1980s were operated push-pull. 14 Caltrans—which adopted the Caltrain name for the service—further modernized the fleet 15 and fostered feeder bus service at outlying stations (29). In 1992 the Peninsula Corridor 16 Joint Powers Board, encompassing San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, 17 took over from Caltrans, bought the track between San Francisco and San Jose, and 18 extended service to Gilroy south of San Jose. 19 Caltrain continued to use a zone express operating plan established in the late 20 1960s, which minimized travel time for suburbanites working downtown. But travel 21 patterns in the Peninsula Corridor shifted dramatically during the high-tech boom years 22 of the 1990s. In and around Palo Alto and San Jose, traditional bedroom communities 23 became important employment destinations in Silicon Valley. Reverse commuting 24 became a major peak-period traffic flow in its own right. 25 Caltrain officials decided to completely overhaul the service pattern following a 26 major track capacity project in which passing tracks were installed at key locations. In 27 2004 Caltrain completely revised its schedules, with locals and limiteds operating all day, 28 supplemented with “Baby Bullet” super-expresses during the peak periods. The schedule 29 requires disciplined execution, as it relies on tightly-scheduled meets at newly-expanded 30 four-track segments where overtakes occur (30). Ridership climbed to more than 30,000 31 a day with the new service pattern. Caltrain is pursuing a long-range plan to electrify 32 between San Francisco and San Jose, which it sees as necessary for enhancing capacity 33 (31). 34 35 36 FUTURE PROSPECTS 37 In 1962, a respected transportation economist and historian concluded, based on 38 commuter rail’s declining ridership over the previous decade, that “we must plan to 39 witness the continued decline of the commuter train and, probably, its eventual 40 extinction” (32). The substantial turnaround in the fortunes of commuter rail since the 41 1990s indicates otherwise. Today’s commuter rail resurgence is likely to have continuing 42 effects. Key observations follow: 43 44 45

46

16


Technology 1 • Railroads will continue to pay attention to car capacities and train lengths in order 2

to accommodate growing ridership. 3 • Some commuter railroads are planning or implementing electrification to better 4

handle ridership growth and increased public concern about the environment. 5 6 7 Policy 8

• Government support will remain critical for commuter rail as new operations 9 open and existing ones expand. 10

• Land use will intensify at some stations. 11 • State of good repair issues will become increasingly important, especially for 12

older systems. 13 • The optimum balance between commuter rail and rapid transit varies among cities 14

with both modes. However, transit systems overall work best when these rail modes 15 complement each other. 16

• Some cities may have difficulty sustaining commuter rail ridership. Certain 17 smaller operations may not survive budgetary crises. 18 19 20 Ridership 21

• As long as large numbers of people who work in major downtown areas live in 22 suburbs, the prospects for commuter rail will remain strong. 23

• Park-and-ride will continue to be vitally important for attracting riders, although 24 higher-density residential development is likely to occur around some stations, 25 supporting walk-on ridership (Arlington Heights, Ill.; Rahway, N.J.). 26 27 28 Operations 29

• Where possible, railroads will lengthen trains and platforms, and will schedule 30 more trains. Double-deck cars will become increasingly attractive for railroads that can 31 accommodate them. 32

• Legislative requirements for the installation of Positive Train Control (PTC) on 33 all US passenger lines by December 31, 2015 should increase safety, as PTC is designed 34 to enforce speed restrictions and prevent collisions between trains. Overlaying PTC on 35 existing signal blocks, however, may affect speed and capacity (33). Only if railroads 36 adopt moving-block signals will PTC help railroads operate trains at closer intervals than 37 is possible with conventional signaling. 38

• Even with moving-block signals, adding track capacity may be necessary in some 39 situations. Thus, in 2006 Metra added tracks on its North Central and South West 40 Services, and on the Elburn extension of the Union Pacific West Line. 41

• If the city center terminals of commuter railroads are capacity-constrained, as 42 with New York’s Penn Station, it may be necessary to build new lines and stations, as the 43 Long Island Rail Road is doing. Similarly, Amtrak has proposed two new trans-Hudson 44 tunnels and accompanying tracks between Penn Station and Newark, N.J. Existing 45

17


subways and underground utility lines, however, may make new construction difficult 1 and expensive in some cities. 2

• In the long run, as demands on capacity increase, it may not be possible to adhere 3 to the North American expectations of a seat for every rider, and standees may have to be 4 accommodated on busier services. 5 6 7 Challenges 8 Commuter railroads are achieving high—and rising—levels of throughput even though 9 freight railroads are moving record tonnages on a network that was substantially reduced 10 in the 1970s and 1980s. “Approximately one-fifteenth of all commuter rail delay minutes 11 result from interference by freight or intercity passenger trains” (19). The amount of 12 freight traffic varies greatly among lines, but sometimes affects commuter service 13 reliability, and is a concern in Chicago, Washington, Los Angeles and Toronto, among 14 others (34). 15 As customers travel longer distances, railroads may need to run more trains to 16 more distant points, yet on-time performance tends to decrease as runs become longer. 17 Additionally, schedules that were operated reliably under conditions of lower ridership 18 may be harder to maintain as ridership increases. The Northern Indiana Commuter 19 Transportation District, for instance, modified its peak-period service and completely 20 revised its weekend operations in response to ridership growth (35). 21 Practices vary widely among commuter lines dispatched by freight railroads. In 22 Chicago, for instance, two railroads observe freight curfews in Metra commuter territory 23 during peak periods, but a third does not. Some commuter railroads offer incentive 24 payments to host railroads to keep on-time performance above a specified level, although 25 some freight railroads are seen as more responsive to these bonuses than others. 26 27 28 CONCLUSIONS 29 The combination of suburban growth, strong downtowns, improved technology and 30 supportive public policy has been crucial for reviving commuter rail since the 1960s and 31 1970s. North America’s commuter railroads now carry unprecedented levels of 32 ridership. They have managed to do this largely through massive and sustained support 33 for capital needs (from the US federal government and from Canadian provinces) and for 34 operations (from regional authorities and state/provincial governments). Government 35 involvement has accompanied and supported several important accomplishments: 36 37

• New-start operations, including important systems in major metropolitan areas 38 such as Los Angeles and Toronto 39

• Expanding park-and-ride on a large scale both to attract and accommodate riders 40 • Additional trains on lines already seeing commuter service 41 • Increased carrying capacity per car 42 • Faster service, particularly through zone express service 43 • New central-area stations in Philadelphia and New York 44 • New-start systems in such regions as Miami, Los Angeles, Dallas – Ft. Worth, 45

and Salt Lake City. 46

18


1 High-capacity equipment is crucial for commuter railroads to effectively 2

accommodating increased passenger volumes. The development of 3-and-2 seating made 3 it possible to achieve capacity gains on properties with restricted overhead clearances. 4 But the greatest advance has been with double-deck equipment, either in the form of the 5 bilevel gallery car (developed in Chicago starting in 1950) or the full double deck 6 configuration (first implemented in Toronto in 1979). 7 Commuter rail helps enhance the value of both the downtowns and the residential 8 areas that they serve. Society benefits as commuter trains keep thousands of employees 9 from using major highways, central city streets, and downtown parking garages. In 10 Toronto and Miami, commuter rail was created to relieve pressure on major highways. 11 The broader benefits of maintaining strong downtowns and commuter rail’s role 12 in supporting them have led elected officials to favor financial support for commuter rail. 13 Ridership trends reflect both metropolitan development patterns and public support for 14 commuter rail. Without these favorable factors, it is difficult to imagine today’s high 15 ridership and service levels. 16 Commuter railroads face growing challenges as they seek to operate effectively 17 and reliably while carrying increasing numbers of customers. Therefore, continued 18 public support will remain essential. New York’s commuter railroads are already near, if 19 not at, the outer limits of what they can accomplish with their existing physical plants. 20 Some properties may have to make major investment decisions in the coming decades. 21 But as North America’s commuter railroads address the challenges of a promising future, 22 it is important to appreciate the enormous strides that they have made since the mid-20th 23 century in carrying increasing numbers of riders quickly, comfortably, and reliably. 24 25 26 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 27 The authors thank Greg Newmark (Center for Neighborhood Technology, Chicago), J. 28 Christopher Wilson and Lyle Gomm (Metra), Alex Lu (Metro-North), Harrison Garforth 29 (SEPTA), Daniel Francey (retired, GO Transit), and Daniel Bergeron (AMT) for their 30 assistance. The views are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of any 31 organization. 32 33 34 REFERENCES 35 1. Wolinsky, J. Suburban vision faces cost hike. Railway Gazette International, May 36

2003. 37 2. Wolinsky, J. Albuquerque and Nashville set to join US commuter club. Railway 38

Gazette International, September 2005. 39 3. Wolinsky, J. A tale of two railways: persistence and persuasion. Railway Gazette 40

International, June 2010. 41 4. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. 3rd Edition. Transit Cooperative 42

Research Program Report 165. Transportation Research Board of the National 43 Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, p. 8.67. 44

5. Grow, L. On the 8:02 – An Informal History of Commuting By Rail in America. 45 Mayflower Books, New York, 1979. 46

19


6. Middleton, W.D. When the Steam Railroads Electrified. Indiana University Press, 1 Bloomington, 2001. 2

7. Duke, D. and E. Keilty. RDC: The Budd Rail Diesel Car. Golden West Books, San 3 Marino, Calif., 1990. 4

8. Weinman, M.R. High Rollers: The Bilevel Evolution. Passenger Train Journal, 5 February 1990. 6

9. Davis, S.C., S.W. Diegel, and R.G. Boundy. Transportation Energy Data Book. 7 Edition 31. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., July 2012, p. 9.12. 8

10. Future Highways and Urban Growth. Wilbur Smith and Associates, New Haven, 9 Conn., February 1961, p. 353. 10

11. Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook, Institute of Traffic Engineers, 11 Washington, D.C., 1982. 12

12. Lutz, O., P. Hawley, and M. Hawley. Inclusive Parking Management Techniques in 13 the Development of TSM Plans. In Proceedings, Transportation Solutions for Today, 14 Tomorrow, and Beyond, Greensboro, N.C., 1996, pp. 273-384. 15

13. Urban Transportation Monitor, April 1, 1993. 16 14. Dorin, P.C. Commuter Railroads. Superior Publishing, Seattle, Wash., 1970. 17 15. Tennyson, E.L., Potential and Cost of Commuter or Regional Rail Service. In 18

Transportation Research Record 908. TRB, National Research Council, 1983. 19 16. Dornan, D.L. Commuter Rail Industry Profile. Prepared for Urban Mass 20

Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., January 1984. 21 17. Public Transportation Ridership Report, Fourth Quarter 2007, American Public 22

Transportation Association, Washington, D.C., March 5, 2008. 23 18. Bing, A.J. et al. Guidebook for Implementing Passenger Rail Service on Shared 24

Passenger and Freight Corridors. National Highway Cooperative Research Program 25 Report 657. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, 26 D.C., 2010. 27

19. Nelson, D. and K. O’Neil. Commuter Rail Service Reliability. In Transportation 28 Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1704. TRB, 29 National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 43, 46. 30

20. Burns, W.M. The Role of Bus Feeders and Fare Integration in GO Transit Rail 31 Operations. Presented at the American Public Transit Association Rapid Transit 32 Conference, Toronto, Ont., Canada, June 1987. 33

21. Hooson, R. Evaluation of the CalTrain Feeder Shuttle Program Serving Suburban 34 Workplaces. In Transportation Research Record 1302. TRB, National Research 35 Council, Washington, D.C., 1991. 36

22. Eisele, D.O. Application of Zone Theory to a Suburban Rail Transit Network. 37 Traffic Quarterly, January 1968. 38

23. Eisele, D.O. Zone Theory of Suburban Rail Transit Operations: Revised. Traffic 39 Quarterly, January 1978. 40

24. Commuter Rail’s Big Picture in Chicagoland: How the Milwaukee Fit In. The 41 Milwaukee Railroader (Milwaukee Road Historical Association), 2nd Quarter, 2007, 42 pp. 7-8. 43

25. An Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit: Volume 3—Boston Case 44 Study. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C., March 45 1976, p. 17. 46

20


26. Humphrey, T.J. and N.D. Clark. Boston’s Commuter Rail: The First 150 Years, 1 Boston Street Railway Association, Boston, Mass., 1985. 2

27. GO Transit spreads its wings. Railway Gazette International, November 1986. 3 28. A new era for GO Transit, Public Transport International, Issue 2, 1999. 4 29. Commute Service by Caltrans, National Railway Bulletin, Vol. 53, No. 6, 1988. 5 30. Johnston, B. Caltrain’s commuter choreography, Trains, February 2005. 6 31. DiBrito, D. et al. Moving Toward Unrestricted Shared Use. In Transportation 7

Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2219. 8 Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011. 9

32. Hilton, G.W. The Decline of Railroad Commutation. Business History Review, 10 Summer 1962, p. 187. 11

33. Dure, D. Avoiding Increased Trip Times and Other Operational Impacts When 12 Implementing Positive Train Control. Proceedings, Joint Rail Conference, Urbana, 13 Ill., April 2010, pp. 2-4. 14

34. Allen, J.G. Commuter Rail, Freight Railroads, and the Open Access Debate. In 15 Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 16 1704. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000. 17

35. Black, J. NICTD’s New South Shore Line Train Schedules – An Insider’s 18 Perspective. First & Fastest, Summer 2010. 19

21


accommodating long-term growth on north america's …docs.trb.org/prp/14-0889.pdf ·...

Documents