What is a reasonable distance for commuter rail?

Just how far can a commuter rail serve to be efficient? For example, although LIRR runs their train all the way to Montauk and Greenport, being 100 miles away, it isnt efficient to commute all the way from there.

So what is the reasonable distance that commuter rail should serve? I say about 80 miles.

NICTD sells multiple ride tickets for South Bend to Chicago commuters. The Amtrak Hiawathas have daily commuters from Chicago to Milwaukee and vica versa. Both are about 90 miles. So commuter rail is certainly feasible for that distance.

Washington to Perryville is right around 90 miles as well and very popular.

Washington to Martinsburg, WV is about the same distance and much, much slower (yet still popular).

Also depends on the speed of the train in question. Scads of people commute from Lille to Paris by TGV, on which it is a 1 hour ride, for something like 140 miles.

In the US commuting from new York to Philadelphia is not unheard of either, which is over 90 miles.

Also whether something is called a commuter service or regional service, seems to some extent to be a matter of arbitrary definition in a relatively densely served rail network.

jis said:

Also depends on the speed of the train in question. Scads of people commute from Lille to Paris by TGV, on which it is a 1 hour ride, for something like 140 miles.

In the US commuting from new York to Philadelphia is not unheard of either, which is over 90 miles.

Also whether something is called a commuter service or regional service, seems to some extent to be a matter of arbitrary definition in a relatively densely served rail network.

Click to expand...

We must also consider that not everyone is going to be commuting end to end. That 100-mile railroad serves many stations, and I would venture to guess that the vast majority of those commuters are travelling to stations maybe 20-30 miles apart. So a commuter railroad can feasibly be very long, as long as the population density will support it.

Chicago Metra never goes any more than 50 miles away. And even that they go sparingly, not a full time service, only during rush hours and very few at off peak times. To Kenosha.

I cant see any average American commuting from 90 miles or further away.

I ask this to see if MBTA extension to Springfield is feasible.

Regardless of what you see, many, many Americans commute from 90 or more miles away.

Well, there are people who commute from Old Saybrook to New York...

Ryan said:

Regardless of what you see, many, many Americans commute from 90 or more miles away.

Click to expand...

Ask Saxman how far he commutes to go to work!

Shawn Ryu said:

Chicago Metra never goes any more than 50 miles away. And even that they go sparingly, not a full time service, only during rush hours and very few at off peak times. To Kenosha.

Click to expand...

Metra runs where it does because that is the extent of the Regional Transit Authority (except for Kenosha). To go any further would require more Illinois counties to join the RTA.

I cant see any average American commuting from 90 miles or further away.

Click to expand...

Define "average American." I'm sure the "average" American probably doesn't commute by rail at all, yet we still have commuter trains. So...what's your point?

The issue isn't whether you'll get 50% of a population (or whatever arbitrary number you or anyone else may come up with) to use a service. It's whether or not you'll get enough usage for it to be reasonably effective given its cost (and that is something that will always be subject to debate).

I ask this to see if MBTA extension to Springfield is feasible.

Click to expand...

The real issue isn't about distance (pilots and flight attendants, for example, may live a thousand miles from where they work), or necessarily even travel time (there are people in some cities with ****-poor public transit who have to take two or three buses and ride an hour and a half each way to get to/from work, and are traveling less than 10 or 15 miles each way), but rather where the population lives, and where people work.

Take a look at California, and you'll see people that commute long distances each day to/from work, because housing in certain cities tends to be so expensive, that the people that work there couldn't possibly afford to live there.

So, the question is, do enough people live in Springfield and work in Boston (or vice versa) to make it worthwhile to have regular commuter service between the two cities? Do enough people make that commute on a daily basis that would benefit from having a few trains in each rush hour go back and forth?

The issue of what is "commuter" is not one that is defined by distance.

I believe that the distance isn't so much the deciding factor, its about how much time, or how many transfers they have to make. The better the schedules the more people will begin to use it.

Long Train Runnin said:

I believe that the distance isn't so much the deciding factor, its about how much time, or how many transfers they have to make. The better the schedules the more people will begin to use it.

Click to expand...

Depends on the Population densities and connecting cities and towns.........there still planning lines here in the Northeast that will be 100+ miles. But those will connect large cities and towns.

I would suggest that travel time is at least as important, and probably more important, as distance.

Travel time and distance goes hand in hand though, the further you are longer it will take. Simple math.

Even if we do invest in high speed lines, no commuter rails will be using them. And Im not counting trains like San Joaquin as commuter trains.

Shawn Ryu said:

Travel time and distance goes hand in hand though, the further you are longer it will take. Simple math.

Even if we do invest in high speed lines, no commuter rails will be using them. And Im not counting trains like San Joaquin as commuter trains.

Click to expand...

Why won't people use HSR to commute? They are used everywhere else in the world, and actually even in the US (e.g. people do use the Acela from NY to Philly quite regularly). E.g. TGV from Lille to Paris, The HSR service to Southeast of England over HS-1. I am afraid you are artificially restricting the notion to fit some preconceived idea that you have instead of considering what is common practice in various systems.

Also the math is not that simple because trains do travel at different speeds on different routes thus making commutes over longer distance more practical on higher speed lines than on lower speed lines.

I am talking about trains operated by regional agencies though.

Shawn Ryu said:

I am talking about trains operated by regional agencies though.

Click to expand...

Why does it matter what entity operates the trains? That just creates an artificial constraint that may have little to do with the actual commuter market.

Because in theory agencies operated by the federal government can get more fundings than the one operated by the state. Regional agencies will never receive enough to create their own high speed rails nor is there a good reason to.

I can think of a few long rail commutes I've done (not every day tho):

1. Sacramento to Oakland (Capitol Corridor): 80 miles

2. Stockton to Oakland (San Joaquin): 80 miles

3. Stockton to San Jose (ACE Train): 80 miles

4. Portland Maine to Boston (Downeaster): 100 miles

I can think of a few long rail commutes I've done (not every day tho):

1. Sacramento to Oakland (Capitol Corridor): 80 miles

2. Stockton to Oakland (San Joaquin): 80 miles

3. Stockton to San Jose (ACE Train): 80 miles

4. Portland Maine to Boston (Downeaster): 100 miles

Shawn Ryu said:

Because in theory agencies operated by the federal government can get more fundings than the one operated by the state. Regional agencies will never receive enough to create their own high speed rails nor is there a good reason to.

Click to expand...

If indeed the leaked reports are correct, NJ's governor just killed a project that included a $3 Billion grant from the Fed. Amtrak only gets $1.5B or so each year.

If Amtrak ever gets enough funds to build high speed rail trains they are going to have to get 10 times more than what regional transit agencies use.

Shawn Ryu said:

If Amtrak ever gets enough funds to build high speed rail trains they are going to have to get 10 times more than what regional transit agencies use.

Click to expand...

And yet, it is two regional rail organizations namely CA HSR and Florida HSR, and not Amtrak, that are getting the HSR funding, and you still insist that regional organizations will not get HSR funding. This thread is becoming more and more surreal by the moment IMHO.

Quite a few years ago, the Memphis Press Scimitar looked for the longest distance daily commuter into Memphis. There were many in the 50 plus mile range, The longest distance was a person the commuted from near Iuka, Mississippi to a place in Midtown Memphis. Just at 100 miles, most of it on two-lane highway. Long commutes do happen. Have a relative that did 50 miles one way for something like 15 years. If you ride Caltrain between San Francisco and San Jose, there are people that are getting both on and off at all the stops, regardless of didrection. The average load may be higher on the San Francisco end, but the ridership is far from into and out of SF only.

Time is a consideration, and along with cost probably far more important than distance. Generally it appears that the commute volume drops off significantly at some point between 45 minutes and one hour.

jis said:

Shawn Ryu said:

If Amtrak ever gets enough funds to build high speed rail trains they are going to have to get 10 times more than what regional transit agencies use.

Click to expand...

And yet, it is two regional rail organizations namely CA HSR and Florida HSR, and not Amtrak, that are getting the HSR funding, and you still insist that regional organizations will not get HSR funding. This thread is becoming more and more surreal by the moment IMHO.

Click to expand...

I am not suggesting that they are not going to get it at all. I'm suggesting that the regional transit agencies such as MTA and MBTA will never be able to create their own high speed rail lines nor will they have reason to. CA HSR and FL High speed rails arent going to be built by LAMTA and HART respectively. The two agencies arent going to run it.