Rethinking Commuter Rail

Post-Pandemic Drop in Ridership Calls for Regional Approach

“My baby takes the morning train. He works from 9 to 5 and then…he takes another home…”

Not anymore. Sheena Easton’s lover in the song “9 to 5” probably is working from home today, and not just so he could hang with her. The COVID pandemic ignited a mass exodus from the office. People started to work from home and use their personal computers and new technologies such as Zoom to meet remotely with coworkers and clients. They got accustomed to it, they liked it, and they decided not to return to the office.

This tectonic shift in the American white collar workplace hit commuter railroads hard. Most riders disappeared during the pandemic. Three years later ridership has not fully recovered. Passenger counts on the Long Island Rail Road, the largest US commuter line, are less than two-thirds of what they were prior to March 2020.

Commuter carriers must adapt or they could close. Some have begun to transition into regional rail lines. Regional rail lines and commuter carriers differ in several ways. Regional systems connect various cities within a metropolitan region. Trains run throughout the day on a fixed interval schedule, e.g., every hour, every half hour, etc.

Traditional commuter railroads’ bring people who live in the suburbs to jobs in the core city. Their service concentrates on peak (rush) hours. Their non-peak schedules tend to be irregular. Lengthy midday services are commonplace. Many do not even provide non-peak or weekend service. This approach met the needs of affluent suburbanites but did little to serve other populations.

By providing service at regular intervals throughout the day the regional model can serve riders that commuter lines could not. For example, workers whose shifts do not run from 9 to 5. Also, reverse commuters who travel from the urban core to jobs in the suburbs. Besides work, people could use trains in non-peak hours to visit friends or family, attend school, run errands, get to healthcare appointments, attend sporting events, museums and concerts or recitals.

Regional carriers could also draw ridership by making additional stops within cities beside their terminals. On short trips within city limits people could go by train instead of relying upon slow buses.

A comparison between California’s two largest rail operators, Caltrain and Metrolink, illustrates why the regional rail approach is much more efficient and effective at serving their markets. Caltrain, which serves the San Francisco – San Jose market, and Metrolink, which serves greater Los Angeles, are the eighth and ninth busiest US commuter lines. Their ridership is comparable: 16,000 weekday riders for Caltrain; 15,100 for Metrolink. However, Caltrain has 207 riders per mile each day while Metrolink has 39, which means Caltrain is more than five times as productive as Metrolink.

Caltrain operates one route between two large cities – San Francisco and San Jose – plus an extension to Gilroy for a total of 77 route miles. It serves several important intermediate points, including Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto. As a regional rail line, it runs two trains in each direction in midday and additional rush hour service between both cities. In addition, it has a $2.4 billion project underway to electrify its route as far south as Tamien station in San Jose, which is slated for completion next year.

Metrolink has 388 route miles spread over seven routes, all but one of which run to Los Angeles Union Station. It is designed as a commuter system with extensive rush hour service but large service gaps between the last morning and first afternoon run in each direction.

Hence it is impractical to use other than during rush hour and it provides little service for people bound for major suburban cities along its routes such as Santa Ana, Anaheim, Burbank, and Riverside. Consequently, Southern Californians who might have taken a train if it was convenient opt for the freeway.

Perhaps the best example of a successful American regional service is SEPTA Regional Rail, which serves the greater Philadelphia market. SEPTA operates 13 routes and provides hourly midday service or better on all but one of them.

Instead of terminating in center city, Philadelphia, SEPTA trains run through it thanks to the Center City Commuter Connection and stop briefly at Suburban Station and Jefferson Station. The connection, which opened in 1984, allows trains on the former Pennsylvania lines to reach the former Reading lines and vice versa. Each weekday SEPTA Regional Rail carries 62,800 riders, 224 riders per mile, slightly more productive than Caltrain and MBTA and close to NJ Transit and METRA.

Other lines are climbing aboard the regional rail bandwagon. Both METRA in Chicago and the MBTA in Boston are increasing midday service, although there are no plans to connect the various commuter lines leading into those cities. Nevertheless, these carriers are not only seeking to better service the public but also make more productive use of infrastructure that is already in place.

Two factors will be crucial to the success of regional railroads: frequency and fares. Trains need to come often enough so riders don’t have to worry about missing them. Advocates argue for every half hour frequencies or better. Riders would rather drive than have to wait an hour or more if they missed their train, they contend. On sparsely populated routes with few stations hourly frequencies or even one train every two hours might suffice.

With shorter trains railroads could provide more frequent service. A 12-car consist could be broken apart into two six-car or three four-car trains. SEPTA uses two-cars trains during off-peak hours.

DMUs (diesel multiple unit) could replace locomotive-hauled trains on midday runs. However, electrification and EMUs (electric multiple unit) are preferable since they are cleaner, faster, and more versatile.

Riding regional rail needs to be affordable. Railroads cannot charge peak fares for off-peak travel. For short trips, i.e., 10 miles or less, fares should be in line with mass transit. Fare systems should be integrated so passengers could complete their trip with a single ticket. There is no legitimate reason that if I want to go by train to JFK, for example, I have to buy a separate ticket, using the same technology, to board the Air Train at Jamaica or Howard Beach stations.

As with any enterprise, there are obstacles. Can elected officials and multiple agencies work collaboratively? Will labor support the changes? Will the improved service support transit-oriented development; not only multifamily residences but commercial projects, too?

With fewer people commuting five days a week from the suburbs to jobs in the city, agencies need to find new ways to put fannies in the seats. Done right a rail network that transitions to a regional model can do much more than bring people into a city’s business district. There are unserved and underserved markets waiting to be tapped. Provide trains that will take people where they want to go and when they want to go at reasonable, affordable fares and watch ridership soar.