4 ms·

Definitely agree that more, better transit would have a much bigger impact. But I'd say the problem of commuter rail is frequency, coverage station locations,

by ant6n 9y ago

Definitely agree that more, better transit would have a much bigger impact. But I'd say the problem of commuter rail is frequency, coverage station locations, acceleration, level boarding, dwell times etc etc. Given that line speed is dictated by acceleration and dwell times, top speed is really far down the list of priorities. Also, top speed of commuter rail is already up to 200km/h (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALP-45DP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALP-45DP).

Pxtl 9y ago
I guess it's just my own experience in Ontario - the GO transit trains look like they travel at about 110kph or so, and once you figure in their slow acceleration and frequent stops that means they're quite slow. Outside of the worst part of Toronto rush hour (which is notoriously bad) they're actually slower than the comparable coach bus from my area (Hamilton). The overall average speed is a paltry 50kph. When the train is slower than the coach bus, why even have a train?
- ant6n 9y ago
  The average speed is governed by acceleration and dwell time - the issue for GO is lack of electrification (which increases acceleration), and lack of level boarding (which decreases dwell time). 50km/h average is actually quite fast. I mean, a radius 50km from downtown is a huge area already. We have to densify inside that radius, not sprawl people further out because the trains are so fast. This means for example we need more stations, so that more developable land is within walking distance of service.
  - Pxtl 9y ago
    > This means for example we need more stations, so that more developable land is within walking distance of service That's what lrt and subways are for, not the big commuter GO trains.
    - ant6n 9y ago
      That's the crux of what's wrong with commuter rail thinking in North America: "Serving the city is what the subway is for". Your original post, asking for 200km/h commuter rail, is a sign of it. There's a meaningless separation of modes based on technology, and ascribing attributes to them. In Japan or Europe, the technologies are converging and so are the modes. Any infrastructure will have it's utilization maximized, and may function as what North Americans understand as 'commuter rail', subway' or 'light rail' all at the same time. The result: more coverage, more service, better integration of services, more overall effectiveness, more ridership, less reliance on driving.

by ant6n 9y ago

Pxtl 9y ago

I guess it's just my own experience in Ontario - the GO transit trains look like they travel at about 110kph or so, and once you figure in their slow acceleration and frequent stops that means they're quite slow. Outside of the worst part of Toronto rush hour (which is notoriously bad) they're actually slower than the comparable coach bus from my area (Hamilton). The overall average speed is a paltry 50kph. When the train is slower than the coach bus, why even have a train?

ant6n 9y ago
The average speed is governed by acceleration and dwell time - the issue for GO is lack of electrification (which increases acceleration), and lack of level boarding (which decreases dwell time). 50km/h average is actually quite fast. I mean, a radius 50km from downtown is a huge area already. We have to densify inside that radius, not sprawl people further out because the trains are so fast. This means for example we need more stations, so that more developable land is within walking distance of service.
- Pxtl 9y ago
  > This means for example we need more stations, so that more developable land is within walking distance of service That's what lrt and subways are for, not the big commuter GO trains.
  - ant6n 9y ago
    That's the crux of what's wrong with commuter rail thinking in North America: "Serving the city is what the subway is for". Your original post, asking for 200km/h commuter rail, is a sign of it. There's a meaningless separation of modes based on technology, and ascribing attributes to them. In Japan or Europe, the technologies are converging and so are the modes. Any infrastructure will have it's utilization maximized, and may function as what North Americans understand as 'commuter rail', subway' or 'light rail' all at the same time. The result: more coverage, more service, better integration of services, more overall effectiveness, more ridership, less reliance on driving.