Transportation

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 157–172 | Cite as

The revenue and environmental benefits of new off-peak commuter rail service: the case of the Pascack Valley line in New Jersey

Article

Abstract

Although researchers have long argued in favor of off-peak transit service, studies that have empirically estimated its benefits regarding revenue generation, trip diversions, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission are rare. This study provides important evidence about the benefits of off-peak commuter rail service by focusing on the Pascack Valley line in New Jersey, where off-peak service was introduced in October 2007. The research involved two focus groups and an onboard survey of passengers. Benefits were estimated regarding additional revenue generation and reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and GHG emission. The research shows that the new off-peak service potentially reduced VMT by more than 12 million annually due to diversions from other modes. Although diversions from other modes resulted in a substantial reduction in GHG emissions, due to the additional diesel fuel used by the new trains, the net GHG savings were in the range of 28–49 %. The research further shows that both peak period and off-peak riders benefited from the new off-peak service. Evidence is found about an increase in new transit riders and a modest increase peak period usage because of the off-peak service.

Keywords

Off-peak transit Off-peak transit benefits Transit benefits Commuter rail Greenhouse gas 

References

  1. American Public Transit Association: Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transit. American Public Transit Association, Washington, DC (2009)Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, L., Mokhtarian, P.L., Little, A.: The Broader Connection Between Public Transportation, Energy Conservation and Greenhouse Gas Reduction. ICF International, Fairfax (2008)Google Scholar
  3. Cambridge Systematics and Apogee Research. Measuring and Valuing Transit Benefits and Disbenefits: Summary. TCRP Report 20. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (1996)Google Scholar
  4. Cervero, R.: Transit pricing research: A review and synthesis. Transportation 17, 117–139 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, Y., Whalley, A.: Green infrastructure: The effects of urban rail transit on air quality. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 4(1), 58–97 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, S.C., Diegel S.W., Boundy, R.B.: Transportation Energy Data Book, 30th edn. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak RidgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Deakin, E., Ferrell, C., Mason, J., Thomas J.: Policies and practices for cost-effective transit investments: Recent experiences in the United States. Transp. Res. Rec. 1799, 1–9 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. Environmental Protection Agency: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the US Transportation Sector: 1990–2003. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (2006)Google Scholar
  9. Environmental Protection Agency: Green Power Equivalency Calculator Methodologies. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/pubs/calcmeth.htm#vehicles (2011). Accessed 30 Aug 2011
  10. Federal Highway Administration: Highways statistics. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/ (2009). Accessed 20 Aug 2011
  11. Federal Transit Administration: National Transit Database, Database. http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/dt/2010/excel/DataTables.htm (2010). Accessed 12 Apr 2013
  12. Feigon S., Hoyt, D., McNally L., Mooney-Bullock, R., Campbell, S., Leach D.: Travel Matters: Mitigating Climate Change with Sustainable Surface Transportation. TCRP Report 93. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (2003)Google Scholar
  13. Hsu, C.-I., Guo, S.-P.: Externality reductions in residential areas due to rail transit networks. Ann. Reg. Sci. 55, 555–566 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ICF Consulting: Estimating Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Use in New York State. ICF Consulting, Washington, DC (2005)Google Scholar
  15. Jia, W.: Metrorail trends and markets: Synopsis of recent ridership growth. Transp. Res. Rec. 2112, 34–42 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. Kennedy, C.A.: A comparison of the sustainability of public and private transportation systems: Study of the Greater Toronto Area. Transportation 29, 459–493 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Labelle, S.J., Stuart, D.G.: Diverting automobile users to transit: Early lessons from the Chicago Transit Authority’s Orange Line. Transp. Res. Rec. 1503, 79–87 (1995)Google Scholar
  18. Lane, C., DiCarlantonio, M., Usvyat, L.: Sketch models to forecast commuter and light rail ridership. Transp. Res. Rec. 1986, 198–210 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. Oram, R.L.: The role of subsidy policy in modernizing the structure of the bus transit industry. Transportation 9, 333–353 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Toole, R.: Does rail transit save energy or reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Policy Anal. 615, 1–23 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. PB Americas, Cambridge Systematics, E.H. Pechan and Associates, EuQuant: Incorporating Greenhouse Gas Emissions into the Collaborative Decision-Making Process. SHRP 2 Report S2-C09-RR-1. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (2013)Google Scholar
  22. Poudenx, P., Merida, W.: Energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions from urban passenger transportation versus availability of renewable energy: The example of the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley. Energy 32(1), 1–9 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pucher, J.: Equity in transit finance: Distribution of transit subsidy benefits and costs among income classes. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 47(4), 10–28 (1981)Google Scholar
  24. Pucher, J.: Socioeconomics of urban travel. Transp. Q. 57(3), 49–77 (2003)Google Scholar
  25. Rubin, T.A., Moore II, J.E., Lee, S.: A postmortem analysis of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s 20-year long range plan. Public Works Manag. Policy 3(3), 187–206 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Storchmann, K.: Externalities by automobiles and fare-free transit in Germany: A paradigm shift? J. Public Transp. 6(4), 89–105 (2003)Google Scholar
  27. VandeWeghe, J.R., Kennedy, C.: A spatial analysis of residential greenhouse gas emissions in the Toronto Census Metropolitan area. J. Ind. Ecol. 11(2), 133–144 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Voith, R.: The long-run elasticity of demand for commuter rail transportation. J. Urban Econ. 30, 360–372 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Voith, R.: Fares, service levels, and demographics: What determines commuter rail ridership in the long run? J. Urban Econ. 41, 176–197 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wachs, M.: US transit subsidy policy: In need of reform. Science 244, 1545–1549 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. World Resources Institute: Employee Commuting Spreadsheet. http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/carbon_calculators/category/Assumptions (2011). Accessed 30 July 2011

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy RutgersThe State University of New JerseyNew BrunswickUSA
  2. 2.NJ TRANSIT HeadquartersNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations