Skip to main content

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


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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1


  • American Public Transit Association: Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transit. American Public Transit Association, Washington, DC (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cambridge Systematics and Apogee Research. Measuring and Valuing Transit Benefits and Disbenefits: Summary. TCRP Report 20. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (1996)

  • Cervero, R.: Transit pricing research: A review and synthesis. Transportation 17, 117–139 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S.C., Diegel S.W., Boundy, R.B.: Transportation Energy Data Book, 30th edn. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge

  • 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 

  • Environmental Protection Agency: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the US Transportation Sector: 1990–2003. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Protection Agency: Green Power Equivalency Calculator Methodologies. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. (2011). Accessed 30 Aug 2011

  • Federal Highway Administration: Highways statistics. (2009). Accessed 20 Aug 2011

  • Federal Transit Administration: National Transit Database, Database. (2010). Accessed 12 Apr 2013

  • 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)

  • Hsu, C.-I., Guo, S.-P.: Externality reductions in residential areas due to rail transit networks. Ann. Reg. Sci. 55, 555–566 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICF Consulting: Estimating Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Use in New York State. ICF Consulting, Washington, DC (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jia, W.: Metrorail trends and markets: Synopsis of recent ridership growth. Transp. Res. Rec. 2112, 34–42 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lane, C., DiCarlantonio, M., Usvyat, L.: Sketch models to forecast commuter and light rail ridership. Transp. Res. Rec. 1986, 198–210 (2006)

  • Oram, R.L.: The role of subsidy policy in modernizing the structure of the bus transit industry. Transportation 9, 333–353 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole, R.: Does rail transit save energy or reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Policy Anal. 615, 1–23 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pucher, J.: Socioeconomics of urban travel. Transp. Q. 57(3), 49–77 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storchmann, K.: Externalities by automobiles and fare-free transit in Germany: A paradigm shift? J. Public Transp. 6(4), 89–105 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voith, R.: The long-run elasticity of demand for commuter rail transportation. J. Urban Econ. 30, 360–372 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voith, R.: Fares, service levels, and demographics: What determines commuter rail ridership in the long run? J. Urban Econ. 41, 176–197 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wachs, M.: US transit subsidy policy: In need of reform. Science 244, 1545–1549 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Resources Institute: Employee Commuting Spreadsheet. (2011). Accessed 30 July 2011

Download references


This research was funded by a grant from the New Jersey Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Research (Grant # FHWA-NJ-2011-008). The authors are grateful to Jon Carnegie for moderating the two focus groups and to Orin Puniello for coordinating the focus groups and the onboard survey. The authors are particularly grateful to Thomas A. Rubin, one of the reviewers, for providing extraordinarily useful advice regarding GHG estimation from new trains. However, the authors bear the sole responsibility for the content of the paper and any potential errors or omissions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Devajyoti Deka.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Deka, D., Marchwinski, T. The revenue and environmental benefits of new off-peak commuter rail service: the case of the Pascack Valley line in New Jersey. Transportation 41, 157–172 (2014).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


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