1985State of the art reportRequires access

LIGHT RAIL: PROSPECTS AND PERSPECTIVES

Jeffrey M Zupan

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

In the 1970s this author, while employed by Regional Plan Association (RPA), a New York region-based planning and research not-for-profit organization, participated in two large studies that sought to define the land use conditions consistent with a variety of public transit modes. In Public Transportation and Land Use Policy, transit cost and demand estimates were determined for hypothesized residential and nonresidential densities and development patterns. The result was a generalized topography of where transit works. Modes examined included taxi, dial-a-bus, local bus, express bus, light rail, automated guideway transit, rapid transit, and commuter rail. Following this effort, in Urban Rail in America, a more specific effort to define appropriate demand thresholds for light rail, rapid transit, and downtown people movers was undertaken. These thresholds, based on service frequency, operating savings, capital investment levels, and energy and savings, were applied to the major urban regions in America to establish a generalized level of national investment for fixed-guideway transit. The findings of these two works as they relate to light rail are reviewed briefly because such material is readily available elsewhere. The primary focus of this paper is on observations about light rail from the perspective of a planner who is currently responsible for helping to shape the future transit system of the fourth largest transit system in the nation, NJ Transit. (Author)

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In the 1970s this author, while employed by Regional Plan Association (RPA), a New York region-based planning and research not-for-profit organization, participated in two large studies that sought to define the land use conditions consistent with a variety of public transit modes. In Public Transportation and Land Use Policy, transit cost and demand estimates were determined for hypothesized residential and nonresidential densities and development patterns. The result was a generalized topography of where transit works. Modes examined included taxi, dial-a-bus, local bus, express bus, light rail, automated guideway transit, rapid transit, and commuter rail. Following this effort, in Urban Rail in America, a more specific effort to define appropriate demand thresholds for light rail, rapid transit, and downtown people movers was undertaken. These thresholds, based on service frequency, operating savings, capital investment levels, and energy and savings, were applied to the major urban regions in America to establish a generalized level of national investment for fixed-guideway transit. The findings of these two works as they relate to light rail are reviewed briefly because such material is readily available elsewhere. The primary focus of this paper is on observations about light rail from the perspective of a planner who is currently responsible for helping to shape the future transit system of the fourth largest transit system in the nation, NJ Transit. (Author)

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In the 1970s this author, while employed by Regional Plan Association (RPA), a New York region-based planning and research not-for-profit organization, participated in two large studies that sought to define the land use conditions consistent with a variety of public transit modes. In Public Transportation and Land Use Policy, transit cost and demand estimates were determined for hypothesized residential and nonresidential densities and development patterns. The result was a generalized topography of where transit works. Modes examined included taxi, dial-a-bus, local bus, express bus, light rail, automated guideway transit, rapid transit, and commuter rail. Following this effort, in Urban Rail in America, a more specific effort to define appropriate demand thresholds for light rail, rapid transit, and downtown people movers was undertaken. These thresholds, based on service frequency, operating savings, capital investment levels, and energy and savings, were applied to the major urban regions in America to establish a generalized level of national investment for fixed-guideway transit. The findings of these two works as they relate to light rail are reviewed briefly because such material is readily available elsewhere. The primary focus of this paper is on observations about light rail from the perspective of a planner who is currently responsible for helping to shape the future transit system of the fourth largest transit system in the nation, NJ Transit. (Author)

Key concepts: Public transport, Transport engineering, Downtown, Light rail transit, Planner, Light rail, Transit (satellite), Investment (military)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
LIGHT RAIL: PROSPECTS AND PERSPECTIVES — Research Paper | ScholarLens