[southernnorthcarolina]

We in the "other" Charlotte (NC) have the beginning of a commuter rail system. Predictably, it's a joke -- a very bad one at the expense of taxpayers.

The strategy among the train boosters was one of incrementalism. Built one line, no matter how puny, and, golly gee whiz, we can't stop there, can we? Once we've started down the track, so to speak, we have to keep going. In Charlotte, NC's case, the South Line is up and running -- all 9 miles of it, with station platforms long enough to accommodate trains of -- wait for it -- two cars.

The South Line runs from downtown toward the south (at least they figured out what to name the line) but stops short of the I-485 loop, and is therefore useless for suburbanites. More importantly, though the clamor is on for more lines into downtown, there is no central station, and no plans for any interface between the lines.

But the biggest problem is one inherent to all rail systems: the rails are fixed. Trains are really good at taking people from where they're not to where they don't want to go. Bus routes can be changed as residential areas and employment centers pop up in different locations; train routes, not so much.

I realize that huge cities like New York, London, and Tokyo need rail transit. Charlotte, NC and Charlotte, VT do not.

[Alberta's Child]

But the biggest problem is one inherent to all rail systems: the rails are fixed. Trains are really good at taking people from where they're not to where they don't want to go. Bus routes can be changed as residential areas and employment centers pop up in different locations; train routes, not so much.

This is a very good point, but there's also a flip side to the statement you've made here.

The flexibility of bus service is often seen as a disadvantage from the perspective of someone who is looking to develop property or locate a business in an area that is served by a bus transit system. Someone who takes advantage of a property that is well-served by buses has a higher risk of losing value due to the curtailment or elimination of the bus service than someone who is located on a fixed-guideway transit system like commuter rail or light rail. It is far less likely for a public agency to spend a fortune on an LRT system only to shut it down a few years later, but bus routes and schedules change all the time.

This is why rail transit systems make the most sense when they serve "fixed" land uses that have their own "critical mass" of passenger demand -- such as dense downtown areas, airports, sports stadiums, tourist attractions, etc.

Your comment about residential areas and employment centers "popping up" illustrates the basic challenge any urban planner faces: Should transit systems be built in response to land use patterns, or should land use patterns be established around transit systems?