Traditional rail rapid transit systems are primarily limited to central cities, but a modern variant, regional rapid transit (RRT), extends far enough into suburbs to be considered truly regional in scope. RRT uses automatic train driving, other advanced technologies, long station spacing, and park-and-ride lots to serve suburban as well as city travel. Inaugurated between 1969 and 1979, RRT operations in several regions (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Boston, Massachusetts; San Francisco, California; Washington, D.C.; and Atlanta, Georgia) combined advanced rapid transit technology with station spacing and market functions akin to inner-zone to midrange commuter rail. To establish similarities and differences between the properties of RRT and other rail systems, data are analyzed for these and other rapid transit systems, as well as for historically established commuter railroads. RRT operations today face challenges of aging infrastructure but continue to be vital in the areas that they serve and have undergone incremental expansion in some instances.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EiseleD. O.Suburban Service in North America Today—Which Way Will We Go?Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1984, p. 27.
2.
Automatic Train Control in Rail Rapid Transit.Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C., May 1976.
3.
MiddletonW. D.Metropolitan Railways: Rapid Transit in America. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 2003, pp. 107–143.
4.
HoessJ. A.Conversion of Rapid-Transit Trains to One-Person Operation. In Transportation Research Record 1152, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1987, pp. 56–58.
5.
VuchicV. R.Rapid Transit Automation and the Last Crew Member. Railway Gazette International, Oct. 1973, p. 383.
6.
VigrassJ. W.The Lindenwold Hi-Speed Line.West Jersey Chapter, National Railway Historical Society, Cherry Hill, N.J., 1990, p. 12.
7.
ClarkeB. H.South Shore: Quincy–Boston.Boston Street Railway Association, Cambridge, Mass., 1972.
8.
An Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit, Vol. 8. San Francisco Case Study.Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C., March 1976, pp. 9–17.
9.
GrefeR., and SmartR.A History of the Key Decisions in the Development of Bay Area Rapid Transit. Report FR 3-14-75. U.S. Department of Transportation, Aug. 1975.
10.
MiddletonW. D.From Bullets to BART.Central Electric Railfans’ Association, Chicago, Ill., 1989, p. 80.
11.
An Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit, Vol. 10.Washington, D.C. Case Study.Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C., March 1976.
12.
An Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit. Vol. 2.Atlanta Case Study.Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C., March 1976.
13.
PushkarevB., ZupanJ.M., and CumellaR. S.Urban Rail in America. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1982, p. 16.
14.
JacksonR. E.Metro Here and Now. Headlights, April–June 1976.
15.
DeiterR. H.The Story of Metro: Transportation and Politics in the Nation's Capital.Interurban Press, Glendale, Calif., 1990.
16.
MiklosF. S.Rapid Transit Arrives in the Deep South. Headlights, Feb.–March 1980.
17.
WilsonF. J.BART Survives Earthquake. Railway Gazette International, Developing Metros 1990 issue, p. 62.
18.
PayneM. A.Bay Area Rapid Transit District Regional Rail Planning. In Transportation Research Record 1433, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 99–106.
19.
DeakinE., PayneM., and MenottiV.Development of Bay Area Rapid Transit System Expansion Criteria and Process. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1887, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 18–25.
20.
CerveroR.Office Development, Rail Transit, and Commuting Choices. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 9, No. 5, 2006, pp. 41–55.
21.
MiddletonW.Expansion Starts as Metrorail's Core Network Is Completed. Railway Gazette International, Jan. 2001.
22.
BottigheimerN.Role of Transit in Transit-Oriented Development, Livable and Sustainable Communities. Presented at 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010.
23.
JiaW.Metrorail Trends and Markets: Synopsis of Recent Ridership Growth. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2112, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 34–42.
24.
LevinsonH.S., GluckJ.S., and NgW.Park-and-Ride, Kiss-and-Ride, and Change-of-Mode Facilities. In Parking Management—Planning, Design, and Operations (HaahsT. H., ed.), International Parking Institute, Fredericksburg, Va., 2009.
25.
SchumannJ.W., and PhranerS. D.Regional Rail for U.S. Metropolitan Areas: Concept and Applications. In Transportation Research Record 1433, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 83–88.
26.
MatoffT. G.Regional Rail in a Low-Density Context. In Transportation Research Record 1433, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 89–98.
27.
TennysonE. L.Potential and Cost of Commuter or Regional Rail Service. In Transportation Research Record 908, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1983, pp. 31–38.
28.
An Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit, Vol. 3.Boston Case Study.Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C., March 1976, p. 17.
29.
BART Earthquake Safety Program.Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Oakland, Calif., circa 2005.
30.
WilsonB.BART: Coming of Age and Looking to the Future. Rail, Summer 2006.
