Jammed Freeways Lead to Commuter Trains’ Revival : Transportation: Choking cities have made railroads the fastest growing type of public transit in the nation.

Right on schedule, two hulking green-and-white commuter trains, each of them two stories tall and two blocks long, pulled in along each side of Platform 5 in Toronto’s aging but elegant Union Station.

In two minutes, the trains deposited about 2,000 passengers in the terminal, a short stroll to many downtown buildings and just steps from the subway, streetcars and buses.

Dozens more of such trains pulled in at regular intervals throughout the day, bringing 90,000 commuters into Canada’s largest city. Along with the city’s subway, streetcar and bus network, the commuter trains are one reason that two-thirds of the daily trips to downtown Toronto are made on public transit.

For mass transit planners in the United States, the seemingly effortless efficiency of the government of Ontario’s “GO” trains is a model of what modern commuter train service can be--and, increasingly, a model of what those transit planners want to offer in their cities.

Decades after freeway construction pushed commuter trains into decline, freeway congestion is reviving their fortunes. Cities choking on traffic and smog have made railroads the fastest growing type of public transit in the nation, according to the American Public Transit Assn.

Old systems in Boston and Chicago are expanding, as is the system launched two years ago in Miami. Wholly new commuter railroads are racing to open soon in northern Virginia and Southern California, and new services have been proposed in cities from Seattle to Dallas to Tampa.

“Average freeway speeds in California are what, 36 m.p.h.? And going down to 18 m.p.h. in a few years? People are already tired of sitting in traffic,” said Howard Robertson of Amtrak, the national intercity passenger train service that also maintains and staffs commuter trains for four regional transit authorities.

“They see these tracks, sometimes right along the freeway, and they wonder why they can’t ride on them. Even if it takes as long or a little longer (to commute) by train, at least you can relax or sleep or read the paper and have a cup of coffee on the way in to the office.”

Southern California, with its ever-worsening traffic, has the most ambitious commuter train plan. The region now relies on one train run by the Orange County Transportation Authority and Amtrak’s intercity San Diegan service. But the newly created Southern California Regional Rail Authority plans for eight lines covering 402 miles by the end of the decade.

Operating under the name Metrolink, the first three lines--from Los Angeles’ Union Station to Moorpark in Ventura County, the Santa Clarita Valley and San Bernardino--are scheduled to start next October.

One month later, voters will be asked to approve additional funding to complete the system. Eventually, rush-hour train service is planned between Oceanside and Los Angeles, between San Bernardino and Irvine, and between Riverside and Los Angeles.

Critics note that commuter trains are not as effective in amorphous, sprawling cities such as Los Angeles, in which people live in one suburb and work in another. Advocates respond that Southern California’s commuter trains are just one part of a large strategy that also includes better bus service, special lanes for buses and car pools, and subway and streetcar lines.

“There’s a section of the market you can reach with commuter rail that you can’t reach any other way,” said Jim Sims, president of Commuter Transportation Services, a private, nonprofit advocacy firm. “These are generally more affluent people with long commutes, people who might not respond to buses or van pools.

“There is no one-size-fits-all solution (to congestion and pollution). One commuter train line is not going to make the San Bernardino Freeway flow smoothly, but it’s an important part of an overall solution.”

Commuter trains are attractive because transportation planners believe that when factors are right, train lines are a relatively cheap and fast way to expand a region’s transportation network.

“There’s no more cost-effective way to move a lot of people,” said Ed Gregerman, director of rail technology for the American Public Transit Assn., “especially since the right of way is usually already there. You have to upgrade the track, of course, but it’s still cheaper than evicting people from their houses to make room for a new subway or light rail.”

Or, he might have added, for a new freeway.

Not every city that looks at commuter trains has embraced them. Vancouver, Canada, rejected commuter rail in 1989 because the cost of repairing ill-maintained freight railroad tracks was not justified by the expected ridership. Instead, Vancouver bought 21 extra-long articulated buses and is building a special busway for them.

Other cities have discovered in other ways how difficult and expensive it can be to start a commuter railroad.

Commuter trains often run on tracks owned and used by freight railroads, which must be persuaded to share them for a workable fee. At the same time, union workers must agree to smaller crews and other new work rules. Insurance companies must be found to underwrite large liability policies. And, of course, riders must be wooed out of their cars.

Then there are unexpected problems, such as the discovery that commuter trains in Southern California could create more of one type of pollutant than all of the cars they would replace. That possibility is pushing some officials to demand that the trains use non-polluting electric engines--a change that could cost another $300 million and delay some lines for years.

The biggest uncertainty for the new commuter railroads, as with any mass transit system, is whether trains will attract enough riders to make them worth the significant investment in locomotives, cars, stations and scheduling.

Toronto launched its GO system in 1967, when rapid growth was clogging its highways. Before building more roads, the provincial Ontario government agreed to a three-year experiment with a cheaper alternative, trains. With low fares and schedules comparable to driving, the trains in six months reached ridership levels not expected until the second year of operation.

Key to GO’s success, transit planners now believe, was its focus on densely populated areas with heavy freeway congestion, and its direct connection to subways, streetcars and buses that make it easy for commuters to complete trips not within walking distance of Union Station.

Southern California officials--who are modeling their system on Toronto’s, down to buying the same double-decked coaches and clean-burning locomotives--also plan to offer similar easy connections. The busiest commuter rail stop, Los Angeles’ Union Station, also will be served by the Metro Rail Red Line subway to downtown Los Angeles, Mid-Wilshire and Hollywood, as well as a number of bus lines and streetcars north to Pasadena and south to Long Beach.

Metrolink’s 160-passenger cars will have plush seats--as well as special lavatories and platforms designed to accommodate people in wheelchairs.

Initially, the system is scheduled to run 12 trains a day in each direction--five from San Bernardino at 40-minute intervals during the morning and evening peak commute hours, four from Moorpark at 45-minute intervals, and three from the Santa Clarita Valley at hourly intervals.

Midday and late-night bus or train service is planned to let riders go home early or work late if they wish.

Although the system will focus at first on bringing people from distant suburbs to the city centers--San Bernardino and northern Los Angeles County to downtown Los Angeles, or Riverside to central Orange County--planners eventually expect thousands of “flow-through” passengers to ride trains from suburb to suburb: Burbank to Irvine, or San Dimas to Newhall.

“Commuter rail is not what it used to be. The definition has changed,” said Gregerman, of the American Public Transit Assn. “It used to just bring people from suburbs into the central city in the morning and evening rush hours. Now it’s often carrying people in both directions, throughout the day.”

Once you start doing that, he added, operating costs per passenger drop “dramatically.”

Most services, including Los Angeles, start modestly, focusing on the traditional commuter crush.

In northern Virginia, the other commuter-train service scheduled to start next year, Virginia Railway Express, plans at first to offer only rush-hour service on its routes, along Interstate 95 from Fredericksburg north to the District of Columbia and along Interstate 66 from Manassas east to Washington.

The system’s marketing advantage is the opportunity for commuters to avoid crowded freeways, said Richard K. Taube, executive director of the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission.

“In our area, people are basically desperate to do something about congestion,” he said. “It’s not just . . . too many cars on the road, but the uncertainty of not knowing whether some accident would make it even worse on any given day. We’ve had hazardous-materials spills that have paralyzed the entire region for half a day.”

That uncertainty, contrasted with the promise of coffee-and-newspaper comfort on a commuter train speeding along at 80 m.p.h. within sight of the freeway, is what Taube--and other commuter train advocates--are counting on to keep the railroad renaissance alive.