Trains – October 2019

like to travel using rail transit; including suburban
trains, metros, light rail, and anything else that quali-
fies as rail. Routinely, I use transit when visiting new
and familiar cities alike. This gives me the opportu-
nity to study differences between networks and
compare their varying degrees of success as a means of transport.
What confounds me is that while some rail transit gets it right
and does a good job serving the traveling public, in too many
instances systems miss the mark and fall short. It’s as if the transit
providers rarely travel themselves or never look beyond their own
systems. How can a rail system best serve its passengers?
Today, I’m focused on the rail user’s perspective, in future
columns I hope to address larger views.
When transit works effectively, it is both useful and convenient
to the prospective passenger. It isn’t enough to rely upon unpleas-
ant highway conditions to drive ridership to rail. At its best, rail
transit offers convenient access, straightforward fares and sched-
ules, timely operations, where information is plentiful and easy to
obtain, and the system appears safe to use at all times.
We live in the motor age, so rail transit must offer adequate
parking at outlying areas in anticipation that suburban riders will
leave their automobiles outside of urban congestion. Parking is
often viewed by transit agencies as a revenue source, but unless
parking fees are handled judiciously, parking charges may skew
the benefit to passengers. Consider that the net effect of either
inadequate available parking and/or overly expensive or
logistically complex parking fees may discourage rail ridership,
especially among new users.
We are also in the age of the smartphone and sophisticated
intelligent information systems, so why not coordinate parking
charges with fare purchase, using a relatively simple interface?
Doing so might encourage transit ridership rather than beat up on
potential passengers by fining them when they fail to correctly
decipher parking regulations on the fly when rushing for a train.
Likewise, train fares must be simple, straightforward, and easi-
ly paid for. Fare structures should encourage ridership and avoid
confusing probable travelers with unnecessary complicated zone
systems or multitiered fare arrangements. Passengers with smart-
phones should be afforded a simple, upfront fare purchase, while
those without should be accommodated with minimal complexi-
ty. Fares should facilitate transfer from one route to another,
regardless of mode or operator.
Puzzles are great fun when you are not racing to buy a ticket.
Often I’ve encountered that the difficulties in decrypting transit
ticketing machines to be one of the greatest impediments to using
transit. Navigating as many as 11 steps to make a basic ticket
purchase is absurd. Why is buying a transit ticket more difficult in

Los Angeles than it is in German cities? Complex fare purchasing

logistics discourage new riders and slow the fare-purchase

process, which results in lines and delays that frustrate passengers

rushing to catch the next train.

Stockholm, Sweden, operates one of Europe’s finest multimod-

al, rail-based transportation systems, which offers a great example

of how to make rail transit work. It is surprisingly easy to use. Ar-

landa airport is rail-connected, and to reach central Stockholm,

travelers have a choice between the higher fare Arlanda Express

train that runs up to six times hourly and takes just 20 minutes, or

How can a rail system best serve its passengers?

Getting on board

with rail transit

14 OCTOBER 2019

COMMENTARY

I

Brian Solomon

[email protected]

@briansolomon.author

Blog: briansolomon.com/trackingthelight/

Podcast: TrainsMag.com