Rail Transit in the Suburbs Case Study of Transit Use in Atlanta’s Affluent Northern Tier ARTHUR C. NELSON, THOMAS L. SANCHEZ, CATHERINE L. ROSS, AND MICHAEL D. MEYER 142 Paper No. 970137 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1571 A. C. Nelson, C. L. Ross, and M. D. Meyer, Georgia Institute of Technol- ogy, 245 Fourth Street, Atlanta, Ga. 30332. T. L. Sanchez, Department of Community and Regional Planning, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. The conventional view of public transit is that it serves the mobility needs primarily of poor, mostly inner-city residents. In 1979 the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) opened rail service connect- ing inner-city neighborhoods to downtown. By the mid-1990s, rail ser- vice had been extended south to Atlanta’s international airport, east and west to Interstate 285 (Atlanta’s perimeter freeway), and north into the region’s affluent, mostly white suburbs. Research into how MARTA’s rail system has influenced travel behavior among affluent “northern-tier” suburbanites is reported. Four major findings are offered. First, in those corridors where rail transit is provided, mode choice among commuters has shifted measurably from the single-occupant vehicle to transit. Sec- ond, the opening of rail stations in suburban areas is shown to reduce vehicular traffic on nearby surface streets, further suggesting rail’s influ- ence on travel behavior in the suburbs. Third, rail transit is found to attract affluent, white, male commuters who are willing to (a) travel longer distances to access rail and (b) travel longer distances on rail than the general population of rail patrons. Fourth, transit riders appear to be more sensitive to transit service than to fare increases—that is, as the rail system expands, ridership among suburbanites increases regardless of changes in fare. The overall picture that emerges is that affluent subur- ban communities respond favorably to rail transit. This leads to a set of policy implications that transcend Atlanta’s experience. Since the end of World War II, transit systems have not kept pace with the rapid decentralization of residences and workplaces. Transit’s zenith in ridership came in 1946, with 26 billion passen- gers; this fell to fewer than 9 billion passengers in 1990. Transit’s share of all commute trips dropped from 12.1 percent in 1960 to 5.3 percent in 1990 despite steady ridership during the 1980s ( 1,2) The postwar trend is a reversal of prewar trends in which suburban developers planned subdivisions and communities along tran- sit routes in many major U.S. metropolitan areas (3,4). What has happened? America’s urban areas have become ill-suited for fixed-route ser- vices linking downtown radially with residential areas. By 1990 the dominant commuting pattern was not radially from suburb to down- town but laterally from suburb to suburb (5,6). The new urban form is fueled by many factors, such as a doubling of real personal per capita income since the mid-1950s (7), federally assured mortgage lending programs that until recent years were decidedly biased in favor of suburban low-density housing ( 8), and numerous federal and state policies favoring new development over redevelopment or renewal (9). The typical urban area now is characterized as a sprawl- ing, decentralized urban form where more employment and shop- ping take place in any given edge city than in downtown (10–12). Indeed, in all but 12 of the nation’s 75 largest metropolitan areas, transit ridership fell during the 1980s (13). Despite these trends, in recent years several metropolitan areas have embarked on ambitious rail transit programs. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system is now 20 years old; the Metropoli- tan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority’s (MARTA’s) rail system is barely 15 years old; Portland’s rail system is less than 10 years old, and Los Angeles and Dallas are now building their rail systems. Many newcomers to rail transit have one or two major lines usually connecting downtowns to nearby suburbs such as Miami, Portland, Sacramento, and San Diego. Most systems are built initially to con- nect inner-city neighborhoods to downtowns and only eventually do they radiate outward into the affluent suburban markets. By the time they reach the suburbs, development patterns have been established, as has commuting behavior. How do affluent suburban commuters respond to the introduction of rail transit? This paper addresses this question in the context of the MARTA rail system. The authors begin with a brief history of MARTA’s rail system, continue with an overview of the influence of the North and Northeast lines on regional commuting patterns, compare riders of the North and Northeast lines with those of the system as a whole, and assess the extent to which North and North- east line patrons are sensitive to system expansion and fare changes. The overall picture that emerges is that affluent suburban commu- nities respond favorably to rail transit. This leads to a set of policy implications that transcend Atlanta’s experience. MARTA’S RAIL HISTORY MARTA was created by the Georgia General Assembly in 1965, which began business by taking over an existing bus system in the same year. In June 1979 MARTA began operating its rail sys- tem. The existing and planned MARTA rail system is illustrated in Figure 1. A summary of station openings is given in Table 1. A brief history of rail expansion serves to show that for most of its history, rail service was limited to inner-city areas and only recently has been expanded into suburban communities. The East Line was the first to open in June 1979, and it extended 11.6 km from Georgia State University, downtown, to the Avondale station east of Decatur. In December of that year, the Five Points station was opened and MARTA was extended westward 7.7 km from downtown to the Hightower station. By the end of 1982, MARTA’s East and West lines experienced considerable public acceptance but its northern reach extended only into midtown, 3.2 km from