Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So if a transit system in a really big city covers only 1/3 of its area, and a system in a smaller city covers 4/5ths of its area, you would still consider the system in the larger city superior because it serves more people?
The only way this would work is if LA for example, in comparison to Atlanta, ONLY focused on say, the core 130 miles or so like Atlanta basically focuses inside the I-285 perimeter. So if you wanted to live in Atlanta, logically it would be easier to get around than in LA. As far as I know LA's network covers a long distance to the borders of the city and even out of the county into Pasadena, down to LAX, down to Long Beach, etc... plus I'm still not convinced Light Rail is in anyway equivalent to a faster heavy rail line. Even Atlanta still has much to be desired.
I'd probably rank the major u.s. cities in tiers based on usability and coverage of public transit and the general ability to live there and enjoy as much of the city as possible without a car.
1
NYC (the only city equivalent to European cities such as Milan, Paris, London)
The only way this would work is if LA for example, in comparison to Atlanta, ONLY focused on say, the core 130 miles or so like Atlanta basically focuses inside the I-285 perimeter. So if you wanted to live in Atlanta, logically it would be easier to get around than in LA. As far as I know LA's network covers a long distance to the borders of the city and even out of the county into Pasadena, down to LAX, down to Long Beach, etc... plus I'm still not convinced Light Rail is in anyway equivalent to a faster heavy rail line. Even Atlanta still has much to be desired.
Those places are all in LA County. No lines go out of the county, though there will be a line that runs to Santa Ana. This line will run pretty quickly as there is already a dedicated right of way in place and there would be few at-grade street crossings, if any. The Gold Line will eventually run to Ontario (San Bernardino County).
Light rail is certainly not as fast as HRT. It is still quite fast (in LA) as much of the lines are completely and fully grade separated, and have elevated stations and street crossings. This isn't MUNI or anything.
Light rail is certainly not as fast as HRT. It is still quite fast as much of the lines are completely and fully grade separated, and have elevated stations and street crossings.
I'm not sure if that's true. If the lines are grade separated, the speed difference between LRT and HRT should be minor. The bigger difference is in capacity.
So if a transit system in a really big city covers only 1/3 of its area, and a system in a smaller city covers 4/5ths of its area, you would still consider the system in the larger city superior because it serves more people?
Is that 1/3rd of an area bigger than the 4/5ths of the smaller city with more amenities? If so, yes, I would likely prefer it if I were to choose one to work and live in to go with an urban lifestyle. And depending on the argument being put forth, I could say it's superior in some ways. Sounds like a pretty straightforward selection.
Those places are all in LA County. No lines go out of the county, though there will be a line that runs to Santa Ana. This line will run pretty quickly as there is already a dedicated right of way in place and there would be few at-grade street crossings, if any. The Gold Line will eventually run to Ontario (San Bernardino County).
Light rail is certainly not as fast as HRT. It is still quite fast (in LA) as much of the lines are completely and fully grade separated, and have elevated stations and street crossings. This isn't MUNI or anything.
Ahh okay, I think I was looking at a combined current and future map. I see now the bottom of the C shape on the gold line was blurred a bit.
New York all day long. It's centralized with good PT, restaurants, shopping, bars, clubs, hotels, etc.... All in walking distance. You don't need a car to step out of your office to hit a quick spot. LA is a beast on the recreational front.
Is that 1/3rd of an area bigger than the 4/5ths of the smaller city with more amenities? If so, yes, I would likely prefer it if I were to choose one to work and live in to go with an urban lifestyle. And depending on the argument being put forth, I could say it's superior in some ways. Sounds like a pretty straightforward selection.
It's not a straightforward selection. If the NYC Subway had no lines on the West Side, did not extend south of 59th Street, and missed Brooklyn completely before heading out to Queens, I would not consider its system better simply because it had higher ridership numbers. From a transit standpoint alone, I would rather live in DC, Chicago or Boston whose systems cover a greater share of the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
Don't underestimate those rapid buses, they are actually quite effective.
Buses are good for filling in gaps missed by heavy rail. They are in no way a substitute for heavy rail. It would be hell riding a bus from Flatbush to the Bronx. So I know it would be hell riding from one distant part of LA to another on a bus.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 08-07-2012 at 02:59 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
