Best Cities To Live In Without A Car (Article - read first before asking)... (compare, Boston)
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.
True, but commuter rail doesn't run every 3-5 minutes like DC's metro does during rush hour. I guess, I'm talking about city center frequency in the suburbs. That's why I said same system meaning same frequency too.
Okay, that's a worthwhile point, but again, one that is not unique to DC's Metro. BART provides such frequencies. All of Boston's rapid rail transit lines also serve suburban locations, etc. None of which is to say that Metro isn't awesome, but it's not as much a standout as some think. It's just newer.
Like I said to the other guy, I guess I'm talking about one system meaning frequency as well. Commuter Rail doesn't run every 3-5 minutes like DC's metro does during rush hour. I guess I'm saying same system and frequency you get in the city center as way in the suburbs. Only DC's metro gives that without even transferring to a new system.
I guess, but when talking about "city center" you still have to take into account that DC is only 61 sq miles. Chicago is 227. DC Metro is 106 miles city/burbs with 86 stations. The El is 224 miles just covering Chicago with 144 stations. Metra is an additional 487 miles with 240 stations. DC has a lot better ridership but as far as comprehensive goes...it doesn't come close I don't think.
Okay, that's a worthwhile point, but again, one that is not unique to DC's Metro. BART provides such frequencies. All of Boston's rapid rail transit lines also serve suburban locations, etc. None of which is to say that Metro isn't awesome, but it's not as much a standout as some think. It's just newer.
What are the headways for Boston' suburbs? Bart doesn't really cover San Fran, Muni does which is why I didn't include it. You can't really take Bart anywhere in San Fran proper. But, yes all three cities have great transit.
I guess, but when talking about "city center" you still have to take into account that DC is only 61 sq miles. Chicago is 227. DC Metro is 106 miles city/burbs with 86 stations. The El is 224 miles just covering Chicago with 144 stations. Metra is an additional 487 miles with 240 stations. DC has a lot better ridership but as far as comprehensive goes...it doesn't come close I don't think.
The El has 107 miles. Yes, the El and Metra combined are more extensive than Metro, Marc, and VRE. You are also right about ridership as DC has more transit ridership compared to population than any other Metro area except NYC. When the Silver Line , Purple Line, CCT, and DC's version of Muni Metro are done, I think DC will have closed to the gap on Chicago in terms of how extensive our system is compared to Chicago.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 11-08-2011 at 07:36 PM..
What are the headways for Boston' suburbs? Bart doesn't really cover San Fran, Muni does which is why I didn't include it. You can't really take Bart anywhere in San Fran proper. But, yes all three cities have great transit.
Headways vary by line and time, but they are generally between 5 and 10 minutes in suburban locations. This compares with 2 to 5 minutes in downtown areas. I agree, BART doesn't cover SF proper very well, but it provides frequent service in suburban locations, a point you were making about Metro.
Headways vary by line and time, but they are generally between 5 and 10 minutes in suburban locations. This compares with 2 to 5 minutes in downtown areas. I agree, BART doesn't cover SF proper very well, but it provides frequent service in suburban locations, a point you were making about Metro.
I just looked at a couple commuter lines lines in Boston on the T. The headway's were mainly 40 minutes to 1 hr. What commuter lines run every 2-5 minutes? What commuter lines run every 10 or 20 minutes in Boston for that matter? The subway in Boston doesn't run every 2-5 minutes on any lines. The subway lines run every 5 minutes only on some lines and up to 8-9 minutes on other subway lines during rush hour. Also, D.C.'s rush hour runs longer than Boston. D.C.'s runs from 5:00-9:00 am and 3:00-7:00 pm while Boston runs 6:30-9:00 am and 3:30-6:30 pm. Boston doesn't have D.C. frequency on any lines.
Like I said to the other guy, I guess I'm talking about one system meaning frequency as well. Commuter Rail doesn't run every 3-5 minutes like DC's metro does during rush hour. I guess I'm saying same system and frequency you get in the city center as way in the suburbs. Only DC's metro gives that without even transferring to a new system.
Well the subways run frequently at rush as do the Regional Rail, some as frequent as 7 minutes on the busier lines at rush. The metro is a great system but is not as different as sometimes you describe. The Regional Rail and subways work together in some cities not disimilar to the metro it just uses different equipment for the rail options into the burbs
Okay, that's a worthwhile point, but again, one that is not unique to DC's Metro. BART provides such frequencies. All of Boston's rapid rail transit lines also serve suburban locations, etc. None of which is to say that Metro isn't awesome, but it's not as much a standout as some think. It's just newer.
This also
And to MD here is a transit schedule
At rush there are 6 to 10 minute headways, yes the Metro is more frequent but not as much as you describe, especially when considering the function. And again I think the Metro is a great system but MD you really downplay the other systems unfairly
At rush there are 6 to 10 minute headways, yes the Metro is more frequent but not as much as you describe, especially when considering the function. And again I think the Metro is a great system but MD you really downplay the other systems unfairly
Boston's T doesn't run frequent though. That is what I was talking about. The Boston T commuter rail lines run every 40 minutes on many lines. That can't even begin to compare to subway frequency. Also, the metro does run every 3-5 minutes during rush hour in D.C. proper at least. And more trains are being added next year to the orange, yellow, and green which will raise every line to Red Line frequency of about every 3 minutes during rush hour down from 5 minutes. D.C. has to move way more people than Boston and Philly so that kind of frequency is needed. The changes are anticipation for the Silver Line opening in two years.
I just looked at a couple commuter lines lines in Boston on the T. The headway's were mainly 40 minutes to 1 hr. What commuter lines run every 2-5 minutes? What commuter lines run every 10 or 20 minutes in Boston for that matter? The subway in Boston doesn't run every 2-5 minutes on any lines. The subway lines run every 5 minutes only on some lines and up to 8-9 minutes on other subway lines during rush hour. Also, D.C.'s rush hour runs longer than Boston. D.C.'s runs from 5:00-9:00 am and 3:00-7:00 pm while Boston runs 6:30-9:00 am and 3:30-6:30 pm. Boston doesn't have D.C. frequency on any lines.
You didn't ask about commuter rail. I was talking about rapid transit to the suburbs, which I had already mentioned is an element of the system. Many inner suburbs are covered by the MBTA's rapid transit rail lines. The headways aren't quite as good as they are in the core city, because the suburban services are often based upon branching or splitting what operate as unified lines downtown.
As for commuter rail, the headways during commute time are often as frequent as 20 minutes.
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.