U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-08-2014, 08:54 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,404 posts, read 24,492,722 times
Reputation: 8775

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
I never said rail is the "end all and be all" of what makes good transportation as buses are a contributing factor but that doesn't change the fact that when it comes to having a great transit city by world standards, rail is a huge factor. Fundamentally rail service is superior than buses when it comes to mass transit. Rail service like subways, move larger amounts of people more efficiently than buses do.
Sure but the point is you can still have relatively good PT without any or much rail as in the case of Seattle.

Quote:
No I would not. San Diego underperforms for a city of it's size. After all, it is the 8th largest city in the country.
But it was way more rail than Seattle and has less people in the metro. So according to your reasoning that you have ben using it should have a better mass transit system. SD's light rail systems are about 4x larger than Seattle's and it has less people. So why do you think it's public transit is as good?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2014, 08:54 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,770 posts, read 39,885,178 times
Reputation: 14680
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Phoenix city population has almost a million more people than Seattle. The same can be said for its metro area as well. Also the Phoenix area has growing at a much faster rate.
Oh, whoops. I looked at old census numbers by mistake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 08:56 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,770 posts, read 39,885,178 times
Reputation: 14680
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
But it was way more rail than Seattle and has less people in the metro. So according to your reasoning that you have ben using it should have a better mass transit system. SD's light rail systems are about 4x larger than Seattle's and it has less people. So why do you think it's public transit is as good?
One reason, but the only reason, is jobs are much more centralized in Seattle. Its downtown is much larger, and then Bellevue is a secondary downtown, U-District adds more riders. San Diego jobs are more decentralized making transit less practical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 09:00 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,404 posts, read 24,492,722 times
Reputation: 8775
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
One reason, but the only reason, is jobs are much more centralized in Seattle. Its downtown is much larger, and then Bellevue is a secondary downtown, U-District adds more riders. San Diego jobs are more decentralized making transit less practical.
I'm well aware of that and am just pointing out that having more rail doesn't necessarily mean having a better PT system like gwphilly seems to believe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 09:06 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,390 posts, read 10,006,419 times
Reputation: 5230
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Sure but the point is you can still have relatively good PT without any or much rail as in the case of Seattle.
Yes, Seattle has good transportation when compared to cities like San Diego and Phoenix. However, when Seattle is match-up against the top-tier transit cities like Philadelphia, Chicago, or Washington DC, it loses badly.

Quote:
But it was way more rail than Seattle and has less people in the metro. So according to your reasoning that you have ben using it should have a better mass transit system. SD's light rail systems are about 4x larger than Seattle's and it has less people. So why do you think it's public transit is as good?
Seattle has better bus-rapid transit and having a light rail subway system gives it an edge over San Diego's mass transit.

Last edited by gwillyfromphilly; 05-08-2014 at 09:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 09:14 PM
 
Location: Houston
6,848 posts, read 12,445,455 times
Reputation: 5773
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Unless your city has bus rapid transit that rivals Brazilian cities like Sao Paulo and Rio De Janeiro then your not really going to see a huge difference between major cities in the US when it comes to bus service. Los Angeles may be an exception since it has arguably the best bus-rapid transit system in the country. You keep on making excuses for Houston. We all know Houston has a lot great things going for it but good transportation isn't one of them. It's the largest city/metro area with the worst mass transit.
I'm not trying to make excuses for Houston. I'm just saying that Houston doesn't need rail to have great public transit.

You mention bus rapid transit and I think that is the exact direction Houston should and is moving towards. Forget rail for a city like Houston. Expand bus rapid transit and also make the very successful Park and Ride even more efficient and I think Houston will be just fine.

As for being the worst mass transit metro I have to disagree. 285,000 daily riders doesn't sound like a failure to me. Especially in a city that looks down on public transportation. The majority of Houston uses their car to get around but there is a big portion of the population who can't afford a car and are able to get around daily using public transportation.

No excuses. Houston needs to do better with mass transit. Rail is not the solution. Houston is definitely not the worst city for mass transit. It's not great, it's not good, and it's also not the worst.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 09:17 PM
 
Location: Houston
6,848 posts, read 12,445,455 times
Reputation: 5773
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913 View Post
The thing about a bus system is that it's subject to traffic. With rail you can generally bypass traffic. so yes having a rail is a factor, whether people want to admit it or not. I never thought too much about it, but when I used Seattle mostly bus based transit I found myself stuck on 405 way too often
That's why we have HOV lanes. So that buses don't get stuck on freeway traffic. We also have dedicated bus lanes Downtown during peak hours. I've also noticed those dedicated lanes in Midtown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 09:21 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,770 posts, read 39,885,178 times
Reputation: 14680
Quote:
Originally Posted by westhou View Post

As for being the worst mass transit metro I have to disagree. 285,000 daily riders doesn't sound like a failure to me. Especially in a city that looks down on public transportation. The majority of Houston uses their car to get around but there is a big portion of the population who can't afford a car and are able to get around daily using public transportation.
285,000 daily riders is low per capita. Honolulu's bus system has 239,000 daily riders with a fraction of the population. Yes, Honolulu probably has the best transit system in the US for a metro under 1 million.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 09:23 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,770 posts, read 39,885,178 times
Reputation: 14680
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
I'm well aware of that and am just pointing out that having more rail doesn't necessarily mean having a better PT system like gwphilly seems to believe.
I know, just answering the question you put out. And adding information for those who don't realize.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 09:38 PM
 
Location: Houston
6,848 posts, read 12,445,455 times
Reputation: 5773
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
285,000 daily riders is low per capita. Honolulu's bus system has 239,000 daily riders with a fraction of the population. Yes, Honolulu probably has the best transit system in the US for a metro under 1 million.
But you have to look at the way Houston is built. It's huuuuuuuge and expecting people to use public transportation to get around a city as expansive as Houston is really is ridiculous. To have 285,000 people using public transportation is amazing for a city like Houston. Houston isn't dense at all and building a mass transit system comparable to the top cities like NYC, Chicago, Philly, and D.C. would not make it any easier for Houstonians to get around. Most people living in the city have a commute to work less than 30 minutes. Outside the inner loop the commute may be 30-45 minutes. Outside Beltway 8 it's like an hour. In our burbs it's about an hour and 15 minutes and possibly pushing an hour and a half depending on which burb. Most people are willing to live with that to avoid public transportation. The mindset here is just different and building an efficient subway or light rail system matching that of Philly or some other northeast city wouldn't raise that 285,000 to 1,000,000 daily riders. Of course it would increase but not to the level that it would be worth it.

That's why rapid bus transit, more dedicated bus lanes, and better Park and Rides will do more for a city like Houston rather than Houston worrying about building rail. Improving our bus system to efficiently improve the mobility of Houston could possibly raise that 285,000 daily riders to a significant increase expected of a city like ours.

We will never be Philly, NYC, or Chicago. But we can be highly efficient at moving people around but just in different ways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top