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.
The commuter trains have 10,000 passengers a day and run only during rush hour. Express buses carry a larger volume and a more relevant. The local buses carry 400,000 passengers a day. The bulk of the routes and coverage are from the buses. Removing the commuter trains wouldn't major difference in transit quality for more users. The two commuter rail lines are not what make Seattle's transit better than Phoenix.
I'm not saying rail is useless. When Seattle light rail extension are completed it will have a better, faster and more reliable system.
That carries a whopping 10K per weekday, about as much as a heavily used bus line. The light rail systems of Houston, Phoenix, and Seattle are all fairly similar in size and usage currently yet look at how differently people on here view Seattle. Perhaps it's because of their strong bus system and rail isn't the end all be all when it comes to transit.
You have to put things in perspective. Phoenix and Houston's city and metro population are much larger than Seattle so it isn't that surprising that those cities would have more transit riders overall.
You have to put things in perspective. Phoenix and Houston's city and metro population are much larger than Seattle so it isn't that surprising that those cities would have more transit riders overall.
But the rail systems are about the same size so what difference does it make how much larger they are if the rail system isn't even reaching that additional population? Yes please try to put things into perspective lol. Houstons rail system is even shorter than Seattle's and look at how much more spread out it and Phoenix is. Again with the "perspective" lol. Also I was just talking about their rail systems and ridership when comparing the three. Not sure how you don't see Seattle's good PT is because of its rail system but rather it's strong bus system.
But the rail systems are about the same size so what difference does it make how much larger they are if the rail system isn't even reaching that additional population? Houstons rail system is even shorter than Seattle's and look at how much more spread out it and Phoenix is. Again with the "perspective" lol.
Don't you think it's more alraming that a top 5 city with a metro of 6 million has a smaller rail system than a metro area less than half its size?
Your trying to make excuses for Houston while at the same time your actually proving my point about Houston's transit under-performing for a metro of its size.
Quote:
Also I was just talking about their rail systems and ridership when comparing the three. Not sure how you don't see Seattle's good PT is because of its rail system but rather it's strong bus system.
It takes more than just good bus service to have a great transit city. Just look at other cities around the world if you don't believe me.
Don't you think it's more alraming that a top 5 city with a metro of 6 million has a smaller rail system than a metro area less than half its size?
Your trying to make excuses for Houston while at the same time your actually proving my point about Houston's transit under-performing for a metro of its size.
It takes more than just good bus service to have a great transit city. Just look at other cities around the world if you don't believe me.
I never made any excuses for Houston, what are you talking about? I never said it had a good PT system. I was just saying rail isn't the end all be all like you claim it is. Seattle had relatively good PT usage even before it's had any light or commuter rail. You keep saying Seattle has good PT but don't realize it's because of its strong bus system.
So since you think rail is so important then I take it you would agree San Diego has better public transit than Seattle correct?
I never made any excuses for Houston, what are you talking about? I never said it had a good PT system. I was just saying rail isn't the end all be all like you claim it is. Seattle had relatively good PT usage even before it's had any light or commuter rail. You keep saying Seattle has good PT but don't realize it's because of its strong bus system.
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.
Quote:
So since you think rail is so important then I take it you would agree San Diego has better public transit than Seattle correct?
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.
You have to put things in perspective. Phoenix and Houston's city and metro population are much larger than Seattle so it isn't that surprising that those cities would have more transit riders overall.
They don't. Seattle has much more transit riders than either two. Phoenix has roughly the same metropolitan area population as Seattle.
They don't. Seattle has much more transit riders than either two. Phoenix has roughly the same metropolitan area population as Seattle.
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.
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.
Rail is superior to buses. But rail can't cover most routes, or even many routes, only the most important and busiest ones. Without or with rail few American cities are great transit cities by world standards. Many American cities don't have the volume of people going on one route the extra capacity is irrelevant. Seattle has a few busy corridors, and they are getting rail. But otherwise there is no way to cover the majority of the area by rail, Seattle isn't all that dense. Rail is even worse fit for Houston, in most places the ridership would be very low.
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.
