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.
That 1500 people figure is for an entire heavy rail train set, the 255 people for light rail is for one car/vehicle, not an entire train set or even the two car train you claim.
According to this Core Capacity Study from 2001, DC's Metro can carry up to 25,000 per hour. I'm sure with DC's new trains and any other operational improvements it has made that number is likely higher, I didn't feel like searching to see what it is presently, but I'm doubting it's really that "big" of a difference as you might think it is. http://www.wmata.com/pdfs/planning/C...ty_ExecSum.pdf
From a user/rider perspective I don't think the differences are that big since Seattle's light rail system is being built more like a rapid transit/metro system than the typical light rail systems you see around the country. Yes it's still technically light rail but I think being grade-separated with subways and viaducts makes a much bigger difference than the type of rolling stock used. Not all light rail systems are built the same, although many of them are but I do think Seattle is spending the extra money to make it more like rapid transit/metro system.
DC doesn't necessarily need heavy rail to function, European systems with much higher ridership function fine such as Madrid which isn't "heavy rail" technically.
Not that this really matters because we aren't arguing public transit, however, DC's system core capacity is being increased by a substantial margin currently as upgrades are performed to the power supply to allow all 8 car trains at rush hour. The capacity has to do with the amount of people on each train and the power system in place to allow trains through. I think DC's train cars can carry 200 people each and each train is 8 cars long. That's 1,600 people with trains running every 3-5 minutes.
This is all interesting. I wonder what Seattle's daily average is projected to be when their system is built out. Anyone know?
For now, here's the average weekday rail ridership of the respective systems as of the Q4 2014 from APTA:
DC - 829,000 average per weekday unlinked passenger trips
Seattle - 37,000 average per weekday unlinked passenger trips
Update: I just found some more info. By 2021, Seattle's average weekday boardings are expected to be around 80,0000
No, they're not - you're thinking of a specific portion. By 2023 Seattle's overall system light rail boardings are expected to be ~200,000 - 250,000 (with the system not even complete yet). Look at Sound Transit's documents. It will include multiple subway and elevated lines. And there's more going to the ballot next year to build beyond that (including a second downtown tunnel) by 2030.
Right now the number is 37K because only a small section is open - as new sections open over the next 7-8 years the number will start to increase dramatically.
No one is arguing that Seattle's rail system will be as good as DC's. But over the next decade (and beyond) there will be a dramatic transformation that will give Seattle one of the better rail system in the country - more similar to subway/metros than light rail because it will be mostly grade-separated and underground.
No, they're not - you're thinking of a specific portion. By 2023 Seattle's overall system light rail boardings are expected to be ~200,000 - 250,000 (with the system not even complete yet). Look at Sound Transit's documents. It will include multiple subway and elevated lines. And there's more going to the ballot next year to build beyond that (including a second downtown tunnel) by 2030.
Right now the number is 37K because only a small section is open - as new sections open over the next 7-8 years the number will start to increase dramatically.
No one is arguing that Seattle's rail system will be as good as DC's. But over the next decade (and beyond) there will be a dramatic transformation that will give Seattle one of the better rail system in the country - more similar to subway/metros than light rail because it will be mostly grade-separated and underground.
Thanks for the info! Makes sense. I just saw a more comprehensive document for the larger region that is closer to the number you gave. Interesting!
I'd be interested in knowing all the individual components that will contribute to the 200,000 to 250,000 number. Will all this be managed by a single transit agency or is this a compilation of rail links managed by multiple transit agencies?
No, they're not - you're thinking of a specific portion. By 2023 Seattle's overall system light rail boardings are expected to be ~200,000 - 250,000 (with the system not even complete yet). Look at Sound Transit's documents. It will include multiple subway and elevated lines. And there's more going to the ballot next year to build beyond that (including a second downtown tunnel) by 2030.
Right now the number is 37K because only a small section is open - as new sections open over the next 7-8 years the number will start to increase dramatically.
No one is arguing that Seattle's rail system will be as good as DC's. But over the next decade (and beyond) there will be a dramatic transformation that will give Seattle one of the better rail system in the country - more similar to subway/metros than light rail because it will be mostly grade-separated and underground.
Nice! That should really transform Seattle. DC is building its first light rail line in the suburbs which will connect 4 different metro lines in the northern suburbs in Maryland called the Purple line. It's expected to have a ridership of close to 80,000 people a day in the first 10 years I believe. The cities with the density to warrant the cost of heavy rail already have large systems for the most part built when it wasn't so expensive to do so across America. I can't think of a city in the U.S. with the density to support heavy rail that doesn't have it, but most cities can support light rail. This is really great for Seattle.
I hope Seattle is funneling all its growth along the future transit line. In DC, 78% of all development in the pipeline is within a 1/2 mile of a metro station.
Nice! That should really transform Seattle. DC is building its first light rail line in the suburbs which will connect 4 different metro lines in the northern suburbs in Maryland called the Purple line. It's expected to have a ridership of close to 80,000 people a day in the first 10 years I believe. The cities with the density to warrant the cost of heavy rail already have large systems for the most part built when it wasn't so expensive to do so across America. I can't think of a city in the U.S. with the density to support heavy rail that doesn't have it, but most cities can support light rail. This is really great for Seattle.
I hope Seattle is funneling all its growth along the future transit line. In DC, 78% of all development in the pipeline is within a 1/2 mile of a metro station.
Yeah, it will be good for sure. As for Seattle, capacity with the 4-car trains will actually be pretty high despite being light rail (although not quite as high as DCs). Also, the fact that it will be primarily underground or grade-separated makes it a lot faster and more reliable, and creates a much better user experience than a traditional at-grade light rail system.
The Seattle Metro also has the 11th highest African population in the country and the city proper actually has one of the highest % Black populations on the West Coast.
The west coast doesn't have a high percentage of African Americans in the first place? Is this statement supposed to impress me or anyone for that matter lol? That's like saying South Africa has the highest percentage of white people in Africa when there isn't a prominent amount of whites in Africa anyways.
The west coast doesn't have a high percentage of African Americans in the first place? Is this statement supposed to impress me or anyone for that matter lol? That's like saying South Africa has the highest percentage of white people in Africa when there isn't a prominent amount of whites in Africa anyways.
it doesn't even have the highest percentage of black americans lol. Las Vegas does. Again that really isn't saying much at all because If LV was located east of the Mississippi it would have the lowest percentage of black americans out of any decently sized or big city east of the Mississippi.
Truth be told, these are really the only two cities I would consider living in at this point (okay maybe Portland), and I live in DC. There are some things I like much more about DC though compared to the pacific NW that put it over the edge. Namely the public transit, the walkable neighborhoods, and the proximity to NYC and Philly. (And well, dozens of places along the east coast.)
Arguments can be made either way.
I like the pacific northwest, but it does not connect to me in the same way.
So it may be close to even with DC winning on public transit and walkable communities, and Seattle winning on scenery, and access to cool nature. The job markets for both cities are great for knowledge workers.
Since both are expensive I will give the edge to DC since DC has more major cities to travel to within a 5 hour drive and who would want to put up with this rain for the next several months in Seattle???
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.
