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.
Being a smaller system does not give LA an advantage in moving more people per mile. If it did, places like Cleveland, Baltimore, and Miami would be just as effecient as LA. It is the fact that LA heavy rail goes through insanely dense population and job centers. Much more so than DC.
If LA's heavy rail was the size of DC's, and had 100 more miles of track, it would blow DC out of the water.
NYC subway is like 2x the size of DC and moves 5x as many people per mile!!
I agree. I will say that DC's Metro does have many stops that are surrounded by low-density development in outlying areas, but riders per mile is not spread evenly throughout the system. DC does have one of the densest/largest job centers in the entire country. Riders per mile is significantly higher in the core.
Last edited by revitalizer; 03-04-2017 at 11:49 PM..
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by revitalizer
DC Metro
7,152 riders per mile over 117 track miles with 261 million rides annually and six rapid heavy rail transit lines
LA Metro Rail
8,322 riders per mile over 17 track miles with 46 million rides annually and two rapid heavy rail transit lines (the other 4 are light rail)
I vote for DC Metro. LA Metro Rail in comparison is a much smaller system (14% that of DC Metro) and, even with that, is barely more efficient per mile.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardOfRadical
Being a smaller system does not give LA an advantage in moving more people per mile. If it did, places like Cleveland, Baltimore, and Miami would be just as effecient as LA. It is the fact that LA heavy rail goes through insanely dense population and job centers. Much more so than DC.
If LA's heavy rail was the size of DC's, and had 100 more miles of track, it would blow DC out of the water.
NYC subway is like 2x the size of DC and moves 5x as many people per mile!!
I've rode the LA Metro (Red line) at Hollywood and Vine to DTLA and transferred to the other line that takes you to Staples. There is no comparison to DC, not even in the same ballpark. DC's subway transit rivals are Chicago and Boston primarily, and Philly after that.
Yeah but riders per mile is higher in the core for every city even on cities with systems that have shorter lines that barely leave the core ridership in the most central stations will still be higher.
Just to offer a general comparison the Green Line Light Rail system in Boston carries 10,086 riders per mile which is more than any other light rail line in the United States with Muni in SF carrying almost 6,000 less riders per mile and it is also more riders per mile than any other heavy rail subway system other than the NYC subway system, NJT PATH system, and Boston's heavy rail subway lines. Septa carries almost as many riders per mile at 9,368 riders per mile; however, after that all other heavy rail systems in the United States carry much fewer riders per mile so while DC doesn't perform very well neither do any cities outside of the four mentioned above and even for those cities none of them outperform other light rail systems outside the US by much if at all aside from NYC.
Quote:
DC's subway transit rivals are Chicago and Boston primarily, and Philly after that.
DC, LA, Chicago and Philly all fall within 2,000 riders per mile of each other and seem pretty comparable on that metric although LA clearly has the advantage of shorter lines so is not as comparable. Boston on the other hand has more than double the riders per mile of DC and even when compared to Septa which is the high performer of the group mentioned above it carries over 5,000 more riders per mile so realistically Boston is not really all that comparable to the other systems mentioned their when looking at ridership per mile. Boston actually occupies a middle ground in riders per mile between the NYC MTA/PATH systems serving NYC and all the other heavy rail systems in the USA.
Last edited by citylover94; 03-05-2017 at 12:19 AM..
I agree. I will say that DC's Metro does have many stops that are surrounded by low-density development in outlying areas, but riders per mile is not spread evenly throughout the system. DC does have one of the densest/largest job centers in the entire country. Riders per mile is significantly higher in the core.
Exactly. And this is why LA's heavy rail transit is so amazing.
Despite it only being 17 miles, it has 45 million riders per year. That in and of itself is incredible.
LA is smart in that they are focusing heavy rail in dense urban areas that need it the most. Light rail is for less dense areas aimed for long distance commuters.
DC Metro and BART have very wasteful systems in that heavy rail goes to farflung/low density suburban areas, which cost tax payers and riders way too much.
Take for example BART. It takes an hour to go 30 miles from Pleasanton to SF, on "rapid" heavy rail transit. For a round trip cost of 13$, on trains that are totally filthy and over crowded(standing room only).
By contrast, one can go from Downtown Long Beach to Downtown LA in 1 hour, via light rail about 25 miles. 7$ for all day pass. This is why LA has invested so much in light rail. It is cheaper, cleaner, and more effecient for commuters. Heavy rail is for the urban zones, not cow town exurbs.
In the last 25 years LA went from 0 rail riders per year to over 100 million. So in 25 more years, LA will probably be second only to NYC in rail ridership, given all the planned expansion.
Last edited by WizardOfRadical; 03-05-2017 at 12:28 AM..
DC's heavy rail system may be larger and have more coverage. But LA's is clealry more effecient. Boston is another example. Only about twice as large LA's heavy rail, but moves 2x as many people per mile as DC.
Bart is actually very inferior given how large it is. Similar sized systems like Chicago and NYC move way more people per mile than Bart as well.
A system with 104 miles of track that only moves 4k people per mile is actually rather pathetic. Especially considering the majority of the bay area population lives with in 5 miles or less of a Bart station. But that's the Bay for you, SF dominated by light rail, and far flung areas getting heavy rail coverage. Backwards.
As someone who has just been accepted to law school, I would agree with you on the irony of OyCrumbler trying to insult people's educational attainment.
Again,as they should. BART is not an urban rail system like Chicago, NYC, or LA's Red/Purple line so its bizarre that anyone would think it should move as many people per mile. Especially when you look at its service area.
Then what does it say about a system with 105 miles of track that only moves around 365K people in a very dense service area? Yeah that's pathetic too.
Yeah SF is dominated by light rail and its light rail system moves more people per mile than LA's
Again,as they should. BART is not an urban rail system like Chicago, NYC, or LA's Red/Purple line so its bizarre that anyone would think it should move as many people per mile. Especially when you look at its service area.
Then what does it say about a system with 105 miles of track that only moves around 365K people in a very dense service area? Yeah that's pathetic too.
Yeah SF is dominated by light rail and its light rail system moves more people per mile than LA's
Exactly, pretty funny that the bay area actually has no dedicated urban rail system what so ever. But that's the bay, going down while the rest of the country goes up.
Most of that 105 miles in LA is light rail, and the second most heavily utilized light rail system in the country. For light rail it's extremely successful. Most of LA's light rail is not "very dense" service area. Heavy rail goes through very dense areas in LA, most of light rail does not. But if one is from NorCal and does not understand LA, I could see how that would confuse you.
SF is dominated by lightrail, most of which is at street level too and has to stop at lights...just the same as LA. I would expect it to move more people per mile than LA's light rail, in that it covers a dense area the size of central LA. Though LA's heavy rail also has more riders per mile than SF's muni. So no matter what transit agency in the bay you use, LA subway has got you beat.
Pretty funny that an area as dense and affluent as SF does not have a dedicated urban heavy rail, while LA, Chicago, NYC do. But then again, the Bay Area is not in the big leagues.
Last edited by WizardOfRadical; 03-05-2017 at 01:54 AM..
After New York, Chicago has the best subway system. DC has inflated metrics because metro is both the subway and commuter rail. This inflates both ridership statistics and track mileage. For intro city transit, it's not nearly as extensive as the L, but it costs more to ride. It lacks flat-rate fares and 24hr service. I think I may actually prefer Boston's T to DC's metro, although Boston's greenline trains are a nightmare when they run at grade.
After New York, Chicago has the best subway system. DC has inflated metrics because metro is both the subway and commuter rail. This inflates both ridership statistics and track mileage. For intro city transit, it's not nearly as extensive as the L, but it costs more to ride. It lacks flat-rate fares and 24hr service. I think I may actually prefer Boston's T to DC's metro, although Boston's greenline trains are a nightmare when they run at grade.
This is a great point about the DC Metro functioning as both city and commuter transit. If you factor Chicago's commuter heavy rail, it's map looks like this...
FWIW, I still think D.C.'s layout is better than Chicago's for traveling within neighborhoods, but people do underestimate how extensive Chicago's rail ridership is because Metra is separate from CTA.
Last edited by spaceboyzero; 03-05-2017 at 06:37 AM..
DC's heavy rail system may be larger and have more coverage. But LA's is clealry more effecient. Boston is another example. Only about twice as large LA's heavy rail, but moves 2x as many people per mile as DC.
Bart is actually very inferior given how large it is. Similar sized systems like Chicago and NYC move way more people per mile than Bart as well.
A system with 104 miles of track that only moves 4k people per mile is actually rather pathetic. Especially considering the majority of the bay area population lives with in 5 miles or less of a Bart station. But that's the Bay for you, SF dominated by light rail, and far flung areas getting heavy rail coverage. Backwards.
As someone who has just been accepted to law school, I would agree with you on the irony of OyCrumbler trying to insult people's educational attainment.
Try thinking through this one--what happens when you pare BART down to half or a quarter the number of miles so that it solely serves the densest parts of its system? What happens to that ridership per mile stat?
Now does it make any sense to qualify that much smaller BART with far less service but higher ridership per mile as superior to the current system? No, because that's just stupid.
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.
