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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-02-2017, 06:09 PM
 
Location: Downtown & Brooklyn!
1,964 posts, read 1,120,532 times
Reputation: 1657

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward234 View Post
But why make that distinction based on the technology? In Seattle you will have a system that when built out will have 112 miles that will be almost entirely grade-separated - either underground or elevated - and has large stations that resemble metro stations more than a typical light rail stop. It already has significantly higher ridership than Cleveland or Baltimore currently and when built out is anticipated to carry over 600k riders a day. 4 car trains running every 3-5 minutes have the type of capacity that is closer to matching heavy rail than typical light rail. Take a look at the videos and tell me those don't seem like a subway.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDe_xEcbtVM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oXJKH6fpZs
Ive actually been to Seattle and I've used their light rail. Maybe some of those stations look more like subway stations than typical light rail, but it's definitely still a light rail. The technological difference between heavy rail and light rail is pretty significant IMO. I don't think those videos you've showed look like a subway because those trains are noticeably way slower than an actual subway.

This was just my interpretation of what OP meant, and it makes sense if you look at the list of cities OP provided since Seattle isn't on the list.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Western Urbanite View Post
LA does not belong below Atlanta.
Since I was ranking heavy rail, I definitely think it can, although the difference isn't that large and they probably could be switched from my rankings. It doesn't even really matter after a certain point. We really need better transit in The US

Edit: OP confirmed the topic is on heavy rail, so yeah. I guess I would rank Atlanta above LA
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2017, 06:12 PM
 
837 posts, read 676,230 times
Reputation: 952
I think Seattle is maybe the only city actually trying to make effective use of light rail right now as opposed to just doing it for the sake of cost. I honestly wish other cities were following their lead and coming up with costed out 40 year plans to build metro wide light rail systems rather than tossing a few lines on major arteries and calling it "mass transit".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2017, 06:42 PM
 
429 posts, read 287,622 times
Reputation: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by brodie734 View Post
I think Seattle is maybe the only city actually trying to make effective use of light rail right now as opposed to just doing it for the sake of cost. I honestly wish other cities were following their lead and coming up with costed out 40 year plans to build metro wide light rail systems rather than tossing a few lines on major arteries and calling it "mass transit".
They just passed a $54 billion dollar measure to build a second subway tunnel through downtown and some inner neighborhoods (along with several other expansions) - so clearly they're willing to spend the money. I do wish they went with heavy rail, though, when the system was first conceived - it feels like they might as well have since their cost of building is more in line with typical heavy rail costs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2017, 06:46 PM
 
429 posts, read 287,622 times
Reputation: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_One_Guy View Post
Ive actually been to Seattle and I've used their light rail. Maybe some of those stations look more like subway stations than typical light rail, but it's definitely still a light rail. The technological difference between heavy rail and light rail is pretty significant IMO. I don't think those videos you've showed look like a subway because those trains are noticeably way slower than an actual subway.
Many segments are not slow at all - for example, the ride from Capitol Hill to UW takes 4 minutes with a speed of 55 mph. That drive takes about 15 minutes without traffic and up to an hour with traffic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2017, 10:19 PM
 
Location: where the good looking people are
3,491 posts, read 2,334,998 times
Reputation: 2888
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Yeah and those trips will take you at least 80-90 minutes with multiple transfers on Metro Rail. A trip on BART with equivalent distances would take 35-55 minutes with a one-seat ride/no transfers. I would not call LA's system "fast" at all. There are way too many at-grade crossings and even areas where cars have signal priority over trains. It's kind of ridiculous you have trains traveling at street level with at-grade crossings in the downtown area of the nation's second largest city. LA really needs more grade-separation with its rail system to make it truly "world class".
LA's subway system is not at street level.

And it also has more riders per mile than BART.

Pretty sad that a system as large, extensive, and old as BART has fewer riders per mile than LA.

But then again, BART is not a real subway. Just an over glorified commuter rail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2017, 10:22 PM
 
Location: where the good looking people are
3,491 posts, read 2,334,998 times
Reputation: 2888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Western Urbanite View Post
Shall we assume the OP is just talking about heavy rail and high quality LRT (not regional rail) within the MSA to make things simpler?
No, OP clearly stated subway systems and CITIES. Is this hard to comprehend?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2017, 10:42 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,404 posts, read 24,654,049 times
Reputation: 8786
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardOfRadical View Post
LA's subway system is not at street level.

And it also has more riders per mile than BART.

Pretty sad that a system as large, extensive, and old as BART has fewer riders per mile than LA.

But then again, BART is not a real subway. Just an over glorified commuter rail.
Its light rail lines mostly are and those make up the vast majority of the system.

Given the differences in operating environments it should have more riders per mile. LA Metro rail generally doesn't cross large areas with no development or a huge bay.

Most people are well aware BART is not an urban subway system but at least it's not sitting at traffic lights waiting for cars to pass through. But that's LA for you...car is king.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 12:20 AM
 
Location: Philly, PA
338 posts, read 233,980 times
Reputation: 133
I find it a bit mind boggling that some ranked Philly low as they did earlier in the post. I don't know if they just see that its just has two subway lines or some sort. Last i checked , the trolleys have their own subway and shares a joint tunnel with the Market-Frankford Line, and the Broad St Line is underneath the MFL and also has a Spur Train to 8th-Market that meets the MFL. All three of these lines run very frequently and carry over 350k combined with the MFL being the highest. Who ever put the newer cities ahead of Philly obviously have no idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 12:45 AM
 
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
992 posts, read 519,556 times
Reputation: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_One_Guy View Post
Edit: OP confirmed the topic is on heavy rail, so yeah. I guess I would rank Atlanta above LA
That will certainly change once the Westside subway opens in 2024!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 01:02 AM
 
Location: In the heights
20,672 posts, read 22,247,172 times
Reputation: 10695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Western Urbanite View Post
That will certainly change once the Westside subway opens in 2024!
LA's system as a whole will be better than Atlanta's, but I don't think LA's heavy rail ridership is going to pass Atlanta's heavy rail ridership until the Purple Line extension gets to at least Westwood. Perhaps if LA won the Olympic bid, then funding sources would be found to accelerate that process.
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