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 03-03-2017, 01:14 AM
 
Location: Westminster/Huntington Beach, CA
1,780 posts, read 1,163,979 times
Reputation: 1178

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
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.
They are working on getting federal funding and a public-private partnership to accelerate the extension and build it as a single project to be completed by 2022 or 2024. LA Metro has been pretty successful at obtaining outside funding sources even with the sales tax revenue from Measures R and more recently, Measure M.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-03-2017, 01:26 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles and San Francisco/East Bay, formerly DC and Boston
1,958 posts, read 3,274,119 times
Reputation: 1534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriz Brown View Post
Let's pretend NYC doesn't exist for a moment. What is the best Subway system in the country?

Please rate these systems with #1 being the best and #9 being the worst. Say why #1 is better than the others and why #9 is worst than the others:
  • Atlanta
  • Boston
  • Baltimore
  • Chicago
  • Cleveland
  • Philadelphia
  • Washington DC
  • SF
  • LA
I ride BART often to work, and used to ride DC Metro and the T in Boston earlier in my career.

Taking a train to work is miserable, don't care which system. Cut the traffic a little, or reduce parking $, and I'll drive every time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 11:29 AM
 
429 posts, read 286,327 times
Reputation: 275
I'm still not sure why'd you'd exclude light rail that runs almost entirely underground or grade separated and has far more in common (separated from traffic, more capacity, more frequency, faster travel times) with traditional rapid transit than on the surface light rail that you see in Denver, Portland, or Minneapolis. Light rail can go nearly as fast as heavy rail and 4 car trains can hold a lot of people - the problem is that speed and capacity are usually constrained because most light rail systems run on the street in mixed traffic. When you're running trains up to every 3 minutes and you've got underground stations under dense, urban areas - it really does feel like a subway. I took a friend visiting from Ireland on Seattle's light rail and he said "oh, I didn't realize you guys had an underground". The fact that the vehicles were light rail did not somehow make him think it wasn't a subway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 07:58 PM
 
Location: where the good looking people are
3,475 posts, read 2,322,969 times
Reputation: 2869
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
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.
Doesn't matter the thread is about subways. Though your obsession with going off on tangents is duly noted. As far as light rails go, most are om the streets, even in SF. And as LA subway continues to expand, it will still have more riders per mile than Bart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 08:03 PM
 
Location: In the heights
20,647 posts, read 22,192,066 times
Reputation: 10641
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardOfRadical View Post
Doesn't matter the thread is about subways. Though your obsession with going off on tangents is duly noted. As far as light rails go, most are om the streets, even in SF. And as LA subway continues to expand, it will still have more riders per mile than Bart.
Does that last part make sense to you? Did you step through the reasoning for why that might be? It's essentially saying that if BART cut off half its length and reduced service, it would finally be able to compete with LA. That sounds straight up stupid to me.

Exactly just how bad has our education system become? Is there at least a bottom?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 08:09 PM
 
527 posts, read 380,426 times
Reputation: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyle19125 View Post
To clarify the OP is asking about the best subway system which by definition would allude to BELOW GROUND mass transit. Since a few of these systems mentioned do not have below ground service perhaps one should focus on service within the city core versus regional rail service. If that's the case would ranks as follows:

1. DC
2. Boston
3. Chicago
4. Philadelphia
5. SF
6. Cleveland
7. Baltimore
8. Atlanta
9. LA

I'm basing my rankings on relative proportion of coverage to the city proper at large.
Most of the above lines are for the most part above ground.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 08:10 PM
 
527 posts, read 380,426 times
Reputation: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92 View Post
1. Chicago
2. Washington DC

Gap

3. SF
4. Philadelphia
5. Boston

Gap

6. LA

Gap

7. Atlanta
8.Baltimore
9. Cleveland

If you added light rail Dallas would fall somewhere above Cleveland, probably above Atlanta for shear size.


Boston is a great walking city, but the Trains are really not that great. Luckily the city is small geographically. San Francisco while better than Boston is only so so. Philadelphia has great coverage, arguably better than Boston.
Boston Green Line is so slow I can walk faster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 08:14 PM
 
527 posts, read 380,426 times
Reputation: 514
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.
The LA Metro System does carry large number people considering it is so new and limited in coverage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 08:53 PM
 
Location: (six-cent-dix-sept)
4,101 posts, read 2,024,858 times
Reputation: 2522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Western Urbanite View Post
1. Washington, DC--sheer coverage, land use around stations, and not competing with freeways much.
2. San Francisco--coverage, speed, and geography that favors transit
3. Chicago--coverage
4. Los Angeles--new, fast, clean, rapidly expanding, and when combined with a REALLY good bus system, allows you to get anywhere. Will likely be #2 within 20-30 years.
Atlanta.
5. Boston--covers city really well, but Boston has the vast majority of its population in really low density suburbs that have terrible land use for transit.
6. Philadelphia--a fairly decent transit city with really low coverage.
7. Baltimore/Cleveland--tie: fairly good transit for their size, but nothing outstanding.
the bolded is nonsense. somerville/cambridge/malden are among the top 20 densest cities in the country ? and a large amount of t stations are not inside the city limits of boston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley-88888888 View Post
i guess it depends on what a suburb is but according to this map 44 of the subway stops are technically not located in the city of boston:
www.thecleverest.com/t/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 09:48 PM
BMI
 
Location: Ontario
6,629 posts, read 3,939,486 times
Reputation: 4905
Toronto

Montreal

London, UK
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