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.
Minneapolis-St. Paul never had steel and other heavy industry like Cleveland and some of the other so-called 'Rust Belt' cities. Minneapolis has been hip and trendy since the 1960s and became even trendier with the Mary Tyler Moore show. It's transit is brand new and serving a lot of spraw areas as well as the Green Line and downtown sections, which are essentially streetcars with heavy hop on/hop off riders. Cleveland's much older system isn't built that way; it's more of a commuter system but one that can and does circulate riders to and through several in-city neighborhoods. So to say Minneapolis' rail system is good and Cleveland's is weaker or bad based on this limited ridership snapshot is misleading.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,745 posts, read 23,804,636 times
Reputation: 14660
Quote:
Originally Posted by T. Damon
I'm surprised, well, not really, how San Diego is so completely left out of these rankings (other than one post) when its ridership and number are almost equal to Portland and far ahead of every one else here that follows in the rankings.
With the Trolley (40M rides/year, 120k avg weekday), over 53 miles of tracks now plus the Coaster and the Sprinter in North County, it is one of the top systems in the country.
A major expansion is taking place now and the plans are for continued expansion to an already large and well used system.
San Diego has got an expansive system with good coverage in many areas, Reason I've never ridden it is because it has no airport or beach connections. Perhaps that's why it seems almost forgettable for those who don't live there. It doesn't go anywhere near Balboa Park either. As a visitor I have no use for it, it just doesn't go anywhere in town that I intend to visit. Kind of like Miami with no Metrorail to the beach so I just don't see myself riding it as a visitor.
I didn't say you did. But you implied Minneapolis was doing something right. I just used Cleveland as an example of how systems can rise and decline, based on the cities they exist in. It's not just Minneapolis 'doing something right.'
Out of that list it's definitely Portland, Seattle's system is a joke, it barely has density to support it's expansion, when completed it will be similar to darts system in riders per mile.
Out of that list it's definitely Portland, Seattle's system is a joke, it barely has density to support it's expansion, when completed it will be similar to darts system in riders per mile.
Exactly. I think Seattle is way better than Portland, but in light rail Portland is far beyond Seattle.
Exactly. I think Seattle is way better than Portland, but in light rail Portland is far beyond Seattle.
In coverage right now Portland is better, yes (although that will be changing). But in every other category Seattle's system is better. Because of the grade-separation (it is largely underground and elevated) it's much faster, more reliable, and has more capacity. In Seattle you can ride the subway from downtown to the University District in 7 minutes. That's a drive that can take 45 minutes or more during rush hour. Portlands trains max out at 2 cars and crawl at-grade through downtown.
I didn't say you did. But you implied Minneapolis was doing something right. I just used Cleveland as an example of how systems can rise and decline, based on the cities they exist in. It's not just Minneapolis 'doing something right.'
Cleveland's system declined because Cleveland declined. That just stands to reason. No need to try and take another city down because your city has been "Detroit south" for ever.
Out of that list it's definitely Portland, Seattle's system is a joke, it barely has density to support it's expansion, when completed it will be similar to darts system in riders per mile.
Seattle's core is significantly denser and bigger than Portland, in fact its the densest (greater) core of the grouping below SF/Boston/Philly
Out of that list it's definitely Portland, Seattle's system is a joke, it barely has density to support it's expansion, when completed it will be similar to darts system in riders per mile.
Seattle is the densest city of the group of cities?
Also your comment indicates the fallacy relying solely on ridership numbers. Minneapolis did somethings right and somethings wrong. The City has wonderful old walking, residential/retail districts along Hennepin
and Nicollet aves immediately to the south of downtown, but the rail system bypasses these wonderful areas. We rode the Green Line to UM and just beyond and, essentially, it's a streetcar. Much slower than the older Green Line which was very fast into downtown from the airport.
Even though I'm not a fan of LRT's that become streetcars downtown, the Metro rail does serve the hot areas of downtown Minny quite well. I'm sure the new commuter rail line to the north helps the system overall as well.
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.
