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 09-29-2018, 12:27 PM
 
Location: In the heights
21,129 posts, read 22,661,324 times
Reputation: 11002

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJester View Post
Forget about ridership, too. What we're talking about is experience for the average rider. Looks like DART and RTD are, relative to Dallas (excluding Fort Worth) and Denver, just as widespread in coverage as BART + CalTrain are relative to SF Bay Area.
How are you defining coverage here? BART + CalTrain in pretty much every way is more extensive system with greater capacity that DART and RTD, and since you're listing the SF Bay Area, then you're also at a minimum missing SF Muni Metro and VTA Light Rail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-29-2018, 01:11 PM
 
1,157 posts, read 354,424 times
Reputation: 880
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
How are you defining coverage here? BART + CalTrain in pretty much every way is more extensive system with greater capacity that DART and RTD, and since you're listing the SF Bay Area, then you're also at a minimum missing SF Muni Metro and VTA Light Rail.
Let's include VTA. But like I said, exclude Muni Metro. Its average speed is around 10 miles per hour. At that point I might as well bike!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2018, 01:22 PM
 
676 posts, read 280,811 times
Reputation: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJester View Post
Let's include VTA. But like I said, exclude Muni Metro. Its average speed is around 10 miles per hour. At that point I might as well bike!
MUNI has a number of underground stations that are actually pretty efficient and the Chinatown/North Beach subway is opening in a few years, but youíre right that the streetcar-like portion is slow and tedious. Still, MUNI alone has more ridership than RTD and DART combined, and thatís not including BART or any of the other rail service in the Bay Area.

If youíre looking at user experience, consider that SFs public transit usage by % is among the highest in the country while Denver and Dallas are quite low. Also, SF has a much lower rate of car ownership. Part of that is due to how much more urban SF is, but overall the scale, capacity, reliability, and coverage of the rail service is just on a different level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2018, 02:18 PM
 
Location: In the heights
21,129 posts, read 22,661,324 times
Reputation: 11002
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJester View Post
Let's include VTA. But like I said, exclude Muni Metro. Its average speed is around 10 miles per hour. At that point I might as well bike!
Muni Metro is quite slow in parts, but then there are much faster segments as well so it doesn't make sense to exclude all of Muni Metro. There are certainly slow, street-running segments of RTD and DART as well.

I'd also say that it's hard to say that you might as well bike. Part of the reason for all the stops in the street running segments is because of how hilly the city is. You can certainly bike and many do, but it could be a pretty good workout.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2018, 02:36 PM
 
8,902 posts, read 9,103,077 times
Reputation: 5413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_Adultman View Post
MUNI has a number of underground stations that are actually pretty efficient and the Chinatown/North Beach subway is opening in a few years, but youíre right that the streetcar-like portion is slow and tedious. Still, MUNI alone has more ridership than RTD and DART combined, and thatís not including BART or any of the other rail service in the Bay Area.

If youíre looking at user experience, consider that SFs public transit usage by % is among the highest in the country while Denver and Dallas are quite low. Also, SF has a much lower rate of car ownership. Part of that is due to how much more urban SF is, but overall the scale, capacity, reliability, and coverage of the rail service is just on a different level.
Honestly itís probably mostly how Dense and hard it is to drive/park in SF vs Denver as opposed to how much better Muni/BART is. Ignoring Geographic issues if you plopped a BART/Muni System into Dallas it would probably have similar ridership to DART.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2018, 03:36 PM
 
676 posts, read 280,811 times
Reputation: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
Honestly it’s probably mostly how Dense and hard it is to drive/park in SF vs Denver as opposed to how much better Muni/BART is. Ignoring Geographic issues if you plopped a BART/Muni System into Dallas it would probably have similar ridership to DART.
The fact that two of these systems are surface-running light rail (not mini-metro style light rail like Seattle), while the other is heavy rail makes a big difference in on-time reliability and capacity. And, yes, because SF/Oakland/Berkeley is much denser than Denver or Dallas, the station placement and accessibility within the most urban parts of the Bay Area is light years ahead of RTD and DART.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2018, 04:32 PM
 
8,902 posts, read 9,103,077 times
Reputation: 5413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_Adultman View Post
The fact that two of these systems are surface-running light rail (not mini-metro style light rail like Seattle), while the other is heavy rail makes a big difference in on-time reliability and capacity. And, yes, because SF/Oakland/Berkeley is much denser than Denver or Dallas, the station placement and accessibility within the most urban parts of the Bay Area is light years ahead of RTD and DART.
All the new systems other than Seattle have that issue where outside the core they are grade separated low(er) frequency lines and then in the core it’s all a trunk line that’s mixed with traffic. That’s how Portland, Dallas and Denver built their system. As opposed to say Boston, SF, Cleveland which have street running trolly lines that become Exclusive ROW in trunk lines through the downtown core.


The big problem with all the new systems is the places that it’s hardest to get ROW is where you need it the most. So they have the Busiest part of the system also being the most bogged down by traffic and such which unbalanced the system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2018, 05:26 PM
 
1,157 posts, read 354,424 times
Reputation: 880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_Adultman View Post
The fact that two of these systems are surface-running light rail (not mini-metro style light rail like Seattle), while the other is heavy rail makes a big difference in on-time reliability and capacity. And, yes, because SF/Oakland/Berkeley is much denser than Denver or Dallas, the station placement and accessibility within the most urban parts of the Bay Area is light years ahead of RTD and DART.
Both the DART and RTD are separated from road traffic entirely, except in the Downtown areas. DART's orange line from Downtown Dallas to the DFW Airport has an average speed of 35 mph or so, comparable with BART's service from Downtown San Fran to SFO airport. Ditto for Denver's A line to the airport.

Also, consider that RTD comprises not only of the light rail but also commuter rail, whose trains have a top operating speed of 79 mph. This is faster than the BART's operational top speed of 70 mph.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2018, 07:41 PM
 
Location: Germantown, Philadelphia
4,232 posts, read 2,043,075 times
Reputation: 2660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_Adultman View Post
The fact that two of these systems are surface-running light rail (not mini-metro style light rail like Seattle), while the other is heavy rail makes a big difference in on-time reliability and capacity. And, yes, because SF/Oakland/Berkeley is much denser than Denver or Dallas, the station placement and accessibility within the most urban parts of the Bay Area is light years ahead of RTD and DART.
I thought DART's lines didn't have grade crossings outside the downtown.

I'm pretty sure there are some on Denver RTD.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2018, 07:42 PM
 
676 posts, read 280,811 times
Reputation: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl View Post
I thought DART's lines didn't have grade crossings outside the downtown.

I'm pretty sure there are some on Denver RTD.
Maybe, but Downtown - or any area that is denser and has a lot of intersections - is clearly where grade-separation matters most and running at-grade has the potential to slow things down the most. My understanding is that is the case in Dallas and Denver.
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

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.

© 2005-2019, 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