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.
I don't understand some of you people, I really don't. Where are you guys getting this ridiculous notion that rail transit is automatically better than buses? This is why so many US cities have built LRT & streetcars with horrific ridership levels that are bleeding the operational budgets dry.
Yes, rail is often needed for high capacity routes but outside of a handful of US cities, very few US cities qualify. Ottawa is going to open it's new Metro system this week as they have converted their bus-only Transitway over to a grade separated Metro line including a downtown tunnel. Up until this time the buses have done an exceptional job but are now so frequent they are clogging downtown streets. The Transitway carries a whopping 260,000 passengers a day all while only serving a city of 1 million. This is the equivalent of the LRT systems of Houston, Phoenix, Dallas, St. Louis, and Charlotte combined.
This is why citizens often rebuke transit initiatives like the truly ridiculous one from Nashville spending billion on LRT and a downtown tunnel yet only having a paltry ridership of 30,000 riders a day. Instead of spending a billion on a single LRT line with little to show, nearly all US cities would be far better off building bus-only lanes/Transitways with a far more extensive and comprehensive system serving hundreds of more employment/education/community centres and tens of thousands of more people.
I really think that most US rail systems built in the last 20 years had nearly nothing to do with transit planning and everything to do with political ribbon cutting ceremonies and this childish city rivalry mantra of "look everybody, we have LRT too". LRT nor streetcars does not mean good transit but simply that some of the vehicles run on steel instead of rubber...…..nothing more.
Because the US has done a good job of downplaying the importance of buses and labeling it as a transit system for "those people." More buses=more of "those people" getting around the city. And "real Americans" won't take a bus because they're full of "those people."
Until the US narrative on public transit changes to accept buses and build bus only thoroughfares, this negative image of the bus will remain.
Also, bus lanes don't work in the US because we're so car obsessed. Having lived in both SF and NYC, cars very rarely respect the bus lane, unless it is a divided line. Even then, smaller cars will try to fit through where they can. But those cars back up the bus and sometimes people double park in the bus lanes, forcing the bus to wait a long time in traffic to get around the illegally parked car. The parked car gets in no trouble, so it'll just do it again whenever it feels like it. Having tracks, IMO, scares car drivers a little bit more into stopping in the way of a moving vehicle.
And then there's the issue of the US being far too litigious. Even in Manhattan, arguably the most transit-friendly place in the US, the city is being sued over plans to make 14th St a car-free bus-only thoroughfare. I think all or most major crosstown streets should be bus-only. Canal, Delancey, Houston, 14th, 23rd, 34th, 42nd, 57th, 72nd, 86th, 96th/97th, 116th, 125th, 145th. Obviously not all of those could be bus-only because this is the US and we are a nation that gets sexually aroused by vehicles, but at least a few of those could be bus-only.
Also, bus lanes don't work in the US because we're so car obsessed. Having lived in both SF and NYC, cars very rarely respect the bus lane, unless it is a divided line. Even then, smaller cars will try to fit through where they can. But those cars back up the bus and sometimes people double park in the bus lanes, forcing the bus to wait a long time in traffic to get around the illegally parked car. The parked car gets in no trouble, so it'll just do it again whenever it feels like it. Having tracks, IMO, scares car drivers a little bit more into stopping in the way of a moving vehicle.
Yes and no in my experience. Boston has pockets of the light rail network that runs on tracks with traffic in the street (it's mostly separate ROW) and people rarely alter their driving habits for it. My experience in San Francisco where MUNI Metro runs on the street has been similar and is part of the reason it's so slow. Toronto, which has some of my favorite light rail vehicles in North America, also has major issues with cars slowing down the trains by driving/stopping on the tracks. They bunch up, stop short, and get delayed in all the same way buses do. But, it's still a smoother ride with a much greater capacity than a bus.
I'm all for cities taking certain streets back from cars and going full bus/personal transit (bikes, scooters, pedestrians, etc.). San Francisco, and any dense, grid-layout city, makes sense for that kind of change. Hopefully it happens.
Careful now. You'll upset the homers who think bigger = better.
Yup Denver’s RTD>SEPTA because it has more mileage.
DART>MBTA and equal to the CTA.
Where the service goes is as important as how much there is. Low ridership in Denver’s and Dallas’s case is more to do with poor placement than lack of density.
Yes and no in my experience. Boston has pockets of the light rail network that runs on tracks with traffic in the street (it's mostly separate ROW) and people rarely alter their driving habits for it. My experience in San Francisco where MUNI Metro runs on the street has been similar and is part of the reason it's so slow. Toronto, which has some of my favorite light rail vehicles in North America, also has major issues with cars slowing down the trains by driving/stopping on the tracks. They bunch up, stop short, and get delayed in all the same way buses do. But, it's still a smoother ride with a much greater capacity than a bus.
I'm all for cities taking certain streets back from cars and going full bus/personal transit (bikes, scooters, pedestrians, etc.). San Francisco, and any dense, grid-layout city, makes sense for that kind of change. Hopefully it happens.
SF was the worst. Also with its buses being on wires, sometimes the bus literally can't go anywhere else. But the main issue with the Muni Metro lines, especially those through the Sunset, is they don't have signal priority and stop at every block. That's not rapid transit. They need to have only designated stops every several blocks instead of every single block. I think that slows down Muni Metro and Muni in general. Too many local buses. Not enough BRT.
Having designated ROW tracks, IMO, does help speed up efficiency somewhat compared to buses that sit in the same traffic. To a lot of people, they figure why bother taking the bus when it'll take twice the time stopping at all the stops. Until BRT and bus-only thoroughfares are ubiquitous, this stigma against buses will never end. I, for one, won't move outside of walking distance to a subway station because I don't trust buses through my neighborhood to get me to the station on time.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,749 posts, read 23,813,296 times
Reputation: 14660
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
Yup Denver’s RTD>SEPTA because it has more mileage.
DART>MBTA and equal to the CTA.
Where the service goes is as important as how much there is. Low ridership in Denver’s and Dallas’s case is more to do with poor placement than lack of density.
I'd agree on poor placement of rail lines in Denver since it misses most of the urban nodes outside of downtown. RTD rail is mostly a park and ride system and the Denver itself is still lacking good intra-city rail transit.
In Dallas' case, I'm not sure where DART is missing or what corridors would have served the city better. What nodes does DART miss that otherwise would increase ridership #s? I think it's the layout of the city more than anything that hinders ridership and will likely need to develop a lot of TOD near stations to get numbers up. Having the MLB and NFL sports facilities out in Arlington doesn't help the system's numbers either.
I'd agree on poor placement of rail lines in Denver since it misses most of the urban nodes outside of downtown. RTD rail is mostly a park and ride system and the Denver itself is still lacking good intra-city rail transit.
In Dallas' case, I'm not sure where DART is missing or what corridors would have served the city better. What nodes does DART miss that otherwise would increase ridership #s? I think it's the layout of the city more than anything that hinders ridership and will likely need to develop a lot of TOD near stations to get numbers up. Having the MLB and NFL sports facilities out in Arlington doesn't help the system's numbers either.
Due to the fact it’s on mostly freight ROW industrial needs surround most rail lines immediately not commercial/residential. Also the mega line downtown neglects NW to SE movement in the Downtown core which is a big last mile problem.
The reason why the Twin Cities Rail was relatively successful with far fewer miles WBA’s it was immediately on a Mao. Road not 1/rd of a mile away on the Freight ROW parallel.
Because the US has done a good job of downplaying the importance of buses and labeling it as a transit system for "those people." More buses=more of "those people" getting around the city. And "real Americans" won't take a bus because they're full of "those people."
Until the US narrative on public transit changes to accept buses and build bus only thoroughfares, this negative image of the bus will remain.
And as at least one example I give in that story indicates, it's more of a class than a race thing.
A common complaint here in Philadelphia, made largely by educated middle-class types, laments the city's skeletal rapid transit system.
I join in the lament insofar as the city was supposed to build a network of six subway and elevated lines but only built two. But I then tell people, "So if you want to get around the city, learn the buses."
But when you say "the US," do you mean the government? Auto manufacturers? Cultural influencers? I'd finger the last two more than the first.
2) Some people, however, are copping wise to your main point:
This was the opening essay in a series of articles CityLab ran under the rubric "Bus to the Future."
Los Angeles actually offers a good example of how we misplace our priorities.
For most of the 1980s, LA embarked on a program of rail transit construction and let bus service languish. A suit by a left-wing advocacy group representing bus riders forced the agency to call off the tunnel borers and bulldozers and instead cut bus fares, buy more buses, and make improvements in the speed, frequency and reliability of bus service.
Ridership on the LACMTA transit system soared.
The consent decree that produced these changes eventually expired, and LA went back to digging and bulldozing again. Last I heard, ridership is falling again.
The Southern California transit accountant I cited in my article once pointed out that in terms of rider benefit, increasing the average speed of buses on city streets from 5 mph to 6 mph (taking total distance traveled on the run divided by the total time to complete a run) provided greater improvement in service than increasing the average speed of a rapid transit train from 25 mph to 30 mph, and that more riders would use transit as a result.
And all the cities I have heard of that have seen ridership rise of late have made major investments in improving the reliability, frequency, speed and/or efficiency of their bus service.
I'm a big ol' traingeek. But it seems to me that turning our attention to improving the quality of bus service will do more to get people out of their cars and improve the quality of life and commuting in our cities than building lots of new rail lines will.
I'd agree on poor placement of rail lines in Denver since it misses most of the urban nodes outside of downtown. RTD rail is mostly a park and ride system and the Denver itself is still lacking good intra-city rail transit.
In Dallas' case, I'm not sure where DART is missing or what corridors would have served the city better. What nodes does DART miss that otherwise would increase ridership #s? I think it's the layout of the city more than anything that hinders ridership and will likely need to develop a lot of TOD near stations to get numbers up. Having the MLB and NFL sports facilities out in Arlington doesn't help the system's numbers either.
The problem with DART is gets oh so close to where it needs to go, but just misses the target in most situations. Uptown and Oak Lawn aren't super far from a rail line, but the rail misses the hart of the action and population. This is a prime neighborhood for public transit users (dense apartment buildings, walkable neighborhood, young, educated, professional, gay-friendly, etc.). Instead of being right in the middle of it all in those neighborhoods, the stations are on the periphery located on/near large freeways/highways. The station by SMU is across a freeway and doesn't actually serve the student population, nor does it hit the shopping/dining area north of the campus. Again, prime demographic of young college students. I'm not an expert on Dallas and all its neighborhoods, but following the lines on Google Maps, you can see there are some missed opportunities.
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.
