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.
This thread is not meant to be a comparison of who has better rail coverage, ridership etc. This is meant to compare which design is best for a metro area. Which of the two designs are more efficient for metro area transit in 2011? Which style is better going into the future?
(DC and San Fran)
Heavy Rail/Lightrail for City Proper and Inner Suburbs
Commuter Rail for Inner suburbs and outer suburbs and CSA coverage
or
(Boston and Philly)
Heavy Rail/Lightrail for City Proper Only
Commuter Rail for Inner Suburbs, Outer Suburbs, CSA Coverage
Which provides the best transit ability to live without a car in an urban community?
Which provides the best opportunity for TOD development at the highest densities?
Which is more sustainable to absorb greater population density overtime?
Which is more efficient to develop land in sustainable uses?
Which is cheaper to use for daily trips around the city?
Which is more efficient to create mixed usage urban development?
Correction: Philly has light rail in its PA burbs, and heavy rail in its Jersey burbs. Also DC and Sanfran commuter rails are not on the same level as Philly's and Boston. Boston probably also has light/heavy rail in its burbs.
Correction: Philly has light rail in its PA burbs, and heavy rail in its Jersey burbs. Also DC and Sanfran commuter rails are not on the same level as Philly's and Boston. Boston probably also has light/heavy rail in its burbs.
Philly and Boston have a true system and not an overloaded Hybrid systems. Both systems have bright expansion futures and are just starting to get in the TOD game.
Philly and Boston have a true system and not an overloaded Hybrid systems. Both systems have bright expansion futures and are just starting to get in theTOD game.
But significantly behind DC in this regard on both accounts; also it would seem that SF is significantly behind DC in this regard as well.
One issu that the Metro does have is the lack of core track availability to substantially increase volume in the core with new lines etc which the hybrids such as Boston/Philly have more of.
But significantly behind DC in this regard on both accounts; also it would seem that SF is significantly behind DC in this regard as well.
One issu that the Metro does have is the lack of core track availability to substantially increase volume in the core with new lines etc which the hybrids such as Boston/Philly have more of.
But once both cities get fully into the game , your systems will be able to handle the stress better. The BSL was built with this in mind , so was the Subway - Surface trolleys they were built ahead of there times. SEPA is supposed to explode in population over the next 3 decades , most with be along the Rail corridors like the Main line or Trolley routes. I think with a Rail connection to KOP with produce SEPA's first Mega TOD development , and that will slow the sprawl in SEPA. TOD could easily spring up along the Regional Rail lines in both regions. HSR connections to NYC will cause the population of both regions and system usage to explode.....
Sorry to jump on the bandwagon of saying the characteristics you've listed aren't correct...but Boston's is incorrect too.
For heavy/light rail, Boston's lines serve the following:
Red
Boston, Cambridge, Quincy, Braintree, Somerville, Milton
Orange
Boston, Somerville, Medford, Malden
Blue
Boston, Revere
Green
Boston, Brookline, Newton, Cambridge
So ultimately, you could say:
Boston & Philadelphia Light & Heavy rail for city proper & inner suburbs Commuter Rail for mid-outer suburbs, CSA
DC & San Francisco Light Rail for city proper Heavy Rail for city proper, inner-mid suburbs Commuter Rail for outer suburbs, CSA
In terms of your criteria, I'm going to try to ignore the individual characteristics of each system and try to focus on the characteristics of the styles which you mention:
Which provides the best transit ability to live without a car in an urban community?
If you're speaking of someone who lives & works in an inner neighborhood, I believe the BosPhi style has an advantage. This is due to the fact that the system style focuses on the heart of the region moreso than the SFDC style. However, this isn't to say the SFDC style isn't effective, or even very good.
Which provides the best opportunity for TOD development at the highest densities?
Assuming you're referring to TOD outside the urban heart, I think the SFDC has an advantage here. Since its style focuses moreso on the greater inner-region rather than the heart, it allows for more efficient intra-regional transportation. The BosPhilly style focuses on the urban heart with its heavy rail. The CR systems can be used for TOD to an effective degree, but not nearly as effective as the SFDC style.
Which is more sustainable to absorb greater population density overtime?
It really depends on what you mean by greater population density.
If you're referring to the urban core becoming denser, then BosPhi has the advantage due to the greater number of stops/lines within the core area.
If you're referring to the urban core density expanding beyond its current area, then SFDC has the advantage. Greater coverage of heavy rail over a wider area will help absorb population increases better than a CR will.
However IMO neither style has a large advantage in either scenario.
Which is more efficient to develop land in sustainable uses?
I think either one works just fine. By using two of the questions you asked before this I think it works like this:
SFDC - Can develop land in a sustainable manner by focusing on TOD. It promotes city/town centers while providing sustainable transportation to/from the city and to the greater region.
BosPhi - Promoting growth of the core of the region. Its transit thrives in providing transportation to the city and the immediate surrounding area. Concentration on growing in the core, and therefore more walk-reliant neighborhoods is important.
SFDC allows for a good core city, with several prominent satellite cities. BosPhi focuses on one large central city, with fewer satellite cities. In BosPhi areas, you'll probably find the jump from very-urban --> rural in a quicker time due to this.
Which is cheaper to use for daily trips around the city?
I don't see either having a strong advantage in this category.
Which is more efficient to create mixed usage urban development?
I think the answer here is basically the same as your earlier question: "Which is more sustainable to absorb greater population density overtime?". It really depends on where this development takes place. If in the city, BosPhi. If in satellite areas, SFDC.
Also (on further review) Philly commuter rail serves locations within the city; a perfect example are the two chestnut Hill lines that both termninate prior to the city border but act as a commuter funnel to the DT from the area
I've never taken MARC since it's pretty inconvenient, but in my opinion the hybrid Metro system is the way to move forward in the 21st century. The commuter lines definitely serve an important function, but I believe having the innermost suburbs connected to the city's subway/heavy rail lines really helps them flourish, especially with TOD as mentioned above.
(Also, I'm pretty sure the patco speedline in south jersey is legally considered rapid transit, not commuter rail.)
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.
