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.
The issue I'm having is that people want to keep on trying to add Ferry service. Ferry service is not a commuter rail line. It is not a train, does not run on tracks. Geesh. Just because a system is electrified does not mean it is supposed to a tier amount of passengers that doesn't make any sense. METRA has all diesel lines and their ridership is high ?. I Will say this though I do think the frequency on SEPTA Commuter Rail needs to be increased by a whole lot. Once the new railcars come in maybe that can happen, and whenever they can get around AMTRAK'S Schedule that would be lovely and hire more people to operate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Ferry service obviously counts as transit, so, yeah, it should be included. But it isn't rail, of course, so shouldn't be included if just looking at rail transit.
i rarely go that far out into the suburbs so my considerations was for only subway service within and between close by cities.
i rarely go that far out into the suburbs so my considerations was for only subway service within and between close by cities.
NYC and DC are the only U.S. cities where subway service is the primary mode of public transit, so if that's really your only consideration, there isn't much to talk about re. U.S. transit.
it seems like springfeild would be closer to new york than it is boston ? do you mean worcester (i assume there is commuter rail there but not sure) ?
Worcester has commuter rail (and Amtrak) connections to Boston already.
Springfield is slated for a commuter rail connection to New York via Hartford and Springfield. I don't believe there's any discussion about connecting Boston to Springfield via commuter rail (there's Amtrak service but it's not adequate for commuter service) as it's really too far (90 miles) to be a commuter hub for Boston.
A Newport RI connection is planned as essentially a phase 2 of the South Coast (Fall River-New Bedford) commuter rial service project which is moving forward at a snail's pace and has a bloated price tag. Somehow it's dodged the axe and is still progressing. RI won't discuss it until service to Fall River is in place. Once that happens, RI is eager to extend the rail connection down to Newport. You're still looking at 15-20 years off and that's optimistic. Without upgrading the entire route to accommodate high speeds (100+), a commute via commuter rail from Newport to Boston would be awful.
Portsmouth and Concord (though Manchester and Nashua stand to gain the most from a Concord connection) are ideal candidates for commuter rail to Boston. The problem is that the NH government and populous is extremely reluctant to fund that type of project. The only reason they have the existing stop in Durham, NH is because Maine had to pay for the rail through that small sliver of NH in order to have Amtrak Downeaster service to Boston. I'd love to see Downtown Portsmouth as the terminus for a commuter rail line. I just don't see it happening with the political environment in NH.
Portland, Maine is too far to be a viable commute to Boston without bullet train service. It's over 112 miles from Portland to Boston. Current service is more than 2.5 hours each way- assuming it's on-time which it rarely is. You really need a train that runs 150 mph or more for the majority of the trip to make it viable and you need to run these trains frequently enough to make the schedule work for commuters. I don't see it ever happening. Portland is far enough to always be relatively independent. I do think we should improve the connection for business and leisure travelers, but it's not and never will be a commuter hub to Boston.
The transit improvements to Boston that would be most useful now (disregarding the limiting factor- funding) are the following:
1) South Station expansion. This is critical for a multitude of reasons. The station is beyond capacity. Improving capacity immediately allows for better headways and increased service on all South Station originating/terminating commuter rail and Amtrak trips. It will vastly improve service.
2) Track Improvments and upgrades to the commuter rail network and rapid transit network. updating tracks, double tracking routes where needed and uniform electrification will allow for much faster trips on many commuter rail lines. Combined with added capacity at South Station will allow for more faster trips, better headways and more efficient schedules. Commuter rail in Boston is great if your schedule happens to cooperate. If not, it's useless. More frequent, faster trips would go a long way to increasing ridership and reducing vehicular congestion. Obviously track upgrades to existing rapid networks (Red/Orange/Blue lines) need to take place to improve service quality and reduce breakdowns.
3) Blue line extended to Lynn on one end and about 1/2 mile to Charles/MGH on the other end. This does two things. First, It turns Lynn into the Quincy of the North Shore and connects a large, dense population hub (Lynn currently has 90k people) to downtown Boston. Lynn then becomes a viable commuter option like Quincy has. Second, it makes a single connection (to the Red Line at MGH) that vastly improves mobility around the core of the metro area. It connects the North Shore to Cambridge, Cambridge to the airport (more efficiently than the silver line) and reduces multiple transfers for many, many commuters (inc. myself). It means Kendall Square, Central Square and Harvard are accessible from East Boston, Revere, and Lynn (assuming it's extended both ways). It's the last piece of the rapid transit puzzle missing from central Boston.
4) Green Line to Medford. Even with some of the budget issues, this looks to be the closest of the above to reality. This connects large and densely populated parts of Cambridge, Somerville and Medford to the urban core.
5) North/South rail link. from a passenger standpoint, a relatively inexpensive light rail or street car (think: SF's F-Line) along the Rose Kennedy Greenway would solve the connection problem between North and South Stations (and give tourists arriving at each easy access to Faneuil Hall and the waterfront). The North/South Rail link, is important for more than that though. It allows Amtrak's Northeast corridor to run directly North to Portland and beyond (maybe even Quebec City in the future). More importantly, it allows for quick and easy equipment transfers on the commuter rail network (which is harder than you'd ever imagine currently).
6) Commuter rail extensions to Portsmouth, Manchester, Fall River, New Bedford and Cape Cod. These communities on the edge of and just outside of the metro area are disconnected outside of highway access and contribute a good deal of traffic to the congestion on Boston area highways. Adequate commuter rail service would go a long way toward relieving some of that in addition to helping stimulate growth in the stagnant economies of Fall River, New Bedford, Taunton (part of the Fall River/New Bedford connection), Manchester and Nashua (part of the Manch. connection).
Sorry, but I disagree b/c BART should cover & control the entire SF Bay Area.
Amtrak ought to take the Cal-Train line into the City aka SF Transbay Terminal upon its completion.
FYI,
There is a combination of people to live/work in cities & live/work out of the city limits due to living costs. This is not only in SF, but many major US cities (NYC, Chicago, DC, Boston, Philly, etc.) to build & populate other towns from 1 to 2 hrs distance from the City Centers. As people drive into the city for work or recreation from their distance commuting towns by vehicle. A metro rail line must be constructed to relieve the vehicle traffic on the highways.
Examples:
Boston = Springfield, MA; Portsmouth, NH, Concord, NH; Portland, ME; Newport, RI; etc.
Philly = Allentown, PA; Reading, PA; Lancaster, PA; Burlington, NJ; Atlantic City, NJ; Dover, DE; etc.
Chicago = DeKalb, IL; Kankakee, IL; Gary, IN; Southbend, IN; etc.
I am not bashing SF, but I do bash other US cities ought to have efficient mass transit rail systems.
Since I have not lived in the SF Bay Area for over 12 yrs now to change tremendously.
Like any major US cities ought to have improvements & innovations on its infrastructures.
Caltrain already does a pretty good job and actually is faster between San Jose and SF than BART would be, at least the "Baby Bullet" express trains. Caltrain could be just as good as BART with electrification and more grade separation.
BART in its current form would not be able to service cities that far from the city center as your examples, it would be incredibly expensive and the cost could not be justified.
Caltrain already does a pretty good job and actually is faster between San Jose and SF than BART would be, at least the "Baby Bullet" express trains. Caltrain could be just as good as BART with electrification and more grade separation.
BART in its current form would not be able to service cities that far from the city center as your examples, it would be incredibly expensive and the cost could not be justified.
I've taken Caltrain from SF to SJ. Not a bad ride. I can't even imagine doing the same thing on BART. Caltrain is an infinitely better option for such a long distance.
NYC and DC are the only U.S. cities where subway service is the primary mode of public transit, so if that's really your only consideration, there isn't much to talk about re. U.S. transit.
not sure i understand your post because many people in other cities utilize subway service as well. wouldnt that mean there would be enough of a conversation ?
not sure i understand your post because many people in other cities utilize subway service as well. wouldnt that mean there would be enough of a conversation ?
Yeah, but in every other city in the U.S., rail ridership is less than half of overall transit ridership. So what's the point? How can you compare transit by ignoring the majority of transit?
Yeah, but in every other city in the U.S., rail ridership is less than half of overall transit ridership. So what's the point? How can you compare transit by ignoring the majority of transit?
Where are you finding your data? I know that Boston's public transit breakdown is well over 50% subway (Red/Blue/Orange/Green line). That doesn't include commuter rail. If you include that, it's over two-thirds. I'm not looking up data for all of the other cities, but I'd wager Chicago, Philadelphia and maybe even San Francisco are probably close too.
Yeah, but in every other city in the U.S., rail ridership is less than half of overall transit ridership. So what's the point? How can you compare transit by ignoring the majority of transit?
i see your point but i choose to ignore discussion about a form of transportation that i never used.
[pedantic]why are we discussing usa cities when there are twice as many people in china ?[/pedantic]
I'm Team Philly and I'm on your side, but in your first post, Atlantic City (NJT, AC line) and Lancaster (Amtrak, Keystone Service) are the only cities you have listed that actually have rail service directly into Philadelphia (though Burlington is on the River Line, and you can easily connect to either PATCO or NJT to get to Phila). Neither Allentown ( notably), Reading (notably) or Dover (no big shock) have rail access into Philadelphia (Wilmington/Newark do however).
Also DART First State, at around 12 million passengers annually, really only serves the state of Delaware. It's essentially all inter-county and intra-county bus service. The only part of DART that crosses state lines is the subsidized (by DelDot) SEPTA line to Philly (around 2.75 million annual passengers). So it's debatable to me to actually include all of DART in Philly's numbers, apart from the SEPTA line. If we're just puffing our chest out and adding adjacent counties for numbers, sure, but functionally, only a small portion of DART directly services Philadelphia. Delaware, while independent, contributes a lot to the Philadelphia metro (Delaware Valley), but I think this is a scenario (ridership numbers) where we really don't
And including all of NJ Transit's numbers would be insane, since the vast majority of that system services North Jersey/NYC. But if you're overall point is sarcasm and to slam what you see as disingenuous boosting by Bay boosters through purposeful inflation, than never mind my contentions
Correct & thank you.
Yeah,
sav858 texted about how the whole SF Bay Area utilizes its multiple mass transit systems like BART, Cal-Train, MUNI, AC Transit, SamTrans, VTA, Golden Gate Transit than Philly's City Limit aka SEPTA only. Yet, sav858 forgot to text that the Philly Metro Area covers the Tri-States (PA, South NJ, & DE) more than SF Bay Area to have higher ridership. Yes I agree BART has higher ridership than SEPTA per capita. Sadly sav858 texted very shallow about how "Philly needs to get its act together" to be exaggerated.
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.
