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.
NYC is pretty tops with over 950,000 riders per day. Chicago would be in the next tier with over 300,000, and then Boston and Philly with around 130,000 each. The rest are all below 50,000.
Here's Chicago's system:
Don't some of the Chicago subway lines serve inner suburban communities?
How does dc's transit have one of the lower walkabilty scores?
That is because not all the station in the suburbs have been developed YET. Check back over the next couple years because almost all of them will be developed soon other than both airport stations and Arlington Cemetary. I don't think there are any stations other than those that don't have developments moving through the pipeline.
NYC is pretty tops with over 950,000 riders per day. Chicago would be in the next tier with over 300,000, and then Boston and Philly with around 130,000 each. The rest are all below 50,000.
Here's Chicago's system:
Is that all commuter rail, does chicago have subways also or just all commuter rail trains.
Philly takes this one easily, its the only through-running system, with a commuter connection tunnel, fully electrified all that. Its modeled after European s-bahn systems, like the Paris rer, was the model used for Bart and DC metro. Even NYC is trying to streamline their system the same way.
This is spot on correct... I laugh at the rail "experts" who downgrade Philly's commuter rail (probably because it's Philly and it's always fashionable to kick the city around) and say, for example, that Chicago's METRA is better b/c it's speed (few stops) and on time performance is (supposedly) better. Even though more and more cities have established some form of commuter rail over the last 2-3 decades, there are really only 4 major commuter rail systems in the country: New York, Philly, Chicago and Boston... and then, everybody else... Of those 4, Philly comes out on top for reasons stated by killakoolaide, above... Chicago's at the bottom....
... why? For one thing, given it's size and density, Chicago should have long ago electrified it's entire network, not just the METRA Electric (old Illinois Central suburban div) along with the old 90-mile South Shore/South Bend RR interurban line feeding in... Also, Chicago's downtown terminal situation is totally disjointed and inconvenient: the 13 lines feed into 4 different terminals with no thru service... and only at Union Station, can you ride in, get off, and continue North or south on one of the few other lines feeding that terminal (and to top it off, Union Station is not even served by a CTA L line -- the closest one is about 4 blocks away -- try that lugging bags... And on top of all that, METRA's Sunday schedule runs entirely on 2-hour intervals into the Loop, even on METRA Electric, where you must transfer from the S. Chicago Branch at Hyde Park to reach downtown -- (IIRC, the Blue Island branch doesn't operate on Sunday)... Pretty shoddy for the Windy City...
Philly's about the best we have in this country for connectability and ease of use because of the Center City tunnel... In addition, Philly is served by 2 diesel, non-SEPTA commuter Lines: the 60-mile, mostly single-track Atlantic City Line, which operates into 30th St. Sta., and the near decade old River Line (diesel LRT), which runs from downtown Camden north 30-miles to Trenton (connecting to Philly via a PATCO transfer in Camden)...
Despite the relative quality of SEPTA's regional rail -- again, by American Standards -- it sucks that they still operate it as a commuter rail line (conductors, 1-hour base) rather than a more rapid-transit like service similar services in Austrailia, Germany, Japan and a few others. SEPTA is very good... but it could be a whole lot better.
^Oops, I forgot to include our Canadian friends, namely Toronto and Montreal... Philly still comes out on top, although both those cities have nice commuter rail systems: Montreal's 18-mile Duex Montagnes line is the only electrified line in the entire country-- just to show the power of eletrification: Duex Monagnes carries more daily passengers than Montreal's 5 other diesel lines combined!!
Don't some of the Chicago subway lines serve inner suburban communities?
Yep, the Green, Pink and Blue lines (all run fairly close to each other) poke out into Oak Park and Cicero on the west side, and the Purple Line basically runs entirely in Evanston and another small town just to the north (although during Rush hours it will make express runs downtown as opposed to just shuttling people to the Red Line at the city limits). Those cities are fairly old, and are certainly some of the suburbs that are the most dense and woven into the urban city fabric of Chicago. Hence they got their rail connections back almost 100 years ago when the system was being built.
This is spot on correct... I laugh at the rail "experts" who downgrade Philly's commuter rail (probably because it's Philly and it's always fashionable to kick the city around) and say, for example, that Chicago's METRA is better b/c it's speed (few stops) and on time performance is (supposedly) better. Even though more and more cities have established some form of commuter rail over the last 2-3 decades, there are really only 4 major commuter rail systems in the country: New York, Philly, Chicago and Boston... and then, everybody else... Of those 4, Philly comes out on top for reasons stated by killakoolaide, above... Chicago's at the bottom....
... why? For one thing, given it's size and density, Chicago should have long ago electrified it's entire network, not just the METRA Electric (old Illinois Central suburban div) along with the old 90-mile South Shore/South Bend RR interurban line feeding in... Also, Chicago's downtown terminal situation is totally disjointed and inconvenient: the 13 lines feed into 4 different terminals with no thru service... and only at Union Station, can you ride in, get off, and continue North or south on one of the few other lines feeding that terminal (and to top it off, Union Station is not even served by a CTA L line -- the closest one is about 4 blocks away -- try that lugging bags... And on top of all that, METRA's Sunday schedule runs entirely on 2-hour intervals into the Loop, even on METRA Electric, where you must transfer from the S. Chicago Branch at Hyde Park to reach downtown -- (IIRC, the Blue Island branch doesn't operate on Sunday)... Pretty shoddy for the Windy City...
Philly's about the best we have in this country for connectability and ease of use because of the Center City tunnel... In addition, Philly is served by 2 diesel, non-SEPTA commuter Lines: the 60-mile, mostly single-track Atlantic City Line, which operates into 30th St. Sta., and the near decade old River Line (diesel LRT), which runs from downtown Camden north 30-miles to Trenton (connecting to Philly via a PATCO transfer in Camden)...
Despite the relative quality of SEPTA's regional rail -- again, by American Standards -- it sucks that they still operate it as a commuter rail line (conductors, 1-hour base) rather than a more rapid-transit like service similar services in Austrailia, Germany, Japan and a few others. SEPTA is very good... but it could be a whole lot better.
I actually see Chicago rated towards the top most of the time when systems are compared. Toronto, Boston, portions of Long Island, Metro North and many other systems in the USA are diesel engines. It's fairly common. Chicago shares the tracks with freight that criss crosses the city, as it's the largest freight rail city in the country. There's really no room to go build hundreds of miles of new track and electrify them all since the freight tracks are already there surrounded by existing development. It would also probably cost tens of billions of dollars. I've never really seen anyone complain about the current system as far as how it's powered. Certainly not enough to dump billions and billions into changing it when it wouldn't do much of anything to reliability or service.
If Metra even proposed that expense you'd have outrage and heads on the chopping block! Especially given the current budget issues.
D.C's Metro and SF's BART are the closest to commuter rail of any US rapid transit lines, with BART going deeper into SF suburbs than even METRO (which will soon partly change with METRO's New Dulles airport extension now under construction)... Right now, the Shady Grove line, at 23 miles (to Metro Center, downtown), is the single longest Metro Line... Dulles will be about that length, if not a few miles longer... Still, even though these lines have (some of) the length of traditional commuter rail, along with much better frequency, the lack the comfort of traditional commuter rail lines (heavier passenger cars with a more solid ride, overhead luggage racks...even water fountains and toilets, in some cases...)
Houston: wow, even the people in LA think you drive too much lol
.
There are plans to build one from Galveston to DT Houston and several more to Conroe, Prairie View, and Sugarland. Just needs to get past politicians.
BTW, Dallas area has two commuter lines. One is the TRE and the other is the DCTA and another one is planned with the Cotton Belt.
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.
