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 Denver numbers are wrong! Does not take into account the new line that opened! Same as on the other master thread on this site!!! And yeah, Denver has MORE miles of rail coming than all of the other cities in this post!!!!!!!
Denver, CO: 7.4%
Salt Lake City, UT: 5.3%
Portland, OR: 11.9%
Seattle, WA: 20.9%
and just for reference,
Bellevue, WA: 14.6%
Minneapolis, MN: 12.5% (relevant to the thread)
I'm not even going to bother with how far ahead Seattle is, but look at Bellevue. A freaking POST-WAR SUBURB is double Denver and TRIPLE Salt Lake City.
Well, maybe it's just a bias towards Seattle's strong central core, maybe the numbers will even out at the CSA level.
Denver, CO: 4.3%
Salt Lake City, UT: 2.6%
Portland, OR: 5.3%
Seattle, WA: 8.4%
Minneapolis, MN: 4.3%
Nope, still 2:1 over Denver and 3:1 over Salt Lake City.
Let's take a further look at some of the gross figures for each area. (Q2 2014 per APTA)
Light rail
Denver, CO: 58,100
Salt Lake City, UT: 61,800
Portland, OR: 123,200
Seattle, WA: 37,200
Clearly Seattle was late to the party.
But wait, transit comes in many forms!
Let's look at some bus statistics. But this time, we'll look at the entire picture. While agencies like RTD, Metro (MN) and Trimet serve as the primary bus agencies over multiple counties, Sound Transit only serves to link several counties together, not provide the primary services within them.
Denver, CO:
-RTD: 200,300
Total: 200,300
Salt Lake City, UT:
-UTA: 64,100
Total: 64,100
Portland, OR:
-Trimet: 207,200
Total: 207,200
Seattle, WA:
-Metro: 406,500 (Gotta include the trolley buses, that's an extra 76,400)
-ST: 61,700
-Community: 32,800
-Everett: 6,700
-Pierce: 35,200
Total: 542,900
Well shoot, that picture looks a little bit different now.
Yes, I acknowledge that I forgot to include the King County bus numbers for Seattle, it was a simple mistake, not on purpose. All of the other cities have consolidated systems with their primary bus and light rail being the same agency.
Although I understand your point in using transit share percentages (smart), I disagree. Those statistics include bus numbers. I acknowledge Seattle has a larger share of bus transit commuters and think it's commendable infrastructure and planning on their part. I'm no fan of the bus system -- only time I've used it is the Silver Line in from Logan International Airport to South Boston -- but it's a key transportation mechanism. It essentially moves it's rung of the chain links in the city's transit modal, it is primarily responsible for being completely and irrefutably inferior to any form of rail but serving as a super cheap alternative in the process. It moves an arm of of the regions workforce and transports them there and back again for a few dollars. It's second purpose is to get long distance commuters off the road, probably some sort of place they can leave their cars behind and hop on the bus to go where they are going. This is all commendable as it allows the city to get these extra would-be drivers off the road and into the public transportation system, decreasing congestion and prolonging the lifespan of (road) infrastructure.
Those are all great things but none really make-up for the underwhelming rail transit in Seattle. Underground or not; the number of train stations, number of lines, number of neighborhoods served, numbers of miles (track length), and number of passengers need to go up. It's not acceptable what it is right now.
The Denver numbers are wrong! Does not take into account the new line that opened! Same as on the other master thread on this site!!! And yeah, Denver has MORE miles of rail coming than all of the other cities in this post!!!!!!!
According to fast tracks Denver will have 150 miles of rail. According to sound transit Seattle will have 144 miles of rail not including the monorail or Southlake Union Street Car they were not built by Sound Transit. Also Seattle has the largest ferry system in the United States.
Yes, I acknowledge that I forgot to include the King County bus numbers for Seattle, it was a simple mistake, not on purpose. All of the other cities have consolidated systems with their primary bus and light rail being the same agency.
Although I understand your point in using transit share percentages (smart), I disagree. Those statistics include bus numbers. I acknowledge Seattle has a larger share of bus transit commuters and think it's commendable infrastructure and planning on their part. I'm no fan of the bus system -- only time I've used it is the Silver Line in from Logan International Airport to South Boston -- but it's a key transportation mechanism. It essentially moves it's rung of the chain links in the city's transit modal, it is primarily responsible for being completely and irrefutably inferior to any form of rail but serving as a super cheap alternative in the process. It moves an arm of of the regions workforce and transports them there and back again for a few dollars. It's second purpose is to get long distance commuters off the road, probably some sort of place they can leave their cars behind and hop on the bus to go where they are going. This is all commendable as it allows the city to get these extra would-be drivers off the road and into the public transportation system, decreasing congestion and prolonging the lifespan of (road) infrastructure.
Those are all great things but none really make-up for the underwhelming rail transit in Seattle. Underground or not; the number of train stations, number of lines, number of neighborhoods served, numbers of miles (track length), and number of passengers need to go up. It's not acceptable what it is right now.
Seattle light rail numbers are projected to at least double in 2016 and potentially get up to 200,000 by 2023. They are building a light rail system but it feels more like heavy-rail, with subway stations underneath dense neighborhoods.
Also, Seattle's development is crazy right now - so many new residential units and towers going up across the city.
Don't get me wrong, what Denver is doing is impressive as well, but it doesn't quite match Seattle.
Seattle light rail numbers are projected to at least double in 2016 and potentially get up to 200,000 by 2023. They are building a light rail system but it feels more like heavy-rail, with subway stations underneath dense neighborhoods.
Also, Seattle's development is crazy right now - so many new residential units and towers going up across the city.
Don't get me wrong, what Denver is doing is impressive as well, but it doesn't quite match Seattle.
I think this is very good.
I think every city should have some sort of rail system as it's central spinal column for it's core 50 square miles around it's CBD at the most minimum. All key neighborhoods connected and served. It takes less cars off the road, first and foremost, less wear and tear, and with that longevity increased substantially. It's great for the regions infrastructure and user friendly for out-of-towners (provided they can read simple transit maps, I see people all the time getting lost when using the subway (getting off too early, wrong stop, wrong line) ).
I'm not trying to knock the bus system, they are very important too, but I view them as the "blue collar" mode of transit. That doesn't mean that blue-collar people are riding the system predominantly, that means that the bus is dirt cheap compared to rail in almost every single way and has more gaps in efficiency, you get the quality of transit you pay for. It's a simple Point A to Point B mode of transit, as simple as it gets, literally. I view rail and highways systems as the more important infrastructural requirements for a region and that they are (deserving) the largest recipient in state funds for infrastructure projects. Like I mentioned before, the bus system is dirt cheap in every single way, it's operating costs, fares, maintenance, payrolls, everything about it is dirt cheap to other public and private transit / transportation modes. Very important but not more crucial than the other infrastructures.
Happy to hear that Seattle's rail transit ridership with double, it's much needed. Seattle's rapid population growth isn't cooling off anytime soon.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 11-04-2014 at 11:17 AM..
Yes, that's great for the foundations of the blue collar workforce OR longer-distance park-and-ride suburban commuters in the Greater Seattle area. They have a better bus system than I initially thought since I only looked at one agency, Sound Transit.
However I just checked it again, while you didn't claim this, none of the other transit agencies have another light rail system and none of these cities have a heavy rail system. Seattle's going to have to sink into it's under-performing numbers on that one and that goes to my central point that I've repeated twice now, "not even close" is not applicable.
The Sounder train is not a heavy rail system? You didn't calculate the #s of those commuters? SoundTransit does the light rail, heavy rail and intercounty connections.
It is heavy rail - just not in the sense that say, a subway is. The difference is heavy rail "rapid transit" versus "commuter rail." Many people usually take heavy rail as implying rapid transit. Nevertheless, commuter rail is heavy rail. But I understand what he/she is meaning.
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.
).
