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.
Which of these do you think will provide the better transit system? Which will be more transformative? (FYI - the reason some of the lines in the Seattle map are faded is because those represent the existing system. The brighter lines with dates next to them are future expansion.)
LA is substantially further ahead on a rail system than we are in Seattle. So I'm jealous of that. But Seattle is way ahead on transit commute share, with over twice the in-city transit commute percentage. King County, which is 1/3 Seattle and extends to the crest of the Cascade Mountains, had about 20% higher transit commute share than the city of LA in 2016.
2016 ACS:
City of Seattle: 20.8% transit commute
King County: 12.1% transit commute
City of LA: 10.1% transit commute
County of LA: 6.5% transit commute
Maybe LA is able to grow its numbers because they're so low currently. But Seattle is growing quickly and the two main ways we can do that are transit and walking. Our walking numbers are quite a bit higher too. In fact since 2016 our transit ridership has jumped while I believe LA's has fallen.
LA is substantially further ahead on a rail system than we are in Seattle. So I'm jealous of that. But Seattle is way ahead on transit commute share, with over twice the in-city transit commute percentage. King County, which is 1/3 Seattle and extends to the crest of the Cascade Mountains, had about 20% higher transit commute share than the city of LA in 2016.
2016 ACS:
City of Seattle: 20.8% transit commute
King County: 12.1% transit commute
City of LA: 10.1% transit commute
County of LA: 6.5% transit commute
Maybe LA is able to grow its numbers because they're so low currently. But Seattle is growing quickly and the two main ways we can do that are transit and walking. Our walking numbers are quite a bit higher too. In fact since 2016 our transit ridership has jumped while I believe LA's has fallen.
LA is currently further along in rail development - but I’m talking about the completed rail systems based on the massive measures passed in 2016.
Also, keep in mind how much bigger LA is than Seattle in terms of which system works best for their repsective city
I would go with Seattle. I like their planning more and they seem to be having more immediate success implementing their overhaul, especially pound-for-pound.
Mass transit extensions and sustaining levels of service from before for buses and rail are really paying off large dividends for Seattle's bottom line. The city is relying on transit more than before and the bulk of its transit-expansion vision is still to come in the future. This bodes well for them.
Regarding the thread poll: Press "Thread Tools" at the top of your opening post and select "Add Poll." As the creator of the thread, you can add a poll to it at any given time. It doesn't have to be when you make it, it could be at any time.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 05-17-2018 at 11:20 PM..
LA's system is covering about 3 times the land size of all of New York City's 5 boroughs. It's very massive but also lots of gaps. A lot of the end outer edges act more like a commuter rail because of the distances between stations. 1 to 2 miles.
I would go with Seattle. I like their planning more and they seem to be having more immediate success implementing their overhaul, especially pound-for-pound.
Mass transit extensions and sustaining levels of service from before for buses and rail are really paying off large dividends for Seattle's bottom line. The city is relying on transit more than before and the bulk of its transit-expansion vision is still to come in the future. This bodes well for them.
Regarding the thread poll: Press "Thread Tools" at the top of your opening post and select "Add Poll." As the creator of the thread, you can add a poll to it at any given time. It doesn't have to be when you make it, it could be at any time.
I don’t know enough about Seattle to answer the poll, but I note that LA is building heavy rail and Seattle is not. Additionally LA is building heavy rail along its major transportation corridor and to its highest density job centers. And jobs along existing rail are increasing as never before. LA’s heavy rail will have in excess of 10,000 people per mile. Maybe well in excess of that. That would put LA around or maybe ahead of DC and Chicago in rail ridership.
Also LA is getting lots of commuter rail improvements through high speed rail. Like electrification, grade separation, and outside of that run through tracks at union station.
This will be transformative, but we would need that transformation just to catch up to where Seattle is now for market share. Seattle will increase as well. It’ll be interesting to see if LA closes the gap or Seattle increases the gap.
I don’t know enough about Seattle to answer the poll, but I note that LA is building heavy rail and Seattle is not. Additionally LA is building heavy rail along its major transportation corridor and to its highest density job centers. And jobs along existing rail are increasing as never before. LA’s heavy rail will have in excess of 10,000 people per mile. Maybe well in excess of that. That would put LA around or maybe ahead of DC and Chicago in rail ridership.
Also LA is getting lots of commuter rail improvements through high speed rail. Like electrification, grade separation, and outside of that run through tracks at union station.
This will be transformative, but we would need that transformation just to catch up to where Seattle is now for market share. Seattle will increase as well. It’ll be interesting to see if LA closes the gap or Seattle increases the gap.
It is light rail but nearly all of it is grade-separated - underground (subway) or elevated. This includes a second subway tunnel through the urban core. Because of the grade-separation, that means it has much higher capacity, speed, and reliability than most surface-running light rail. Also, most of the new LA lines are light rail, not heavy rail.
I don’t think it’s a fantasy map for Measure M, I think it shows everything that received funding for even just studying/planning (e.g the Sepulveda Line). So I’d say it’s a wishful thinking map but all are corridors that will likely get some form of high capacity transit.
I can't believe people still write off/underestimate L.A.'s metro rail clout. They have an amazing system right now. The only serious gap is the Sepulveda Pass (I took an Uber Express Pool from SaMO to Sherman Oaks last week up the 405-12 bucks pretty fast ride). I still don't think Ventura Boulevard has the density for rail. The map the OP posted indicates a heavy rail line up Sepulveda. If that happens then L.A. is right back in their 1920's heyday as a transit leader.
Seattle is approaching density and population that could warrant heavy rail, but they have no plans for this asfaik.
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.
