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.
Because this is city-data, where 21 miles of rail in Seattle beats 100 miles of rail in other places because "ridership."
Ridership total numbers and proportional numbers. Seattle has 21 miles of frequent and often grade-separated (and therefore, fast) rail that is supplemented by a very extensive and frequent bus system, a commuter rail system, two streetcar lines, another light rail system in Tacoma, and the largest public ferry system in the US. Its 21 miles of light rail get such high ridership because of those factors as well as station placement and development around those stations (and therefore, really useful) and the question was best transportation system rather than just longest length of trackage.
Just having a lot of miles by itself isn't enough to make a good transportation system. It's more about how well does it serve the area, so the better question is what are other cities doing with their more miles of rail and what can they do to make them more useful.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 06-12-2019 at 09:54 AM..
Because this is city-data, where 21 miles of rail in Seattle beats 100 miles of rail in other places because "ridership."
I don't look at just the transit system's mileage or ridership to assess how effective it is. Seattle, even before rail, is a city much more adjusted/adapted to rail. It has long been compact and dense with many mixed-use walking districts and a very robust, active/busy CBD... in other words, what most experts find most desirable in an urban environment. Seattle also has long had a very large and effective trolley bus system -- I believe, the nation's second largest surviving such system behind only SF.
While it's admirable that places like LA, Dallas and even Denver are developing large rail networks, in those cases the horse is already out of the barn ... these rail networks are built large, in part, to chase sprawl previously caused by freeways, outmigration and the resulting sprawl. As a result, their large (and admirable) rail networks are not getting nearly the ridership of Seattle, whose system currently is in its infancy but will grow considerably after the East Bay connection because, again, Seattle was simply much more adapted to transit use to begin with -- and I'll bet, without knowing, 20 years ago, Seattle's bus ridership/usage was also much higher than in those named cities as well... just a hunch.
Ridership total numbers and proportional numbers. Seattle has 21 miles of frequent and often grade-separated (and therefore, fast) rail that is supplemented by a very extensive and frequent bus system, a commuter rail system, two streetcar lines, another light rail system in Tacoma, and the largest public ferry system in the US. Its 21 miles of light rail get such high ridership because of those factors as well as station placement and development around those stations (and therefore, really useful) and the question was best transportation system rather than just longest length of trackage.
Just having a lot of miles by itself isn't enough to make a good transportation system. It's more about how well does it serve the area, so the better question is what are other cities doing with their more miles of rail and what can they do to make them more useful.
I'd rather a city have fewer miles, but those miles serve the most densely populated neighborhoods with frequent, rapid, as close to 24/7 service as possible. Having a ton of miles that travel on freeways and through deserted warehouse zones while avoiding the most urban sections of the city is a waste of money.
While it's admirable that places like LA, Dallas and even Denver are developing large rail networks, in those cases the horse is already out of the barn ... these rail networks are built large, in part, to chase sprawl previously caused by freeways, outmigration and the resulting sprawl. As a result, their large (and admirable) rail networks are not getting nearly the ridership of Seattle, whose system currently is in its infancy but will grow considerably after the East Bay connection because, again, Seattle was simply much more adapted to transit use to begin with -- and I'll bet, without knowing, 20 years ago, Seattle's bus ridership/usage was also much higher than in those named cities as well... just a hunch.
There isn't a single current metro rail, Amtrak, or Metrolink service area that wasn't previously served by the first generation L.A. interurban rail.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, by "chase sprawl caused by freeways" does that mean that places like Santa Monica and Long Beach just materialized in the 1950's after freeways were built?
BTW,
2018 Seattle Link, Tacoma Link, and Seattle Streetcar ridership COMBINED is a little over half of just L.A. subway ridership.
Tack on another 65 million annual riders just for light rail in L.A.
So as you can see, saying Seattle has higher ridership is one of those things that "sounds right" because of the compact nature of the city....95% of people told that would likely believe it without even checking.
LA has a better system than most people realize with Metro, Metrolink and Amtrak connecting together well. The ridership is also very high on Metrorail however it doesn’t show on the statistics because a very large percentage jump the fare gates and don’t pay. When I ride I estimate about 40 percent don’t pay.
2018 Seattle Link, Tacoma Link, and Seattle Streetcar ridership COMBINED is a little over half of just L.A. subway ridership.
Tack on another 65 million annual riders just for light rail in L.A.
So as you can see, saying Seattle has higher ridership is one of those things that "sounds right" because of the compact nature of the city....95% of people told that would likely believe it without even checking.
Yea, the ridership is going to be lower as Seattle is a much smaller city and metropolitan area. However, it does have a very robust bus system (as does LA).
The compact nature of the city is a feature, not an accident. It's not like it's physically impossible to build densely in LA. As you probably know, LA has actually been allowing for much denser construction along major transit lines including areas with frequent bus service. Seattle did that as well and somewhat sooner, so LA has a pretty decent chance of greatly expanding overall transit numbers as this happens especially if the city made dedicated bus lanes a lot more common as well as upping bus frequencies for more lines. The dense development around transit and work on bus service has a lot to do with why Seattle's transit usage has gone up in a time when many transit systems in the US have actually seen decreasing ridership. The buses are really important!
Regardless, while both LA and Seattle are making improvements to their systems, neither of them seem reasonable as an argument for city with best transportation system in the US.
LA has a better system than most people realize with Metro, Metrolink and Amtrak connecting together well. The ridership is also very high on Metrorail however it doesn’t show on the statistics because a very large percentage jump the fare gates and don’t pay. When I ride I estimate about 40 percent don’t pay.
I mean I don't live in LA but I highly doubt it would be 40% of users don't pay.....that a bit high.
I stayed in LA for two weeks and took the metrorail both purple and red lines to downtown every day to commute to the office in DTLA. I really didn't ever get the impression it's that HIGHLY used. I mean when trains only come every 10 minutes during rush hour, and even with that the trains don't get packed only coming every 10 minutes, ridership can't be that high.
Heck in Chicago, during rush hour if the next train 10 minutes go get to the station, OMG it's disaster time. In Chicago during rush hour trains come every 1-3 minutes, at time 5 minutes. If it's 10 minutes then it's a really bad delay. 10 minute waits are usually reserved for off hours like 9PM or so.
I was surprised by the Metrorail's frequency during rush hour. Every 10 minutes it seemed and the trains themselves were not even that full. I think in the two weeks of commuting in and out of downtown via train, there were only two times during rush hour where I couldn't get a seat, and that was not lack of availability, but because the last few seats were next to some crazy homeless person.
I really liked the Metrorail and glad it's expanding, but was no impressed by its frequency nor its usage. Seemed fairly moderate in those regards.
There isn't a single current metro rail, Amtrak, or Metrolink service area that wasn't previously served by the first generation L.A. interurban rail.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, by "chase sprawl caused by freeways" does that mean that places like Santa Monica and Long Beach just materialized in the 1950's after freeways were built?
BTW,
2018 Seattle Link, Tacoma Link, and Seattle Streetcar ridership COMBINED is a little over half of just L.A. subway ridership.
Tack on another 65 million annual riders just for light rail in L.A.
So as you can see, saying Seattle has higher ridership is one of those things that "sounds right" because of the compact nature of the city....95% of people told that would likely believe it without even checking.
Yes, my comments were probably suited more toward Dallas and Denver which wasn't as widely developed as LA due to the previous extensive Pacific Electric (?) interurban system. But don't forget, the freeways and buses (through that much-discussed nationwide GM plot) killed off the interurban in the 1940s and 50s its lines were often replaced by freeways. LA developed differently than most big cities because it grew in the early decades of the 20th Century with annexing towns via blackmail (water mail? ... a la "Chinatown") and along the interurban lines which led to a more diffuse, low density suburban-driven metro area.
Certainly Metro Rail, with strong TOD development, esp downtown, is filling in the gaps, but you can't change LA overnight... I still maintain, though, Seattle is better adapted to transit than LA because of its compact, dense nature.
It's also worth noting that Seattle is leading the country by far in terms of transit ridership growth, and that's before the massive expansion coming online in just the next 5 years (let alone the next 15).
"Since 2010, the 19% increase in transit boardings in [the Seattle region] has exceeded any other similarly sized region in the country. By comparison, Portland, Denver, and Minneapolis- St. Paul have had growth rates between 0% and 4% since 2010."
I mean I don't live in LA but I highly doubt it would be 40% of users don't pay.....that a bit high.
I stayed in LA for two weeks and took the metrorail both purple and red lines to downtown every day to commute to the office in DTLA. I really didn't ever get the impression it's that HIGHLY used. I mean when trains only come every 10 minutes during rush hour, and even with that the trains don't get packed only coming every 10 minutes, ridership can't be that high.
Heck in Chicago, during rush hour if the next train 10 minutes go get to the station, OMG it's disaster time. In Chicago during rush hour trains come every 1-3 minutes, at time 5 minutes. If it's 10 minutes then it's a really bad delay. 10 minute waits are usually reserved for off hours like 9PM or so.
I was surprised by the Metrorail's frequency during rush hour. Every 10 minutes it seemed and the trains themselves were not even that full. I think in the two weeks of commuting in and out of downtown via train, there were only two times during rush hour where I couldn't get a seat, and that was not lack of availability, but because the last few seats were next to some crazy homeless person.
I really liked the Metrorail and glad it's expanding, but was no impressed by its frequency nor its usage. Seemed fairly moderate in those regards.
I ride daily on Metrolink connecting to North Hollywood Red Line which is jam packed going away from the main commuting pattern. Guess if the purple line is not that crowded is because it is such a short line. Also the blue line is the busiest light rail in the country next to Boston Green Line which has many spokes. LA rail systems are very well utilized which is against what many people think.
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.
