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.
Seattle’s light rail goes through the nerve center of the city and will be expanding to West Seattle and Bellevue in a few years. Of course it isn’t perfect and doesn’t serve every single neighborhood but it does a better job than SD.
So having three different LRT lines running right through downtown San Diego is somehow less than one running through downtown Seattle?
Also-San Diego has three lines NOW because they were the first metro in the United States with a modern light rail system. They didn't wait until 2009 to start thinking about this stuff.
Also-San Diego has three lines NOW because they were the first metro in the United States with a modern light rail system. They didn't wait until 2009 to start thinking about this stuff.
So having three different LRT lines running right through downtown San Diego is somehow less than one running through downtown Seattle?
Also-San Diego has three lines NOW because they were the first metro in the United States with a modern light rail system. They didn't wait until 2009 to start thinking about this stuff.
This doesn't change that today, like NOW, Seattle has the better transportation system. It is easier for me people to get around in Seattle via mass transit and much of it has to do with its built environment and good bus service--not just rail service though rail service in Seattle does fairly well for its one line because of that good bus service feeding into it and its grade separation in downtown and along most of its route. That downtown light rail tunnel was also actually originally a grade-separated bus tunnel that opened in 1990. Seattle essentially placed a really high priority on good bus service which still remains a huge part of its mass transit solution.
The topic you seem to be looking for is what city has the longest track length.
This doesn't change that today, like NOW, Seattle has the better transportation system. It is easier for me people to get around in Seattle via mass transit and much of it has to do with its built environment and good bus service--not just rail service though rail service in Seattle does fairly well for its one line because of that good bus service feeding into it and its grade separation in downtown and along most of its route. That downtown light rail tunnel was also actually originally a grade-separated bus tunnel that opened in 1990. Seattle essentially placed a really high priority on good bus service which still remains a huge part of its mass transit solution.
The topic you seem to be looking for is what city has the longest track length.
I give Seattle much credit for building that bus tunnel in the late 1980s to be convertible to partial or fully (now as planned) LRT. This required significant foresight by transit planners. A surface streetcar, esp in a tight, dense and even hilly downtown as Seattle, would not be nearly as effective. My only gripe with the Central Link LRT is its low platform technology. This clearly slows boarding with the crush loads the system is carrying esp in the core, subway area. I wonder if this could be corrected with high platforms, at least in the tunnel with dual-height trains...
In 2016, 17.1% of Seattle households lived without a car. In 2016, that number was only 6.3% in San Diego.
I'm not saying SD's light rail system is bad. But it doesn't serve most of the most important and densely populated areas of SD. The airport, Ocean Beach, Mission Beach, Pacific Beach, La Jolla, Bankers Hill, Hillcrest, North Park, Normal Heights, University Heights, Balboa Park, South Park, UCSD, USD, Coronado. All those place are very important to living in SD and its economy. The only useful places the light rail reaches are SDSU, Old Town, Little Italy, Downtown, Gaslamp, Convention Center, Petco, East Village, Barrio Logan, Chula Vista, and the border. However, even for the useful places it serves, it often doesn't serve the heart of the population an job/entertainment centers. It just barely hits the edge of Barrio Logan, Chula Vista, and Little Italy.
Having a lot of miles doesn't matter when the actual population and job centers are not served properly.
OTOH, Seattle's light rails hits UW, Capitol Hill, several downtown stations with high density, the stadiums, some suburbs, and then the airport. Therefore, Seattle's light rail serves some of the densest parts of the city as well as some of the most important locations in the city. Then there's the streetcar that goes through some very dense neighborhoods just outside of downtown and Seattle University.
SD's lines shot for mileage and reaching far away places, while skipping some of the most urban parts of the city where usage would be great like Pacific Beach, Hillcrest, and North Park.
In 2016, 17.1% of Seattle households lived without a car. In 2016, that number was only 6.3% in San Diego.
I'm not saying SD's light rail system is bad. But it doesn't serve most of the most important and densely populated areas of SD. The airport, Ocean Beach, Mission Beach, Pacific Beach, La Jolla, Bankers Hill, Hillcrest, North Park, Normal Heights, University Heights, Balboa Park, South Park, UCSD, USD, Coronado. All those place are very important to living in SD and its economy. The only useful places the light rail reaches are SDSU, Old Town, Little Italy, Downtown, Gaslamp, Convention Center, Petco, East Village, Barrio Logan, Chula Vista, and the border. However, even for the useful places it serves, it often doesn't serve the heart of the population an job/entertainment centers. It just barely hits the edge of Barrio Logan, Chula Vista, and Little Italy.
Having a lot of miles doesn't matter when the actual population and job centers are not served properly.
OTOH, Seattle's light rails hits UW, Capitol Hill, several downtown stations with high density, the stadiums, some suburbs, and then the airport. Therefore, Seattle's light rail serves some of the densest parts of the city as well as some of the most important locations in the city. Then there's the streetcar that goes through some very dense neighborhoods just outside of downtown and Seattle University.
SD's lines shot for mileage and reaching far away places, while skipping some of the most urban parts of the city where usage would be great like Pacific Beach, Hillcrest, and North Park.
The good thing is that SD's Blue Line extension will be mostly grade-separated and connects to a major university / secondary downtown. That should do wonders for San Diego, but it's too bad that there isn't a downtown tunnel for the San Diego Trolley.
To be fair, San Diego also encompasses a lot more of its suburbs within its city limits than Seattle does, so an attempt at apples to apples would improve the comparison somewhat (about four times more land area for the city of San Diego).
SD does still have a pretty decent system for a US city/metro of its size though. That may be a low bar, but if it were the bare minimum for US cities, then the transit and emissions situations in the US would be significantly better.
The good thing is that SD's Blue Line extension will be mostly grade-separated and connects to a major university / secondary downtown. That should do wonders for San Diego, but it's too bad that there isn't a downtown tunnel for the San Diego Trolley.
To be fair, San Diego also encompasses a lot more of its suburbs within its city limits than Seattle does, so an attempt at apples to apples would improve the comparison somewhat (about four times more land area for the city of San Diego).
SD does still have a pretty decent system for a US city/metro of its size though. That may be a low bar, but if it were the bare minimum for US cities, then the transit and emissions situations in the US would be significantly better.
Yes the extension will help a lot, but it still won't match Seattle.
As for population within city limits, I guess it's a valid point. But until La Jolla, Pacific Beach, Hillcrest, and North Park get rail, I can't take SD that seriously.
TBH, I only recently started taking LA that seriously when they decided to actually finish the Purple Line. The finishing touch for LA, IMO, to take it to a level of full seriousness that can play with the big guys is Crenshaw extending into WeHo and connecting to the Red Line in Hwood. At that point, the most important and densely populated parts of LA will almost all have rail connection. WeHo is a center of activity in LA and very densely populated and is begging for rail right now.
If a system only serves to shuttle in suburbanites to the core, but skips the urban population and job centers along the way, it's hard for me to consider it an actual viable form of transportation for daily needs and activities.
King County had over four times the transit commute share as San Diego County in the Census ACS. King County outside Seattle did better than San Diego in-town.
Seattle's not great on transit. It's just that SD has horrific numbers, more like Dallas our Houston than a West Coast city.
Yes the extension will help a lot, but it still won't match Seattle.
As for population within city limits, I guess it's a valid point. But until La Jolla, Pacific Beach, Hillcrest, and North Park get rail, I can't take SD that seriously.
TBH, I only recently started taking LA that seriously when they decided to actually finish the Purple Line. The finishing touch for LA, IMO, to take it to a level of full seriousness that can play with the big guys is Crenshaw extending into WeHo and connecting to the Red Line in Hwood. At that point, the most important and densely populated parts of LA will almost all have rail connection. WeHo is a center of activity in LA and very densely populated and is begging for rail right now.
If a system only serves to shuttle in suburbanites to the core, but skips the urban population and job centers along the way, it's hard for me to consider it an actual viable form of transportation for daily needs and activities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
King County had over four times the transit commute share as San Diego County in the Census ACS. King County outside Seattle did better than San Diego in-town.
Seattle's not great on transit. It's just that SD has horrific numbers, more like Dallas our Houston than a West Coast city.
I don't think SD is going to match Seattle for its transit network with the completion of the Blue Line extension. However, it'll be a marked improvement from what it is today since the Blue Line extension gets to a major university and in doing so also increases the frequency of service for several established stations as it will run through some of the stations the Green Line currently serves including connections with existing Amtrak, commuter rail, and bus services. There is a difference between the two, but I wanted to note that San Diego's system is trying to push through some improvements and that there is a difference in city sizes, so there'll be difficulty in using city boundaries to determine the true extent of the difference on a quantitative level. Neither city/metro should be in the running for best transportation system in the US, but it's heartening that they're both improving and saying that they're both improving does not mean they are equal to each other.
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.
