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.
Subjective rankings (probably won't be able to get 10 but let's try):
1. NYC by far
2. Chicago
3. Philadelphia
4. Boston
5. DC
6. San Francisco
7. Miami
8. Atlanta
9. Seattle
10. Houston/Baltimore
Falls off quickly somewhere past Boston or DC
I'm generally in agreement with this ranking, except for a couple aspects.
First, I would probably inch Boston slightly ahead of Philly. Yes, Philly commuter rail, with electrification and Center City tunnel connection offers a 'potentially' superior system. But unfortunately, Philly has yet to upgrade its Regional Rail gem into the S-Bahn/RER-like system it could and should be. Right now, it's just a typical American slow-boarding, low-frequency, suburbs-to-downtown, rush-hour-oriented commuter rail system that happens to have thorough routing and electrification. And yes, Boston's T rapid transit system is an aging, operational mess these days ... but it is still vastly superior to Philly's city rapid transit system given the relative coverage of the 2 systems and the size differences, geographically, of the cities. And Boston has a similar-sized commuter rail network, too, just (at the moment) not electrified and not connected downtown -- but I understand, MBTA is proposing to connect North and South stations with a 4-track electrified rail tunnel and electrify much of the system a-la SEPTA. We'll see how that works out.
Secondly, St. Louis and Cleveland would come behind Atlanta, and be even with Seattle.
Thirdly, Houston has no business on this list at all. Houston has no rapid transit, just a glorified somewhat extended streetcar system. To me, it's the equivalent of what Cincy, Milwaukee, and KC have, just somewhat bigger. On top of that, even if it was more grade-separated, at the moment, it is way too small to cover the sprawling mess of a city that Houston is... I love the Paris map overlay of Houston ... that says it all in my book. It's as if the Houston Chamber of Commerce threw up this cheaply implemented LRT to the public to say: "See, we're building mass transit just like the other guys."
I'm iffy on Baltimore. The HRT Metro is nice but the LRT leaves me cold with all the slow (Howard) Street running, slow movement, and near total lack of TOD development on Howard Street -- in fact, rail seems to have accelerated deterioration not growth there for some reason -- as well as the non-connection between LRT and HRT and the poor downtown and Inner Harbor coverage by the LRT. However, MARC commuter rail is a Baltimore plus, as well as merely existing in Amtrak's (semi-HSR) NE Corridor ... which leaves me torn on B'More... By American standards, Baltimore definitely is a shining light transit-wise.
Generally speaking, once again, I seriously depart from rating rail transit systems on ridership, alone. Sheer ridership doesn't necessarily = effectiveness.
Thirdly, Houston has no business on this list at all. Houston has no rapid transit, just a glorified somewhat extended streetcar system. To me, it's the equivalent of what Cincy, Milwaukee, and KC have, just somewhat bigger. On top of that, even if it was more grade-separated, at the moment, it is way too small to cover the sprawling mess that Houston is... I love the Paris map overlay of Houston ... that says it all in my book. It's as if the Houston Chamber of Commerce through up this cheaply implemented LRT to the public to say: "See, we're building mass transit just like the other guys."
Hard disagree.
One small, effective system hitting key points in a city core can have a bigger impact than a massive system that caters to suburbanites. Good examples-Houston v. Dallas DART, LA Metro subway v. BART, Seattle Link v. San Diego/Portland/Denver, etc.
Since Houston is beating St. Louis, Sacramento, Phoenix, SLC, Pittsburgh with a much smaller system, I think they deserve status above the KC streetcar.
Houston Metrorail has nearly %70 the ridership of Dallas DART with a system about %25 the size.
1. NYC (without a doubt)
2/3. Chicago/DC (tie)
4. Philly
5. Boston
6. SF
*7. LA (may have climbed higher in the rankings to pass SF and even Boston)
*8. Seattle (may also have climbed higher like LA)
9/10. Denver/Atlanta (tie)
11-20 (tougher to rank so in no particular order):
San Diego
Dallas
Portland
SLC
Miami
MPLS
Cleveland
Baltimore
Pittsburgh
Houston
One small, effective system hitting key points in a city core can have a bigger impact than a massive system that caters to suburbanites. Good examples-Houston v. Dallas DART, LA Metro subway v. BART, Seattle Link v. San Diego/Portland/Denver, etc.
Since Houston is beating St. Louis, Sacramento, Phoenix, SLC, Pittsburgh with a much smaller system, I think they deserve status above the KC streetcar.
Houston Metrorail has nearly %70 the ridership of Dallas DART with a system about %25 the size.
This is pretty nonsensical though, right? Dallas's system is in my experience significantly better than Houston's even though I was using both for more "urban" travel. Dallas's much greater ridership is still mostly stemming from specific segments in the city core, but that doesn't mean having those other segments make the system worse. Meanwhile, the idea that Houston's light rail system is much better than Los Angeles light rail system because the former has the higher ridership pr mile is also pretty silly--there is no convincing argument that LA's system isn't much better. It's not a bad thing that LA's light rail system also expands out to far greater coverage or that there are other systems like the rapid transit system and commuter rail system that it connects with. I would think it's ridiculous to say Houston's system is better on the grounds that its light rail ridership per mile is greater than LA's light rail ridership per mile or that LA's upcoming gold line extension and the likely drop in ridership per mile in the initial years means that LA's system has gotten worse for expanding. This kind of thinking about transit is poisonously stupid.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 10-25-2022 at 12:34 PM..
This is pretty nonsensical though, right? Dallas's system is in my experience significantly better than Houston's even though I was using both for more "urban" travel. Dallas's much greater ridership is still mostly stemming from specific segments in the city core, but that doesn't mean having those other segments make the system worse. Meanwhile, the idea that Houston's light rail system is much better than Los Angeles light rail system because the former has the higher ridership pr mile is also pretty silly--there is no convincing argument that LA's system isn't much better. It's not a bad thing that LA's light rail system also expands out to far greater coverage or that there are other systems like the rapid transit system and commuter rail system that it connects with. I would think it's ridiculous to say Houston's system is better on the grounds that its light rail ridership per mile is greater than LA's light rail ridership per mile or that LA's upcoming gold line extension and the likely drop in ridership per mile in the initial years means that LA's system has gotten worse for expanding. This kind of thinking about transit is poisonously stupid.
The manner in which you are referring to LA metro light rail is somewhat of a non sequiter in the context of my post you are replying to, and you seem to have added assertions that weren't made.
LA light rail is one component of three pronged concept. Given its size, its right where it needs to be in terms of ridership.
Likewise for Houston Metrorail, which is a one component of a light rail/BRT/bus concept in which regular bus ridership nearly doubles that of Dallas.
As an agency executing a multi pronged mass transit concept, Houston Metro is beating Dallas DART handily in terms of overall ridership with apparently less resources. I think I can judge Houston the winner there based on those facts. I would still leave open the possibility that DFW residents are simply averse to using mass transit and their system is superior, but when getting into MSA's over 5 million that becomes less and less likely to be the case.
1. NYC (without a doubt)
2/3. Chicago/DC (tie)
4. Philly
5. Boston
6. SF
*7. LA (may have climbed higher in the rankings to pass SF and even Boston)
*8. Seattle (may also have climbed higher like LA)
9/10. Denver/Atlanta (tie)
11-20 (tougher to rank so in no particular order):
San Diego
Dallas
Portland
SLC
Miami
MPLS
Cleveland
Baltimore
Pittsburgh
Houston
I've ridden the Saint Louis Metrolink light rail system, along with StL buses. And to me, I'd say the quality of their public transit is definitely comparable to Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Houston.
Speaking of Minneapolis, I remember commuter rail has been proposed between Minneapolis to Saint Cloud. But as of now, that hasn't yet become a reality. It'd be nice, if it did one day. I know there already is a light rail system in Minneapolis and St. Paul, along with a limited commuter rail system too. Probably not too different(North Star Commuter Rail), from what Music City Star is like(a commuter rail system with limited runs, for the latter that one runs between Nashville and Lebanon).
I've ridden the Saint Louis Metrolink light rail system, along with StL buses. And to me, I'd say the quality of their public transit is definitely comparable to Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Houston.
Speaking of Minneapolis, I remember commuter rail has been proposed between Minneapolis to Saint Cloud. But as of now, that hasn't yet become a reality. It'd be nice, if it did one day. I know there already is a light rail system in Minneapolis and St. Paul, along with a limited commuter rail system too. Probably not too different(North Star Commuter Rail), from what Music City Star is like(a commuter rail system with limited runs, for the latter that one runs between Nashville and Lebanon).
Yeah, that was a tough one. #11-15 was easier with SD, Dallas, SLC, Portland, and Miami (still not in any order) but it gets iffy after that. Maybe I could replace Houston with STL and put HOU in the next tier (#21-25) with Phoenix and Charlotte.
The manner in which you are referring to LA metro light rail is somewhat of a non sequiter in the context of my post you are replying to, and you seem to have added assertions that weren't made.
LA light rail is one component of three pronged concept. Given its size, its right where it needs to be in terms of ridership.
Likewise for Houston Metrorail, which is a one component of a light rail/BRT/bus concept in which regular bus ridership nearly doubles that of Dallas.
As an agency executing a multi pronged mass transit concept, Houston Metro is beating Dallas DART handily in terms of overall ridership with apparently less resources. I think I can judge Houston the winner there based on those facts. I would still leave open the possibility that DFW residents are simply averse to using mass transit and their system is superior, but when getting into MSA's over 5 million that becomes less and less likely to be the case.
You were dividing them up pretty arbitrarily and silo'd in ostensibly like type to like type since you compared only Houston light rail to Dallas light rail, so I pointed out how silly that is by using your questionable rubric for Houston light rail vs Los Angeles light rail. Yes, it's arbitrary and silly and seems to point to not understanding how transit works--and that was my point! DFW's light rail is one portion of its larger system. BART is one part of a larger system. Ridership per mile by itself and segmented out so arbitrarily gets pretty nonsensical.
DFW has a better transit system overall than Houston does. Is it world's better? No, but it is better. It's absurd to have concentrated on a specific mode and its ridership per mile like you've been doing with BART ridership per mile to LA rapid transit ridership per mile or DART light rail ridership per mile to Houston light rail ridership per mile. DART light rail extends further out and gives more options, but that's not a bad thing and certainly not a reasonable argument by itself for it being lesser than Houston's. Its central segments that contribute the lion's share of the ridership are about equivalent to Houston's system. It's not like DART doesn't serve central, more urban segments. However, it at the same time also offers more in connections to further flung parts and as an eventual driver for more transit-oriented development. Given that DFW is still growing, this means that they bought up and built out when it was cheaper and less disruptive which is how a lot of transit around the world and in US history has worked. Likewise, it's okay that LA is extending out further into the San Gabriel Valley despite that likely resulting in an initial drop in ridership per mile--that opening will *not* somehow automatically mean the system got worse. That kind of thinking is ridiculous--LA's light rail system is going to be better for it, and that's great!
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 10-25-2022 at 03:39 PM..
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.
