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.
My intention isn’t to pile on Houston but I have to concur that I prefer Dallas over Houston. Houston’s red line is 13 miles and takes 55 minutes end-to-end. That’s only 14 mph. For comparison LA’s E line, which is also called slow, averages just under 20 mph end-to-end. With so little grade separation that may even get worse if the city gets more crowded.
I’ve also long been skeptical of Houston’s ridership numbers. In my limited experience with their rush service, it gets busy but not even close to as crowded as trains in LA and Seattle, which run just as frequent but longer trains.
Dallas may not be as well-used but it operates more like a metro or at least a hybrid like most modern light rail.
My intention isn’t to pile on Houston but I have to concur that I prefer Dallas over Houston. Houston’s red line is 13 miles and takes 55 minutes end-to-end. That’s only 14 mph. For comparison LA’s E line, which is also called slow, averages just under 20 mph end-to-end. With so little grade separation that may even get worse if the city gets more crowded.
I’ve also long been skeptical of Houston’s ridership numbers. In my limited experience with their rush service, it gets busy but not even close to as crowded as trains in LA and Seattle, which run just as frequent but longer trains.
Dallas may not be as well-used but it operates more like a metro or at least a hybrid like most modern light rail.
I think if you ride in the "urban core" of both, there is no question that Dallas's system is notably more useful. Broadly speaking, the interlined segments have surprisingly good frequencies, and those interlined segments cover a pretty large part of the urban core.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,552,695 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guineas
Lol does this take into account complete system dysfunction and trains running at 5-10mph with regular 20+ min delays?
It’s almost like you haven’t taken any of these transit systems in person lately, especially Boston’s.
Agreed. I'd definitely place it no higher than 5th currently after WMATA and Septa, based on the craziness that's happened on MBTA. But hope to see things turn around, and I believe there's at least one expansion happening on the Green line.
For WMATA/DC the 7000 series trains are coming back onto tracks now, and opening the SL phase 2 extension next month to Dulles airport. Going forward I really can't see many systems that could claim to be more comprehensive, as much of the Metro is a hybrid and covers so much ground across the metro area.
This was going to be a station along the line in a nice and now very built up part of town. When the line was still under construction and there was less development around it, there was going to be a station along the heavily frequented underground corridor here where three light rail lines had interlined service. There was partial construction done, but neighborhood opposition killed the station. Later on when it became abundantly clear how useful that would be, residents of the neighborhood petitioned DART to reconsider and create an infill station out of what they have. However, given that there are three lines already operating under there and how built up the area was, not to mention increased labor costs, creating this subway station was now going to incredibly expensive and so now it's indefinitely deferred. It's a minor, but interesting note in US transit goof-em-ups.
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.
Regarding the boldfaced part, SEPTA's working on that, and I think that I can say with confidence that it will achieve that goal you describe above well before Boston does, in part because Boston's still paying for that other downtown transportation tunnel.
But I should — partly in Houston's defense — point out that everywhere other than New York, buses remain the workhorses of local public transportation. A fellow I know who advised the Bus Riders Union in its lawsuit against the LACMTA to force the agency to spend more on improving the quality of LA's bus service than on building new rail lines remarked to me that raising the average speed of local buses from 5 to 6 mph (a 20% increase) actually produced more benefit to more riders than increasing the average speed of the trains from 35 mph to 40 mph (a 14% increase). The BRU won its suit, btw, and for a period of years (I forget how many, LA Metro had to cut bus fares and add buses to increase the frequency and speed of service. Bus ridership shot through the roof as a result of the changes, and overall system ridership rose as a result.
Houston hired Jarrett Walker to streamline its bus system, and ridership there soared as well.
SEPTA brought him in to pick his brain as it began its rethinking of its bus system, then sent him on his way while it did what it did. It just unveiled a huge reworking of bus service that's now in the public-feedback phase. (I've weighed in with a Phillymag essay that urged the agency to go whole hog.)
Since the point of public transit is to allow as many people as it can to get where they're going as quickly as possible, then ignoring the buses because they're slow and focusing on rail because it's fast is actually shortchanging the bulk of the riders in most US cities. Buses are the successor to the streetcars. And ridership does matter — including what the riders are riding. Even New York City found that ridership soared along 14th Street in Manhattan when it implemented a series of BRT-style bus service improvements on that street — which has a crosstown subway line under it.
That said, LA's light-rail-heavy network also stands out here because it represents the revival of sorts of the Pacific Electric Railway, the intraregional light-rail network that built LA up until the end of World War II. No other city had a network of fast light rail lines that matched it.
Two recent developments in Los Angeles area rail mass transit and part of why I think it's got a good chance of getting higher up there in the #2-#7 slot:
- K line (Crenshaw line) light rail launched fairly recently, though somewhat incompletely
- Arrow hybrid commuter/light rail run by Metrolink just launched
Neither of these are going to draw a massive amount of ridership initially (or ridership per mile), but they are good extensions of the system for various reasons. The K Line is pretty stubby right now, but it has a little bit more under construction that hasn't yet opened, but when it does, it'll be a link to an airport people mover and a link to the C Line (Green Line). Arrow is a connecting service to Metrolink and Amtrak services in the Inland Empire and was able to be put up quickly and cheaply due to existing rail and right off way. What's potentially most interesting about it though is that it'll be Metrolink's first try at running Stadler FLIRT rolling stock which is pretty fantastic. Hopefully this leads the way towards future competitive bidding for rolling stock. It'll also later on be a pilot for hydrogen fuel cell Stadler FLIRT rolling stock.
Of course, it's goddamn Tutor Perini. They're a scourge and should not be allowed to bid on anything.
Seems like a small bump in the road, but may potentially delay delivery. One thing about LA is with the Olympic Games looming, you would think there's going to be pressure from many angels to these projects done asap.
The Purple Line light rail in DC suburbs will be like 3/4 years past due when it opens. It paused construction and restarted a year later, after already getting off to a slow start originally. One contractor just walked away 40% through and left MD the rest of the bill, in this "public-private partnership".
Seems like a small bump in the road, but may potentially delay delivery. One thing about LA is with the Olympic Games looming, you would think there's going to be pressure from many angels to these projects done asap.
The Purple Line light rail in DC suburbs will be like 3/4 years past due when it opens. It paused construction and restarted a year later, after already getting off to a slow start originally. One contractor just walked away 40% through and left MD the rest of the bill, in this "public-private partnership".
There will certainly be pressure, but the delivery date is so close to the Olympics that there isn't much room for error. The Olympic Village housing will be at UCLA and I'm sure that they are planning on the D line playing a significant role, but in the end they can use buses to shuttle athletes if all else fails.
I've been watching short videos of the new Silver line stations on the MetroForward YouTube channel and they look pretty nice. They look substantially like our freeway stations, just bigger and nicer. My big takeaway was the concrete barriers along the freeway to block noise. How well do those work? Maybe we should add them.
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.
Why would Miami be above Seattle? Seattle has a rapidly-expanding, mostly grade-separated light metro system including a 10-mile subway tunnel through the city, and a second subway tunnel through the urban core is currently under development. Combine this with one of best bus systems in the country and much higher public transit mode-share and ridership than Miami and it's not even close. In a couple of years, once the next couple of Seattle rail extensions open, it will easily surpass Atlanta as well.
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.
