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.
Things have changed dramatically since 2011. There are more bus lines and they are much more efficient and the largely grade-separated rail system has expanded and will continue to expand. I’d argue pound for pound Seattle is at least equal to, if not better than, LA - or will be within a few years once Northgate Link, East Link, and Lynnwood Link open.
I've been back to Seattle a few times since 2011. Many things have changed but it's still a bus city. Seward Park to Ballard on the bus anyone?
I'm curious as to why you believe(d in 2013) the Shaker Rapid "comes up short" in the rapid transit dept. It has 6 miles of totally grade separated ROW from downtown to the Shaker Square shopping center at the edge of town; its downtown station/terminal is below the surface, with a short subway and is under streets even though some say the station, itself, is not a true subway since the street and buildings were built over it on bridge supports. And even the surface portion of the Shaker Rapid (Blue and Green Lines) run on private ROW and never in streets, though they cross streets, both in the Shaker Square/Shaker Heights area as well as the downtown Waterfront Line portion, where grade crossings are protected with traditional railroad gates, cross bucks and flashing signals. (I may have asked you this, before, but my memory needs to be refreshed)
I wasn't aware that the median-running portion of the Shaker Rapid lines had grade crossing protection. I thought they were reserved-median lines designed much like the B and C branches of Boston's Green Line (as well as the E branch as far as Brigham Circle) - that is, fairly frequent stops and no gates at the grade crossings.
In that case, it's on par with Dallas and San Diego, some of whose lines also have grade crossings, as a light metro, but still a notch below the Highland Branch line in Boston.
I've been back to Seattle a few times since 2011. Many things have changed but it's still a bus city. Seward Park to Ballard on the bus anyone?
It is still a bus city, but what I'm saying is within 5 years it will be a rail city with excellent bus service. And in 15 years it will be one of the best rail cities in the country. LA is also making huge investments and will see dramatic improvements as well in that time.
It is still a bus city, but what I'm saying is within 5 years it will be a rail city with excellent bus service. And in 15 years it will be one of the best rail cities in the country. LA is also making huge investments and will see dramatic improvements as well in that time.
I'll say Seattle has made the biggest progress. Just over 10 years ago they had no rail lines except for the Sounder Commuter Rail.
I wasn't aware that the median-running portion of the Shaker Rapid lines had grade crossing protection. I thought they were reserved-median lines designed much like the B and C branches of Boston's Green Line (as well as the E branch as far as Brigham Circle) - that is, fairly frequent stops and no gates at the grade crossings.
In that case, it's on par with Dallas and San Diego, some of whose lines also have grade crossings, as a light metro, but still a notch below the Highland Branch line in Boston.
OK, I misunderstood your point... No, the Shaker Rapid does not have protected grade crossing in the median portion out in Shaker Heights. The protected crossings are on the shorter, newer portion (the Waterfront Line) at the other end down in the Flats... However even with your criteria of total grade separation, the Shaker lines are still faster than most LRTs, with approx 2/3rds totally grade separated, and 1/3 along city streets, be they protect or, as on the Heights, private (median) ROW obeying non-priority traffic lights roughly every 1/3 mile past Shaker Square. Trains, during light traffic evenings, can traverse the 6-mile downtown-to-Shaker Square portion in as little as 10 minutes on rare occasions; often in 11 or 12 minutes... Overall, its much faster than, say, Boston's D-Riverside Green Line which, even outside of the slow-as-molasses Boylston St tunnel, still makes a zillion stops on a largely slow, zig-zaggy route. So in this case, Shaker Rapid's traffic signals (beyond the newly, horribly-timed Shaker Square lights), are pretty much superfluous.
D/FW has the largest light rail network in the U.S. (6 lines), plus a 30 mile heavy rail line and a significant highway, tollway system. The surface road network is well laid out with most major thoroughfares having six main lanes plus turning lanes. How is Dallas/Fort Worth not on that list?
D/FW has the largest light rail network in the U.S. (6 lines), plus a 30 mile heavy rail line and a significant highway, tollway system. The surface road network is well laid out with most major thoroughfares having six main lanes plus turning lanes. How is Dallas/Fort Worth not on that list?
Probably because the LRT network is severely underperforming. Atlanta's MARTA has more than double the ridership with half the track miles.
And no, DFW does not have Heavy Rail anything, TRE is Commuter Rail - huge difference.
D/FW has the largest light rail network in the U.S. (6 lines), plus a 30 mile heavy rail line and a significant highway, tollway system. The surface road network is well laid out with most major thoroughfares having six main lanes plus turning lanes. How is Dallas/Fort Worth not on that list?
Dallas doesn't have "heavy rail". In US terminology heavy rail refers to subway/rapid transit. As opposed to light rail.
D/FW has the largest light rail network in the U.S. (6 lines), plus a 30 mile heavy rail line and a significant highway, tollway system. The surface road network is well laid out with most major thoroughfares having six main lanes plus turning lanes. How is Dallas/Fort Worth not on that list?
Because this is city-data, where 21 miles of rail in Seattle beats 100 miles of rail in other places because "ridership."
Funny how the OP gave such a strange list with no statement explaining his ranking.
1. NYC
2. DC
3. Chicago
(gap)
4. Philadelphia
5. Boston
6. SF
(gap)
7. Los Angeles
(gap)
8. Seattle
9. Portland
10. A few too many close contenders here.
I put Philly over Boston for weekend late night coverage and our phenomenal regional rail coverage.
This is pretty good, only Los Angeles definitely above San Francisco (both in size and ease of use), and Portland above Seattle (which shouldn't be in the top 10). Seattle seems to get a lot of points on credit for what they have in the works-Portland has 5 LRT lines NOW, they didn't wait until the last second to think about Metro rail and should get some credit for that.
San Diego and Dallas both have LRT systems that are orders of magnitude larger than Seattle, with higher ridership. Not surprised that they got snubbed-people want to think of Seattle as being a top mass transit city because it fits their preconceived notions but facts don't support it.
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.
