Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
|
I've referenced how I'm using the term and acknowledge that there can be grey zones in how the term works. Rapid transit as is generally used is reserved for high-capacity, high frequency, and fast service rail service.* Of course, there are systems that fulfill some parts of this better than others. The problem with calling the Green line that is on multiple levels. As per the conversation with MarketStEl, the Green Line services can't be high capacity because for various reasons it has to run shorter trainsets going up to three-car sets, but mostly two-car (I think). It is rather *high frequency* which is great. It is not particularly speedy though and there's a lot of uneveness with parts of the Green Line move fairly quickly, but unfortunately a lot of it does not because a lot of it is not grade-separated in regards to having traffic interference (but does at least have its own dedicated lanes) and there are even parts of it that runs in mixed-traffic where it no longer has dedicated lanes.
I'm not sure the relevancy of it being the oldest subway in North America in regards to what we're discussing.
I love train videos! I think having the Green Line is great, but I'm not sure what you're trying to point towards. At what point does either video claim the Green Line is rapid transit? Rather, I'd think that as train nerds who are into them enough to actually make a channel with a lot of content on them, they'd likely let you know that it is not a rapid transit line though that doesn't mean it isn't interesting or doesn't perform important functions. The first link doesn't have narration, but does have a written description and describes it as a light rail system. The second video mentions the lower capacity of the trains and the rather slow (not rapid) operating speeds, though I think the video should be fair to the D branch and mention that it does have something more like rapid transit speeds though it does not have the capacity (hence the sidebar with MarketStEl about the term premetro and light metro being applicable).
It does get trickier and trickier as you encounter more and more systems that have new combinations of features and odd overlaps of what seems to be more fitting for one definition versus another or sits in between these. If you're interested in this topic, there are some very deep dives that can be found in some of the forums out there that are more dedicated to transit and rail fandom.
*there's also bus rapid transit which has rapid transit in the name, but isn't usually what is being referred to as rapid transit--instead, the reference to bus rapid transit services is to either use the entire phrase "bus rapid transit" or the acronym BRT
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
Youre getting crazy now man... just stop. You cant reasonably say pretty much no other agencies unless your stretching out to rhode island when literally there are 7 other agencies.
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/pu...-massachusetts
MWRTA
MVRTA
BAT
GATRA
CATA
LRTA
WRTA |
Yea, I clarified it later. I didn't say no other agencies completely. I said pretty much no other agencies, but it's accurate to say that can be taken a lot of different ways, so I followed up by saying no agencies of substantial size. This doesn't mean their work isn't important, and I'm definitely and completely for more transit service within the US, but given the context of what I was responding to, I thought it was clear I was pointing more towards overall ridership number comparisons. Remember, it was in response to a post about transit agency ridership numbers from APTA! APTA separates out the numbers for different agencies even within the same metropolitan area as they've done for a long time now.
In that comparison, MBTA *is* a bit of an outlier among the top ridership metropolitan areas in the US because MBTA encompasses so many modes and such a huge portion of the ridership while the other agencies net comparatively small ridership numbers both compared to MBTA and compared to secondary agencies in the other metropolitan area. If you do include Rhode Island's transit agency though, you do see that it nets fairly substantial ridership, still pales in comparison to MBTA but significantly larger than any of the other agencies within what can be reasonably called within the Boston metropolitan area. The problem with that is whether or not Rhode Island should count as part of the Greater Boston area.
I also don't think of consolidating things under an agency is a bad thing. There are a lot of good things that can come from that and there are a lot of bad things that can come from balkanization into many agencies. However, I also think MBTA for some reason has not had a great track record for whatever reason. CTA though has also been pretty bad of late, and it doesn't seem like there's anything particularly useful for CTA riders that Dorval Carter has done in his tenure. On the bright side, Metra and Pace have been doing quite well with adapting in recent years.
I hope that clarification makes this more understandable and less crazy seeming.
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.
