Which cities will see the largest growth/improvement of their Rail systems? (Subway, Light Rail, Commuter Rail, etc)? (states, south)
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.
As for the often dragged out cliche of "well, in Europe or Asia...", I dispute that also. Across the country-Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Sacramento, Atlanta, Dallas-all more than adequate systems that compete with peer cities around the world.
.
The rail systems of the of the cities you mentioned are significantly worse than any similar sized city in Europe or Asia. America's rail infrastructure is embarrassingly insufficient compared to many other countries.
Yes, that was an uneducated statement that's probably based on a lack of travel.
Rome has 2 subway Lines, Birmingham UK has a single trolley line.
A lot of places (even like Lisbon) don’t have that much mileage compared to Cleveland it’s just much better utilized because the city around it is better designed for use.
In Europe I’d say Germany and Spain are the only ones with comprehensive metro systems across the country. The UK and Ireland for example has 1 metro system in the whole of the Islands. (Save for 1 loop in Glasgow)
The US really lacks regional rail and comprehensive Bus/Tram Service. As you can see when you compare Toronto to Chicago. Where the former has much more limited heavy rail infrastructure but much higher ridership because of better connecting services as well as higher frequencies rather than better infrastructure
Last edited by btownboss4; 01-08-2022 at 06:24 PM..
Rome has a large train system. https://romemap360.com/rome-train-map. And of course most people live within a relatively small geographic area so it's all the more impressive.
Most cities Western Europe have mode splits substantially better than their US equivalents outside of NY. It's land use, buses, trains, lack of parking, and a bunch of other factors. But the quality of transit (not just trains) is a large percentage of that.
Rome has 2 subway Lines, Birmingham UK has a single trolley line.
A lot of places (even like Lisbon) don’t have that much mileage compared to Cleveland it’s just much better utilized because the city around it is better designed for use.
In Europe I’d say Germany and Spain are the only ones with comprehensive metro systems across the country. The UK and Ireland for example has 1 metro system in the whole of the Islands. (Save for 1 loop in Glasgow)
The US really lacks regional rail and comprehensive Bus/Tram Service. As you can see when you compare Toronto to Chicago. Where the former has much more limited heavy rail infrastructure but much higher ridership because of better connecting services as well as higher frequencies rather than better infrastructure
This is a good point but subway lines are much more dense and cities like lisbon are far more compact in a shorter area compared to its American peers. So RR is better, and there arent many subways needed
Yes, that was an uneducated statement that's probably based on a lack of travel.
Really? Based on your educated opinion, what cities in Asia that are the same size as those listed have better rail systems? I'm not well traveled in such areas, but I believe that much of Asia is poor, so I find that believable.
This is so incorrect. Even the NYC subway isn't near the best in the world, depending on how you rank them. Metro Vienna is smaller than San Diego yet has 5 U-Bahn lines and 10 S-Bahn lines. The Chicago L doesn't even run 24/7 when I was there, which is embarrassing. Many of our commuter train systems like Metra only run trains for commuters, if you need to get to the city at noon or whenever, your out of luck. Also embarrassing for major cities like Chicago. Seville is a bit bigger than New Orleans yet has a light metro line with 3 more along the way. Our public transit infrastructure is much worse than many other developed nations.
Many world cities to cherry pick from to make comparisons.
Like Pittsburgh, PA having an interurban rail system nearly double the size of Birmingham, the second largest city in the UK.
This is a good point but subway lines are much more dense and cities like lisbon are far more compact in a shorter area compared to its American peers. So RR is better, and there arent many subways needed
Cleveland dropped from ~130,000,000 riders /year in 1978 to ~32,000,000 in 2019.
Cleveland added 3 stations to its rail network over that time.
It decreased not because the infrastructure got worse but because population and job densities plummeted in the city and the RTA couldn’t actually serve where people wanted to go. As well I’d big cuts to bus routes and train frequencies reducing the usable radius and quality of train stations.
Land use and service levels are an issue as much of not more so than physical infrastructure
(But also under-discussed is the relative wealth compared to most places the US has, across the board wealth=car usage)
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.
