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.
Seattle wins this but I still don't find it that great except for commuting Mon-Fri. But for cross town riding I find it horrible. For instance, Rainier Valley to Alki Beach or West Seattle, Mount Baker to Green Lake. For a leisure outing on the bus it's not that great.
I am not a Denver booster, but I am still not understanding how Seattle can have a better transit system when it only has 1 rail line in the city proper.
...Denver has 8 rail lines complemented by 4 commuter rail lines.
I am even more confused about this when I see that Seattle has a higher ridership on it's single line than all of Denver's 8 lines combined. I am wondering why this is.
Seattle built it's light rail to actually be a light rail, rather than a commuter rail. As a result Seattle has:
1) Stations in areas people can actually get to and in places they want to go without needing a car (i.e. no park and rides or very few)
2) Actually run in arterial walkable areas rather than along freeways
3) Need
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denverpro
I'm not a big fan of bus systems period. I do love SF's rail model along market street though. I find it idiotic to keep building these light rails especially when you have 6 lane north-south roads in denver that are way too big than they need to be. Why is broadway in Denver 6 lanes and one way while Market Street in SF is only 1-2 lanes each way? I like Market street's transportation model the best because visually it makes people prioritize the rail. Let people sit in traffic and watch the train go by.
Furthermore, I feel safer in something on rails, the ride is smoother. I hated the busses in SF, they were all small, dirty, terrible suspension, and you're relying more on driver ability, and people make mistakes.
With Denver's flat layout it seems like a no-brainer just to plop in some rails and remove the center lanes on a lot of streets. Although behind us by a couple of decades, I think Pheonix is on the right 'track', so to say.
I agree with you. Don't invest in suburban commuters who park and ride near freeways and instead take away car lanes in high bus ridership areas for rail on your arterial roads with commercial and so forth.
Phoenix's public transit is subpar but we did put our light rail in areas where transit is most used. And we do have four extensions officially planned, which will create two lines officially in the system, as well as four heavy rail systems in the works (Amtrak, 2 commuter rail lines, and 1 intercity rail line with Tucson). Yes only two lines is not good but our lines will be extremely long. The N/S line will be 16.5 miles approximately and the E/W line will be 28 miles.
They're not the whole story...obviously these things are nuanced in many ways.
But actual use is certainly a big indicator of service quality (itself being very nuanced), and arguably the biggest.
It's certainly better than the "but shiny trains" that seem to dominate some people's thinking in these discussions.
I agree in the sense that Seattle wouldn't have those numbers if it didn't operate a good system, but it could be that driving in Denver is much easier than it is in Seattle, so more people drive.
I just listed a whole bunch of major reasons...density, a major university in the core, major employers all actively trying to push transit, putting our density right near transit....there are obviously a bunch of factors.
Traffic is probably another. And Seattle's habit of building housing without parking. And culture. And the critical mass of middle-class people to attract other middle-class commuters. And so on.
But the system is also a hell of a lot better than Denver's. A cool rail map notwithstanding.
Seattle also has a geographical terrain that creates urban neighborhoods that are more self sufficient, being that there are so many bodies of water, hills and bridges. So you can hop on your local bus two blocks from your SFH to go to the local commercial street/square. This means buses are more available for the last mile and therefore more useful than buses in Denver. Now that the light rail is expanding rapidly, these urban neighborhoods are being connected faster than even driving or waiting for the drawbridge to go down.
Topography has advantages, but also disadvantages.
Buses are great for spiderwebbing out and putting most people within walking distance of a stop. But the stop might be up or down a big hill.
Cost is a big one. Density, topography, and a near-total lack of extra ROW make Seattle an expensive place to build rail or find room for HOV lanes. Especially since we (currently) try to build things through the denser areas rather than where it's convenient.
Denvers rail system will need to transition from largely park and ride style stations to having large TOD around the stations. The G line should be extended to the center of Golden, it would make sense and complete the commuter part of commuter rail. Broadway, Speer, and Colfax would be great options for trams. Broadway and Lincoln are wide enough to have protected bike lanes, widened sidewalks, and a tree canopy most of the way down.
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.
