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.
Light metro wasn't a term coined for Seattle's light rail system--if there's an issue you have with reframing of reality then the problem you have is with reality and how language is used.
Seattle did screw up on transit and its screw up was about a half century ago when local voters decided to scuttle a large federal funding package for a far more extensive system, done earlier, and done better. They're instead paying far more for a far more modest system decades later.
There's no claim to fame. Both systems are okay for US systems, but both also ultimately have subpar transit systems compared to that in cities of other developed countries. It's just that Seattle has a better bus system at the moment and its one line has grade separation downtown which has some benefits--and grade separation is extremely common for transit systems for urban areas of their size in the rest of the developed world. All of that doesn't change that that Seattle has a more urban landscape than San Diego despite both having a pretty subpar rail network not just for 2003, but for today as well, and as I understand it, the topic was about today and not 2003.
I don't think it's necessarily San Diego doesn't see the benefits so much as that the cost of infrastructure in the US is absurdly high, that the system did not originally build with that intention likely due to lack of political will to fund such a thing from the beginning and would be disruptive to do at this point and so there's likely going to need a massive amount of political will or general restructuring of how the US deals with infrastructure costs to make work. However, the start of that requires there be a proposal to do so at all, and I'm not sure if San Diego's ever made such a proposal. Do you know if it's done so in the past? Also, what is SD Trolley's expansion plans for the rest of the decade? And have there been any proposals to cap or remove any of the freeways?
A group called San Diego Commons proposed to Caltrans and SANDAG freeway caps over the 5 through Balboa Park, Sherman Heights, East Village, Bankers Hill, and Cortez Hill.
Much like light rail, San Diego was a California pioneer a with cap over the 15 over 20 years ago.
I don't understand how 65 miles of light rail, two commuter lines (three if you include Metrolink in Oceanside), with two intermodal stations for Amtrak in city limits is "subpar", or how it could be presumed a peer to Seattle, a city with much less coverage over a larger area with more people.
A group called San Diego Commons proposed to Caltrans and SANDAG freeway caps over the 5 through Balboa Park, Sherman Heights, East Village, Bankers Hill, and Cortez Hill.
Much like light rail, San Diego was a California pioneer a with cap over the 15 over 20 years ago.
I don't understand how 65 miles of light rail, two commuter lines (three if you include Metrolink in Oceanside), with two intermodal stations for Amtrak in city limits is "subpar", or how it could be presumed a peer to Seattle, a city with much less coverage over a larger area with more people.
It's probably because you've never lived abroad in cities of other developed countries that you don't see that it's subpar. San Diego is an urban area of about 3 million people. Its system and ridership levels are really bad compared to non-US cities in the developed world.
It's probably because you've never lived abroad in cities of other developed countries that you don't see that it's subpar. San Diego is an urban area of about 3 million people. Its system and ridership levels are really bad compared to non-US cities in the developed world.
I lived in Germany for three years, without a car the entire time.
We're supposed to marvel at the Link stations that go underground while ignoring the Trolley stations that go above ground.
That's the sleight of hand behind this "light metro" nonsense.
Trolley trains that are not grade separated is a totally different beast from Seattle's mostly grade-separated subway/elevated rail system.
And if we're going to play this game, you should know that much of Seattle's extensive bus network is actually overhead electric trolley buses and it covers vast portions of the city including quiet residential neighborhoods. Should we count that as a trolley too? Maybe we should, because it basically functions like a non-grade separated trolley train. In fact, Seattle has many dedicated bus-only lanes and signals for these trolley buses, so they are probably faster in reality.
I lived in Germany for three years, without a car the entire time.
Oh that's neat. Which city? How large was the urban area? It's going to be pretty rare that pound for pound, any US city will have a mass transit system that measures up, but perhaps the city you were in was an interesting exception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guineas
Trolley trains that are not grade separated is a totally different beast from Seattle's mostly grade-separated subway/elevated rail system.
And if we're going to play this game, you should know that much of Seattle's extensive bus network is actually overhead electric trolley buses and it covers vast portions of the city including quiet residential neighborhoods. Should we count that as a trolley too? Maybe we should, because it basically functions like a non-grade separated trolley train. In fact, Seattle has many dedicated bus-only lanes and signals for these trolley buses, so they are probably faster in reality.
I think there's a notable difference in transit that runs in mixed traffic with private cars and ones that have dedicated lanes. For the most part and including in your streetview, the trolleybuses are not running in dedicated lanes while San Diego Trolley light rail does have dedicated lanes but they are at grade. Mixed traffic without dedicated lanes means you get to be piled into the same traffic going in the same direction which slows speeds down a lot and incurs a higher rate of accidents (and blockages from other people's accidents). At grade in the downtown core isn't great, but SD Trolley as far as I remember does have dedicated lanes so its the main negatives aren't as bad and are reduced to having to wait at signal lights though there's usually some measure of signal priority, greater chances of incidences and thus delays, and lower operational speeds on those segments for safety. It should also be mentioned that parts of the San Diego Trolley are grade separated including much of the new Blue Line extension to La Jolla.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 11-17-2022 at 07:07 AM..
Thanks to the interactive nature of streetview, some of these links do a good job of illustrating the drop off in density outside of central Seattle. Thanks for posting!
I don’t understand this obsession of using urban area. When I think of NYC I think of Manhattan and Brooklyn. I don’t go point to an industrial warehouse zone and ask where is the density or point to a low rent Jersey garden apartment complex and say the same. Do the prevalent existence of these places in NYC make the urban streetscape of Midtown Manhattan any less urban?
The reality for Seattle is that you can walk from Pioneer Sq through downtown to First Hill, then to the main corridor of Pine and Broadway in Capitol Hill then over to South Lake Union, Belltown, Lower Queen Anne, up across Westlake into Fremont and then into the U District and feel like you’re walking in a dense, highly walkable urban city through this whole time. That’s a lot of distance and population you’re covering. And you haven’t even touched the waterfront, Old Ballard, Columbia City or CD/Madison. This is why everyone who has been to either city thinks it’s no contest that Seattle has the more urban streetscape.
No one cares about Everett and what happens in Everett doesn’t define Seattle. And you missed all the construction and future plans in that Bellevue street view.
I don’t understand this obsession of using urban area. When I think of NYC I think of Manhattan and Brooklyn. I don’t go point to an industrial warehouse zone and ask where is the density or point to a low rent Jersey garden apartment complex and say the same. Do the prevalent existence of these places in NYC make the urban streetscape of Midtown Manhattan any less urban?
The reality for Seattle is that you can walk from Pioneer Sq through downtown to First Hill, then to the main corridor of Pine and Broadway in Capitol Hill then over to South Lake Union, Belltown, Lower Queen Anne, up across Westlake into Fremont and then into the U District and feel like you’re walking in a dense, highly walkable urban city through this whole time. That’s a lot of distance and population you’re covering. And you haven’t even touched the waterfront, Old Ballard, Columbia City or CD/Madison. This is why everyone who has been to either city thinks it’s no contest that Seattle has the more urban streetscape.
No one cares about Everett and what happens in Everett doesn’t define Seattle. And you missed all the construction and future plans in that Bellevue street view.
I agree with you that the urban area doesn't define the city itself but this thread was specifically asking about the urban area as a whole.
I agree with you that the urban area doesn't define the city itself but this thread was specifically asking about the urban area as a whole.
Right, but the topics as for the most urban streetscape and that can be interpreted as the peaks for their respective regions or a thresholding on the parts that are actually urban rather than all the areas that are not. Both of them have far more areas in their metropolitan area that are not very urban at all, but is the least urban parts how we're evaluating most urban streetscapes? That doesn't necessarily come off as the most reasonable interpretation to me.
---
Unrelated, I really like the proposal that SD Commons has on capping freeways as there's certainly quite a bit of below grade freeways in San Diego's urban core. How far have and how likely are these proposals to move forward?
I don’t understand this obsession of using urban area. When I think of NYC I think of Manhattan and Brooklyn. I don’t go point to an industrial warehouse zone and ask where is the density or point to a low rent Jersey garden apartment complex and say the same. Do the prevalent existence of these places in NYC make the urban streetscape of Midtown Manhattan any less urban?
The reality for Seattle is that you can walk from Pioneer Sq through downtown to First Hill, then to the main corridor of Pine and Broadway in Capitol Hill then over to South Lake Union, Belltown, Lower Queen Anne, up across Westlake into Fremont and then into the U District and feel like you’re walking in a dense, highly walkable urban city through this whole time. That’s a lot of distance and population you’re covering. And you haven’t even touched the waterfront, Old Ballard, Columbia City or CD/Madison. This is why everyone who has been to either city thinks it’s no contest that Seattle has the more urban streetscape.
No one cares about Everett and what happens in Everett doesn’t define Seattle. And you missed all the construction and future plans in that Bellevue street view.
Manhattan.
What a completely unique and seldom used reference point.
With an analogy that unexpected and "outside of the box", I think I'll need to do some research before I can respond.
As for the second paragraph, I'm not the one who put forth Everett and Bellevue as urban centers. I've spent enough time in Seattle to know that if you suggested either as urban to someone in Seattle, they would likely laugh in your face (especially Bellevue).
The fact is that San Diego city between 70th street and the ocean, between Petco Park and I-8 is roughly the same population/area Seattle city. Suggestions that Seattle has a larger urban core than San Diego seem to be lacking in evidence.
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.
