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 is technically light rail and it will surpass all of these in ridership dramatically by 2023 when three new lines open.. Most of the stations are underground or elevated/grade-separated and unlike Denver it will directly serve many of the city's core neighborhoods.
Seattle's system feels and operates much more like a big city metro. They recently added 25K additional riders with 2 new subway stations. Here's one of them (the parking lot next to the entrance is temporary - they are building mixed use there).
I've never been to Portland, so help me understand a few things:
Are most of the spokes commuter lines to/from the burbs, or do they truly serve city neighborhoods?
What's the frequency like? Enough to make them preferable to busses?
I ask because that map looks quite impressive, but Portland's ridership rate isn't all that high.
They do not serve city neighborhoods unless you just happen to live near a station. The suburbs though do tend to have more apartment complexes near the train stations. Most stations can be reached by either car or bus. Trains run about every fifteen minutes or so. They travel between downtown and the burbs with one line that goes between downtown and the airport.
There have been more and more lines in recent years created to run from the burbs to downtown.
The drawbacks are frequent delays when traffic is heavy or there is a accident and when on the rare occasion there is snow and ice, they slow down or do not run at all. I took buses mostly when I lived in Portland and light rail occasionally. I found it less than reliable. I am in Cleveland now and find it's system much better. Just my experience though.
I would be interested, though, in hearing poster "dude1984's" take on his experience with Portland's light rail system as well to compare notes.
Who cares? Street cars are a massive infrastructure investment that are less efficient for transporting people than buses. They give people in cities with poor public transit something to be proud of.
If you're not going to bury it or elevate it, there's no reason to build a light rail system.
MSP's two light rail lines are responsible for 25% of total transit ridership in the region (71,000 rides per day), despite a large and generally decent bus system. Trains have a draw that busses just don't. If the goal of transit is to move the largest possible number of people, trains are the way to do it.
Who cares? Street cars are a massive infrastructure investment that are less efficient for transporting people than buses. They give people in cities with poor public transit something to be proud of.
If you're not going to bury it or elevate it, there's no reason to build a light rail system.
Really? Light Rail is more efficient than buses, has higher capacities, operate better and more safely (fixed rails reduce incidents due to operator error)-especially on designated ROWs and in tunnels. The fixed rails and more obvious stations (buses typically use shelters) induce economic development in a way that buses will never be able to as well. Nobody in Boston is clamoring to get rid of the Green Line and replace it with bus service. Nobody in San Francisco is wishing they'd dump the light rail extension and just stick with buses.
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.