Urban Mass Transit Systems Of North America

scootie

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
Great graphic as seen in latest Architecture Boston:

urbanmasstransitsystemsd.jpg


The creators website: http://radicalcartography.net/
 
Wow, even Dallas pwns Boston. Boston's mass transit is so lacking that even cities we deride frequently like Dallas, Atlanta, and Los Angeles have better networks.
 
Thats also the guy that made the map of boston highlighting all the land colleges own in the city in various colors. I like his stuff.

This map really doesn't inspire confidence in giving high speed rail to many states IMO. Florida for example. I think they should work on providing their metro's with real public trans before trying to link their cities with high speed rail.

High speed rail seems kind of self defeating if you are only going to rent a car when you get to your destination, no? It would certainly take longer to drive, but it would be much more cost efficient to not rent a car i would assume.
 
Last edited:
is that apples to apples? SF gets Caltrain but Boston doesn't get the commuter rail? What gives? Dallas does not "pwn" Boston, the bulk of their footprint there is their trinity rail line (which doesnt even run on sundays)

It looks like they are "helping out" the cities with just light rail and one or two commuter lines by including everything, while the cities with true rapid transit (subway) get just that. The full build out of the Chicago, DC, NYC and Boston systems would dwarf these things.
 
^ my thoughts too. Look at the D Line to Riverside - not really a long distance as shown on this map when compared to light rail in Portland Oregon or L.A. but the D Line is quite a long trip as it is. A work related commute trip is often better served by commuter rail compared to a 20 mile light rail ride.
 
What does detroit have? I can't even tell from the tiny spec on the map.
 
I think they call it the "people mover." Its a monorail type thing that circles around the perimeter of downtown Detroit. Not very practical or well used. Its more like an airport type monorail shuttle. Downtown Miami has something similar.
 
If they included that, they probably could have included a few other cities such as the Lynx in Charlotte etc. etc...
 
Wow, even Dallas pwns Boston. Boston's mass transit is so lacking that even cities we deride frequently like Dallas, Atlanta, and Los Angeles have better networks.

Even if we ignore the reality of these transit systems and focus only on this picture, I can't understand this statement.
 
Wow, even Dallas pwns Boston. Boston's mass transit is so lacking that even cities we deride frequently like Dallas, Atlanta, and Los Angeles have better networks.

Is this sarcasm? You can't be serious. Disconnecting the systems from their cities disconnects them from their context. Dallas, LA, Atlanta, etc are large geographically but no where near as dense as Boston and don't serve anywhere near as many people.
 
There is no way these maps are to scale. Just compare Boston and NY's. NY's is way bigger. This country has 5 maybe 6 legit systems. Boston, NY, DC, CHI, San Fran. Philly? Disney World's monorail destroys most these other systems ridership.
 
No, they are to scale, that's the point. Like I said, you are all forgetting the population densities in these cities. Also many of the newer systems were built as de facto commuter rail systems. If you included the commuter rail system of Boston or NY then their's would be much larger.
 
GW2500: what makes the LA system illegitimate? It serves the same number of passengers annually as BART (about 100 million), which you suggest is legitimate. Also vashnook....: LA really cant be put in the same category as Dallas or Atlanta. LA is at least twice as dense as those 2 cities, and 2/3 the density of Boston... and the central area of LA to the west and south of downtown (probably an area the size of Boston) of it are as dense as anything in Boston, and this is where metro gets most of its ridership.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/07/more-density-ma.html
Just trying to correct some stubborn misconceptions.
 
Rolling stuck
The Economist
12 November 2009

A light-rail project is up against the brick wall of bureaucracy

THE good news is that the three streetcars that the city of Washington, DC, bought for $10m back in 2006 seem to be running well. The bad news is that they are running only once a month, for 200 yards, in Ostrava?the Czech town where they were built. The city has paid $860,000 to store the cars, and says they will be in DC at the end of this year. When they will carry their first passengers, however, is harder to say.

Until 1962, around 200 miles (320km) of streetcar tracks ran through Washington and its suburbs. Then Congress ordered DC Transit, which operated them, to switch to buses; cars grew more popular; and today the area has some of the worst traffic in the country. Plans to help alleviate that with a return to streetcars began seven years ago. The city has broken ground on two small bits of what it hopes will be a 37-mile network: 1.5 miles in Anacostia, a rundown area in the south-east of the city, and two miles along a burgeoning commercial corridor on H Street in the city?s north-east quadrant. In July 2008, it was said that the Anacostia section would be running by late 2009. Now the estimate is 2012. The city still has not decided where it will store and maintain the vehicles, or how it will power them.

The last problem is bedevilling in a way unique to Washington; no other American city is home to so many competing branches of government. In the 1880s Congress forbade overhead streetcar-wires in what was then ?the city of Washington? to preserve views of the Capitol and the White House. The first part of the H Street track falls within this section, and hence under federal jurisdiction; the second part does not.

Streetcars would help the city. Lines are planned to run through several poor neighbourhoods that still bear scars from the 1968 riots that followed Martin Luther King?s murder. A study commissioned by the transport office in Portland, Oregon, which has in recent years rolled out the most extensive streetcar network built in America since the end of the second world war, found that its streetcars spurred $3.5 billion-worth of development. They run on electricity rather than fossil fuels, and have a chic that buses lack.

And the city at last seems serious about them. The transport department has been holding explanatory ?open houses? in each of the city?s eight wards. Then the city must submit an environmental impact statement, consult with the many interested federal agencies, review proposals from contractors, and choose a winning proposal. After all that, so the city?s streetcar guru assured attendees at the first open house, it?s just four years and you?ve got streetcars. Or maybe five.
 
Also vashnook....:
Just trying to correct some stubborn misconceptions.

I wasn't speaking to that, rather I was only referring to this particular diagram which people were misunderstanding. If anything that just backs up my comment on how these abstractions are misleading (but interesting none the less).
 
I'll tell you what makes it illegitamite. 96% of you city refuses to use it. (not an exact number just figurative). LA has a long way to go to be urban, it's light years away from being a west coast NY.
 
GW2500: what makes the LA system illegitimate? It serves the same number of passengers annually as BART (about 100 million), which you suggest is legitimate. Also vashnook....: LA really cant be put in the same category as Dallas or Atlanta. LA is at least twice as dense as those 2 cities, and 2/3 the density of Boston... and the central area of LA to the west and south of downtown (probably an area the size of Boston) of it are as dense as anything in Boston, and this is where metro gets most of its ridership.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/07/more-density-ma.html
Just trying to correct some stubborn misconceptions.

what are the dense neighborhoods? I'm curious, are there areas without lot and building graining similar to Back Bay, North End, Beacon Hill, South End, Comm Ave in Brighton, Fenway, Berklee, etc.? I love LA, and I've been to a few really grand old apartment buildings, but they were usually specimens with single family house lots on most sides. I'd love to know the area you speak of, I did a quick Google Earth search but didnt see anything....
 
San Francisco and Dallas including commuter rail, bot not other cities screws this up.

Also, LA is missing the new gold line extension.
 
Is this sarcasm? You can't be serious. Disconnecting the systems from their cities disconnects them from their context. Dallas, LA, Atlanta, etc are large geographically but no where near as dense as Boston and don't serve anywhere near as many people.

yes, sarcasm, though I thought more people would truly be as negative as my sarcastic opinion, based on the amount of flak we give most things in our city. It's not really a legit comparison map because it doesn't include all the rail systems of all the cities.
 

Back
Top