Urban Mass Transit Systems Of North America

I stand corrected, after a quick google search, D.C. has slightly more rail ridership overall.

Here is the breakout for daily ridership:

D.C.
Heavy Rail 1,027,000
Commuter Rail systems 48,000

Chicago
Heavy Rail 653,000
Comm. Rail 325,000
Chicago does have much more bus ridership, than D.C.

Just for comparison:

Boston
Heavy Rail 481,000
Light Rail 230,000
Comm Rail 145,000

L.A.
Heavy Rail 154,000
Light Rail 144,000
Comm. Rail 42,000

S.F.
Heavy Rail 359,000
Light Rail 164,000
Comm. Rail 40,000

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership
 
a630. That article didn't change my opinion. It tried to stack number's in it's favor at first but then clearly had to compare itself to our 2nd rate cities (cleavland and what not). Also Bus Rapid Transit, which is your new orange line, on the east coast we call that a crock of shit (despite the fact that they are here too). And ultimatly you can't compare Boston to LA, Boston to SF sure, you have to compare LA to NY. And there is no way you can honestly say the two cities transit systems are on par, or anything else urban for that matter.
Also this dense area the size of Boston that might actually have urban fabric needs to be put in context. Boston's land area is only 48 sq miles greater LA is 4,850 square miles.... Sorry but in a nut shell LA is a suburban explosion and if it weren't for it's Mexican heritage and nice weather would completly suck.
 
Sorry but in a nut shell LA is a suburban explosion and if it weren't for it's Mexican heritage and nice weather would completly suck.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been to LA? It's really complicated, actually. A lot of it is low density suburbia - but built by the streetcar, like most of Boston/Cambridge/Somerville. And the rest is suburbia the city happened to annex over the course of the 20th century, something Boston just didn't do.

There are only little accidents of history and association that have resulted in LA conjuring images of freeways and sprawl and Boston rowhouses and cobblestone streets. The majority of metro Boston is a hideously low density exurb that cloaks itself in tree cover and the occasional 19th century town center. Good parts of LA are stores along sidewalks. Come to terms with the reality, not the image.
 
where do you get your numbers GW2500?

LA proper: 469 square miles, 3.8 million, 8200 per square mile
Boston proper: 48 square miles, .6 million, 12,500 per square mile

LA metro: 4,850 square miles, 12.9 million, 2,665 per square mile
Boston metro: 4,600 square miles, 4.4 million, 947 per square mile

Both are suburban explosions really, but don't you think your opinion needs a little nuance given these facts?
Also, Los Angeles, along with SF Bay, are growing as few other american metro areas: they are getting denser.
And what's wrong with rapid bus transit if it works? Is it not sexy enough? European enough? Those are hardly the standards transportation planners use (or if they do, they shouldn't)
Really, in terms of ride share, public transit in all of America is pathetic, including New York. It is valuable as an alternative for the poor and/or carless. As long as car transit is subsidized the way it is, in terms of subsidized gasoline, roads and highways, and underpriced parking, it is hardly an economic alternative for car owners in 99.9% of the country.
And who said anything about Boston or LA sucking? I hope this is about facts and not a pissing contest.
 
Wow, so much negativity. I, for one, am glad LA is doing something to add to its public transport infrastructure -- it is much needed -- and its growth should be encouraged. It's a smaller system right now, but it will grow. I wish more cities (Boston included) were as interested in adding rail lines and getting more people out of cars.
 
aquaman said:
Wow, so much negativity. I, for one, am glad LA is doing something to add to its public transport infrastructure -- it is much needed -- and its growth should be encouraged. It's a smaller system right now, but it will grow. I wish more cities (Boston included) were as interested in adding rail lines and getting more people out of cars.
Click to expand...


I certainly agree. That, along with the CA high speed rail makes it a really exciting and interesting time to be a railfan.
 
You guys are right about some things, but not others IMO. I think anyone from Boston would tell you that for Greater Boston to be 4600 sq m would include a lot of places that just aren't really direct extension of Urban Boston. North Andover, Harvard, Leomonster, Essex just ain't Boston. I believe half of that area would be better referred to as New England. What I consider to be the more or less continuous area of Boston would be: Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, Newton, Waltham, Malden, Medford, Everett, Chelsea, Revere, Lynn, Quincy, Arlington, Watertown and Belmont. Which added together gives you 1.5 million at 164 sq miles and a density of 9300. Then there are suburbs directly connected to Boston like Wobrun/Melrose/Milton/Braintree but I didn't bring them into the equation. LA's land area is much bigger, weather you go by it's city boundaries, it's urban extension, or its closer suburban suburbs. And to say LA actually has an urban area the size of Boston is kind of cool on it?s own, but compared to the entire area of LA is relatively weak. You can?t just take a slice and call it the whole picture.

Also I disagree w/ New York's transit system being pathetic. I don't really know how much more transit infrastructure you can add it?s a pretty extensive system. Also taxis are really a form of personalized mass transit.

As far as annexing goes Boston did annex, not 20th century, but Dorchester, Allston, Brighton and Charlestown come to mind. And LA decided to take on those suburbs, 50 to a 100 years latter it's just a part LA. But it is good that they are expanding their transit system, better late than never.
 
a630 said:
where do you get your numbers GW2500?

LA proper: 469 square miles, 3.8 million, 8200 per square mile
Boston proper: 48 square miles, .6 million, 12,500 per square mile

LA metro: 4,850 square miles, 12.9 million, 2,665 per square mile
Boston metro: 4,600 square miles, 4.4 million, 947 per square mile
Click to expand...

see my post above, that is NOT boston metro, but "greater boston", an area stretching as far north as central New Hampshire and as far south as the RI/CT border.... "metro boston", which would be more like the "Boston-Cambridge-Quincy" referred to in that wikipedia page you're citing does not have density numbers that I can find.....
 
czsz said:
Map is misleading...I've seen versions that don't variously include some cities' commuter rail systems, but not others'.

Much better (and fairer) comparison:

http://fakeisthenewreal.org/subway/
Click to expand...

It seems like Boston's subway system actually isn't that short compared to other cities, most cities that we regard as better such as Paris, New York, and Tokyo cover a similar amount of territory.
 
BarbaricManchurian said:
It seems like Boston's subway system actually isn't that short compared to other cities, most cities that we regard as better such as Paris, New York, and Tokyo cover a similar amount of territory.
Click to expand...

I think the coverage area of both Boston's and Paris' systems may be similar -- in other words, if you did an overlay, they'd have roughly the same dimension, but Paris' system is much more extensive and concentrated. Boston's system has huge bare patches. As we all know, it's impossible to get from JFK U Mass to Longwood or from Sullivan Square to Porter Square without venturing into the downtown stations to switch lines.
 
aquaman said:
I think the coverage area of both Boston's and Paris' systems may be similar -- in other words, if you did an overlay, they'd have roughly the same dimension, but Paris' system is much more extensive and concentrated. Boston's system has huge bare patches. As we all know, it's impossible to get from JFK U Mass to Longwood or from Sullivan Square to Porter Square without venturing into the downtown stations to switch lines.
Click to expand...

Thats what makes the Paris system so amazing. You have 14 subway lines in the same area as Bostons 5.
 
Eh. Paris' subway is a little much sometimes; you can often arrive at basically the same place 4 different ways. Plus that hyperconcentration is really exclusive to the city center: the endless, dense, immigrant ghetto suburbs are served (poorly) by commuter rail.
 
czsz said:
Eh. Paris' subway is a little much sometimes; you can often arrive at basically the same place 4 different ways. Plus that hyperconcentration is really exclusive to the city center: the endless, dense, immigrant ghetto suburbs are served (poorly) by commuter rail.
Click to expand...

And whats wrong with having so many options?

And while the suburbs arent served well, Id say the RER system is better than our MBCR. I actually stayed in the suburbs, so I was 35 minutes out of the city, but the trains were frequent, and they have 24 hour service via coach style buses.
 
GW2500 said:
I think anyone from Boston would tell you that for Greater Boston to be 4600 sq m would include a lot of places that just aren't really direct extension of Urban Boston. North Andover, Harvard, Leomonster, Essex just ain't Boston. I believe half of that area would be better referred to as New England. What I consider to be the more or less continuous area of Boston would be: Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, Newton, Waltham, Malden, Medford, Everett, Chelsea, Revere, Lynn, Quincy, Arlington, Watertown and Belmont. Which added together gives you 1.5 million at 164 sq miles and a density of 9300. Then there are suburbs directly connected to Boston like Wobrun/Melrose/Milton/Braintree but I didn't bring them into the equation. LA's land area is much bigger, weather you go by it's city boundaries, it's urban extension, or its closer suburban suburbs. And to say LA actually has an urban area the size of Boston is kind of cool on it?s own, but compared to the entire area of LA is relatively weak.
Click to expand...

The Boston area's much lower density compared to LA may be a result of the urban area definitions. I'm speculating A630's figures are based upon these "urbanized areas." The census bureau considers contigious areas with a density of over 1,000 people per sq. mile to be part of the urban area. In Boston's case, once you get out of the dense core area and surrounding town its gets very low density suburban with quite a few towns 1,000 to 2,000 people per sq. mile., which offsets the density of the core and dilutes the overall density of entire area. I would expect the gradient in LA is less severe with many suburban areas much more compactly developed than your typical Boston suburbs such as Billerica or Canton. My impression, maybe I'm wrong, is that the LA urbanized area just ends and the wilderness begins. LA just doesn't have these low density suburbs to dilute its overall density, like Boston.
 
commuter guy said:
The Boston area's much lower density compared to LA may be a result of the urban area definitions. I'm speculating A630's figures are based upon these "urbanized areas." The census bureau considers contigious areas with a density of over 1,000 people per sq. mile to be part of the urban area. In Boston's case, once you get out of the dense core area and surrounding town its gets very low density suburban with quite a few towns 1,000 to 2,000 people per sq. mile., which offsets the density of the core and dilutes the overall density of entire area. I would expect the gradient in LA is less severe with many suburban areas much more compactly developed than your typical Boston suburbs such as Billerica or Canton. My impression, maybe I'm wrong, is that the LA urbanized area just ends and the wilderness begins. LA just doesn't have these low density suburbs to dilute its overall density, like Boston.
Click to expand...

Sharp point there..... LA is mountains and valleys, with the former being largely protected Forest the former necessitating a bit of a development squeeze. This explains alot actually, for the last two days i've been wracking my brain looking at LA on satellite images and wondering how it can rate so dense. They are packed in there no doubt, but they are largely mini-suburban lots, with single family homes--a very dense suburb, but not a dense urban settlement of multi-unit, 4 or 5 story buildings....
 
You are exactly right commuter guy. Los Angeles is hemmed in. Also the cost of water makes large yards prohibitively costly, so most developers historically just haven't provided them. East coast sized yards are a rarity outside of the wealthiest areas. (Once I was on a flight from Boston to LA and some lady looking out the window exclaimed "THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO YAHDS!")
The density gradient (density as a function of distance from center) of Los Angeles does not slope downward nearly as dramatically as "traditional" urban areas of the northeastern US.
There are many areas of very high density due to the dominance of apartment buildings and/or the overcrowding of rented single-family homes or duplexes. Regrettably, largely because setback ordinances targeting tenements made buildouts to lot lines illegal for the 80 years in which the city grew into a major urban area, Los Angeles has ZERO areas of townhomes/rowhouses/brownstones characteristic of dense areas on the east coast. The result is thousands of really unattractive smaller multi-unit buildings called "dingbats." here's a good dingbat shot: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2a/Dingbat.jpg

Pierce try google mapping the following intersections and look around: Wilshire and Normandie (koreatown), Wilshire and Alvarado (westlake), both with densities around 50,000 per square mile - many single family dominated areas of heavy immigrant settlement have densities over 20000 per square mile due to illegal crowding. this characterizes much of the area south of downtown, including south los angeles (name officially changed from s. central after 1992), and independent communities such as maywood and cudahy, which are the two most densely populated municipalities in the country outside of the new york area (both about 20-25,000 people per square mile). visual indicators of population density may be missing here, try mapping these towns.
 
But there will always be a difference in commuting patterns. Boston or NY or DC have fairly central poles of employment. LA will probably always be more multipolar, which really complicates the transit issues.
 
word. The pacific electric worked wonderfully way back when, because even though LA and its satellite cities covered a significant area, everything was still focused on downtown. Now downtown LA is just one of many many employment centers, some of which are rather diffuse in themselves.
Then again, Boston and other US cities are also very polycentric. I don't think any "downtown" in the country contains over 20% of regional employment with the exception of Manhattan. I know the city of San Francisco only contains 16% of Bay area jobs.
 
with the exception of Manhattan
Click to expand...

I don't even think Manhattan does. For one, it creates its own polycentricity by being divided into two business districts. Beyond that, some of the other office districts in metro New York are also among the largest in the country - downtown Brooklyn, Newark, Jersey City, White Plains, Stamford, and some of the office parks in Westchester and New Jersey are all huge employment sites. Tax incentives and legal requirements have played a larger role in spreading out employment in tri-state metro New York than in some other US metros, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top