Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
Toronto has no electrified commuter rail. It only has diesel commuter rail, and ridership/frequencies are relatively low.
That's horrible ridership. Regular bus lines have 2-3x the ridership in urban cities. RER lines carry millions.
And the A line is functionally more like a light rail line than a high capacity suburban line. 15 minute frequencies are pretty typical for buses or light rail.
|
Toronto will electrify it's commuter rail in the next ten years FYI:
http://www.gotransit.com/electrifica...n/default.aspx
A commuter rail network that currently has 225,000 riders a day without the massive future improvements is not what I call low ridership.
An A-Line ridership that could grow to 25,000 in the next five years... Which is better than 3/4 of commuter rail lines in the US but I guess it's still horrible to you. It's definitely not light rail if you look at technology used, it's the same as SEPTA Regional Rail in Philly.
You're comparing new networks with old ones when my point of view in the discussion was mostly expansion and recent projects. So debating this is pointless. You comparing Denver's A Line with Paris' RER is apples and oranges...
My point was that a few cities in the US don't have
horrible transit and that the trend is changing
in some places, notably the ones I named. You answered with this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
You have it completely reversed. Portland, Denver and LA have comically horrific transit for global first world standards. Chicago and DC have mediocre transit; NYC is really the only U.S. city where transit is the norm and feasible for typical families.
|
New York is trending downwards. Chicago is stagnant while DC, SF, Denver and LA are examples of improving cities. Hence my point about changing trends in transit investment. So no, I did not have it backwards.