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.
If Columbus lacks both point-to-point services and a robust fixed transit network, I suspect its transit options are likely far inferior to many places in the Midwest.
I'm not sure Columbus even has commuter rail. There is a certain stigma to riding the poorly connected bus routes in that city as well. Everyone seems happy with their cars and wants to keep it that way.
Never lived in Cleveland, but I was there a good bit visiting family, going to the museums/plays/music/city market/sporting and other special events, and so on, but I always got a disjointed feeling to the layout of the city.
Also, unlike many cities Cleveland does have some interesting burbs (as far as that sort of thing goes) and I figured you'd be cutting yourself off if you went car free.
Not sure how Cleveland's buses are anyway. If I ever rode them it would've been for the experience with a parent when I was very young.
As far as Minneapolis goes it didn't feel like it really embraced public transportation completely either (which seems distinctly Midwestern to favor cars of transit). And while the bus system was good it was fairly limited to near downtown. Although transit is improving now. People were actually happy to ride the bus and did so across the gamut of social-economic realities. You find that in very few US cities in my experience. Usually it's either just for the poor, homeless, etc. or it's merely tolerated when it comes to riding city buses.
So by saying Minneapolis is a Midwestern city that's good for public transit that's mainly considering just the Midwest. Give it ten years (assuming the improvements continue) and you might be able to say that on a national level.
I'm not sure Columbus even has commuter rail. There is a certain stigma to riding the poorly connected bus routes in that city as well. Everyone seems happy with their cars and wants to keep it that way.
Never lived in Cleveland, but I was there a good bit visiting family, going to the museums/plays/music/city market/sporting and other special events, and so on, but I always got a disjointed feeling to the layout of the city.
Also, unlike many cities Cleveland does have some interesting burbs (as far as that sort of thing goes) and I figured you'd be cutting yourself off if you went car free.
Not sure how Cleveland's buses are anyway. If I ever rode them it would've been for the experience with a parent when I was very young.
If you don't know that Columbus doesn't have any rail mass transit, your knowledge of the mass transit situation in Columbus would seem limited.
I also don't know what you mean by a "disjointed feeling" about the layout of Cleveland. Admittedly, its cultural district is separated from its downtown area by several miles, but I'm not certain that's a disadvantage, especially given the robust mass transit connections between the two.
The separation of the university/cultural district in Cleveland is analogous to the situation in Pittsburgh. Do you also consider Pittsburgh "disjointed?"
WRnative;41191551]You are redefining reality to fit your argument. Why is a
city-wide or metropolitan-wide capability needed? What matters is the extent of
residential areas where car-free living is possible or even desirable.
Which in the vast majority of American cities, there just aren't that many neighborhoods served by a lot of car alternatives. Even large cities like Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix and Miami are very underserved in this regard, and then when talking about cities in Columbus' actual peer range, there are even fewer. There is an attempt here by some to make it seem like Columbus is this weird outlier, but it's very common. The rail that exists in most cities is extremely limited. US cities, for the most part, simply aren't built for much beyond cars. It's possible to go car-free in Columbus, or more specifically, in these neighborhoods: Downtown, OTE, King-Lincoln, Near South Side, Short North, Old North Columbus, Bexley, Grandview, Clintonville, Franklinton, Hilltop, Linden, German and Merion Village and perhaps Upper Arlington, Whitehall and Worthington to a degree. Bus lines are extensive enough to allow for it, and COTA is currently in the midst of changing its entire system to make it easier in these neighborhoods. Outside of these areas, it becomes much more difficult, and once you get outside of 270, you pretty much need a car. This is not an untrue or unreasonable statement, and neither is saying that most American cities are largely in the same boat, even with a handful of token rail lines.
Quote:
What is needed to live enjoyably in an urban area without car ownership is easy
access to needed services and to amenities.
This is what I am talking about. If you're saying that to live a car free life with plenty of amenities within walkable distances as well as extensive, city-wide reliable transit, only the cities I mentioned in the other post really offer that in the US. No Ohio city does, and I would argue only a single Midwestern city does: Chicago. Perhaps my definition is different than yours because I actually have experience living in one of the best transit/walkable cities in the world, so my standards are higher. That's why I'm not going to argue Columbus is great at transit, because it isn't, but if you really want to go car free there, there are neighborhoods in which it is possible to do so.
Quote:
This can be provided by point-to-point mass transit, offered in at least some
Ohio counties. In Lake County, I know persons who live in semi-rural
areas without a car due to a robust point-to-point service. Does it
offer the flexibility of car ownership or even a robust fixed route
network? No, but it's far better than transportation options available
to most persons without cars in much of the U.S.
I think you're stretching the definition of transit just a little here. This is essentially a van and not much different than someone calling a taxi. Direct route or point-to-point services are available in Columbus and Franklin County, btw.
Quote:
Or car-free living can be made possible, as in large swaths of Cuyahoga County
(Cleveland), by a very extensive network of rail and bus mass transit routes, or
by a combination of both fixed routes and point-to-point service.
Rail is not extensive in Cuyahoga County whatsoever, come on. It's the most extensive system in Ohio, but that's saying exactly nothing because no other city in the state has city-based rail at this moment. Actual track mileage in Cleveland is just 74.9 as of 2013, the last year available that I could find. Better than nothing, but all that good? Extensive? No way.
Quote:
The following thread is about the considerations of a transit-savvy senior
living without a car in Cleveland Heights, an eastern Cuyahoga County suburb,
and considering a significant move to the western Cuyahoga County suburb of
Lakewood. Would such a thread ever be possible in Franklin County?
There is no reason why a city-wide capability to live without a car is needed.
However, it's very possible that Cleveland has a city-wide capability, or near
to city-wide capability, especially as compared to some suburban areas of
Cuyahoga County. In addition to a robust rapid network and bus routes, many
areas in Cuyahoga County do offer point-to-point services for some citizens,
such as seniors.
The OP didn't ask if it was possible to go car free in a specific neighborhood, though, but rather used the city. It's possible, and possibly even fairly easy, to go car free in specific neighborhoods in every major city in the US, including Columbus. If this is not a citywide question, so be it. Cleveland has better transit options than Columbus, no argument there. But as I said above, it's not even close to having a truly comprehensive citywide system. Nor does MSP or most of the other cities mentioned by people in this thread. Columbus' current system is on par with Cincinnati's. They have similar total ridership (Columbus is actually a bit higher) and are (currently) limited to regular bus only. That will change in the coming few years with Cincinnati's streetcar and Columbus' BRT.
Quote:
Public transit services can be supplemented by Uber and Lyft, widely used these
days by persons that I know who live without cars even in NYC and Chicago in
addition to public transit services.
Sure, and car-share exists in Columbus.
Quote:
Keep in mind that the higher funding level in Cuyahoga County also may enable it
to obtain greater amounts of matching federal funds for capital projects, and
that this benefit is cumulative. E.g., if Cuyahoga's RTA has a higher per
capita capital budget than Franklin's COTA, then the relative robustness of the
transit systems should become greater with each passing year. This seems to be
the case.
Okay... but what does any of this have to do with the question in this thread? You seem to be trying to just sell Cleveland here, as usual. Between you and Mplsite, I'm not sure who posts more about their favorite non-Columbus cities in the Columbus forum. I've already acknowledged that Cleveland has better transit. The OP is free to move there if they are set on both Ohio and living in the city that has the most options in that regard. The OP's question has been answered, though. Yes, it's possible (or feasible if you prefer) to live car free in Columbus, provided one chooses neighborhoods that are best served by alternatives. I've listed them above.
Quote:
I doubt that you are very familiar with transit options in all cities in the
Midwest, or even how these options compare with options in NYC and Chicago. I
wouldn't be surprised if in many Midwestern cities, due to point-to-point
services, options available to seniors or those who are handicapped might even
be superior to those offered in NYC, let alone budget-strapped Chicago.
No, I am not directly familiar with every Midwestern city's transit options, but I am no stranger to transit, and I know that there is no city in the Midwest outside of Chicago that actually does transit very well. Not Cleveland, not MSP, not Milwaukee or St. Louis or Detroit or... you get the idea. They are all just varying degrees of mediocre, imo. You guys are free to fight over a very distant 2nd place.
Quote:
If Columbus lacks both point-to-point services and a robust fixed transit
network, I suspect its transit options are likely far inferior to many places in
the Midwest.
In terms of rail, sure, since it doesn't have rail, but rail might as well be nonexistent in almost every city outside a handful. Its bus system is on par with its peers.
I'm not sure Columbus even has commuter rail. There is a certain stigma to riding the poorly connected bus routes in that city as well. Everyone seems happy with their cars and wants to keep it that way.
Never lived in Cleveland, but I was there a good bit visiting family, going to the museums/plays/music/city market/sporting and other special events, and so on, but I always got a disjointed feeling to the layout of the city.
Also, unlike many cities Cleveland does have some interesting burbs (as far as that sort of thing goes) and I figured you'd be cutting yourself off if you went car free.
Not sure how Cleveland's buses are anyway. If I ever rode them it would've been for the experience with a parent when I was very young.
As far as Minneapolis goes it didn't feel like it really embraced public transportation completely either (which seems distinctly Midwestern to favor cars of transit). And while the bus system was good it was fairly limited to near downtown. Although transit is improving now. People were actually happy to ride the bus and did so across the gamut of social-economic realities. You find that in very few US cities in my experience. Usually it's either just for the poor, homeless, etc. or it's merely tolerated when it comes to riding city buses.
So by saying Minneapolis is a Midwestern city that's good for public transit that's mainly considering just the Midwest. Give it ten years (assuming the improvements continue) and you might be able to say that on a national level.
Except that COTA has been seeing regular annual increases in bus ridership (occasionally the highest %nationally), and the new C-Bus has been extremely popular. I'm not going to argue that COTA has been great, because it really hasn't been, but I also think the system is getting better. Better service is key in attracting more riders, and that's been happening. I believe COTA had its best ridership last year since the mid-1980s.
BTW, you've probably made an eternal enemy now that you've criticized Minneapolis. There's a superfan that won't abide by someone saying it's anything less than the best at everything.
COTA is crap. The CBUS is super cool and kind of progressive, being free and having decent hours (although no ride home if I want to take it to the bars). However, the busses are completely unreliable for the times they're supposed to be there. There's no live tracking either. Even OSU got that going without wasting tons of money paying a company to not even get the job done. They only accept exact change, no reloadable cards or credit card support (in 2015!). And I was riding the CBUS this weekend and should have taken a photo because it was just absurd...6+ COTA busses ALL backed up along high street and trying to crowd into the bus stops. It was just comical how inefficient that is.
COTA is crap. The CBUS is super cool and kind of progressive, being free and having decent hours (although no ride home if I want to take it to the bars). However, the busses are completely unreliable for the times they're supposed to be there. There's no live tracking either. Even OSU got that going without wasting tons of money paying a company to not even get the job done. They only accept exact change, no reloadable cards or credit card support (in 2015!). And I was riding the CBUS this weekend and should have taken a photo because it was just absurd...6+ COTA busses ALL backed up along high street and trying to crowd into the bus stops. It was just comical how inefficient that is.
I have heard the live tracking is coming back at some point soon, but I don't have any details.
Several of the High Street routes are also going to be moved to eliminate the bus wall. It's part of the complete system change they're doing now. I don't have a link at the moment, but I remember they'll be at least tripling express routes, moving or eliminating underperforming ones, adding new ones, changing route hours, etc. They did some studies that apparently identified a lot of the issues you reference, so there's some hope that at the end of the changes, it'll be a much more efficient system.
This is what I am talking about. If you're saying that to live a car free life with plenty of amenities within walkable distances as well as extensive, city-wide reliable transit, only the cities I mentioned in the other post really offer that in the US. No Ohio city does, and I would argue only a single Midwestern city does: Chicago. Perhaps my definition is different than yours because I actually have experience living in one of the best transit/walkable cities in the world, so my standards are higher. That's why I'm not going to argue Columbus is great at transit, because it isn't, but if you really want to go car free there, there are neighborhoods in which it is possible to do so.
Your qualifier that I object to is "city-wide." I'm not certain that Chicago is as great as you claim. According to the following article, Chicago only has 102.8 miles of rail transit, which pales against your figure of 74.9 miles for Cleveland, when you consider that Chicago is almost 3 times as large in land area.
Cleveland's Healthline bus rapid running the length of Euclid Ave. is an integral part of its transit system, and with walk-on, walk-off, articulated, subway-like cars, it's a much different experience than buses.
From what I see, you have no expertise to evaluate transit capabilities in even major Midwest, let alone U.S. cities. Unlike you, I don't falsely claim knowledge of many cities based on my anecdotal knowledge. Your "experience" in Mexico City is irrelevant to the robust transit options serving much of Cleveland. The rail line significance in Cleveland is magnified by feeder bus lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
I think you're stretching the definition of transit just a little here. This is essentially a van and not much different than someone calling a taxi. Direct route or point-to-point services are available in Columbus and Franklin County, btw.
Point-to-point transit services are much, much cheaper than taxis, and much more reliable. For disabled individuals, the equipment is much more robust, e.g., with chair lifts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
Rail is not extensive in Cuyahoga County whatsoever, come on. It's the most extensive system in Ohio, but that's saying exactly nothing because no other city in the state has city-based rail at this moment. Actual track mileage in Cleveland is just 74.9 as of 2013, the last year available that I could find. Better than nothing, but all that good? Extensive? No way.
I never said that rail service is extensive in Cuyahoga County. Based on what I know of transit services in the U.S., and I've traveled widely and used transit services in many cities, rail transit in the city of Cleveland itself may be relatively extensive compared to most American cities, and, as noted, even Chicago. E.g., the simplicity and direct connection offered by the Red Line between Cleveland Hopkins (where the station is just down an escalator from baggage pick-up) and Tower City for a $2.25 fare is as good as any city that I've seen. For the same fare, Case Western students can go all of the way to University Circle. What's better in the U.S.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
Okay... but what does any of this have to do with the question in this thread? You seem to be trying to just sell Cleveland here, as usual. Between you and Mplsite, I'm not sure who posts more about their favorite non-Columbus cities in the Columbus forum. I've already acknowledged that Cleveland has better transit. The OP is free to move there if they are set on both Ohio and living in the city that has the most options in that regard. The OP's question has been answered, though. Yes, it's possible (or feasible if you prefer) to live car free in Columbus, provided one chooses neighborhoods that are best served by alternatives. I've listed them above.
So what you're arguing is the funding level of a transit system is divorced from its robustness? I'm not trying to sell Cleveland. I'm actually pointing out the financial disparities that explain why Columbus has an inferior transit system.
The OP asked if Columbus has good transit. As some point, without my input, Cleveland became part of the discussion. That's the one system that I know the most about, so I chipped in, and the disparities in financing between Cleveland and Columbus probably answers the OP's question as well as any other factoid in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
No, I am not directly familiar with every Midwestern city's transit options, but I am no stranger to transit, and I know that there is no city in the Midwest outside of Chicago that actually does transit very well. Not Cleveland, not MSP, not Milwaukee or St. Louis or Detroit or... you get the idea. They are all just varying degrees of mediocre, imo. You guys are free to fight over a very distant 2nd place.
What you know is nothing IMO. Show me a research report based on an actual factual analysis of the mass transit system in Chicago versus other Midwest cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
In terms of rail, sure, since it doesn't have rail, but rail might as well be nonexistent in almost every city outside a handful. Its bus system is on par with its peers.
What a ridiculous statement. Rail systems with dedicated rights-of-way offer immense advantages over bus lines. Why doesn't NYC replace its subway system with buses? Having a significant rail system is an immense advantage for transit services, and, despite your pretentious arguments, the Cleveland system is significant.
I also don't know what you mean by a "disjointed feeling" about the layout of Cleveland. Admittedly, its cultural district is separated from its downtown area by several miles, but I'm not certain that's a disadvantage, especially given the robust mass transit connections between the two.
Look, I'm not one to fault the layout of Cleveland but it really is behind in comparison to a place like Indy for example. In Indy, you can park your car in one spot, and walk to numerous attractions and fit more activities into the same time slot in comparison to Cleveland. In Cleveland, you have the Indians and Cavs close to severance hall, but the zoo, museums, browns stadium, and rock and roll hall of fame are not within walking distance of each other. In Indy, we were able to see multiple attractions and all of them were within walking distance. Museums, zoo, NCAA center, city square, convention center, you name it. Granted, the indy 500 is a drive, but in the city you can take the skywalk or walk outside. It's essentially the model of the midwest for how a city should be created in terms of attractions and their proximity to each other.
WRnative;41197253]Your qualifier that I object to is "city-wide." I'm not
certain that Chicago is as great as you claim. According to the following
article, Chicago only has 102.8 miles of rail transit, which pales against your
figure of 74.9 miles for Cleveland, when you consider that Chicago is almost 3
times as large in land area.
Cleveland's Healthline bus rapid running the length of Euclid Ave. is an
integral part of its transit system, and with walk-on, walk-off, articulated,
subway-like cars, it's a much different experience than buses.
From what I see, you have no expertise to evaluate transit capabilities in
even major Midwest, let alone U.S. cities. Unlike you, I don't falsely claim
knowledge of many cities based on my anecdotal knowledge. Your "experience" in
Mexico City is irrelevant to the robust transit options serving much of
Cleveland. The rail line significance in Cleveland is magnified by feeder bus
lines.
It's kind of cute how you think Cleveland is on par with Chicago. One cannot argue against the unreasonable.
Quote:
Point-to-point transit services are much, much cheaper than taxis, and much more
reliable. For disabled individuals, the equipment is much more robust, e.g.,
with chair lifts.
Yes, it's a van. A fancy van, but essentially still a van. Perhaps a shuttle at best.
Quote:
I never said that rail service is extensive in Cuyahoga County. Based on what I
know of transit services in the U.S., and I've traveled widely and used transit
services in many cities, rail transit in the city of Cleveland itself may be
relatively extensive compared to most American cities, and, as noted, even
Chicago. E.g., the simplicity and direct connection offered by the Red Line
between Cleveland Hopkins (where the station is just down an escalator from
baggage pick-up) and Tower City for a $2.25 fare is as good as any city that
I've seen. For the same fare, Case Western students can go all of the way to
University Circle. What's better in the U.S.?
See above. If you really think Cleveland is on par with or better than Chicago, there's nothing more to say on that subject.
And you absolutely did say there was an extensive rail network in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County. Here is the direct quote, in case you forgot: "...as in large swaths of Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), by a very extensive network of rail and bus mass transit routes..."
Quote:
So what you're arguing is the funding level of a transit system is divorced from
its robustness? I'm not trying to sell Cleveland. I'm actually pointing out
the financial disparities that explain why Columbus has an inferior transit
system.
No, I said nothing of the sort. I was questioning what that debate had to do with anything in the thread. I've already said Cleveland has a better system than Columbus, and if it spends more money on it, that's probably at least part of the reason. But specifically, Cleveland vs. Columbus in terms of transit doesn't answer the question of if it's possible to live in Columbus car free. That question's been answered. Now you're just trying to boost Cleveland for some reason. As I said, the OP is free to move there, though I assume that if they were actually interested in moving to Cleveland, this thread would be on the Cleveland forum, don't you think?
Quote:
The OP asked if Columbus has good transit. As some point, without my input,
Cleveland became part of the discussion. That's the one system that I know the
most about, so I chipped in, and the disparities in financing between Cleveland
and Columbus probably answers the OP's question as well as any other factoid in
this thread.
You took the Cleveland mention and ran with it and made it into another "Cleveland's better" post that you do pretty much all the time. There's a few people who can never seem to help themselves on this kind of thing.
Transit was just one inquiry of several.
Quote:
What you know is nothing IMO. Show me a research report based on an actual
factual analysis of the mass transit system in Chicago versus other Midwest
cities.
What would you like to see? Ridership is a good one. Let's look at rail... Chicago's L system had over 239 million riders in 2014. Cleveland's? 6.2 million. Yeah, they're pretty close to the same! If you added up all of Cleveland's systems, including all bus types, it would still be only about 49-50 million a year.
BTW, I know you think my transit experience in Mexico City doesn't count, but its average WEEKLY subway ridership alone is 60% of Cleveland's annual rail total. There were about 1.6 billion subway riders last year, and that's not including BRT, regular bus, trolley or light rail. I'm familiar with what a good system is, and coming from Columbus, know what is not one. Cleveland's is mediocre, as are those of the vast majority of US cities. You don't have to agree, just my opinion.
Quote:
What a ridiculous statement. Rail systems with dedicated rights-of-way offer
immense advantages over bus lines. Why doesn't NYC replace its subway system
with buses? Having a significant rail system is an immense advantage for
transit services, and, despite your pretentious arguments, the Cleveland system
is significant.
I never said bus lines were better. You misread what I was saying. I'm saying that most US city rail systems are so small as to not matter that much to the overall transit picture. Even those cities with rail usually just have a few routes. I personally would love to see a lot more rail, but there is an incredible amount of opposition to it there.
It's kind of cute how you think Cleveland is on par with Chicago. One cannot argue against the unreasonable.
I don't know much about the Chicago mass transit situation apart from downtown. Do you dispute the apparent fact as noted earlier in this thread that adjusted for the sizes of the city, the Chicago rail network appears much smaller than Cleveland's? If Chicago's rail system is much smaller in relationship to the city's size, what makes the Chicago transit system superior to that in Cleveland? Is ridership alone the measure? Isn't the ability to get a seat, which I've always been able to do on the Cleveland rapid lines, a measure of quality? I certainly have stood quite a bit in other cities.
If you can't address these points, clearly you don't know what you're talking about, your assertions are based on your limited anecdotal knowledge, and it's extremely pretentious of you to assert anything on this topic as unreasonable.
Personally, I concede that I don't have the expertise to evaluate the Cleveland transit system versus Chicago, but it's pretty obvious to me that neither do you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
Yes, it's a van. A fancy van, but essentially still a van. Perhaps a shuttle at best.
So all vans have chair lifts, and drivers that will personally assist passengers when help is needed, all for a fraction of the fare of a taxi or Uber or Lyft?
Don't your illogical statements ever shame you???
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
See above. If you really think Cleveland is on par with or better than Chicago, there's nothing more to say on that subject.
As noted above, I don't claim any expertise about the merits of the two systems. You're the one doing all the rankings, yet you can't back up any of your statements with facts or even a cogent explanation. Pathetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
And you absolutely did say there was an extensive rail network in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County. Here is the direct quote, in case you forgot: "...as in large swaths of Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), by a very extensive network of rail and bus mass transit routes..."
Can't you read? Did you miss "and bus mass transit routes?" While the rail network largely serves Cleveland and Shaker Heights, extensive bus routes serve much of the rest of the county. Many of these bus routes have weekend service. And there are two, very long bus rapid networks. One of these long bus rapid lines, the Cleveland State Univ. Line, serves the western suburbs with dedicated bus lines and synchronized traffic lights in lieu of a rail line.
Here's the exact quote from post 50:
<<Or car-free living can be made possible, as in large swaths of Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), by a very extensive network of rail and bus mass transit routes, or by a combination of both fixed routes and point-to-point service. >>
I stand by that statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
No, I said nothing of the sort. I was questioning what that debate had to do with anything in the thread. I've already said Cleveland has a better system than Columbus, and if it spends more money on it, that's probably at least part of the reason. But specifically, Cleveland vs. Columbus in terms of transit doesn't answer the question of if it's possible to live in Columbus car free. That question's been answered. Now you're just trying to boost Cleveland for some reason. As I said, the OP is free to move there, though I assume that if they were actually interested in moving to Cleveland, this thread would be on the Cleveland forum, don't you think?
The original question by the OP was if Columbus has "good public transit." It had nothing to do with whether you could live in Columbus without a car. My point is that the Columbus mass transit system has inadequate funding to reach a rating of "good." Now do you get it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
You took the Cleveland mention and ran with it and made it into another "Cleveland's better" post that you do pretty much all the time. There's a few people who can never seem to help themselves on this kind of thing.
As always, you are the one who blows any attempt to put Columbus into perspective with other cities into a major controversy. Posters were attempting to ascertain what is "good public transit." You were the one who denigrated Cleveland's and Minneapolis' mass transit systems, in an apparent attempt to make the admittedly (by you) inferior Columbus system into something less inferior than it probably is in actuality.
I didn't post in this thread until post 45, and then only in order to correct some inaccuracies posted about the Cleveland transit system. Believe me, I wasn't interested in dealing with you one more time, as I find the experience often unpleasant and a general waste of time, but obviously I don't agree with many of your statements and assessments in this thread. So here we are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
What would you like to see? Ridership is a good one. Let's look at rail... Chicago's L system had over 239 million riders in 2014. Cleveland's? 6.2 million. Yeah, they're pretty close to the same! If you added up all of Cleveland's systems, including all bus types, it would still be only about 49-50 million a year.
To set the record straight, Cleveland RTA rail lines had 8.9 million riders in 2014. See p. 24-25 here. Note also that the Healthline bus rapid had 5 million riders.
I'm certain that Chicago's L line serves much more population dense corridors than Cleveland's rail lines.
Cleveland's RTA serves all of Cuyahoga County, a largely suburban area with limited demand for mass transit.
The population of Chicago is 7 times that of Cleveland. It's population density is over twice as great. Cost of car ownership is much higher. So I'm not certain that ridership statistics are the most relevant gauge as to the quality of the system. Mass transit ridership statistics should always favor more heavily and densely populated areas.
What may matter most is the availability of mass transit services for those who use them, and the cost and quality of those services, such as the ability to get a seat. Cleveland's high ratio of rail mileage compared to Chicago makes me wonder how such an analysis would play out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
Cleveland's is mediocre, as are those of the vast majority of US cities. You don't have to agree, just my opinion.
As I'm familiar with Cleveland's rail and the Healthline bus rapid, and the extensive downtown free trolley network, I find it ridiculous that anyone would claim that Cleveland has a mediocre transit system. Mediocre means "not very good." In what sense is the Cleveland system "not very good?"
If the Cleveland system is mediocre, then how do you characterize the Columbus system, which you've admitted is inferior to the Cleveland system? Pathetic?
So finally, perhaps the OP's question is answered....
BTW, what the average income and car ownership rate in Mexico City???
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
I never said bus lines were better. You misread what I was saying. I'm saying that most US city rail systems are so small as to not matter that much to the overall transit picture. Even those cities with rail usually just have a few routes. I personally would love to see a lot more rail, but there is an incredible amount of opposition to it there.
Yet, in relationship to the footprint of the city, Cleveland apparently has more rail mileage than Chicago.
Here was your statement: <<In terms of rail, sure, since [Columbus] doesn't have rail, but rail might as well be nonexistent in almost every city outside a handful.>>
I'm certain that Cleveland's transit system would be much poorer without its rail lines, so I continue to view that statement as nothing more than an attempt to equivocate about the inadequacies of the Columbus transit system. I suspect in many other U.S. cities the rail lines greatly improve the quality of the mass transit experience, and not just in the largest of cities.
I've greatly enjoyed the LA rail transit system, even though it's relatively limited given the size of the city with less than 100 miles.
I've never ridden on the The T in Pittsburgh, but those rail lines seem to serve a very important function in that river- and mountain-challenged city, and they are free downtown.
You apparently consider Cleveland's rail transit lines as "nonexistent" even though they total 74 miles, by your count.
Last edited by WRnative; 09-14-2015 at 05:42 PM..
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.
