Quote:
Originally Posted by PLANSIT
Would it be safe to say that larger systems are naturally less efficient (ridership/mile)?
|
Yes and no. That is one possible result, particularly for long extensions into suburbia, but it's not universal. Additional lines also increase the number of places accessible by transit, contributing to an overall network effect that raises ridership everywhere. It's not so much a matter of length as it is a matter of where you put your length (queue the dirty jokes).
The
most efficient systems are the ones with a dense web of many short lines, covering dense areas. SF's Muni Metro (4370 riders/mile) is the clearest US example. LA's system is a little weird because LA is so gigantic, but it also works as example, with over 80 miles of light rail and a solid ridership/mile of 2339.
The
least efficient systems are short, single lines with few destinations along them, and no network effect. The tiny downtown streetcars in Tampa (222 riders/mile) and Little Rock (118 riders/mile) are the most illustrative examples. They're so unused that they have nowhere to go but up, so even a suburban extension would probably help them.
The commuter systems are in the middle, but also vary based on where extensions go. Denver's system would get more efficient with 10 miles of new line on Broadway and Colfax, but less efficient with 10 miles of new line going south from Littleton.
The ridership/mile calculation also varies based on where your starter line goes. Houston made a great decision and put its first line on what's probably the best segment of its best corridor. So their efficiency may well drop over time. But Seattle's 2nd line was much more efficient than its first, so when they opened their 2nd line, their efficiency shot up. It just all depends.