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.
1. Chicago
2. Washington
3. Boston
4. San Francisco
5. Philadelphia
6. Atlanta
7. Los Angeles
This is really only a measure of ridership for rapid transit. Now if we were to include other aspects such as future expansions and funding, then the list would probably be much different.
1. Chicago
2. Washington
3. Boston
4. San Francisco
5. Philadelphia
6. Atlanta
7. Los Angeles
This is really only a measure of ridership for rapid transit. Now if we were to include other aspects such as future expansions and funding, then the list would probably be much different.
When it comes to rail when you add Metra to CTA it easily puts Chicago over the top as far as ridership volume. You then add the buses. So over all it would be Chicago.
What? No... It is equally busy. On what planet does your logic work on? If DC added 5 million more people and all of them drove a Mercedes Benz their transit system would remain at the same level of business.
Honestly I don't give a crap which system is most busy, busy is sometimes a bad thing, having to wait for a 2nd or 3rd train to come because the first two are full at rush hour isn't fun. But seriously, you gotta get a grip on your critical thinking skills.
Perhaps you should read the entire post before telling someone to get a grip and putting 6 of those funny faces. The point is that no city on Earth adds 100K or 5M people without additional infrastructure. I don't particularly care about which measure of busy public transit system is appropriate, but you need to get a grip on your reading and comprehension skills before getting -happy.
Another way to define "busy" is as the proportion of the population who use public transit.
According to that measure the list is:
New York NY 1.87 mil 54.6%
Washington DC 94,260 37.7%
San Francisco CA 124,738 32.7%
Boston MA 80,141 31.7%
Philadelphia PA 139,247 25.9%
Chicago IL 293,703 25.3%
Baltimore MD 48,252 18.9%
Seattle WA 51,259 17.0%
Oakland CA 27,114 16.5%
Portland OR 34,195 13.3%
I am struggling to figure out how that link in any way can determine busiest transit system.
Well it does show the ridership is highest for New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Fran and DC, in that order. Other than that, I'm not following with the percentages. If you live in a town of 10 single adults and all 10 take the bus to work, does that make them busier than New York?
1. Chicago
2. Washington
3. Boston
4. San Francisco
5. Philadelphia
6. Atlanta
7. Los Angeles
This is really only a measure of ridership for rapid transit. Now if we were to include other aspects such as future expansions and funding, then the list would probably be much different.
This is a good list for rapid transit only (I would assume for LA you are including the LRT). Although I'm not sure Atlanta's system is busier than Los Angeles'. Boston's T is always really busy, particularly the Green Line - but to compare it with LA, the other system I am familiar with, the buses get nowhere near as busy. Including the bus systems is where LA really catches up to the pack (and where Chicago puts itself in the lead).
Here is my list, which includes all forms of PT, including buses.
1.) Chicago
2.) Washington
3.) San Francisco
4.) Philadelphia (interchangeable with 5)
5.) Boston (interchangeable with 4)
6.) Los Angeles
7.) Portland
8.) Seattle
9.) Miami
10.) Cleveland? San Jose? San Diego? Dallas? Houston? No idea.
This is a good list for rapid transit only (I would assume for LA you are including the LRT). Although I'm not sure Atlanta's system is busier than Los Angeles'. Boston's T is always really busy, particularly the Green Line - but to compare it with LA, the other system I am familiar with, the buses get nowhere near as busy. Including the bus systems is where LA really catches up to the pack (and where Chicago puts itself in the lead).
Here is my list, which includes all forms of PT, including buses.
1.) Chicago
2.) Washington
3.) San Francisco
4.) Philadelphia (interchangeable with 5)
5.) Boston (interchangeable with 4)
6.) Los Angeles
7.) Portland
8.) Seattle
9.) Miami
10.) Cleveland? San Jose? San Diego? Dallas? Houston? No idea.
I agree with most of that list except I definitely would put Boston ahead of both Philly and SF with the latter two duking it out for 4 and 5.
If we're talking about the entire transit system, that being light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail, bus and boat, Boston is ahead of both Philly and San Francisco.
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.
