Which city has the busiest transit system ? (Outside of NYC ) (place, Chicago)
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.
This is true. CTA is the second largest transit system in the nation and it should be. I don't think DC will pass Chicago in ridership till after 2030. DC proper is planning for a 75% non-automobile commuter share by 2020 which would pass NYC for #1. The 23 mile Metro Silver Line opens next year and that will really change commuting in northern Virginia. They are putting together a major feeder bus system into the metro rail system for Virginia which will really change the commuter share for the region.
Chicago ridership is growing as well. 2030 is a long ways out, anything can happen. DC is far ahead of Chicago in terms of TOD outside the center of city, Chicago has a ton of potential in this regard on the south side, I really believe Chicago is set for a huge demographic shift (already happening).
I am still skeptical about the success the silver line will have, I don't see people commuting to Reston or Herndon everyday by rail.
Agree about bias against LA, but la clearly doesn't have the busiest transit system outside of NYC. Top 5or6 sure but not busiest. So why should it be mentioned here?
It belongs in the conversation with all these other cities mentioned and it could be argued it does have the second busiest when you go beyond simple numbers like ridership or % of commuters in the metro area using it.
It's passengers per revenue hour for bus, light rail, and heavy rail are as high as any other big transit system out there, higher than some other more urban cities too.
It clear you don't understand the CTA El, saying NYC has this ridership so Chicago should have this number doesn't work.
Red, brown, and Blue trains are jammed packed. The under performing lines all run through poor neighborhoods where a trip into the loop during rush isn't a priority.
Remember DC is a huge white collar city where as Chicago has a much larger blue collar presence.
The amount of people that are choice riders is Chicago's problem. People like their cars more in the Chicago region wide than DC. The sustainability goals are different in the two region's.
It belongs in the conversation with all these other cities mentioned and it could be argued it does have the second busiest when you go beyond simple numbers like ridership or % of commuters in the metro area using it.
It's passengers per revenue hour for bus, light rail, and heavy rail are as high as any other big transit system out there, higher than some other more urban cities too.
The problem with this is the commuter share in L.A. Also, the time factor. How long does it take to commute from one end to the other without a car? This is when the bus system becomes a problem and having an extensive rail system becomes essential.
The amount of people that are choice riders is Chicago's problem. People like their cars more in the Chicago region wide than DC. The sustainability goals are different in the two region's.
Agreed. Chicago is a much easier city to get around by car. I'm fine with that and actually prefer that (I hate public transit). What I have a problem with is development that caters to the car, most Chicago developments are extremely urban/dense and cater to pedestrians. I find Chicago to be the best of both worlds in this regard.
The problem with this is the commuter share in L.A. Also, the time factor. How long does it take to commute from one end to the other without a car? This is when the bus system becomes a problem and having an extensive rail system becomes essential.
Those have nothing to do with how crowded / busy it is. Same with the "choice riders" in Chicago vs. DC. Seems completely irrelevant to me.
But yes it is true it takes a long time to take a bus from one end of the metro to another, though there are rail lines extending to just about every corner of the populated county (leaving out North County for obvious reasons). For someone that has mentioned a future extension repeatedly, expansion is even more relevant for Los Angeles as it has the most under construction.
The problem with this is the commuter share in L.A. Also, the time factor. How long does it take to commute from one end to the other without a car? This is when the bus system becomes a problem and having an extensive rail system becomes essential.
That has nothing to do with how busy a system is. People on here keep focusing on overall transit ridership and commuter share but that's not how transportation planners gauge how "busy" or effective a system is at all.
Look at Passengers per Revenue Mile and Revenue Hour if you REALLY want to see how "busy" or effective a transit system is. Isn't this thread about TRANSIT SYSTEMS not metropolitan areas? LA's buses and rail cars aren't empty and are just as full as DC, Chicago, SF, Philly, and Boston.
According to APTA it has more than 1 million but that counts BART (not Caltrain).
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.