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.
[quote=munchitup;27814968]Google has a great transit view for Boston (excludes Silver Line and the commuter rail): boston, ma - Google Maps
Quote:
For some reason they are one of the only ones that have their lines color coded on Google.
London, Paris (no clue if it's color coded correctly), San Francisco (just BART) have their lines color coded.
I suspect part of the advantage of Boston's system is just from geography. The city is rather core-centric. The buses aren't the best, but the distances traversed aren't that big.
Google has a great transit view for Boston (excludes Silver Line and the commuter rail): boston, ma - Google Maps
London, Paris (no clue if it's color coded correctly), San Francisco (just BART) have their lines color coded.
I suspect part of the advantage of Boston's system is just from geography. The city is rather core-centric. The buses aren't the best, but the distances traversed aren't that big.
That's the thing, Boston's buses weren't bad. Some of the problems with Boston's were technology related, and that may have been updated since I left. For instance in LA there is a program called Nextrip and it is a real-time updater for all of the buses (accurate within I'd say 2-3 minutes) - that didn't exist in Boston. Also, on the inside of many / most LA buses is a real-time Google map so you know where the heck you are when you are about to get off. It seems like the buses here move more quickly through traffic, partially because they have signal prioritization and also just because the streets are wider.
The idea of the city being core-centric and distances not that big in Boston speaks to what's termed access. One's goal using transit is to reach some kind of destination, and it's better if you can do that with a short ride rather than a long one. Access is complicated to measure but I think walkscore is something of a proxy for it. So citywide Boston has a walkscore of 79, Seattle has a walkscore of 74, Los Angeles has a score of 66, and San Diego trails at 56.
LA is 2nd for sure. I have been investigating the bus system after initial skepticism there and it is actually quite functional. I think LA is very close to being on par with SF in terms of public transit options and could pass it with the 30/10 measure. I'm sure an LA poster could verify or discount this idea though.
LA is 2nd for sure. I have been investigating the bus system after initial skepticism there and it is actually quite functional. I think LA is very close to being on par with SF in terms of public transit options and could pass it with the 30/10 measure. I'm sure an LA poster could verify or discount this idea though.
When 30/10 is completed, if SF has not done anything to upgrade their system I would say LA would definitely pass it.
This organization Bike League gives out rankings / awards for bike-friendly cities.
Seattle got Gold. Boston got Silver. Long Beach got Silver. Los Angeles got Bronze. Santa Monica got Bronze. San Diego nada.
I would suspect all of these cities will be climbing the ranks in the next few years.
Looking at some of those cities I'm not sure the medals pan out to real world application.
The good thing about biking LA would be... a) it's on a grid, b) it's mostly flat c) long direct trails such as around SM/Venice d) comfortable weather with little to no elements like rain/snow. f) you can bike on sidewalks there.
In reality...
Biking in SF was kind of nightmarish unless you are hardcore b/c of the grueling hills then plunges down them towards traffic, only stayed around the Embarcadero while out there for leisure. So while Seattle might be bike friendly in terms of lanes and paths, actually doing it could be unpleasant. I put up the bike for the winter in Chicago though I know some of the more hardcore people still bike to work in January, screw that...
Looking at some of those cities I'm not sure the medals pan out to real world application.
The good thing about biking LA would be... a) it's on a grid, b) it's mostly flat c) long direct trails such as around SM/Venice d) comfortable weather with little to no elements like rain/snow. f) you can bike on sidewalks there.
In reality...
Biking in SF was kind of nightmarish unless you are hardcore b/c of the grueling hills then plunges down them towards traffic, only stayed around the Embarcadero while out there for leisure. So while Seattle might be bike friendly in terms of lanes and paths, actually doing it could be unpleasant. I put up the bike for the winter in Chicago though I know some of the more hardcore people still bike to work in January, screw that...
Yeah I had friends that biked to work in Boston during the winter. Crazy.
My friend bikes everywhere here in LA and while he finds it to be the most efficient way to get around the city, he says it can be pretty terrifying at times - especially because he has to commute into Beverly Hills, not exactly known for their courteous and intelligent driving habits.
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.
