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.
Yeah, SF's transit seems to get more glow than it merits IRL, everyday for years. Try going from the Mission to Sunset Beach, or even just the Aves. But settle in for the long haul. It's painfully slow. Nevertheless, SF proper wins just barely. The whole SF Bay Area however? I'd rank it second to L.A. I lived in the South Bay car-less and car-light for years too.
I agree about SF, the buses and light rail are pretty slow. It has good coverage but isn't that fast. I think the Bay Area actually does better on a regional level than SF does on a city level compared to other metro's on the west coast, mainly because of BART and Caltrain. I don't see how LA is better on a regional level at all, Metrolink is fairly infrequent and not heavily used.
Is this supposed to be best public transportation or best rail system? Much of Portland, and really all these spots, the rail covers only some sections of the city, leaving the majority of the city having to rely on buses for public transit. Seattle probably has better transit than Portland even with far less rail.
Rail covers an awful lot of the city. Having just looked at some other cities' transit maps ... perhaps it's been a while since you looked at Portland's. Of course, no city that is only in the last few decades built up a rail system is going to have free and easy coverage from everywhere in town.
The look of the "coverage" of all of them seems fairly similar. I know that Seattle's bus system has higher ridership, and that usually makes it rate higher ... but I don't know that "coverage" is any better.
Rail covers an awful lot of the city. Having just looked at some other cities' transit maps ... perhaps it's been a while since you looked at Portland's. Of course, no city that is only in the last few decades built up a rail system is going to have free and easy coverage from everywhere in town.
The look of the "coverage" of all of them seems fairly similar. I know that Seattle's bus system has higher ridership, and that usually makes it rate higher ... but I don't know that "coverage" is any better.
They all look similar because the map for Seattle has buses and rail lines that are "planned" or under construction. Seattle currently has very little rail in comparison to some of the other cities. Phoenix and SLC's light rail system's currently carries more people than Seattle's.
You guys need to differentiate between rail and light rail, mass transit and rapid transit. Portland does not even have rail.
SF has rail, BART, it's a hybrid commuter rail but has far more stops in the suburbs to the only 7-8 linear stops in the city and only 4 stops in NE quadrant. The other 2 are in the mission respectively, then another 2 way out in Glen/Balboa Park. It's not that useful pr really useful at all in the city, great if you are coming from burbs to DT though. either way, portland does not have something like this that I'm aware of.
Light rail are basically street cars and run on surface streets, however I know muni does go underground at points.
You can't compare BART to MAX... come on.
this is sf's equivalent map.
SF Muni
A spur to the airport would kind of be out of the way of the current routing and probably would add too much time getting to and from downtown from points north.
I understand not liking local buses but it only takes 10-15 minutes from the Old Town Trolley Station to get to either Mission Beach or Pacific Beach by bus. I highly doubt a trolley extension say to Crystal Pier in Pacific Beach would be any quicker than the bus actually since the bus takes the freeway straight to Old Town. A one seat bus ride from Downtown to the sand in Pacific Beach would take about 30 minutes, which is maybe 10-15 min longer than driving.
I dunno, when I took the bus from the Old Town stop to Ocean Beach after coming from downtown it seemed more like 50 minutes total... Never took the bus to Pacific Beach, so maybe that's more direct route from downtown.
It's okay for transit, I'm just saying it didn't strike me as particularly convenient city to be just relying on public transit. Sure, the bus connection from the airport isn't that bad, it just struck me as funny that the street car runs that close to the airport but doesn't actually connect to the airport. I'm just speaking from the perspective of an outsider, so I'm only concerned with getting from the airport to where I'm staying and then on to the beach or somewhere...
You guys need to differentiate between rail and light rail, mass transit and rapid transit. Portland does not even have rail.
SF has rail, BART, it's a hybrid commuter rail but has far more stops in the suburbs to the only 7-8 linear stops in the city and only 4 stops in NE quadrant. The other 2 are in the mission respectively, then another 2 way out in Glen/Balboa Park. It's not that useful pr really useful at all in the city, great if you are coming from burbs to DT though. either way, portland does not have something like this that I'm aware of.
Light rail are basically street cars and run on surface streets, however I know muni does go underground at points.
You can't compare BART to MAX... come on.
this is sf's equivalent map.
I agree about SF, the buses and light rail are pretty slow. It has good coverage but isn't that fast. I think the Bay Area actually does better on a regional level than SF does on a city level compared to other metro's on the west coast, mainly because of BART and Caltrain. I don't see how LA is better on a regional level at all, Metrolink is fairly infrequent and not heavily used.
Don't forget the Red, Blue and Gold lines which move people from Long Beach, the Valley and Pasadena, an area as large or larger than BART coverage. L.A. buses are better and the entire fleet is alternative fuel, low emission. One poster who did a short visit actually tried to say SF buses were "smoother" than in L.A. Not much credibility there.
Could be a tie considering different variables, but I'm giving it to L.A. over SF Bay Area out of my personal experience. I mean, without apologies or explanation I often waited 40+ minutes for an N Train...at a downtown station!
Don't forget the Red, Blue and Gold lines which move people from Long Beach, the Valley and Pasadena, an area as large or larger than BART coverage. L.A. buses are better and the entire fleet is alternative fuel, low emission. One poster who did a short visit actually tried to say SF buses were "smoother" than in L.A. Not much credibility there.
Could be a tie considering different variables, but I'm giving it to L.A. over SF Bay Area out of my personal experience. I mean, without apologies or explanation I often waited 40+ minutes for an N Train...at a downtown station!
I was comparing metro vs metro, which in that case the LA area has a lot of areas with very little rail service compared to the Bay Area.
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.
