U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-13-2014, 08:28 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,611 posts, read 24,787,463 times
Reputation: 11185

Advertisements

Maybe the 1 million threshold for this thread is too low. There are a lot of metros with one million or more people with only local bus service.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-13-2014, 08:33 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,740 posts, read 39,610,543 times
Reputation: 14671
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Maybe the 1 million threshold for this thread is too low. There are a lot of metros with one million or more people with only local bus service.
True, but local bus service can vary in quality, both by frequency and coverage. And in many of the cities with rail, the rail coverage is low so many transit riders would still be on the bus. Look here:

What metro over 1 million has the worst public trasit system?

It would be idiotic to claim Honolulu has equal transit service to Tulsa.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2014, 09:25 AM
 
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
4,365 posts, read 6,243,492 times
Reputation: 5804
Quote:
Originally Posted by apilgrimsoul View Post
uh try Seattle and portland
How do you figure that?

Seattle doesn't come close to San Francisco, and Portland isn't that much better. Both Seattle and Portland have capable transit, but they're not better than San Francisco's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2014, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Miami-Jax
5,787 posts, read 6,335,815 times
Reputation: 3118
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913 View Post
Seattle does not have a better system than San Francisco, not even close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias View Post
How do you figure that?

Seattle doesn't come close to San Francisco, and Portland isn't that much better. Both Seattle and Portland have capable transit, but they're not better than San Francisco's.
It really depends. In absolute terms there obviously is no comparison whatsoever. The Bay Area's transit system is far more developed and comprehensive than any other West Coast city. But in terms of adequacy (how well it serves its population), there may be some debate. Iirc, studies show Bay Area satisfaction in their transit options is very low. I don't recall Seattle and Portland being in the same boat. Of course expectations play a factor as well...so SF residents who want service to be as efficient as it is in NYC or even Hong Kong are disappointed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2014, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,385 posts, read 9,945,414 times
Reputation: 5230
Quote:
Originally Posted by apilgrimsoul View Post
uh try Seattle and portland
Seattle and Portland are good transit cities but neither of those cities are on the same level as San Francisco. Right now I would say San Francisco is "King of the West" when it comes to mass transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2014, 12:51 AM
 
1,953 posts, read 2,567,139 times
Reputation: 1562
Can we say this with emphasis one time:

Any city with rail transit CANNOT be worse than a city with none... So anybody arguing that ANY CITY with ANY rail transit as the worst, is crazy. Because you are saying places like Detroit, San Antonio, Indianapolis and Columbus are BETTER, transit-wise, than San Francisco, Atlanta, Seattle... (just to name a few of the loopy entries I've seen).... Detroit, San Antonio, KC, Milwaukee, Indianapolis and Columbus must necessarily be the WORST and CANNOT BE BETTER THAN ANYBODY...

... Can we at least agree on that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2014, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Miami-Jax
5,787 posts, read 6,335,815 times
Reputation: 3118
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProf View Post
Can we say this with emphasis one time:

Any city with rail transit CANNOT be worse than a city with none... So anybody arguing that ANY CITY with ANY rail transit as the worst, is crazy. Because you are saying places like Detroit, San Antonio, Indianapolis and Columbus are BETTER, transit-wise, than San Francisco, Atlanta, Seattle... (just to name a few of the loopy entries I've seen).... Detroit, San Antonio, KC, Milwaukee, Indianapolis and Columbus must necessarily be the WORST and CANNOT BE BETTER THAN ANYBODY...

... Can we at least agree on that?
Check with Bogota, Columbia and Guangzhou, China first.
And Detroit has the metromover...which is often classified as "rail." (It's just a downtown people mover but just pointing out your flaw with generalizations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2014, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Englewood, Near Eastside Indy
8,259 posts, read 13,526,401 times
Reputation: 5812
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProf View Post
Can we say this with emphasis one time:

Any city with rail transit CANNOT be worse than a city with none... So anybody arguing that ANY CITY with ANY rail transit as the worst, is crazy. Because you are saying places like Detroit, San Antonio, Indianapolis and Columbus are BETTER, transit-wise, than San Francisco, Atlanta, Seattle... (just to name a few of the loopy entries I've seen).... Detroit, San Antonio, KC, Milwaukee, Indianapolis and Columbus must necessarily be the WORST and CANNOT BE BETTER THAN ANYBODY...

... Can we at least agree on that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by projectmaximus View Post
Check with Bogota, Columbia and Guangzhou, China first.
And Detroit has the metromover...which is often classified as "rail." (It's just a downtown people mover but just pointing out your flaw with generalizations.
Indianapolis also has a "people mover" that travels between IUPUI and Methodist Hospital.

Saying a city with rail transit is by default better is lazy. Very, very lazy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2014, 10:13 AM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,385 posts, read 9,945,414 times
Reputation: 5230
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProf View Post
Can we say this with emphasis one time:

Any city with rail transit CANNOT be worse than a city with none... So anybody arguing that ANY CITY with ANY rail transit as the worst, is crazy. Because you are saying places like Detroit, San Antonio, Indianapolis and Columbus are BETTER, transit-wise, than San Francisco, Atlanta, Seattle... (just to name a few of the loopy entries I've seen).... Detroit, San Antonio, KC, Milwaukee, Indianapolis and Columbus must necessarily be the WORST and CANNOT BE BETTER THAN ANYBODY...

... Can we at least agree on that?
No, I don't agree with everything you've said. In my opinion it looks worst for a metro area of 5-6 million to have only 1 rail line vs. a metro area of 1-2 million with no rail lines. The bigger the city/MSA, the better the transit system should be when it comes to expectations for what a city has to offer in mass transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2014, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,385 posts, read 9,945,414 times
Reputation: 5230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic Toast View Post
Indianapolis also has a "people mover" that travels between IUPUI and Methodist Hospital.

Saying a city with rail transit is by default better is lazy. Very, very lazy.
I agree with that while regular buses aren't really much to brag about, Bus-Rapid Transit on the other hand can be a nice alternative to rail service when used efficiently but many US cities don't use B-R-T to it's full potential like you see in other countries around the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top