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.
*C-D rule* you don't post polls like this and add NY to the poll, as it makes the others moot. Considering your asking this question as "other than NY" I'll take DC present and future.
See, this is kind of illuminating for me, as I had no idea. So it makes NYC all the more attractive to me if it's public transportation is that vastly superior to everywhere else.
See, this is kind of illuminating for me, as I had no idea. So it makes NYC all the more attractive to me if it's public transportation is that vastly superior to everywhere else.
It has its faults, but it is far away the most extensive and convenient of all the US rail transit systems. DC is a close second and is much nicer/prettier.
See people, not everyone knows these things. It was an honest question after all.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitanRam
See, this is kind of illuminating for me, as I had no idea. So it makes NYC all the more attractive to me if it's public transportation is that vastly superior to everywhere else.
Yes it's a pretty wide gap, and even the next few cities in line like DC, SF, Chicago, Boston combined I believe still don't add up to NY's levels.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,175,298 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitanRam
Sorry, my bad; didn't even know it existed. But you know, you could have just not opened the thread....
And miss the chance to rib a rookie? Lol.
All ***holishness aside, welcome to CD! But my answer is pretty valid. I guess you could argue D.C. over Chicago (I don't but I can see the claim), but those cities I mentioned are pretty much it, with LAs bus system being the only dog it really has in this fight. Every other cities public transportation is mainly only good for a handful of white collar workers and tourists--not practical for the majority.
All ***holishness aside, welcome to CD! But my answer is pretty valid. I guess you could argue D.C. over Chicago (I don't but I can see the claim), but those cities I mentioned are pretty much it, with LAs bus system being the only dog it really has in this fight. Every other cities public transportation is mainly only good for a handful of white collar workers and tourists--not practical for the majority.
You need to add Atlanta to that list...its heavy rail system is not on the level of DC/SF/Boston/Philly/Chicago but it's a good bit above "only good for a handful of white collar workers and tourists". It's pretty heavily used and just announced an $8 billion dollar expansion, not to mention the Beltline and streetcar. You may not agree, but it is definitely a viable system far exceeding the vast majority of major American cities and too large/extensive to overlook.
And 1 vote for Seattle...LOL! It's ludicrous to vote for anything other than NYC with the way the poll is presented.
Last edited by JoeTarheel; 07-27-2015 at 10:03 PM..
New York is obviously the best, but there are several in the second and third tier that are pretty good also. DC is a close second in my book...then Chicago, SF, Boston, Philly, Atlanta, Portland, LA, and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTarheel
You need to add Atlanta to that list...its heavy rail system is not on the level of DC/SF/Boston/Philly/Chicago but it's a good bit above "only good for a handful of white collar workers and tourists". It's pretty heavily used and just announced an $8 billion dollar expansion, not to mention the Beltline and streetcar. You may not agree, but it is definitely a viable system far exceeding the vast majority of major American cities and too large/extensive to overlook.
And 1 vote for Seattle...LOL! It's ludicrous to vote for anything other than NYC with the way the poll is presented.
MARTA? I mean, impressive that Atlanta has heavy rail, but come on...the city is definitely not on the same transit league. I'd say proper growth management/regional planning, land use, and transit are 3 of Atlanta's top issues right now - it definitely should not rest on any laurels it thinks it has with its present day system (and low density to feed it).
410.5K transit riders in Atlanta between MARTA rail and bus for a metro of 5.6 million people (I realize there is CCT, Gwinnett, etc that add a negligible amount to the total ridership)...~7% of population.
I'll give it that that's solid performance relative to Houston, Dallas, Detroit, and Phoenix, and frankly most US cities. On a per capita, maybe someone can do the math but probably equivalent to LA. Definitely a huge drop down from the other large metros.
I think there are some smaller cities that may have slightly lower ridership but that punch well above their weight to put them ahead of Atlanta (i.e. smaller cities with systems that are oversized from an American standard). Typically cities out west:
Seattle, not including Tacoma or other suburban agencies, has much higher ridership for much lower population: 585.7K daily riders for 3.6 million people (~16% of population). Seattle is also aggressively expanding its rail transit, and quite frankly hits that high number from its impressive bus system alone since it doesn't yet have extensive rail, but rest assured when it does, it will post impressive transit numbers.
Denver has 347.9K daily riders and only 2.8 million people (~12% of population). It just opened up Union Station combining all modes, and it is about to open a new line out to the airport, among others. So look for this number to shoot up
Portland has 328.7K riders for 2.3 million people (~14% of population)
San Diego has 312.2K riders for 3.3 million people (~10% of population)
Salt Lake City has 164.5K riders for only 1.2 million people (~14% of population)
I think transit is part of a bigger picture. Less useful in less dense environments. You can build a great system in a bubble, but it really needs to be tied to land use and regional/city planning and growth management in order to be actually useful and utilized.
I'll take an efficient bus system with covered stations and frequent headways (as well as night owl service and express routes) with fast and easy transfers over some of the light rail and heavy rail systems in this country.
I think I'd give Chicago the nod on transit over DC, then Boston, then Philly, then SF (and I have used each of these cities' systems enough to form my opinion). It's almost at the point where no other systems in this country even matter. Even these cities' transit is pretty dismal relative to what you get in similarly sized cities around Europe, Asia, or Latin America. New York's is pretty dismal compared to other cities more or less in its league - New York's system kinda sucks compared to Paris', London's, Tokyo's, or frankly even Madrid's.
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.
But my answer is pretty valid. I guess you could argue D.C. over Chicago (I don't but I can see the claim), but those cities I mentioned are pretty much it, with LAs bus system being the only dog it really has in this fight. Every other cities public transportation is mainly only good for a handful of white collar workers and tourists--not practical for the majority.
