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.
I definitely wouldn't rank Toronto's subway above DC's or Chicago's at all. I'm not as familiar with Montreal, but just from looking at a map I'm not sure I would either.
Doesn't matter the thread is about subways. Though your obsession with going off on tangents is duly noted. As far as light rails go, most are om the streets, even in SF. And as LA subway continues to expand, it will still have more riders per mile than Bart.
And the posts I was responding to were referring to the entire metro rail system including its light rail lines. If you're going to respond try and follow the thread and understand context.
Does that last part make sense to you? Did you step through the reasoning for why that might be? It's essentially saying that if BART cut off half its length and reduced service, it would finally be able to compete with LA. That sounds straight up stupid to me.
Exactly just how bad has our education system become? Is there at least a bottom?
That's not what I was saying at all, is that honestly what you deduced from that? Speaking of sounding "straight up stupid" and the education system. Do you honestly not understand the difference in the two systems service area and operating environments? I wouldn't think one would need to be a transit professional to but I guess so.
LA's subway also has more riders per mile than D.C.'s metro, clearly this metric denotes a superior heavy rail system...
I live in DC and the Metro is an absolute nightmare. The organization is corrupt (WMATA) and cronyism is rampant. 97% of all employees are the same race. There is no diversity. There is no merit system in place. Management plays favorites and is utterly incompetent. It's a disaster.
My line (Blue Line) was closed for a month(!) just now because the trains were catching on fire. Hot cars are everywhere, trains are packed and the Board's solution is always to hike fares, cut frequency and limit hours. Now the metro closes at midnight instead of 3am. Of course, their paychecks haven't been impacted.
The MD, VA and DC governments are constantly bickering over what level to fund WMATA at and Congress and the DOT is always breathing down everyone's back. The entire system is truly a grotesque Kafkaesque ****show.
AND YET, I would argue it's still the best in country outside NY. And that's incredible shameful in my opinion. I lived in Madrid for 5 months, paid $35 a month for unlimited access to the metro as a student. There were stations 0.5 miles from each other by design and the system was a breeze. Impeccable overall. Clean, modern stations with great air flow. And Spain is 50% poorer than the U.S. on a per capita GDP basis. And they still blow us away!
This whole thread to me reads like that old phrase: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." DC is the one-eyed king in our valley of 3rd world infrastructure. But I guess we've become accustomed to having ****ty infrastructure. Instead of threads on why our infrastructure is so bad, we're now arguing over whose 4 incher is better than another's 3 incher. And our "trillion dollar infrastructure" President has been revealed to be a fraud and won't be making any meaningful investments in urban transit. I guess we need to spend it all on more 1 one gravel roads from Hickeysville to Nowheresville in podunk GOP areas. That's the U.S. now it seems. For thyne is the Kingdom.
This thread isn't about Canada. Stop trying to derail threads because you think Toronto isn't getting enough attention. Read the title: "Best U.S. Subway system that's NOT in New York"
the bolded is nonsense. somerville/cambridge/malden are among the top 20 densest cities in the country ? and a large amount of t stations are not inside the city limits of Boston.
Sort of. There is this really interesting graph I have of what land use residents live in in 6 different MSAs:
As you can see, about 57% of Boston's MSA population lives in the very lowest density areas (think winding cul de sacs, massive lots, no sidewalks, forested), whereas that is the case for only 27% of New York's population and 16% of LA's population. While Boston does have about 5% of its population living in very dense areas, and about 20% of its population living in "streetcar suburbs," Boston's MSA land use, as it currently stands, will never foster a fully transit-oriented lifestyle to the same degree that New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco can.
They just passed a $54 billion dollar measure to build a second subway tunnel through downtown and some inner neighborhoods (along with several other expansions) - so clearly they're willing to spend the money. I do wish they went with heavy rail, though, when the system was first conceived - it feels like they might as well have since their cost of building is more in line with typical heavy rail costs.
They did initially go with HRT back in the early 70's, but the voters rejected that plan. That pot of Federal money went to Atlanta.
That's not what I was saying at all, is that honestly what you deduced from that? Speaking of sounding "straight up stupid" and the education system. Do you honestly not understand the difference in the two systems service area and operating environments? I wouldn't think one would need to be a transit professional to but I guess so.
LA's subway also has more riders per mile than D.C.'s metro, clearly this metric denotes a superior heavy rail system...
Huh, you must've got your wires crossed. I was responding to Western Urbanite, not you.
Sort of. There is this really interesting graph I have of what land use residents live in in 6 different MSAs:
As you can see, about 57% of Boston's MSA population lives in the very lowest density areas (think winding cul de sacs, massive lots, no sidewalks, forested), whereas that is the case for only 27% of New York's population and 16% of LA's population. While Boston does have about 5% of its population living in very dense areas, and about 20% of its population living in "streetcar suburbs," Boston's MSA land use, as it currently stands, will never foster a fully transit-oriented lifestyle to the same degree that New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco can.
That graph does look interesting, but it's missing a legend and some other information. Do you have the full version?
That graph does look interesting, but it's missing a legend and some other information. Do you have the full version?
I second that. I'd love to see those kind of statistics for every "urban" city.
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.
