U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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 09-17-2016, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Northeast Suburbs of PITTSBURGH
3,718 posts, read 3,571,762 times
Reputation: 2331

Advertisements

New York




Chicago
Washington DC

Boston
Philadelphia
San Francisco

Baltimore
Pittsburgh
Portland
Denver
Los Angeles

Seattle
Cleveland
Salt Lake City

Buffalo
Atlanta
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-17-2016, 12:35 PM
 
163 posts, read 106,334 times
Reputation: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
I think one can argue forever re. Boston, DC, Philly, Chicago and SF transit quality. They're all pretty close, and all have their pluses and minuses.

All are very good for U.S. standards, and sorta weak for global standards. All are good enough for a few exceptional types (singles, college students, transient people) to go car-free, but not really good enough for "regular people" (stable middle class families with kids) to go car-free.
Those are some really high standards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2016, 12:59 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,246,648 times
Reputation: 9846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inphosphere View Post
Those are some really high standards.
The U.S. has the worst public transit in the developed world. I don't think I have high standards when I want our biggest cities (excepting NYC) to at least equal barely first world places like Budapest or Athens or Lisbon or Prague when it comes to transit quality. We basically suck, for the most part (again excepting NYC).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2016, 01:03 PM
 
163 posts, read 106,334 times
Reputation: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
The U.S. has the worst public transit in the developed world. I don't think I have high standards when I want our biggest cities (excepting NYC) to at least equal barely first world places like Budapest or Athens or Lisbon or Prague when it comes to transit quality. We basically suck, for the most part (again excepting NYC).
Oh, no, I agree with you, just taking note of how far behind even the most urban US cities are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2016, 05:29 PM
 
Location: Miami-Jax
6,312 posts, read 6,965,178 times
Reputation: 3502
As we see thread after thread, it's hard to compare this objectively. I mean we all have our experiences but these can vary day-to-day even on the same routes. The closest I could come to comparing them objectively is to live in each city for 3 months each within a 2 year timespan. But even then my experience would be colored by my routine, my neighborhood, and also possibly finances and so forth.
Alright that said, the best I can do is share my experiences. Lived in DC and Chicago so extensive use of transit in those, and visited NYC dozens of times with at least a couple hundred rides on the Subway.

For me it's clearly
NYC, Chicago and DC.

As for the others that I have used sparingly on occasional visits, I would rank them based on my experience:
Boston, Philly, SF.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke View Post
London, hands down. Oh wait, you want in the USA. That would be San Francisco.


Not suggesting that it's not London, but hands down?! For my money the best are Hong Kong or Singapore for usability, those two perhaps outshined by Tokyo or Seoul for sheer monstrous size.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2016, 07:14 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,246,648 times
Reputation: 9846
I think, globally, Tokyo has to be the "winner". They have a monstrous system, and almost no one drives. It's the only truly transit-dominated first world megacity.

HK and Singapore have very modern, efficient, user-friendly systems, but are pretty tiny networks. I wouldn't put them anywhere close to the top globally. And if you only care about quality, not size, I would go with Switzerland, not HK or Singapore. The Swiss have great rail service to every corner of their nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2016, 10:02 PM
 
Location: Miami-Jax
6,312 posts, read 6,965,178 times
Reputation: 3502
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
I think, globally, Tokyo has to be the "winner". They have a monstrous system, and almost no one drives. It's the only truly transit-dominated first world megacity.

HK and Singapore have very modern, efficient, user-friendly systems, but are pretty tiny networks. I wouldn't put them anywhere close to the top globally. And if you only care about quality, not size, I would go with Switzerland, not HK or Singapore. The Swiss have great rail service to every corner of their nation.
Probably shouldn't get into an argument about something outside the thread topic, but I guess this thread is kinda losing its purpose anyway...

I completely disagree with the bold. Hong Kong and Singapore both fit that label, and arguably a few other cities.

And not sure why you're comparing Switzerland to tiny nation states (really makes it a tough comparison for you to win) but the reason I rank HK so high in usability is because it's so ridiculously clean, the stations are very well-planned in design (if you need to transfer, there is a better than 50/50 chance that your transfer is waiting across the platform because it's setup based on predominant population movement regardless of direction) there's almost no such thing as waiting for the train (their various rail lines' headways are measured in seconds)...I dunno I could go on and on. It also seems like they have transit employees every 50 feet to keep things functioning smoothly during peak hours, to keep things clean, and to help if there is a problem. That's just the metro too...buses and trams are extremely efficient as well. Also the octopus card...made things so much more seamless years before anything even close appeared in the western world.

As for Singapore, they were an urban planners fantasy. They built out their transit system before the city was fully developed, so there were literally empty, unused stations just waiting for the time when they would be needed. I'd love to see an American city preemptively build a rail line, rather than waiting decades after it is needed lol. Also it is notoriously unaffordable for average citizens to own a car in SG. It's really a luxury. No doubt transit serves most of the population very well, as it is needed for the society to function.

Here's some data to chew on, and remember while Tokyo prefecture is about twice the land area of HK and three times Singapore, they have basically the same population density.

Tokyo: 235 vehicles per 1000 people
Singapore: 149 vehicles per 1000 people
Hong Kong: 77 vehicles per 1000 people

All countries compared for Transport > Road > Motor vehicles per 1000 people
Automobiles Registered
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2016, 10:33 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,246,648 times
Reputation: 9846
Quote:
Originally Posted by projectmaximus View Post
Probably shouldn't get into an argument about something outside the thread topic, but I guess this thread is kinda losing its purpose anyway...

I completely disagree with the bold. Hong Kong and Singapore both fit that label, and arguably a few other cities.
HK and Singapore aren't megacities like Tokyo. They wouldn't even qualify, IMO.

In any case, they have tiny systems relative to the big boys. There are fewer rail stations and smaller networks in HK or Singapore than even Zurich. There are like 170 S Bahn stations in tiny Zurich, with 24 hour service on weekends, and impeccable punctuality and cleanliness, and centralized on a terminal grander than all but a handful on earth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2016, 12:26 AM
 
Location: Philly, PA
358 posts, read 256,542 times
Reputation: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
OK, so where are the 14 rail lines for Philly?

SEPTA has like 7 lines, they just count them twice, rather than once, as with most transit routes in the world.

And not even one SEPTA line has equivalent service to Washington Metro. One of the routes has like two trains and a few dozen riders a day.

The entire SEPTA regional rail system combined has fewer riders than just one Washington Metro line. It's a good service, but you can't realistically say it's a better system than Washington Metro. I take it all the time, and it's very low frequency service, small trains with low capacity (almost more like a bus route) and moderate ridership outside of rush hour.


The railroad lines are not counted twice. They are respectively their own separate lines. Reading Railroad and Penn Railroad back before SEPTA took over was two different agencies ...SEPTA combined and connected the lines together via the Center City Commuter Tunnel making it a thru-running system. Commuter rail is not designed to have trains every five mins. like a subway.

Small trains ? I'm confused on this. The Silverliner 4 and 5's are bigger then DC metro subway cars as are all commuter rail cars around the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2016, 10:30 PM
 
Location: Miami-Jax
6,312 posts, read 6,965,178 times
Reputation: 3502
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
HK and Singapore aren't megacities like Tokyo. They wouldn't even qualify, IMO.
That's fair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
In any case, they have tiny systems relative to the big boys. There are fewer rail stations and smaller networks in HK or Singapore than even Zurich. There are like 170 S Bahn stations in tiny Zurich, with 24 hour service on weekends, and impeccable punctuality and cleanliness, and centralized on a terminal grander than all but a handful on earth.
You are comparing an S bahn to urban transit? Ok...if you don't know as much as you want to pretend to then there's really no sense in continuing this tangent. No knock on Switzerland or Zurich from my end at all. Plus you first made the comparison by establishing size as a non-factor...

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
And if you only care about quality, not size, I would go with Switzerland
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.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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