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 will never understand the comparing a city of 20 million to that of a city of half a million or so. Seriously. They shouldn't be the same.
Also don't get the public transit criticism. It is one of the best in the U.S. I'll take this over what I had in Chicago (marginally) or San Francisco.
And provincialism? Every place has it. Cincinnati people are fervent about it, as are Baltimore people, and Philly, and Portland, etc... that is pretty much everywhere.
If you use metro numbers for NY or LA (20+ Million) you should do the same for Boston (around 4.5 Million). It's definitely quite a bit smaller and I'd agree there's no comparison.
You mentioned provincialism and the fact that you lived in San Francisco (a similarly sized city). I never lived there, but I spent a few months straight there (my gf lived there) and still visit multiple times per year (my sister lives there). I think the Bay Area is very provincial as well. South Park did an episode on San Francisco's "smug" attitude. There's definitely some provincialism here, but I agree that it's prevalent elsewhere. Coincidentally, some of the outer boroughs of NYC are as bad (if not worse) than much of Boston in that regard.
I agree about SF re: transit and weather. Boston has a better, more efficient transit network overall, but SF's weather makes it optimal for walking year round. It's a more dramatically beautiful city, but I prefer Boston by a good margin.
If you use metro numbers for NY or LA (20+ Million) you should do the same for Boston (around 4.5 Million). It's definitely quite a bit smaller and I'd agree there's no comparison.
I agree about SF re: transit and weather. Boston has a better, more efficient transit network overall, but SF's weather makes it optimal for walking year round. It's a more dramatically beautiful city, but I prefer Boston by a good margin.
I will never understand how someone thinks that Boston has a better transit network. It is not efficient. It has the one of larger light rail system with high volume. Yes. It is a "big boy" in the light rail arena. This is not a good thing. In another locale the exact same density would be served by heavy rail.
Places such as Chicago have worked on restoring full service on venues such as their Red Line. Our Red Line suffers from years of delay. Other places can fix and maintain their lines. We suffer from chronic mismanagement, failed bids, and technological incompetence.
To move forward for the future the system needs to be integrated into one vision. Instead of continuing to manage multiple systems with high rates of failure it needs to be consolidated into one efficient system.
The green line must go. It needs to be replaced with heavy rail. The orange line must be set to utilize the same equipment as the red line and the replacement green line. The Blue line would have to stay as it remains.
A new heavy rail link to Chelsea should also be built.
One of the best systems is Washington. It is efficient. We can't have one seat rides for most trip routes. We have so many different systems and engineering standards. You can just hop on a train on the Washington Metro and go.
Don't say that the system is so old. It is archaic in a sense, but a vast majority of the system was built after 1960. A good chunk only came into service after 1980. The Washington Metro started from the ground up in 1976. During the same time we mismanaged funds. The Governor's office looked at an inadequate transit system as complete; they decided the next need was to rightly upgrade the road network. The road network needed an upgrade, but the assessment for the transit system was wrong.
I will never understand how someone thinks that Boston has a better transit network. It is not efficient. It has the one of larger light rail system with high volume. Yes. It is a "big boy" in the light rail arena. This is not a good thing. In another locale the exact same density would be served by heavy rail.
Simple. I've spent years extensively using the transit systems in both cities and Boston's is easier to use, more efficient, and more reliable than San Francisco's. It's easier to get around Boston on transit than it is to get around San Francisco. There are tons of holes in coverage out there. They have a single commuter rail line vs our 11 (plus spurs). BART is like a light version of DC's metro and is nice for people traveling to San Francisco from places like Daly City, Oakland, Berkeley, etc. however it's not very useful for getting people between places within San Francisco unless those "places" are are downtown or the Mission. Muni Metro is a near replica of the Green Line (light rail that runs together in a central tunnel before fanning out beyond the city center), except instead of designated ROWs, Metro runs with traffic on the street. Take a L train to the zoo or the N to Ocean Beach and tell me Metro is better. You want to talk efficiency? Muni Metro has more miles of track than the Green Line and serves fewer people in a city that is more dense than Boston. How is that efficient? North Beach, Russian Hill, Nob Hill, Chinatown, the Marina, the Richmond, etc. (all urban neighborhoods, some even central) aren't served by ANY rail. SF has a better bus network, but that's due to the lack of an extensive rail network within the city. Anyone who has ridden transit will tell you that rail (even light rail) is infinitely better than a bus. Oh, and BART/Muni are plagued by as many (if not more) delays than the MBTA. That's why Boston's network is better than SF's.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,981,862 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
Simple. I've spent years extensively using the transit systems in both cities and Boston's is easier to use, more efficient, and more reliable than San Francisco's. It's easier to get around Boston on transit than it is to get around San Francisco. There are tons of holes in coverage out there. They have a single commuter rail line vs our 11 (plus spurs). BART is like a light version of DC's metro and is nice for people traveling to San Francisco from places like Daly City, Oakland, Berkeley, etc. however it's not very useful for getting people between places within San Francisco unless those "places" are are downtown or the Mission. Muni Metro is a near replica of the Green Line (light rail that runs together in a central tunnel before fanning out beyond the city center), except instead of designated ROWs, Metro runs with traffic on the street. Take a L train to the zoo or the N to Ocean Beach and tell me Metro is better. You want to talk efficiency? Muni Metro has more miles of track than the Green Line and serves fewer people in a city that is more dense than Boston. How is that efficient? North Beach, Russian Hill, Nob Hill, Chinatown, the Marina, the Richmond, etc. (all urban neighborhoods, some even central) aren't served by ANY rail. SF has a better bus network, but that's due to the lack of an extensive rail network within the city. Anyone who has ridden transit will tell you that rail (even light rail) is infinitely better than a bus. Oh, and BART/Muni are plagued by as many (if not more) delays than the MBTA. That's why Boston's network is better than SF's.
Agree with this 100% and I've lived in both.
The redeeming factor is SF has universally great weather and I could walk all day there.
I've lived in Ma all my life. Many of my friends and people I know have moved to Az. I've been out to Az 3x now to see homes and towns. The COL is what's pushing me to move to Az, much more affordable and better way of life. Mainly the COL,taxes,winters is pushing me out of Ma. I want to be debt free soon, no mortgage etc. staying in Ma will always be costly, where Az will provide a debt free life. I don't mind the heat, it's better than cold,snow,freezing rain, lack of summers and then getting dark at 3:30-4 in the winter (just misery). I'll take the heat 4 months and nice weather rest of the year with beautiful mountain, no bugs, nice sunsets and outdoor activities yr round
Simple. I've spent years extensively using the transit systems in both cities and Boston's is easier to use, more efficient, and more reliable than San Francisco's. It's easier to get around Boston on transit than it is to get around San Francisco. There are tons of holes in coverage out there. They have a single commuter rail line vs our 11 (plus spurs). BART is like a light version of DC's metro and is nice for people traveling to San Francisco from places like Daly City, Oakland, Berkeley, etc. however it's not very useful for getting people between places within San Francisco unless those "places" are are downtown or the Mission. Muni Metro is a near replica of the Green Line (light rail that runs together in a central tunnel before fanning out beyond the city center), except instead of designated ROWs, Metro runs with traffic on the street. Take a L train to the zoo or the N to Ocean Beach and tell me Metro is better. You want to talk efficiency? Muni Metro has more miles of track than the Green Line and serves fewer people in a city that is more dense than Boston. How is that efficient? North Beach, Russian Hill, Nob Hill, Chinatown, the Marina, the Richmond, etc. (all urban neighborhoods, some even central) aren't served by ANY rail. SF has a better bus network, but that's due to the lack of an extensive rail network within the city. Anyone who has ridden transit will tell you that rail (even light rail) is infinitely better than a bus. Oh, and BART/Muni are plagued by as many (if not more) delays than the MBTA. That's why Boston's network is better than SF's.
Do you know that there are so many holes in the Boston metro network? Areas with heavy density are not served by rail within Boston. Heavy areas immediately outside of Boston are not served by heavy rail.
Plus, you have a sense of entitlement. The quote about rail versus bus is not true. You just pulled that one out of thin air. It goes against you as well, since most of the MBTA coverage within Boston is actually provided by bus.
The on-time performance of the MBTA is below the BART. You also do not know what is not served directly by heavy rail in Boston area. This areas have large commuting populations that require the heavy rail. Great swathes of Somerville, large portions of Cambridge, much of Brighton, Allston, Roslindale, Roxbury, West Roxbury, Hyde Park, Milton, Chelsea, Randolph, Needham, etc lack the sufficient coverage.
The comparison within the commuter rail networks is a red herring. The comparison to the failures of other networks does not hide or limit the problems within Boston.
Do you know that there are so many holes in the Boston metro network? Areas with heavy density are not served by rail within Boston. Heavy areas immediately outside of Boston are not served by heavy rail.
Bill, we were comparing Boston and San Francisco. Boston is better served by heavy rail than San Francisco. Do you know how many heavy rail subway stops there are in San Francisco? Eight (8)! There are 8 heavy rail stops in the entire city of San Francisco and they're all on the same linear tunnel. The rest of the city is served by bus and light rail. Far more of Boston's densest, most urban neighborhoods are within walking distance to a heavy rail station than San Francisco's densest, most urban neighborhoods.
There are holes in Boston, but the Red, Blue and Orange lines provide heavy rail public transit in multiple directions to many areas of the city (and beyond). Boston's Green Line is also more efficient (with designated Right of Ways) than San Francisco's. It's no contest.
Quote:
Plus, you have a sense of entitlement. The quote about rail versus bus is not true. You just pulled that one out of thin air. It goes against you as well, since most of the MBTA coverage within Boston is actually provided by bus.
It's not out of thin air. In almost every city in the world, buses have a lower on-time performance rating than heavy, light and commuter rail lines. This is due to buses being subject to the same traffic as any other motor vehicle. It's not a stretch to say that if everything else is equal, people prefer rail to bus. Ask a regular Silver Line user in Boston if they'd prefer it to remain bus or be converted to light rail. Rail is almost always smoother and roomier than bus transit. Are you ever happy when there's a problem on the Red Line and you have to be bussed between stops? I'm not. It's not comfortable, and it usually means delays (we sit in rush hour traffic).
Most of the MBTAs ridership is heavy rail (Red, Orange and Blue Lines). Those three handle nearly 700,000 riders per day vs. 355,000 for the busses. The busses may cover more area, but Heavy Rail is still the most widely used method of transportation in the Boston area.
Quote:
The on-time performance of the MBTA is below the BART. You also do not know what is not served directly by heavy rail in Boston area. This areas have large commuting populations that require the heavy rail. Great swathes of Somerville, large portions of Cambridge, much of Brighton, Allston, Roslindale, Roxbury, West Roxbury, Hyde Park, Milton, Chelsea, Randolph, Needham, etc lack the sufficient coverage.
BART may have better on time performance ratings than MBTA, but BART is more of a suburban commuter line than an urban line. It also doesn't have busses which dramitacally decrease on time performance (more so than any other form of transit). BART has 8 stops within the city of San Francisco. The MBTA's lines have on time performance ratings in the 80s and higher. MUNI, which run's San Francisco's Metro and buses has an on-time rating in the 60s. It's deplorable. I've waited 40+ minutes for a 38 bus in San Francisco during rush hour on more occasion than one. I've never had an experience like that in Boston on any line.
Quote:
The comparison within the commuter rail networks is a red herring. The comparison to the failures of other networks does not hide or limit the problems within Boston.
Of course the comparison to other networks doesn't "hide" problems with Boston's. I'm just statying what's fairly obvious to most of us who have extensively used Boston's and San Francisco's networks. Boston's is better. By far. You seem to be too hellbent on ripping Boston's to be able to see that. BART's nice if you live in the suburbs. However, it's essentially useless for most commuting from point A to B in San Francisco. BART is like the illegitimate step child to Washington DC's metro (which covers both city and suburbs well). It takes the place of a number of commuter rail lines, but it's not really an urban rapid transit option for the most commuters in city of San Francisco.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,981,862 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
Of course the comparison to other networks doesn't "hide" problems with Boston's. I'm just statying what's fairly obvious to most of us who have extensively used Boston's and San Francisco's networks. Boston's is better. By far. You seem to be too hellbent on ripping Boston's to be able to see that. BART's nice if you live in the suburbs. However, it's essentially useless for most commuting from point A to B in San Francisco. BART is like the illegitimate step child to Washington DC's metro (which covers both city and suburbs well). It takes the place of a number of commuter rail lines, but it's not really an urban rapid transit option for the most commuters in city of San Francisco.
Agreed. It isn't even close, really.
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.
