San Francisco named "second best" transit city in the USA (Los Angeles: middle school, university)

[bentobox34]

The Cities With The Best Public Transportation In The U.S. | Co.Exist | ideas + impact

"Somehow, San Francisco comes in second place after New York City. If that's actually the case, the U.S. transportation system is in big trouble. Because while San Francisco is served by many different transit types (subway, light rail, buses), it still can take hours to cross the seven mile by seven mile city using public transportation."

I agree that US transportation is in trouble. I would put DC, Chicago, Boston and SF all roughly tied for second place. Each has advantages and disadvantages with no real winner. NYC is the only true transit city in this country.

[Ruth4Truth]

This is true. For a small city, it sure takes a long time to get across town in SF. Even on the Geary Limited, it takes awhile to get from the Beach to downtown. There should be a BART line or underground light rail that addresses that. Not an original idea, I know, but still...

I wonder to what extent the aquifer under SF hinders transit development. Maybe there aren't as many options as in NY for underground transit development. And I wonder how rising sea levels will affect underground transit.

[04kL4nD]

I would put SF last behind NYC, Chicago, Boston, and DC.

[2nd trick op]

I live on the East Coast, but hold a degree in Transport Economics, and have traveled extensively. I can state without hesitation that the Bay Area's diverse set of transit alternatives worked a lot better than Los Angeles' sprawling and over-bureaucratized RTD.

But in fairness, the development of its own commuter rail network and the emergence of a number of competitive bus operations patterned after Santa Monica's successful municipal bus sysetem has also moved your downstate rival in the right direction.

Public transit has re-emerged because increasing congestion has increasingly rendered the prvate vehicle less and less competitive; but there comes a trading point at which it is no longer workable. Finding the proper balance is, unfortunately, suject to the shifting currents of both energy prices and political influence -- and I don't see much hope of the occasional misdirections being corrected anytime soon.

[ZorbaTheGeek]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

I live on the East Coast, but hold a degree in Transport Economics, and have traveled extensively. I can state without hesitation that the Bay Area's diverse set of transit alternatives worked a lot better than Los Angeles' sprawling and over-bureaucratized RTD.

Almost any public transport system is better than LA's, it's not saying much. SF's isn't bad except for commute hours--there's not even room on the buses for the passenger traffic. Buses don't even make all their stops due to overload during commute hours. There's no question there's demand, but MUNI can't deal with the demand. There must be a better way.

[bmw335xi]

I also agree that SF has the second best public transportation system in the US. I think most people who complain about it have never traveled around our country lol.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

I also agree that SF has the second best public transportation system in the US. I think most people who complain about it have never traveled around our country lol.

I like it, too, but it hasn't been upgraded for decades! And the population of the city has increased as population has become denser. So improvements are needed.

[kmzizzle]

Wow did someone really compare public transport in sf vs la? Lol.. Kinda like comparing a pro basketball player vs a middle school one and saying the pro is better

[jade408]

We are in trouble in the US because despite all the obvious benefits of transit for the economy and quality of life, places like Cincinnati try to cancel transit projects because the mayor doesn't like it.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by jade408

We are in trouble in the US because despite all the obvious benefits of transit for the economy and quality of life, places like Cincinnati try to cancel transit projects because the mayor doesn't like it.

That's nothing! The voters in Seattle voted down light rail initiatives for 30 years before a couple of short legs were finally approved, but it doesn't begin to address demand. And if there's anyplace that really needs it, it's Seattle, with its long string-bean type of layout. It takes forever to get from the south end to the north part of town. That makes it difficult for university students looking for affordable rents (which are mainly in the south, while the U is in the north end), or even people who have to commute downtown from south or north.