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 agree with 5lakes. that was my experience in europe as well. even the smaller cities there trump most of our cities here in the u.s.
we really have to step it up as a country, not just to compete or bet better than europe but to better service our own ppl and to prepare for the future when it comes to population growth. we shoulda made it happen decades ago.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by eek
i agree with 5lakes. that was my experience in europe as well. even the smaller cities there trump most of our cities here in the u.s.
we really have to step it up as a country, not just to compete or bet better than europe but to better service our own ppl and to prepare for the future when it comes to population growth. we shoulda made it happen decades ago.
We have been a very airfare dependent country for the most of our history. But now with the service in the airline industry and the fares itself and all the hassles. American's are looking more into trains and in specific Bullet Train Rapid Transit systems to be commute relievers for big regions.
We entered the game very late, as we were practically the only powerful country in the world where we depended so much on airlines, even India and China make better use for their train system. With China having state of the art Bullet Trains. We are now playing catch up to the rest of the world in this regard.
Generally, denser, more compact cities are much more ideally suited to public transportation than less dense, expansive cities. Most European cities fit the former profile; most major North American cities, aside from New York, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Boston, and San Francisco (the inner cities, not the suburbs) fit the profile of the latter. This is largely because:
1) the more people per square mile, the more public transportation offerings it would make sense to provide: for example, in a city with 1,000 people per square mile, only bus service would be a sensible option to provide, and only at widely-spaced intervals. On the other hand, a (developed) city with 50,000 ppsm would be likely to have underground public transit.
2) traffic: generally, cities with higher densities experience more automotive traffic congestion. Since decisions on which transit mode to take are mainly shaped by how long it takes to get from point A to point B, denser cities win out (with subways, special bus lanes, etc.) over sparsely populated, more auto-friendly cities.
Only New York City can match what is found in larger European cities. Places like Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Washington DC, Portland, and Philadelphia are decent enough to get around in without a car, but they are certainly behind large European cities. Other US cities beyond these have transit, but they are rather pathetic compared to Europe's cities.
^^ What he said.
There are some decent American systems, but as far as our major cities going pound-for-pound against Euro/Asian systems...not happening. Even New York is arguably outdone by the likes of London, Moscow, Paris, Tokyo, and Seoul.
Put Chicago (which has a great system) up against similarly sized cities like Madrid, Berlin, or Barcelona (a city one million people smaller than Chi), and it's a bloodbath. Hell even look at Zurich...it's got a city proper of 365,000! The MSA is only 2,000,000! That's absurd!
i don't think nyc is outdone by any of the said cities. when you think of nyc you need to think of ALL of the public transportation options as you would with london, moscow, paris, toko and seoul. a lot of ppl overlook what we have here and think its all taking the subway.
the lirr
sirr
long island bus
nyc bus
cabs
path
ferry
roosevelt island tram
metro north
etc.
a person out of state can work in ny without any issue. hell, their commute might take less time than mine and i'm in nyc.
i think nyc is definitely on par or better than london, paris, etc. when it comes to public transportation options. tokyo is a megalopolis and when ppl think of transit they think of the metro area. well if you do that then you need to do that for nyc as well, which ppl aren't doing. also, nyc has more train lines and is 24 hours unlike some of these cities. long island, nyc, westchester county and jersey are connected via lines that run through our areas. it cannot be separated IMO, and therefore needs to be considered in this type of debate.
a lot of ppl overlook what we have here and think its all taking the subway.
the lirr
sirr
long island bus
nyc bus
cabs path
ferry
roosevelt island tram
metro north
etc.
It seems a lot of people have never even heard of PATH. A friend of mine who's moving to NYC wouldn't consider Jersey because "there's no subway access and he'd have to drive through the Lincoln tunnel everyday". I was like, "You do know there's this little thing called PATH that runs into Manhattan 24hrs a day, right?"
Another plus factor is navigable water. Probably because it limits the number of routes and creates bottlenecks at the bridges and tunnels, which may have tolls. New York seems to hog the transit available in the U.S, but it still has no rail line to LGA. Most cities with public transportation have infrequent service, which they put to bed by 10 P.M and even scarcer on weekends.
Generally, denser, more compact cities are much more ideally suited to public transportation than less dense, expansive cities. Most European cities fit the former profile; most major North American cities, aside from New York, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Boston, and San Francisco (the inner cities, not the suburbs) fit the profile of the latter. .
This is a basic assumption of transit planning. Portland is an interesting case in this regard because it's not actually that dense, especially outside the core neighborhoods. Portland is making a somewhat successful effort to get people onto transit by 1. Densifying the neighborhoods, especially the core; 2. Providing a high level of transit; 3. Seeking to strengthen Downtown Portland as the main center of the region. Portland's also encouraging people to walk and bike.
Otherwise I'd agree with the consensus list, would add Baltimore, Chicago, certain parts of Los Angeles.
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.
