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.
294,000 a day isn't that much at all considering it's a city.
it is alot compared to other citys that are much larger than Atlanta and dont have have good numbers at all like dallas and houston. For the south thats high
Washington has a overall nicer system, but Chicago wins by coverage. When you through in METRA, Chicago is the clear winner for #2.
Yes, I think the top three is easy to list.
1. NYC is way ahead of every American city, in extensiveness/coverage and use. Its also one of only 2 24hr systems in the country. While per capita use is far lower than some other global cities (ie Tokyo, Seoul, London), no city in America truly compares.
2. Chicago easily has the 2nd most extensive system, and is also 24 hour, but is lower than DC in per capita use. The el is also old and needs severe maintenance and refurbishing. Bus (city and suburban) and metra (commuter train) usage are extremely high compared to other US cities, except NYC.
3. DC's metro is among the cleanest and fastest of the big cities, has the 2nd highest per capita usage (higher than Chicago), but somewhat lacks accessibility and coverage. Bus and commuter trains also has lower usage than other big cities. Overall, the third most efficient system, but close behind Chicago.
To me public transportation includes all rail, buses, and hell, even taxis, that being said:
#1) NYC - Given the coverage, LIRR, PATH, NJ Transit, taxis, and all the buslines that make their way into Port Authority
#2) Chicago - Like NYC, smaller in scale
#3) DC - Nice subway, coverage is there but somewhat lacking. I hate that Metro is not a flat rate, and how taxis work in zones
I cant speak to the rest of the world. London had a pretty nice, extensive subway, but it closed a little early, and again didn't have a flat rate. I remember Singapore's being really nice.
Yes, you're right...but those numbers are SUBWAY RAIL ONLY for each city, so it's a fair comparison.
Its a fair comparison between subways for the entire metro areas, but absolutely not for the City of SF. The majority of subway ridership in SF is on the Muni Metro, which has way more stops than BART and covers a much broader area, much of which is above ground on light rail. And the OP was for best "public transportation," so that would be all-encompassing and not just focusing on subways.
That being said, there's really no comparison to NYC's subway system. That's by far the most intricate and complex subway system in America, as far as I know anyway.
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.
