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.
How do Boston rail services compares to Chicago and Philadephia rail system? I am from Philly and no Septa is a joke, but the coummuter system is not bad.
Chicagos is great, if the EL dont take you there a bus will.How is the T? Is it better or worse then Chicago and Philly
The MBTA is better than "Inepta" although nothing runs between 1-5 AM. The commuter-rail question is tricky b/c Philly's metro area is a lot larger. Population density around Boston starts to get low within ten miles of downtown, so as a consequence the trains are far-flung and sporadic. But I'd have to say that "our" commuter rail wins by a nose, since you can ride the rails to locations as comparatively distant as Allentown or Lancaster.
CTA is "great"??? Bwahhh ha ha ha ha ha. I've used public transit in cities across the country, and Chicago's system is one of the worst. You can zip from the airport into town in Boston inside of fifteen minutes. From O'Hare to the Loop it usually takes over an hour, what with all the endless stopping at stations where no one's waiting - every 2-3 blocks. They don't even do "skips" on the El any more. The buses travel in packs as a rule, with schedules only a suggestion. Once you've left the urban core the routes can be over a mile apart, and too much of Chicago is far too sketchy to want to walk far in. Subway stations are dark, damp, and dangerous. For a city with nasty winters the lack of even makeshift bus shelters is noticeable. And I think CTA employees have to take an attitude-problem test.
Boston's mass transit has far too many issues to be considered excellent. Buses and commuter rail trains stay pretty true to their timetables, but there are delays for one reason or another on the subways almost every day. Last week alone there were "signal problems" on two days. On Wednesday night, small fires (frayed cable on one route, trash on the third rail on another) threw two lines out of commission for hours. The MBTA never seems to have a backup plan they can immediately put into effect. People added 90 minutes or more to their trips while "the T" scrambled to call out shuttle buses. It only gets better, ha ha, as the weather gets worse. But I'll say this, you don't feel a sense of foreboding when you walk into a T station, the bus network covers a lot of territory at least within and close to the city, and when the subway/trolley lines are functioning as they should they get you where you're going quickly and smoothly.
NYC has the best public transpo in the Northeast, hands down, but the major Pacific Coast cities (with the glaring exception of Los Angeles) rule the nation where that's concerned.
Thanks for answering my post, i will be in Boston in November and wanted to use public transit. Philly and Chicago are the only cities i lived in that had rail service.I am from Philly, but lived in Chicago for a few years and CTA is a thousand times better then SEPTA.So would say Boston have the 2nd best rail service after NYC?
Boston's public transport, both subway (T) and buses and commuter rail are pretty good. They have their issues and some lines within the system are better than others for speed and efficiency. The Green Line trains once they get above ground can be painfully slow and seem to stop every block (especially the B train). I haven't ridden Philly's and Chicago's systems enough to make a comparison though.
The only major complaint I have is how early it stops running: 12:15AM-12:45AM for the T. It's frustrating if you want to stay out late.
If you're staying in Boston and near either a T stop or a bus stop and are just looking to tool around Boston and Cambridge, you shouldn't have any problems getting around.
Our commuter rail is expensive and has its problems (occasional air conditioning breakdowns, delays, etc). By and large it is decent though. The bus and rapid transit are decent but don't expect New York City MTA standards (which by the way run more efficiently).
While I would call the Commuter Rail "decent" by itself and the rapid transit ("subway") decent by itself as well as the bus system, I would call the combination of them pretty good. It's not New York, now. However, given how compact Boston is, at the urban core at least, it seems there is always a station right nearby which isn't something I can say for Midtown Manhattan (again, this is because of how large Manhattan is). New York's is clearly the more extensive and overall better system. Combine the subway with how far-reaching NYC's commuter rail networks (Shore Line, LIRR, MNRR, etc) are and you have not only one of the best transit systems in the nation, but one of the greatest in the world (only London has more extensive rail).
Chicago's is good and I think getting an unfair lashing on this forum. It's better and more extensive than Boston's. The reason it's easier to get from Logan to downtown by subway than it is to get from O'Hare to downtown is simply distance. It really has nothing to do with the quality of transit networks. on the Blue Line, Logan Airport is only 2 stops from Downtown Boston (Aquarium to Airport via Maverick). The airport is about a mile from the city center. O'Hare is much further out so the trip is longer. Could they use an express line? Absolutely, but Boston doesn't have one either. Just ask commuters traveling from Braintree, Riverside, etc. How long it takes them to get downtown from their respective stops.
That being said, Boston has one of the better overall transit networks in the nation. It's better than Philly in almost every way. It's not better than Chicago, New York, or Washington DC (which is often overlooked but has one hell of a metro system). It's probably on par with San Francisco which has a similarly extensive subway network (I don't like how it's BART and SFMuni... one entity like MBTA or MTA or CTA, etc makes it easier). Boston's is much better than Atlanta, Seattle, Miami, L.A., New Orleans, Baltimore, etc. It's probably one of the top 5 in the country...
my top 5 transit networks would be as follows...
1) NYC (by a long shot)
2) Washington D.C. (best, cleanest and most efficient metro... truly world class)
3) Chicago (again, extensive and useful)
4 and 5) Boston and San Fran (hard to say one is better than the other).
Boston's trains stop running early (strangely, the subway stops between midnight and 1:30am depending on the line which is before last call at the bars... not good for discouraging drunk driving). The Commuter Rail trains don't run past 11pm and the last subways are between 12am and 1:30am. This is an inconvenience to say the least. The Green Line is a trolley (light rail) with an underground segment through downtown, but it's treated here like any other rapid transit line which is why the criticism is tough.
In all, it's easy to get around Boston via the subway and commuter rail network (how many other cities actually have a "Ski Train"?). The commuter rail from Boston will take you to the beach, the mountains (hills anyway), farm country, mill towns, suburbs, etc. It's a good network that has some management issues, but I've always been glad to have it. I think you'll find it (combined with the extensive subway) to be more than sufficient.
New York's is clearly the more extensive and overall better system. Combine the subway with how far-reaching NYC's commuter rail networks (Shore Line, LIRR, MNRR, etc) are and you have not only one of the best transit systems in the nation, but one of the greatest in the world (only London has more extensive rail).
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
Chicago's is good and I think getting an unfair lashing on this forum. It's better and more extensive than Boston's. The reason it's easier to get from Logan to downtown by subway than it is to get from O'Hare to downtown is simply distance. It really has nothing to do with the quality of transit networks.
I find this interesting because there's some inconsistency between these statements. Just as O'Hare is farther from the Loop than Logan is from downtown Boston, NYC has far-reaching commuter rail networks because New York has suburbs that go on for 2 hours in every direction. It has a massive subway system because it is six times bigger than the city of Boston and Cambridge combined, and ten times more populous. It's not surprising that it would be the biggest, but biggest obviously doesn't necessarily mean it's good.
I've spent more years than I care to acknowledge riding the NYC system and it can be a nightmare. For example, a lot of people cite the 24-hour service, but it's not exactly extensive service. For example, a couple of years ago, not having the funds for a $50 cab ride, I took the subway from a friend's party near Columbia U. back to where I was living in SW Brooklyn. All day long I was dreading that ride.
I left the party at midnight, knowing it would take forever. I waited 30 minutes for the first train, and then spent 20 minutes on it, because it runs local instead of express after midnight and on weekends. I then walked in the streets for a couple of blocks to get on a different line since every train you wait for at night requires standing on a platform for at least 20 minutes, watching a bunch of rats scurry around. So I re-entered the system and waited 30 minutes for my next train, which was jam-packed and, of course, going local all the way and making about 25 stops (think Green Line B on a Friday night). A guy pulled a knife on some people in lower Manhattan, and then a separate police investigation in Brooklyn held us up another 20 minutes. We finally reached my last transfer point, since the train that actually went near my house did not run out of my neighborhood after 10 pm and I had to transfer to a shuttle train (think Mattapan). Another 20 minute wait and I finally took the last train home.
Leaving the party at 12, I was
-in the subway system at 12:15
-on the first train at 12:45
-off the first train at 1:05
-back in the system at 1:10
-on the second train at 1:40
-waiting for a police search from 2:00 to 2:20
-waiting for my shuttle train from 2:45 to 3:15
-in the door at home at 3:30.
3.5 hours to go 15 miles. Other than the knife and the police investigation, which don't happen too often, this is not an aberration. The whole time I lived in that area, I knew it would be an expensive cab ride or a minimum of 2 hours on the subways if I didn't leave by 10PM. 3 hours happened plenty of times. I'd almost prefer that the thing closed at 12:30 so I wouldn't have to debate the option. I know people who moved from Boston, took an apartment on the far side of Brooklyn or Queens and still paid more in rent than they paid in Somerville or Brighton, and had to face this same problem. Most didn't stay too long.
Even within Manhattan, the system has no trains east of Lexington Av, none west of 8th Avenue (at least up to 59 St), lousy crosstown service, and leaves huge swaths of the Lower East Side at the mercy of buses that take 45 minutes just to get you to the subway. In addition, like Chicago, Boston, and DC, the lines are pretty far apart as you exit the core and there's virtually no service between outer boros without passing through Manhattan. Half of LIRR trains require a change in Jamaica, and only a couple of NJ Transit's lines even enter New York, requiring changes in Newark or taking the PATH from Hoboken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
my top 5 transit networks would be as follows...
1) NYC (by a long shot)
2) Washington D.C. (best, cleanest and most efficient metro... truly world class)
3) Chicago (again, extensive and useful)
4 and 5) Boston and San Fran (hard to say one is better than the other).
DC is cleaner and quieter than most, but I think it's basically a commuter rail. It's like having the RER in Paris without the regular Metro. I've lived in DC 3 times (actually in DC) and never been within reasonable distance of a Metro line (though one of those apartments is sort of near a station that's opened since my time there). When I spent a month in Bethesda, then I had the Metro right out the door.
^What's the inconsistency? My point about the distance was more to point out that Boston is in the unique position to have its airport so close to the city center whereas Chicago's primary airport is a bit further away. It would be great if Chicago had an express system (similar to New York's) that would allow service to move more quickly from O'Hare to the Loop, but it's merely a flaw in an otherwise pretty good system.
I agree that the extensiveness of the network doesn't necessarily mean that it's better. I've experienced some of what you've described in New York. It can be a nightmare. I also have never been particularly thrilled with the spacing of stations from Central Park to points south. I've felt that some areas of Manhattan seem to have an abundance of stops close together while other busy areas seem to be a hike from stops. It's not always easy to go East-West (with the exception of the 7 and the L) and getting around the core of the city can be a burden (further spacing and longer rides are to be expected anywhere outside the core of a city). I've always felt that it could have been a bit easier than it is. Furthermore, there is no subway connection to New Jersey which is an inconvenience to say the least. I am right there with you in criticism of the spotty coverage within the core of NYC. That said, it's still a great network (that's a LOT of area to cover) given the size of the area.
I agree that New York's commuter rail networks are great (and extensive) because the city's 'burbs stretch so far away that they NEED an extensive network (some would say that the extensive network is responsible for spawning new suburbs... i.e. making New Haven et all satellite cities). However, there are many sprawling cities (of course, not on the same scale as NYC) that don't have anything relative to that (relative in terms of scale). Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, Dallas, Seattle, and other major cities don't have the network to match the size but New York's does. Whether or not late night service is efficient, it DOES exist which is more than most cities can say. Is there room for improvement? absolutely... but it's still a decent system.
All of these cities have sort of a "hub and spoke" system which does mean coverage will be better closest to the core of the city. Unfortunately, New York's "hub" is really non-existent (unless you count the 7 or L as the completion to the "hub") which is part of the reason crosstown service sucks. An urban ring (essentially completing the "wheel" formed by the hub/spoke) connecting the outer spokes would make for better service to outer neighborhoods/boroughs of each city (Boston has a few plans... one all bus rapid transi (http://www.theurbanring.com/ - broken link)t and the other would be part rail ). While the odds of this happening in my lifetime are slim, it's a good concept.
Washington's metro is absolutely a hybrid commuter rail and subway system. However, the fact that it runs so efficiently and is so extensive (now... I lived in Kensington as the stop was being built down the road from me) makes it a great system. It's clean and they always seem well-prepared to deal with problems (each line uses the same types of train on the same sized tracks so work and track problems are less of a difficulty). I don't love that the stations all look the same (unrelated... Rosslyn may just have the longest escalator I've ever been on) as it can be confusing if you doze off, but I do love the metro despite the fact that some entire neighborhoods seem to be a good distance from it.
^What's the inconsistency? My point about the distance was more to point out that Boston is in the unique position to have its airport so close to the city center whereas Chicago's primary airport is a bit further away. It would be great if Chicago had an express system (similar to New York's) that would allow service to move more quickly from O'Hare to the Loop, but it's merely a flaw in an otherwise pretty good system.
Maybe it's not quite an "inconsistency," but your observation about O'Hare was that the longer trip is based on the need to cover a greater distance, and is not indicative that the CTA system is inferior. I agree with that. But just as the Chicago system is not "worse" because of the need to cover a longer distance since the airport is farther away, NYC's system is not inherently "better" because it needs to cover a longer distance, and does so.
Though NYC does have express trains (if not many at night or on weekends), the issue of train access to the airport in NYC is a topic best saved for another day's rant. I'd rather take a local from O'Hare any day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
I agree that New York's commuter rail networks are great (and extensive) because the city's 'burbs stretch so far away that they NEED an extensive network (some would say that the extensive network is responsible for spawning new suburbs... i.e. making New Haven et all satellite cities). However, there are many sprawling cities (of course, not on the same scale as NYC) that don't have anything relative to that (relative in terms of scale). Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, Dallas, Seattle, and other major cities don't have the network to match the size but New York's does. Whether or not late night service is efficient, it DOES exist which is more than most cities can say. Is there room for improvement? absolutely... but it's still a decent system.
I think NYC's commuter rail network is extensive, but not necessarily great. There's clearly no comparison between it and the sprawling suburbs people call cities in the rest of the U.S., but the fact that NYC is generally considered to have the best network in the U.S. shows me primarily that the state of transit in the U.S. is poor. As a result, we've become a society where people drive 1/4 mile to get milk.
That said, I think Boston's system is not really far off from NYC's in terms of its ability to provide for the city it serves. It's clearly not as extensive, but it doesn't need to be since it serves a much less populous area. While NYC, unlike Boston, operates its system all night, it does so so poorly that I've often wished it didn't.
NYC Transit has improved in some ways in recent years. They run a lot of special event trains to Yankee Stadium and Citi Field, and they've gotten better about holding trains in the station for connections late at night (few things more frustrating than seeing the train you need to transfer to sit with its doors open as you pull in the station, only to pull out just as your train actually stops and opens its doors).
And Boston has a long way to go. I'd love to see an urban ring, and extensions of the Green and Blue lines (and the Red and Orange for that matter), more frequent evening and weekend commuter rail service (even running smaller trains), and the addition of commuter rail stops along existing lines in Brighton and East or Central Somerville, both of which need rail stops with quick access to downtown Boston more than Forest Hills does. Forest Hills is already only a 20-minute ride by Orange line.
The urban ring is needed in Boston because many people in, say, Cambridge, do go to the MFA or Fenway, Longwood, Allston, or JP. It's wasteful to have to go downtown and back out. In NYC, there are a lot of people in Brooklyn who really have very little reason to go to much of Queens, partially because they can find what they need in Brooklyn (or at least in Manhattan), but partially because it takes so long to get there by train that they don't bother. Just as people may have moved to the towns near New Haven because there was a train to get there, the lack of a quick train ride to Queens from Brooklyn has kept people from going there.
That may be inherent in such a huge city, but it poses a real hardship for people in one outer boro with family or a job in another. For me to take the subway from the Queens waterfront to my relatives in Brooklyn would take well over an hour, by car it's 15 minutes (unless I hit wall-to-wall traffic, which is yet another entirely different NYC topic).
Both Boston and NYC run rings (if not Urban Rings yet) around Philly in the transit department, though.
wow , lots of hate for Inepta, who runs trains as late as 1:45 am to the suburbs and whose el isn't about to fall down (chicago). Philly is connected to Lancaster by Amtrak's Keystone service. that said, Allentown and Reading are huge gaps as is the lack of rapid transit in the city itself. NYC is far better but I'd say boston is only slighlty better regionally, noticably better with regards to the city though
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.
