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.
Ooops, I voted for NYC without reading this, thinking it was asking for which is best. Worst out of these is probably SF, but Chicago is lacking for a city of its size.
I don't want people to confuse why i stated what I did. My response was to the poster who said this:
This is just simply untrue. I can understand people preferring one system over another, but when facts are misspoken I typically interject. There are 91 stations on the metro and maybe about 20 of them are in "downtown." The whole city itself maybe has about half. If anything people in DC proper feel the Metro could have more coverage than it already does, (which is why they've been trying to assemble a streetcar, and eventually plan to separate the blue line.) MARTA, BART, CTA, SEPTA, MBTA, do not cover the suburbs as extensively as METRO, which is true and is all I was stating. I fully understand the differences of each cities regional rail options, my point was to clarify only that one poster.
This is just simply untrue. I can understand people preferring one system over another, but when facts are misspoken I typically interject. There are 91 stations on the metro and maybe about 20 of them are in "downtown." The whole city itself maybe has about half. If anything people in DC proper feel the Metro could have more coverage than it already does, (which is why they've been trying to assemble a streetcar, and eventually plan to separate the blue line.) MARTA, BART, CTA, SEPTA, MBTA, do not cover the suburbs as extensively as METRO, which is true and is all I was stating. I fully understand the differences of each cities regional rail options, my point was to clarify only that one poster.
i guess it depends on what a suburb is but according to this map 44 of the subway stops are technically not located in the city of boston: www.thecleverest.com/t/
Last edited by stanley-88888888; 12-03-2015 at 10:37 PM..
Washington DC metro has the best single system suburban coverage of any system in the country and its not even debatable. No city covers with its major central system their adjacent suburbs with more track mileage or frequency better than DC Metro. Septa and Bart don't come close to comparing in coverage.
In a comparison with NYC or Chicago, that also has to do with having smaller official city limits doesn't it? The trackage for NYC and Chicago's mass transit systems go quite a distance from the city centers, but those two cities are quite physically large in comparison to DC and do serve areas that are far from the city center with pretty great frequency.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 12-04-2015 at 12:09 PM..
yes interesting though looks like it misses some for example no Silver line it appears for DC and looks like all LIRR is missing for NYC on long island not to mention all the NYC subways oddly enough
yes interesting though looks like it misses some for example no Silver line it appears for DC and looks like all LIRR is missing for NYC on long island not to mention all the NYC subways oddly enough
Still it gives a relatively useful comparison of the extent of the public transit reach of various regions.
Overall I would probably say Philly and SF among these are most poorly served overall among these which are the best 6 in the country. All have better and worse aspects
I would rank them
NYC
Chicago
DC/Boston
Philly/SF
But isolated to specific areas the coverage will vary in all etc.
Also DC has the best expansions going on among them
Shame on you kid, you're a Philly guy.
Seriously though, this question is a tough one. The word "worst" is a tough one to grapple with in this contacts because all 6 cities' transit networks are far superior to those of any other American city. So maybe which is the least effective of this elite group?
Coverage-wise, I would say SF is the weakest because there are several sections of the city that aren't covered by rail and the above-ground sections of Muni-Metro are slow and tedious.
Philly's rail network is very comprehensive but, as I'm mentioned before, the huge Regional Rail network loses major points for operating like the infrequently-operating commuter rail network that was its 19th Century origin as opposed to the modern S-Bahn/RER network that it could and should be upgraded to -- especially given the fact that Philly touts the system as this huge psuedo Metro/rapid transit network esp in parts of the City like Germantown/Mt Airy/Chestnut Hill, Roxborough/Manayunk and the upper NE, as well as many close-in suburbs like Jenkintown and Lower Merion ...
That said, Chicago would probably get my vote. Chicago is a vast city in terms of area, but the L system, while very, very good, is far from comprehensive. Many areas of Chicago, even close in areas like Lakeshore/Lincoln Park and much of the Michigan Ave. are bus dependent as are many outer Chicago areas which must rely on bus feeders into L stops. Also there are creaky, Victorian aspects to the L that are, while interesting, don't meet the standards and comfort for a modern rapid transit system. These include the Loop. Yes, it's wacko fascinating that rapid transit trains run over downtown city streets -- the only place where this exists in the USA, but the fact is, the modern, desirable business and residential addresses have bolted the Loop because of the noise and darkened, creepy streets, for Michigan Ave, Lakeshore/Lincoln Park, Streeterville, the Navy Pier and South Loop ... among others. Also the north Red Line has far too many stops, in some portions, only 3 blocks from one another. That may have been fine when Chicago was a horse & buggy city when the Red Line was built, but in today's vast Chicago, it's just too slow ... and the rush-hour only Purple line expresses don't really alleviate the situation...
Then you've got the numerous at-grade junctions and crossing of L lines, esp in the Loop, but also at Belmont, where trains must sit and wait for trains to clear, is slow and archaic.
And although I understand the historical restrictions of the Loop and other tight-turning elevated track, it still seems kinda wierd and off-putting that such huge crowds from such a huge, major city, have to squeeze into these relatively small rail cars. Maybe that's just me...
Then there are crazy L aspects like the outdoor, on street transfers like from the Loop L to the Red Line subway at State and Lake, or the long dreary tunnel connections between the Blue Line and Red Line subways. Also, while the Metra commuter rail lines are long and comprehensive, the fact that the terminate into 4 downtown terminals with no through service among the lines (like in Philly) is a serious hindrance. Worse yet is the fact that the huge Union Station hub, serving the busiest lines from the SW and NW, isn't even directly connected to even an L line (the closest being about 4 blocks away).
So probably given its great size and complexity, Chicago would probably get my vote.
... Oh yeah, even though I love The T for being such a comprehensive rapid transit in such a small, walkable city, let's face it: the Green Line sucks. It's just too crowded (in the cars and in its 2-track subway funneling 4 branches) and ridiculously slow. It may have been the first subway in America, but it doesn't measure up to modern standards... Also MBTA must extend the Blue Line to a Red Line connection. The fact you have to transfer to another rail line to connect between the 2 lines in downtown Boston is absurd.
... Oh yeah, even though I love The T for being such a comprehensive rapid transit in such a small, walkable city, let's face it: the Green Line sucks. It's just too crowded (in the cars and in its 2-track subway funneling 4 branches) and ridiculously slow. It may have been the first subway in America, but it doesn't measure up to modern standards... Also MBTA must extend the Blue Line to a Red Line connection. The fact you have to transfer to another rail line to connect between the 2 lines in downtown Boston is absurd.
agree on the Red and Blue, a pain and the green line in the tunnel is just painfully slow and load and snakes through at slower than walking speed, good news is they funnel people tow where the jobs are from where the people live so in the end even antiquated it works well. Better then the Philly green lines which slow to street speed mostly outside of the subway portions from U City to CC.
Philly to your point above may have the most underutilized volume based on ceverage and connectivity, much to do with headways though does need more HR
the BSL was built to handle more trunks that were never built and runs 4 tracks like NYC 7th ave lines for much of its route. A real missed opportunity there and the RR coverage is great but the headways suck outide of rush hour
Philly need to run the Blvd extensiion of the BSL and extend to the Navy yard; I also believe a Norristown line coverted to HR and extended to KOP and a West Chestnut Hill line converted to HR all trunked in the BSL would be an amazing improvement. Also the Patco should have run to U City (the tunnel extends to RS today but ends at Broad. The NSHSL HR is a waste mostly and the KOP extension of thi to me is mostly wasted money a two seat ride to the MFL (Blue) line is show stopper in IMHO
so many cities could do better
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.
