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'm admittedly biased towards Boston but I really think Boston is at least on the same level as Chicago and DC. The T is creaky and unreliable at times, but if you're living in the Western part of the city, the rail coverage is so much better than both Chicago and DC. You're talking block by block coverage by the Green Line for such a large area to the West of the Prudential Center.
I think boston's mass transit is pretty good, but I disagree with you and within the city both DC and Chicago are noticeably better. The green line has a lot of stops but the thing is slow as molasses in a lot of parts. In terms of heavy rail which is much faster, DC and Chicago are a good step ahead. DC due to its large coverage for heavy rail and very good frequencies within the city while Chicago has more lines and also has really late service on some lines.
I think boston's mass transit is pretty good, but I disagree with you and within the city both DC and Chicago are noticeably better. The green line has a lot of stops but the thing is slow as molasses in a lot of parts. In terms of heavy rail which is much faster, DC and Chicago are a good step ahead. DC due to its large coverage for heavy rail and very good frequencies within the city while Chicago has more lines and also has really late service on some lines.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this...because there's no doubt that the coverage of the Green Line (even if it is slow in some places) is so much better than the coverage of those other cities.
Whereas you're talking speed, I'm talking coverage...and theres' no doubt that the Green Line is fantastic when it comes to this. When I was living in Allston, I could stop at 5 friends' apartments via the same B line of the Green Line all on different spots....ultimately I think it's not a question whether the Metro or El are better for commuting, but for day-to-day life, the rail transit of Boston has the advantage (especially when on the Green Line) due to its tight transit stops.
Just to compare:
DC: 81 stations, 106.3 miles of track
Chicago: 145 station, 224 miles of track
Boston: 125 stations, 64 miles of track
So while DC averages 0.76 stations per 1 mile of track, chicago averages 0.65 stations per 1 mile of track....and then Boston averages nearly 2 stations per mile of track.
Ultimately, while it's a slower system, there's no doubt that day-to-day convenience of the T is better than the Metro or El if you're trying to do something other than commute to the city center.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this...because there's no doubt that the coverage of the Green Line (even if it is slow in some places) is so much better than the coverage of those other cities.
Whereas you're talking speed, I'm talking coverage...and theres' no doubt that the Green Line is fantastic when it comes to this. When I was living in Allston, I could stop at 5 friends' apartments via the same B line of the Green Line all on different spots....ultimately I think it's not a question whether the Metro or El are better for commuting, but for day-to-day life, the rail transit of Boston has the advantage (especially when on the Green Line) due to its tight transit stops.
Just to compare:
DC: 81 stations, 106.3 miles of track
Chicago: 145 station, 224 miles of track
Boston: 125 stations, 64 miles of track
So while DC averages 0.76 stations per 1 mile of track, chicago averages 0.65 stations per 1 mile of track....and then Boston averages nearly 2 stations per mile of track.
Ultimately, while it's a slower system, there's no doubt that day-to-day convenience of the T is better than the Metro or El if you're trying to do something other than commute to the city center.
I don't disagree with your stats, but those include a lot of green line stations and that thing isn't comparable which aren't exactly comparable.
I don't disagree with your stats, but those include a lot of green line stations and that thing isn't comparable which aren't exactly comparable.
Well I mean...almost all of the people getting around in Boston via mass transit are using the Green Line at some point or another on their trip. The thing is most Bostonians use the Green Line as their main form of transit. I mean...c'mon my man. How often have you been around Boston? Not trying to discredit you whatsoever because I consider you and Grapico to be probably the two most reputable posters on this entire site...but I just want to know if you've actually been around the Green Line a lot...because I lived it for quite awhile and the normal operations of the Green Line are quite integrated into the day to day life of your normal Bostonian.
Well I mean...almost all of the people getting around in Boston via mass transit are using the Green Line at some point or another on their trip. The thing is most Bostonians use the Green Line as their main form of transit. I mean...c'mon my man. How often have you been around Boston? Not trying to discredit you whatsoever because I consider you and Grapico to be probably the two most reputable posters on this entire site...but I just want to know if you've actually been around the Green Line a lot...because I lived it for quite awhile and the normal operations of the Green Line are quite integrated into the day to day life of your normal Bostonian.
I know you are way more experienced with Boston than I am. I think when we're talking about the other cities though, we're on pretty even ground, right? I've never lived in these cities, but have only visited and from that Chicago and DC were better at getting around and DC especially had really greta frequencies and Chicago's lat nigt service were greatly appreciated. I do remember the green line moving really slowly in Boston though. Almost akin to bus slow in Chicago in my experience; it's definitely something good to have and useful, but it is not the same as rapid transit heavy rail lines. I could see me being wrong on this definitely since I haven't lived in any of these three cities and it's been my impression and the ridership bears that out to some extent.
I did love walking around Boston though.
Any way you cut it, in terms of the OP, these cities along with Philly, SF, and certain parts of LA are the best mass transit options for mass transit. The only one significantly above the rest in the US is NYC.
Ok guys, let's do a little 'order. First of all, let's say I have a salary of $ 5,000 a month. What kind of life can I do with a salary like that? As I say you buy a house as I want it is very expensive ($ 500,000?), But I hope that by doing my job I can have a comfortable life (I do not know what is the best salary of a civil engineer in usa).
I would say that the climate in winter from 0 to 30 degrees in the summer (they are not the same degree that you used). As for public transportation I think is more important to cover the space, they are a bit 'slow I think I can handle it, I'm Italian and unfortunately I'm used to these things. As for the children I have not seen yet that I'm 20 years old, but if I move to live in usa think to stay there forever, but still not a priority for now.
I know you are way more experienced with Boston than I am. I think when we're talking about the other cities though, we're on pretty even ground, right? I've never lived in these cities, but have only visited and from that Chicago and DC were better at getting around and DC especially had really greta frequencies and Chicago's lat nigt service were greatly appreciated. I do remember the green line moving really slowly in Boston though. Almost akin to bus slow in Chicago in my experience; it's definitely something good to have and useful, but it is not the same as rapid transit heavy rail lines. I could see me being wrong on this definitely since I haven't lived in any of these three cities and it's been my impression and the ridership bears that out to some extent.
I did love walking around Boston though.
Any way you cut it, in terms of the OP, these cities along with Philly, SF, and certain parts of LA are the best mass transit options for mass transit. The only one significantly above the rest in the US is NYC.
For city experience we're probably on even ground, ya. I've only been to Chicago twice, though I've been to DC probably 10 times in my life since I have family down there.
For heavy rail, you're definitely right when it comes to speed. They're far quicker than light rail and it's not very comparable haha. The Green Line does move slow when it's on the street, but for a good portion in the center city it's underground and therefore can move much quicker (though not at heavy rail speeds).
Regardless, I think this is just an area where we're going to disagree and that's fine.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this...because there's no doubt that the coverage of the Green Line (even if it is slow in some places) is so much better than the coverage of those other cities.
Whereas you're talking speed, I'm talking coverage...and theres' no doubt that the Green Line is fantastic when it comes to this. When I was living in Allston, I could stop at 5 friends' apartments via the same B line of the Green Line all on different spots....ultimately I think it's not a question whether the Metro or El are better for commuting, but for day-to-day life, the rail transit of Boston has the advantage (especially when on the Green Line) due to its tight transit stops.
Just to compare:
DC: 81 stations, 106.3 miles of track
Chicago: 145 station, 224 miles of track
Boston: 125 stations, 64 miles of track
So while DC averages 0.76 stations per 1 mile of track, chicago averages 0.65 stations per 1 mile of track....and then Boston averages nearly 2 stations per mile of track.
Ultimately, while it's a slower system, there's no doubt that day-to-day convenience of the T is better than the Metro or El if you're trying to do something other than commute to the city center.
Depends on the line, what about the Red/Brown line of the northside? They are often spaced out every 1/2 mile also. Chicago El isn't exactly speedy though DC/NYC are most definitely faster, red line can be fairly slow itself often with delays. I'd say at least *those* lines are more comparable to the Green line, the other lines are spaced out farther though. And only the red/blue run 24 hours. Service on brown after 10pm is often pretty infrequent. I have also waited a long time for red line at night too... or, having the train so packed that I had to wait for the next one.
This is an old map and missing pink/orange/purple/yellow lines entirely along with missing a few stops, but it shows pretty clearly the 4 block width on red/brown.
It also highlights some big coverage gaps that still exist between the blue line and red/browns. It's somewhat of a pain to get to neighborhoods like Bucktown/Wicker Park/Logan Square/ if you live by northside lake, and vice versa. Even transferring at North/Clybourn, the north ave bus is often slow, late or crazy congested.
Boston is a bit better if you have more time and on foot also. Packed in tighter at street level.
It is not easy to understand my point of view, because for me it is a completely different reality and maybe I see it in a totally different way from how it is really, in addition, I can not speak English well, and you may not understand what I mean. However, I try it. The most important things for me are the beauty of the city (and here i think that there aren't risk of being wrong), the opportunity to work well as an engineer and have a nice salary, tranquility, a climate that has a summer hot enough and a winter that has maybe a snowfall. Most important is that the city has good public transport links and is well organized as to not be chaotic (like New York). I would like to have a beautiful home that is not an apartment and that it is outside the city center but not too far away. I love visiting new places and traveling so I would not mind if it was close to other beautiful cities or nature parks. I like the city with skyscrapers and parks and maybe close to lakes or rivers with some waterway that runs between the city. I would like that the city is not very expensive, at least for basic necessities (supermarket shopping, bills of electricity, gas, etc. ..). I would also think it's a beautiful city where raising a child. Finally in Italy for a joint risk the withdrawal of the license to drive and many other things and I would not have this problem. I think it's all
As other posters have indicated, you really are describing things that San Francisco, Boston and Chicago would be good for but not all three.
I.e. mild winter with occasional snowfall = San Francisco is the closest (because it'd be exceptionally rare to see snowfall there). Close to other beautiful cities = Boston. Skyscrapers and parks close to lakes and rivers with waterway running through city = Chicago. The other criteria could mostly apply as easily to all three cities. (I don't know much about Philly so can't really comment).
If such a place existed in the US, I guarantee it'd be more expensive than any of them are on their own too! So unfortunately, I think you'll have to be willing to compromise.
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.
As for the children I have not seen yet that I'm 20 years old, but if I move to live in usa think to stay there forever, but still not a priority for now.
