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.
Maybe the 1 million threshold for this thread is too low. There are a lot of metros with one million or more people with only local bus service.
True, but local bus service can vary in quality, both by frequency and coverage. And in many of the cities with rail, the rail coverage is low so many transit riders would still be on the bus. Look here:
Seattle doesn't come close to San Francisco, and Portland isn't that much better. Both Seattle and Portland have capable transit, but they're not better than San Francisco's.
Seattle does not have a better system than San Francisco, not even close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias
How do you figure that?
Seattle doesn't come close to San Francisco, and Portland isn't that much better. Both Seattle and Portland have capable transit, but they're not better than San Francisco's.
It really depends. In absolute terms there obviously is no comparison whatsoever. The Bay Area's transit system is far more developed and comprehensive than any other West Coast city. But in terms of adequacy (how well it serves its population), there may be some debate. Iirc, studies show Bay Area satisfaction in their transit options is very low. I don't recall Seattle and Portland being in the same boat. Of course expectations play a factor as well...so SF residents who want service to be as efficient as it is in NYC or even Hong Kong are disappointed.
Seattle and Portland are good transit cities but neither of those cities are on the same level as San Francisco. Right now I would say San Francisco is "King of the West" when it comes to mass transit.
Any city with rail transit CANNOT be worse than a city with none... So anybody arguing that ANY CITY with ANY rail transit as the worst, is crazy. Because you are saying places like Detroit, San Antonio, Indianapolis and Columbus are BETTER, transit-wise, than San Francisco, Atlanta, Seattle... (just to name a few of the loopy entries I've seen).... Detroit, San Antonio, KC, Milwaukee, Indianapolis and Columbus must necessarily be the WORST and CANNOT BE BETTER THAN ANYBODY...
Any city with rail transit CANNOT be worse than a city with none... So anybody arguing that ANY CITY with ANY rail transit as the worst, is crazy. Because you are saying places like Detroit, San Antonio, Indianapolis and Columbus are BETTER, transit-wise, than San Francisco, Atlanta, Seattle... (just to name a few of the loopy entries I've seen).... Detroit, San Antonio, KC, Milwaukee, Indianapolis and Columbus must necessarily be the WORST and CANNOT BE BETTER THAN ANYBODY...
... Can we at least agree on that?
Check with Bogota, Columbia and Guangzhou, China first.
And Detroit has the metromover...which is often classified as "rail." (It's just a downtown people mover but just pointing out your flaw with generalizations.
Any city with rail transit CANNOT be worse than a city with none... So anybody arguing that ANY CITY with ANY rail transit as the worst, is crazy. Because you are saying places like Detroit, San Antonio, Indianapolis and Columbus are BETTER, transit-wise, than San Francisco, Atlanta, Seattle... (just to name a few of the loopy entries I've seen).... Detroit, San Antonio, KC, Milwaukee, Indianapolis and Columbus must necessarily be the WORST and CANNOT BE BETTER THAN ANYBODY...
... Can we at least agree on that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by projectmaximus
Check with Bogota, Columbia and Guangzhou, China first.
And Detroit has the metromover...which is often classified as "rail." (It's just a downtown people mover but just pointing out your flaw with generalizations.
Indianapolis also has a "people mover" that travels between IUPUI and Methodist Hospital.
Saying a city with rail transit is by default better is lazy. Very, very lazy.
Any city with rail transit CANNOT be worse than a city with none... So anybody arguing that ANY CITY with ANY rail transit as the worst, is crazy. Because you are saying places like Detroit, San Antonio, Indianapolis and Columbus are BETTER, transit-wise, than San Francisco, Atlanta, Seattle... (just to name a few of the loopy entries I've seen).... Detroit, San Antonio, KC, Milwaukee, Indianapolis and Columbus must necessarily be the WORST and CANNOT BE BETTER THAN ANYBODY...
... Can we at least agree on that?
No, I don't agree with everything you've said. In my opinion it looks worst for a metro area of 5-6 million to have only 1 rail line vs. a metro area of 1-2 million with no rail lines. The bigger the city/MSA, the better the transit system should be when it comes to expectations for what a city has to offer in mass transit.
Indianapolis also has a "people mover" that travels between IUPUI and Methodist Hospital.
Saying a city with rail transit is by default better is lazy. Very, very lazy.
I agree with that while regular buses aren't really much to brag about, Bus-Rapid Transit on the other hand can be a nice alternative to rail service when used efficiently but many US cities don't use B-R-T to it's full potential like you see in other countries around the world.
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.
