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.
The busiest transit corridor in the US is Bos-Wash of course with an even more narrow focus on everything between NY-PHL-DC. All of these cities mass transit is emded in the culture of the town.
Your bus service cannot override the fact that people in LA drive to do everything there and your train simply does not move enough people to stack up to cities back East. Heck even Baltimore moves about 1/3 the amount of people LA does with a metro of 2.7 +million people vs LA at 15 million! I won't sit here and act like people on the WC don't use transit because they do, but for the entirety of the amount of people who live in LA and the Bay Area it doesn't cover the same ground as cities on the EC. SF (city proper) is very small therefore much easier for buses to cover it and boost their transit numbers up. How about SJ and other parts of the Bay bus ridership?
There are suburbs of DC in the top 5/6 in the nation for transit ridership (Suburbs)
The busiest transit corridor in the US is Bos-Wash of course with an even more narrow focus on everything between NY-PHL-DC. All of these cities mass transit is emded in the culture of the town.
Your bus service cannot override the fact that people in LA drive to do everything there and your train simply does not move enough people to stack up to cities back East. Heck even Baltimore moves about 1/3 the amount of people LA does with a metro of 2.7 +million people vs LA at 15 million! I won't sit here and act like people on the WC don't use transit because they do, but for the entirety of the amount of people who live in LA and the Bay Area it doesn't cover the same ground as cities on the EC. SF (city proper) is very small therefore much easier for buses to cover it and boost their transit numbers up. How about SJ and other parts of the Bay bus ridership?
There are suburbs of DC in the top 5/6 in the nation for transit ridership (Suburbs)
It's no secret that the Northeast corridor has the best transit cities. The gap will only get bigger as cities like Washington DC and Philadelphia continue to make huge improvements in their transit systems.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,164 posts, read 7,634,563 times
Reputation: 5811
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
Philly has busier Amtrak stations than Chicago.
It's no secret that the Northeast corridor has the best transit cities. The gap will only get bigger as cities like Washington DC and Philadelphia continue to make huge improvements in their transit systems.
Yes 30th Street Station is busier than Chicago's Union, I'm saying that with their bus and trains being busier in Chicago it would average to edge out Philly. Although Philly most likely is right next on the list after the three I mentioned and has good commuter rail options also.
Since you clearly didn't read the link I provided, I'll highlight the section that proves you wrong:
You didn't prove a thing. Your link doesn't show anything.
The facts show that LA has low transit ridership.
Even looking at bus ridership alone, LA does not have higher bus share than other cities. There is no reason to claim that LA has better bus service than other cities, and we already know transit overall is fairly poor.
Sometimes, with threads like these, you know C-D is a waste of time. Anyone seriously arguing that LA has the second best transit coverage in the U.S. is showing an absurd amount of homerism.
LA is, by far, the most autocentric major city on the planet. It has even lower ridership than Chicago, despite twice the population, and Chicago is very autocentric by global standards (probably the second most autocentric huge city on earth).
You didn't prove a thing. Your link doesn't show anything.
The facts show that LA has low transit ridership.
Even looking at bus ridership alone, LA does not have higher bus share than other cities. There is no reason to claim that LA has better bus service than other cities, and we already know transit overall is fairly poor.
Sometimes, with threads like these, you know C-D is a waste of time. Anyone seriously arguing that LA has the second best transit coverage in the U.S. is showing an absurd amount of homerism.
LA is, by far, the most autocentric major city on the planet. It has even lower ridership than Chicago, despite twice the population, and Chicago is very autocentric by global standards (probably the second most autocentric huge city on earth).
Did you read the article? Chicago was 5th on the list for US cities. How is it the 2nd most autocentric? Chicago's transit/auto population is sharply divided, kind of like NYC. Within the high transit zones, Chicago is 2nd only to NYC according to the heat maps provided by the study. A huge swath of land has high-intensity access to jobs in under 30 minutes. If you don't live within that zone, you're likely an auto commuter, yes. Perhaps this is why some people blindly feel Chicago is #2 in the country in terms of transit, but it ends up #5 on a semi-scientific study like this.
1. Offering 24-hour service to all its subway lines.
2. Bringing rail service to one of the biggest employment hubs in the area(King of Prussia).
3. Implementing its new state of the art payment system.
4. New Bus-Rapid-Transit lines( SEPTA & NJ Transit)
5. Restoring rail service to Gloucester County(NJ Transit)
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.