Best Cities for Public Transportation (better, compare, Los Angeles, highest)
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.
MARTA? I mean, impressive that Atlanta has heavy rail, but come on...the city is definitely not on the same transit league. I'd say proper growth management/regional planning, land use, and transit are 3 of Atlanta's top issues right now - it definitely should not rest on any laurels it thinks it has with its present day system (and low density to feed it).
410.5K transit riders in Atlanta between MARTA rail and bus for a metro of 5.6 million people (I realize there is CCT, Gwinnett, etc that add a negligible amount to the total ridership)...~7% of population.
I'll give it that that's solid performance relative to Houston, Dallas, Detroit, and Phoenix, and frankly most US cities. On a per capita, maybe someone can do the math but probably equivalent to LA. Definitely a huge drop down from the other large metros.
Did you read my comments? I only said it was a system worth mentioning and well above most other American cities. No matter the percentage of population, the fact is that it carries a lot of people and covers a good bit of the city and is used by many as a primary source of transporation. You can nitpick about anything, but that doesn't make it nonexistent. My point is that it's far more than white collar workers and tourists - and I even said it isn't on the level of the top 5 or 6 systems but is at the top of the next level. There are others worth mentioning too, but systems like Seattle are really too small to consider in the same league no matter what the percentage of riders is. The coming expansions of MARTA (finally) should say something for the validity of the system too, along with the addition of the streetcar (plus expansions) and the Beltline.
Sorry you wasted your time proving a point that wasn't necessary. I should have known there would be opposition to the very mention of MARTA. What a surprise.
Last edited by JoeTarheel; 07-27-2015 at 11:01 PM..
I was waiting for some parameters to be added...you know...best for xyz use, or best for its size, or cleanest, etc. Without any additional parameters, it is and always will be NYC. It's way too comprehensive and way too far ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder
New York. Close thread.
Chicago, D.C., Boston, Philadelphia and San Francisco are next, in that order, if you want to drag this out.
I agree with Chicago ahead of DC. I lived in both and found it more convenient in Chicago without the car. I'd say Boston next but then would flip Philly and SF...as frustrating as the Bay Area's transit may be at times, I think it's more comprehensive overall.
And after these top six, it gets much more debatable and ever changing as the cities and systems develop.
1) NYC
(Pacific ocean-sized gap--I honestly don't think there should be any votes given to any other city in this thread)
2/3) Chicago/DC
(smaller gap)
4/5/6) SF/Boston/Philly
7) LA
Then I'd probably place the rest in no particular order.
New York in a league of its own of course. Very easy to get around without a car and most people do
The second tier is clearly the other five "transit legacy cities". I think the point could be debated over without ever having a conclusive ranking but personally I'd rank them DC, Chicago, Boston, SF, Philly. In these cities it's relatively easy to get around without a car, most people take public transit often, but many also still have cars and drive.
Third tier for me would be LA, Seattle, and Baltimore in that order. In these cities it's possible to live without a car in central areas but not many people do. There's decent but often inconcenient public transit with relatively high ridership
Fourth tier of Atlanta, Miami, and Portland in no particular order. These cities have semi-decent and relatively well-used transit systems but are still extremely car-centric
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,197,522 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by projectmaximus
I was waiting for some parameters to be added...you know...best for xyz use, or best for its size, or cleanest, etc. Without any additional parameters, it is and always will be NYC. It's way too comprehensive and way too far ahead.
I agree with Chicago ahead of DC. I lived in both and found it more convenient in Chicago without the car. I'd say Boston next but then would flip Philly and SF...as frustrating as the Bay Area's transit may be at times, I think it's more comprehensive overall.
And after these top six, it gets much more debatable and ever changing as the cities and systems develop.
Why SF over Philly? It's a smaller total system used by slightly less people over a much smaller area than Philly. Don't see how that's more comprehensive when Phillys commuter rail and bus system is much physically larger and used more heavily than SFs light/heavy rail usage is over Phillys.
Why SF over Philly? It's a smaller total system used by slightly less people over a much smaller area than Philly. Don't see how that's more comprehensive when Phillys commuter rail and bus system is much physically larger and used more heavily than SFs light/heavy rail usage is over Phillys.
Is it? Can you show me? If so I stand corrected and was just judging based on personal experience, but I can't find evidence of what you say. To me (according to wikipedia) looks like BART is much larger and with more passengers than SEPTA and PATCO heavy rail combined. And MUNI plus cable car has more than double the ridership and approximately the same distance as all SEPTA light rail. What am I missing? Some of the commuter lines into NJ and DE? Buses? Is it that big of a difference to make up for the huge difference in rail?
Is it? Can you show me? If so I stand corrected and was just judging based on personal experience, but I can't find evidence of what you say. To me (according to wikipedia) looks like BART is much larger and with more passengers than SEPTA and PATCO heavy rail combined. And MUNI plus cable car has more than double the ridership and approximately the same distance as all SEPTA light rail. What am I missing? Some of the commuter lines into NJ and DE? Buses? Is it that big of a difference to make up for the huge difference in rail?
I too would take Philly over SF, even though SF's mass transit is VERY good. The reasons? Philly has such a large, layered rail network and bus system.
Philly's Rail (and one bus) components:
City Rapid Transit: It has a basic subway-elevated system in the City that traverses it's 2 main streets: Market and Broad Streets.
Underground Trolleys: Add to that the subway-surface lines that cover much of West Philly and is comparable to Muni's LRT.
One honest-to-goodness streetcar line: Route 15 Girard Street ... a few years ago a new short branch off Route 15 to the new Sugar House casino on the Delaware River.
Suburban Rapid Transit: Then add the suburban rapid transit lines:
- PACTO (automated) a quasi HRT-commuter rail line (similar to BART, smaller, older)... the PATCO high-speed line fully integrates with the Broad Street and Market Frankfort HRT's in downtown (Center City) Philadelphia (even though fares of the 2 systems are separate and there's no discounted or free transfer privileges)
- Red Arrow trolleys (from 69th St el terminal), 2 private ROW LRT lines into Delaware County
- Route 100 (aka Norristown High Speed Line, also from 60th St): an unusual 3rd rail surface high-platform hybrid of the old interurban RR type, which operates like an HRT but has light equipment and traffic -- 13 miles through the Main Line area ending in downtown Norristown (connecting directly to a Regional Rail line, see below),
Regional Rail - actually the combination of 2 large commuter rail networks (the Pennsylvania and Reading RRs) connected in the 1980s through a 4-track downtown tunnel -- Philly's commuter rail system is the only fully electrified and fully connected/integrated system in the United States: very similar to the German and Austrian S-Bahn networks and capable of full rapid transit operation (if serious money to upgrading is spent). Philly's regional rail is over 200 miles long (with nearly that many stations), has 13 branches (including 4 rapid-transit type lines that don't even leave the City limits, including a line that directly serves Phila. International Airport) and covers 4 Pennsylvania counties as well as entering into New Jersey (on 2 routes) and Delaware).
- Trolley Buses - Philly has 3 routes in the North, Northeast sides of town running from the Frankford Terminal (Transportation Center)... Sadly 2 routes traversing South Philly were decommissioned in the early 2000s due to cost.
- New Jersey Transit -- operates a diesel commuter rail line to Atlantic City
- Amtrak - Philly is a core city on the NEC featuring America's only HSR, it also features a 104-mile electrified branch to Harrisburg featuring hourly service daily.
Total Transit Ridership in San Francisco Area (All Muni Modes, BART, AC Transit, SamTrans, GGT): 1,388,300
Total Transit Ridership in Philadelphia Area (All SEPTA Modes, All South Jersey NJT): 1,301,158
Transit Ridership as a Percentage of MSA Population for San Francisco: 27.6%
Transit Ridership as a Percentage of MSA Population for Philadelphia: 21.6%
Percentage of Central-City Residents Commuting by Transit (or Walking) in San Francisco: 50.2%
Percentage of Central-City Residents Commuting by Transit (or Walking) in Philadelphia: 50.0%
So they're close but I'd definitely say the edge goes to SF
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,197,522 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMBX
Total Transit Ridership in San Francisco Area (All Muni Modes, BART, AC Transit, SamTrans, GGT): 1,388,300
Total Transit Ridership in Philadelphia Area (All SEPTA Modes, All South Jersey NJT): 1,301,158
Transit Ridership as a Percentage of MSA Population for San Francisco: 27.6%
Transit Ridership as a Percentage of MSA Population for Philadelphia: 21.6%
Percentage of Central-City Residents Commuting by Transit (or Walking) in San Francisco: 50.2%
Percentage of Central-City Residents Commuting by Transit (or Walking) in Philadelphia: 50.0%
So they're close but I'd definitely say the edge goes to SF
Are those annual or daily numbers? What's your source? Not to say you're outright wrong, I just haven't been able to find annual ridership numbers for Phillys bus ridership, it's largest statistical daily advantage over SF.
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.
