Best Cities for Public Transportation (quality, school, airport, states)
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.
All the arguing! There is no real answer to the question other than NYC...the rest are all in the next tier and it's impossible to say which one is significantly ahead of the others. It's sad to see that anyone has voted for any other system outside of NYC. True homerism on display.
Good god, the number two choice on the poll right now is Atlanta. I thought I'd seen ignorance in my day but damn
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,197,522 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTarheel
All the arguing! There is no real answer to the question other than NYC...the rest are all in the next tier and it's impossible to say which one is significantly ahead of the others. It's sad to see that anyone has voted for any other system outside of NYC. True homerism on display.
That's not entirely accurate. Clearly, Chicago and D.C. are above Boston, Philly and SF...just nowhere as big of a gap as NYC to everywhere else. The argument, to keep this rehashed thread alive and entertain our debating skills, is what order is it after NYC? D.C. over Chicago or Chicago over D.C.? Per capita and modernity wise, D.C. is a heavy hitter. But Chicago is bigger and 24/7 on some lines. See the debate now?
Then after that, what's the exact order between the slightly lesser tier of Boston, Philly and SF? Each has significant pluses and minuses. If anything, arguing the tiers after NYC is more fun. NYC is like the Superman of superheroes in this discussion--unbeatable and boring. Give me an Arrow vs Batman type of battle anyday lol.
You never proved anything. You listed out some lines that have recently re-opened or begun experimenting with 24 hour service on the weekends, and some other things/lines that don't really serve all that many people or a reach as wide a breadth of interesting/happening areas, but they happen to be 24 hours (PATCO Speedline for one).
The fact that Chicago is a much more extensive urban environment with significant late night nightlife well outside its core, largely along the red line going north and some parts of the blue line on the way to O'Hare, in addition to hitting higher density areas and far more people overall, in addition to going directly to one of the world's busiest airports with non-stops around the world and passenger boardings at every which hour, means that the Red and Blue lines alone (which have been 24 hours forever) are more useful to more people than Philly's newish experimentation with 24 hour service on a system that isn't nearly as extensive to begin with and in a city where the bulk of late night nightlife is concentrated downtown and isn't nearly as extensive or scattered as it is in Chicago.
I'm not proving anything, and you certainly have not. For me, Chicago's 24 hour service has come to the rescue (I like to stay downtown and go out in Lakeview...and I tend to book weird hour flights out of O'hare since I don't use Southwest). In Philly I stay downtown, and I play downtown. As a visitor, there really is no other area I really wish to check out at night, when 24 hour service would be of use. There is no equivalent for Pilsen, Wicker Park, Logan Square, Lakeview/Boystown, Wrigleyville, Andersonville, Lincoln Park, etc etc. The rail to the airport is commuter and I don't believe it offers much service outside of the "9-5" window (it is a shorter trip into 30th St than the Blue line is from O'Hare to the Loop).
Fact is, some people will find 24 hour service more useful in one city than the other. I find it *significantly* more useful in Chicago, which has consistently been running 24 hour service for its entire existence and has almost as many riders on its red line as Philadelphia has on its entire SEPTA heavy rail system.
You find 24 hour service more useful in Chicago than Philly. Okay that's your opinion. The fact reminds that Philly has more subway lines that run 24-hr than Chicago does. There's no getting around that. Keep in mind that I still said Chicago had a better subway system than Philly. Also I ranked Chicago higher than Philly as a transit city. I guess you missed that too.
Quote:
I'll tell you what - I go the opposite route. I penalize a city like SF for relying so much on a crappy LTR system that breaks down, was poorly designed, misses entire sections of town, and has max capacity for 2 cars when clearly the density is there to support heavy rail and the need is there to lay underground standard gauge track in more parts of town (rather than LTR, which in my mind is short-sighted).
I commend cities like DC that have largely focused on heavy rail, the level of system it needs. Portland is a light rail city and a tram/streetcar city. Not a heavy rail city. It got that right. Philly, DC, SF, and Boston are all certainly heavy rail cities, not cities that should prioritize light rail over heavy rail.
I penalize DC for focusing too much on streetcars when it should focus more on commuter lines (in my opinion). I penalize Philly and Boston for having systems that while offering lots of coverage, are a bit disjointed and not the most user friendly. I penalize SF for so much it's just not even worth discussing.
But I sure has heck don't penalize DC, Chicago, or New York for not having light rail when they don't need light rail and have superior, higher capacity systems more appropriate for their scale/size in light rail's place.
Just to clarify, New York does have light rail in its metro area. I already explained the rest numerous times already.
All the arguing! There is no real answer to the question other than NYC...the rest are all in the next tier and it's impossible to say which one is significantly ahead of the others. It's sad to see that anyone has voted for any other system outside of NYC.True homerism on display.
Huh? You have been glamorizing Bay Area transit more than I have! I live here. It's pathetic! And that's all I've been saying. Nobody in their right mind, and certainly nobody who lives in the Bay Area, has anything positive to say about the transit. It's pretty much a running joke. As were the cabs in this city. If car ownership continues falling in SF, it's simply because more people are opting to just use Uber and Lyft to get around (I have been to no other city with such a high concentration of rideshare cars on the road...not even close). But you clearly have no experience with Bay Area transit because the systems you praise are the worst and the systems you criticize are the best. And you clearly don't get it.
I ranked San Francisco #6 on my list. It certainly shows its flaws when compared to the cities of the Northeast but I still believe that it's still the best in the west, though Los Angeles is certainly closing the gap with its rapidly growing transit development. I predict that LA will have better mass transit than SF in 30-40 years.
Quote:
Also, the way you described other transit systems set me off, as well. My experience in NYC, Philly, SF, Boston, and DC is clearly different from yours. My views on transit are different, too. I wouldn't call that being a "homer".
Based on your many other posts, you certainly qualify as a homer. You might as well be proud of it.
I ranked San Francisco #6 on my list. It certainly shows its flaws when compared to the cities of the Northeast but I still believe that it's still the best in the west, though Los Angeles is certainly closing the gap with its rapidly growing transit development. I predict that LA will have better mass transit than SF in 30-40 years.
Based on your many other posts, you certainly qualify as a homer. You might as well be proud of it.
You might want to call people out for being a homer when they are actually being a homer. Using it out of context when no homerism is involved can be seen as a cheap way to discredit someone...or you have just run out of useful things to say. And for the record, I'm pretty reasonable as a homer. I trend positive on areas I like, particularly where I live, but I don't exaggerate or go overboard. I probably tick more people off because I pose decent arguments and state facts that can't be refuted.
In your mind, sheer # of lines/transit options that are 24 hour, no matter if they are fairly useless or not, is more meaningful than having 24 hour options that are actually very useful and very heavily used, reaching a ton of people and places that stay open late. Ok, but that's entirely flawed logic in my mind.
Couple that with the argument that I could claim that you're being "homer-ey" for ranking Philly ahead of DC and Boston, perhaps even SF, though I can see the latter. Most people who have ridden all these systems enough to grasp their extent would probably not do that - in fact I rarely see it. I also highly doubt that most people would give Philly more 24 hour credit simply because it offers weekend service on a couple more lines than Chicago, which offers 24/7 365 days a year on 2 of the most useful and busiest heavy rail lines in this entire country, hitting most of the spots that really matter on a late night basis, including the nation's 2nd busiest airport and an aggregate of more nightlife than Philly can shake a stick at (not to mention hundreds of thousands if not millions more people).
Again, flawed logic.
Then you truly believe that no system is complete without light rail. And as if we're really going to say New York has light rail. I actually had to look that up...there's some light rail in NJ...ok (it's like Charlotte's LYNX line stuck somewhere in a metro of 20 million people, nearly half of whom use the subways and another huge chunk who use the regionals...). For all intents and purposes, NYC is entirely heavy rail and commuter rail. Its system mirrors London's and Paris's and Tokyo's and Shanghai's and Beijing's and Madrid's and Sao Paulo's and other truly world class systems that use entirely standard gauge track and put most if not all of their systems under ground.
I wouldn't call Chicago or DC's systems world class on that level, but their heavy rails are easily 2/3 behind NYC and both also use standard gauge electrified commuter rail, Chicago extensively. I would say both systems are entirely fine, even better, without dinky little light rail lines. Not saying there's never an opportunity to put light rail in when it serves a little niche role in the greater system, but SF/Philly/Boston make significant use of light rail when it should probably be heavy rail. They should be penalized for over reliance on light rail given their density/stature, not the other way around where similarly large/dense cities opt for heavy rail instead of light.
One of the biggest complaints here in SF regarding your "fantastic MUNI metro" is that there is not nearly enough capacity during rush hour and the trains are slow, almost like buses, once out of the tunnels. The city is spending $2 billion to build another light rail line to nowhere (a whole mile ) that will have platforms with capacity for no more than a 2 car light rail train, and the entire north side of the city will still not be served. Talk about a boondoggle and a waste, people are crying for a BART/heavy rail extension down Geary and a 2nd Transbay Tube...and believe me, even the most uneducated people know the vast difference between light and heavy rail after living with both systems side by side in SF.
So again, just completely flawed logic, I think, on your part.
All the arguing! There is no real answer to the question other than NYC...the rest are all in the next tier and it's impossible to say which one is significantly ahead of the others. It's sad to see that anyone has voted for any other system outside of NYC. True homerism on display.
I was waiting for some parameters to be added...you know...best for xyz use, or best for its size, or cleanest, etc. Without any additional parameters, it is and always will be NYC. It's way too comprehensive and way too far ahead.
I agree with Chicago ahead of DC. I lived in both and found it more convenient in Chicago without the car. I'd say Boston next but then would flip Philly and SF...as frustrating as the Bay Area's transit may be at times, I think it's more comprehensive overall.
And after these top six, it gets much more debatable and ever changing as the cities and systems develop.
I agree with your order of things.
Sorry Philly, when you force people to use tokens or have exact-cash-fare, you lose a few points for convenience. I remember a friend and I coming back to CC from NoLibs late into the night, we didn't have exact change and I just ended up giving the booth guy 5$ (no token machines at that station).
Oh and also, no place to buy a ticket from the airport into the city, you just get charged the extra fare on the train. Why is that?!
Part of the reason why I hardly leave CC.
NYC, Boston and Chicago are doing it right with cards you can use for buses or rails. Wait, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't L.A. have that too? L.A. of all places too, c'mon Philly, you can do better.
All of the top cities (NYC, Boston, Chicago, DC, LA, SF) have reloadable cards that can be used on trains and buses, except for Philly. Chicago, DC, LA, and SF have "smartcards" that work on anything and can store a lot of money, and New York will be implementing them soon
All of the top cities (NYC, Boston, Chicago, DC, LA, SF) have reloadable cards that can be used on trains and buses, except for Philly. Chicago, DC, LA, and SF have "smartcards" that work on anything and can store a lot of money, and New York will be implementing them soon
Philly is rolling out smart cards as well. They will go from tokens to smart cards. NYC might be the last out of the big systems to roll out smart cards, because the system is huge and it would take years and half a billion dollars to switch.
Last edited by Gantz; 07-29-2015 at 08:23 AM..
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.
) that will have platforms with capacity for no more than a 2 car light rail train, and the entire north side of the city will still not be served. Talk about a boondoggle and a waste, people are crying for a BART/heavy rail extension down Geary and a 2nd Transbay Tube...and believe me, even the most uneducated people know the vast difference between light and heavy rail after living with both systems side by side in SF.
