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.
How does LA have inferior infrastructure? They both have huge interstate networks. They both obviously have comparable water and electricity and internet.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,177,144 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
How does LA have inferior infrastructure? They both have huge interstate networks. They both obviously have comparable water and electricity and internet.
I think the OP was getting at heavy rail and better infrastructure in per-capita terms, in terms of SF having superior infrastructure, in which I see his point. Still very debatable, as it depends on how you define superior infrastructure.
The SF/Bay vs LA dichotomy might be the only applicable scenario here. Perhaps Houston city proper vs Dallas city proper, as well (though Dallas' metro is larger). DC isn't politically part of Maryland, but it does have better infrastructure than Baltimore.
I think the OP was getting at heavy rail and better infrastructure in per-capita terms, in terms of SF having superior infrastructure, in which I see his point. Still very debatable, as it depends on how you define superior infrastructure.
SF does have better heavy rail, but that's a tiny % of metropolitan-area infrastructure.
And wouldn't it be logical that a metro with higher transit share have better transit? I wouldn't expect otherwise.
How does LA have inferior infrastructure? They both have huge interstate networks. They both obviously have comparable water and electricity and internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityGuyForLife
I think the OP was getting at heavy rail and better infrastructure in per-capita terms, in terms of SF having superior infrastructure, in which I see his point. Still very debatable, as it depends on how you define superior infrastructure.
The SF/Bay vs LA dichotomy might be the only applicable scenario here. Perhaps Houston city proper vs Dallas city proper, as well (though Dallas' metro is larger). DC isn't politically part of Maryland, but it does have better infrastructure than Baltimore.
Yes, you are right. I guess infrastructure is a broad term to use. I was thinking transit, cycling, green spaces, public amenities( libraries, hospitals etc), internet speed, water quality and availability, grid...
Miami in Florida. The city is smaller than Jacksonville while still having better infrastructure.
City pop. is a useless metric. Miami's infrastructure reflects a metropolitan area of 6million people. Jacksonville's infrastructure reflects a metro area one quarter the size of Miami. I don't think this is a good comparison for this question. Miami is NOT smaller than Jacksonville.
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.
