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.
I don't know anything about Clevelands rail system.
I will say St. Louis is well connected (schools,
airports, scott afb, major employment centers, shopping, hospitals (Barnes and SLU), and is very efficient. Rarely a train is late and they are always very clean.
The ridership is low due to the lack of traffic on freeways and low car ownership costs. It's faster and easier to own a car. St. Louis is also very fragmented unlike Boston or Seattle.
What do you mean by "very fragmented" compared to Boston?
I know about the Great Divorce and the myriad municipalities in St. Louis County, but there are 79 cities and towns in the MBTA's service area, and a dozen or so (or maybe more) beyond it served by MBTA commuter (regional) rail lines.
What do you mean by "very fragmented" compared to Boston?
I know about the Great Divorce and the myriad municipalities in St. Louis County, but there are 79 cities and towns in the MBTA's service area, and a dozen or so (or maybe more) beyond it served by MBTA commuter (regional) rail lines.
Yes NYC and Boston have very fragmented commuter rails.
Yes NYC and Boston have very fragmented commuter rails.
But not High Speed Rail/Light Rails
In which case, I still take issue with your statement.
St. Louis has no regional/commuter rail at all, but its light metro line runs from Scott Airport outside Belleville, Ill., through the downtown to two branches — one serving Delmar Loop and Lambert Airport, the other serving Clayton and Shrewsbury.
And like the MBTA, one agency operates the entire metropolitan transit system: St. Louis Metro is a subsidiary of the Bi-State Development Agency. New York has four separate authorities running or funding mass transit.
It's far from the worst in the abstract, but SF might have the most overrated transit system. I think people (including myself before I moved here) just see that a lot of train and streetcar lines exist, and that the city is extremely dense, and come to the reasonable assumption that the transit functions well. It doesn't, it's just that driving is much harder.
The entire North Bay has no rail transit and no plans for it.
Two of BART's five lines stop running at 9 pm. That is laughable for any real "transit-friendly" city.
The other three BART lines and most MUNI buses and streetcars stop running at 12 am --- still pretty ridiculous if the city wants to build up a nightlife scene and give young people a reason to stay/come back post-COVID. This is not some struggling Midwestern city, we have the wealth to make it happen. I've noticed that even Seattle has better nightlife than SF does, and I think the transit is a big part of why.
It's far from the worst in the abstract, but SF might have the most overrated transit system. I think people (including myself before I moved here) just see that a lot of train and streetcar lines exist, and that the city is extremely dense, and come to the reasonable assumption that the transit functions well. It doesn't, it's just that driving is much harder.
The entire North Bay has no rail transit and no plans for it.
Two of BART's five lines stop running at 9 pm. That is laughable for any real "transit-friendly" city.
The other three BART lines and most MUNI buses and streetcars stop running at 12 am --- still pretty ridiculous if the city wants to build up a nightlife scene and give young people a reason to stay/come back post-COVID. This is not some struggling Midwestern city, we have the wealth to make it happen. I've noticed that even Seattle has better nightlife than SF does, and I think the transit is a big part of why.
I can see it being overrated, though SF still has among the best transit systems in the nation--it's just that most US cities currently have pretty bad transit systems compared to those of cities in other developed countries.
North Bay does have rail transit. It has SMART operating in Sonoma and Marin counties. It's not very long and it's commuter rail, but it does exist. There was once originally a plan to extend BART over the bridge to North Bay, though that's going be a long, long while.
I do think their rail transit operating hours are ridiculous. I think a blanket 1 am makes more sense with later hours for the weekend. I do think replacing those services with night buses otherwise is good, but that's not what's happening either.
It's far from the worst in the abstract, but SF might have the most overrated transit system. I think people (including myself before I moved here) just see that a lot of train and streetcar lines exist, and that the city is extremely dense, and come to the reasonable assumption that the transit functions well. It doesn't, it's just that driving is much harder.
The entire North Bay has no rail transit and no plans for it.
Two of BART's five lines stop running at 9 pm. That is laughable for any real "transit-friendly" city.
The other three BART lines and most MUNI buses and streetcars stop running at 12 am --- still pretty ridiculous if the city wants to build up a nightlife scene and give young people a reason to stay/come back post-COVID. This is not some struggling Midwestern city, we have the wealth to make it happen. I've noticed that even Seattle has better nightlife than SF does, and I think the transit is a big part of why.
TimidBlueBars, remember that the Bay area is not San Francisco writ large. Even within the "SF" metropolitan area, San Francisco is more exception than rule... certainly this is so of transit service. The bus I use most often comes by about every 7 minutes; a few blocks away there's another line where they run even more often (or did so pre-pandemic, anyway). And Muni claims (I haven't studied a map to confirm this) that almost every SF resident is within three blocks of a Muni line.
Transit services in the East Bay, North Bay and Peninsula are not remotely comparable. I think even on most "major" lines, buses arrive about every half-hour (AC Transit's new bus-rapid-transit line being an exception). And BART was built to haul white-collar suburbanites to their offices... so don't be surprised that it gives short shrift to night and weekend riders.
The upshot is, I get around easily without owning a vehicle (not only because of Muni, but because so much is within walking distance... I often walked to work, even). That might be do-able in a few neighborhoods outside SF, but it would be more difficult (and of course it wouldn't be easy in some parts of SF either).
And, as I've been here many years, I can vouch that today's Muni is much better than the Muni of the 1990s -- better vehicles today, fewer bottlenecks.... and it's rare to see graffiti on a bus now.
Muni still has problems, certainly. Since you're new in town, you've got a fresh perspective. And you've previously lived in other places with good transit (Chicago, Seattle). What are some improvements you'd like to see made to Muni?
SF is ground-zero for driverless taxis. IF that progresses then it could change the complexion of transit in the future.
But yes, agree with the sentiments above that SF's overall network's effectiveness and coverage is very disappointing and likely the worst of the big 6 and perhaps even a few others.
I've noticed that even Seattle has better nightlife than SF does, and I think the transit is a big part of why.
I completely agree, and it didn't used to be like that. In the early 2000s San Francisco was a top nightlife city in my opinion. It has gone way downhill, while Seattle now has several nightlife neighborhoods that to me are more exciting and have a more fun, organic and unpredictable vibe than SF.
I completely agree, and it didn't used to be like that. In the early 2000s San Francisco was a top nightlife city in my opinion. It has gone way downhill, while Seattle now has several nightlife neighborhoods that to me are more exciting and have a more fun, organic and unpredictable vibe than SF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by projectmaximus
SF is ground-zero for driverless taxis. IF that progresses then it could change the complexion of transit in the future. But yes, agree with the sentiments above that SF's overall network's effectiveness and coverage is very disappointing and likely the worst of the big 6 and perhaps even a few others.
I've lived in SF for many years, but I'm not from N CA originally... and I'm not an SF 'homer,'
who feels compelled to dispute any criticism. But I'm curious to know what people think
are the shortcomings of Muni. As I wrote up above, I've found the bus service in my neighborhood
to be excellent. I've lived in several different parts of town over the years, and always got around
easily on Muni; I haven't needed a car.
Nightlife never appealed to me, even when I was young. So I don't know whether Muni's
after-midnight service is inferior to that of comparable cities.... I'm not out and about then.
But it would be interesting to hear some thoughts on what Muni could be doing better
in its service, other than extending the night time hours.
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.
