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.
LA is the exception to the rule among Second Subway Era heavy rail metros — all the others are hybrids at best. Washington does combine a core-city circulator network with "remote vehicle storage" for suburbanites traveling into the urban core, but most of the systems/lines — BART, MARTA, Baltimore Metro, Miami Metrorail — perform the commuter function more than they do the circulator function (though Miami's people mover does graft a downtown circulator onto the suburban commuter elevated at the Government Center point of contact).
Boston, a First Subway Era legacy system, got a Second Subway Era commuter system tacked onto it between 1957 (Riverside Green Line) and the 1970s (Red Line South Shore Extension, Orange Line to Malden Center; the Red Line extension to Arlington Heights got truncated at Alewife). Its hub-and-spoke layout no doubt helped make this decision something of a no-brainer.
LA ended up getting a more traditional three-tier system: Metrolink commuter rail, two heavy rail subway lines, four light rail lines and a BRT route. All of the latter serve as city circulators more than commuter routes.
I also consider the systems in San Diego, Seattle, Dallas and Buffalo "light metros" in that they generally operate on their own rights-of-way (as opposed to in reserved medians with crossing gates) and have rapid-transit-style station spacing, even if (as in three of the four cities) they run in the street downtown. Dallas is building a downtown subway to take the pressure off the street-running section. Buffalo is unique in that it runs at grade in a downtown street, then goes into a subway for service to the outlying districts.
The other interesting thing is, more cities got heavy rail rapid transit in the Second Subway Era (Atlanta, Baltimore, LA, Miami, San Francisco/Oakland, Washington DC) than in the First (Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia; Cleveland comes in between the two eras). And where only one currently running light metro — Newark, NJ (1937) and one fast LRT line (Cleveland Shaker Rapid late 1920s) — opened in the First Subway Era, we have five cities (Buffalo, Dallas, San Diego, St. Louis, Seattle) with them now, and even more with faster LRT lines (Baltimore, LA, Minneapolis-St. Paul).
Rochester, NY, holds the dubious distinction of being the only city in the country to have opened an LRT subway (1927) and closed it (1956). Cincinnati never finished the heavy rail subway it started in the late 1920s.
Yes, Yes, and YES! I absolutely admire LA's more, er, 'sensible' traditional 3-tiered rail transit approach -- in many ways, it's a throwback to your 'first Era' subway/RR. I've heard people criticize LA Metro's LRT's for so many grade-level routes with grade crossings. To that I say: LA planners smartly adapted its rail network to the city it's serving. Before the 'we'll, Duh!' response, consider the fact that American cities were not doing this in the modern (3rd era). Cleveland did (in the in-between period) by simply completing, in the 1950s, the cross-town rapid transit line that was begun in 1929 (there's still some debate as to whether it was projected as a full high-platform HRT or a hybrid high/low platform line -- high platforms were built in Terminal Tower for the eventual CTS rapids, but not on the built 'East Cleveland branch').
LA’s system works; is working. Not perfect, but it’s far better than most LRT’s (see: Houston’s rehashed street-running streetcar system they’re trying to palm off as true rapid transit). LA’s Metrorail has enough grade separation, and fast high-platform boarding to be a true rapid transit, in my book. And for HRT, … yes, it’s entirely an expensive subway, but it’s limited to 1 trunk and 2 branch lines. And it’s conventional, non-computer driven/Space Age heavy rail rapid transit. LA learned from the overreach of the BARTs and the DC Metro’s of the world.
As for US rapid transit failures, I’d also throw in Milwaukee’s Speedrail. Like most growing, industrial Midwestern metro-cities of the early 20th Century, Milwaukee inherited a massive interurban network. But smartly, they began converting a portion of it – the western leg – into a conventional grade-separated LRT into downtown Milwaukee (much like Cleveland, Rochester, Newark and Cincinnati). But their just-started short subway into downtown failed during the Great Depression so trains ran through city streets and terminated at street level. While I’m not 100% certain, I don’t doubt that’s a major reason why the system collapsed and died and why Milwaukee has no rapid transit, today.
I think people are overly hard on BART. Yes, it is/was incredibly expensive and, yes, it is most extensive in the suburbs and functions as a high-frequency commuter rail network. But BART really should be judged as a cog in metro-San Francisco's vast mass transit network, which is now in the process of electrifying the CalTrain commuter rail line down the peninsula. Folks need to realize how geographically tricky metro SF is. It's a tiny, extremely hilly, high-density at the tip of a long peninsula surrounded by a massive bay on 2 sides, and the Pacific Ocean, on the third. But despite packing its 815K population within 47 square miles (for 18,600+/sq. mi -- 2nd only in the US behind Manhattan), the vast bulk of the metro population is either in East Bay (mainly), or down the Peninsula, all the way to San Jose (a 1M city, itself), and beyond.
Creating a rail transit network to service such an area is tricky at best, but officials have done a pretty good job in my book. BART was designed mainly to distribute metro commuters in SF, both downtown and into neighborhoods and close-in burbs, including SF International Airport. BART is available for some movement within SF/close suburbs to the south, and there the stations are much closer spaced. But to have legacy/East Coast style close station spacing (ie. every .5 miles) in BART's primary East Bay commuting area wouldn't make sense and would be slow and totally ineffective. Obviously, MUNI Metro (buses and LRT) was designed primarily for within SF transit. It's not perfect and can be slow ... at times, but trains do speed through the Market Street tunnel route, including through the Twin Peaks. Overall, BART, MUNI, and CalTrain (including the other DMU commuter rail services to the North and East, offer superior transit service compared to most US cities, and rivals the legacy systems of Chicago and the Northeast Corridor.
It's true that the SF Bay area's topography is a challenging one from transit.
And yet, even 80 years ago, local transit providers had solutions:
there was the Southern Pacific commuter rail line (now Cal Train) on the Peninsula,
and trains on the Bay Bridge rolling into the Transbay Terminal.
Now rail is long-gone from the Bridge, and the new Transbay Terminal is much fancier --
yet less functional -- than the old one (owing to the loss of one set of ramps).
And Cal Train still terminates at King Street in deep South-of-Market, rather than
where it ought to (near the Financial District).
And while BART has of course become an important piece of the area's transit scene, it's also had a very detrimental effect too, owing to its 100%-suburban orientation. No longer satisfied with running the original 1972 system, in the '90s BART set about extending its lines deeper and deeper into lower-density portions of the area: expensive heavy-rail projects along routes that mostly didn't add big increments of riders, despite the inclusion of acres of low-priced parking spaces. The Dublin-Pleasanton extension cost about $250 million for only two stations (even though the line was built in a freeway right-of-way).
And the wasteful, unneeded BART extension to San Francisco airport is a story in itself.
The problem with BART is not only the projects it builds, but the fact that its projects crowd out worthier non-BART projects. Decades ago, after I moved here and learned about local transit, I realized that the most important improvements the area needed were:
1) rail under Geary Blvd, where slow diesel buses move ~40,000 passengers a day (I've heard that a rule of thumb for when rail is needed is 10,000 a day).
2) a short extension to Cal Train so it reaches downtown SF, to at last unlock the potential of the 60+ mile system.
Yet even now in 2022, the Cal Train extension is still looking for funding, and rail on Geary is being discussed only in the context of a future second transbay tube.... something for the far-distant future.
Of course, there's no guarantee that not building dumb projects would've caused smart projects to be built. But the missed opportunities are a sad thing.
New Jersey has THE best statewide rail transit network by far and it is even close.
Agreed. New Jersey Transit Corporation is also the nation's third-biggest transit agency, after the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of the State of New York and the Regional Transportation Authority of Northeast Illinois (the Chicago Transit Authority's parent).
And the main reason New Jersey Transit's rail network is weak south of the East (North) Jersey/West (South) Jersey dividing line is because South Jersey didn't suburbanize on a large scale until after World War II. The one rail line that did get built prior to the creation of the New Jersey Transit Corporation is Philadelphia's answer to PATH in North Jersey, right down to being built and operated by an agency with "Port Authority" in its name*; of the three corridors Parsons Brinckerhoff's 1952 rapid transit study for the just-rechristened Delaware River Port Authority identified as candidates for rapid transit service, it was the most densely built and developed, paralleling both the main rail line and one of the two main highways connecting Philadelphia with Atlantic City.
South Jersey pols have been pretty steadfast in holding their North Jersey counterparts' feet to the fire about expanding rail service in their part of the state. The River Line connecting Trenton and Camden is of dubious value, I'll grant, but the Atlantic City Rail Line is actually useful — and I also believe the proposed Glassboro-Camden LRT line will be, as it will serve the fastest-growing university in the state (Rowan University in Glassboro).
Whether PATCO Corridor A — from Camden to Mt. Holly, roughly paralleling NJ 38 — ever gets a rail line (the PATCO Lindenwold Line occupies Corridor B, and the proposed Glassboro-Camden LRT represents an extension of PATCO Corridor C beyond its original terminus of Woodbury — remains to be seen.
*But unlike the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (nee Port of New York Authority, 1921), the Delaware River Port Authority (nee Delaware River Bridge Joint Commission, 1919) operates no actual port facilities in either New Jersey or Pennsylvania.
Agreed. New Jersey Transit Corporation is also the nation's third-biggest transit agency, after the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of the State of New York and the Regional Transportation Authority of Northeast Illinois (the Chicago Transit Authority's parent).
And the main reason New Jersey Transit's rail network is weak south of the East (North) Jersey/West (South) Jersey dividing line is because South Jersey didn't suburbanize on a large scale until after World War II. The one rail line that did get built prior to the creation of the New Jersey Transit Corporation is Philadelphia's answer to PATH in North Jersey, right down to being built and operated by an agency with "Port Authority" in its name*; of the three corridors Parsons Brinckerhoff's 1952 rapid transit study for the just-rechristened Delaware River Port Authority identified as candidates for rapid transit service, it was the most densely built and developed, paralleling both the main rail line and one of the two main highways connecting Philadelphia with Atlantic City.
South Jersey pols have been pretty steadfast in holding their North Jersey counterparts' feet to the fire about expanding rail service in their part of the state. The River Line connecting Trenton and Camden is of dubious value, I'll grant, but the Atlantic City Rail Line is actually useful — and I also believe the proposed Glassboro-Camden LRT line will be, as it will serve the fastest-growing university in the state (Rowan University in Glassboro).
Whether PATCO Corridor A — from Camden to Mt. Holly, roughly paralleling NJ 38 — ever gets a rail line (the PATCO Lindenwold Line occupies Corridor B, and the proposed Glassboro-Camden LRT represents an extension of PATCO Corridor C beyond its original terminus of Woodbury — remains to be seen.
*But unlike the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (nee Port of New York Authority, 1921), the Delaware River Port Authority (nee Delaware River Bridge Joint Commission, 1919) operates no actual port facilities in either New Jersey or Pennsylvania.
I don't have a problem "fixating" on that metric because I think it is a good snapshot of the efficacy of that system, and that LACMTA ultimately made the right call by emphasizing light rail (also paying homage to the legacy transit system) and surgically placing heavy rail where it would look and feel like a big city rapid transit.
In between the "red car" era and the modern "Proposition A" borne Metro, there were calls for a 145 mile underground subway-all the way to Warner Center from what I understand. Had those calls succeeded, Metro would likely resemble the BART of today in terms of being a "suburban subway."
So that's one reason I watch numbers like ridership per mile for rapid transit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
LA is the exception to the rule among Second Subway Era heavy rail metros — all the others are hybrids at best. Washington does combine a core-city circulator network with "remote vehicle storage" for suburbanites traveling into the urban core, but most of the systems/lines — BART, MARTA, Baltimore Metro, Miami Metrorail — perform the commuter function more than they do the circulator function (though Miami's people mover does graft a downtown circulator onto the suburban commuter elevated at the Government Center point of contact).
Boston, a First Subway Era legacy system, got a Second Subway Era commuter system tacked onto it between 1957 (Riverside Green Line) and the 1970s (Red Line South Shore Extension, Orange Line to Malden Center; the Red Line extension to Arlington Heights got truncated at Alewife). Its hub-and-spoke layout no doubt helped make this decision something of a no-brainer.
LA ended up getting a more traditional three-tier system: Metrolink commuter rail, two heavy rail subway lines, four light rail lines and a BRT route. All of the latter serve as city circulators more than commuter routes.
I also consider the systems in San Diego, Seattle, Dallas and Buffalo "light metros" in that they generally operate on their own rights-of-way (as opposed to in reserved medians with crossing gates) and have rapid-transit-style station spacing, even if (as in three of the four cities) they run in the street downtown. Dallas is building a downtown subway to take the pressure off the street-running section. Buffalo is unique in that it runs at-grade in a downtown street, then goes into a subway for service to the outlying districts.
The other interesting thing is, more cities got heavy rail rapid transit in the Second Subway Era (Atlanta, Baltimore, LA, Miami, San Francisco/Oakland, Washington DC) than in the First (Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia; Cleveland comes in between the two eras). And where only one currently running light metro — Newark, NJ (1937) and one fast LRT line (Cleveland Shaker Rapid, late 1920s) — opened in the First Subway Era, we have five cities (Buffalo, Dallas, San Diego, St. Louis, Seattle) with them now, and even more with faster LRT lines (Baltimore, LA, Minneapolis-St. Paul).
Rochester, NY, holds the dubious distinction of being the only city in the country to have opened an LRT subway (1927) and closed it (1956). Cincinnati never finished the heavy rail subway it started in the late 1920s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProf
Yes, Yes, and YES! I absolutely admire LA's more, er, 'sensible' traditional 3-tiered rail transit approach -- in many ways, it's a throwback to your 'first Era' subway/RR. I've heard people criticize LA Metro's LRT's for so many grade-level routes with grade crossings. To that I say: LA planners smartly adapted its rail network to the city it's serving. Before the 'we'll, Duh!' response, consider the fact that American cities were not doing this in the modern (3rd era). Cleveland did (in the in-between period) by simply completing, in the 1950s, the cross-town rapid transit line that was begun in 1929 (there's still some debate as to whether it was projected as a full high-platform HRT or a hybrid high/low platform line -- high platforms were built in Terminal Tower for the eventual CTS rapids, but not on the built 'East Cleveland branch').
LA’s system works; is working. Not perfect, but it’s far better than most LRT’s (see: Houston’s rehashed street-running streetcar system they’re trying to palm off as true rapid transit). LA’s Metrorail has enough grade separation, and fast high-platform boarding to be a true rapid transit, in my book. And for HRT, … yes, it’s entirely an expensive subway, but it’s limited to 1 trunk and 2 branch lines. And it’s conventional, non-computer driven/Space Age heavy rail rapid transit. LA learned from the overreach of the BARTs and the DC Metro’s of the world.
As for US rapid transit failures, I’d also throw in Milwaukee’s Speedrail. Like most growing, industrial Midwestern metro-cities of the early 20th Century, Milwaukee inherited a massive interurban network. But smartly, they began converting a portion of it – the western leg – into a conventional grade-separated LRT into downtown Milwaukee (much like Cleveland, Rochester, Newark and Cincinnati). But their just-started short subway into downtown failed during the Great Depression so trains ran through city streets and terminated at street level. While I’m not 100% certain, I don’t doubt that’s a major reason why the system collapsed and died and why Milwaukee has no rapid transit, today.
I think LA's system history is pretty interesting as is going with light rail, though part of why this happened is actually due to massive political hurdles put in place by people like Congressman Waxman that derailed the heavy rail expansion in the 80s back when there was actual federal and state alignment for paying it and when even adjusted for inflation, the cost of building these were far, far lower. The light rail in some parts was to some degree a consolation prize, but the truth of the matter is that NIMBYism from Beverly Hills killed it the first time around and was somewhat narrowly pushed through to the west side subway extension we're seeing today. It's not just that we're getting it much later at a higher cost, but also think about what the development difference would likely have been for the region. Given LA's widespread density in the urban core, the system LA would have been was more like that of the Washington Metro's Red Line.
That being said, LA as a region, partially due to fairly recent state legislation around TOD, had started to make better use of its light rail network, and it's also here and on bus services where fixating solely on ridership per mile would also be bad but in a different way.
For heavy rail, it was bad because underlying that high ridership per mile was LA getting fairly short spans constructed. For light rail and bus, it's because the density and transit oriented development has for parts of it yet to be built. LA's light rail line doesn't have very high ridership per mile, but that doesn't make it a bad system. It's just going to take a while before infill and reconfiguration of other feeder transit lines into it (or it to become a better feeder such as in the case of a buffed up Metrolink service). Recently passed legislation on TOD on a state wide level will greatly help that, but there is a lag time of sorts since it takes time to permit (possibly demolish) and build.
Think of it like this, when the next phase of the expansion of the Gold Line finishes (or this recently initial phase of the Crenshaw Line that launched short of its Green Line connection), this likely will initially bring down ridership per mile for a while. However, that doesn't mean the system didn't improve even if that metric goes down for a bit, because you have opened up more coverage from the system even if it brings down the average ridership per mile and will have likely increased total ridership and certainly the number of origin/destination sets. It is still a better system even if ridership per mile goes down. This also hearkens back to how much of US rail transit initially developed in the first place as a driver for development and rail systems were sometimes extended into completely greenfield plots at times.
In terms of US transit failures, I think another big one is Seattle's rejection of a Second Subway Era system which was to give Seattle something far more expansive and at a lower cost and much, much earlier than what it has and is going for now. That was also a case of state and federal alignment being thrown away by a narrow margin, though unlike LA, there wasn't even at least a decent compromise for a long while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by masssachoicetts
I think DC has one of the best / efficient / useful aystems.
Underrated award goes to Philly.
North Jersey too.
Agree with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedirtypirate
South Jersey is a bit under served in terms of rail, but NJ in general deserves credit for NJT and having one of the best state wide systems.
Yea, New Jersey has a great among US states transit system, though to be fair, it's also a pretty small state, so it's a bit easier. I think NJT rail operations should run more like a S-Bahn/RER in the Tri-State Area *and* in the Philadelphia suburbs and South Jersey should reactive more lines. Another contender, and also a very small state, is Connecticut which in recent times has created the Hartford Line / Valley Flyer cutting through the middle of the state on a north-south axis as well as moving its eastern CT Shore Line East operations into electric trains which should be faster and operationally cheaper. It'll be interesting to see if the slate of CT rail improvements continue though there are certainly some pretty rough inherited bottlenecks such as the hugging of the jagged coastline for NH line trains (and Amtrak and Shore Line East for that matter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW4me
It's true that the SF Bay area's topography is a challenging one from transit.
And yet, even 80 years ago, local transit providers had solutions:
there was the Southern Pacific commuter rail line (now Cal Train) on the Peninsula,
and trains on the Bay Bridge rolling into the Transbay Terminal.
Now rail is long-gone from the Bridge, and the new Transbay Terminal is much fancier --
yet less functional -- than the old one (owing to the loss of one set of ramps).
And Cal Train still terminates at King Street in deep South-of-Market, rather than
where it ought to (near the Financial District).
And while BART has of course become an important piece of the area's transit scene, it's also had a very detrimental effect too, owing to its 100%-suburban orientation. No longer satisfied with running the original 1972 system, in the '90s BART set about extending its lines deeper and deeper into lower-density portions of the area: expensive heavy-rail projects along routes that mostly didn't add big increments of riders, despite the inclusion of acres of low-priced parking spaces. The Dublin-Pleasanton extension cost about $250 million for only two stations (even though the line was built in a freeway right-of-way).
And the wasteful, unneeded BART extension to San Francisco airport is a story in itself.
The problem with BART is not only the projects it builds, but the fact that its projects crowd out worthier non-BART projects. Decades ago, after I moved here and learned about local transit, I realized that the most important improvements the area needed were:
1) rail under Geary Blvd, where slow diesel buses move ~40,000 passengers a day (I've heard that a rule of thumb for when rail is needed is 10,000 a day).
2) a short extension to Cal Train so it reaches downtown SF, to at last unlock the potential of the 60+ mile system.
Yet even now in 2022, the Cal Train extension is still looking for funding, and rail on Geary is being discussed only in the context of a future second transbay tube.... something for the far-distant future.
Of course, there's no guarantee that not building dumb projects would've caused smart projects to be built. But the missed opportunities are a sad thing.
Some of the problems with BART you note also somewhat carry over from a bad design decision, an actual *physical* design spec, that is still a problem to this day which is the broad gauge they went with and which meant that systems that used some existing rail such as Caltrain and ACE, could not be tied into it nor can existing rail bridges like the Dumbarton Rail Corridor be used. Creating a tunnel to things over is expensive and has hit capacity constraints to some degree, and it is a marvel of engineering that the BART tube exists, but the problem now is how to run another one of these because you necessarily have to either decide on making it specifically for BART (to up capacity and allow for redundancy in case the other tunnel is damaged or needs prolonged maintenance) or for standard gauge (Caltrain, Amtrak, potentially HSR and the host of other potential commuter rail services) OR to make it even more complex and expensive and make it a tunnel for both with two separate sets of track. I do sometimes wonder if it makes sense to just pull up the broad gauge service by service and convert to standard gauge instead, but given that BART just had delivery of a new fleet of rolling stock, this is now even more absurd and costly than ever.
Another set of problems is being changed on the state law levels which is basically development being stymied around the stations. The last few years has seen a lot of changes in terms of ability to develop densely near transit, but it will take years for that to be apparent which is similar for LA's system (as it's in the same state). These will certainly help with making those more suburban expansions more useful.
BART also, I argue, runs below its actual potential ridership because it has dog**** frequencies for densely populated parts on the weekend and especially weeknights which does *not* have to be the case.
I think DC has one of the best / efficient / useful aystems.
Underrated award goes to Philly.
North Jersey too.
The American Public Transportation Association named SEPTA (the nation's 6th-largest transit system*) its "Best Large Transit System" for 2012.
I told incredulous friends at the time that the agency won the honor because it kept its network in good working order using nothing more than duck tape and baling wire.
(Pennsylvania had a longstanding problem with consistently and adequately funding its mass transit systems, partly thanks to the state's political dynamics: the Greater Philadelphia region (Southeastern Pennsylvania) is the economically strongest as well as the single most populous region of the state, and the transit system serving it carries 2/3 of all mass transit trips statewide [across 37 agencies], but most of the rest of the state regards Philadelphia as a hopelessly corrupt sinkhole of poverty down which the honest working taxpayers shovel money (were the five Southeast counties, including Philadelphia, to secede from the rest of the state, the other 62 counties would be up a creek fiscally, and the rural counties that see themselves as net donors would actually be the hardest hit, for many of them are actually among the greatest net recipients of state money; Philadelphia's four collar counties along with its own more affluent residents could cover the cost of caring for those one in every four Philadelphians living below the poverty line). But that sentiment kept Harrisburg from coming up with a stable dedicated funding source for mass transit after the one it had come up with in the 1990s had been declared unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court. It wasn't until 2014, Gov. Tom Corbett's last year in office, that a solution to this problem finally became law, and SEPTA has been playing catchup with its maintenance backlog since then.
I also tell people that "Philadelphia is underrated, and nobody underrates it more than the locals." Similarly, SEPTA is the transit system Philadelphians hate to love. It has plenty of flaws, but it's better than Philadelphians crack it down to be.
That said, PATCO is better and more efficiently run. It's also the proof of concept for all the automated Second Subway Era systems that followed in its wake: it began service in 1969, two years before BART's initial sections opened in the Bay Area.
*I haven't found a more recent edition of the APTA Fact Book than the 2018 one, but I need to revise my previously stated rankings based on its figures. It lists the 10 largest transit systems (by annual unlinked paasenger trips) as:
1. MTA New York City Transit
2. Chicago Transit Authority (CTA)
3. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro)
4. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA, or the T)
5. Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA)
6. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA)
7. New Jersey Transit Corporation
8. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (formerly Municipal Railway) (Muni)**
9. Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)**
10. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA)
**Were the ridership figures for these two agencies combined, the resulting system would knock SEPTA out of sixth place, and Seattle's King County Department of Transportation (King County Metro) would become the 10th-biggest. In terms of passenger-miles, NJ Transit ranks third behind MTA NYCT and the CTA.
Last edited by MarketStEl; 10-25-2022 at 12:49 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.
