BESIDES NYC What city hsa the best Public Transportation system (states, state)

[grapico]

Originally Posted by EndersDrift

You don't get to make these shots. This is the answer until someone shows any sort of report saying otherwise.

1. New York City
2. Chicago
3. Los Angeles
4. San Francisco
5. Washington D.C.

you already posted Portland was #2 in the country.

now la is #3? wrong again. paris is also crap according to you, as well as madrid london moscow

[BPerone201]

Originally Posted by EndersDrift

You don't get to make these shots. This is the answer until someone shows any sort of report saying otherwise.

1. New York City
2. Chicago
3. Los Angeles
4. San Francisco
5. Washington D.C.

I get the feeling you want the West Coast to be more a part of this topic.

SF is probably iis about right, LA is maybe in the top 20, and Portland shouldn't of ever been mentioned.
~

My top picks-

1. DC
2. Chicago
3. Boston
4. Newark-JC (TIE)
5. San Fran

[OyCrumbler]

When the Circle Line is up and running, Chicago should be put firmly in 2nd. Circle lines around the world have generally become the backbone of their systems. Awesome.

[EastSideMKE]

Originally Posted by BPerone201

It was never meant to be a specific question. It's how convenient the public transportation is that determines what city has the best Public Trans (how much coverage and how reliable the systems are for commuters). That's what I was assuming people would understand.

Questions like "Which city has the greatest percentage of commuters using public transportation after NYC?" and "Which system carried the greatest number of passengers after NYC?" can be answered by a quick search on google and doesn't prove much, especially the number of passengers..

Percentage does seem to be a strong factor in determining the best public trans system, but like you mentioned- DC isn't always reliable, and less reliable than Chicago but which city has the better coverage? DC has better coverage IMO.

It's not so simple, that's why I feel it should have been clarified from the get go.

City A could have the most extensive subway system in the world, but if nobody rides on it, then what use is it (think LA)? Conversely, City B might not have a subway at all, but if nearly everybody rides the bus to work, then that city would have a higher % of transit riders than City A. You have to look at the big picture of utilization as well as infrastructure (which relates to having good coverage).

Here's a sort of related example: Davis, CA has the highest % of commuters who bike to work. However, when people talk about which cities have the best cycling infrastructure, Davis is rarely mentioned, if ever. Conversely, Chicago is often regarded as having the bike-friendliest infrastructure of any city. However, many cities like Portland and Minneapolis have a higher % of commuters biking to work than Chicago does.

[EndersDrift]

Originally Posted by WeSoHood

Did you really put Los Angeles at #3. Why are you telling people what to do when you obviously are clueless?

I gave figures from a published paper put out by one of the Nation's top Transportation Institute's that quite clearly identifies Los Angeles as being in that position.

What have you done?

And I'm not from Portland or the West Coast so you fail again.

Portland is the best in terms of modern innovation in public transit practices at this point in time.
Chicago and then Los Angeles are the best as far as dollars and cents goes.

[tmac9wr]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

When the Circle Line is up and running, Chicago should be put firmly in 2nd. Circle lines around the world have generally become the backbone of their systems. Awesome.

Yea circle lines are really what seperates Euro/Asian systems from American systems. Is there any American system that actually has a legit circle line?

[EndersDrift]

Originally Posted by jordandubreil

bt he is actually making sense, and pulling out some sources, i think yall are just clowning on him to much and of coarse are sleeping on portland.

Don't try to bother with sources and logic around here, I don't think most of the users even know how to read.

[EndersDrift]

So once again with a picture because you all are either too lazy to read or just don't know how here is a screenshot from a published document reporting on this topic.



When someone shows me either a more recent document or one from the same year with figures to say anything contrary I'll listen. Until then accept the facts and stop trying to speculate.

Its page 31 of this article as I had already said: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2009_wappx.pdf (broken link)

[BigCityDreamer]

Whose sock are you, oneandonlyla?

[WeSoHood]

Originally Posted by EndersDrift

So once again with a picture because you all are either too lazy to read or just don't know how here is a screenshot from a published document reporting on this topic.



When someone shows me either a more recent document or one from the same year with figures to say anything contrary I'll listen. Until then accept the facts and stop trying to speculate.

Its page 31 of this article as I had already said: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2009_wappx.pdf (broken link)

Sure LA may be better in terms of congestion times and stuff.. but how does that make put it in the top 3 OVERALL for public transportation. There is a lot more that goes into then just what you posted.

Heck, the American Public Transportation Association named the RTA (Cleveland) as the best North American public transportation system in 2007... what does that mean to you? And it's only getting better with the Euclid Corridor project. http://www.cleveland.com/tipoff/inde...oritys_no.html

Or is your "congestion" debate all you are basing your rankings off of?