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.
1. Much higher job concentration in the city/core between Boston/Cambridge; commuting out of the city (by car) for employment is more common in the Philly region.
2. More of a "multi-nodal" nature compared to Philly's more centralized core, for which walking is honestly more efficient for many trips in/around Center City.
But ridership is also only one factor. I tried to compile a simple comparison of rapid transit infrastructure earlier but did not have the time to complete it.
Taking into account SEPTA's subway, trolley, Norristown high-speed line + PATCO's heavy rail line, it appeared that Philly had around double the track miles for all rapid transit modes compared to Boston's T, although Boston may have had an edge in the number of stations (although that's not the same as "stops," either).
We can quibble about ridership and how much transit it used, but at the end of the day Philly still does at least have a proportionate scope of rapid transit infrastructure to Boston. That obviously counts for something.
I’d like to point out on exclusively infrastructure, Dallas surpasses both these cities in Rapid Transit miles and umm, isn’t considered very urban.
Baltimore has way more healthy core neighborhoods than St. Louis, Milwaukee, Detroit or Cleveland. But on the flip side it also has way rougher hoods so there is a much more drastic dichotomy on a city wide scale and people tend to fixate on the bad rather than the good hence it’s “image” issues.
Go up the food chain and Philly & Chicago get the same bad rap compared to a cities like DC or SF.
What makes you think Baltimore has way more healthier neighborhoods than St. Louis, Milwaukee, Detroit or Cleveland? Also, what makes you think that Baltimore has "rougher hoods" than St. Louis or Detroit?
What makes you think Baltimore has way more healthier neighborhoods than St. Louis, Milwaukee, Detroit or Cleveland? Also, what makes you think that Baltimore has "rougher hoods" than St. Louis or Detroit?
Good call. Trying to figure out how Milwaukee got lumped in with St. Louis, Cleveland, and Detroit here. Sure it's dealing with stagnation right now, and it sure ain't Mayberry. But it has NEVER suffered the same internal declines of Detroit, St. Louis or Cleveland. Pretty much all of it's core neighborhoods are either preserved or gentrified. Not to mention Milwaukee is expansively walkable and urban in a way that most folks on city-data are not aware. It may be the most underrated city on here. I have a hard time thinking Baltimore(specifically in it's current state) out performs Milwaukee in any core metric. Perhaps the quoted poster doesn't have any on the ground experience in MKE?
Last edited by Landolakes90; 09-30-2023 at 12:22 PM..
Good call. Trying to figure out how Milwaukee got lumped in with St. Louis, Cleveland, and Detroit here. Sure it's dealing with stagnation right now, and it sure ain't Mayberry. But it has NEVER suffered the same internal declines of Detroit, St. Louis or Cleveland. Pretty much all of it's core neighborhoods are either preserved or gentrified. Not to mention Milwaukee is expansively walkable and urban in a way that most folks on city-data are not aware. It may be the most underrated city on here. I have a hard time thinking Baltimore(specifically in it's current state) out performs Milwaukee in any core metric. Perhaps the quoted poster doesn't have any on the ground experience in MKE?
I don't think people have any experience with a lot of cities. A big misconception about St. Louis is that it is a totally bombed out Rust Belt city with no intact or wealthy neighborhoods and that couldn't be further from the truth. I just found it interesting that the poster used Baltimore to beat up on the other cities, when there are metrics that the other cities are either competitive on or having better outcomes that Baltimore. For example, St. Louis has a more successful light rail system with higher ridership, despite Baltimore being objectively denser. St. Louis is also has only like 1% less bachelor's degrees on a metropolitan area despite Baltimore being on the heavily educated BosWash corridor in a state that is way more pro education than Missouri.
Good call. Trying to figure out how Milwaukee got lumped in with St. Louis, Cleveland, and Detroit here. Sure it's dealing with stagnation right now, and it sure ain't Mayberry. But it has NEVER suffered the same internal declines of Detroit, St. Louis or Cleveland. Pretty much all of it's core neighborhoods are either preserved or gentrified. Not to mention Milwaukee is expansively walkable and urban in a way that most folks on city-data are not aware. It may be the most underrated city on here. I have a hard time thinking Baltimore(specifically in it's current state) out performs Milwaukee in any core metric. Perhaps the quoted poster doesn't have any on the ground experience in MKE?
Yeah I’m a good day the east side of Milwaukee can feel a little bit like a smaller less dense San Francisco. It’s very nice and walkable with great food and some solid scenery (the bluffs. Lake Michigan. Atwater beach. It’s lighthouse. It’s park system along the lake and along the river. It’s nice compact downtown with the third ward. It’s solid bus system.
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.
