# The 10 Best Cities for Public Transportation



## MrFSS (Mar 9, 2011)

In 2009, passengers across the country took 10.2 billion trips on public transportation systems in the United States, and its usage continues to grow. Since 1995, public transit ridership has grown at a faster rate than either population or highway usage. By using data on ridership, safety, and government spending, U.S. News has compiled a list of the 10 best cities in the country for public transportation.

*FULL STORY*

1.) Portland

2.) Salt Lake City

3.) New York

4.) Boston

5.) Minneapolis/Saint Paul

6.) San Francisco

7.) Los Angeles

8.) Honolulu

9.) Austin (tie)

9.) Denver (tie)


----------



## Bob Dylan (Mar 9, 2011)

Im Shocked! Shocked! to find Austin on the list! Id rate St. Louis and Washington way above Austin and add San Diego also! But in Texas the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex, (DART and TRE) are head and shoulders above Austin! Only thing I can fiugure is that the Billions of dollars that CapMetro wasted on the Red Line (aka known as the DeadLine here! :giggle: )is what made us rate so high! :help: BTW- Wonder if Eric agrees about Honolulu? I know their City busses are pretty cheap way to get around the Island!


----------



## amtkstn (Mar 9, 2011)

Chicago did not even make the list.


----------



## GG-1 (Mar 9, 2011)

And Honolulu did make the list, I am shocked, Honolulu's transit system is a shame barely any progress since forever. :angry:


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Mar 9, 2011)

It's all in the methodology, and I think it was Will Rogers who said somehting about lies, damn lies, and statistics. Interesting, though, that 7 of the 10 cities are in the west, which runs kinda contrary to the concept of the northeast as a singular bastion of urban transit (enthusiastically nurtured by - who else - northeasterners).


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Mar 9, 2011)

Damn ridiculous.

New York is clearly number one.

Then Chicago

Then DC

Then Boston

Then Philly

Then LA


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 9, 2011)

Any "best of" list that includes Austin Texas' anemic public transportation options is immediately suspect in my view. Either that or the US has even worse public transport than I originally understood.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Mar 9, 2011)

If you were to include the rest of the civilized world, not a single one of those cities would have made the list.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 9, 2011)

I too am surprised that Washington DC does not make the list.


----------



## John Bredin (Mar 9, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> If you were to include the rest of the civilized world, not a single one of those cities would have made the list.


Not even New York City?! 

I'm willing to concede that no other U.S. transit system, even ones like Chicago that should have handily made the 10 best in the US list, is truly world-class. But the NYC subway stands with the biggest in Europe and Asia on ridership and length or extensiveness.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 9, 2011)

John Bredin said:


> I'm willing to concede that no other U.S. transit system, even ones like Chicago that should have handily made the 10 best in the US list, is truly world-class. But the NYC subway stands with the biggest in Europe and Asia on ridership and length or extensiveness.


First thing that comes to mind when looking at the "Wealthson" link is wondering where exactly that "New York Metro" picture comes from. Second thing is how did they account for metro areas that have more than one public transportation network? Third, I'd be more interested with the _percentage_ of the population using public transport than the raw ridership numbers. The skyscrapercity link is just one huge thread that goes on and on and on. Few of the posters seemed willing to explain where they got their data from or how recent it was when posted so it's hard to know how seriously to take it. That's not to say it's all bad, but it's not exactly the be-all-end-all link that would cement New York's position anywhere near the top. Having seen some of the best systems the world has to offer and the rate at which they're being improved and modernized while New York's network stagnates I wouldn't be surprised if NYC has indeed slipped from the top ten.


----------



## John Bredin (Mar 9, 2011)

daxomni said:


> First thing that comes to mind when looking at the "Wealthson" link is wondering where exactly that "New York Metro" picture comes from.


Egads, you're right. I didn't even notice that picture. :blush: It's clearly a DC Metro train, so my guess would be that whoever was assigned to illustrate the article googled "New York Metro" or the like. However, because most online sources that refer to the NYC subway wouldn't call it the "metro", the search probably brought up a picture of a DC Metro train at New York Avenue station. :giggle:


----------



## AlanB (Mar 9, 2011)

daxomni said:


> Having seen some of the best systems the world has to offer and the rate at which they're being improved and modernized while New York's network *stagnates* I wouldn't be surprised if NYC has indeed slipped from the top ten.


No disrespect intended Daxomni, but what are you smoking? :unsure:

The average age of a NYC subway car is 17.40 years old vs 19.0 for the entire US. From 1999 to date 3,534 new subway cars have been purchased and more are still on order, with a few more new orders pending. The NYC subway only owns 4,538 subway cars, which means 2/3rds of the fleet is less than 12 years old. We're currently building an extension to the #7 line, as well as the first segment of the long delayed 2nd Avenue Subway. We're building the new downtown transit connection that will link almost every subway and the Path trains at the new World Trade Center all together; one will be able to transfer between all lines without going outside and almost walk from the Hudson River to the East River underground. We just built the new South Ferry station on the #1 line and closed the old one, along with a few hundred feet of new track on a new alignment to the new station. We've recently opened up 3 new passenger connections between lines that didn't exist 5 years ago. And many subway stations have been rebuilt with many more slated for major overhauls.

In fact, I just took a ride on the A line from Far Rockaway today with Misty, visiting from St. Louis. All the stations along the line from and including Far Rockaway to 67th are currently being rebuilt. The train even skips every other stop in one direction so that they can close the platform entirely. The trains running to Far Rock skip the stations that the inbounds miss and skip the stations that the inbounds stop at.

The average age of the bus fleet in NYC is 7.69 vs 7.3 at the national level. We just started a new BRT line in Manhattan, where one pays before boarding the bus.

The LIRR is busy building the East Side Access project that will not only bring trains into Grand Central on the east side of Manhattan, but allow a huge increase in the number of people moved into Manhattan by the LIRR. The project will also fix a big problem at Harold Interlocking (next to Sunnyside yard) that requires Amtrak trains to cross in front of LIRR trains when going to/from the Hell Gate line to Boston. This conflict will be eliminated when things are finished. They just computerized the major interlocking plant in Jamaica, rebuilt the main waiting room at NYP, installed concrete ties on many lines, put in several new high speed interlockings east of Jamaica, and built a new yard & shop near Sunnyside. The average age of the cars in their fleet is 8.01 years old as compared to a national average of 18.3 years old.

Metro North has been engaged in a year’s long project to redo all the electrification on the New Haven line, as well as rebuilding most of the bridges. I'm not sure if they're also laying all new rail or not, perhaps Dutch knows. They extended the Harlem line a few years back by several miles to the north. They're rebuilding the main shops at Croton Harmon. Rebuilt the Park Avenue viaduct maybe 10 to 15 years ago. Put in new concrete ties on much of their track. They built a new yard & shop at Highbridge, near Yankee Stadium. And I know that they're also busy rebuilding stations. The average age of their rail cars is 18.28 years and that number will start going lower as the new M8 rail cars for the New Haven line start arriving and the 50+ year old M2 cars currently in use are retired.

New York's transit system may have its problems and issues, but it's not as bad as many riders think it is. The problem is that they don't ride other systems and have no clue how bad it really can be. And NY is certainly not resting on its laurels!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 9, 2011)

WhoozOn1st said:


> It's all in the methodology, and I think it was Will Rogers who said somehting about lies, damn lies, and statistics. Interesting, though, that 7 of the 10 cities are in the west, which runs kinda contrary to the concept of the northeast as a singular bastion of urban transit (enthusiastically nurtured by - who else - northeasterners).


Samuel Clemens, AKA Mark Twain.



Oldsmoboi said:


> If you were to include the rest of the civilized world, not a single one of those cities would have made the list.


****. New York City's public transit system is right the heck up there. With 24hour service at a minimum of 30 minute headways, with sufficient density that just about anybody living within the city borders can use it, it is not only the best in the United States by a considerable amount, it is not in the top ten list only because it could probably qualify in the top 5.

Most of those other decent systems can't call themselves decent because they fail to operate 24 hours a day. New York's does. I don't care how clean they are, how new the cars are, or how many television monitors they have. Four things matter on transit systems: Speed, frequency, breadth of operating hours, and system density. New York isn't just better than almost any system in the world in those area; it blows them out of the water.


----------



## Ispolkom (Mar 9, 2011)

George Harris said:


> I too am surprised that Washington DC does not make the list.


And the Twin Cities does, and beats out San Francisco? I'd love to see their bogus methodology.


----------



## bretton88 (Mar 9, 2011)

I love how they used DC's 59mph max speed (which is false, they need to check their facts, it's 79mph) as a strike against DC while promoting San Fran.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Mar 9, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> WhoozOn1st said:
> 
> 
> > It's all in the methodology, and I think it was Will Rogers who said somehting about lies, damn lies, and statistics. Interesting, though, that 7 of the 10 cities are in the west, which runs kinda contrary to the concept of the northeast as a singular bastion of urban transit (enthusiastically nurtured by - who else - northeasterners).
> ...


Chicago runs red and blue lines 24/7. And I think their buses run 24/7 too. Well, not all, but some.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 10, 2011)

AlanB said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> > Having seen some of the best systems the world has to offer and the rate at which they're being improved and modernized while New York's network *stagnates* I wouldn't be surprised if NYC has indeed slipped from the top ten.
> ...


NYC may very well still be in the top ten, I am not in a position to decide either way, but as I said I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it indeed fell off that list at some point. New York is the ultimate metro system that the US has ever accomplished, but after having seen metros like those that exist in Tokyo or London and reading about all the improvements happening in other countries it's not hard to imagine that New York may be approaching the day when it eventually falls to number eleven. I'm a huge railfan myself and yet even I was compelled to head to the taxi stand or private shuttle when arriving at LGA or JFK. It simply boggles the mind that in all those decades they still hadn't figured out how to easily and efficiently connect two major airports to their main rail network in a way that air travelers would find useful. Maybe they have something better up and running now but when I visited there wasn't much to work with. As for the age of the cars, I'm far more curious about the age of the basic design that squeaks, rattles, and bumps you around like that. Or simply shuts down altogether when the going gets tough. I can hold my book still and set my clock to the performance of other world class systems. NYC? Not so much. I'm glad the new WTC station will finally reopen a full decade after the last one was hauled away. Maybe some of the improvements you mentioned will be substantial enough to have a larger impact than I currently realize, but there's just nothing particularly impressive about how the New York subway currently operates in my view. Instead of a new, smooth, and modern system worthy of the self-described "capitol of the world" it's old, jarring, and dank. All night trains are nice and not often duplicated, but I wouldn't want my mom or aunt to use them alone and it seemed like half the stations closed down for the night anyway.



AlanB said:


> New York's transit system may have its problems and issues, but it's not as bad as many riders think it is. The problem is that they don't ride other systems and have no clue how bad it really can be. And NY is certainly not resting on its laurels!


I don't deny there are far worse metros out there, but there are also several systems that are far better in my view. Not just because some random web link said so, but because they blew me away when I rode them in person.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 10, 2011)

daxomni said:


> I'm a huge railfan myself and yet even I was compelled to head to the taxi stand or private shuttle when arriving at LGA or JFK. It simply boggles the mind that in all those decades they still hadn't figured out how to easily and efficiently connect two major airports to their main rail network in a way that air travelers would find useful. Maybe they have something better up and running now but when I visited there wasn't much to work with.


Alas nothing has been done at LGA, the NIMBY's killed a monorail plan many years ago that would have served that airport. JFK however now has the Airtrain that connects the airport both with the LIRR, E, & J trains in Jamaica, as well as the A train's Howard Beach stop on the Far Rockaway line.

I for one however remain upset with the airport charging a whopping $5 bucks one way to link to the Airtrain from the subway or LIRR.



daxomni said:


> As for the age of the cars, I'm far more curious about the age of the basic design that squeaks, rattles, and bumps you around like that. Or simply shuts down altogether when the going gets tough. I can hold my book still and set my clock to the performance of other world class systems. NYC? Not so much.


The newer cars ride much smoother than the older ones, and at least IMHO when compared to other US & Canadian subways (never been overseas), they are quieter. Boston's T and BART are particularly loud in my opinion.

And the mean distance between failures with the new cars has gone through the roof as compared to the old ones.

1982 7,145 miles

2009 153,201 miles



daxomni said:


> I'm glad the new WTC station will finally reopen a full decade after the last one was hauled away. Maybe some of the improvements you mentioned will be substantial enough to have a larger impact than I currently realize, but there's just nothing particularly impressive about how the New York subway currently operates in my view. Instead of a new, smooth, and modern system worthy of the self-described "capitol of the world" it's old, jarring, and dank.


There is currently a WTC station for PATH operating and it has been for some time. They built more of a temp station, since they couldn't build the real station without the buildings above being in place.

And again, as stations are rebuilt they get newer and much brighter lighting. Same with the new cars, you can tell immediately the newer cars from the older ones, as they're much brigher inside. Far more inviting than they used to be. The automated announcements are also nice, as you no longer have to deal with mumbles and/or heavy accents.

Yes, you can still find stations that haven't been redone, they can't do them all at the same time, and it does take some effort to renovate 100+ year old stations.



daxomni said:


> All night trains are nice and not often duplicated, but I wouldn't want my mom or aunt to use them alone and it seemed like half the stations closed down for the night anyway.


There is only one station in the entire system that closes very late at night, that's the 135th Street stop on the #3 train, which gets bus service from the nearest stop on the still running #2 train. All other stations remain open 24/7, although certain entrances may close, but there is always at least one open.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 10, 2011)

bretton88 said:


> I love how they used DC's 59mph max speed (which is false, they need to check their facts, it's 79mph) as a strike against DC while promoting San Fran.


The facts are these:

The design maximum speed from the beginning is *75* mph.

As a method of saving energy, wear and tear, and improving reliability at a negligible cost in run time policy for quite a few years has been to limit train speed to 59 mph. If you look into the driver's cab this is what you will see on the display. The higher speed would only come into play between the more widely spaced stations. Within the central part of the city, station spacing is such that train speed almost never exceeds 40 mph regardless of the defined speed limit.


----------



## Spokker (Mar 10, 2011)

Haha Portland!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKS6AMFZHSo

Hahaha!

They should have built bus lanes instead of streetcars of all things.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Mar 10, 2011)

Spokker said:


> Haha Portland!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKS6AMFZHSo
> 
> ...


Nice anti-transit propaganda.


----------



## PRR 60 (Mar 10, 2011)

There should be two listings for ranking public transit in US cities: One list for New York and the second for all the other cities. New York is the only US city that is "world class" for transit. You can get from anywhere to anywhere at anytime in New York. Try that in Salt Lake City or Portland.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 10, 2011)

AlanB said:


> New York's transit system may have its problems and issues, but it's not as bad as many riders think it is. The problem is that they *don't ride other systems* and have no clue how bad it really can be.


&


AlanB said:


> The newer cars ride much smoother than the older ones, and at least IMHO when compared to other US & Canadian subways (*never been overseas*), they are quieter.


I think you should give some of the better European and Asian systems a try, especially Tokyo. The NYC subway may not be resting on their laruels, but they're not exactly leading the way to the future either. At least that's the view I came back with. That's not to say it's a terrible system, just that it could learn something from the efficiency, quality, and cleanliness of other systems.


----------



## jis (Mar 10, 2011)

daxomni said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > New York's transit system may have its problems and issues, but it's not as bad as many riders think it is. The problem is that they *don't ride other systems* and have no clue how bad it really can be.
> ...


That I can agree with.

The other problem with New York is that things in outer boroughs aren't exactly as good as it is in Manhattan, and Staten Island is outright miserable in many ways.

And once you get into suburbs, suburb to suburb transit is outright difficult. This is a huge strike against New York when compared to many large city transit systems in the rest of the world.

Of course the multiple fiefdoms and sub-fiefdoms of ostensibly public agencies that are supposed to work for us, but are unable to work with each other with a focus on customer convenience is a problem that appears to be relatively unique to New York among the large transit systems in large metro areas of the world.

Notwithstanding all that the portions of the New York Metro area where transit works, it works reasonably well, though it still is clunkier than the better maintained systems in many other cities of the world.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 10, 2011)

daxomni said:


> The NYC subway may not be resting on their laruels, but they're not exactly leading the way to the future either. At least that's the view I came back with. That's not to say it's a terrible system, just that it could learn something from the efficiency, quality, and cleanliness of other systems.


I never suggested that they were leading the way; I was just taking issue with your original statement that they were doing nothing. They most certainly could and should be doing more too, but its hard when you have the fiefdoms mentioned by Jishnu, along with a state legislature that seems to think that the prices of everything are still the same as they were 15 years ago. As in, Albany still sends the MTA the same amount of funding that they were sending many years ago.

But again, they are trying and they are making some progress.


----------



## the_traveler (Mar 10, 2011)

jimhudson said:


> Im Shocked! Shocked! to find Austin on the list!





> Austin (tie)


Does that mean I must wear a tie to ride on it?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 10, 2011)

MOat of those sytems require cash for busses; unacceptable.


----------



## GlobalistPotato (Mar 10, 2011)

MrFSS said:


> In 2009, passengers across the country took 10.2 billion trips on public transportation systems in the United States, and its usage continues to grow. Since 1995, public transit ridership has grown at a faster rate than either population or highway usage. By using data on ridership, safety, and government spending, U.S. News has compiled a list of the 10 best cities in the country for public transportation.
> 
> *FULL STORY*
> 
> ...


Dallas was left out, yet Austin is on the list?

I'm saying that this list is BS!


----------



## Acela150 (Mar 10, 2011)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Damn ridiculous.
> 
> New York is clearly number one.
> 
> ...


Are you sure your not just thinking of "major cities"?? :huh: It seems to me you are. I would say that Philadelphia isn't at the top of the list. Maybe the top 25. But not the top 10. I would know this as I live in the Philadelphia area and use the trains, buses, subways, and trolleys often. The bus operators are never pleasant with the exception of one or two. When I get off and say "Have a nice day". I just get a blank look. Same with the trolley operators. The subways are becoming dangerous to ride as they go through bad neighborhoods. Trains were listed as "R1 through R8" until last July when they became the final destination line which was confusing. So for example the Chestnut Hill West Line. Septa is TRYING to become rider friendly but they have a WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYS to go! I would say the "T" in Boston is the easiest to ride and use out of all the Public transit systems I've been on. So my vote goes for the "T".


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 10, 2011)

Friendly attendants are not an important issue in the design of a public transit system. It helps, but without frequency, density, and rapidity, the nicest attendants in the world won't make a system good.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Mar 10, 2011)

What GML says. All I care about is how extensive it is and the frequence of the service.

And all factors considered, only cities can afford to put decent public transits in place, and bigger the city, more extensive the system will be, generally, not always.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 11, 2011)

New York's system is anything but user friendly to those that do not know the city and its systems. In the few months I worked there, I walked by the handiest subway entrance for over a week because it was a door in the side of a building with the small circles with the route numbers above it. That is just one example. Then there are the stations where you could hide a small army behind the columns. Then there is the basic platform paving of stomped chewing gum. I have found it easier to use public transit in foreign cities where they do not even use our alphabet to write.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 11, 2011)

George Harris said:


> New York's system is anything but user friendly to those that do not know the city and its systems. In the few months I worked there, I walked by the handiest subway entrance for over a week because it was a door in the side of a building with the small circles with the route numbers above it. That is just one example. Then there are the stations where you could hide a small army behind the columns.


No arguments here, NY's system can be very confusing to the first time visitor. Heck there are people living here who have no clue simply because they've never learned to pay attention and look at a map at least once or twice in their lives.

I do think that the maps have gotten better over the past 10 years or so, but still the shear size and number of lines, coupled with the mixing of lines can leave one quite confused.



George Harris said:


> Then there is the basic platform paving of stomped chewing gum.


While I'm not saying that you can't find gum here and there, that situation has been majorly improved. Especially in the stations that have been remodeled and had tile floors installed that make it easy to scrape any gum right off.


----------



## TVRM610 (Mar 11, 2011)

I agree that New York is #1, but I would say that Chicago and Boston are very close behind. Chicago being an easy #2 in my book. Between the CTA, Metra, North Shore, and the Pace Busses, there are very few places you can't get to using public transit. And several lines (train and bus) run 24/7, though not all of them.

Also.. New Orleans LA should be on the top 10 I would think, as well as LA.


----------



## montgomerySutton (Aug 13, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> MOat of those sytems require cash for busses; unacceptable.


Absolutely agreed with you here.

As far as the NYC debate, the system is still repairing itself from the nightmarish 70s-90s. The MTA administration is awful; the Unions are too entrenched and too easy on their own members (this coming from a very pro-union guy); and despite some final movement towards expansion, the MTA is so utterly lacking in vision or creative thinking that it's hard to see it going anywhere but down in the near future. The new trains are great and a massive improvement, but cleanliness remains a huge problem.

I actually think he 24/7 operation is a mistake. Many of the worlds best systems utilize night busses -- which are much safer and cheaper than running the trains all night. I can't tell you how many times I, a pretty big and athletic guy, have been near pissing my pants taking the A/C home at 4 in the morning after work.

Neither Chicago, Salt Lake, or DC should be above New York yet -- but I wouldn't be surprised if my opinion was different in 15 years.

On the Austin topic, I took the red line for the first time this week. Nice train, awful ridership, many obvious mistakes. It's a simple and highly problematic starter route, and not even worth mentioning in the same breath of Dallas or even Houston train systems. Their bus system's not bad, but it still doesn't run nearly frequently enough. I hope Capital Metro takes some hints from Lyons new bus implementation strategy.

What I think we all can agree is great, though, is that we can have a conversation easily debating the merits of different systems that would not have been possible even 20 years ago. Despite all the rhetoric and side stepping this country is doing, we've made massive strides in public transportation in the very recent past, and that makes me very excited to see where we are in 30 years.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Aug 14, 2011)

^Hell no, New York City needs 24/7 operation, granted not all every line.


----------



## Acela150 (Aug 14, 2011)

Shawn Ryu said:


> ^Hell no, New York City needs 24/7 operation, granted not all every line.


So your disagreeing with him and GML?? Your asking for a war! :blink: No one disagrees with GML!


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Aug 17, 2011)

lol I live in this city, Late evening/early morning has decent ridership. I need 24/7 operation, I often stay out until 4 am.


----------



## montgomerySutton (Aug 17, 2011)

So do I. But I've also lived in cities where the public transit systems ran much better, at least from a rider's point of view, and didn't seem to have nearly the maintenance or budget problems we get with the MTA.

Decent ridership compared to what? When I was working the night shift, I rarely saw more than 1 to 2 other people on the car with me, taking the A from 14th street at around 4am. "Need" is different from "enjoys."

Does anyone have any MTA data on actual cost per passenger at various times of day? I'd be interested to see just how much money the MTA loses on trains from around 1:30am-5:30am Mondays-Fridays.


----------



## jis (Aug 17, 2011)

montgomerySutton said:


> Does anyone have any MTA data on actual cost per passenger at various times of day? I'd be interested to see just how much money the MTA loses on trains from around 1:30am-5:30am Mondays-Fridays.


That is the sort of mentality that tends to make most US transit systems more or less useless for general purpose transportation. The slippery slope is to land up with weekedays only morning in towards some hypothetical employment center and outbound from there in the evening. I am glad that there are transit agencies that do not necessarily follow the spreadsheets as mindlessly as that.

Of course the least expensive option is to just not have a transit agency at all, but that has rather severe adverse impact on other things.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 17, 2011)

jis said:


> montgomerySutton said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone have any MTA data on actual cost per passenger at various times of day? I'd be interested to see just how much money the MTA loses on trains from around 1:30am-5:30am Mondays-Fridays.
> ...


Right on jis! When bean counters and politicians run things, instead of experienced in the field executives,we end up with transportation messes or none at all!


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Aug 17, 2011)

I see at least 8, 9 people on the Q train per car at 4 in the morning.


----------



## Acela150 (Aug 17, 2011)

Shawn Ryu said:


> I see at least 8, 9 people on the Q train per car at 4 in the morning.


And it's a what say 8-10 car train? So that's anywhere from 64-90 people. But during the day there are HUNDREDS of people on the subway trains. And who says those riders even payed a fare and didn't hop the fare gate.. The MTA makes there money during the day not at night.


----------



## MattW (Aug 17, 2011)

Acela150 said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> > I see at least 8, 9 people on the Q train per car at 4 in the morning.
> ...


But if the nighttime service did not exist, how many people would they lose at other times? I could take the Xpress bus from where I live to where I go to school, but I don't because it really only has peak-time/peak-direction service. If they ran even one bus per hour throughout the day plus well into the evening, my car would be racking up 5 miles per day instead of 90.


----------



## jis (Aug 18, 2011)

MattW said:


> But if the nighttime service did not exist, how many people would they lose at other times? I could take the Xpress bus from where I live to where I go to school, but I don't because it really only has peak-time/peak-direction service. If they ran even one bus per hour throughout the day plus well into the evening, my car would be racking up 5 miles per day instead of 90.


That is exactly the point that the spreadsheet jockeys seem to miss completely. <_<


----------



## trainviews (Aug 24, 2011)

European guy who used to live in NYC here. 

The NYC public transit system has a lot going for it - and some real deficiences. On the plus side is:

- Extensiveness: It actually covers most of the city and with the commuter lines much of the region too.

- Speed: It is fast also by international standards. Distances in NYC are large and the subway is designed to cover it from the beginning, several lines with express trains, while may other cities have had relatively slow lines extended to the point where the commutes become unbearably long. Paris for one fell into that trap, and had to build a second, faster system, but still has pretty lousy coverage of the sububs, which they are working to amend though.

- Ridership: It has far the largest market share of commutes in the US and it is also high by international standards. But this is just as much due to the sheer size of NYC and the bridge and tunnel dependent geography. It would take a really lousy transit service to get anyone in their right mind takes a car into Manhattan unless they really need to.

- Around the clock service. Yes this is an asset. Just the convenience of not having to find your way around an alternative system in the middle of the night is great. And a bus from Midtown to say Jamaica how long would that be, even with night traffic - an hour and a half? Effectively that sort of night transport would stop connecting the city.

But there are serious deficiencies too, due to the decades of neglect, they are now trying to catch up with as well as to the basic layout of the system:

- Capacity. More riders than it was ever designed for. This feature it shares with a lot of other older systems, London being the prime example.

- Interchangeability and cross town connectiions. Many of the lines were as far as I understand it built by several private companies, and thus never planned as a network. Most of them run along Manhattan, because that is the logic of a single or a few lines, but getting from somewhere on the East side to somewhere on the West side will sometimes require going to Brooklyn for transfors or having several of them. As for system layout London easily takes the prize - more than one conveniently located transfer is rarely needed. (the new transfer center in lower Manhattan will alleviate this, but only to some extent)

- outer borough connections: an even graver example of the same. The one cross town line there is (the G) has no transfer stations with half the lines it crosses.

- lousy air port connections. No connection to LGA and two seat connections to both JFK and Newark. Why on earth they didn't take one of the existing lines and connect it into JFK (and another to LGA) is beyond me instead of the inconvenient and overpriced Air Train (though much better than before). I know there is some stupid thing about the federal funding for airport connections that can not be used for general transit, but really? Here you would have to look to Europe or Asia to see how it should be done, and in all immodesty I think my native Copenhagen takes the prize with both a commuter rail (every 10 min) and the metro (every 4 min) connecting to different parts of downtown in less than 15 mins, and leaving from right under the terminal floor.

- Commuter lines dumping everybody in the same point. The ESA will solve this for LIRR, which also has good connections at Jamaica. But the massive terminuses for NJT at Penn and Metro North at Grand Central are inflexible and impractical and creates crowding on the rest of the system.

- Appeal. Yes it is sort of murky and worn, often looking dirty even when it really isn't.

As for the ranking I have ridden too few. I like Portland for the airport connection and it seems to be the right kind of system for the size of the city, but haven't used it extensively. Chicago has a quite extensive network but seems to have connectivity issues too (no metro connetion to Union Station?) and a maintenence backlog. DC is fairly good and seems to be the one where state and county borders has not stopped the development of a sensible network, but is also running into capacity problems.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Aug 24, 2011)

I think that dirtyness has a charm of its own, for tourists. For commuters, who cares? Unless there are some huge swarm of rats or cockroaches. Generally we would prefer cleaner subways but its not a necessity.

I think the current system handles the demand well. Rush hour is always going to be crowded, anywhere, any system.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 24, 2011)

trainviews said:


> - Interchangeability and cross town connectiions. Many of the lines were as far as I understand it built by several private companies, and thus never planned as a network. Most of them run along Manhattan, because that is the logic of a single or a few lines, but getting from somewhere on the East side to somewhere on the West side will sometimes require going to Brooklyn for transfors or having several of them. As for system layout London easily takes the prize - more than one conveniently located transfer is rarely needed. (the new transfer center in lower Manhattan will alleviate this, but only to some extent)


With respect, it sounds like it's been a while since you've been in NYC. I'll agree with you in part, that north of 59th Street it's impossible to go east to west without going way out of your way.

However, if you're south of 59th and you're going to Brooklyn to get from the east side to the west side or vice versa, then you're doing something wrong. Under 59th you've got the N/R line running from Lexington over to 7th Avenue, with free interchange with the Lexington line. At 53rd you have the E/V lines that connect the Lexington line with both the 6th Ave lines and the 8th Ave lines. At 42nd, you've got the #7 connecting with the Lex, 6th Ave, 7th Ave, Broadway, & 8th Ave lines. At 14th Street you've got the L connecing the Lex, 6th, 7th, & 8th Ave lines. And very soon along Cortland Street in lower Manhattan it will be possible to connect from the PATH trains to the 8th, 7th, Bway, Lex, and the J trains all underground although that requires walking. But except for PATH, all of those transfers will be within the paid area.



trainviews said:


> - outer borough connections: an even graver example of the same. The one cross town line there is (the G) has no transfer stations with half the lines it crosses.


Things have also improved a bit with the G, as it now connects with the #7 train, as well as the E & V trains at Courthouse Square in Queens. It connects with the L train at Myrtle, and then with the A & F down in Brooklyn. It does still miss a few other potential connections however.



trainviews said:


> - lousy air port connections. No connection to LGA and two seat connections to both JFK and Newark. Why on earth they didn't take one of the existing lines and connect it into JFK (and another to LGA) is beyond me instead of the inconvenient and overpriced Air Train (though much better than before). I know there is some stupid thing about the federal funding for airport connections that can not be used for general transit, but really? Here you would have to look to Europe or Asia to see how it should be done, and in all immodesty I think my native Copenhagen takes the prize with both a commuter rail (every 10 min) and the metro (every 4 min) connecting to different parts of downtown in less than 15 mins, and leaving from right under the terminal floor.


This one is all politics IMHO, namely that the airports don't want to give up those lucrative parking fees. In fact the Port Authority originally was not supposed to be allowed to charge for the service. But that is also why no subways were diverted to JFK. AT LGA that remains part of the problem, however an equally large problem is NIMBYism in Astoria that prevents extending the Astoria line east towards LGA.


----------

