The 10 Best Cities for Public Transportation

[AlanB]

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]

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]

MOat of those sytems require cash for busses; unacceptable.

 

[GlobalistPotato]

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)

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

I'm saying that this list is BS!

 

[Acela150]

Damn ridiculous.

New York is clearly number one.

Then Chicago

Then DC

Then Boston

Then Philly

Then LA

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Acela150]

^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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Acela150]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.