Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
There's no "RER network" in Denver, they have some buses and trolleys and skeletal commuter rail, all with very low ridership. Portland has low ridership and LA actually has lower ridership share now as compared to when it was only buses. All three cities have terrible ridership for global standards.
NYC's system has challenges but is the only "real" transit system in the U.S. comparable to other global megacities. Chicago and DC have decent, passable systems for global standards.
In the U.S. NYC is the only system where transit is the norm. Then there are five cities with semi-decent systems: Boston, Philly, DC, Chi, and SF. In every other U.S. metro transit is of marginal use and virtually irrelevent.
|
Electrified commuter rail service with 15 minute headways is what I call RER.
Portland actually has a good ridership share for the population of it's metro area. LA is working hard at improving it's situation.
Then again, we were talking about usefulness of projects and cost control earlier. Not necessarily about the networks that have been there since the sixties in older northern cities. Because of course Denver doesn't matchup to Boston or Philly.
If you compare your average large american city to, say, similar-sized cities in Europe or Asia then yes, transit is definitely piss poor. But I don't think it's fair to do that. Just different urban forms and mentalities. A lot of americans never got rid of that "public transit is for poor people, my car represents my freedom" mentality, hence lots of underinvestment.