American city (other than NYC) or state with mass transit comparable to Europe or Japan
- Thread starter M79
- Start date
Chicago has a great system, Boston, Philadelphia, A lot built a long time ago, DC was explicitly built after WW2 .. and it's actually a good system .. Chicago is as well so I'm not throwing shade.
Look at Atlanta ... Huston, Seattle and other systems, and Washington is a clear winner for its area and size.
List of United States rapid transit systems - Wikipedia
Tak on bus and rail connections. Hard to beat
Last edited:
Built in 1901
The op either doesn't understand america is more than New York, or two the only subway he has heard of.
America has quite a few. Granted public transport is still not that great as america is built for the car. Major cities that can support them, have them . Maybe not subways but at least bus systems.
Phoenix for example is huge, and I can take a day long bus trip across the valley
or get a car ... and sit in traffic. There are a lot of cities that could use rapid transit.
But Boston opened in 1901, so the op isn't thinking clearly. It's not like the entire USA will have mass transit. Some states have less people than some cities .. and again the USA is built for the car, not the train. I couldn't imagine taking a train from new York to San Fran or a bus.. that would suck
Last edited:
on that note Denver and San Franciso have good ones. or SF did Bart Muni and the cable cars except Lombard Street and thats for a car tourist trap. Hell the plot of who framed roger rabbit hinges on destroying LA public transitBuilt in 1901
The op either doesn't understand america is more than New York, or two the only subway he has heard of.
America has quite a few. Granted public transport is still not that great as america is built for the car. Major cities that can support them, have them . Maybe not subways but at least bus systems.
Phoenix for example is huge, and I can take a day long bus trip across the valley
There are a lot of cities that could use rapid transit.
But Boston opened in 1901, so the op isn't thinking clearly. It's not like the entire USA will have mass transit. Some states have less people than some cities .. and again the USA is built for the car, not the train. I couldn't imagine taking a train from new York to San Fran or a bus.. that would suck
Built in 1901
The op either doesn't understand america is more than New York, or two the only subway he has heard of.
America has quite a few. Granted public transport is still not that great as america is built for the car. Major cities that can support them, have them . Maybe not subways but at least bus systems.
Phoenix for example is huge, and I can take a day long bus trip across the valley
There are a lot of cities that could use rapid transit.
But Boston opened in 1901
DC metro again.. actually a large portion of metros were built after WW2 .. so not so tricky
Perhaps our viewers might not be as familiar with other cities mass transit options as you and I are. I found WMATA (Washington DC Metro) more limited than you do, at least on the southern side of the metro area. Boston also has its limitations in comparison to Europe and Japan. Both are better than say Phoenix or Las Vegas but set the bar for mass transit any lower than the latter two and this becomes a limbo competition.Built in 1901
The op either doesn't understand america is more than New York, or two the only subway he has heard of.
America has quite a few. Granted public transport is still not that great as america is built for the car. Major cities that can support them, have them . Maybe not subways but at least bus systems.
Phoenix for example is huge, and I can take a day long bus trip across the valley
There are a lot of cities that could use rapid transit.
But Boston opened in 1901, so the op isn't thinking clearly. It's not like the entire USA will have mass transit. Some states have less people than some cities .. and again the USA is built for the car, not the train. I couldn't imagine taking a train from new York to San Fran or a bus.. that would suck
Essentially you neeed either way less racism or black people not allowed to live in cities to get this. Implies either a way less racist US or a way more racist one, one that responds to the Great Migration with bans on black migration north and restricting them to agricultural labor via federal law. Perhaps get someoen whose more of an 1890-1920ish style Progressive in office during WWI.
San Francisco with urban development minded getting positions in Jerry Brown's administration in the 70s while Jimmy Carter is swapped out for another Democrat who would supports the venture amd uses eminent domain to help the project along.
The project should start within Brown's first year and should be nearing completionby the time he leaves, lest his successors gut funding.
How exactly this happens, I don't know. But these different factors should align for project to be anything near to what Europe has.
The project should start within Brown's first year and should be nearing completionby the time he leaves, lest his successors gut funding.
How exactly this happens, I don't know. But these different factors should align for project to be anything near to what Europe has.
While I agree the presence in northern Virginia isn't what it should be, what the metro doesn't cover train does. No metro service is perfect granted, but it is an overall gem for being built so late, well after world war 2 and has constant expansion in mind where it makes sense
As for Vegas and Phoenix, it's like Detroit , what's the point as the mass transit options just are shall we say bleh.
Now Detroit, really has a chance if projects could get off the ground, Phoenix could do a lot, but the metro area is quite large.
Last edited:
Are you defining "mass transit" as specifically rail, or do buses count?
Random thoughts… Most Mass transit systems are not self sustaining even in Europe, I think many folks have a very exaggerated picture of how good mass transit in Europe is. I have been on systems in Paris, London, Rome and Berlin to name but a few and frankly there is no perfect system. London has the best coverage but even that has odd connections strange routes and a lot of walking,
But the truth is very few cities in the US have the density of housing and business that justify an extensive Mass transit system. And even in Europe cities of the density of many US cities would not have much if any mass transit. I think to many US citizens go to Europe as tourists and spend to much time in major Cities and think that everywhere has great mass transit.
Try Smaller cites such as Bath, Nice, or even bigger cities Such as Rome or Monaco. Yes the latter two have mass transit but it is not anywhere near like what most folks are thinking about and they use a ton of cars. Heck even London fills its streets to max capacity with cars. So an awf lot of folks in London must think that the underground and the busses are not perfect. Otherwise they would not drive cars in that congestion,
But honestly the US has only a handful of cities that could support of use a true mass transit system. Our cities simpl have to much space around them so they can spread out and we’re developed to late to make mass transit the only option. Notice that in Europe if you have a post WW2 citie or a city that has a lot of room it often does not have much in the way of mass transit either
But the truth is very few cities in the US have the density of housing and business that justify an extensive Mass transit system. And even in Europe cities of the density of many US cities would not have much if any mass transit. I think to many US citizens go to Europe as tourists and spend to much time in major Cities and think that everywhere has great mass transit.
Try Smaller cites such as Bath, Nice, or even bigger cities Such as Rome or Monaco. Yes the latter two have mass transit but it is not anywhere near like what most folks are thinking about and they use a ton of cars. Heck even London fills its streets to max capacity with cars. So an awf lot of folks in London must think that the underground and the busses are not perfect. Otherwise they would not drive cars in that congestion,
But honestly the US has only a handful of cities that could support of use a true mass transit system. Our cities simpl have to much space around them so they can spread out and we’re developed to late to make mass transit the only option. Notice that in Europe if you have a post WW2 citie or a city that has a lot of room it often does not have much in the way of mass transit either
The second tier of mass transit metros below New York are Boston, DC, Chicago, SeaTac, and the San Francisco Bay Area. I'd pick one to work with.
Personally, I'd focus on either the Bay Area or SeaTac - geographically they're constrained in a way that encourages density and makes it easier to get people into trains. SeaTac has the added bonus of ferries being so damn useful for getting around.
Personally, I'd focus on either the Bay Area or SeaTac - geographically they're constrained in a way that encourages density and makes it easier to get people into trains. SeaTac has the added bonus of ferries being so damn useful for getting around.
Boston's mass transit on the map looks good, but the MBTA has been a political hackdom since I was a kid, the powers that be love expanding it at the cost of keeping what they have running efficiently, I know from personal experience. When they built the new tunnel to Logan Airport they didn't give a dedicated corridor for the Silver Line,which has a heavy ridership, so for the tunnel stretch its in traffic. Hot temperatures slows the popular Worcester line down because the tracks can't handle it. I live in Texas now and Dallas/Plano/Richardson/Garland, the DART rail and buses is pretty robust.
Last edited: