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.
I posted this link on a previous thread to give an idea about mass transit usage in the states:
Moderator cut: linking to competitors sites is not allowed
I think it would be most fair to separate the cities into 2 categories - Sun Belt cities that developed significantly after 1950, and non-Sun Belt cities (primarily in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and parts of the Pacific Coast) that were significantly developed before 1950.
Interesting idea Chip. It does seem a shame though, that cities growing that fast couldn't somehow incorporate a good transportation scheme into their growth plans. Kind of like how some non-industrialized countries, with no telecommunications infrastructure, leap-frogged the laying of wires and went straight to cell coverage.
I would second Phoenix, and add Charlotte from when I lived there in the mid-80's, although it may have improved since then.
Obviously never been to Phoenix, Detroit, or Houston.
Until recently, buses in Phoenix didn't even run on Sundays!
Both Phoenix and Houston sprawl into infinity like L.A., but *without* the Metro Rail subway, light rails to Pasadena and Long Beach, and express buses...well, they might have a few express buses.
Detroit may be the worst though. It's not huge and sprawling like Houston or L.A., but it's transit system, D-Dot, is among the most inept and backward of them all. D-Dot buses don't go to the suburbs of Metro Detroit (where the jobs are) and take goofy, meandering routes thru the city...when they actually show up.
The auto industry really did a good job in trashing Detroit's public transit, just as they (and the oil companies) did in L.A. 60 years ago.
L.A. is finally starting to bounce back, transit-wise. But I think it's safe to say Detroit never will. Suburban Detroiters are dedicated to keeping D-Dot as underfunded and inept as possible.
Interestingly enough, Detroit doesn't have commuter trains, either. Ironic since it's such a suburban-oriented region.
Los Angeles has Metrolink trains that serve Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. It's not the Long Island Railroad or Metra, but it's still light years ahead of those numerous cities that have no commuter rail service.
Interestingly enough, Detroit doesn't have commuter trains, either. Ironic since it's such a suburban-oriented region.
Perhaps it's not so ironic, considering the Detroit-based auto industry regarded the railroad industry as a major rival in the first half of the 20th century.
Baltimore's system needs to be expanded but it is a lot better than many other places in the northeast and midwest. Detroit has no rail at all and the buses are horrible. Columbus, Cincinnati, Indy, Milwaukee have no rail either. Pittsburgh has rail but it also needs improvement.
I would love to see a rail link between Baltimore and Annapolis, and a link-up between the Washington Metro system and the Baltimore region (like the talk about running the Washington Metro's Green Line up from Greenbelt to Fort Meade and BWI Airport).
It'll be cool to extend the Light Rail line south from the Glen Burnie-Cromwell termination point, again to Annapolis, if possible.
Baltimore's system needs to be expanded but it is a lot better than many other places in the northeast and midwest. Detroit has no rail at all and the buses are horrible. Columbus, Cincinnati, Indy, Milwaukee have no rail either. Pittsburgh has rail but it also needs improvement.
Actually Detroit does have a very small rail line thats just mostly in the downtown area. For the cities in the mideast/midwest Chicago, and Cleveland have the best rail systems. St. Louis has one too but its not that good.
[quote=Cle440;2946540]Actually Detroit does have a very small rail line thats just mostly in the downtown area. For the cities in the mideast/midwest Chicago, and Cleveland have the best rail systems. St. Louis has one too but its not that good.[/quote
oops ---you're right. I forgot about the people mover downtown.
Miami is pretty bad. All they have is a joke "Tri-Rail" which is pretty much the train to nowhere, and then there are the buses which are great if you like armed robbery, and that's it. For a major city, it has to be the worst although from what I understand Phoenix may be even worse, as I think it doesn't even have a commuter train. Orlando is also really bad, all it has is a runs-every-hour bus system.
I wonder if you have used public transit in Miami as I have? Albeit it's not great but certainly not the worse. You left out Metrorail which is heavy rail, Tri Rail which is commuter rail plus the Metromover downtown which is free. The county bus service covers a lot of territory as well serving even neighboring counties.
One could get on a Tri Rail train in Jupiter (Palm Beach county) and wind up in Key West using a combo of trains & express buses which is well over 100 miles in distance. Miami is also expanding it's Metrorail system and buying new cars.
If you want bad mass transit try any other major Florida city, Miami leaves them in the dust.
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.
phoenix and charlotte
