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 realize the previous thread I had " Most Green Major American City" has alot of faults to it so I decided to create a new one focused on the most populated metropolitan areas. As they are more accurate.
Top 15
1. New York- Northern New Jersey-Long Island
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
3. Chicago-Naperville-Joliet
4. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
5. Philadelphia-Camdem-Wilmington
6. Houston-Sugarland-Baytown
7. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach
8. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta
9. Washington-Alexandria-Arlington
10. Boston-Cambrige-Quincy
11. Detroit-Warren-Livonia
12. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale
13. San Franciso-Oakland-Fremont
14. Riverside-San Bernadino-Ontario
15. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue
Probably Detroit-Warren-Livonia where their long-standing economic troubles have made them too miserable and many too poor to do much mass consumption.
Portland, Oregon is generally considered to be the most environmentally concious city, however Chicago is by far the most environmentally concious of the big 3. I vote Chicago.
San Francisco is not the most environmentally concious city. San Francisco's public transit is by many considered inadequate. Seattle is definitely a driving city. Boston is a driving city as well. Chicago hands-down on this list.
San Francisco doesn't allow bottled water to be trucked into its city limits.
Portland. Oregon I agree is the most environmentally friendly major metropolitan area but Portland is number 25? on the most populated metropolitan areas.In Portland they have street level trains that access just about every part of the city and into its suburbs that you can ride for free. Plus Portland has 100's of miles of pedestrian trails and has designated bicycle lanes on most of its major surface streets+Their are even some streets that are bicycle only(mainly small side streets)
I think 12% of the population of the Portland metropolitan area use bicycles to get around. In some neighborhoods the numbers climb to almost 25%.
We all need to look at Portland and start following them.
Portland, Oregon is generally considered to be the most environmentally concious city, however Chicago is by far the most environmentally concious of the big 3. I vote Chicago.
San Francisco is not the most environmentally concious city. San Francisco's public transit is by many considered inadequate. Seattle is definitely a driving city. Boston is a driving city as well. Chicago hands-down on this list.
Boston is one of America's premier walking cities and not a driving city at all. The Boston-Cambridge area has the most walking commuters per capita in the Nation. If you read any list with the "Best Walking Cities" Boston and Cambridge are always mentioned in the Top 5.
Boston is one of America's premier walking cities and not a driving city at all. The Boston-Cambridge area has the most walking commuters per capita in the Nation. If you read any list with the "Best Walking Cities" Boston and Cambridge are always mentioned in the Top 5.
The link you posted is not for public transportation, only for heavy rail. In chicago's case, this would not include CTA Busses, Pace Busses, and the Metra.
The link you posted is not for public transportation, only for heavy rail. In chicago's case, this would not include CTA Busses, Pace Busses, and the Metra.
Not at all a fair comparison.
Umm......and Boston does not have a Bus system either? If you read what I said also it was not to imply that Chicago is car dependent and not walkable (I posted a link showing it was in the Top 4 in the nation) It was to show that Boston is a walking city, which the poster above said is was not.
Umm......and Boston does not have a Bus system either? If you read what I said also it was not to imply that Chicago is car dependent and not walkable (I posted a link showing it was in the Top 4 in the nation) It was to show that Boston is a walking city, which the poster above said is was not.
Matt,
Here is part of your quote:
Quote:
Also per capita Boston has a higher public transportation ridership than Chicago (List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
The link you posted simply does not justify that statement.
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.
