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'd rank my city (Boston) 3rd in the country in terms of public transit. I'd rank New York and Chicago as better by quite a bit.
I'd say Boston just edges out San Francisco's Bart/Muni/Caltrain system and edges out Washington's Metro by a little bit.
The reason I think Boston edges out San Francisco's complete network is as follows:
1) Transfer. In San Francisco, you have to pay to transfer from BART to MUNI or MUNI to Caltrain, etc. In Boston, there are free transfers on all of the rapid transit lines (Blue, Red, Green, Orange and Silver) and you only have to pay to transfer to commuter rail or regional networks (i.e. Amtrak, Greyhound, etc).
2) Boston's whole system covers a LOT more than San Francisco. You can break it down like this. S.F's MUNI Metro underground is nearly IDENTICAL to Boston's Green Line. They are light rail, all cover the same central stations underground in the downtown area before splitting up, traveling above ground to different areas of the city's outer neighborhoods. They carry similar numbers of passengers (Boston's Green Line carries about 80,000 per day more than Muni's metro/F-Line and Cable Cars) and cover similar distances. Boston's commuter rail network is FAR more extensive than San Fran's Caltrain (a difference of nearly 100,000 people per day). The commuter rail network around Boston is very extensive while Caltrain is very limited. BART picks up Caltrain's slack and works almost as a distance commuter network (a lot like DC's Metro) which means increased fares from distant stops. As a rapid transit system, BART covers more area than Boston's Red, Blue and Orange lines (though Boston's has higher ridership) which are local rapid transit (one fare, free transfer to the Green Line). The big picture is that Boston's network is a bit more extensive and a bit easier to use. SF's is a bit cleaner and I prefer their bus system, but overall, Boston's is a bit better.
Washington's Metro is obviously more extensive than Boston's rapid transit network (Red, Blue, Green, Orange, Silver) but it also doubles as a commuter rail network as D.C. has very little commuter rail service. For that reason, the Combination of Boston's commuter rail and its subway system is more extensive than D.C.'s Metro.
No knock on either of those cities which are excellent. Just a simple explanation of why I'd rank Boston higher than San Francisco or D.C. in terms of public transit.
Let's start with crap. I hate this city and can't wait to leave.
Light Rail. Benefits only the business person and was paid by tax payers in thought that it would benefit... well the tax payer. You can do two things. Take the light rail or take the express bus, both going to downtown. The bus will always beat the rail by 30 minutes. There are no stops from the transfer station to downtown because it goes through an industrial area. The last breaker on this is.....<Yell>IT HAS TO WAIT FOR STREET LIGHTS!!! </Yell> ARGH!
Bus. The entire city hates the bus system. Never consistent. Always late or to early. Sometimes two buses land at the same time either going the same direction or east/west and north/south. Instead of timing correctly, the people miss the bus that was there a minute ago and get to wait around 30 to 45 minutes for the next one to show up late.
Let's start with crap. I hate this city and can't wait to leave.
Light Rail. Benefits only the business person and was paid by tax payers in thought that it would benefit... well the tax payer. You can do two things. Take the light rail or take the express bus, both going to downtown. The bus will always beat the rail by 30 minutes. There are no stops from the transfer station to downtown because it goes through an industrial area. The last breaker on this is.....<Yell>IT HAS TO WAIT FOR STREET LIGHTS!!! </Yell> ARGH!
Bus. The entire city hates the bus system. Never consistent. Always late or to early. Sometimes two buses land at the same time either going the same direction or east/west and north/south. Instead of timing correctly, the people miss the bus that was there a minute ago and get to wait around 30 to 45 minutes for the next one to show up late.
Wow, sounds like you just described Baltimore's system, right down to the light rail at streetlights, how infuriating. Especially because lots of other cities have figured this rudimentary problem out.
The reason I think Boston edges out San Francisco's complete network is as follows:
1) Transfer. In San Francisco, you have to pay to transfer from BART to MUNI or MUNI to Caltrain, etc. In Boston, there are free transfers on all of the rapid transit lines (Blue, Red, Green, Orange and Silver) and you only have to pay to transfer to commuter rail or regional networks (i.e. Amtrak, Greyhound, etc).
2) Boston's whole system covers a LOT more than San Francisco. You can break it down like this. S.F's MUNI Metro underground is nearly IDENTICAL to Boston's Green Line. They are light rail, all cover the same central stations underground in the downtown area before splitting up, traveling above ground to different areas of the city's outer neighborhoods. They carry similar numbers of passengers (Boston's Green Line carries about 80,000 per day more than Muni's metro/F-Line and Cable Cars) and cover similar distances. Boston's commuter rail network is FAR more extensive than San Fran's Caltrain (a difference of nearly 100,000 people per day). The commuter rail network around Boston is very extensive while Caltrain is very limited. BART picks up Caltrain's slack and works almost as a distance commuter network (a lot like DC's Metro) which means increased fares from distant stops. As a rapid transit system, BART covers more area than Boston's Red, Blue and Orange lines (though Boston's has higher ridership) which are local rapid transit (one fare, free transfer to the Green Line). The big picture is that Boston's network is a bit more extensive and a bit easier to use. SF's is a bit cleaner and I prefer their bus system, but overall, Boston's is a bit better.
Washington's Metro is obviously more extensive than Boston's rapid transit network (Red, Blue, Green, Orange, Silver) but it also doubles as a commuter rail network as D.C. has very little commuter rail service. For that reason, the Combination of Boston's commuter rail and its subway system is more extensive than D.C.'s Metro.
No knock on either of those cities which are excellent. Just a simple explanation of why I'd rank Boston higher than San Francisco or D.C. in terms of public transit.
Interesting take. Although the Bay Area is now pushing the "Clipper" which can be used on MUNI, BART, Caltrain, AC Transit (in Oakland), Golden Gate Transit, and the regional ferries without having to pay extra to use each system.
My take on SF's system is that it works great for commuters, but is actually pretty lousy for people who live in the city. BART is excellent; MUNI is terrible. On the plus side, in many areas of the city itself you can walk to almost anything you need, so you can cut down on the need to take many MUNI trips. BART covers very little of the city, and the buses are extremely slow. DC's system is far better than SF's, not so familiar with Boston's (other than as a tourist). I think I read recently that SF's MUNI is now the slowest in the nation; that doesn't surprise me. It's painfully, glacially slow, and I only took it for fairly long trips as it was usually faster or at least more pleasant just to walk if the distance was less than two miles. Add to that decreased service and coverage and increased fares (both a result of difficult economic times and tight budgets) and MUNI is facing tough times these days. I'm not living there now and have only been following casually from afar, but I think it looks like things have hit rock bottom (with a big showdown between the Supervisors and the transit officials, so maybe they'll figure out some working solution soon. Or maybe it will just be more political posturing. Ah, well, at least SF is a beautiful city and makes up for the slow and spotty bus service in other ways. In any case, though, it's reputation as a public transportation mecca seems to be either based on BART, or on days gone by.
Interesting take. Although the Bay Area is now pushing the "Clipper" which can be used on MUNI, BART, Caltrain, AC Transit (in Oakland), Golden Gate Transit, and the regional ferries without having to pay extra to use each system.
Yeah, I noticed this was being heavily promoted on the trains "all your transit on one card." My girlfriend may end up getting one. It's certainly an improvement but there are still large swaths of the city not covered by anything but bus service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist
My take on SF's system is that it works great for commuters, but is actually pretty lousy for people who live in the city. BART is excellent; MUNI is terrible. On the plus side, in many areas of the city itself you can walk to almost anything you need, so you can cut down on the need to take many MUNI trips. BART covers very little of the city, and the buses are extremely slow. DC's system is far better than SF's, not so familiar with Boston's (other than as a tourist).
I sort of agree. As I said before, BART is really a rapid transit supplement to San Francisco's limited commuter rail service. For commuters from outside the city, it's ideal.
I wouldn't call MUNI, "terrible." It's great through the central part of the city from Castro through Embarcadero as you have VERY frequent trains. Outside of the underground core, not so much. My girlfriend lives in the Outer Sunset area and frequently relies on the N to get her into the city center. It's a REALLY lengthy commute that doesn't cover all that much distance. Once the train runs above ground, it's painfully slow. Whenever I fly into town, I dread the wait after I transfer from BART to the N. It takes forever and then it's a lengthy ride out to her place. I love it when I'm there (such a cool neighborhood), but hate the process of getting there.
You nailed it when you said much of the city is so walkable that it makes up for it. I agree. I don't know that any city has the concentration of walkable neighborhood centers S.F. does. Boston, New York, D.C., Philly, Chicago, etc all have some but not in the density and proximity that S.F. does. I love that about San Francisco (which truly is one of my favorite cities on the planet).
I know the bus service is slow, but I don't think it's all that bad. I've had limited exposure to buses in S.F. but what I experienced was better than what I'm used to here. The network is pretty extensive too.
D.C.'s metro is great. it combines the extent of rapid transit commuter rail (a lot like BART) and local rapid transit subway(a lot like Boston's Red, Blue and Orange lines) nearly flawlessly. My biggest reasons for ranking Boston's ahead of it are 1) Boston has a better concentration of stops in the most central neighborhoods (D.C. has no Metro in Georgetown) and 2) I HATE the fluctuating fares based on the distance you travel between stops (i.e. King Street to Dupont costs a lot more than Roslyn to Dupont). Zone based fares are OK (Boston's commuter rail does this... anywhere inside the inner most zone the commuter rail costs exactly the same as the subway), but the fluctuating fares annoy me. It may just be a personal gripe. D.C.'s system is still, of course, excellent. A hell of a lot cleaner than Boston's.
Quote:
I think I read recently that SF's MUNI is now the slowest in the nation; that doesn't surprise me. It's painfully, glacially slow, and I only took it for fairly long trips as it was usually faster or at least more pleasant just to walk if the distance was less than two miles. Add to that decreased service and coverage and increased fares (both a result of difficult economic times and tight budgets) and MUNI is facing tough times these days. I'm not living there now and have only been following casually from afar, but I think it looks like things have hit rock bottom (with a big showdown between the Supervisors and the transit officials, so maybe they'll figure out some working solution soon. Or maybe it will just be more political posturing. Ah, well, at least SF is a beautiful city and makes up for the slow and spotty bus service in other ways. In any case, though, it's reputation as a public transportation mecca seems to be either based on BART, or on days gone by.
I absolutely see your point. I still think it does pretty darn well in terms of public transit. It could use some serious improvement (I'd really like to see light rail out to parts of Outer Richmond so it wouldn't be so bus dependent), but it's not bad.
When I rank Boston's highly I do so acknowledging some serious flaws. Many of them are related to aging infrastructure. The trains are kind of dirty. While they replaced some blue line cars, and are about to replace many of the green line cars, the Orange Line continues to crumble. Power outages on certain lines and delays due to track problems are too frequent. The Green Line through downtown (specifically Copley, Park, Boylston, Arlington and Government Center) is the oldest subway in the U.S. and no one would be surprised to learn that from looking at the stations (or the trains). Still, it's effective and carries a TON of passengers.
Yeah, I noticed this was being heavily promoted on the trains "all your transit on one card." My girlfriend may end up getting one. It's certainly an improvement but there are still large swaths of the city not covered by anything but bus service.
That's true. I live 8 blocks from both Powell and Montgomery Stations, and I still take the bus most of the time. Like you said, the bus network basically covers everywhere, but I do wish the subway/light-rail was more extensive. A train that follows Geary Blvd would be awesome.
I know the bus service is slow, but I don't think it's all that bad. I've had limited exposure to buses in S.F. but what I experienced was better than what I'm used to here.
Once in SF a friend and I got on the wrong bus in the wrong direction trying to find the North Beach area. When we got the end of the line, we were obviously (to the operator) not where we were supposed to be. So this driver, perhaps about 75 years old, gave us a chauffered ride all the way to North Beach as it was the end of his shift. It was such a nice thing to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
2) I HATE the fluctuating fares based on the distance you travel between stops
Agreed. Sure it's a pain but it's also just so uncool. Where's the possibility for spontaneity?
No, I guess it's not fair to say that SF's muni is terrible, so I'll amend that to say that it's not very good considering the city's size, number of riders, and reputation for having good transit. And getting to and from downtown is generally fairly easy, but getting diagonally or even from the Richmond to the Sunset could be a hassle (in the Sunset-Richmond case made worse by the fact that the buses were often so crowded that it could be tough to get on). It was definitely better than what we have in Minneapolis (although I do appreciate how clean the buses are in Mpls, and how I can almost always get a seat during non-rush hour, and sometimes even then), but then again, I had higher expectations for SF than I did for Mpls, given how SF has a reputation for being an easy city for non-drivers. (and it IS an easy city for non-drivers, even if muni has problems.) Better transit on Geary would be a major boost to the system, as that's one vast part of the city that is really inadequately served. They were talking about BRT options when we left, so hopefully one of these years that will really speed things up.
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.
