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.
Pretty much all of the Sunbelt has atrocious public transit, with Phoenix probably topping the list. It is making steps with the building of a light rail system though. Detroit to my knowledge is the largest metro area in the U.S. without any heavy or light rail system in place and no plans to build one. I'd say that Las Vegas, Charlotte, Tampa, Nashville, Miami and Kansas City get pretty poor marks as well.
Really, most cities in the U.S. have poor public transit. It's the exception to have GOOD transit it seems, with only a handful of older cities, chiefly in the Northeast, whose layout is more conducive to public transit, where it seems to be somewhat decent.
Absoultely true. But we just got back from San Francisco and used their fabulous BART and Muni systems to get around (not to mention the ferry to Marin). Who'd've thunk CA would have such a great system?
Good point. People are too busy trying to label LA as the poster child for suburbia that they overlook much of what the city has accomplished.
I agree. I think that while LA led most other US cities down the path of unsustainable auto dependence and suburban sprawl, they are now in the forefront in land use and transportation solutions.
Doesn't St Louis Metro run thru the western burbs out to the airport, and way east into Illinois?
It runs 15-20 miles east into Illinois, starting at Scott AFB/Shiloh. It has about 8 stops on the Illinois side, and extends out to the airport, but its all straight shot. There is no train-hopping to get from one place to the next, you take a single train for the entire ride and hope that it stops where you need it to.
I would definitely not say that it only covers "St. Louis City." That's most certainly not even close to being true. It serves Illinoisans better than it serves Missourians, really.
I agree. I think that while LA led most other US cities down the path of unsustainable auto dependence and suburban sprawl, they are now in the forefront in land use and transportation solutions.
Absolutely. It's true that in the past, LA was the poster child for suburban sprawl and suburbs across the country modeled themselves after it. However, something happened along the way that didn't really happen in Houston, Dallas, Detroit, DC, etc. LA's suburban sprawl ran into the San Gabriel Mountains and was forced to stop. The LA Basin and the San Fernando Valley rapidly maxed out on land and soon began to densify. Sure, you have a few newer suburban communities such as Santa Clarita and Thousand Oaks, but compared to other cities and for a population of its size, LA County has relatively few new housing subdivisions being sprawled out across the landscape. There simply isn't any land left for such housing to be built on because of natural barriers. Now, you could talk about the Inland Empire, but I consider that to be a separate entity from LA. The same with Orange County, although they too are running out of land.
It has Indygo, which provides public bus transportation.
It was a joke. I was referring to the poor quality of public transit in Indy.
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.
