Ok, I just finshed my three month US tour and I have some comments on America's metros. Contrary to some stats and popular belief, I found all of the metros(D.C, NY, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco) to be just crowded as ones i've been on in Europe.

I never heard anyone say they were not. I've been to NYC and yeah it does get very crowded. But I still think that London Underground is far worse. Try going on the Victoria Line at rush hour!

There was a topic about Americans preferring personal transport over mass in the past, which most likely spawned this thread.

Anyway, yes, many Americans use mass transit. Even a small city light rail train like the MAX train in Portland can get very crowded when it comes from dowtown.

"Crowded" alone doesn't mean anything...
You could have a train that comes every 15 minutes be just as "crowded" as a train that comes every 2 minutes. If you are inside, you might be thinking they look and feel the same, but in reality, they're not similar at all. You could also have a 4-car train be just as "crowded" as a 10-car train... Again, the level of "crowdedness" doesn't really mean anything by itself.

Besides, the older US cities (i.e., all the ones you went to) tend to do a decent job with transit... Not exceptional, but a decent job. It's the suburbs and younger cities that have mostly developed in the post-war years where transit is a joke and you need a car to get everywhere.

I never heard anyone say they were not. I've been to NYC and yeah it does get very crowded. But I still think that London Underground is far worse. Try going on the Victoria Line at rush hour!

The London Underground is VERY cramped & has little or no air conditioing, so it feels much more crowded & uncomfortable than the busier NYC subway.

I assume, when you say San Francisco, you mean the BART system and not MUNI. I'd be curious what you though (other than it's crowded - I agree).

Many people use transit in the US, but the percentage of people using transit for work and other activities is much smaller compared to other cities in other countries with good transit except for NYC.

The London Underground is VERY cramped & has little or no air conditioing, so it feels much more crowded & uncomfortable than the busier NYC subway.

Untrue, I have been on the London underground and all but 2 stations I have been to didn't have air con.

Paris metro is much worse for heat.

Washington DC is really solid as well, though not quite on the same level. Very effecient and well laid out metro.

Heavy rail system ridership:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership

and Light Rail system ridership in the US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_light_rail_systems_by_ridership

Note that a few cities (Boston, San Fran, Baltimore, LA, etc) have both light rail and heavy metro lines.

And metro systems from around the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_systems_by_annual_passenger_rides

The problem is that the transit outside most urban city limits (where the majority of Americans live) is usually lacking.

^^
Very much so, most people don't live in large cities. NYC and Boston are surely two of the best urban transport systems, and I've heard DC’s is good too. Chicago’s is functional, but could probably be better. The one that has intrigued me most recently however is Seattle's new light rail system, which just opened this year. I think it has the most potential of any recent mass transit attempt, and will be a template for other suburb-city light rail lines in the future. That is really what is needed in most parts of country….not so much high-speed rail.

All the cities you mentioned have decent public transportation. But there are many others that don't.

Ok, I just finshed my three month US tour and I have some comments on America's metros. Contrary to some stats and popular belief, I found all of the metros(D.C, NY, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco) to be just crowded as ones i've been on in Europe.

Only a few American cities have decent rapid transit metros. Many have spawned regional light rail systems, but the vast majority of commuters still take cars. Infrastructure in the US is depreciating like crazy as well.

Thank you, Ford and Eisenhower. You were both brilliant until we realized how stupid your schemes actually were.

But for some cities, light rail is rapid transit. Denver, for instance - need to get somewhere fast? You hop on the light rail. Quick. Efficient. Easy.

Those Wikipedia tables are off pretty badly, for instance it lists Minneapolis' Hiawatha line at 26,500 daily riders, while it is currently getting about 37,000/day.

Why is Philadelphia always overlooked? Hello!

I never heard anyone say they were not. I've been to NYC and yeah it does get very crowded. But I still think that London Underground is far worse. Try going on the Victoria Line at rush hour!

Try riding PATH on peak hours. :lol:

(yes i do mean TRY)

- A

Why is Philadelphia always overlooked? Hello!

Because its commuter rail is sorely under funded, and was cut back drastically from the original systems operated by Reading and PRR.

Inside city limits, it's OK, otherwise it really sucks a lot.

In contrast, NYC has LIRR, MNRR, NJT rail that connects to subway.

My town used to have a regular heavy rail line into philadelphia, but it was cut back due to SEPTA being phobic of diesel operations.

So basically the reason philly & septa is overlooked, is because it is very under-funded and very limited in scope.

- A

When I was in LA...I was watching KTLA and on the morning show they where talking about how loads of people who live in the city didn't know about the Red Line subway :S

When I was in LA...I was watching KTLA and on the morning show they where talking about how loads of people who live in the city didn't know about the Red Line subway :S

That is so true. What is sad is that all my family, friends and myself have not even taken the subway and we have been here for over 30 years! LOL. In fact, I actually live in the city where the metro has a stop (City of Industry/Walnut), but it is still faster to take the car.

LA is the typical sprawl built after World War II. It is very spread out with streets, highways everywhere that the public transportation would not be able to take you anyway. Having been in other cities that have great subways ( NY, HK, Beijing, etc); I wish we had one where it is convenient to commute to work instead of sitting in 1-2 hours traffic in your car.