Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Desertortoise t1_je5ub9v wrote

Reply to comment by rlbond86 in The Silver Line to Dulles is a bigger deal than I thought it would be by MrMoustachio55

I agree but I would say top 4 after NYC, Chicago and Boston.

4

digitall565 t1_je6397e wrote

I can't speak to NYC and Chicago but I feel like DC and Boston are pretty neck and neck when it comes to transportation, with DC maybe even slightly ahead. The combined metro and bus system in DC is pretty robust in terms of reach.

47

[deleted] t1_je6cxbm wrote

DC metro is also way cleaner. Like the dirtiest metro station I have ever been is cleaner than the cleanest NYC subway station.

46

DfcukinLite t1_je6olml wrote

The NYC metro has about a hundred years on DC and stations of varying ages/grit. City’s are gritty, especially old east coast cities.

18

Desertortoise t1_je6onpq wrote

I mean, sure, but Metro ridership is less than 1/10 of New York’s, according to pre-pandemic figures. Personally I’d opt for the functional but dirty system, but that’s just me.

16

UD88 t1_je8ch4u wrote

You wait in those stations for at most 1-2 minutes though. The sheer number of trains running is a game changer and makes getting around up there a lot easier than in DC

5

[deleted] t1_je8ecm0 wrote

For sure, don't disagree, just saying Metro is WAY cleaner

6

UD88 t1_je8fa8c wrote

I mostly agree with this…though metro center and gallery place can get to that nyc level.

3

zed910 t1_je6f0qs wrote

Boston is actually number 2 in the country for annual transit ridership per track mile (a distant 2 behind NYC).

4

dwalls90 t1_je7lbi8 wrote

Boston residents definitely love the T. However, as someone who has lived in both Boston and DC, the metro is much cleaner, faster, and overall more efficient.

9

Otree38 t1_je7j6x9 wrote

Lifetime DC resident, current Boston college student, and transit fan: WMATA is (at the moment) leagues better than the MBTA. Even when the T is functioning (which it isn’t right now, think SafeTrack era level of fucked up) it doesn’t go nearly as far out (which some see as a plus) and isn’t as convenient, clean, and comfortable as Metro. Sure, they have more robust commuter rail, but the headways are way worse, fares are more expensive, and it’s generally just more of a hassle. Coming back to DC is such a breath of fresh air.

10

Desertortoise t1_je7p53b wrote

Cheapest DC fare is $2, but it goes up to $6, while the T is always $2.40. Advantages of the two layouts and neighborhood discussions are probably too complex for a Reddit comment. DC itself is much smaller than Greater Boston, so I think it really depends. Both have green lines that go to baseball, at least. 😄

4

Otree38 t1_jeccrir wrote

I was specifically referring to the commuter rail fares vs metro fares. The $10 weekend passes help but it’s often more expensive than a comparable distance on the Metro (say, like going to Shady Grove or Ashburn)

1

Desertortoise t1_jeccy2d wrote

That’s more like a MARC or VRE ticket, then, which are also about that much.

1

TheCoelacanth t1_je75ery wrote

I would put DC ahead of Chicago. Chicago's coverage is decent, but it's really slow compared to DC.

3

Zyneck2 t1_je7pjvz wrote

Chicago has 10% more riders annually, and two of its lines (red and blue) are 24/7. Yes there are swaths of transit deserts on the south and west sides, but one can say the same for all public transit systems in the USA. Chicago is also much, much bigger geographically.

7

MattCaff89 t1_jeaw63y wrote

I also think The ‘L + Metra make Chicago MUCH more comprehensive and helps with the speed question (where Metra can essentially function as an express line).

2