Found on Social Media...

[shadowkat]

1. US Cities with the Best Public Transportation

While I'm not surprised NYC rules at number 1. (I work for it after all.)
I am surprised that Chicago is at the bottom, and LA of all places is ranked 3, and San Francisco 2??? Also Kansas City is above Chicago? Really?





2. Is anyone else, besides me, tired of social media constantly outing any and all infractions no matter how long ago on famous folks - with the hopes of cancelling them?

Makes me miss the 20th Century, where we just had to worry about the stupid tabloids, and everyone ignored them.

I'm beginning to think I should do the same thing with stranger's posts on social media platforms?

Yes, it was fun for a while folks, but now I'm tired of it. Stop. I do not want to know.



Gad. Folks on social media platforms are horrid self-righteous gossips.

[In case you missed it? People were trying to cancel several famous writers this week (who will remain nameless - since I don't want you all hunting for the information too and cancelling them). I don't read them any longer, but I still found it to be annoying. Leave the poor writers alone you silly social media people with fake names. They haven't harmed you. Nor, as far as I can see, are they currently hurting anyone else. And this gossip only serves to hurt them and those close to them - so, vengeance? Not a good look. Stop it. Go out and touch grass.]

As my Criminal Procedural Professor and Kansas Defender Project Prof - informed me ages ago...

"There But for the Grace of God go I..."

Just because someone happens to be famous or has created things you adore, doesn't mean you are entitled to rip them apart for things they did to folks you don't know years ago - on social media platforms. Good news? Fewer people are on the platforms now - there's so many. And no one cares (information overload). If they did? Trump would have been cancelled. That's the irony? The only person who should have been cancelled. Trump. Hasn't. So until he gets cancelled, I don't want to hear it.



3. What Lies Beneath NY - apparently nomadic mail or mail tubes live there, among other things. Gotta love NY.

Comments

[iddewes]

I heard San Francisco was quite good for transport but I am very surprised that Chicago is worse than LA! I guess LA does have that metro train system now although I was told it only went around Hollywood (we rented a car there so I don’t have personal experience). And my friend Philip seems to have got around Chicago ok when he was there just recently.

[shadowkat]

Apparently, my cousin who lives in Chicago had an explanation for it?

"Currently Chicago has multiple systems. The suburbs bus is 1 company & ticket, the suburbs commuter train downtown is company #2, the downtown subway & elevated trains is company #3, & the downtown Chicago bus is company #4. It confuses the heck out of the non-natives. But a recent state law is supposed to make it all 1 company & ticket, so maybe it'll improve in the future. The other problem is in the suburbs, you can get downtown pretty easily but not between the suburbs. So yeah, we have terrible public transportation so far. Not surprised Kansas City is allegedly better."

Yet, it at least has multiple systems? And is safe to use?

[iddewes]

Oh yeah I get why that would be a pain then. But at least it sounds pretty extensive, and that thing with transport all going to the centre and it being difficult to go between suburbs is something you get in a lot of cities, even London depending where you’re going.

[shadowkat]

It's true of NYC as well. The public transportation, quality, effectiveness, and amount tends to dissipate once you move past Manhattan and the areas closest to it. It's sad. Because a lot of our environmental and traffic issues, not to mention economic ones would be resolved if we'd invested more in public transportation across the board.

[iddewes]

The suburbs in London often still have good transport but it’s not necessarily so great going from one to another. Eg when I lived in Putney I was actually really near Barnes, where my Nana lived. I could walk there in about half an hour. But the only transport there was a train that only went every 30 minutes. So I usually used to walk and then get the train back if I was there quite late - because some of the way to walk there wasn’t a great place to be at night. It was only like 2 stops but it only ran every 30 minutes.

[svgurl]

I wouldn't have guessed SF at 2 either, but even though the Bay Area as a whole isn't great for public transportation, a lot of people do take the bus/metro and of course cable cars once they're actually in the city. Before Uber/Lyft got popular, I was fine using it when I did go and my sister used to take public transportation to/in the city when she worked there.

[shadowkat]

I'm giving the article the side-eye? Or questioning its legitimacy - because Kansas City does not have a public transportation system. Chicago does.

[wendelah1]

We do have public transportation. I took a bus to work for several years, one bus, no transfers, several blocks to walk to catch it and to get to the hospital once I got off at my stop. I was young, the walk was not a problem. And now we have a subway system. Kyle and I used to take when we went to the opera. But since COVID, our line has become very dangerous. People keep getting murdered and there is no police force. I will never ride it again. But that's okay since I rarely go out now.

[shadowkat]

That would explain why no one uses the public transportation system in LA. I wasn't aware you had one? But then to my knowledge Kansas City and Las Vegas didn't have any.

Chicago has one. It's safe. Convoluted yes, but safe. I don't understand how it got ranked near the bottom.

[wendelah1]

I don't either. But many people do use the buses and the subway. Oh, and the Metro link train that runs from Ventura County through the San Fernando Valley and Hollywood and so on, with the terminus downtown where Amtrak and the private railway leave from. Our rating probably is a combination of miles plus riders. We are the second largest city in terms of population, and maybe the second largest in square miles so it makes sense to me if that was their criteria. Ridership should rebound if they get more police presence, I hope. They need to get this fixed before the 2028 Olympics. I gotta look at the dates, make sur
I am out of town.

[shadowkat]

LA got the 2028 Olympics? LOL! (I'm relieved NYC lost. Do not want. I don't blame you for wanting to be out of town.) Which channel is it on?

I'm thinking you're right - that their criteria was probably population and that you had one running through the city and covering enough of it. Also the number of potential or actual riders.

That's the only thing that makes sense. Still giving the article the old side-eye though.

[yourlibrarian]

I fail to understand how Chicago can be worse than the California cities when it comes to public transport. That said, I haven't taken Chicago public transit in a very long time so I can't say what its condition currently is.

I also had no idea Las Vegas even had any.

[shadowkat]

Well Kansas City doesn't really have any either. Or it's relatively non-existent - outside of maybe a downtown bus?

Me: Kansas City is ranked above Chicago.
Mother: But..but..Chicago has a transportation system, Kansas City doesn't.

I posted it on Facebook, and a cousin who lives in Chicago, explained:

"Currently Chicago has multiple systems. The suburbs bus is 1 company & ticket, the suburbs commuter train downtown is company #2, the downtown subway & elevated trains is company #3, & the downtown Chicago bus is company #4. It confuses the heck out of the non-natives. But a recent state law is supposed to make it all 1 company & ticket, so maybe it'll improve in the future. The other problem is in the suburbs, you can get downtown pretty easily but not between the suburbs. So yeah, we have terrible public transportation so far. Not surprised Kansas City is allegedly better."

Somehow, I don't think making it all one company will necessarily improve it. Kind of in that situation in NYC. But whomever wrote that article must be on something...because I'd rank Boston and Chicago's above LA, San Fran and Kansas City.

[jesuswasbatman]

That survey is very badly planned:

Number of "stations" disability-accessible - any city which has only low-floor buses on the street will automatically get 100%. By contrast cities with old subway/elevated systems which are difficult to make wheelchair-accessible retrospectively will get marked down.

"Safety events" per million miles - systems which have a lot of passengers will have more issues with accidents and crime.

"Efficiency" - cities which have minimal public transport provided as a social service for the very poor will have low fares and low costs.

[shadowkat]

I'd agree. They just collected stats, but didn't take into account the variations between the urban and outlaying areas? It's why polls, stats, and surveys are rarely reliable.

It's difficult to accurately compare Chicago's transportation to NY's - different requirements, and climates. What works in NYC most likely wouldn't in Chicago or Kansas City for that matter nor is it required?

Clearly the survey was done by an organization that doesn't understand the intricacies of urban planning or transportation, or for that matter surveys?