[joejohnson]

NY is probably the only city where this could work because it’s the only proper American city that has a real metro system. Every other city will require major upgrades to have modern public transportation, and the density isn’t there in most American cities that were designed around the car.

[tacticalturtle]

Chicago and DC? Their ridership numbers aren’t trivial

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_...

I live in Boston and I could see it working here, now that the T is on a path to reliability.

While it would be great if money wasn’t a concern, you don’t need to plaster the city in a grid of metro lines. Careful usage of bus only lanes has really made a difference in some areas of Boston that I frequent.

Edit: The link above is only for heavy rail - Boston’s numbers are better if you also include light rail, which is a significant part of the system:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_light_...

[nullstyle]

Please explain proper for us used to bart/muni/caltrain.

[dibujaron]

NYC Subway, Metro North, and LIRR have much broader and more frequent coverage to a lot more places outside the urban core than the bay area's network does. Iirc muni metro has passable coverage inside San Francisco, and Bart and Caltrain service a few linear corridors outside San Francisco pretty well, but a whole lot of the bay area is very far from transit. This means that bay area commuters could not as easily switch away from cars. Though SF is still probably the second best candidate for congestion pricing after NYC.