4 ms·

It cuts the list shorter, but still not quite second place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedi

• thesmallestcat 10y ago
  Can you say that with a straight face after reading that list? Let's just look at the populations, no names: 11,176 66,455 49,708 50,005 4,724 8,175,133 23,594 2,406 27,395 69,781 6,707 7,137 23,805 20,832 58,114 75,754 34,399 53,926 362 146,199 805,235 Now guess which ones are central cities in their respective MSAs. Excluding those, guess which ones aren't part of the NYC or LA areas. Let's do ourselves a favor and exclude Poplar Hills, Kentucky (362). There's one city left, it's part of the Boston area (which is the next densest large city after SF), and you guessed it, Somerville has a subway with a separate light rail extension under construction. The only outlier is Sunny Isles Beach, FL (20,832), in the Miami area. And Miami? It's just after Philly, all known dense cities. So yea, it's NYC, then SF, minus a couple pockets of LA. And these are all dense places that need subways. It takes a special sort of something to claim, as the top comment did, that SF is not dense enough to warrant a subway, let alone massive large-scale investment in all modes of mass transit as NYC has.