3 ms·

Which line were you on? I take a bus to work every day in Chicago, and I've felt unsafe maybe once or twice. Definitely felt way less safe walking through downt

Which line were you on? I take a bus to work every day in Chicago, and I've felt unsafe maybe once or twice. Definitely felt way less safe walking through downtown SF with the homeless population heckling me for my soda. Chicago's public transit ranks much, much higher than SF's. The fact that you compared it to London shows just how conceited you are.

tathougies 7y ago
> conceited I don't think that's quite the word you're looking for. We took the bus from downtown to UChicago. The express was fine, but on the way back on the regular, going through south side. It was way worse than SF. That being said, the commuter buses in Chicago and the L were basically as nice as any other respectable public transit option. > The fact that you compared it to London In both cities I have lived near the downtown core. In both cities I was able to get mostly where I wanted to go in under an hour, within and immediately surrounding the city. SF is moderately better in that, within an hour and a half on public transit I can not only visit the city, but also wilderness in Marin county. > Chicago's public transit ranks much, much higher than SF's I don't buy most 'rankings'. Portland, where I live now, is supposed to have one of the best transit systems on the west coast. We're looking for neighborhoods to live in. From one neighborhood six miles from downtown, it would take me one hour by bus to reach the city. In SF, I have lived in the city, but I've also lived in Silicon Valley (~ 40 miles away, but still only an hour to SF via Caltrain), and in Marin (~15 miles away in San Rafael, but still only an hour to the city). Still, Portland for some reason is ranked higher. Portland is about on par with Los Angeles. The system is slow. Something is wrong with most rankings IMO. But what would I know, I'm just some guy who's lived in a bunch of cities, and never commuted by car to work, ever.
- viklove 7y ago
  Just wanted to chime in and let you know conceited was precisely the word I was looking for. You sound excessively proud of your city (SF) to a fault.

tathougies 7y ago

> conceited I don't think that's quite the word you're looking for. We took the bus from downtown to UChicago. The express was fine, but on the way back on the regular, going through south side. It was way worse than SF. That being said, the commuter buses in Chicago and the L were basically as nice as any other respectable public transit option. > The fact that you compared it to London In both cities I have lived near the downtown core. In both cities I was able to get mostly where I wanted to go in under an hour, within and immediately surrounding the city. SF is moderately better in that, within an hour and a half on public transit I can not only visit the city, but also wilderness in Marin county. > Chicago's public transit ranks much, much higher than SF's I don't buy most 'rankings'. Portland, where I live now, is supposed to have one of the best transit systems on the west coast. We're looking for neighborhoods to live in. From one neighborhood six miles from downtown, it would take me one hour by bus to reach the city. In SF, I have lived in the city, but I've also lived in Silicon Valley (~ 40 miles away, but still only an hour to SF via Caltrain), and in Marin (~15 miles away in San Rafael, but still only an hour to the city). Still, Portland for some reason is ranked higher. Portland is about on par with Los Angeles. The system is slow. Something is wrong with most rankings IMO. But what would I know, I'm just some guy who's lived in a bunch of cities, and never commuted by car to work, ever.

viklove 7y ago
Just wanted to chime in and let you know conceited was precisely the word I was looking for. You sound excessively proud of your city (SF) to a fault.