|
|
| Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible (1168051) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jul 23 14:23:45 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Jul 23 02:37:36 2012. excuse me. No, WMATA distances according to what John posted are in fact shorter. Making a comparison between Bethesda (closest station to where I grew up and NOT counting extra fare or time for bus from door to Metro) at roughly 12 miles out from downtown with my grandfather's Chicago home just under 10 miles from the Loop, the latter is within CTA's single fare zone thus way cheaper for a similar ride.Looking at gross area ## $2:25 buys access to nearly 6 times the square mileage in NYC compared to DC. and includes buses. Chicago is similar in that a single fare buys much longer trips. Now, many might say, well, noone travels from 207th to Far Rockaway, however in a recent news item, a Chicago woman was interviewed who takes a bus to the Red Line on the South Side, changes to the Blue and goes to O'Hare to work baggage. She has a long commute, but a single fare. |
|
|
|