Dept. Of Meaningless Lists: Philly Tops In Smog-Filled Public Transit Rides Away From Your Neighborhood Where There’s No Access To Food

Here, then, perhaps is an object lesson in the perils of making too much of listicles which mention our fair city (and these days, it seems like they all do): In the same week Philly got a nod as being one of the smarter public transit cities in the union, it also got named one of America’s top 10 toxic cities. Apparently, there are cases to be made for both: The Natural Resources Defense Council’s Smarter Cities blog gives props to Philly and SEPTA for prioritizing transit services in and out of “food deserts” — ‘hoods where the all you can get to eat is potato chips and cheesesteaks — while Forbes cites Philly’s Superfund sites and poor water quality. (Note: It’s pronounced “wooder,” and it’s delicious and loaded with fluoride.) Believe one, believe both, believe neither: You’re stuck here anyway.

  • LB

    The Forbes article went out of its way to put Philly at the top of the toxic list. Accord to Forbes, “Philadelphia” includes Camden, Wilmington, and some county in Maryland. Only 3 of the superfund dump sites listed are actually in the actual Phila area. Forbes is just doing its part as bourgeois rag of park ave yankee fans. Please disregard.

  • agentlinden

    Camden fine, but *shiver* never Wilmington!

  • shawnkilroy

    MOJO Magazine once referred to Delta 72 as “East Philly Rockers”. Ever since then, East Philly has been my name for Camden.

  • LB

    yeah, Wilmington is an odd inclusion. I’m betting that Forbes wouldn’t have done the piece unless they could put Philly at the top. Bit of a debark from the typical Forbes “America’s Top Billionaires” and “World’s Richest Men” blowjobs to the uber white collar.

  • barryg

    It’s not an odd inclusion or anything directed at Philly proper–the article is a ranking of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, not cities. The headline is not about the article.