# Which Capital has the best overall Infrastructure?



## Vrooms (Mar 4, 2010)

Which city has the best overall infrastructure???


----------



## crazyalex (May 21, 2010)

Im from Wellington, New Zealand 

I think London has the best infrastructure


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

London has a BIG tube network and BIG suburban network, tons of buses etc

Sheffield has its trams and tons of buses with a bit of a suburban network, its a smaller city so what it has works great!

Paris has a metro network and works well with the RER


----------



## Get Smart (Oct 6, 2008)

crazyalex said:


> Im from Wellington, New Zealand
> 
> I think London has the best infrastructure


No it doesnt, the infrastructure in London needs a major overhaul


----------



## strandeed (May 31, 2009)

Get Smart said:


> No it doesnt, the infrastructure in London needs a major overhaul


As far as capital cities go I think London is near the top.

The road network will always be substandard due to NIMBY's


----------



## Shezan (Jun 21, 2007)

I go for HK


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

Tokyo or Mexico City


----------



## GSAA (Nov 2, 2009)

I haven't travelled much in my life but Stockholm's infrastructure is great IMO. The metro is very extensive for the city's size and is open almost all the time (unlike London's Tube for example which closes at midnight). Of course Stockholm is a relatively small city so it's probably worse than some others regarding infrastructure.


----------



## mi3max (Sep 24, 2004)

Madrid


----------



## Khanabadosh (Nov 16, 2004)

Madrid and Tokyo.


----------



## Skyprince (May 2, 2006)

London ? With the decay in many of its stations, buildings etc ?

The best overall infrastructure- you mean per-capita ? Then it should be capital cities of some hyper-rich small countries


----------



## dj4life (Oct 22, 2009)

GSAA said:


> I haven't travelled much in my life but Stockholm's infrastructure is great IMO. The metro is very extensive for the city's size and is open almost all the time (unlike London's Tube for example which closes at midnight). Of course Stockholm is a relatively small city so it's probably worse than some others regarding infrastructure.


I agree. It is a real pleasure to use the public transport in Stockholm. The city is spread out very much and the metro area is big, so it isn't too small. 
By the way, currently there is an extra tram system being expanded in the city.


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

I guess a tie between Madrid/Paris because of the freeway network/RER suburban lines/and metro.

If comparing just the rail network I would say Seoul or Tokyo.


----------



## Get Smart (Oct 6, 2008)

strandeed said:


> As far as capital cities go I think London is near the top.
> 
> The road network will always be substandard due to NIMBY's


wrong, London's infrastructure is decaying and needs urgent overhaul, Tokyo, singapore and the scandinavian capitals have excellent infrastructure.


----------



## Motorways (Jul 1, 2009)

Breaking news! first time asked on SSC!


----------



## Luli Pop (Jun 14, 2010)

no doubt is Madrid.
its not just the metro, but freeways, suburban trains, trams, airport, parks, amusement parks, streets, electric wires hidden underground, schools, social housing, expo center, even new sidewalks are done in granite.
markets are also amazing in Madrid.

second Paris even with it dirty metre/rer.

I wouldn't choose Tokio because of its disgusting electrical wires hanging everywhere, very 3rd world style...


It's funny someone posted Mexico...


----------



## World 2 World (Nov 3, 2006)

Amsterdam


----------



## FlagshipV (Aug 3, 2010)

Singapore and Tokyo!!


----------



## Otsuka (Nov 29, 2008)

best capital Infr. I guess will be paris


----------



## limerickguy (Mar 1, 2009)

i think dublin gets an honerable mention, 

for a small population of about 1.3 million it has a 

bus system









tram system









Train system









and soon to be metro system


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

LtBk said:


> Washington metropolitan region has over 6 million(8 million if you include Baltimore metro), but the city itself has over 600,000 compared to 3 million+ in Madrid city proper. The DC metro itself was designed for more of suburban to city transportation.


Mmhm, but there is no point in comparing city proper as that doesn't give the full extent of a city's infrastructure. Like Luli says, if one were to only look at the special wards of Tokyo, it would give a vastly skewed impression of the infrastructure available there compared to other cities, same for Paris or, really, any city around the world. Should we compare everything to London city proper which is a minuscule square mile in Greater London? 

Lets keep it to metropolitan areas, it makes analysis so much easier for this particular subject.


----------



## Motorways (Jul 1, 2009)

Form the cities i know, i´d have to say Berlin, and then maybe Madrid, Paris and London.


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

NihonKitty said:


> Well the only city I have been to in Europe is Paris, and while the system is much more extensive (obviously, since it's a larger metro) I would rate Singapore above Paris simply because it is much cleaner, (what appears to be) newer and for the size of Singapore's population it does it's job well.


Paris has the dirtiest public transport system I have been to in Europe, and I have been to quite a lot of European cities.


----------



## IrishMan2010 (Aug 16, 2010)

I have to go with Madrid, the metro is one if the best in the world and covers so much of the city.


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

Here is a video showing many timelapses of Tokyo. It gives an idea of the scale of Tokyo's infrastructure.


----------



## Get Smart (Oct 6, 2008)

Conor said:


> From where I've been, Madrid and Berlin. I don't like London's public transport.


i was going to say the same thing. London public transport is horrible


----------



## FlagshipV (Aug 3, 2010)

Tokyo's infrastructure is really good!! Another good one would be Berlin.


----------



## CraigKingOfireland (Jul 5, 2007)

I don't think anyone from Dublin would ever say we have a world class transport system. Eventually perhaps, but not for another decade


----------



## saoró... (Nov 8, 2006)

CraigKingOfireland said:


> I don't think anyone from Dublin would ever say we have a world class transport system. Eventually perhaps, but not for another decade


Agreed, maybe 8 years to be exact


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Svartmetall said:


> Should we compare everything to London city proper which is a minuscule square mile in Greater London?
> 
> Lets keep it to metropolitan areas, it makes analysis so much easier for this particular subject.


I agree entirely in what you say about metropolitain area's, but just want to point out that the "City of London", despite it's name, is not really the city proper but more a historical district. The city proper is the GLA which the mayor (currently our floppy haired friend Boris) administers. When the mayor of New York, Madrid, or whatever meets their equivilent in London, it's Boris. (Oh, and again, despite the name, the GLA (Greater London Authority) does not represent a metropolitan area as it is often confused with as well)

:cheers:


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

I don't really see why so many people place Hong Kong's rail infrastructure so high up on lists. It's not really anything special. On the main island, it is only one single line. What if you wish to get to the other side of the island, places such as Stanley Beach etc, there is no rail alternative. Likewise, the connections between Hong Kong station and central is terribly long by foot. I was in HK twice last year and found it quite a chore lugging my baggage between those stations. The same can be said from many of the ferry terminals to subway stations on HK Island)

As well as that, I also found a few stations that had what at least seemed step only access. (Tin Hau station comes to mind). No matter where I looked, I couldn't find escalators or lifts. Maybe they exist, but it wasn't easy to find which is a hassle with heavy luggage.

I'm not saying it's a bad network. It's clean, good frequencies and covers the mainland part pretty good, but it's far from all inclusive and has many missing gaps

Berlin also has dropped down in my opinion. I used to rate this network very high, but was there a few weeks ago again and found it has deteriorated quite a bit. So many stations have far too few signage and in fact some almost none. You need to carry a map with you when you travel as well as a booklet identifying closed lines and this is something I rarely need on a proper subway network.

Tokyo I found ok, except for the problem of it's paper tickets which don't always let you transfer between lines run by different companies (something I'm told the card system avoids). It's a good network if a bit boring in design and the frequencies are what I expect for a major city (though nothing special from my experience)

Paris has a brilliant network. It's extensive and along with London, has wonderful character and history. There is something so special about being on a historical network. I don't care if it bumps around a bit more, I'd rather have that than a boring modern system (not that all modern systems are boring, but so many seem to be). My main gripe with the Paris network is that it does look quite a bit more rundown these days than London's, probably due to London renovating so much at the moment. And the amount of stations with step access only - I understand many stations are old, but London seems to have far more escalators and lifts. (Understand that I havn't been for a couple of years to Paris, so this may have changed)

London as clearly seen on this thread is both loved by some and derided by others. My main gripe with London's network is the often disrupted service (UK's overzealous health and safety rules are most likely to blame here - I've read that trains can be pulled out of service if a small amount of grafitti is found). Plus trains can get terribly crowded in peak times despite a very frequent service. But I am one of the people that love this city's network. The iconic double deck red buses, the wonderful historical stations and the enormous rail network. The combined underground, overground and suburban network is beyond belief. I also find it one of the most comprehensive systems around. Finding the right bus is so easy, despite having one of the largest and most complex bus networks in the world, and the tube pioneered comprehensive signage (it even has it's own font designed to be especially readable)

I won't name any one system as being the best of any capital city, but in no particular order, these are the capital cities that have most impressed me with public transport infrastructure.

* London
* Paris
* Tokyo
* Madrid

I would add New York as well, but it's not a capital city.

But as Svartmetall pointed out, this thread is about infrastructure overall. The only problem there, is that makes it rather complicated. Most people experience a city's transport infrastructure when visiting, but even few locals know about the rest.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Justme: I think people rate Hong Kong's rail network for a number of reasons:

#1. It is one of the cleanest systems I have ever been on. 
#2. Trains run at crazy frequencies on certain lines and have a very high capacity. 
#3. It is being invested in on a constant basis.
#4. It is the lifeblood of the city far moreso than a metro system is in other cities. When you consider the modal split of HK (90% public transport) and the fact that buses more often than not act as feeders to the MTR, the importance of the system really does crystallise. 
#5. It is comfortable, reliable and rarely has any problems compared to other metro systems.
#6. It is more extensive than people think with 10 lines in total to make up the system.

True, there is only one line on HK island, but that situation will soon be rectified with the opening of the South Island Line. Also, the island line on HK Island does actually cover most of the population and will do so even more when its extension to Kennedy Town is finished in 2014. There is also the Tseung Kwan O Line that connects HK Island to the mainland too at the eastern edge of HK Island. this bypasses the need to travel on the Tsuen Wan Line to get to the Kwun Tong Line. 

When one considers the number of crossings of HK harbour by railway lines, road tunnels etc, you can't help but feel impressed by the number of connections present and it continues to grow. The bus system is also second to none and equally as good as London's especially when you consider the size of HK. There is also the HK-Guangzhou rapid rail link under construction too which will give high speed rail access to HK from the Guangdong province of the mainland. 

About Tokyo, yes you are definitely right that the SUICA/PASMO system eliminates the problems of transfers. Transfers are now simple much in the same way as London with the Oyster card or HK with Octopus. I still have my SUICA card (Octopus and Oyster too). 

I still stick by what I say about Stockholm being one of the easiest cities I've visited to get around. For its size, it's rail, metro and bus systems are second to none.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

^^ Interesting Svartmetall, thanks for your reply. I must say though that I never found the frequencies anything special on the HK subway. It seemed nothing more than I would expect on a subway. Not worse, but not better.

As for the single line on HK island to cover most of the population, I beg to differ. HK island is beset by some rather steep hills. That makes many of the locations on the island, although not terribly far as the crow flies, still difficult to reach due to the steep inclines. There were so many cases where I didn't have terribly far to travel, but the steepness of the hills made it a lot less comfortable than would be if there were more options.

Yes, it's comfortable, clean and reliable. But that is the same with all new system. The same with new lines in historical systems as well. This is a bonus point, but I also love historic systems for their character. Swings and Roundabouts I guess.

A local will know the bus routes better of course, but part of a good infrastructure is also how comprehensive it is for people who don't use the system often.

My favourite form of transport in HK are the wonderful double decker trams. Historic design, fantastic and unique character and even the nick name for them brings a smile to my face. I just wish London kept their double decker trams as well.

I think it is a brilliant system all the same, but it doesn't fall within my personal top five.


----------



## Dezz (Mar 11, 2005)

Berlin and Paris, without a doubt.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

^^ Have you been on Berlin's rail network recently? Have you seen their creaky infrastructure of late? In the last few years things have sadly gone downhill quite steeply in Berlin due to their lack of funds. Berlin is a great city, with great potential infrastructure, but at this stage it has dropped quite significantly.


----------



## yulekung (Feb 5, 2009)

how about Beijing??


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

yulekung said:


> how about Beijing??


Erm, no. Given how much of the city isn't covered by subway yet and the traffic is diabolical I'd definitely not consider Beijing one of the best at the moment. Perhaps in the future when all the upgrades are done, but not currently. It's also quite pedestrian hostile on the main roads too with little opportunity to cross.


----------



## tonkster (Nov 15, 2007)

Berlin for me, it was wonderful. But I don't think the underground network was as extensive or anywhere near as well effective/organised as Londons.

I've been to most of the cities mentioned and I think Londons tube is the easiest to use in terms of tube maps, directions, extensive coverage and regularity.


----------



## kam4rade (Dec 6, 2007)

Luli Pop said:


> It's funny someone posted Mexico...


More funny if someone posted Buenos Aires:lol:


----------



## Luli Pop (Jun 14, 2010)

but nobody did!

the fact is a mexican posted Mexico whether you like it or not!


----------



## Shinkansado (Aug 6, 2010)

Probably the asian capitals, w/ Tokyo leading.


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2010)

From places I visited, Tokyo clearly wins. And I suppose I will not change my mind about it.



Luli Pop said:


> Is this a joke?
> I cannot understand how people keeps voting for Singapore, but I have two hypothesis:
> 
> 1. They don't know Singapore
> 2. They don't know the rest of the world


Extremely sadly, I have to agree. The public transport here is terribly over hyped and Discovery Channel circle line show provides absolutely fake figures (there will be a station every 500 meters IN THE DOWNTOWN area in 2020, not 'through most of the island in 2 years'). Crowds are worse than in Tokyo nowadays, development of new lines is slow and no such thing as commuter rail was ever even _suggested_. Buses are never on time. Our land links to Malaysia are disgraceful, without even a proper inter-city railway.

On another hand, Changi is indeed amazingly good airport, our seaport works like a Swiss watch and road system is of a very high quality.


----------



## nagara373 (Nov 9, 2010)

Tokyo (Japan) and Moscow (Russia)


----------



## janc (Dec 24, 2010)

nagara373 said:


> Tokyo (Japan) and *Moscow (Russia)*


ekhm....what? "Best" is a very extensive word. But I will say...Tokyo and maybe...Berlin?


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Munich, capital of Bavaria.


----------



## Nannostomus (Jun 15, 2006)

Simon91 said:


> From places I visited, Tokyo clearly wins. And I suppose I will not change my mind about it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Simon, there are too many things a country govt need to consider when it comes to protect a nation interests. Malaysia is after a sovereign nation, you cannot build anything u want. 2. If you have been to tokyo, the rush hour is extremely hectic, it probably won the top award for it btw it is a common knowledge. 

Development of line cannot be done overnight. Time goes into geographic analysis, Material consideration, Drilling and many many complicated stages. if these are no proper advance planning next time Singapore transportation line will very very complicated and unfriendly worse it could be dangerous.

BUses are after all vehicles on the road. THey cannot manipulate time and confirm it arrival. However, i mus agree that buses are getting shitty in singapore these days. NO senses of urgency for commuters.


----------



## xerxesjc28 (Mar 3, 2008)

Nannostomus said:


> Development of line cannot be done overnight. Time goes into geographic analysis, Material consideration, Drilling and many many complicated stages. if these are no proper advance planning next time Singapore transportation line will very very complicated and unfriendly worse it could be dangerous.


^^ perhaps not a fair comparison, but in China it does seem to happen overnight.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

London would rank among highest if it had a better road system. :/

I think it's Madrid or Tokyo. Or Paris perhaps even.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Tokyo


----------



## Dukecz (Dec 6, 2010)

Paris


----------



## sweet-d (Jul 20, 2010)

I'd say Tokyo has the best infrastructure.


----------



## Kenwen (May 1, 2005)

I'd say london, you can take suburban train which takes more or less 10 minutes from suburb to central, in the city theres the underground, buses which runs 24hours(I usually take night bus to go back to kingston after clubbing, London rarely has congestion as theres congestion charge. You can go the any point of London in half hour by public transport without driving.


----------



## arquitekto (Jun 12, 2009)

Tokyo, Seoul & Taipei ...


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

I don't know if this is part of infrastructure or not (according to a strict definition it is) but it's interesting.

Tokyo skyscrapers swaying back and forth during the March 11th earthquake. All skyscrapers in Japan can handle earthquakes.


----------

