# Rate you city's public transportation system



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Hartford 4/10:
If you commute to downtown Hartford, it's great. Nice express buses as well. But intra-suburb transport is long and tedious, and the frequencies are not good, and end early. No trains for a metro of over a million, and they aren't really getting the BRT and commuter rail plans off the ground yet. Cheap though.

Buffalo 5.5/10:
Not much better than Hartford with the same hub-spoke problems, but it has a small light rail line which automatically makes it better. Buses have better frequencies and run later too. However, the fare is on the way to hit $2 by summer, which is as high as NYC (with 1/100th the service).


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

Hong Kong - 9/10

What can I say, you can go anywhere in the city using cheap and easily accessible public transportation (taxi's are frequent and everywhere), plus an extensive bus network and minibuses to fill routes buses don't cover, and a large, fast trunk metro system, all for very low prices.

AND it's one of the very few public transit systems to turn a profit without needing gov't subsidies. I give it a 9 simply because no system is perfect, and there can always be improvements...

It's very underrated and frequently forgotten as a PT system for some reason (people always think Tokyo). I daresay it's better than Tokyo, simply because HK is smaller, and you can get everywhere faster.

Berkeley - 5/10:
A respectable, usable bus network, and access to a BART station, but on both you'll find hobos and smelly people in general, though the equipment used is not too shabby. BART is LOUD though.


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

0/10, short answer is we don't have one. We have a van for poor people living in a certain part of town to get to the hospital, library, and shopping areas.


----------



## STIB (Dec 9, 2008)

zaphod said:


> 0/10, short answer is we don't have one. We have a van for poor people living in a certain part of town to get to the hospital, library, and shopping areas.


Interesting, but *which town* is it? hno:


----------



## Robosteve (Nov 6, 2008)

Sydney, Australia - 8/10

Sydney has safe, clean and frequent buses and trains servicing most of its suburban area, as well as ferries to major areas on the harbour. My main two complaints about it are:

- The Warringah rail line, proposed in the early 20th century, was never built. This means that the area of Sydney that I live in (the Northern Beaches) relies entirely upon buses (which have to use very poor road infrastructure) and the Manly ferry for public transport connections to the CBD.

- Radial bus and train services are impeccable, but there is very little in the way of frequent orbital services - though the Chatswood to Epping rail tunnel, which is due to open fairly soon I think, should help this situation somewhat. For instance, a few weeks ago I had to get to Parramatta by public transport, which is southwest of here... instead of going directly to Parramatta, I had to catch a bus south to the CBD, and then a train west to Parramatta. It didn't help that I was travelling during the morning rush hour, so that the buses, trains and the train station itself in the CBD were all packed with commuters.

Most orbital motions within Sydney are reliant upon its poorly designed road network and private transport, which wouldn't be such a bad thing if the government wasn't so keen on cost cutting that it actually built a few orbital motorways rather than at-grade arterials. There is only one orbital motorway in Sydney (the M7), and its intended purpose is to be a bypass for through traffic, rather than to carry traffic within Sydney. The other parts of Sydney's "orbital" motorway are actually radial roads, since the orbital passes through the CBD.


----------



## Stifler (Apr 11, 2006)

Avilés: 4/10 

It's not a large town (85,000) but its configuration make public transport and car necessary sometimes.

Local buses are awful. They are expensive, with bad signaling and hardly ever on time. Intercity services are very good. Brand new buses go every half an hour to the main cities around and now they even have services during the night on weekends. Long distance buses are only a few (you have to go to a close city to take most of them) and they are too expensive (the most expensive in Spain).

We definitely need a tram but politicians have been talking about that for ages without doing anything. Commuter trains are fine but they cannot beat the bus. Long distance trains don't exist.

Madrid 9/10.

If it's not the best public transport in the world it's close to be so. Cheap, great frecuencies, huge network, reliable... Buses are average but commuter trains and metro are superb.

I only miss that Metro closed less time during the weekends (nowadays it closes from 1.30 to 6.00).


----------



## Tramfreak (Oct 14, 2007)

Prague: 9/10

Enough metro lines and stations with good frequency, many tram and bus lines. It's a well-thoughtout system for a capital city of 1 million inhabitants, and its passenger numbers are well above European average. I personally have no problem with getting around the city, but tourists may be confused because of the insufficient information system. That's what Prague would need to be perfect. 

Eindhoven: 6.5/10

We have new, attractive buses (plus the design bus Phileas) and a sufficient number of lines. However, Eindhoven certainly also needs some higher form of transport like trams. I am also not a big fan of the system where all bus lines meet at the central station. No buses between suburbs hno:.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

For Baltimore, I would rank it 3-4/10.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Robosteve said:


> Sydney, Australia - 8/10


You're kidding right? Transit in Sydney is pretty bad... I'd have given it a 4 for a city of its size - it doesn't even have a proper subway and only 30 minute train frequencies in a lot of places off-peak. hno:


----------



## Robosteve (Nov 6, 2008)

Svartmetall said:


> You're kidding right? Transit in Sydney is pretty bad... I'd have given it a 4 for a city of its size - it doesn't even have a proper subway and only 30 minute train frequencies in a lot of places off-peak. hno:


Well, there aren't many places I've experienced public transport in that I can compare it to, but overall I think of it as pretty good. I can usually get where I'm going fairly easily by bus or a combination of bus and train.


----------



## lucian758 (Dec 28, 2008)

New york city - 4/10


----------



## ThatDarnSacramentan (Oct 26, 2008)

I'd say 3-5/10. There are benefits and downsides to the current system. Now, while RT (Regional Transit) has extended the light rail all the way to Folsom, it's done nothing to expand north or west, and that means all the people up in Roseville and Natomas have to drive into the city, which chokes I-5 and I-80. However, the light rail is almost always on time, seems cheap to me, and there's plenty of clean stations. It does get a bit tiring though how there's a station almost every quarter mile to half a mile. Slows things down a bit. Plus, it's nice having it at ground level downtown, but once it starts going out, it intersects with rail crossings some of the busiest streets and intersections in the city. But, that's gonna happen anyways because they were built right next to the freight lines. The bus system, I just find chaotic. Every time I look at a route map I get a headache. The route numbers are completely incomprehensible and there's bus stops on one street with one number, go a block north and it's an entirely different number! However, the buses have one advantage over light rail, and that's they go out in all directions. If they could just get a light rail line to Davis or Natomas, that'd help greatly with development, making it easier to get people to and from downtown and help alleviate the stranglehold created when on the Viaduct.


----------



## Rastacoqui (Aug 18, 2008)

San Juan, Puerto Rico.... 2/10.... the bus system is a shame.. the buses are old and are inconsistent but cover most of the metropolitan area... taxis are VERY VERY expensive... and the only positive thing is the Tren Urbano Metro system but... its very limited and does not reach most of San Juan's important cultural centers.

The rest of Puerto Rico... 0/10... why? because public transportation does not exist in the rest of Puerto Rico... even when Ponce, Mayaguez, Arecibo, Humacao and Aguadilla are cities that could desperately use some kind of public tranportation.


----------



## kato2k8 (May 4, 2008)

Heidelberg, Germany: 5/10

Due to only connecting 9 out of 14 suburbs by tram, remainder by bus on 10-minute-intervals. And half the lines, both bus and tram, don't keep to their timetables at all.


----------



## Amuse2000 (Nov 15, 2008)

London England 5/10

Tubes are expensive and very uncomfortable during rush hour, during summer its very hot and no air conditioning. In this winter many times in freezing cold there was no heating :bash: Numerous signal failures which means delays. Many stations are not handicapp (wheel chair) friendly. Busses are awful also especially when school kids board them, really frightening experience. Busses dont have air condiditioning either and are miserable in summer. Bendy busses are excellent in rush hour, however they are unsuitable for narrow and prmitive London roads. Also speaking from experience, a lot of fare dodging occurs in them, permanent conductor would be excellent thing to have. Also there have been cases of engine fire in the bendy busses. Worst thing about all London busses, as far as i know and see it that they are Diesel engine, which is very dirty. Electric trolley busses or hydrogen/LPG gas engine busses would be cleaner. I fully understand that without our decrepid tranport system, london would be worst off, however riding the tubes and busses in Paris, Munich, Valencia (spain), finland, Stolkhom, the london transport is too expensive for very poor service.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

I think some people need to look back through this thread at how other cities have been rated. We've seen Sydney rated the same as Tokyo, London rated less than Buffalo and the same as Houston (WTH!!!?!?!). 

Some perspective might be needed. :lol:


----------



## Get Smart (Oct 6, 2008)

^^ New Yorks MTA :happy: Xusein/10 ROT have you any experience of the NY MTA?


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Svartmetall said:


> I think some people need to look back through this thread at how other cities have been rated. We've seen Sydney rated the same as Tokyo, London rated less than Buffalo and the same as Houston (WTH!!!?!?!).


I thought that the question was up to personal perspective and experience. Most definitely if I actually experienced using the PT in Tokyo or London or wherever else, my ratings would have been _significantly _lower...maybe even below 1/10 for both cities, but I haven't. 

Wasn't basing my ratings on what I've read or seen in pictures when I wrote that post.



@ Get Smart, yes I've used the NY subway plenty of times. Best service in the US by far, but a lot of the stations are dirty. The 24/7 service is great though. I prefer the DC Metro personally, it's cleaner and easier to navigate. Although it doesn't have nearly as much as scope as the NY subway.


----------



## brianmoon85 (Oct 14, 2006)

Seoul 10/10


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Xusein said:


> I thought that the question was up to personal perspective and experience. Most definitely if I actually experienced using the PT in Tokyo or London or wherever else, my ratings would have been _significantly _lower...maybe even below 1/10 for both cities, but I haven't.
> 
> Wasn't basing my ratings on what I've read or seen in pictures when I wrote that post.


Sorry mate, I should have been more clear. I was more saying that people in Sydney and London need a bit more perspective. I can understand why Tokyo got a rating of 8 as it has no late night service at all. All transport stops just after midnight and doesn't resume until 5:00! Compare that to London which has one of the most extensive night transit systems in the world yet suffers from crowded and un-airconditioned vehicles, I'd say that between the two each has flaws that would stop me from giving them 10 out of 10, but compared to most cities, both should definitely be a 9.


----------



## Majestic (Jan 22, 2007)

*Poznan 8/10*

Public transport handles majority of total commuters here. Poznan has an extensive tram system which covers most arterial streets and thoroughfares. There is also 1 very fast tram line with grade-separated junctions connecting city center with major residential borough, which handles as many as 100,000 commuters daily. 
City bus lines usually top up the tram system, usually running perpendicular to trams. There are also 5 hubs around city core that provide buses serving city's suburbs.
Thanks to that almost whole city area is covered by PT and with a monthly pass, it's not expensive at all. Plus all buses and half of the trams are fairly new and modern.

There are naturally some downsides too. Major problem is that over the last decade there was few investments and projects and with constantly increasing traffic and urban sprawl, no new lines are built to accomodate the city growth and PT is losing its upper hand. The number of delays has increased significantly.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Svartmetall said:


> Sorry mate, I should have been more clear. I was more saying that people in Sydney and London need a bit more perspective. I can understand why Tokyo got a rating of 8 as it has no late night service at all. All transport stops just after midnight and doesn't resume until 5:00! Compare that to London which has one of the most extensive night transit systems in the world yet suffers from crowded and un-airconditioned vehicles, I'd say that between the two each has flaws that would stop me from giving them 10 out of 10, but compared to most cities, both should definitely be a 9.


Ah, now I see.

Let's see a Londoner experience the transit here before then complaining about the system back home. :laugh:


----------



## japanese001 (Mar 17, 2007)

関東 7/10
電車で日本中どこにでも行けるのには満足しています。
高速列車や普通列車、システムの技術開発にも満足しています。
しかし、ごちゃごちゃしてる所とホームが汚い所ががあります。
昼間で明るいのに蛍光灯をつけている電車が気になります。
それと朝の混雑にはうんざりです。永遠の課題です。


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

^^ Which part of the Kantō region in particular are you referring to?


----------



## deranged (Jan 22, 2009)

Brisbane, Australia - 4/10

The most that can be said for the city's PT is that it is useable.
Off-peak, outer suburbs and especially non-radial bus services are inadequate in terms of frequency and coverage, while punctuality varies wildly. Commuter rail is supplementary, but passable.


----------



## bobbybishop (Feb 1, 2009)

The cities I've experienced:

Singapore 8/10
safe, clean, efficient, frequent

Tokyo 9/10
massive, safe, clean, efficient, very frequent, fast

Jakarta 2/10
I really love this city but I have to be honest about the transportation system. The only reason I gave it a 2 is because the PT can at least move and the (not so) new busway.

HK 8/10
another Tokyo but not as massive

KL 7/10
I like the monorails

Seattle 2/10
clean and safe during daylight. Other than that it's a nono

San Francisco 7/10
very unique


----------



## Htay9500 (Nov 14, 2008)

Montgomery County, MD/Washington DC:

6-7/10

PT is getting better, buses running on sched, more stops around the area, places can be within easy reach, new buses are being used qutie often. The rail system (metrorail, our subway system) is good but not the best. Everyday, one or another elevator craps out at some station, making it harder for handicapped passengers but there isn't really that much handicapped people. Some stations in the SE part of DC and PG county have fights or crime occuring there, but I haven't been there in a while. The infrastructure is dated and needs attention, and on the weekends and off-peak hrs, there is track work that sometimes double the wait time. Trains come by new or old, the red and blue seats are new, beige and vanilla old. They can get noisy because they ride over dated track. Trains have only been REALLY crowded on huge events like the recent inauguration. Though new developments for metro are increasing and helping bring the area closer. To sum up, public transportation here is getting better and more extensive.

Heres a fact: we have some of the longest escalators in the world (Wheaton, Rosslyn stations).


----------



## cape_royds (Feb 9, 2009)

Vancouver, Canada: 4/10.

The system as a whole simply cannot cope with the passenger loads. The system is exanding, but still falling behind the growth of population. The LRT lines and express buses are jammed like cattle cars. It is common for crowded buses to drive right by stops, unable to add one even more groaning beast to the payload. At the inner LRT stations, during rush hours, one must often wait several trains to get aboard, while the narrow platforms are themselves jammed right to stair landings.

People in this city want to take public transport, but it's a miserable experience. It is worst during the sopping wet winters, when the windows all steam up, the fug inside the vehicles grows thick, and it seems half the people on board suffer from some sort of infectious respiratory disease. The trains ought to carry Biohazard signs.

Late night service is sparse. The LRT shuts down shortly after midnight, and only a handful of bus routes operate a skeleton service at long intervals.

Subrurban service is negligible. Intervals are long, and inter-suburban routes are few. But the outer suburbs of Vancouver are North American style automobile-oriented low-density communities, which are almost impossible to serve with public transportation.

A chronic constitutional problem in Greater Vancouver is that the municipalities are working at cross-purposes both with each other and with the higher levels of government. For example, Vancouver proper wants more transit and less motor vehicle traffic, but the provincial government wants to expand the highway system.

Good points: fares are reasonable for monthly passholders, and there are cheap fares for seniors and students. The buses and trains work approximately on schedule. Violent crime is unusual.


One more thing: in my view, 10/10 urban transit is being able to simply walk everywhere. My happiest years in Vancouver were when I could just walk a few kilometres work every day. Best for health, best for aesthetics, best for convenience, and best for price.


----------



## Kensingtonian (Nov 8, 2008)

Toronto 5/10

Toronto, like other Canadian cities, consistently gets shafted by the Feds. Surprise - it's more expensive to run a city than a small town. Oh wait, nobody who lives in a city votes Conservative. Let's forget about them and put our money toward the suburbs and rural areas where people actually vote for us.


----------



## Kensingtonian (Nov 8, 2008)

and by shafted I mean that Toronto is in desperate need of transit expansion, but can't afford it.


----------



## Skybean (Jun 16, 2004)

^^Needs expansion, I agree. But also how about repair? I know that there are numerous escalators which have stopped working for many months.

*Toronto*

*Transit system: 2/10*
Gets points for being fairly good in downtown and a decently frequent subway system (when no passenger has suffered an illness causing the whole Yonge line to stop during rush hour, or if no cabling mysteriously dislodges itself from the subway wall, or if no garbage fires on track cause train delays, or if no transit strike happens...). Otherwise the stations are pretty filthy and dark (with the exception of a few). Globally, it is sub-par in terms of cleanliness. Station maintenance also seems to be foreign to the TTC. There are often cracks in station ceilings where rain will easily seep into the station. Regularly there will be an escalator which is awaiting repairs for 4 MONTHS or more. This is bloody ridiculous. How can this be considered a respectable system when something like this happens on a regular basis? Bus service is sketchy in suburbs, I also think it is sub-par. 

The airport has no rapid transit link to the city....no airport subway station. The only option is (very) slow bus, expensive limousine or taxi service. 

For the airport portion, T1 is okay, while the other terminals are sub-par.

*Hong Kong*

Easily 10/10

Introduced the Octopus contact-less smart card 12 years ago for the MTR subway, while the TTC has been scammed out of millions per year on fradulent tokens and tickets. Recently the TTC have gotten rid of tickets, but we've still got cash, tokens and metropasses. Why do you need so many of these useless things? 

Chep Lap Kok International is a model for international airport design. Still looking great 10 years on. Still consistently rated highly by passengers. 

Historical trams and ferries are both cheap and offer character.


----------



## metro_minotaur (Feb 7, 2009)

Adelaide, Australia: 6/10

At present most travel in this city is done by car with public transport taking only a small fraction of commuters, the system is fairly efficent for travel in and out of the city centre, but it is difficult to take a bus from my area where i live straight to the beach, i have to travel to the city first and then take a bus, train or tram to the beach...there are only 3 modes; Bus (with 1 O-bahn busway), Train (4-6 lines), Tram (1 line), summary on each below:

*The bus system* carry's the majority of the passengers, buses are fairly new with approx 70%being airconditioned (this is good in hot weather which we have a lot of) and about half the fleet is low floor...most of the main bus routes have a good weekday frequency of 10-15minutes (heavy traffic can affect this and cause buses to arrive one after the other which means a longer wait) and on weekends the frequency is about 20-30minutes, the buses themselves are very basic with no on board information systems, stops do not get announced but a chime does get sounded when a passenger pushes the stop button...

*The train system* is the second major mode of public transport in the city and is very poorly managed and is indesperate need of an overhaul...the infrastructure is outdated, the tracks are worn out forcing trains to slow down in many sections across the network, the trains are all diesel and are usually only 1-2 carriages long with 2-3-4 carriages in peak times, the trains themselves are fortunatly airconditioned but lack passenger information systems...the stations too are mostly bare platforms with a small shelter...luckilly there is a 10 year plan in place to electrify and re-lay all of the tracks to improve services, also 50-60 new electric trains will be introduced with hopefully some upgrades to major stations...

*The city's tram line* is the sole surviving line to the beachside suburb of Glenelg, that was just one of many during the 1940s and 1950's, all tram lines were removed and replaced with buses during the 1970's and 80's. This sole tram line ran 80 year old trams every 10-20minutes most days which terminiated just short of the CBD...in 2005-06 the tracks were re-layed and new trams were ordered from Germany and an extension through the city was built in 2007, currently the tram line is very well used and has made the beachside suburb of Glenelg very popular to both tourists and locals residents and has sparked office and residential developments at both ends of the line, the state government is also planning on extending the line further from the city out to the nearby area of Hindmarsh where the Entertainment centre is located which is expected to be completed by 2010


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

ThatDarnSacramentan said:


> I'd say 3-5/10. There are benefits and downsides to the current system. Now, while RT (Regional Transit) has extended the light rail all the way to Folsom


It is interesting that you mentioned Folsom. Having lived in Folsom before and after they extended the light rail almost to American River, I can say that it did not help much in eliminating the need of driving. I lived near the Lakeside Church (E Bidwell and Oak Avenue Pkwy) which is approximately 5.5 kilometres from the nearest light trail station. Every day I had to drive to Sac State, and considering the traffic density on US-50, it was not a pleasant drive. I would love to switch to PT for my daily commute, but given the lack of efficient bus system in the city, I had to walk all the way to the trail station which would take about an hour. Then, walk about 15 minutes to my class. So, there goes 2/10 to the Greater Sacramento area transit. 

Now, I live in Pullman, WA, and I love the bus system here. The city is small, and the only purpose of its existence is to serve the Washington State University; however, you can take bus pretty much to get to any place quite fast. It is a bit annoying that buses stop every 100-200 metres, but at least there are no hobos and shabby people there because the transit public consists 99% of university students. I would give 8/10 to Pullman PT.


----------



## GTR22 (Nov 14, 2007)

San Francisco:
5/10
Despite MUNI being one of the cleanest systems in the country, it has a horrible on time record. A lot of times, buses come in waves of two or three, and if you missed those, you are going to be waiting for a while. Buses are also super crowded, especially during peak hours and dirty due to graffiti and littering. Unlike many cities however, MUNI has an excellent extensive network. You can get to any part of the city by bus. The MUNI metro is pretty good, but some other busy corridors such as Geary and Van Ness deserve light rails too. However, since they run on the street with shared traffic, they are slightly slow. MUNI would be a great system, if they can only deal with their infamous poor on time records.
BART, is a huge asset to the Bay Area. The train network connects with major cities in the Bay Area, and even soon San Jose. My one biggest issue is that BART should have expanded to the Sunset within the city, since it takes MUNI about 40 minutes to reach downtown.
Caltrain, a commuter rail that connects San Jose with San Francisco, needs to electrify. The trains are so slow, it takes forever just to get to Redwood City. But the Baby Bullet service is probably definately faster. 

For a metro of about 7 million, I think the Bay Area does a decent job in public transportation. Of course if you live in the far suburbs, driving would be better, but thanks to different forms of mass transit, you don't need a car if you live in San Francisco or some of the other surrounding suburbs. Now once the HSR comes through, SF to SJ would take 30 mins.!


----------



## Ro-E (Dec 29, 2008)

3 of 10 for tel aviv
no subway.

not nearly enough bus lines. the city isn't orthogonal, but pretty close, and yet a newcomer find it very hard to use the bus system. 

but the intercity train is great. it runs basically north and south, because Israel is thin. not enough trains though. they say its because the system is overloaded.


----------

