# What city/country has the most efficient transportation system?



## JPBrazil (Mar 12, 2007)

What city/country has the most efficient transportation system?


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

From the information i gathered from SSC in particular order for the cities:
1.Tokyo
2.London
3.New York
4.Paris
5.Madrid
6.Moscow
7.Seoul
8.Hong Kong
9.Berlin
10.Vienna
11.Barcelona
12.Stockholm
13.Munich?
14.Zurich
15.Prague
16.Osaka
etc


----------



## Skybean (Jun 16, 2004)

1. Hong Kong

Extremely profitable, clean, efficient modern system. Perhaps the first metro to introduce smart card usage in 1997. Screen doors at almost all MTR stations. Very good coverage for a city its size.

Buses are frequent (double decker AND mini-bus)

Trams are frequent.

Ferries are frequent.

How many cities can offer tram, ferry, bus and subway service?

Hong Kong Chep Lap Kok is also consistently rated as one of the top airports in the world.


----------



## Geokioy (Mar 29, 2007)

For sure Athens (Capital of Greece). Besides it proved dyring the 2004 Olympics..and it is still improving day by day...
Have a look in: http://www.oasa.gr/index.asp?lang=en


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Madrid i guess. Berlin is pretty good too.


----------



## Lightness (Nov 3, 2006)

Singapore should be right up there among the top entries.


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

Skybean said:


> 1. Hong Kong
> 
> Extremely profitable, clean, efficient modern system. Perhaps the first metro to introduce smart card usage in 1997. Screen doors at almost all MTR stations. Very good coverage for a city its size.
> 
> ...


I think that it's great that Hong Kong has a train that goes from the city directly to the airport. Hell it even has a train that goes to Hong Kong Disney. New York's access to JFK by train is awful even though they built that AirTrain that takes you to a Long Island Railroad station.


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

I would say it's difficult for Hong Kong not to be in the top 5. Besides the excellent system, the small size of Hong Kong makes the public transport system very convenient, with frequent schedules, and the journey times reasonably short. 

The one single drawback I can think of is that MTR doesn't run a couple hours longer (it runs from around 5:30 am to 12:30 am, a bit later or earlier depending on the station. I would prefer it to go from 5 am to 2 am.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Chriszwolle said:


> Madrid i guess. Berlin is pretty good too.


I'd second that. For their sizes, Berlin and Madrid punch well above their weight. 

My list would be...

#1. Tokyo (sheer coverage and frequency)
#2. Berlin (for size and extent of service relative to size - plus it has a 24 hour network 7 days a week with buses with the U-bahn and S-bahn operating 24 hours on Saturday and Sunday mornings)
#3. Paris (Fantastic dense metro network supplimented by the RER and Translinien)
#4. Madrid (Great metro system)
#5. London (Overall one of the best services when buses are considered too, but I'm not a fan of buses hence the lower score )
#6. Munich (for size and extent of service relative to size)
#7. Moscow (Stunning metro system with out of this world frequencies)
#8. Vienna (for size and extent of service relative to size)
#9. Osaka (Sheer coverage and frequency)
#10. Seoul (Sheer coverage and frequency)


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Tokyo, for city. And Japan, for country.

Seeing all those pictures of their bullet trains, their crowded stations that get more people in a day that some stations in the US get in a year, and extremely dense networks is what turned me into a fan of subways and trains in the first place. 

Unfortunately, some of that awe has been converted into jealousy. :no:



FM 2258 said:


> New York's access to JFK by train is awful even though they built that AirTrain that takes you to a Long Island Railroad station.


I agree. However, at least Newark is easily connected to Manhattan. You could just take NJ Transit and be there in less than a half hour. The drawback is that it is like $12 one way or something.

They need to connect LGA already.


----------



## Peshu (Jan 12, 2005)

Per capita it has to be Madrid . The second largest metro system in Europe for a population of under six million .


----------



## _Night City Dream_ (Jan 3, 2008)

Interesting thread. But first, let's list the criteria of efficiency in order of importance. Like that it would be clearer how to compare systems.

Secondly, transportation system is a very broad term, I mean if we take some more concrete examples we'll see sme parts of it functioning amazingly and some very disgusting. Just ask Moscow with ist very efficient metro (perhaps the most efficient in the world) and awful public transport on the ground. So, the question is not very simple.


----------



## drunkenmunkey888 (Aug 13, 2005)

New York City by the far the best public transportation for city. Massive subway system with express train service and 24 hour operations. Even after 100 years, a new line is still being built (2nd avenue line). _Three_ very thorough and comprehensive suburban rail systems radiating from Penn Station and Grand Central. Additional rail lines (Staten Island Railway, PATH Train, JFK Airtrain) bring the total rail network to a route length of ~2500 km (Total subway, LIRR, Metro North, NJ Transit, Miscellaneous rail route lengths). Clean buses cover pretty much every corner of the city and suburbs. Aside from that, there is even a frequent and efficient ferry between Staten Island and Manhattan. I firmly believe that New York City should be a model for other cities because of the excellence of its transportation system. In morning rush hour, many of the highways like Grand Central Parkway and 495 Long Island Expressway are not congested and cars can routinely cruise at 50 mph because New Yorkers are so public transportation reliant. How many cities in the United States or even the world can boast that?

Ironic though because United States is probably bottom 10 in public transportation (among developed countries).

Japan for country. In my opinion, Tokyo probably comes closest to rivaling NYC. But I think France, Germany, and Britain are definitely up there in top 5.


----------



## LondonBVE (Jul 19, 2007)

Lightness said:


> Singapore should be right up there among the top entries.


Though I live in Singapore, I do not quite agree with you. Reason the operators simply used cost cutting method. Trust me go take a look at SMRT buses, they can have air-con water dripping, those old buses with green metal cover is hanging out which can drop anytime (a picture was taken by someone) and today I saw the cover on the bus which cover the side light about to fall with sharp edges at the bottom. For trains, they can even get Estimated Time Arrival system to leak, what about frequency and listening to people feedback, asking them to extend the trains will give you a standard reply. "We are unable to extend the train as the platform is not long enough" since they have not heard of platform extension. The PED to be installed on above level platform was suggested for a long time until recently it was put on LTA agenda. Singapore's system still has a long way to go and the first thing they should do is to stop using cost cutting method and listen to people.


----------



## _Night City Dream_ (Jan 3, 2008)

I repeat my question of efficiency.
Drunkenmonkey, the best doesn't always mean the most efficient.


----------



## drunkenmunkey888 (Aug 13, 2005)

_Night City Dream_ said:


> I repeat my question of efficiency.
> Drunkenmonkey, the best doesn't always mean the most efficient.


Sorry, i totally misread the title. So is it a question of most efficient _public_ transportation system or just transportation in general? Because I would guess the most efficient public transportation would probably be Hong Kong because it is so dense that public transit can service much of the dense population pockets on the islands and kowloon. But if its most efficient transportation in general, I would say any city with massive freeways like Atlanta, LA, Sydney, Phoenix, Houston, etc. because what is more efficient than being able to go from door to door in your own private car?


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

drunkenmunkey888 said:


> I would say any city with massive freeways like Atlanta, LA, *Sydney*, Phoenix, Houston, etc. because what is more efficient than being able to go from door to door in your own private car?


Sydney doesn't have massive motorway networks, it's not that big at all considering the size of the city. 

Not only that, but LA proves exactly why private transportation is completely inefficient as it catered almost exclusively for the private car and is now suffering from excessive levels of gridlock and complete community isolation based upon the time it takes to travel across the city.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Houston also doesn't have a very large system, though the freeways that do exist are massive (and ugly).


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Svartmetall said:


> Not only that, but LA proves exactly why private transportation is completely inefficient as it catered almost exclusively for the private car and is now suffering from excessive levels of gridlock and complete community isolation based upon the time it takes to travel across the city.


LA has one of the lowest number of lane miles per capita in the United States. It looks much on a map, but the amount of inhabitants is also massive. Besides that, the network is pretty much the same as it was in the 1970's, but the population has grown with millions since then. 

In LA's case: looks can be deceptive.


----------



## ov_79 (Mar 21, 2008)

City:
Very probably in continental Europe, where densy and government/city-supported public transport has a long tradition.
Very probably some smaller city >2 mil.

Country, IMO:
1. Switzerland
2. Germany
3. Singapore
4. Japan
5. Czech rep.
6. Austria
7. Sweden
8. Portugal
9. Spain
10. Possibly South Korea/Slovakia


----------



## christos-greece (Feb 19, 2008)

I choose Paris


----------



## diegodbs (Mar 12, 2008)

el casanovas said:


> Spain shouldn't be in the top anything


*Spain:* Three examples not depending on TMB or FGC.

14,325 Km (autovías + autopistas), as of March 2008.

First four countries by number of km: USA, China, Germany and Spain.

Para 2010 el Gobierno de España tiene previsto contar con la mayor red de alta velocidad ferroviaria en el mundo (Sí, Renfe), con 2.230 km, superando a países como Japón (2090 Km) o Francia (1893 Km)

España, con 15.145 MW, es el segundo país, tras Alemania, con mayor capacidad eólica disponible en la UE según la EWEA. La generación de energía de fuente eólica en Alemania es de 17.743 megavatios al año, seguida por España con 9.653 y Estados Unidos con 8.500.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

^^



> 14,325 Km (autovías + autopistas), as of March 2008.


Do you have any (Spanish) source for that? Last thing I've read was that they had 13.000something kilometers in 2005.


----------



## diegodbs (Mar 12, 2008)

Chriszwolle said:


> ^^
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any (Spanish) source for that? Last thing I've read was that they had 13.000something kilometers in 2005.



Let me check. I dont remember now where I saw those figures.


----------



## diegodbs (Mar 12, 2008)

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopistas_y_autovías_de_España


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

^^ Thanks. Too bad they don't cite a source, but it seems plausible to me.


----------



## ImBoredNow (Jul 2, 2008)

Tokyo is No. 1 without a doubt.
I've lived in the suburbs of tokyo and had access to everywhere in tokyo.
BTW in terms of land size tokyo is among the largest in the world.
Getting to the downtown was so easy and safe and just fast.
The map is really easy to understand and things were just EASY.
Their subway system, apart from being vast is also efficient and well planned.
The buses are very efficient as well.
I've also been in NY.......... not at all good.
Chicago........ It's probably the best in the US but nothing compared to tokyo.


----------



## richardrli (Mar 5, 2007)

Sydney's public transportation is a total joke.


----------



## richardrli (Mar 5, 2007)

Tokyo and Hong Kong would get my vote as the best.


----------



## K14N (Jun 23, 2008)

I love Singapore...


----------



## NYCboy1212 (Jul 30, 2008)

jarbury said:


> Most efficient must be either Tokyo or Paris.
> 
> Basically because they've got everything covered:
> 
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_New_York_City

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=635293&page=15


----------



## João Paulo (May 19, 2005)

I believe Tokyo, Paris, London, Hong Kong and New York.


----------



## anm (Aug 25, 2005)

So, this thread is 3 pages long , but it has not been defined (forget about agreed upon) what "efficient" means.


----------



## ovem (Mar 25, 2007)

Paris
Moscow
Tokyo


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

anm said:


> So, this thread is 3 pages long , but it has not been defined (forget about agreed upon) what "efficient" means.


I think that was the point I was trying to make above. Does anyone want to have a stab at what they think "efficient" should mean, and specifically how it would be different to "best"?


----------



## NYCboy1212 (Jul 30, 2008)

jarbury said:


> I think that was the point I was trying to make above. Does anyone want to have a stab at what they think "efficient" should mean, and specifically how it would be different to "best"?


i believe efficient means like is easy to access and many people have access to it and to where they need to go. also many different types of transportation use


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

But how is that different to 'best'?

I think efficient should mean that it provides exactly what is required. I think an efficient system has a wide variety of different transportation types (such as Paris) all of which are extremely good (which would leave out Moscow which has a brilliant metro but not such great other stuff). It gets people where they want to go quickly, yet at the same time is able to serve the needs of a big chunk of the city (good marks to NYC for having 4 tracked subway lines here). Furthermore, it shouldn't be 'overbuilt', as economic efficiency is important, it should be fairly simply to operate (unlike Sydney's rail system which is so complicated that a minor mess-up ruins the whole thing).


----------



## NYCboy1212 (Jul 30, 2008)

NYCboy1212 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_New_York_City
> 
> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=635293&page=15


Jarbury check the first link and you will see the different varieties of transportation in NYC. I know it has more than paris.


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

Just to show you what Paris actually has...

Let's start with the metro. Whilst it is not as lengthy as NYC's subway, it does provide much better converage within the central area. Often stops are located so close together that no matter where you are in central Paris you've probably got a metro stop within a few minutes' walk.










Compared to NYC the only negative aspects of this system would be that it doesn't reach too far into the suburbs..... 

.... Which doesn't really matter because there's the RER. This operates similarly to the express lines of the NYC subway, and also similarly to some of the commuter systems, like the LIRR, Metro North and NJ Transit. But look at its coverage! Furthermore, as all the lines go from one side of the city to the other, rather than terminating in the city, you've got far better accessibility for cross-town routes.










But wait, that's not even all the commuter rail.... don't forget about the Transilien, which offers a system a bit more similar to the commuter rail you would find in NYC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transilien

And then there are the trams... I'm not going to directly include the image of the tramways here because it's huge... but check it out all the same: http://carto.metro.free.fr/documents/CartoTramParis.v1.1.png

This is what wikipedia has to say about the bus system:



> Bus
> 
> Paris' bus lines are its most developed form of transport, interconnecting all points of the capital and its closest suburban cities. There are a total of 58 bus lines operating in Paris that have a terminus within city limits.
> 
> The capital's bus system has been given a major boost over the past decade. Beginning in early 2000, Paris' major arteries have been thinned to reserve an "express" lane reserved only for bus and taxi, and more recently, these normally sign-and-marking-designated lanes have been isolated from the rest of regular circulation through low concrete barriers that form "couloirs" and prevent all other forms of Paris circulation from even "temporarily" entering them.


Add in free bicycle hire.... a city so compact you really can just walk around a huge chunk of it, and a pretty good street system and I think you have what could be called a very very efficient transportation system. The only complaints generally relate to car-dependency in the outer-suburbs.... but I'm sure it wouldn't be as bad as car-dependency in outer New York City!

Oh.... and inter-city, I think Paris kinda kicks arse there.


----------



## NYCboy1212 (Jul 30, 2008)

jarbury said:


> Just to show you what Paris actually has...
> 
> Let's start with the metro. Whilst it is not as lengthy as NYC's subway, it does provide much better converage within the central area. Often stops are located so close together that no matter where you are in central Paris you've probably got a metro stop within a few minutes' walk.


 The reason for this is because its a small area and it doesnt matter because according to this map i still will have to transfer trains and a lot of trains at that to get from one place to the other. In nyc nothing is tangled they got in a straight line for costumer ease and by what i know and the people i know to get to places they only need to ride one train and if you have to transfer the only need to transfer from 1-2 different stations.




> .... Which doesn't really matter because there's the RER. This operates similarly to the express lines of the NYC subway, and also similarly to some of the commuter systems, like the LIRR, Metro North and NJ Transit. But look at its coverage! Furthermore, as all the lines go from one side of the city to the other, rather than terminating in the city, you've got far better accessibility for cross-town routes.


 1 thing is that all those lines are very old and at one time in life everything was in the city and due to the fact everything is expensive here and it would be unnecessary to build lines across the metro area thats whay we dont have lines going across. 




> And then there are the trams... I'm not going to directly include the image of the tramways here because it's huge... but check it out all the same: http://carto.metro.free.fr/documents/CartoTramParis.v1.1.png






> Add in free bicycle hire.... a city so compact you really can just walk around a huge chunk of it, and a pretty good street system and I think you have what could be called a very very efficient transportation system. The only complaints generally relate to car-dependency in the outer-suburbs.... but I'm sure it wouldn't be as bad as car-dependency in outer New York City!
> 
> Oh.... and inter-city, I think Paris kinda kicks arse there.


 This sentence is obsolete. thanks to rising gas prices and making everything else to rise in price more people are taking the nearest public transportation. It does not matter the coverage of the train because in the suburbs of ny there are buses and cabs. plus what exercise is that if you have a train station every two minutes


----------

