# What City in the World has the best Transportation System?



## Dallas star

Criteria for voting consists on:
-Cost
-Efficency
-Easy to use?
-Clean/Modern?
-Size of system
-Ridership
-Speed, is it easy to get from place to place?


----------



## Dallas star

Reserved: For images


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Transportation only limits to Public Transportation or all transportation modes?


----------



## Dallas star

all.


----------



## gladisimo

Why is SF not up there?
And why is HK and Shenzhen grouped together?

Usually when people do one like this, they have a nominate and a discuss thread, after a certain period of time, finalists are nominated for the official vote.

I have a feeling at least a couple of those would not belong on there.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I vote for Madrid. Both road and mass transit are excellent there.


----------



## Skyprince

*definitely* Tokyo


----------



## sergioib

The best transport system I've ever seen is definitely Madrid, it's got a huge underground system, really modern and kept up to date, really fast and efficient, it gets you anywhere. Apart from those 16 underground lines, you can also use the Cercanías Renfe service composed by 10 lines. Apart from that, you can uso use an extensive bus network, including night buses and special services. Taxis are common as well. It's also got funiculars. As for the roads, it has got a very dense motorway system, including four or five orbital motorways, many radial motorways. It is also linked to most Spanish capitals by high speed rail services, and every capital will be linked to Madrid by high speed connections in about four years. As for the airports, Madrid has got one of the most important ones in Europe and in the whole world, that's Madrid Barajas, increasing in number of passenger with a rate of about 10% each year.


----------



## Dallas star

gladisimo said:


> Why is SF not up there?
> And why is HK and Shenzhen grouped together?
> 
> Usually when people do one like this, they have a nominate and a discuss thread, after a certain period of time, finalists are nominated for the official vote.
> 
> I have a feeling at least a couple of those would not belong on there.


If SF is abriviative for San Fransisco, as you said it definately shouldn't belong up there. I know Dallas shouldn't =D but the BART (Bay area transit system) is 
only known for it's underbay tunnel, and cable carts. Besides that it does not do the job of transporting people around.


----------



## the spliff fairy

Tokyo manages to transport more people to further more precise distances than anywhere else on the planet every day, affordably and efficiently. Each of the top 3 busiest underground stations manage more than 2.3 million each every day.


----------



## gladisimo

Dallas star said:


> If SF is abriviative for San Fransisco, as you said it definately shouldn't belong up there. I know Dallas shouldn't =D but the BART (Bay area transit system) is
> only known for it's underbay tunnel, and cable carts. Besides that it does not do the job of transporting people around.


Well that was my point, SF is more deserving of some of the cities listed up there. I don't think SF should be up there either.


----------



## Dallas star

ok then I know some aren't supposed to be up there and I was really in the rush to fill all 30 slots in 5 minutes (I type slowly!) so I kinda threw all the cities from the other thread in that I knew from the top of my head, if your city isn't up there just post the name and click other.


----------



## andysimo123

Best place I've been to for local transport would be London. Theres no aircon which is the down side.


----------



## diegodbs

I can't know what city has the best public transportation system in the world, but here are some data about Madrid so everybody can compare:

Population: 3,238,208 

Number of bus lines: 209

Number of buses: 2,035 all of them with aircon system

Tariffs: different tariffs for elderly people and students, monthly or annual travel passes but the basic tariff is 1€, if you buy 10 tickets the price is 6.40 €.

Monthly travel Pass:

Normal Pass (40.45 €), Young people (26.30 €), Pensioners (10.15 €)

EMT, Municipal Transport Company is the public transport company owned by the town council. It controls the bus transport and regulates its tariffs.


Underground transport:

Number of lines: 16 all trains have aircon system

number of stations: 318

Number of km: 322.3

Number of escalators in the different stations: 1,616











Number of elevators: more than 500. Even though it is still far from perfect, it probably is the best metro system for elderly and handicapped people. New York has 97 elevators, London 75 and Paris 24.










Tariffs: same as for buses.

MetroMadrid is a public transport company owned both by Madrid local government and Madrid regional government. It controls the metro transport and regulates its tariffs.


Taxis.

number of taxis: 15,640. Both the number of taxis and the tariffs are controlled and regulated by the town council.
Tariffs. 1.95€ when you hire the taxi, plus 0.87 €/km


Madrid, April 2008. Ridership.

Bus.....: 40.5 million passengers per month
Metro..: 64.6 million passengers per month


Madrid public transport system is efficient, extensive, comfortable, clean and economic.


----------



## Gaeus

Washington DC probably has the best Metro System here in United States. But Worldwise *Greater* Tokyo has the best system, either highway or metro system followed closely by Madrid. The difference between Tokyo and Madrid is Tokyo is most densely populated city in the world and it can still handle that amount of people (37,000,000 people). While Madrid is not even in the top ten.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ It's also about quality, not about quantity. That's why many choose Madrid over Tokyo/New York perhaps.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

London. (Incl. Buses, commputer rail, trams, underground, taxis)


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ But road traffic is crap, Lowering the "best transportation Sytem" value.


----------



## Bitxofo

diegodbs said:


> Madrid
> ...
> Underground transport:
> 
> Number of lines: 16 all trains have aircon system
> 
> number of stations: 318
> 
> Number of km: 322.3
> ...


Madrid has a very good underground system!
kay:
Just some corrections:
-13 metro lines.
-281.58 km.
-231 stations.
-Not all trains have got air conditioned yet...


IMHO, Tokyo has got the best transportation system in the world now.
:wink2:


----------



## BrickellResidence

hong kong has alot of metro buses


----------



## the spliff fairy

very interesting


----------



## quashlo

Reverie said:


> Then a French study about the quality of different metros of the world.


To be more exact, it's a study that rates metro systems for *tourists visiting the city*. The sample size is small (12 cities):

Amsterdam
Berlin
Brussels
Hong Kong
Lisbon
Madrid
New York
Paris
Beijing
Rio de Janeiro
Rome
Singapore
It clearly leaves out heavy hitters such as London, Moscow, Tokyo, Osaka, Seoul, Shanghai, etc., so its usefulness is limited.

There's an English version of the report at http://www.excellencemysteryshopping.com/Etudes/us/Undergroundsystemsoftheworld.pdf.


----------



## Peshu

Madrid easily . Especially when you consider its rather smaller population as compared to Tokyo , New York or Paris .


----------



## jchernin

Chriszwolle said:


> ^^ It's also about quality, not about quantity. That's why many choose Madrid over Tokyo/New York perhaps.


its a close call. i have to admit im biased, but the japanese just do everything so efficiently. when all the time that a bullet train was late was added up after a whole year for the entire system it came out to just 7 minutes! that's transportation quality by my book.


----------



## Reverie

Peshu said:


> Madrid easily . Especially when you consider its rather smaller population as compared to Tokyo , New York or Paris .


The city of Paris is smaller and has a network density a bit better (around 3 stations/km²). Nevertheless, I think the Madrid metro is indeed the best in Europe for its modernism and for the quality of service.


----------



## Ribarca

I think Madrid's system is best. HK has the cleanest system I have ever been to but its coverage is rather limited mainly for geographical reasons. You almost always have to combine the MTR with a taxi ride if you live uphill.


----------



## Republica

Well i didnt read the thread and voted for Madrid, their system is amazing.

Singapore comes a close second and its fantastic too and is bloody easy to use, but the roads are a bit crap.


----------



## rockin'.baltimorean

nyc, for sure.......kay:


----------



## espada89

*,,,*

i think quality here means how efficient it is..its not realy only about the population.
maybe also land area?
but ya right madrid has a nice system 4 that pop..
tokyo..ya they hav also got terrible road network..not only trains.but a bit weak with buses tho.and now why is tokyo with osaka?they are far each other and has their own metro areas.
anyway,population of cities would be mentiond here are..
madrid=3,5mil
new york=8,5mil
tokyo=8,5mil(osaka2,5mil)
paris=2mil
london=i dont know how to consider population of city itself
but it also depends how many people inflows from outside city at day time tho.
does anyone know estimated ratio or percentage of pop during daytime compared night time in each cities?
i know only tokyo=135%(osaka=140%)
i think its also quite important to consider this which shows how many people comuting everyday by using either of transport in city.


----------



## Svartmetall

#1. Madrid (excellent metro and decent road network)

#2. Berlin (9 U-bahn lines and 16 S-bahn lines plus 190+km tram network not to mention a decent road system)

#3. Tokyo (worlds most extensive urban rail system)

#4. London (excellent tube network and probably one of the worlds best bus systems along with Hong Kong).

#5. Paris (most dense metro in the world in the inner city and a fantastic RER system for the outer suburbs).


----------



## Duranguense17

i think that mexico city has the best because is very big and the people walks a larger distances


----------



## jarbury

Isn't that a sign that its transport system is bad, if people have to walk a long distance?????

Mexico City apparently isn't too bad though, for a huge developing world city.


----------



## mailabode

..


----------



## Dallas star

Duranguense17 said:


> i think that mexico city has the best because is very big and the people walks a larger distances


I don't think walking counts as a form of Transportation system unless they have great skywalks and sidewalks.


----------



## SRG

Portland? Anyone?

Best transit in the US at least.


----------



## SRG

1. London
2. Portland
3. NYC
4. DC
5. Moscow 
6. Paris
7. Madrid
8. Atlanta
9. Singapore
10. Berlin

Berlin would have scored higher points if so many people didn't show up as props for Barack Obama.jk


----------



## quashlo

SRG said:


> Portland? Anyone?
> 
> Best transit in the US at least.





SRG said:


> 1. London
> 2. Portland
> 3. NYC
> 4. DC
> 5. Moscow
> 6. Paris
> 7. Madrid
> 8. Atlanta
> 9. Singapore
> 10. Berlin


You just gave all of us a good laugh. :lol:


----------



## Svartmetall

Atlanta above Berlin and Singapore? I think we have a comedian here! 

Portland? Seriously... Transit there is shocking on an international scale judging from the TriMet website!


----------



## NYCboy1212

NYC has 8/8 of the things in the criteria (except the subway it has 6-7/8.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_New_York_City
NYC subway gets 6,500,000 passengers per average weekday. It is much higher on the weekend because lots of people have no work and plan on doing things. 
It has way more stations than any other city in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rapid_transit_systems 


http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=635293&page=16


----------



## jarbury

Do you have any references for your assertion that ridership is much higher on weekends? Looking at timetables for NYC's subway they run a lot fewer trains on weekends so I doubt ridership would be higher. Furthermore, every single other city in the world generally has highest ridership during the week, so I wonder why NYC would be different?

NYC would definitely be best in the USA, with the subway running 24/7 and the 4-tracking which allows locals and express services being particularly awesome. However, generally I'm afraid that NYC just doesn't really measure up to somewhere like Tokyo for example. Coverage in some areas is so-so, integration between the different commuter trains isn't great, and ideally the PATH should be part of the main NYC subway (though it does have integrated ticketing which is good). Furthermore, generally maintenance is below what is required according to many people.

Once the East Side Access project and the 2nd Avenue subway are complete I do think NYC will be right up there though.


----------



## Lightness

Hong Kong for me.


----------



## isaidso

Tokyo


----------



## Xusein

I voted for Tokyo. Hong Kong looks up there too, but I know nothing about their highway system. I don't know much about Tokyo's either, but I have seen pics of their highways, and the fact that they didn't rip their cities apart to construct them like here in the US is incredible. Obviously density there plays a role. Don't know how efficient the highways there are, obviously it is the largest metro in the world, so I expect lots and lots of congestion.

You don't see this situation very often in the US, outside New York.










And yeah...their subway and train system kicks ass.


----------



## Xusein

BTW, I would say that 70% (or more) of the cities on this poll don't deserve to be there.


----------



## isaidso

^^ Agree. It's also worth mentioning that there are many elements to a great transportation system. Having a great subway network isn't enough. You need many transportation solutions available with good connectivity between them.

Highways, roads, intercity rail, commuter rail, subway, streetcar, inter city buses, city buses, airports, ferries, bike/roller blade paths, and most importantly, good pedestrian friendly streets. All of these transportation solutions are important. There are very few cities in the world, if any, that do them all well.


----------



## Svartmetall

^^ Actually, it's for those reasons above that I think that cities like Munich and Berlin score very well. Both have extensive bike paths (860km of seperated bike paths in Berlin for example), both have pedestrian only areas and wide pavements for walking, both have tram systems, both have very effective metro systems, both have frequent commuter rail systems (NOT just in rush-hour but throughout the day), both have very frequent regional rail and intercity rail systems and both have a network of highly frequent city buses down main corridors with feeder bus systems often. 

Couple this with very accessible airports (well, BBI will be accessible by intercity rail and commuter rail) and developed highway infrastructure in both cities and I think that one has to say that they both offer a plethora of transport options, hence my vote. 

I also think that cities like Tokyo and Osaka do incredibly well on the public transport side of things, but fall down when it comes to road transport. Many small side streets lack footpaths at all with the traffic sharing the road with pedestrians.


----------



## Xusein

Agreed. Many German cities in general seem to have good transportation, all around.

Here in the US, it seems to be one or the other. New York, for example, has the best PT in the country, for sure. But the highways are terrible.


----------



## Htay9500

Gaeus said:


> *Washington DC probably has the best Metro System here in United States. * But Worldwise *Greater* Tokyo has the best system, either highway or metro system followed closely by Madrid. The difference between Tokyo and Madrid is Tokyo is most densely populated city in the world and it can still handle that amount of people (37,000,000 people). While Madrid is not even in the top ten.



The metro has crap elevators that break in every other station, and yes, handicapped people will have a hard time getting around DC. They would be close to the best if they fix that problem.


----------



## Minato ku

10ROT said:


> Don't know how efficient the highways there are, obviously it is the largest metro in the world, so I expect lots and lots of congestion.


Infact for a big city, Tokyo highways are quite empty, there is few traffic jam.
Of course I should add that highways are toll and very expensive. :lol:


----------



## CityPolice

isaidso said:


> ^^ Agree. It's also worth mentioning that there are many elements to a great transportation system. Having a great subway network isn't enough. You need many transportation solutions available with good connectivity between them.
> 
> Highways, roads, intercity rail, commuter rail, subway, streetcar, inter city buses, city buses, airports, ferries, bike/roller blade paths, and most importantly, good pedestrian friendly streets. All of these transportation solutions are important. There are very few cities in the world, if any, that do them all well.


that sounds like ny


----------



## city_thing

Svartmetall said:


> ^^ Actually, it's for those reasons above that I think that cities like Munich and Berlin score very well. Both have extensive bike paths (860km of seperated bike paths in Berlin for example), both have pedestrian only areas and wide pavements for walking, both have tram systems, both have very effective metro systems, both have frequent commuter rail systems (NOT just in rush-hour but throughout the day), both have very frequent regional rail and intercity rail systems and both have a network of highly frequent city buses down main corridors with feeder bus systems often.
> 
> Couple this with very accessible airports (well, BBI will be accessible by intercity rail and commuter rail) and developed highway infrastructure in both cities and I think that one has to say that they both offer a plethora of transport options, hence my vote.
> 
> I also think that cities like Tokyo and Osaka do incredibly well on the public transport side of things, but fall down when it comes to road transport. Many small side streets lack footpaths at all with the traffic sharing the road with pedestrians.


Well said Svart. 

Munich and Berlin were great to travel around, and moving between German cities was very easy.

As I said in another thread, Berlin's new trains are awesome as well. I like them far more than Munich's new trains.

Berlin:

















Munich:

















That said though, Munich does have better stations (imo) but some express services would be great (I stayed with a friend in Aufhausen, near Erding and it always took ages to get there from central Munich)

And Berlin's elevated lines are the duck's nuts. They give you a great view of Kreuzberg and Mitte.

Man I love Germany.


----------



## _00_deathscar

All things considered, Hong Kong and Singapore.


----------



## Xusein

CityPolice said:


> that sounds like ny


Except that New York has some of the worst highways in the US.


----------



## Gaeus

10ROT said:


> Except that New York has some of the worst highways in the US.


And the toll is way too expensive. You have to spend an average of $10 - $15 from NY to NJ in just one way. But that's New York. Everything is expensive in that city.


----------



## _00_deathscar

Sex isn't, that's cheap.


----------



## CityPolice

10ROT said:


> Except that New York has some of the worst highways in the US.


hno: no it doesnt lol


----------



## CityPolice

Gaeus said:


> And the toll is way too expensive. You have to spend an average of $10 - $15 from NY to NJ in just one way. But that's New York. Everything is expensive in that city.


ofcourse it is but everyone here can afford it


----------



## Electrify

Considering all forms of transport, I voted Chicago. While I am looking at it from face value, it has a solid highway system along side a focused urban and commuter rail system to get people into the downtown (though not the best at getting people from suburb to suburb, though).

NYC and metro have a very unfocused highway system. Some areas there are lots, while others there are none. Also while the city itself has one of the largest subways in the world, it doesn't extend past the city limits and commuter service is very spread out around the suburbs.

EDIT: Montreal should be on that list imo. Has a very good subway, highway, and commuter system all things considered.


----------



## Skybean

- edit


----------



## siamu maharaj

I think HK loses out on not being very car-friendly. Partly coz of its terrrain.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Gaeus said:


> And the toll is way too expensive. You have to spend an average of $10 - $15 from NY to NJ in just one way. But that's New York. Everything is expensive in that city.


They want to add a cordon/congestion charge to that too... While there is already a de-facto cordon charge. 

Honestly, I don't think it will reduce congestion. 



> Don't know how efficient the highways there are, obviously it is the largest metro in the world, so I expect lots and lots of congestion.


I've checked Japanese traffic info a few times, and traffic doesn't seem to be that bad. Ofcourse there's congestion but it seems even less widespread than New York, Los Angeles or Randstad.


----------



## jarbury

siamu maharaj said:


> I think HK loses out on not being very car-friendly. Partly coz of its terrrain.


That could be considered a good thing though. Generally cities that are overly car friendly end up with rubbish public transport.


----------



## jdbarber

Over this past summer I traveled to most of the largest cities in Western Europe. I was impressed by all of their public transportation systems with the exception of Rome. Being from the US, I have to say we are far behind Europe. I was very impressed the most by the Metro in Madrid. It was clean effecient and gave complete coverage of all areas of the city and the surrounding areas. And the fare was cheap!


----------



## Xusein

jarbury said:


> That could be considered a good thing though. Generally cities that are overly car friendly end up with rubbish public transport.


As much as I do like a city with a good PT network, it is no advantage to have a horrible road network. 

That is one of the severe disadvantages of cities like New York or London, and why I hesitated to say that NY had a great transport system overall.


----------



## ardmacha

> BTW, I would say that 70% (or more) of the cities on this poll don't deserve to be there


Certainly the inclusion of Dublin, Ireland must have been a joke. 

Berlin has excellent facilities for rail, underground, bus,tram, cyclist and motorists too.


----------



## JoKo65

What, New York better than Moscow? People, you are kidding!


----------



## Tagnuzlsx

My favourite one so far is the Stockholm metro


----------



## hoosier

The roads in NYC are too crowded. A congestion cahrge would reduce automobile traffic and provide funds for upgrading mass transit systems.


----------



## the spliff fairy

Thanx to Xizhimen

*Beijing aiming for world's longest subway system*

from Radio Australia

Beijing is set to overtake London as the city with the longest subway system in the world, with China's capital planning to stretch its subway rail to more than 500 kilometres by 2012.
---------------------------
according to the latest report,13 new subway lines will be in operation by 2012,and near 10 new lines are under construction now in the city.

beijing subway






































xizhimen said:


> beijing subway


----------



## the spliff fairy

More
#



xizhimen said:


> beijing subway





xizhimen said:


> beijing subway





xizhimen said:


> beijing subway


----------



## lokinyc

Wow, i'm surprised so many people voted for Madrid like I did.


----------



## gladisimo

^^x2 lol they totally ripped of HK's design...


----------



## FREKI

JoKo65 said:


> What, New York better than Moscow? People, you are kidding!


Yeah I can't get over some of the poll options either :lol:

And especially not thinking about what have been left out..


----------



## davsot

Beijing's subway is so AWESOME! It's just so cool! It looks all futuristic and I just love every aspect of it!


----------



## the spliff fairy

Yep it will become the world's longest subway system within 3 years, though Shanghai and Guangzhou might get that title too.


----------



## Sideshow_Bob

Stockholm should be on that list. The metro is gigantic considering the size of the city and there's trams, commuter trains, local trains and buses. I would say all major nordic cities have excellent transportation systems except for Malmö.


----------



## Booyashako

I was thoroughly impressed with London's and NYC's system. It was pretty cool seeing subways in NYC going in the same direction on the same line (although I think some were express routes, or something like that). Overall though, I preferred London's system. If there are any better systems in this world, I'm gonna make it a point to ride them!


----------



## eomer

Tokyo, Paris, New York, chicago and Madrid.
Definitly no London.


----------



## Svartmetall

^^ Chicago, yet not London?!


----------



## davsot

I'm starting to think Beijing's will be in the top 5 in the next 5-10 years. I wish other cities would expand like they do, it's just their ridership levels are unprecedented. 

http://online.wsj.com/video/beijing...ven/B2641D1A-0B15-486F-8C81-431F97CDA894.html


----------



## thun

Zurich is really impressive.

Regarding the service-fare-relationship, I don't know any city which could beat Barcelona or Madrid. By far. At least in Europe.


----------



## EuropeWord

I think Tokyo has the best transportation system. At least from what I have seen so far. Clean, fast, comfortable. 
The next in my top would be Budapest and Vienna. 
Oh, and that Zurich map...:nuts: now I am hoping to visit Zurich as soon as possible.


----------



## stefanguti

How about Vienna??



Subway! 

201,3 km total track length


Tramway!

231,3 km total track length



Bus!

669,1 km operating length


----------



## The Kent

Vienna should be in the lead!


----------



## city_thing

Vienna has a great transport network. 

Heavy rail










U-Bahn










Tram










I couldn't find any official tram maps of Wien - are does anyone know where any are?


----------



## stefanguti

In fact, there are no tramway maps of Wiener Linien.

But here is another one:


----------



## davsot

Impressive blog jarbury. I would love to see America that way, but, oh well. Let's see what happens.


----------



## jarbury

Thanks davsot. The city I live in probably has the worst public transport system of any developed world city its size in the world, so there's plenty I can moan about!


----------



## Svartmetall

davsot said:


> Impressive blog jarbury. I would love to see America that way, but, oh well. Let's see what happens.


It is a great blog - I tend to go there a couple of times a week to see if there is a new rant on the transport conditions in Auckland there. Jarbury and I tend to air our grievencies with Auckland transit on Kiwiscrapers too!


----------



## jarbury

Thanks. At least there's the promise that things are getting better with rail electrification and so forth.

Anyway, back to the general topic the extension of RER E in Paris should relieve a couple of its most significant bottlenecks (access to La Defense from RER A and Metro 1). The orbital Metro Line also sounds like a great project.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=31747814&postcount=325 <--- RER E extension
http://translate.google.com/transla...ess&hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=rWT <--- Orbital Rail (english translation of French wikipedia page... damn I need to learn french)


----------



## Fabrega

Madrid for its population.


----------



## isaidso

No system comes close to moving the number of people around as Tokyo. It's a fine tuned, highly sophisticated, multi-pronged, seamless, transit system serving 35 million residents. 

It's got to be Tokyo.


----------



## Xusein

jarbury said:


> Thanks davsot. The city I live in probably has the worst public transport system of any developed world city its size in the world, so there's plenty I can moan about!


How bad is Auckland's PT? really This isn't the first time that I read that it was "the city with the worst PT system in the developed world" before. I mean it has railroads and a decent bus system, right?

I mean, it would obviously have some competition for that moniker in the US Sunbelt.


----------



## Skybean

What about cleanliness, coverage, usability and efficiency? 

If a small system provides excellent city wide coverage for a compact city, I think it's just as good as a large system covering a large city. An extensive system does not always equal an effective or efficient system.


*Hong Kong*









source: http://johomaps.com/as/hongkong/hkmetro_ch.html









source: http://flickr.com/photos/iliveinphilippines/3218889787/






















































*Usability*: Station announcements in 3 languages - Mandarin, Cantonese and English. Fully bilingual signage. Animated station lights in train.


















source: http://flickr.com/photos/gunzel412/sets/72157612686210331/


*
Octopus Card contact-less smart card launched in September 1997*, home of the world's first major public transport system using this technology. According to Octopus Cards Limited, operator of the Octopus card system, there are more than 17 million cards in circulation, more than twice the population of Hong Kong. The cards are used by 95 percent of the population of Hong Kong aged 16 to 65, generating over 10 million daily transactions worth a total of about HK$29 billion (US$3.7 billion) a year.




















Hong Kong Trams... regardless of distance the fare is $0.25 USD for adults and $0.13 USD for children / seniors. Average frequency during peak hours: 90 seconds.











Hong Kong Chep Lap Kok


















source: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3215/2318282714_051fca966e_b.jpg


----------



## jarbury

Xusein said:


> How bad is Auckland's PT? really This isn't the first time that I read that it was "the city with the worst PT system in the developed world" before. I mean it has railroads and a decent bus system, right?
> 
> I mean, it would obviously have some competition for that moniker in the US Sunbelt.


The population of the Auckland Region is about 1.4 million - of which about 1.25 million live in the Auckland urban area. 

Whilst there is a fairly comprehensive bus network in terms of the area it covers, the bus network is pretty pathetic compared with most developed world cities: off-peak frequencies are rarely better than a bus every 15 minutes, while in many places it's one bus per hour. The bus route are also very CBD focused, which makes them often unsuitable for cross-town travel. Furthermore, there are a number of different bus companies that operate within Auckland, and the tickets are not valid across all of the companies.

However, I think what really makes Auckland terrible is its poor rail network. While there have been recent improvements, there are only two and a half rail lines in Auckland. The trains that we use are a mixture of 1960s DMUs rejected by Perth in the early 90s, 1980s DMUs also rejected by Perth in the early 90s and refurbished British carriages hauled by 1960s diesel locomotives that are more equipped for hauling freight than passenger trains. Until 2003 the CBD station wasn't actually located in the CBD, one of the lines was only single track and fewer than 2 million trips per year were taken on the network. Frequencies were no better than a train every 15 or 30 minutes at peak hour, while off peak (on the single-tracked Western Line in particular) frequencies were hourly or worse. This has somewhat improved in recent times but won't reach a train every 10 minutes until 2011 (even at peak hour). As a final insult, there weren't any trains on Sunday.

In the last few years things have got a bit better. With the Western Line being double-tracked, more rolling stock purchased and the electrification of the whole network ready to happen over the next 4 years. Auckland still lacks rail access to the airport, and will need an underground CBD loop to ensure that further growth of the network is possible (as the current main city station is a dead end rail spur with only a 2 track tunnel serving it.)

It's no wonder that Auckland is one of the most car dependent cities in the world.


----------



## Xusein

Thanks for the info. 

I need to read up more about the PT systems of Australia and New Zealand, I know next to nothing about them.


----------



## japanese001

TOKYO




high-resolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKxiWebVWZ0&fmt=18
HD http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKxiWebVWZ0&fmt=22


davsot said:


>


----------



## Assemblage23

^^

That automated Bike parking is super nice.

They should export the technology to the Netherlands; they would sure be intersted in a few of them 










SOURCE http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x48/originalsmazzle/bikes-galore.jpg


----------



## Svartmetall

Xusein said:


> How bad is Auckland's PT? really This isn't the first time that I read that it was "the city with the worst PT system in the developed world" before. I mean it has railroads and a decent bus system, right?
> 
> I mean, it would obviously have some competition for that moniker in the US Sunbelt.


What tends to make Auckland's PT even worse is that the line-haul is just carried out by buses like Jarbury says. Though he says 15 minute frequencies - that's only in a small part of the city. The whole of East Auckland has frequencies of 30 minutes or less which degenerates to hourly after 7:15pm on most routes. PT simply shuts down at night and the few "niterider" services we have on the weekend nights/early mornings are so long and convoluted so as to serve the greatest number of people with one bus route that they can take over twice as long as a regular bus route to the area - I'm not going to sit on a niterider for up to 2 hours to get home at night when I could drive it in 30 minutes or less! No wonder there is a huge drink driving problem here. 

Also, this situation is compounded further by the lack of priority measures for our line-haul transit. There are very, VERY few bus lanes and even when they are present they have limited operating hours, there are next to no traffic light priorities for buses (perhaps 5 seconds before cars can go on four or five sets of traffic lights). 

Coupled with this, as Jarbury says is our poor rail network. Part of the problem with the network comes with the alignment of the railway. Many stations are highly inconveniently located as they are more freight lines than they are passenger. This results in a terrible catchment area of semi-industrial areas or locations right next to a motorway rather than where the people are. Therefore, patronage is currently at 8 million trips a YEAR on a three line system that serves the south, east and west of the city...

I've been to a fair few cities, but even the small town I came from managed better priority measures for bus transit (linked GPS traffic lights which changed automatically if a bus was running late at all) and had intercity rail links that were more frequent than our urban railway network. This is why I firmly believe that Auckland has the worst transit of any city I've been to - especially because of its size.


----------



## deranged

Xusein said:


> Thanks for the info.
> 
> I need to read up more about the PT systems of Australia and New Zealand, I know next to nothing about them.


It would be a good idea for whenever you have a spare 30 seconds.


----------



## LtBk

After looking at the maps of Vienna's transit, I'm beginning to hate the US even more in terms of urban transportation.You bastards are so lucky!


----------



## stefanguti

^^ I know what you mean, friends from the US have told me that the urban transportation is weak there.

Regarding Vienna's transportation system, I think it's one of the best worldwide.




city_thing said:


> Vienna has a great transport network.
> 
> Heavy rail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tram
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Tram map


----------



## jarbury

To give another example of why Auckland's transport system is one of the worst in the world, I am looking into moving from where I live at the moment in Sandringham (about a 20 min bus ride from the city) to Herne Bay (about a 10-15 min bus ride to the city). However, my job is still in Avondale (about a 30-35 min bus ride from the city). 

According the wises website, it's a 8.5km drive that should take around 12 minutes. Perhaps a little longer in the morning peak, although it is counter-flow. http://www.wises.co.nz/d/33/Auckland/Ponsonby/Wanganui+Avenue/Auckland/Owairaka/Bollard+Avenue/

Now let's look at public transport options. To get to work by 8.30am the best option that gets suggested to me is a 1 hr 49 min walk! Next best option is a 1 hour and 2 min trip that would include two different buses. http://www2.maxx.co.nz/fullEnquiry....es=-1&WalkSpeed=NORMAL&Submit.x=44&Submit.y=8

I think that is a clear example of why Auckland's public transport system is quite possibly the worst in the world for a city its size.


----------



## davsot

jarbury said:


> Thanks davsot. The city I live in probably has the worst public transport system of any developed world city its size in the world, so there's plenty I can moan about!


No, mine is the worst in any developed world city! San Juan has a one-line metro lol! It has a HUGE capacity but daily ridership (weekday) is only 40,000. Expansions are necessary to raise the destination choices and more attractive service.


----------



## davsot

Wow great photo Assemblage


----------



## city_thing

davsot said:


> No, mine is the worst in any developed world city! San Juan has a one-line metro lol! It has a HUGE capacity but daily ridership (weekday) is only 40,000. Expansions are necessary to raise the destination choices and more attractive service.


Why was the metro line built if it was only going to attract such a little amount of people? There's a lot of other cities that carry huge amounts of people on just one metro line.

Did the US fund the metro there? I seem to remember reading that somewhere, but I'm not an expert on US/PR relations and if the US pays for things there. It just seemed strange that a foreign nation would buy another country a metro line when they have such problems funding mass transit in their own country.


----------



## city_thing

Whilst Melbourne has a OK-ish rail network (overcrowded and constantly delayed) it's tram network really saves the city from complete implosion. It's always frequent (about 4 or 5 minutes in peak,goes to 12 or 13 minutes off peak and maybe 15 minutes on Sundays) and generally clean. Many parts aren't grade separated though, so trams can get stuck in traffic but generally not for long. The map can be quite confusing as all the lines are the same colour, but Melburnians seem to be born with the map tattooed on the back of their heads.










A map from 1998, showing some of the lines separated (about 10 or so lines use St. Kilda Rd & Swanston st, so they're just shown as being the same colour rather than making the streets really huge on the map)


----------



## davsot

city_thing said:


> Why was the metro line built if it was only going to attract such a little amount of people? There's a lot of other cities that carry huge amounts of people on just one metro line.
> 
> Did the US fund the metro there? I seem to remember reading that somewhere, but I'm not an expert on US/PR relations and if the US pays for things there. It just seemed strange that a foreign nation would buy another country a metro line when they have such problems funding mass transit in their own country.


It was supposed to attract a lot of people who were going to help promote the expansions. The US partly funded it (federal money). The US isn't foreign to us. We Puerto Ricans are Americans too, and most of us are real proud of it. I agree, though the US does have major problems funding mass transit. A lot of people have acknowledged that.


----------



## city_thing

^^ How is PR part of the US? Are you actually a state, or...?

Sorry if that sounds offensive, I don't mean for it to be. I just don't know much about the US-PR relationship. I always thought Porto Rico was its own country.


----------



## davsot

Well, when exactly did you learn about the island? That name (Porto Rico) hasn't been used since 1917. And you're not the first so I'm not angry or anything would like to know where everyone reads all this. I mean the name existed for some 20 years of our history and then it was gone. Pssh. :lol:

Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the United States (Australia is a different kind of commonwealth). We're some form of a free associated state and for many years the government has tried to hold a referendum to make the final decision. The people almost always pick to stay as we are, but the time will come when we have to make a decision.

We must abide by all federal laws and our government works like any other state, as in it can govern itself, with the main difference is that we have a bicameral system. We will be hosting the Central American Games and we have our own Olympics team. 

Puerto Rico ranks 27th in terms of population in the US, making us one of the most dense islands in the world. 
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

Puerto Rico used to have a great national train system and extensive tram lines in many major cities, but it was all destroyed during the car era in the US (in the 1950s). The boom in suburbs, cars, it's all led to sprawl throughout the whole island and our highways are heavily congested. We need public transportation desperately and at least the governemnt _seems_ to be paying attention, but they could always do a better job.


----------



## Dallas star

^^

Very intelligent post above, I must agree. The car and suburb age ruined so much of America. It seems if WW2 never started the age, we would all live in high rises and take subways around.


----------



## city_thing

davsot said:


> Well, when exactly did you learn about the island? That name (Porto Rico) hasn't been used since 1917. And you're not the first so I'm not angry or anything would like to know where everyone reads all this. I mean the name existed for some 20 years of our history and then it was gone. Pssh. :lol:
> 
> Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the United States (Australia is a different kind of commonwealth). We're some form of a free associated state and for many years the government has tried to hold a referendum to make the final decision. The people almost always pick to stay as we are, but the time will come when we have to make a decision.
> 
> We must abide by all federal laws and our government works like any other state, as in it can govern itself, with the main difference is that we have a bicameral system. We will be hosting the Central American Games and we have our own Olympics team.
> 
> Puerto Rico ranks 27th in terms of population in the US, making us one of the most dense islands in the world.
> Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population
> 
> Puerto Rico used to have a great national train system and extensive tram lines in many major cities, but it was all destroyed during the car era in the US (in the 1950s). The boom in suburbs, cars, it's all led to sprawl throughout the whole island and our highways are heavily congested. We need public transportation desperately and at least the governemnt _seems_ to be paying attention, but they could always do a better job.


Ahh, ok. So you're basically what the British would call a 'Dependent Territory' like the Jersey Islands or the Falkland Islands. That makes more sense.

And excuse my spelling of Puerto Rico - I wasn't sure how to spell it when I was writing it. You never really hear much about PR on this side of the world, as it's not in our sphere of influence (most of our news is about Asia, Oceania or Europe, there's not many Americans here and we don't have a lot to do with the Americas). I'd just assumed that PR was its own country, as it didn't have a place in the '50 states'.


----------



## davsot

city_thing said:


> Ahh, ok. So you're basically what the British would call a 'Dependent Territory' like the Jersey Islands or the Falkland Islands. That makes more sense.
> 
> And excuse my spelling of Puerto Rico - I wasn't sure how to spell it when I was writing it. You never really hear much about PR on this side of the world, as it's not in our sphere of influence (most of our news is about Asia, Oceania or Europe, there's not many Americans here and we don't have a lot to do with the Americas). I'd just assumed that PR was its own country, as it didn't have a place in the '50 states'.


Agree with the naming of 'Dependent Territory'. That's why we need to decide if we want to be state or not, we can't be receiving federal funds without making contributions forever. I'm part of what i call the statehood generation. All the kids who were born after a certain point in the history of PR, where I like the American style of living and like being a part of the United States (while also acknowledging we need to do a better job with public transportation ). There's a strong majority who are pro-statehood and pro-independents are actually a minority. 


These forums help me connect with the world and is how I learn about many countries around the world, large and small. I've actually been to Australia. Lovely country. I would like to visit the Outback someday. I'm actually considering living there. What can I say, I like the work life in AU. 

Melbourne trams are awesome btw.


----------



## davsot

I'm sure many would be interested in this:










http://awesome.goodmagazine.com/transparency/web/trans0209takingthetrain.html


----------



## Mussoda

^^ OK, then Tokyo / Moscow / Seoul / NYC / Mexico City / Paris are the top 6 most used subway cities in the world. thanks for the data, davsot 



@ thread-starter :
what is Seol? :lol: can't correct to Seoul?

.


----------



## jarbury

Wonder why London is not included? Perhaps to make New York's system look like the longest?


----------



## quashlo

"Theoretically" London isn't in the top 5. They only took the so-called "Top 5" in both the US and the rest of the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_systems_by_annual_passenger_rides

I think we can all agree the list is flawed in many ways, but the people who made the graph aren't experts in transportation... They're graphic designers, so they're job is to make the image look nice, but not necessarily go through all the work of preparing a sound analysis.


----------



## davsot

^^^^^^ Exactly. Thanks for that.


----------



## city_thing

davsot said:


> Agree with the naming of 'Dependent Territory'. That's why we need to decide if we want to be state or not, we can't be receiving federal funds without making contributions forever. I'm part of what i call the statehood generation. All the kids who were born after a certain point in the history of PR, where I like the American style of living and like being a part of the United States (while also acknowledging we need to do a better job with public transportation ). There's a strong majority who are pro-statehood and pro-independents are actually a minority.
> 
> 
> These forums help me connect with the world and is how I learn about many countries around the world, large and small. I've actually been to Australia. Lovely country. I would like to visit the Outback someday. I'm actually considering living there. What can I say, I like the work life in AU.
> 
> Melbourne trams are awesome btw.


Heh, the trams are great outside of peak hour. They're terrible between the hours of 6am - 10am and 4pm - 7pm. They get stuck in traffic and get too crowded. 

Where did you visit in Australia? I've never even been to the outback, I think most Australians haven't either. It only seems to be foreign tourists that are interested in seeing it. The population sticks to the coast and rarely leaves the big cities so there's a real difference between 'country Australians' and 'city Australians'. 

I'll gladly swap you Australia and PR though! Central and South America are like another world to most Aussies.


----------



## davsot

city_thing said:


> Heh, the trams are great outside of peak hour. They're terrible between the hours of 6am - 10am and 4pm - 7pm. They get stuck in traffic and get too crowded.
> 
> Where did you visit in Australia? I've never even been to the outback, I think most Australians haven't either. It only seems to be foreign tourists that are interested in seeing it. The population sticks to the coast and rarely leaves the big cities so there's a real difference between 'country Australians' and 'city Australians'.
> 
> I'll gladly swap you Australia and PR though! Central and South America are like another world to most Aussies.


Don't they get some form of right of way? (the trams)

I visited Australia in 2006 on a graduating trip. It was around 80 Puerto Ricans from my school in the South Pacific :tongue2:! Also, my cousin lives in AU and we're planning a family trip, hope we can do it soon.


----------



## quashlo

Probably not, but it belongs on the list more than some of the other cities in the poll. If you claim to have any interest at all in urban transportation, you should have at least heard of Curitiba and know why it's gotten all the attention it has.


----------



## Dallas star

^^ I am not sure why I put some of the countrys up there I wish I could have the option to edit poll, but tell me where is Curitiba?


----------



## CityPolice

hoosier said:


> NYC has by far the best public transportation in the U.S. but its freeways and streets are in a state of disrepair, so no way should it be given consideration for the best transportation system in the world.
> 
> NYC's transportation system wouldn't even rank in the top 10 worldwide.
> 
> London, Paris, Madrid, Munich, Shanghai, Tokyo, Beijing, Berlin, Seoul, and Osaka are all better.


What, there is nothing(barely) wrong with our streets.


----------



## Dallas star

NYC would prolly go under the most efficient category, in my opinion it is not very clean or sanitary (minus grand central terminal) but efficient it is, I took it everyone while in NYC.


----------



## Dallas star

And seriously someone go and rate bejing, it's killing me seeing it with 0 rates.


----------



## Svartmetall

Dallas star said:


> NYC would prolly go under the most efficient category, in my opinion it is not very clean or sanitary (minus grand central terminal) but efficient it is, I took it everyone while in NYC.


How can you say it is most efficient without comprehensive knowledge of what is on offer around the rest of the world?


----------



## Dallas star

I said in my own "Opinion" so then what's your "Opinion" or do you not know what the word "Opinion" is?


----------



## Svartmetall

Dallas star said:


> I said in my own "Opinion" so then what's your "Opinion" or do you not know what the word "Opinion" is?


Opinions often have a basis (unless you're a moron) and thus, I was merely asking for clarification as to why you feel that NYC has the most efficient transit system and whether or not you have a comprehensive feel for what is on offer elsewhere.

As for my opinion, there are various factors which one has to consider. 

#1. The urban form of an area.
#2. Availability of rapid transit (rail based preferably) to each area of the city.
#3. Relative importance of public transit to the modal split within a city.
#4. Number of options/routes that can be taken from point A to point B - the more flexible the system, the better generally. 
#5. How well the system is timetabled, whether or not feeder systems match up to the rapid transit portions of the system. 

In my opinion, based on these criteria, it would have to go to a city like Berlin, Munich, Tokyo, Hong Kong or Seoul. 

Each of these cities possesses rapid transit systems which form the backbone of the modal split. Each of them appear to have either service frequencies that don't require timetables, or, when timetables are required for feeder services that the feeder services match up well with the rapid transit system. They also have a number of modes available - Munich and Berlin especially are very bike and pedestrian friendly with hundreds of km of bike lanes available and they allow bikes on all forms of transit (out of peak hour). They are also relatively well patronised with Tokyo, Hong Kong and Seoul being clear winners in this category. 

See, my opinions have a basis.


----------



## Nic

delete.


----------



## nemu

Tokyo, by a landslide.


----------



## anm

nemu said:


> Tokyo, by a landslide.


It is debatable whether Tokyo (or any city for that matter) has the best transit system in the world as each city has different needs which ought to be addressed in different ways... but to say that any city wins in this department over Moscow "by a landslide" is simply ignorant.


----------



## Steel City Suburb

London.

Its clean, tidy, air-conditioned (Paris isn't), has escalators on the train station stops! (helps with baggage, Paris doesn't have them), doesn't smell like urine like Paris either.


----------



## iampuking

Steel City Suburb said:


> London.
> 
> Its clean, tidy, air-conditioned (Paris isn't), has escalators on the train station stops! (helps with baggage, Paris doesn't have them), doesn't smell like urine like Paris either.


LOL London's isn't air conditioned!


----------



## 2co2co

Can we say that a city with the least car dependence has the best transportation?


----------



## Dallas star

nemu said:


> Tokyo, by a landslide.


Tokyo maybe the most efficient, but if you don't enjoy being crammed into a train car like sardines you should probably vote elsewhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sn5bjHAIFY

ps; I enjoy my personal space a little more than to be stuffed like that.


----------



## Minato ku

^^ This scene was in 1991.

This is how it look in 2008


----------



## Guest

^^ Oh gosh, thats just damn outstanding improvement...


----------



## 2co2co

Dallas star said:


> ^^ I am not sure why I put some of the countrys up there I wish I could have the option to edit poll, but tell me where is Curitiba?



Curitiba is in Brazil. (for details, just wiki or google)
It is a textbook-example of transport-oriented city planning


----------



## caserass

Steel City Suburb said:


> London.
> 
> Its clean, tidy, air-conditioned (Paris isn't), has escalators on the train station stops! (helps with baggage, Paris doesn't have them), doesn't smell like urine like Paris either.


lol actually it's more a "paris sucks' than a "london is great"

:lol:

BTW I'd rate tokyo far above any other city, with hong kong, then Paris, Madrid and to finish my top 5 London.

This ranking is based on Metro, suburban transport and bus.


----------



## anm

Simon91 said:


> ^^ Oh gosh, thats just damn outstanding improvement...


With Japan's population declining, it will probably become OK by itself in 50 years or so...


----------



## Minato ku

The difference with 1991 is not the ridership but the increase of the frequency due at new tracks.


----------



## Dallas star

anm said:


> With Japan's population declining, it will probably become OK by itself in 50 years or so...


You won't actually see a major decrease in Japan until the next generation or so...


----------



## Tri-ring

anm said:


> With Japan's population declining, it will probably become OK by itself in 50 years or so...


Unfortunately the population of Tokyo is growing not shrinking at the moment.


----------



## Elmas

Los angeles??? Seatle, "americans" get off your cars...


----------



## Dallas star

LOLz. Unfortunately it's still not very economical in many American's minds on using public transportation. It's still faster, dare I say cheaper too turn on you truck and drive off.


----------



## Pansori

Dallas star said:


> Criteria for voting consists on:
> -Cost
> -Efficency
> -Easy to use?
> -Clean/Modern?
> -Size of system
> -Ridership
> -Speed, is it easy to get from place to place?


I'm not sure if 'size' is a very crucial factor here. I would probably change this criteria with 'availability' i.e. what part of the population the system can actually serve.

Anyhow, judged by this criteria I almost without any doubt put *Singapore* above anything else in the list. And the reasons are as follows:

- very good value for money
- fast, quiet, no delays 
- very clean and modern
- very easy to navigate and understand. Even a first-time user could get around it without any difficulty
- very adequately serves pretty much the whole city with extensions (circle line) under construction
- spacious, not overcrowded and generally pleasant experience when riding to any destination in the town.

Also, Singapore's got a great bus service and, not least, a truly fantastic (both in terms of service quality AND value) taxi service which will get you in no time to any part of the city via the vast motorway network or even regular city streets which are never congested anyway. 


I would probably put Honk Kong in the second place. Haven't been to Tokyo but I believe it should be among the better systems as well. And of course Beijing and Shanghai are expanding so rapidly that in a matter of years they will become the most extensive and very adequate systems. 

I quite liked Paris transport which I used for only 2 days but it seemed very easy to understand and reasonably modern, fast and convenient (especially RER trains... simply great!).

London has got a vast underground metro network ('tube'), however as a constant user of the tube I'm actually quite dissatisfied and disappointed. It's way too pricey (if you buy a single ticket that is), too slow and outdated for the current needs. Also large parts of the network are shut down during the weekends for never ending 'engineering works'. Most old stations are too small and uncomfortable as well as difficult to get around via labyrinths of tunnels. Perhaps it used to be a great system 70-60 years ago but these days it's just not and they surely need to do a massive job to make it more decent and modern. Of course that may not be easy (after all it's the oldest and by some measures still the largest system in the world) but I believe and hope it's possible.

London's suburban railway system does reasonably well though. Most newer trains actually have air conditioning and can run pretty fast (up to 160km/h which is really amazing for short to medium-distance suburban services) and get you to nearby towns or outer suburbs in no time. In many instances it is also possible to use *only* train to get to and out of the town or even travel inside the central areas of the city (of course, be prepared to do a little bit of walking, but it's still possible!).

London also has got a very extensive and mostly good bus transport which also runs at night. Only problem that the street network is so chaotic and complicated that it takes some time to actually get anywhere. Still I would rate it as good.

Also, what I would love to experience by myself is Moscow. The fact that it transports 7-9 million passengers a day is remarkable.


----------



## hoosier

Dallas star said:


> LOLz. Unfortunately it's still not very economical in many American's minds on using public transportation. It's still faster, dare I say cheaper too turn on you truck and drive off.


That's just because the full costs of autocentrism are not factored into car ownership. There is no carbon tax to punish drivers for emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, there are no taxes assessed to counter the damage caused to the environment by autocentric sprawl, and the lost productivity as a result of traffic jams.

A good public transit system is much cheaper to use than driving.


----------



## Pansori

hoosier said:


> A good public transit system is much cheaper to use than driving.


This view can be challenged. For instance it is MUCH cheaper to travel with a car in UK if the car is fully occupied... in terms of fuel v.s. train ticket it would cost about the same to get from suburbs to central London using car with at least one passenger (plus driver) as it would cost to buy train tickets individually. And if there are 5 persons in the car, the cost is many times lower than using a train. Of course costs may vary in different circumstances but generally it would be cheaper to travel in a fully occupied car (splitting the costs of course) than train or other means of public transport. In some countries public transport is heavily subsidized though which is another story.


----------



## iampuking

I think the reason so many middle class people who own cars in London get public transport is because of traffic jams. Plus, most of Central London has "controlled parking zones" where it can cost as much as £5 an hour (AFAIK) to park, so fuel costs are not the only factor.

Still, that doesn't justify the sometimes absurdly expensive rail tickets in the UK, thanks to Thatcher's privatisation, of course.


----------



## siamu maharaj

Cars all the way. Hate public transport.


----------



## hoosier

siamu maharaj said:


> Cars all the way. Hate public transport.


I like clean air so it is public transport for me.


----------



## hoosier

Pansori said:


> This view can be challenged. For instance it is MUCH cheaper to travel with a car in UK if the car is fully occupied... in terms of fuel v.s. train ticket it would cost about the same to get from suburbs to central London using car with at least one passenger (plus driver) as it would cost to buy train tickets individually. And if there are 5 persons in the car, the cost is many times lower than using a train. Of course costs may vary in different circumstances but generally it would be cheaper to travel in a fully occupied car (splitting the costs of course) than train or other means of public transport. In some countries public transport is heavily subsidized though which is another story.


It's cheaper to drive than fly too. Let's get rid of airports.

It is cheaper to use mass transit in a city than to drive.

I had to pay $140 USD to renew my license plate. Owning a car and driving is EXPENSIVE.

I would take the bus or train anyday.


----------



## choyak

I would say it is cheaper to fly than drive for longer distances unless you get 4 other passengers and split the price. If you fly like from LA to NY you also consider the time that you wasted driving. If would be like $500 in gas at $250 per gallon to drive from LA to NY and like 50 hours of driving.

If you fly from LA to Vegas it is cheaper to drive.

I just searched and got $323 round trip LAX to JFK on United

In this sprawlopolis that I live in you HAVE to drive since the public transportation SUXX. Only OCTD (bus) and 1 Metrolink with like 8 stations. Buena Park population 80,000 has ONE station.

About 2 months ago I was in Paris and I was impressed by RER. I went from Charles de Gaulle to Eiffel Tower used only 2 trains. I remember switching trains at St. Micheal Notre Dame (?)

BTW IMO CDG has the coolest logo that I have ever seen for an airport. Probably Orly also.









(From Passenger Terminal Today.com)


----------



## Pansori

hoosier said:


> It's cheaper to drive than fly too. Let's get rid of airports.
> 
> It is cheaper to use mass transit in a city than to drive.
> 
> I had to pay $140 USD to renew my license plate. Owning a car and driving is EXPENSIVE.
> 
> I would take the bus or train anyday.


Oh don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that I prefer private cars over public transport. It depends but generally I support a 50:50 i.e. when both road network and public transport is fully developed. It also depends on a situation. In denser coutnries public transport is much more efficient than in those who are vast yet don't have too many people (like Australia or Canada). In such situations a private car is a more efficient way to travel. In Singapore, for instance, public transport is so good, cheap and efficient that it's much better than having a private car. Same would apply to Hong Kong... even London or Paris. I was merely referring to a statement that public transport is cheaper. This is simply not always the case because it depends on many factors.

For instance, today I will buy a train ticket to visit my friend for his birthday ~80 miles away. It will cost me about $25 for a return ticket (and that's with a 30% student discount). If I used a fuel efficient car it would cost me about the same or slightly less even if I would travel alone. If I would travel with 2 other people it would be merely about 1/3 of the price. But this is not an indication of my preference (I don't even have a car even though I could), it's simply an indication of a factual matter.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

I see that five actually voted for Los Angeles- perhaps they were "taking the piss", as the Brits would say? Albeit, LA is better now than it used to be, when there were only RTD buses- those horrid GM RTS types that reeked of urine in the back (I lived for 15 years in the LA area, including 4.5 carless years as a college student).

btw voted for Tokyo- perhaps not the best in integrated user friendliness, but for sheer complexity and diversity, unrivaled.


----------



## siamu maharaj

hoosier said:


> I like clean air so it is public transport for me.


I like the comfort and don't want to stand next to a smelly guy and don't live under the paranoia that the world would crumble down coz of cars. So my choice is simple - cars.


----------



## iampuking

siamu maharaj said:


> I like the comfort and don't want to stand next to a smelly guy and don't live under the paranoia that the world would crumble down coz of cars. So my choice is simple - cars.


You promote cars yet consider capitalism to be "dead"? What a dichotomy.


----------



## ukiyo

I wouldnt say tokyo is the best, but the various rapid transit lines in japanese cities are just as efficient/clean as tokyo but with less population. So i dont know which would be the best but it's a japanese city in my opinion. Out of all the major cities in the world, tokyo is probably the best though. The amount of people it transports, basically always on time every 5 minutes or so (im not from tokyo i dont know the time but i think it's 5 minutes), and if it's late you will get a ticket for your work. I think kyoto-kobe area is most enjoyable.

Also this japanese train is awesome


----------



## Dallas star

My god that train looks beautiful!


----------



## thun

But has nothing to do with inner city transport...


----------



## Guest

Yes city_thing, its still easier to list out cities with worse transit than Singapore's than the better ones, but my point is that our transit still leaves a lot of room for improvement. In 2020 when the rail length is doubled from the current one, I hope it will land in the top 10 or even 5 spots worldwide though.


----------



## FritzMitWitz

munich has one of the best, fastest and cleanest metro systems in the world


----------



## Gareth

I don't want mean to be nitpicky, but why does the poll put Edinburgh in Scoland but London in the UK, rather than in England?


----------



## Koobideh

Looking at the results here, I think people voting here are voting for reasons like they live in the city so they think they should vote for it in here.

How is it possible that people really think somewhere like London has a better transportation system than somewhere like Hong Kong? I'm from London and the transportation here is absolute crap. I went to Hong Kong 2 years and was amazed at their transport, it's so amazing, efficient, modern and clean. 

Please people, actually vote for the city that you think has the best transportation system! Don't just vote for the city you come from or have some emotional attachment to lol!


----------



## brightside.

Out of the cities in the list, I have only used public transport systems in Washington DC and NYC. DC has a very nice clean, well managed and relatively undercrowded metro. But I think the best in the world has to be Tokyo.


----------



## Northsider

> How is it possible that people really think somewhere like London has a better transportation system than somewhere like Hong Kong?


People always think the grass is greener on the other side and find fault with their own system...trust me, London has EXCELLENT transport.


----------



## Pansori

Northsider said:


> trust me, London has EXCELLENT transport.


Trust me, it's VERY FAR from being excellent 
Adequate _at best_... maybe.

Yes, Hong Kong (Singapore, Munich, etc.) have better systems. Nothing wrong with indicating that.


----------



## Northsider

> *Trust me, it's VERY FAR from being excellent*
> Adequate at best... maybe.


That's only because you experience it every day and are familiar with when it does break down, or is late, or whatever. I think Chicago's system is crap, but someone from say Houston would say I'm crazy and that Chicago has a very good system.

When I was in London I found absolutely no fault with the Tube. It covers lots of the city, it's frequent, it's easy to use, etc... London is currently #3 on this vote, it MUST be better than you let on. Come to Chicago and let's see if you still think the Tube is inadequate ;-]


----------



## Pansori

Northsider said:


> That's only because you experience it every day and are familiar with when it does break down, or is late, or whatever. I think Chicago's system is crap, but someone from say Houston would say I'm crazy and that Chicago has a very good system.
> 
> When I was in London I found absolutely no fault with the Tube. It covers lots of the city, it's frequent, it's easy to use, etc... London is currently #3 on this vote, it MUST be better than you let on. Come to Chicago and let's see if you still think the Tube is inadequate ;-]


Tube trans were delayed each time I was travelling from the airport (Heathrow) after my holidays for the last 3 times. An immediate reminder that I'm back 

I don't know about Chicago but what I'm comparing London with is Hong Kong, Singapore and Munich i.e. systems that I used properly and extensivelly. London system cannot compare with them because it's simply not as good. LU is very old and that shows in almost every step you go. Not that it cannot be changed but it would take a lot of money.


----------



## Northsider

> ...I'm comparing London with is Hong Kong, Singapore and Munich i.e. systems that I used properly and extensively


Have you lived in these cities? Have you used the system everyday as a local would? Everybody has gripes about their own system, that doesn't mean it's not any good.

But you brought up a very salient point, the Tube is over 150 years old, while the systems you mention are brand new (or only decades old in the case of Munich, instead of over a century old). It's not really a fair comparison, and even so the Tube holds it's own after all these years. People say the same thing of the Washington Metro vs Chicago L...the L is over 100 years old while the Metro began in 1970-something. Of course it's not going to have the sorts of problems Chicago does with crumbling infrastructure, etc. As far as I'm concerned, newer does not equal better.


----------



## Pansori

Northsider said:


> Have you lived in these cities? Have you used the system everyday as a local would? Everybody has gripes about their own system, that doesn't mean it's not any good.
> 
> But you brought up a very salient point, the Tube is over 150 years old, while the systems you mention are brand new (or only decades old in the case of Munich, instead of over a century old). It's not really a fair comparison, and even so the Tube holds it's own after all these years. People say the same thing of the Washington Metro vs Chicago L...the L is over 100 years old while the Metro began in 1970-something. Of course it's not going to have the sorts of problems Chicago does with crumbling infrastructure, etc. As far as I'm concerned, newer does not equal better.


One doesn't have to use system for years to see if it's good or not. It is obvious from the very first moment you enter it. And unless you get onto the Jubilee line East from Westminster, it is very obvious that LU ir _far_ from being excellent.

I'm not saying London tube is not interesting or that it doesn't do the job. It does. Is it large? Yes. Is it interesting? Yes (to some at least). Does it have historic/heritage value? Yes. Is it adequate? Well... it juuuust about... maybe.

Is it excellent? No. This is about the only point I was trying to make.

Oh and I didn't say the age was not the reason for it being far from excellent. Of course a young 22 year old footballer will be better than an ageing 100 year old footballer. The fact still is that the 22 year old footballer is a better footballer and also that the 100 year old footballer will not be excellent in the field.

On the other hand, there is no reason why ageing systems could not be upgraded and renovated. For some reason this didn't hapen in London at a pace to keep it up to the contemporary standards found in cities like Hong Kong or Singapore. I realy don't know why... :?


----------



## iampuking

^^ Do some research. Currently LU is going through a major investment programme where the rolling stock, stations and track are all being replaced or refurbished. 

We all know your stupid bias towards anything that isn't brand new, as we've seen in the LU thread in the metro forum.


----------



## Pansori

iampuking said:


> ^^ Do some research. Currently LU is going through a major investment programme where the rolling stock, stations and track are all being replaced or refurbished.
> 
> We all know your stupid bias towards anything that isn't brand new, as we've seen in the LU thread in the metro forum.


LOL. I've been using LU on a daily basis since 2004 and I know it very well. Certainly better than most people in this thread 

The "going through a major investment programme" is nothing more than a regular maintenance work in order to keep it running accompanied by a massive PR campaing costing MILLIONS of £ that is financed by selling Europe's most expensive metro tickets. It cracks me up when I remember the "£10 billion investment program" or "we're transforming YOUR tube"... yeah sure... changing the 100 year old rotting wooden railroad ties. All it takes is to have a ride on Northern, District/Circle line to see how they are being "refurbished". Some stations have been "under refurbishment" for about 5 years now (or even more) with peeled off paintwork and missing decoration details. Sorry, but this is not what I call "investment". Money laundering? One might get such an impression by looking at it. Lack of competence, vision and will to do something about it is the most likely reason though.

I'm judging it purely by what I see and how it compares with other systems that I have used. Bias? Hardly. Just reality.

Unless, of course, you believe that metro systems are some sort of history museums where you fall back into the memories of WW2 bomb shelters or Victorian glory. To me (and 99.99% of other passengers) it's about fast, comfortable, affordable and convenient ride. if this can only be done by "brand new" systems then fair enough, you can call me biased.

I believe, however, that a system doesn't have to be brand new to work well. It may take some extra cash to upgrade it but it can be done.


----------



## Northsider

> Is it adequate? Well... it juuuust about... maybe.


It was _more_ than adequate for my needs when I was there (and rode 90%+ of the system).


> I believe, however, that a system doesn't have to be brand new to work well.


That's certainly the vibe you are giving off, and I haven't even visited the LU thread that iampuking mentioned.



> it's about fast


From Harrow to Baker in 30 minutes is pretty damned fast to me. Also, for what it's worth, I had absolutely no significant (more than a few minutes) delays whatsoever when I used the Tube...except for some weekend track work in which I EASILY circumvented via other lines (try doing that in some other cities!)


> comfortable


What's not comfortable about it, except that there's no air conditioning (not that it matters, London rarely gets the sickening heat that some other cities do)? I got a seat when I rode, I didn't fall down, the cars for the most part were clean...


> affordable


Ok, you have a point...then again, what in London IS affordable?


> convenient ride


I'm having a hard time believing that you think the Tube in inconvenient. The only place I found a rail system more convenient than London was in Paris, with stations every block it seemed and headways at 2 minutes or less.


----------



## Pansori

Northsider said:


> It was _more_ than adequate for my needs when I was there (and rode 90%+ of the system).


This is the argument I wouldn't go into indeed. It also is more or less adequate for my needs. Tube network is underdeveloped in the South of London but it is well supplemented by the national rail services or tramway lines. 



> From Harrow to Baker in 30 minutes is pretty damned fast to me. Also, for what it's worth, I had absolutely no significant (more than a few minutes) delays whatsoever when I used the Tube...except for some weekend track work in which I EASILY circumvented via other lines (try doing that in some other cities!)


From Heathrow to Wimbledon in 1 hour. From Heathrow to Piccadilly Circus in 1 hour. Pretty damn slow... and it does feel so when you're on the Piccadilly line.



> What's not comfortable about it, except that there's no air conditioning (not that it matters, London rarely gets the sickening heat that some other cities do)? I got a seat when I rode, I didn't fall down, the cars for the most part were clean...


London underground is sickening hot (especially during summer months). It is much hotter down there than on the surface for some reason and it needs the air-con as much as the tropical cities if not more.

As about comfort, try feeling comfortable in any deep underground line train (Jubilee, Central, Northern etc.) when you're 190cm tall (i.e. me). And there are taller people than that. I can't imagine how they should use it. The tunnels are too small hence so are the trains. This is a fundamental problem that would costs billions to solve. The terrible noise is also typical. Ever ridden on Victoria line? It's better to wear earphones if you're not ok with becoming deaf.



> Ok, you have a point...then again, what in London IS affordable?


Same in Singapore... yet a typical MRT ticket costs just a fraction of a typical LU ticket. Why? Not to mention the difference in service and speed which is certainly not favoring London.



> I'm having a hard time believing that you think the Tube in inconvenient. The only place I found a rail system more convenient than London was in Paris, with stations every block it seemed and headways at 2 minutes or less.


you're a lucky man if you get to use only Jubilee line. Most of its stations are up to the contemporary standards (i.e. step-free access, lots of room, space etc.). But if you get to deal with the older stations (and we're talking of majority stations here) then you'll get to know what it feels like navigating via claustrophobic corridors, tunels and stairs without escalators. 19th century infrastructure cannot be convenient in the 21st century.


----------



## Northsider

Pansori said:


> From Heathrow to Wimbledon in 1 hour. From Heathrow to Piccadilly Circus in 1 hour. Pretty damn slow... and it does feel so when you're on the Piccadilly line.


Are you kidding? _Driving_ it takes nearly 40 minutes, without traffic. And the trip you mention is 20 stops with a transfer...what do you expect? that's the equivalent of going from downtown Chicago to the city limits, and past on the Red line (actually, even further!). So, by your reasoning, because it takes a long time to go a long distance with many stops in between and a transfer, the Tube is inadequate? This as far as I'm concerned is quite accurate considering there is no express service from the airport. In fact, it takes less time to get to the central london area from the airport than to get to Wimbelton. PLus, it's the _airport_! Most daily commuters DO NOT make this sort of trip...you pick an extreme situation (I guess the one that annoys you the most when you leave/return to London) and apply it to all travel on the Tube and try to make an argument out of that?




> London underground is sickening hot (especially during summer months). It is much hotter down there than on the surface for some reason and it needs the air-con as much as the tropical cities if not more.
> 
> As about comfort, try feeling comfortable in any deep underground line train (Jubilee, Central, Northern etc.) when you're 190cm tall (i.e. me). And there are taller people than that. I can't imagine how they should use it. The tunnels are too small hence so are the trains. This is a fundamental problem that would costs billions to solve. The terrible noise is also typical. Ever ridden on Victoria line? It's better to wear earphones if you're not ok with becoming deaf.


Sorry that you are tall. I'm guessing this problem won't be fixed any time soon, as you mentioned the extraordinary cost. Just ride the Met. ;-] Noise? Yes, I've ridden on every line, not just victoria, and I'll say some subway stations in Chicago are much worse. cmon...like EVERY system that is 100 years old, yes, is loud. Get over it. I lived next to the L for years and it never bothered me a bit...I actually quite like the noise. So unless you completely rebuild the system, the tunnel size and noise level AREN'T going to change. Sounds like you are completely biased towards new systems and that your gripes are just personal.




> Same in Singapore... yet a typical MRT ticket costs just a fraction of a typical LU ticket. Why? Not to mention the difference in service and speed which is certainly not favoring London.


The cost of living in London is like twice that of Singapore! And AGAIN (another broken record), it's not fair to compare a system that is 25 years old versus one that is 125 years old! Of course the newer one will be quieter and faster than the older one. I just don't get what you are arguing exactly...





> you're a lucky man if you get to use only Jubilee line. Most of its stations are up to the contemporary standards (i.e. step-free access, lots of room, space etc.). But if you get to deal with the older stations (and we're talking of majority stations here) then you'll get to know what it feels like navigating via claustrophobic corridors, tunels and stairs without escalators. 19th century infrastructure cannot be convenient in the 21st century.


I found no problem with any station. Yes, there are lots of stairs everywhere...which is only a problem if you handicapped. There are elevators at the troublesome stations (Kings Cross).



> it's about fast, comfortable, affordable and convenient ride. if this can only be done by "brand new" systems then fair enough, you can call me biased.


It just seems like your standards (aka pickiness) are too high. You won't be happy unless a system is modern and new. You sound like my anti-transit suburban friends who make any excuse in the book not to take the train.


----------



## Pansori

Northsider said:


> Are you kidding? _Driving_ it takes nearly 40 minutes, without traffic. And the trip you mention is 20 stops with a transfer...what do you expect? that's the equivalent of going from downtown Chicago to the city limits, and past on the Red line (actually, even further!). So, by your reasoning, because it takes a long time to go a long distance with many stops in between and a transfer, the Tube is inadequate? This as far as I'm concerned is quite accurate considering there is no express service from the airport. In fact, it takes less time to get to the central london area from the airport than to get to Wimbelton. PLus, it's the _airport_! Most daily commuters DO NOT make this sort of trip...you pick an extreme situation (I guess the one that annoys you the most when you leave/return to London) and apply it to all travel on the Tube and try to make an argument out of that?


That is only an example. Don't like that? Try District line from Wimbledon to pretty much anywhere. Walking on foot sometime sgets faster than that 




> Sorry that you are tall. I'm guessing this problem won't be fixed any time soon, as you mentioned the extraordinary cost. Just ride the Met. ;-] Noise? Yes, I've ridden on every line, not just victoria, and I'll say some subway stations in Chicago are much worse. cmon...like EVERY system that is 100 years old, yes, is loud. Get over it. I lived next to the L for years and it never bothered me a bit...I actually quite like the noise. So unless you completely rebuild the system, the tunnel size and noise level AREN'T going to change. Sounds like you are completely biased towards new systems and that your gripes are just personal.


I'm actually very happy that I'm tall 
No other transport system on earth caused me any problem apart from London Underground. Does that say anything?

I have never mentioned Chicago or other systems in the US. I guess by now we should be both aware that USA is not exctly famous for having excellent public transport systems. America is drived by different values in transportation and I'm fine with that (although I don't think this leads to balanced and sustainable development of the society). These days it's Asia with Europe trying to keep up (albeit, not so successfully during the last 10 or so years). Hence I'm mentioning Singapore, Hong Kong and Munich i.e. systems which are adequate, fast, comfy and generally excellent in all ways possible. London lacks too many things to be called _excellent_. That's about the major point I'm trying to make.





> The cost of living in London is like twice that of Singapore! And AGAIN (another broken record), it's not fair to compare a system that is 25 years old versus one that is 125 years old! Of course the newer one will be quieter and faster than the older one. I just don't get what you are arguing exactly...


I don't care if it's fair or not. All I do is buy a goddamn ticket, get on the train and go to my destination. After I'm off I evaluete the experience of the ride. Old? Unfair? I don't give a f**k!






> I found no problem with any station. Yes, there are lots of stairs everywhere...which is only a problem if you handicapped. There are elevators at the troublesome stations (Kings Cross).


Or if you're old... or perhaps carrying luggage? Good luck. I remember travelling from the freakin' Hong Kong Island changing a few times in different means of transport all the way to the Airport without a SINGLE step in my way (3 of us were carrying 3 suitcases). Imagine such a trip in London... 




> It just seems like your standards (aka pickiness) are too high. You won't be happy unless a system is modern and new. You sound like my anti-transit suburban friends who make any excuse in the book not to take the train.


All I do is use the systems, then compare them, criticize, point out good and bad things... that's pretty much it. I criticize many things just as about any intelligent and modern person would do. What's wrong with this? Is it better to say that everything's fine and there's no need to change anything? But that would simply be not true!


----------



## Northsider

> Try District line from Wimbledon to pretty much anywhere.


So you are just annoyed that from Wimbledon to anywhere is slow? Sorry that you live on the END OF A SUBWAY line. Why don't you just move to Chesham and complain about travel time?


> I have never mentioned Chicago or other systems in the US.


I'm just using it as a comparison because I live here. 


> London lacks too many things to be called excellent. That's about the major point I'm trying to make.


Again, everything you've mentioned, except possibly the height thing, is just a personal gripe that is specific to you. I personally don't find those to be faults. You are just being nitpicky.


> I don't care if it's fair or not.


Ok, maybe poor choice of words...but you can agree that it's difficult to compare Asian transport to European (specifically London)? You just said US systems are born out of a different culture and time, for a different purpose. Couldn't the same be said about London's system? Given this history that the LU has, it still can compete with the newest systems out there.


> I don't give a f**k!


Uhh, chill out. We're just _discussing_ here.


> Or if you're old... or perhaps carrying luggage? Good luck.


Carrying luggage? Been there, done that (on numerous systems)...I don't see what lacks with the LU compared to newer systems in this particular regard. Lugging luggage anywhere sucks...and you better be smart not to pack 90 lbs of clothes if you know you are going to be carrying it up some steps (or else take a taxi).


> (3 of us were carrying 3 suitcases)


Ok, explain to me how each person carrying a _single suitcase_ would have trouble walking up some stairs? (by the way, yes I remember lots of steps in LU, but I do also remember a sizeable number of escalators) I do this at least once or twice a month (travel that is, and take transit whenever I can at my destination...AND I have my backpack, my personal suitcase, and my work gear in a pelican case)


> Is it better to say that everything's fine and there's no need to change anything?


Not at all...I criticize the CTA every chance I can because it _won't_ get better without criticism. But you are just criticizing it because it's old, nothing more.


----------



## iampuking

Pansori said:


> LOL. I've been using LU on a daily basis since 2004 and I know it very well. Certainly better than most people in this thread


I know it better than you.



Pansori said:


> The "going through a major investment programme" is nothing more than a regular maintenance work in order to keep it running accompanied by a massive PR campaing costing MILLIONS of £ that is financed by selling Europe's most expensive metro tickets. It cracks me up when I remember the "£10 billion investment program" or "we're transforming YOUR tube"... yeah sure... changing the 100 year old rotting wooden railroad ties. All it takes is to have a ride on Northern, District/Circle line to see how they are being "refurbished". Some stations have been "under refurbishment" for about 5 years now (or even more) with peeled off paintwork and missing decoration details. Sorry, but this is not what I call "investment". Money laundering? One might get such an impression by looking at it. Lack of competence, vision and will to do something about it is the most likely reason though.


The investment programme is to make up for decades of Tory uninvestment. Of course it's not going to take a few years, you idiot. Do you know what all those weekend closures are for? Ripping up track, signalling and replacing them to make them more reliable, and funnily enough, to improve two things you complain about, noise and speed. 

And here's the issue again, you've failed to do some research. New trains for the Victoria line as well as completely new signalling is currently being rolled out as we speak. The same for the Sub-surface lines. The Jubilee too is getting it's signalling replaced. All lines are going to get a similar treatment in the next few years.




Pansori said:


> Unless, of course, you believe that metro systems are some sort of history museums where you fall back into the memories of WW2 bomb shelters or Victorian glory. To me (and 99.99% of other passengers) it's about fast, comfortable, affordable and convenient ride. if this can only be done by "brand new" systems then fair enough, you can call me biased.


Your bias is to do with your disregarding of anything old with the insinuation that it's "dirty" or "ugly", such as in the LU thread. And I argued, which you didn't respond to, that a system can still be fast and effecient even if it is old. 

And regarding the rest of your claptrap, the only legitimate argument are the ones criticising the heat or the small trains.


----------



## Pansori

Lol, personal addresses is pretty much the only thing you put forward against my argument so far (you idiot, claptrap) 

Sorry, I'm not in a mood to get into the quote-wars. I have used enough systems in different locations and I'm pretty confident about what I saw and how they compare. If you're unable to see that then it's the problem of ignorance or simply the lack of knowledge I guess.


----------



## julesstoop

I think Germany's Ruhr area has a very good public transportation system. Speedy heavy rail between the larger population centers, and lots of light rail and (pre-)metro like systems in the larger towns. Smaller towns have excellent bus connections from their main hub.


----------



## Northsider

julesstoop said:


> I think Germany's Ruhr area has a very good public transportation system. Speedy heavy rail between the larger population centers, and lots of light rail and (pre-)metro like systems in the larger towns. Smaller towns have excellent bus connections from their main hub.


In my opinion, this is the most impressive region I've ever visited in terms of public transport.


----------



## Svartmetall

Having been around lots of suburbs of Tokyo on public transportation I am more impressed than ever with the system. It is very close to flawless. Best public transportation overall I've been on. I'd say the Kansai region of Japan has the second best public transportation I've been on. 

Notable mentions include Stockholm which has to easily have the best public transportation system for a city of its size.


----------



## caduroxbr

Curitiba - Brazil.

In the future: Brasília.


----------



## El_Greco

julesstoop said:


> I think Germany's Ruhr area has a very good public transportation system. Speedy heavy rail between the larger population centers, and lots of light rail and (pre-)metro like systems in the larger towns. Smaller towns have excellent bus connections from their main hub.


Thats very true indeed -










I spent ages looking for this map and the search cost me a lot of nerves uhh.....in the end I found it on the German VVR wiki page.


----------



## UD2

why is the USA even here as a country.


----------



## Northsider

UD2 said:


> why is the USA even here as a country.


Well, not just that...but why are cities like Dallas and Atlanta on here?!


----------



## I-275westcoastfl

Dallas has one of the most efficient and best road/highway networks in the country. Atlanta I have no idea why that is on here that city is not planned well at all.


----------



## Northsider

I-275westcoastfl said:


> Dallas has one of the most efficient and best road/highway networks in the country. Atlanta I have no idea why that is on here that city is not planned well at all.


Really? If this your opinion or do you have any data to back this up? I've routinely seen DFW in the top 10 most congested areas in the States. That, and it has nearly a non-existent mass transit system to speak of. Yes, it's made leaps and bounds in recent years, but that's not saying much at all.


----------



## anm

Northsider said:


> Well, not just that...but why are cities like Dallas and Atlanta on here?!


Dallas - because the thread starter is DallasStar... my guess, of course.


----------



## skyscraperhighrise

Miami of course.


----------



## goschio

What are all those Amercian cities doing on the list? Dallas? Atlanta? Los Angeles? ROFL

Its either a city from Europe or from Asia.


----------



## hkskyline

If it's about highways - yes - American cities are up there, but transport includes transit as well.


----------



## Manila-X

The US (and Canada) has one of the best highway systems in the world the fact the majority of Americans own a car. 

Germany though still has the best highway system worldwide.


----------



## Guest

I been to Tokyo last month and I have to agree - it has the most advanced transport system I used in my life. It has not only the density of the metro system, it has an extremely extensive commuter railway (the JR), a thing that I crave for in Singapore. The negative side is the integration of interchanges, pretty much terrible in majority of cases, but well, they build it over several decades so its expected. And the crowds weren't really as bad as the popular belief says, IMO, slightly better than on the Singapore MRT.

However, I think that HK still beats Osaka.


----------



## hkskyline

WANCH said:


> The US (and Canada) has one of the best highway systems in the world the fact the majority of Americans own a car.
> 
> Germany though still has the best highway system worldwide.


Canada - no. In fact, the cross-country highway is not a true highway - in many parts it's a regular road that has traffic lights.

In the large cities, density of highways is nowhere near its counterparts in the US. The Interstate initiative didn't really happen in Canada.


----------



## 1772

skyscraperhighrise said:


> Miami of course.


Hahaha, why of course!


----------



## Dallas star

Sorry, the list was quite terrible, I think I might make a V2 thread


----------



## the_sage

Hey why wasn't Toronto on the list! oh yeah... a handful of subway lines (2 of which being shorter than the average model railway) and a couple of diesel locomotive hauled surface trains!


----------



## TheAnalyst

Wow, how can anyone vote New York, unless you love rats? Traffic is terrible, and the subway is utterly disgusting. The worst metro system I've ever used, by far.

It's ridiculous to put any US city in there. Practically no mass transit to speak of, highways always congested... Our infrastructure is crumbling and nobody gives a f***.


----------



## Pansori

The poll should have been multiple choice because now it's a nonsense.


----------



## Blackraven

I'll just comment on what I know and perceive 

Japan
-the current leader in this poll so far
-well-developed transport system (both public and private, land, air, water, etc.) and still building new ones while maintaing and improving old ones
-roads in Japan are smooth and well-paved. what is shocking is the pace where they rebuild these things when it is damaged or in disarray.

From this (when the quake struck back in March)









to this (all within one week)









Where I'm from, it takes more than a year to do the same job. Wanna speed it up? It depends on how much bribe money you offer the construction companies and the local authorities :lol:

anyways going back

-trains are a national hobby and past time in Japan. It's no surprise that the train networks have super-wide coverage. even with such extensive coverage, they are still expanding the network.

the only downside is well.............there is none I guess

Probably a minor one will be that the max speed limit for Wangan Line (湾岸線) or Bayshore Route of the Shuto Expressway is 80 km/h. WTF?!?!?!? :bash:

Given the nature of the roadway, only senior citizens drive at such snail pace speed. And yet they charge expensive toll lol.

These guys though would screw around with the speed limits of Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0aTvVuXxH4

Anyways, moving on to other places

Hong Kong
-well-developed
-some classy bridges they have there (like Stonecutter's Bridge)
-train system (courtesy of MTR) is a force to be reckoned with
-they are apparently building more lines even amidst the challenging geology and geography of Hong Kong

Singapore
-well developed
-roadways are clean (e.g. Bukit Timah Expressway)
-train system is extensive
-what is shocking though is the number of new rail lines that they are building (e.g. Thomson Line, Downtown Line, Seletar Line, Holland Line, etc etc.). The LTA are really on a rail building frenzy.

Mainland China
-self-explanatory
-with a rising economy, they are building all kinds of transport infrastructure 24/7 like workhorses.

South Korea
-very extensive (pretty much a no brainer)
-rail and train system has wide coverage and is rapidly expanding.
-Holy shit, they are so ambitious that they even want to build bullet trains connecting the mainland of Korea to Jeju island.

European Union
-self explanatory
-Places like London or Paris have extensive rail coverage
-And it's surprising considering that even if France is a big country, they are still committed to expanding their transport infrastructure.
-some areas may need a bit of help though (though the construction of Rail Baltica in the Scandivanian-Baltic area would really help complement the existing Via Baltica vehicular roadway system)
-maybe in a few centuries, there *may* be some closures among the missing links by building bridges or whatnot:
=UK<->Ireland connecting Great Britain/UK Mainland with Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland
=Physical transport connection (land-based) between Finland and Estonia (a sort of Scandinavian-Baltic transport link-up.........with Rail Baltica being the prime example of such)
=Physical land-based connection between Greece and Cyprus (though it's extremely difficult and financially expensive so maybe in the next few centuries, it may be more feasible)

That's all I can comment on for now since I dunno about others. Anyone is free to agree or disagree.

P.S.

Taiwan maybe join that list by year 2020 especially with the way they're expanding their transport networks (with Taipei area and Kaohsiung as prime examples of this). Also, Macau may join that list too (and they need to because millions of gamblers are flocking their casinos 24/7 all year round so infrastructure has to keep up with influx of gamblers and highrollers :cheers

-----
For a developing country though, I can say that Malaysia is doing really well in this respect.


----------



## Guest

^^ A correction, Seletar and Holland lines are just conceptual and won't be build for a while.. And from a long-term resident point of view, unfortunately the train system still isn't extensive and it won't be for another 10 years..

Myself I'm voting Tokyo. Its incredible in there. The JR and Subway are basically duplicating each other and that does not include private lines and buses. The whole surroundings of Tokyo are connected by the most insane amount of railways in the world. It takes just few hours on the system to make the conclusion that nothing comes close to it.

HK is damn good IMO, but I'd need to stay there for a longer time to really say how well it works. I love the stylish stations and high frequency and rolling stock is very nice as well. A massive plus for integration - most interchanges are cross-platform and it makes getting around ridiculously easy.


----------



## Blackraven

Simon91 said:


> ^^ A correction, Seletar and Holland lines are just conceptual and won't be build for a while.. And from a long-term resident point of view, unfortunately the train system still isn't extensive and it won't be for another 10 years..


I see. Nevertheless, I'd have to say that the coverage is extensive in itself. Most tourist spots are covered, stations like Expo, Airport and that new train station near the Singapore Indoor Stadium look like modern artistic masterpieces.

In fact, with a world-class rail system in place, I can see that your neighbor (Malaysia) is using your system as a benchmark and as a reference for improving and expanding their very own rail networks. 



> Myself I'm voting Tokyo. Its incredible in there. The JR and Subway are basically duplicating each other and that does not include private lines and buses. The whole surroundings of Tokyo are connected by the most insane amount of railways in the world. It takes just few hours on the system to make the conclusion that nothing comes close to it.


Yeah, I noticed that as well. It is rare to see rail transport services as something that is provided by both private and public institutions/entities. Heck, they sometimes even compete with each other to improve services and other things (i.e. airport rail services). As I mentioned earlier, trains are a national pastime in Japan. Heck, building trains, riding trains, improving and expanding train services and the like are a primary national activity over there. So it's a no-brainer that Japan is a rail country.

However, rail is not the only transport there. You have people riding buses, using taxis (many say that taxi drivers over there are humble and devoted to their 'duty') and are walking as well.

Also, cars are abundance in Japan. It shows that locals patronize their national auto industry as a world-class enterprise and showcase of Japanese skill and ingenuity.

Heck, I was surprised when I read something like Toyota's press reports. For instance:

Back in May 2010, Toyota sold Toyota Alphard vans at a rate of more than 5,000 units per month. In comparison, in the Philippines, we only sold 50 per month  :lol:

Hence, why I say that in Japan, 100:100. 100% for ALL forms of transport. 



> HK is damn good IMO, but I'd need to stay there for a longer time to really say how well it works. I love the stylish stations and high frequency and rolling stock is very nice as well. A massive plus for integration - most interchanges are cross-platform and it makes getting around ridiculously easy.


They are IMHO the current benchmark of the world-class airport rail link service. Network is extensive despite the kind of terrain they have and the limited amount of land space they have over there.


----------



## mrtdude5

Tokyo. Their subway is already fairly extensive - you can tell by just looking at their subway map - but compared to the size of the entire Tokyo metro area, it seems insignificant. That's where the part of their transportation network that really impresses me comes in; their suburban railway network. The suburbs are extremely well-served by mass transit, something not too common elsewhere. The standards of construction, technology, rolling stock, etc... all impeccable.

Hong Kong comes a close second, though. On my recent trip there, I just missed an MTR train at 10 in the morning on a Tuesday when I reached the platform. The next train came within slightly under two minutes. That's just how it should be in Singapore, considering that we're almost just as - if not just as - dense as Hong Kong, but I don't see it ever happening. The bus system works a lot better there than in Singapore, as well. While Tokyo is untouchable in certain areas, I still think that no other city has the same efficiency of operation than Hong Kong does.


----------



## Guest

Blackraven said:


> I see. Nevertheless, I'd have to say that the coverage is extensive in itself. Most tourist spots are covered, stations like Expo, Airport and that new train station near the Singapore Indoor Stadium look like modern artistic masterpieces.
> 
> In fact, with a world-class rail system in place, I can see that your neighbor (Malaysia) is using your system as a benchmark and as a reference for improving and expanding their very own rail networks.


Well, MRT isn't any bad by itself, but over the past few years its expansion was way too slow given the population growth due to immigration. If I was to elaborate, we'd encroach a highly political/nationalistic area and I prefer to avoid it.

And unfortunately, far more trips are still done on buses instead of trains. The MRT links many key areas but plenty more are only served by the former, with all their ailments and traffic sensitivity. So yeah, Singapore's rail is unfortunately still simply inadequate for now...

Totally agree with you on Japan though


----------



## Guest

mrtdude5, the MTR and HK's bus system are indeed far less extensive than Tokyo's and still do a great job, but they do have room for improvement. Especially eastern Kowloon and southern Hong Kong island are not served by the MTR yet, but the expansion plans are inspiring. In a few years time, HK may have the best transportation system indeed but for now, its still Tokyo. How are they building the new interchanges and stations in such a dense cityscape is beyond me..


----------



## Luli Pop

Madrid 4 far


----------



## nouveau.ukiyo

Greater Tokyo Area
Area 1/2 the size of metro NYC
35 million people
100+ rail/subway line
20+ rail/subway companies
19 million+ individual rail/subway passengers daily
Clean, modern, on time (except during natural disasters and the daily-occurring train suicide)

Public transportation in Japan should really be considered on of mankind's greatest accomplishments. I mean Tokyo's Yamanote Line alone has a daily ridership of 3.5 million; NYC's subway (24 lines) carries ~6 million. It boggles the mind trying to figure out how the Japanese accomplished what they did...and the majority of it is run by private companies!


----------



## victoria washington

hno: i am pretty sad yu left out prominent african cities on your poll like Cape Town South Africa and Pretoria South Africa......


----------



## NordikNerd

I voted others because many cities were left out in this poll.

The best public transport is to be found in a city which has metro, trams and buses.

My choice is either Prague, Czech Rep. or St Petersburg, Russia.

Stockholm, Sweden also has great public transport but only one tramline. It used to have many tramlines until 1967, but they were torn up.


----------



## Pansori

I'm sure Prague and St.Pete have decent systems but better than Honk Kong? Singapore? Tokyo? I mean come on.


----------



## alesmarv

The city with the best transportation network in the world is Prague and it is not even listed so I will not bother voting. Yes my statement is very blunt but it really has separated itself from the pack. The public transit system is the best in the world, by a good margin, the road network is good though the inner and outer city ring roads need to be complete but congestion is actually not bad and traffic flows.

edit: did not read this thread and see some people have mentioned the same. Hong Kong and Singapore don't come close. Prague is a smaller city which may or may not have helped it out but it is that good.


----------



## Blackraven

alesmarv said:


> The city with the best transportation network in the world is Prague and it is not even listed so I will not bother voting. Yes my statement is very blunt but it really has separated itself from the pack. The public transit system is the best in the world, by a good margin, the road network is good though the inner and outer city ring roads need to be complete but congestion is actually not bad and traffic flows.
> 
> edit: did not read this thread and see some people have mentioned the same. Hong Kong and Singapore don't come close. Prague is a smaller city which may or may not have helped it out but it is that good.


Prague may have one of the best transport systems in Central Europe (and that is true).

But to say that it's the world best seems to be a stretch. Far from it tbh


----------



## hotelmountain

New yorkcity Metro Area. i think has best transportation system in the world.


----------



## devendra1

nouveau.ukiyo said:


> Greater Tokyo Area
> Area 1/2 the size of metro NYC
> 35 million people
> 100+ rail/subway line
> 20+ rail/subway companies
> 19 million+ individual rail/subway passengers daily
> Clean, modern, on time (except during natural disasters and the daily-occurring train suicide)
> 
> Public transportation in Japan should really be considered on of mankind's greatest accomplishments.* I mean Tokyo's Yamanote Line alone has a daily ridership of 3.5 million; NYC's subway (24 lines) carries ~6 million*. It boggles the mind trying to figure out how the Japanese accomplished what they did...and the majority of it is run by private companies!


Ya Tokyo is in league of its own.
Mumbai suburban western line alone carries 3.7 million passengers daily. I guess probably most dense line in the world. Mumbai suburban system carries about 8.2 million passengers everyday. Though I will not say it is anywhere close to best transportation yet because of crowding. With Metro and Mono rail comming starting net year to next decade it will have a good network but will take time.
Bus system is extensive and good.


----------



## Rayancito

Regarding Madrid i believe everyone has neglected that besides having a world class mass transport system it also has the largest network of road tunnels in Europe and one of the world largest, and compared to the size of the city undoutlessly the world largest network of road tunnels. In you ever use them be careful not to miss your exit lane.....


----------



## Surel

Blackraven said:


> Prague may have one of the best transport systems in Central Europe (and that is true).
> 
> But to say that it's the world best seems to be a stretch. Far from it tbh


That depends on what we compare. In the terms of the efficiency I think that Prague public transport is comparable with e.g. Tokyo. If we talk about the overall size, than of course not. Looking at Wikipedia:


*Prague population size:*

the city: 1,2 mln
larger urban zone: 2 mln

*PT ridership Prague:*

1,3 bln ppl/year

*Tokyo population size:*

the city: 13,1 mln
larger urban area: 35,6 mln

*PT ridership Tokyo:*

13,5 bln ppl/year


I guess it would also be very interesting to compare also the total costs and kms.

If we look just at the subway: The Tokyo metro (I dunno if this is just the biggest company or the whole metro) has 2.3 bln yearly ridership while Prague's metro has 0.5 bln yearly ridership while being 10 times smaller city.


----------



## Texas RE

This is a tough poll. I voted for Tokyo, but there are many excellent mass transit systems in the world, certainly NYC, London, Chicago just to name a few.


----------



## Airman Kris™

Even as excellent as the D.C. transportation system is, I thought of the size of the metro and that came into factor so I had to pick NYC.


----------

