Favorite Public Transportation System

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: GMT mine is my car cuz i'm like driving around people all day long... or at least everytime I'm in... hehe

are planes considered public transport? then my fav pt are planes. because of the food. and the feeling.

wonderfullquote>

 

I would say planes are public transport and I would also vote for planes, I adore air travel, that feeling as you take off is always a great one, and the best, has to be British Airways, I rarely fly any other airline.

[Sketchley 0]

villagemayor - you reminded me: I occasionaly smack my head on something inside of public transit here in Japan (luckily, most of the time it's the hand strap on the train, no harm done.) But the spaces between the seats on the buses?!!!? Definitely not designed for people with long legs (sore knees, sore knees!)

Ah well, the ones that I ride are all private companies, whom not only provide public transportation, but make a profit by providing cheap, fast, and convenient transportation. Bruised knees and bumps on the head are an acceptable trade off compared to the government operated expensive, slow and inconvenient public transportation found in Victoria and Vancouver! (anyone besides me remember the 4 month transit strike in Vancouver? Horrors!)

[Mayor_1337 0]

Yeah, public transportation in North America sucks quite frankly. Vancouver only has, what, two (three if you include Canada Line) rapid transit lines for a city of 2 mil +? Japanese cities of that size have complex subway system already. Victoria, don't get me started. Nothing other than sporadic bus service, though we might start commuter rail this fall. The problem is that cars are so common and easy to get, which would drive subsidies through the roof if we had something like in Japan. But privatizing translink will make things worse. Just look at the horrors in England when Thatcher privatized all bus services. It works over there in Japan because no one can afford to drive to work.

As for the question, it's hard to say really.

Tokyo's rail system keeps the city afloat and is fast, but is horrendously crowded and the fare structure is so complicated.

Hong Kong is also efficient and fast, but buses are confusing.

Singapore's MRT is clean and fast, but somewhat limited in scope.

Paris has a single fare structure (convenient) and the RER is fast. The metro is also reliable. Though the French like striking, and metro stations are piss puddles. The banlieus are terribly isolated, and this resulted in the riots.

London is so-so, since you could go anywhere without a car, but the tube is dirty and crowded. Other public transit is really expensive.

New York, it's quite similar to London, and the subway is fast and 24/7. The suburbs are too car-dependent, though.

I guess each system has advantages and drawbacks, but I would answer Tokyo, because they need to have a top-notch system.

[montrouge 2]

Originally posted by: Mayor_1337 .

Paris has a single fare structure (convenient) and the RER is fast. The metro is also reliable. Though the French like striking, and metro stations are piss puddles. The banlieus are terribly isolated, and this resulted in the riots.

.quote>

 

Wrong.

Some suburbs are isolated but not all

Don't forget that 10 million people live in suburbs (In fact the riot was in a small part of Paris suburbs)

the subway goes also in inner suburbs.

Paris suburban rail

It is the busiest in Europe

[Sketchley 0]

Falicy control:

Vancouver has 3 (not including the Canada line.)  Expo Line, Millenium Line, and the West Coast Express (though having it limited to morning and evening commutes is baffling).

Not every Japanese city has a subway line.  Many of them have tram lines though.

People in Japan can afford to drive to work.  Public Transit is simply cheaper, and faster (not to mention that a good proportion of workers tend to go to the Izakaya after work, making them unable to drive effectively.)  It should be noted that in a culture where there is a word for working oneself to death, public transit allows one to get the extra few minutes or hours of sleep needed per day.

Tokyo (and other cities in Japan) have multiple rail operators.  Yes, it can get crowded at times, but hey, so too does the Vancouver Skytrain in a city less than 1/6th the size.  There are also numerous operators: Tokyo Metro (Subway,) Toei Subway, JR West, Tokyu Railways, Tobu Railways, Seibu Railways, Keio Railways, Odakyu Railways, Keisei Railways, Keikyu Railways, and Tsukuba Express.  All of them should be considered as private operators, and due to their competion, fares are extremely cheap.

It is possible to purchase passes or tickets that allow one to conveniently transfer between different operators in the metropolitan area, with little to no added expense.  As I am not a resident of Tokyo, I can't recommend any.  However, if you ever travel to the Kansai area, I recommend http://www.surutto.com/index.cgi  It allows travel on all private and public operaters in the Kansai area, except for JR East (but who wants to take them when in the Kansai area?)

[crazyyaya 4]

i agree that most of north america is not intergrated into public transit. How ever New york is a world leader when it comes to public transit, New york has 66% of all rail riders in the U.S., 90% of most North Americans use cars to commute, however, 75% of people in Manhattan don't even own a car. New York has the longest rail system in a city in the world, and the largest bus fleet in north america

[josefmayor 8]

Tampa has the best mass transit in the world.

OH WAIT, we don't have one.

We have a pretty bad ass trolly though... I use it to get places downtown.

[crazyyaya 4]

are u kidding New york mass transit system is the best in North America, maybe even the world

[crazyyaya 4]

trolleys in really life are outdated, slow, ineffiecent, and land consuming

[ledge69 0]

New York has the big plus of being 24 hour, so its deffinatly in the top 3.

[Sketchley 0]

There is an error in my post above.

Population of Tokyo city: approx. 12 million people

Population of the greater Tokyo area: approx. 35 million people

Population of Vancouver city: approx. 600,000 people

Population of Greater Vancouver area: approx. 2 million people

Therefore, Vancouver, a city 1/20 (or 1/17.5, depending which population and area you look at), has an elevated rail line that is as congested as some are in Tokyo. By congested, I mean commuters not able to board a train at a station. Of course it's skewed, as there are a lot of people on the Skytrain with large baggage, using up much more space than they need to, and Vancouverites in-general prefer a large amount of space between them and a fellow passenger. So them not getting on may just boil down to people being selfish with personal space, and not willing to suck up the inconvenience of being close to fellow passengers, so as to get to work on an earlier train.

It's a strange transit riding culture there...

[Duke87 1,070]

Some commentary on New York:

-Someone said that the subway goes everywhere. This isn't true. Most of the eastern extremes of Queens are devoid of subway service, and unless you count the SIRR, there's no subway service to Staten Island at all. And, unless you count PATH, the subway never exceeds the city limits. Nevertheless, the City of New York alone is a large area to cover and the subway does for the most part cover it quite well.  But  there are significant shortcomings, too. North of 59th street,  there's only  one subway line on the east side.  And from 14th street to 42nd street, there's absolutely no subway service east of Park Avenue. The line up park avenue (which north of Grand central goes up Lexington Avenue) is exceedingly crowded during all hours of the day. This line has the 6 train running local and the 4 and 5 trains running express. Some improvment has been made as these trains are now using some of the system's newest cars. Still, the congestion is there. This is why the proposed 2nd avenue subway has been such a hot issue. It's worth noting that while the lexington avenue line is a loner now, it's only been that way since 1956. Prior to that, there was the 3rd avenue el, and prior to 1942, there was a 2nd avenue el as well. These lines weren't torn down due to superfluity caused by competition like many other lines were (all three were IRT services), but simply because els are loud, ugly and obstruct light to the street below, so the newly unified transit agency was working to tear down as many as could be sacrificed. And since these els ran straight through midtown and lower manhattan, they absolutely had to go, as they were considered a blemish on the city. They had planned to replace these services with a 2nd avenue subway from the start, but politics delayed groundbreaking of such a project to 1972. And after only a small amount of construction took place, a financial crisis immediately stopped all further work. The project then stood dead until a few years ago when it was brought back on the table. However, no further actual construction has taken place yet nor can any dates be estimated for such since politics is holding it up again.

In addition, much of the west side isn't served by the subway. South of 59th street, there's no subway west of 8th avenue. Though, the crowding issues on the 8th avenue line (A train express, C and E trains local) and 7th avenue-Broadway line (2 and 3 trains express, 1 train local) isn't as severe as that seen on the east side, and no further west service has ever been proposed.

-Someone else mentioned the suburbs being too car dependent. It's important to remember that the advent of highways and the Interstate system is the big reason suburban sprawl in america is what it is today. They were designed to be car dependent, since the idea was that unlike in the inner city, everyone living there could afford a car. The induced development and resulting congestion is something that the Eisenhower-era planners just never foresaw. That said, most people in the suburbs who work in the city do take the train to work, since it's faster because trains don't get caught in rush hour traffic. Just about all of them still have to use their car to drive to the nearest train station, though. Also, sometimes someone needs to take their car in to work since on that particular day they're carrying with them more baggage then they could reasonably take on the train, or are carrying something particularly valuable or fragile that they don't trust they can safely bring in by way of mass transit. And there's just enough people out there that this adds up to the traffic one typically sees.

[renplastik 0]

The Copenhagen Metroline is by far my favourite .. but also, it's the only metroline i've been on, so i can't really say anything bad about any other metroline (:

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/erikv_pedersen/1027.Kbh.Metro.Strandlodsvej-vendesporet.4.10.2006.k.jpg

http://www.hookd.dk/Interesser/Foto/Byer/Kbh/rundtur%20i%20kbh/metro.jpg

this is my first post ever here , so sorry if it is'nt at all god (:

[JackStraw 19]

Originally posted by: xxbydesign In SEPTA's defense, it gets me where I need to go when I need to go there, so I can't complain about that. However, I can complain that it is a very central-focused plan, i.e. all roads lead to Rome and NOWHERE ELSE. Practially all connections (besides busses) need to be made in Center City, which is a pain.

Duke87:

Meh. SEPTA's subway system is small. Two lines. Pathetic.

New York, on the other hand, has 22 lines, plus 3 shuttles to its subway. So I'm gonna have to go with MTA here.quote>

Comparing NYC transit system to Philly's is unfair, and this is because cities, like people, have grown up in different places under different influences with different goals.

New York is an island... whoever thought cramming 7 million people (exagerated) on an ISLAND was a good idea was on something, probobly marajuana, if you get the reference. The point is, NYC is DENSE, and HUGE and completely out of human scale. It always has been and always will be. Philadelphia, however, my queen on the Delaware, is not on an island; It had a far reaching countryside into which it could spread. Hense, Philadelphia developed at a much lower scale than did NYC, so it was more sprawling than NYC could initally be. This isnt to say there is no density, heavens no, but we still retain the proud distinction of being a "walking city" or "a city of neighborhoods" because our scale is much more human. (sidenote: i am NOT saying NY is inhuman; I love NYC, and there are times when i wish Philly was more like NYC, and then I slap myslef and remind myself where I am)

Because they deveoped differently, thier transit solutions were different. NYC needed the space, so they went underground. Philly, however, had space aplenty, so we used trolleys. Unfortunately, when Ford became a genius and a greedy capitalist all at the same time, he bought out Philadelphia's trolley system and disbanded it, forcing everyone to use cars instead. Hense why we never had a subway network already established like NYC. So while it may look like we don't have much transit, we USED to, and we're slowly bringing it back, recovering the old rails and so forth.

Anyway, thats my rant, I also like Washington DCs metro; its very chic.

Actually, Philly had planned for a subway elevated system that would have been larger than Chicago's.  But their were forces in play in Philadelphia that neither Chicago or NYC had to deal with.  One of these was the fact that Philly for a good part of the early 20th century only had a B and B+ bond rating due to the fact she was paying interest on $40,000,000 worth of bonds for City Hall.  Remember this at the turn of the century,  The IRT subway didnt even cost 40 million.  Another reason is (I dont want to turn this into a political discussion) is that up until 1952 Philly was a staunch republican city.  The stingy blue bloods in power were not so quick to spend the cities money on much needed city projects, plus during the depression when democratic Chicago and New York were being flooded with public works money for such projects as subways,  Philly got only trickles becuase the power brookers there were quick to criticize Roosevelts new deal .  

Philadelphia's planned subway system was quite impressive.  Here is a map of that I made some time ago.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/3985/firstdraftcutuped6.png

quote>

[Mike the Mayor 51]

I love the underground. I'll use the London Underground as an example as I have travelld on it God knows how many times. I adore using underground and one day I'll use the St. Petersburg underground ' it looks so grand and clean!

[hamsterTK 93]

It may not be the absolute best or biggest, but ive always liked the DC metro. relatively safe and clean, sometimes overcrowded.

Opened in 1976, Its probably the busiest and most extensive of the "new" american rail systems(meaning everything constructed after the freeway boom)

(right click>view image for bigger version)

[ILL Tonkso 1,239]

Im sure Londons is busier. Theres more of it and it covers more of an area.

 Full thing here Ridiculously extensive. The central Termimi added togther works out to be around 200 Platforms. Not to forget the Underground Network is the oldest in the world, London bridge station is the oldest urban terminus in the world (soon to be one of the tallest). there are several new stations under construction at the moment (I.E. Silvertown Quays) Not to mention the most expensive rail project ever undertaken, the 140mph subway system, Crossrail.

[homeandaway 1]

the London underground is very fast, not very cheap and is very clean.

[montrouge 2]

Originally posted by: ILL Tonkso Im sure Londons is busier. Theres more of it and it covers more of an area.

.quote>

 

In fact New York subway (1.5 billion passengers) is busier than London underground ( 1 billion passengers ) but London railway system (Tube Rail and DLR) is as busy than New York railway system (Subway, Path, suburban rail)

New York railway system : 1.8 billion passengers

London railway system : 1.8 billion passengers

and to praise me because I am French  Paris railway system (Metro RER, suburban train) is busier than  New York railway system   

Paris railway system : 2.5 billion passengers  

RER is very busy that why english was inspired by the RER A for build Crossrail.

But the busiest and the most extensive railway system in the world is without doubt Tokyo

In august 2007 it will become my favorite.

[screamingman12 30]

I would actually like to nominate a has-been for this, if it's allowed: Pacific Electric: Operated: 1901-1961 # of trains daily: 2,700 # of passengers ~100,000 daily RIdership per year: 36.5 Million Miles of track: 1,000 Hedquarters: Los Angeles Westernmost Terminal: Redlands, CA System map: http://www.erha.org/pesystem.htm

[ILL Tonkso 1,239]

Originally posted by: montrouge

Originally posted by: ILL Tonkso Im sure Londons is busier. Theres more of it and it covers more of an area.

.quote>

 

In fact New York subway (1.5 billion passengers) is busier than London underground ( 1 billion passengers ) but London railway system (Tube Rail and DLR) is as busy than New York railway system (Subway, Path, suburban rail)

New York railway system : 1.8 billion passengers

London railway system : 1.8 billion passengers

and to praise me because I am French  Paris railway system (Metro RER, suburban train) is busier than  New York railway system   

Paris railway system : 2.5 billion passengers  

RER is very busy that why english was inspired by the RER A for build Crossrail.

But the busiest and the most extensive railway system in the world is without doubt Tokyo

In august 2007 it will become my favorite.

quote>

Actually Crossrail is not inspired by the RER, Crossrail has been planned for about 100 years now. Only now is it being built.

[montrouge 2]

And RER was also planned at the end 19th century just after that London built the first Underground. (It was the first idea of subway for Paris wich link the in underground the commuter lines)

But the rebirth of Crossrail idea is inspired by the RER A (Wich is the busiest urban line in the Europe.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3911207.stm

It is a really good idea for London.

 

 

[villagemayor 0]

Wow how many security cameras do they need in that station?? I guess it does make a lot of sense putting the cameras in, in light of past events, but it boggles my mind that people don't seem to mind being watched.

A bit of commentary on the subway system. How can people know where they are going with hundreds of stations? Do transit planners just build stations where like to? It just seems like the subway maps look like a children scribbling on a piece of paper with different coloured crayons.

[saidmentese 0]

bart or bay area rapid transit

because it is simple and easy, safe, fun, has great veiws from the trains, and its not cheap so bums dont ride it very often.

however i dont like how there are puddles of pee and wet seat( our seats are made of cloth ) and sagged seats. it smells terrible even after its been dried.

disgusting.

[emsgoof 1]

Originally posted by: crazyyaya trolleys in really life are outdated, slow, ineffiecent, and land consumingquote>

Hardly.

The venerable PCC (1930's technology mind you!) was built with an acceleration rate of 0-60 in 13 seconds (specifically, 4.5 mph / sec).  Considering what city traffic normally accelerates at, this is STILL able to keep up with modern traffic, and considerably faster than modern transit buses.  Streetcars are quieter, and don't belch smoke like their rubber-tired counterparts.  Streetcars could still be run in city streets, negating any requirement for a private right of way, but planners won't shut down streets to rebuild the tracks that they removed decades ago to reinstall them, which would negate any "land consuming" claims.  The car house takes up as much room (probably less actually) than a bus lot, since you can build it to specific tolerances and not worry about drivers backing into other buses in the lot while parking / departing.

As to my opinion of best mass transit system, I would also have to go with the DC Metrorail system (the bus system is just like any other bus system, but it duplicates the streetcar system it replaced in 1962 almost exactly).  The management keep the cars clean, bordering on fanatical (they'll pull trains out of service immediately if they find graffiti on them!), and for the most part, there are very few disruptions to the system.  Unfortunately, recent years haven't been kind, with shoddy craftmanship on their new cars, and incompetent management messing the problem up even more.

Unfortunately, the worst is just an hour north of DC.  The Baltimore mass transit system is the model of ineffectiveness.  The subway was built first, back in the '80s, going from a northwest suburb into downtown.  The problem is Baltimore has no real "central district", other than about a 2 block radius around the inner harbor, and the subway doesn't even go there!  The stations are dark and dirty, the trains are ugly, they don't follow any set schedule, and their blocks weren't set up with passenger comfort in mind (example: coming into the Owings Mills station, the block will stop the train on a high speed curve, so the entire train is sitting at an uncomfortable angle, and it'll sit there for several minutes.)  Service delays abound with no explanation given about why you're sitting in a tunnel for 10 minutes not moving.  It starts at a point only used by a small portion of the commuters into Baltimore, and never takes you into the center of the city (it misses it by about 10-15 blocks at least!)

The light rail system had the potential to be great.  But again, it doesn't go where the passengers need to go.  It starts in an expensive suburb north of the city (where people who live already have jobs in their immediate area), and flows through the worst neighborhoods (also not endearing it to the riding public) to either BWI airport (a good attempt at going somewhere useful, but the people going there are already driving, or going to a hotel which the light rail system won't take you to) or a suburb south of the city.  Nowhere does it branch out (except to go across a highway 1 stop to the train station, but you have to transfer to get to that one station!), and again, it shows how inefficient it is.  About the only useful stops are the 2 stadiums, but the only time you see the system busy is when there's a sporting event going on at one of the stadiums.

[c2check 0]

Berlin's is nice...they have a lot of stuff, and it's cheap, fairly clean, and quite efficient. 

9 U-Bahn lines that run through a nice and compact city center...some stations are very nice,..

though others can just be average or not too nice, but still not bad.  

They also have 15 S-Bahn (commuter rail) lines which run further out into the area around the city...it's also good for traveling inside the city, but can take you nice and far away to other towns or even forest-y areas.  

Then they have trams which run pretty extensively through the former east.  

And of course also the normal DeutscheBahn, inter-city rail.  

A lot of their stations are, like I said, pretty nice.  The Hauptbahnhof is not only beautiful, but it's really a happening place with lots of shops and tons of people on many levels, serving the DB and S-Bahn, and soon, the U-bahn too with an extension set to open this year.

Berlin's system is pretty great...most people have no need for a car at all

[beachfrontproperty 0]

Originally posted by: The Terminator Mine is SEPTA in Philadelphia,PA because it is just plain awesome.

Whats yours?quote>

 

Bah i live in south philadelphia right down the street from 1 of the septa bus depo's, its gets you where you gotta go MOST FO THE TIME, live a couple weeks ago there was a 5 bus backup on 19th and porster because 1 broke down... the trains and the best, but if i where to pick a favorit its septas train system.

[Sticksboi05 2]

Originally posted by: ILL Tonkso Im sure Londons is busier. Theres more of it and it covers more of an area.

 Full thing here Ridiculously extensive. The central Termimi added togther works out to be around 200 Platforms. Not to forget the Underground Network is the oldest in the world, London bridge station is the oldest urban terminus in the world (soon to be one of the tallest). there are several new stations under construction at the moment (I.E. Silvertown Quays) Not to mention the most expensive rail project ever undertaken, the 140mph subway system, Crossrail.quote>

If you mean compared to NYC no way.  NYC's subway is WAY busier then London's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_10_rail_systems_in_terms_of_annual_passenger_rides

As for rail network in general, I don't know about that.

[ILL Tonkso 1,239]

Londons Rail Network is the most expansive on earth, even more so than Tokyos. And the overall ridership of Rail Tram and Subway, combined with Bus and Riverbus makes the TFL Network the busiest and largest on earth.

[josefmayor 8]

Originally posted by: crazyyaya trolleys in really life are outdated, slow, ineffiecent, and land consumingquote>

Actually our Trolleys are very efficient, run at 3x the "normal speed" and are not land comsuming here because we already had existing street car lines all it need was to be redone.

Our Trolleys are the only alternative to mass transit we have because people in the Florida government are very opposed to train so its near impossible to get federal money to fund a train line.

However we have a new govoner, maybe we'll get one  now, who's to say...

But to say that trollys are slow and ineffiecent is wrong by Tampa standards.