Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Light rail can be effective. Cleveland's Green and blue lines mostly don't interact with traffic at all. The MBTA green line, however, is incredibly slow and just all around terrible. I lived on the B line for 2 years. That was when I bought a bike.
Also, keeping in mind that mixed-traffic trams/streetcars are not necessarily all around bad - many European cities (along with Toronto in North America) operate highly successful mixed-traffic tram systems that traverse densely populated neighborhoods. Yes it's not the fastest mode of public transit, but speed is not the only factor in a successful and well-integrated transit system. Since its inauguration, the mixed traffic trams in Nice and Toronto for example, have reduced overall traffic speeding offences as well as dramatically lower pedestrian injuries due to high-speed auto traffic. They have also boosted walkability scores and pedestrian/bike traffic in the affected neighborhoods and local business revenue. To me, that's a win for thousands of local residents who live along the tram lines.
Once again, I am not defending the operating inefficiencies of Boston Green Line, but rather that mixed traffic trams/streetcars do have a place in our urban fabric.
I had WAAAAAAY more problems with breakdowns (and buses not showing, so I'm thinking about the core system as a whole) in Chicago than I ever did in Boston, and monthly passed were about a third more expensive in Chicago (though MBTA I guess has recently raised its fares, its still less than Chicago). I don't care about 24 hr service since I didn't work 24 hrs... and MBTA also has service to the airport, which happens to be much closer to the core than either of Chicago airports. I would expect Chicago to have more lines and stations as it is a MUCH larger city, so that doesn't add anything. I like Chicago a bit better as a city than Boston, but the public transit has nothing to do with that, it's size and cheapness does.
Chicago’s rail system is far more comprehensive. It may be that your specific Boston commute is better than your Chicago commute was. The L and that he actually cost the same per ride. Chicago is monthly pass is slightly more expensive because it also includes access to over 200 lines of the suburban Pace bus system.
I've read through all 34 pages (so far) of this thread, and something jumped out at me. When the OP asked us to rate which subway systems are the best, neither he nor anyone else asked this question:
What does "best" mean?
There's been lots of talk about riders per mile and about coverage, and I agree that these are important measures. But there's lots of other ways to rank them:
(In no particular order . . .)
- passenger fares
- speed
- overall ridership
- farebox recovery ratio
- personal safety
- architecture/aesthetics
- ease of use
- cultural impact
- station layout
- operating safety
- patron comfort
And on and on and on.
So, I'm going to try and rank them on the basis of "all of the above." I'm also going to toss in a few other systems that the OP didn't mention, but have subway-like characteristics. FWIW, I have ridden on all of the systems listed, including daily commuting on two of them.
1. Washington
Beautiful, monumental design. Good coverage of the urban core. Regional connectivity. Comfortable trains. Serves one of the two main airports and will soon serve the other one. But having a heavy-rail system extend far out into the suburbs has its drawbacks; service must be provided at a frequency necessary for the urban portion, but this means running a much greater frequency than is warranted way out into the suburbs. A rapid-rail system in the city itself, overlaid with a regional-rail system (along the lines of the Paris RER) in the broader metro area, would have been a better arrangement.
2. Chicago
Also good coverage of the core and good connectivity within the city. Serves both airports. The Loop is an iconic transportation landmark, even if it's kind of ugly and noisy as an urban-transit mode.
3. Philadelphia
It's not without its problems (can you say ugly? Smelly?) and its coverage is lacking for a city its size. And that's even if you include the underground portion of the Subway-Surface lines, as I do. But it's pretty simple to use and it does cover the densest parts of the city. The rapid-transit portion doesn't serve the airport. If we were willing to expand our definitions to include other modes that provide rapid-transit-like service, Philadelphia would keep its high ranking if for no other reason than the amazing diversity of modes it has. And with some relatively modest improvements to its extensive Regional Rail network, the combined system has the potential of being much better.
4. Boston
Decent coverage of its city. Yes, I'm counting the subterranean portions of the Green Line. It gets close to serving the airport. Points for having a well-known folk song about it. ("He may ride forever, 'neath the streets of Boston, he's the man, who never returned!")
5. Atlanta
Fairly modern and provides good access to downtown and also the airport.
6. Seattle
Yeah, I know, it's not on the OP's list. But I think that it functions as close to a heavy-rail subway as it's possible to do, without actually being one. It's underground through downtown and is grade separated for much of its remaining distance. It's clean, modern, and pretty easy to use, though the proof-of-payment can be confusing for the uninitiated. And it's being expanded to provide ever-greater coverage of its city. And it serves the airport. If you're going to build a high-capacity transit network without making it heavy-rail, Seattle is the model to follow.
7. Los Angeles
A modern system with comfortable trains and nice-looking stations. Points off for that stupid proof-of-payment system, but I believe they've finally rectified that mistake. Limited coverage, but significant expansion will further enhance its usefulness. The rapid portion of the system doesn't serve any of the region's airports. (I believe that one of the light rail lines serves LAX; I don't actually know if that line is grade-separated or not.)
8. Miami
Another system not on the OP's list, I suppose because it never goes underground. But it's grade-separated heavy rail, so I'm counting it. It provides good access into downtown and also links with the airport, but otherwise its coverage is limited. Distribution within downtown is provided by the automated, grade-separated Metromover that connects with the heavy rail.
9. San Francisco
I'm counting the underground portion of MUNI here, but even with that, it's still much more of a regional-rail system than a true rapid-transit urban network. Coverage within the actual city of San Francisco is limited and is basically restricted to a single corridor. It does connect one of the region's three airports and gets close enough to another one. Same issue as with Washington, regarding the extension of heavy-rail beyond where it was needed.
10. Baltimore
Just one line, but it does provide access into downtown and also to one of the region's largest employers (Johns Hopkins Hospital). Despite serving some very dangerous neighborhoods, it's reasonably safe to ride. (To my knowledge, it has never had a fatality, either due to homicide or accident.) Trains are comfortable and some of the stations have a nice design to them. And the artwork adds a nice touch. I commuted on this system for six years, and I could count on a single hand the number of times that the trains weren't on time.
11. Cleveland
Not sure why the OP is willing to count this one, since it has only one underground station (Tower City). It provides access to downtown and the airport, but that's about it.
12. Buffalo
Another system not listed by the OP, and for good reason. It's a strange beast: it runs on a surface street through downtown, but in a subway tunnel outside of the urban core. Can we say "backwards"? If they had built it in a subway tunnel through downtown, it would function much more like a heavy-rail line, even though it isn't.
Incidentally, if we were including New York (which we're not, per the OP), I'm honestly not sure where I'd rank it. In terms of coverage and ridership, it wins hands-down. But it's ugly, noisy, slow (except for the express trains), dirty, and uncomfortable. The stations are poorly laid out, aesthetically displeasing, and uncomfortable. I know that it used to have a major problem with crime and graffiti, though these have been much improved in recent years. But even so, for a system serving what is arguably one of the greatest cities in the world, it's a shameful embarrassment.
8. Miami
Another system not on the OP's list, I suppose because it never goes underground. But it's grade-separated heavy rail, so I'm counting it. It provides good access into downtown and also links with the airport, but otherwise its coverage is limited. Distribution within downtown is provided by the automated, grade-separated Metromover that connects with the heavy rail.
Ugh... I personally think it's trash. Florida as a whole is a disaster when it comes to Public transit.
Ugh... I personally think it's trash. Florida as a whole is a disaster when it comes to Public transit.
I think it’ll take the Brightline and Tri-Rail coming to downtown Miami for people to really move towards improving rapid transit service. It’s pretty backwards service was cut as these are coming downtown though.
Chicago and DC, in some order, are the top 2. It's hard for me to pick one over the other as they're both good for US standards. Chicago has also done a good job in the last few years of making it more reliable. When I had first moved to Chicago, there were slow moving track areas for certain lines with delays. By the time I left, a lot of that went away to the point where it was a pretty damn reliable train system. Anybody who complains about how it was say 10 years ago should ride it daily now. I think it's much improved in that category. As far as DC goes, I like their trains, the stations, and the speed. Both systems have great coverage, relatively. I wish the MTA's reliability on a number of lines (though some lines are pretty good, but some are horrendous) were as good as these .
This seriously has to come down to either Chicago or Washington. Not trying to sound too readily dismissive, but any other answer should instantly be dismissed as incorrect.
This is total number of passengers that use the rail transport system annually.
Non-New York heavy rail systems by annual ridership, 2015:
- Washington D.C.: 261,000,000 annual riders of the WMATA system in 2015
- Chicago: 238,100,000 annual riders of the CTA system in 2015
- Boston: 174,800,000 annual riders of the MBTA system in 2015
- San Francisco Bay Area: 126,000,000 annual riders of the BART system in 2015
- Philadelphia: 96,500,000 annual riders of the SEPTA system in 2015
- Atlanta: 71,500,000 annual riders of the MARTA system in 2015
- Los Angeles: 48,700,000 annual riders of the LACMTA system in 2015
- Miami: 21,700,000 annual riders of the Metrorail system in 2015
- Baltimore: 14,600,000 annual riders of the Baltimore Subway System in 2015
- San Juan: 10,100,000 annual riders of the Tren Urbano system in 2015
- Cleveland: 6,200,000 annual riders of the RTA system in 2015
I'm sure if you start expanding your wish-list of factors like number of stations, operating hours, time schedules, track length, fares and fees, customer service, and the like that it still just stays between Chicago and Washington on an overall basis. So yeah, while not trying to be dismissive of the rest, I'm going to say it comes down to either one of Chicago or Washington -- take a pick of one of them. They make the most compelling argument and seemingly have the most complete systems in place at the current moment.
For how sprawly Atlanta is, the annual ridership is not all that bad. Definitely think getting either Heavy rail extensions or even a new line would be worth it in the end.
Montreal: 357,000,000 riders in 2013. Should be near 400,000,000 now.
Toronto: 324,000,000
Toronto, with its pathetic 2.5 lines in the entire city the size of Chicago? The high ridership is not going to save it because the vast majority of ridership need to take a slow bus to get to a subway station.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
