Best U.S. Subway system that's NOT in New York (live, crime)

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by thedirtypirate

I am sure this has been mentioned before in the thread but DC, SF, and ATL have the benefit of their systems being mostly built in the 70s. Had it not been for NIMBYs, BART/MARTA probably would have looked more like DC's metro than what is currently built. This is a pretty interesting article/interview touching on the subject:
DC: Lessons from Washington Metro, America's Last Great Subway System

I know the author of that article, who has made transportation his field of interest for several publications. He lives here in Philadelphia.

There's a book about the planning and building of the Metro called The Great Society Subway that I recommend anyone interested on how both the Metro and WMATA as we now know it came to be read.

[SonySegaTendo617]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

I know the author of that article, who has made transportation his field of interest for several publications. He lives here in Philadelphia.

There's a book about the planning and building of the Metro called The Great Society Subway that I recommend anyone interested on how both the Metro and WMATA as we now know it came to be read.

At least BART extended a bunch of their lines out, even if it took years for those extensions to become a reality. I.e. to Millbrae eventually(the same line that also now goes to SFO airport), and there was some south extension past Fremont that recently opened a few years ago. Sorry I can't remember the color of the BART lines that go to Millbrae, and same for the recent extension south of Fremont.

OTOH, I think MARTA's subway lines have suffered the most from NIMBY opposition, that sadly prevented that system from being expanded further. The fact that a northwest line was never built, and that the northeast line was never extended beyond Doraville. The last time any new stations or miles of track were built, was when the extension on the north line from Dunwoody to North Springs was finished and opened. A la BART, I can't remember the designated colors for each MARTA rail line well. I think Gold Line is the northeast to south line, and that Red Line is the line to North Springs?

And one last note: the south line(combined Red and Gold Line to the airport) was originally supposed to run further south to Hapeville, but sadly this line was never built that far south. Now that Clayton County has joined MARTA(and before the 2010s I think, they weren't a MARTA county), I wonder if there's a limited chance some sort of rail extension south of Hartsfield Airport one day occurs?

[TheProf]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Atlanta 5.

Boston 3.

Baltimore 8/9.

Chicago 1.

Cleveland 8/9.

Philadelphia 4.

Washington DC 2.

SF 6.

LA 7.

This is mostly parallel to my ranking, but... I would put SF ahead of Boston and, probably, LA, too -- esp after the Regional Connector and Purple Line extension are complete. The Boston T obviously is a great historic rail transit network, the first great one for a medium-sized city. But in many ways, the T has become old and stagnant, and some of the stations aren't very clean. Then there are annoying quirks such as Green Line slowness (from a crawl to several dead stops) along the Boylston trunk line and the fact that the Red and Blue Lines don't directly connect.

As for SF? Whatever negative one may say about BART, it a substantial regional rapid transit (commuter rail coverage with or near rapid-transit frequency. Muni Metro is tantamount to a larger version of the T Green Line, and Muni works in tandem with BART to cover much of SF proper, which is even smaller than Boston area-wise. And addition the Caltrain commuter rail line down the Peninsula is in the process of electrification into central SF.

[jpdivola]

The real answer is none of them are great. The US sucks at urban transit because we suck at urbanism. Our cities aren't really dense enough to support true transit systems like we see in Europe and Asia.

Historically I would have said DC was the 2nd best in the country. But it's really a commuter rail line designed to get suburban office workers to and from the downtown. It's use as an urban transit system are kind of an afterthought. It misses many key DC areas and it's headways are too long to be usable. Plus, the city isn't really optimal for day to day urban Transit. It lacks a mixed use downtown core and it doesn't really hold it's density realtive to Chi, Philly, SF, etc.

Chicago is probably the 2nd best system at this point. Its also not great for getting around the city. But serves a massive urban city and the system does a good job of getting people to the mixed use downtown core.

[Charlotte485]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

The real answer is none of them are great. The US sucks at urban transit because we suck at urbanism. Our cities aren't really dense enough to support true transit systems like we see in Europe and Asia.

Historically I would have said DC was the 2nd best in the country. But it's really a commuter rail line designed to get suburban office workers to and from the downtown. It's use as an urban transit system are kind of an afterthought. It misses many key DC areas and it's headways are too long to be usable. Plus, the city isn't really optimal for day to day urban Transit. It lacks a mixed use downtown core and it doesn't really hold it's density realtive to Chi, Philly, SF, etc.

Chicago is probably the 2nd best system at this point. Its also not great for getting around the city. But serves a massive urban city and the system does a good job of getting people to the mixed use downtown core.

I disagree. Metro covers a lot of urban DC & urban suburbs and with multiple connections that doesn’t force one to go downtown for a connection then to where you need.

Fort Totten, Rosslyn, L’Enfant, Metro Center & Gallery Place do a good job in allowing one to move around most urban centers. And the connections to further out exurbs such as Tyson’s still provides urbanites options to go there (as opposed to it just being park & rides where one in the city wouldn’t want to go.)

I think DC metro does pretty good even on a global standard. Definitely among the most extensive in the world but it’s pretty good. The Purple Line & the streetcar extension to Benning Road metro is gonna even improve suburb too suburb mobility

I think BART is an example of catering to commuters too much.

[personone]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

The real answer is none of them are great. The US sucks at urban transit because we suck at urbanism. Our cities aren't really dense enough to support true transit systems like we see in Europe and Asia.

Historically I would have said DC was the 2nd best in the country. But it's really a commuter rail line designed to get suburban office workers to and from the downtown. It's use as an urban transit system are kind of an afterthought. It misses many key DC areas and it's headways are too long to be usable. Plus, the city isn't really optimal for day to day urban Transit. It lacks a mixed use downtown core and it doesn't really hold it's density realtive to Chi, Philly, SF, etc.

Chicago is probably the 2nd best system at this point. Its also not great for getting around the city. But serves a massive urban city and the system does a good job of getting people to the mixed use downtown core.

You are correct that in comparison to Europe and Asia, the US systems are not great. I feel like Chicago’s CTA is pretty good in the downtown core. The one weak spot is if you are east. All the CTA lines start farther in-land, so it’s inconvenient. Especially given that there is tons of development and even downtown residential and nightlife districts like Streeterville and River North. The bus system downtown is reliable with a nice app with pretty accurate timing, so if you live far east, you can take a bus to the CTA and transfer. The Metra a,so provides good coverage throughout the suburbs, although those are like regional lines.

[bearsmiths]

1. New York
2. San Francisco
3. Atlanta
4.DC
5.Chicago
6.Philly
7.Boston
8.Miami

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by bearsmiths

1. New York
2. San Francisco
3. Atlanta
4.DC
5.Chicago
6.Philly
7.Boston
8.Miami

The Boston MBTA does 1.5x more riders than the Philly combo of SEPTA subway and PATCO which is only underground in Philly and is light rail in NJ. By ridership, the MBTA is #4. Atlanta is a distant #6. Philly has a few percent more commuter rail riders than Boston.

Personally, I like DC the best because it’s a white collar people mover. Once you can get to IAD, it becomes a really nice system.

[the resident09]

Originally Posted by Charlotte485

I disagree. Metro covers a lot of urban DC & urban suburbs and with multiple connections that doesn’t force one to go downtown for a connection then to where you need.

Fort Totten, Rosslyn, L’Enfant, Metro Center & Gallery Place do a good job in allowing one to move around most urban centers. And the connections to further out exurbs such as Tyson’s still provides urbanites options to go there (as opposed to it just being park & rides where one in the city wouldn’t want to go.)

I think DC metro does pretty good even on a global standard. Definitely among the most extensive in the world but it’s pretty good. The Purple Line & the streetcar extension to Benning Road metro is gonna even improve suburb too suburb mobility

I think BART is an example of catering to commuters too much.

Bingo. What separates DC from the others honestly, and from some others across North Amerca is exactly what you said. It's the most TOD nodal metro area being compared, and the Metro really supports those business and mixed use nodes outside of Downtown greater than almost any other US examples. It really doesn't have a lot of equals. The main other contender I can think of here is LA with their already mega population, and new stations popping up. DC probably has the most suburb to suburb commuters already, of the cities being compared here, and this is even before the Purple Line finishes.

There may be some poor mans versions, but no city being compared here has a secondary city like Arlington with the same level of mixed use development, frequencies of transit, and volume of transit connections to it's city core (not even Cambridge). The only real comparison I can think of is Jersey City or NY's suburbs. And that's just Arlington, then there's all the other couple dozen major mixed use TOD nodes surrounding DC. It's a reason why the system is 2nd busiest to New York City in the US with less population density than SF, Boston, and Philadelphia downtown. The Metro system will be at 98 stations by the end of summer, and the vast majority of new development going on in the region is taking place above those stations. Then the PL adds another 17 stations in 2026, and that line doesn't even enter DC.

There certainly have been, and will remain hiccups along the way, or bumps in the road regarding the systems safety issues and maintenance, but when the dust settles and all the current additions are completed. Metro will probably run a unanimous #2 to NYC Subway if this poll is ran in another 8-10 years.

[personone]

Originally Posted by bearsmiths

1. New York
2. San Francisco
3. Atlanta
4.DC
5.Chicago
6.Philly
7.Boston
8.Miami

New York is obviously #1. In terms of core city and neighborhood reach- Chicago, Philly, and Boston all have pretty good and extensive systems. Not surprising since these are legacy cities, along with NYC.