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.
On the U.S. city forums, there are constant discussions about the public transportation systems of individual cities. People enthusiastically post maps and data on ridership, route and track lengths, hours of operation, peak hours, future expansions, etc.
So, are Europeans not as interested in these things when it comes to their cities?
The Paris transport system is satisfying for tourists, 90% of them using the showcase metro line n°1 that crosses all the Parisian hallmarks in a East-West direction.
But for an actual Parisian who lives in the (close) suburbs like me, the picture is very different, let's say the system is average at best (people on this forum should watch the train carriages at 8:30 in the morning where people are squeezed like lemmings, regularly some people swoon , and pull the emergency brake, trains then stop in the tracks for 15' or 30' or more...and don't get me started on "industrial action"..
How do they decide this when most of those cities have virtually identical transport systems?
I guess peoples experience with the London public transport has been a lot better then that survey shows.. and exactly why I don't take any notice of them.
I'd factor in cost, the amount of coverage, how fast you get you can get to your destination, frequency of trains, quality of the system and stations, safety.
I think London dominates here because many Americans and native English speakers have visited that city but not the others. Compared to US public transportation, aside from large cities in the northeast, London does seem better.
I have used public transportation in a number of big urban areas and I cannot pick one that is better than the others. I would say that London, Paris and New York are pretty evenly matched. All three have very good commuter rail networks which integrate into their subway/tube/metro networks. All three do a pretty efficient job of moving a large number of people from their homes to their workplace. All three also suffer from the same default. They are great at moving people in and out of the city center but not very good at moving people in any other direction.
One advantage the New York has over the others is the maintenance of low cost underground transport. They can do this because car drivers subsidize underground users through the tolls they pay on the Triborough and other bridges and tunnels.
I have used public transport in other conurbations but the above three are the ones I have most experience of.
The Metro system in Moscow is the most efficient I've ever seen... the stations are beautiful and the trains are coming in a distance of 60-90 seconds. Once a train left the station you can often see the lights of the next train, aditionally the transfer system is pretty good, as trains in one direction stop at the same platform and you just need to change trains within seconds.
I also voted for Berlin , London and Madrid, because the public transport over there is very good as well.
London's subway is extremely expensive. And the density and coverage of the outer city can be a bit sparse compared to say, NYC.
That's when the London Oveground and other mainline rail providers services come in to use. Not to mention the buses, which run 24hrs a day on popular routes.
Edit: I'd like to add that i voted for London and Madrid - i think the transport infrastructure in the Spanish capital is fantastic and exceptionally good value for money.
On the U.S. city forums, there are constant discussions about the public transportation systems of individual cities. People enthusiastically post maps and data on ridership, route and track lengths, hours of operation, peak hours, future expansions, etc.
So, are Europeans not as interested in these things when it comes to their cities?
Nope, it's more that Americans are more obsessed with statistics than us. For example, I know there are 50 US states starting from an original 13 and have been 44 US presidents, five boroughs in New York, etc, but like the vast majority of people here I have no idea how many counties there are in England or how many countries in Europe, how many prime ministers or monarchs we've had, how many boroughs there are in London etc and have no particular interest in finding out as it doesn't matter, it's not considered socially necessary to know these things. I've noticed it even watching golf on TV - the American coverage shows all these statistics on who's made what proportion of putts within a certain distance, who's ranked where in driving distance/accuracy, whereas the British coverage doesn't consider that to be of importance. Also, unlike American cities there are no figures kept here on snowfall averages or record high/low temperatures for specific cities on specific dates, when the first/last frost is, etc.
I traveled extensively on Paris Metro and London Tube, the only 2 European cities where I lived, studied and worked for several years. On the whole, I agree that European cities have good public transport systems.
Unfortunately, nowadays when I revisit any European cities, I no longer rely much on public transport.
According to latest EuroTest, cities with best public transportation are: Munich, Helsinki, Vienna, Prague and Hamburg. London appeared on the bottom of the list. EuroTest
I'm not so sure about the "best" part. I used the subway in London and Berlin one particularly hot summer , and all I could think of was the air-conditioned train compartments in Asian cities .
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.