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.
I've seen elsewhere where some people are critical of Tokyo's system. I don't get it. Everyone there uses it, if they aren't on a bike, so the stations are omnipresent, the trains are modern and clean, and punctuality is never a problem.
Tokyo's system isn't modern, though. Everything else you wrote, yeah, but Tokyo's system is the oldest in Asia.
It's also very spartan looking, not at all grand. It's impressive for sheer ridership, but not a very nice-looking system. Even Shinjuku Station, busiest in the world, is completely anonymous-looking and not really worth visiting except to see masses of humanity. Any city in Europe has a nicer central rail station than anything in Tokyo.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,184 posts, read 13,469,799 times
Reputation: 19508
I think most of the cities mentioned have good transport systems, Madrid, Paris, London etc. I also think many European Cities are investing in public transport as a priority and this can been seen in many cities, and is part of the reason some cities have increased fares.
As to which is the best some systems have better metro/subway/underground systems, others have better regional rail services, some cities have good bus and river bus links, whilst others have well planned road systems, cycle ways and routes for pedestrians. Lets not forget pedestrians in this, as being able to get around by foot is equally important.
I suppose each City has it's strengths and weaknesses, and it's difficult to just pick a perfect transport system, as I don't think one exists.
Paris has the densest Metro system on the planet. It would certainly be a contender. I probably pick Paris.
But all these cities, excepting Milan, have large, comprehensive metro systems. NYC has the biggest system, Moscow has the busiest system, London has the oldest system, Madrid has the newest system. I would probably remove Milan from consideration.
London Underground, commonly known as the Tube, with a total route length of 402km is the world's fourth longest subway system.It is also the oldest metro system in the world and has been operational since 1863. It comprises of 11 lines and 270 stations, and is operated by Transport for London (TfL).
The subway system provides inner-city metro services in Greater London and suburban railway services to some parts of Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Essex counties. Surface lines comprise 54% of the system, while the rest 46% runs on sub-surface and deep-level tube lines. The annual ridership of the system was estimated at 1.17 billion in 2012. TfL has been carrying out major improvement programmes on the London Underground since 2007.
The New York subway is currently the world's fifth longest subway system, with a total route length of 368km. The rapid transit system, serving the New York City, commenced operation in 1904. It is owned by the City of New York and operated by the New York City Transit Authority, a subsidiary of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
The subway system is operated with 24 lines and 468 stations, and is currently touted as having more stations than any other metro system. About 60% of the stations in the system are underground. The annual ridership of the subway in 2012 was 1.665 billion. Times Sq-42, followed by Grand Central-42, was the busiest station of the subway network with an annual ridership of 62 million.
New York has more stations, London has more track.
New York has more stations, London has more track.
NYC has the largest subway system on earth, and has far more stations or track than that of London. They aren't even close.
You are probably referring to route miles. London has slightly more route miles than NYC, but NYC has far more track (because most of the NYC system is four-tracked, and the London system is two-tracked).
But Tokyo has, by far, the largest urban rail system on earth. It's just that its urban rail system is overwhelmingly commuter rail and not subway.
The numbers for the Chinese systems, BTW are not comparable to other cities outside of China. Their systems are hybrid systems, and they count subway, light rail and commuter rail as all "metro". So you can basically ignore the figures for Shanghai and Beijing.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,184 posts, read 13,469,799 times
Reputation: 19508
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
NYC has the largest subway system on earth, and has far more stations or track than that of London. They aren't even close.
You are probably referring to route miles. London has slightly more route miles than NYC, but NYC has far more track (because most of the NYC system is four-tracked, and the London system is two-tracked).
But Tokyo has, by far, the largest urban rail system on earth. It's just that its urban rail system is overwhelmingly commuter rail and not subway.
The numbers for the Chinese systems, BTW are not comparable to other cities outside of China. Their systems are hybrid systems, and they count subway, light rail and commuter rail as all "metro". So you can basically ignore the figures for Shanghai and Beijing.
To be honest, other than for very short journeys I would much rather take a proper train than a subway/underground, as they are faster and more comfortable. For Journeys out of the Centre of London to the East, South, North or to the West and Heathrow taking a proper train is often a much quicker and more comfortable option than any subway/underground system whether it be the Tube, NY Subway or any other such system.
The Tube is okay, as is the NYC Subway, and they are investing heavily in London Underground lines, stations and stock and I believe the same is true in relation to some major projects and refurbishment of the NY System.
However I don't see why everything has to be about Subways/Undergrounds, the new London Overground and Thameslink are a much nicer experience, and there are currently 366 Rail Stations in the London area on top of the many Station which only serve the London Underground (Tube). I also look forward to the fast and frequent service which will be provided by Crossrail 1 and Crossrail 2 with proper trains running through underground tunnels at much higher speeds than any subway/underground system.
Just for the record how many train stations, does NYC have, not including Stations that only serve the Subway system????
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.
