Criteria for voting consists on:
-Cost
-Efficency
-Easy to use?
-Clean/Modern?
-Size of system
-Ridership
-Speed, is it easy to get from place to place?
What baffles me is that people only think about transportation in terms of public transport & mass transit, while that's not even the most used mode of transportation in nearly all urban areas.
The city of Paris is smaller and has a network density a bit better (around 3 stations/km²). Nevertheless, I think the Madrid metro is indeed the best in Europe for its modernism and for the quality of service.
I think Madrid's system is best. HK has the cleanest system I have ever been to but its coverage is rather limited mainly for geographical reasons. You almost always have to combine the MTR with a taxi ride if you live uphill.
i think quality here means how efficient it is..its not realy only about the population.
maybe also land area?
but ya right madrid has a nice system 4 that pop..
tokyo..ya they hav also got terrible road network..not only trains.but a bit weak with buses tho.and now why is tokyo with osaka?they are far each other and has their own metro areas.
anyway,population of cities would be mentiond here are..
madrid=3,5mil
new york=8,5mil
tokyo=8,5mil(osaka2,5mil)
paris=2mil
london=i dont know how to consider population of city itself
but it also depends how many people inflows from outside city at day time tho.
does anyone know estimated ratio or percentage of pop during daytime compared night time in each cities?
i know only tokyo=135%(osaka=140%)
i think its also quite important to consider this which shows how many people comuting everyday by using either of transport in city.
Do you have any references for your assertion that ridership is much higher on weekends? Looking at timetables for NYC's subway they run a lot fewer trains on weekends so I doubt ridership would be higher. Furthermore, every single other city in the world generally has highest ridership during the week, so I wonder why NYC would be different?
NYC would definitely be best in the USA, with the subway running 24/7 and the 4-tracking which allows locals and express services being particularly awesome. However, generally I'm afraid that NYC just doesn't really measure up to somewhere like Tokyo for example. Coverage in some areas is so-so, integration between the different commuter trains isn't great, and ideally the PATH should be part of the main NYC subway (though it does have integrated ticketing which is good). Furthermore, generally maintenance is below what is required according to many people.
Once the East Side Access project and the 2nd Avenue subway are complete I do think NYC will be right up there though.
Besides what you think about the subway the this about transportation system veiw the transportation in nyc link. Also what do you mean by commuter trains it isnt integrated because commuter trains in NYC go from the main part of the city to the outter regions in its metro area. Look at a map of each of these NYC train sytems : NYC subway, Metro North, LIRR, NJ Transit, Path and Hudson-Bergen Light rail.
What I mean is compare the commuter rail systems of NYC with something like the Paris RER. With the RER you have express trains that can take you from one city to the other side, without having to change trains.
If you wanted to get from somewhere out on Long Island up to somewhere north you'd have to take the LIRR to Penn Station, subway to Grand Central Station (is that even possible?) then a metro-north up to wherever you're headed. The RER would just zip you across the city. Same with the PATH being separate to the NYC subway. It makes it damn hard to catch one subway train from Newark out to Queens, or up to the Bronx.
As I said, I'm not saying NYC isn't bad. It's just not really in the same league as a Tokyo, Madrid or Paris - at least not in my opinion.
Wait but people who take the commuter rail in NY rarely go to other places. Like from long island, the commuter rails go to the suburbs outside the city in up to more than 3 hours outside of it and, people are more likely to go to the city and local areas to do what they have to. They are usually not going to go somewhere else except for visiting a relative or going to an attraction Does the RER go outside the city, because if it doesnt you cant compare a commuter rail with an innercity train it has to go against NYC Subway. According to this website NY commuter rails are not applicable so it puts NYC subway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rapid_transit_systems
According to this map it has trains that goest to the bronx down to queens and brooklyn. And It has a lot more transfer stations. And who cares if you have to get another train the trains come every 2-10 minutes and NYC is more walkable than Paris or Madrid, Im not sure about tokyo. And Newark is in New Jersey and even though the Path has some things fro the MTA its not apart of the subway so it doesnt matter. And its not along walk to a train that goes to queens. Also the Newark is not even apart of NYC it just apart of its Metropolitan area (all commuter rails go outside the city and into our metropolitan area. Yes i live in NYC and ive been to other places in my country and i dont have to go to other places to get info, i can get info straight from THE INTERNET.
Paris is about the most walkable city in the world. I haven't been to Madrid but apparently it is also very good. Check out the other transportation thread with more info about the RER but it is generally considered to be more of a commuter rail system than it is a metro system (doesn't meet the rapid transit criteria that the metro does, otherwise a combined RER and metro would be the biggest rapid transit system by miles).
There is fairly limited information about the Transilien network in Paris ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transilien ), but it has six different sectors to it alone. The reason I refer to Newark is that if we're talking about how well a city is served by public transport then we should talk about the practical limits to a city, rather than its administrative limits. Practically, NYC includes huge chunks of New Jersey, just like it does of Long Island and Westchester & Fairfield Counties. In those areas further out, people are dependent upon cars much more than you would be in outer Paris, or outer Tokyo. In my opinion, that means your general transportation is not as good.
before you click the link it only does US cities but the way they determine walkability counts for all cities. walkability http://walkscore.com/walkable-neighborhoods.shtml
the rer does not reach as far as the trains in new york due to the fact NYC is Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay bigger than pairs and its METRO area is waaaaaaaaay bigger. Also our trains are more concentrated on suburban areas in the path of the train and with high amount of population, US is bigger than france so that means any body can live in the middle of nowhere (like low amount of people).
City area/ Land area/ Urban area/ Metro area/ Population: city Urban Metro
NYC 1,214.4 km² 789.4 km² 8,683.2 km² 17,405 km² 8,274,527 18,498,000 18,818,536
Paris 86.9 km² 86.9 km² 2 723 km² 14,518.3 km² 2,167,994 Unknown 12,067,000
NYC metro area contains NY, NJ, PA, and CT, 4 states
Also the forum says TRANSIT SYTEM and ny has gotten you beat with more types of transportation especially our transit is green.
^^ I don't think you're quite formulating your argument properly. You're trying to say that being a bigger city in terms of land area is a good thing, and also trying to say that thereofre because it's a bigger city it MUST have a better transport system.
Having a train system covering four states doesn't make it better or more extensive. In fact, judging from many of the timetables, Metropolitan New York can't compare to a lot of smaller cities European cities let alone the largest of them in terms of transit provision. Sure, New York City itself has pretty good transport and can punch well above its weight, however, Metropolitan New York appears to have much less rail cover than Metropolitan European Cities and Japanese cities for example.
Instead of comparing "BIGGER IS BETTER" - try comparing what is efficient and provides the best level of service, something which you are currently not doing.
Also, what do you mean by "our transit is green" - what are you, four years old? Most other countries use electrified transit too! The Parisian systems are electric. As far as transport modes go - Paris has trams, something that NY lacks so don't start comparing different transit modes too. Something tells me you really need to go away and do some more reading.
I was not saying bigger is better i was saying that since paris is smaller it can easily get to many people but if it were the size and shape of new york it would most likely fail. When i said our transit is green i was not just talking about the trains i was also talking about the busses, taxis, and the boats
Tokyo is probably almost twice the population of NYC.... and I would hazard a guess it has about 5 times the provision of rail that NYC does.
There are a few utterly incredible maps on this forum of Tokyo's train system, it just about gives me a headache to look at them they are so comprehensive and huge. If Paris had a population of 18 million I'm sure its network would be sufficiently bigger to accommodate that. Unlike the USA, Europe hasn't spent the last 50 years having wet dreams about freeway interchanges and its cities are generally comprehensively served by rail.
Its a ball of mess, it s not bigger so unless you have the brain of 5 year old who thinks by looking at a map and population makes it bigger not accordingly. Tokyos population is the same as new york but it metro area has a bigger population which is dangerous because its metro area has the same amount of people as the sate of california. And if there is alot of trains shouldnt that make it less crowded. I dont see tokyo doing anything about congestion. How many times do i have to tell you its not just the trains, its also bus, taxi, boat, etc those are also transit sytems maybe not the taxis or the extra but we can put it in there
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
SkyscraperCity Forum
139.4M posts
1.1M members
Since 2002
A truly global community dedicated to skyscrapers, cities, urban development, and the metropolitan environment. Join us to share news, views and fun about architecture, construction, transport, skylines, and much more!