Which City Has The Best Subway System

OP set the bar very low.

Moscow, St. Petersburg, Naples, Lisbon, Madrid, Shanghai, Hong Kong

20 years ago I would have added Paris but it's délabré

London bugs me because the stations are so far apart

OP, your poll makes absolutely no sense. Even New York's subway does not give good enough coverage of that city. Including San Francisco -- whose BART only has like six or seven total stations inside of the city limits -- is particularly funny. DC's system is designed to work in conjunction with that city's bus lines.

Agree with R2's list, although Lisbon is geographically only about twice the size of Manhattan, so it's not hard for that city's subway system to be adequate.

New York is a disaster, how is it winning?!

Because it is still America's premiere subway system r4. There is a reason people started talking about other countries instead.

Dataloungers are always cruising the New York subway for sex.

London is very good. Montreal's great but small. Good enough for a relatively small city. The stations are attractive.

I think the more appropriate question would be: Which American city has the best overall transit system. Parameters would include ridership, funding and on-time performance, among other things.

I know which isn't the best, by far: NJ Transit. A massive, unresponsive bureaucracy that doesn't care if trains/buses run on time or not, or whether they run at all, as long as they get paid and their hospitalization and pensions are funded. A huge fuck you to riders and tax payers courtesy of management and employees.

R4, what do you expect from people who vote for the politicians they do?

[quote]Even New York's subway does not give good enough coverage of that city.

77% of NYC's population lives within a short walk of a rapid transit station.

The next closest in America is Boston at 63%, and Boston is a much much smaller city limits than New York.

Commuting patterns. Given the relatively low density of Washington, it has high public transit

Who voted for Boston???! The T is the literal worst, especially the Green line.

Well once I get to the metro station my ride is about a 5 minute one to work. Walking to the metro is at the most 12-15 minutes. Taking a bus is about 2 minutes to metro station but I hate to wait for the bus. I love my DC metro. Its very clean.

Confession: I take lots of taxis anyway. Easier to hold up your arm and hail a taxi. Yes I am spoiled and lazy.

DC Metro is cleaner and safer that NYC by far

Delhi is amazing! I was there recently. Above ground it's so chaotic, but the subway is amazing for a developing country!

NYC - no question. But if you include DC Metro or BART, you need to compare it to NY OVERALL transit - including Metro North, LIRR and NJ Transit. The combination kicks ass compared to anywhere in US. The Philly combo is pretty good too. DC tries to merge subway and suburban rail lines into one - I feel like I have to walk forever in DC.

Moscow has by far the most beautiful subway stations.

Ulan Bator, Mongolia

Tie:

Paris

London

[quote]DC Metro is cleaner and safer that NYC by far

And it also closes at 11:30 most nights of the week....

OP? Dear? Have you *ever* traveled outside the US? Most international metro systems make those in the US look like a sick joke in comparison - as is similarly the case with US airports.

New York's is the best of this ghastly bunch, but even London's perennially troubled Underground is vastly superior to it. Some queens here appear to be under the delusion that DC's Metro -- which has nearly as many mechanical problems as New York's, despite being nearly a century newer -- does *not*, in fact, suck. I can assure you that's not the case. Like the others (besides NYC), the DC Metro has borderline-shocking coverage gaps and lacks even a single stop in areas of the city such as Georgetown. (OTOH San Francisco is easily the worst in that regard, with only a single underground line that runs up Market St. but literally nowhere else.)

If you want to see some *real* subway systems in action, try Asia: Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong and Singapore have effectively flawless ones. As noted upthread, Moscow has many stunningly beautiful ones, but in this case beauty doesn't translate into efficiency; it, too, has massive lacks in coverage outside of its city centre.

[quote] OP? Dear? Have you *ever* traveled outside the US? Most international metro systems make those in the US look like a sick joke in comparison - as is similarly the case with US airports.

Oh, Mary: you're just SO cosmopolitan.

Why is NYC on this list? Everyone knows it’s got a crumbling transport system.

It's the obvious response to this type of question r22, America does not excel at public transportation. If you owned a passport would think that as well.

DC metro, I like. SF really has no subway in the city. The subway takes you out of SF.

I visited London for the first time recently and found the Tube far better than any system I've taken in the states. I was there for 2 weeks and never once got on the wrong train.

BART is basically commuter rail and therefore isn't very helpful for traveling within SF or even Oakland. They're just now extending it to San Jose. This being the US everything serves commuters and their cars (hence all the parking garages).

DC can take you many places in the DMV (Georgetown is a big exception as noted) but the headways especially after peak hours are terrible and it seems like 65% of the escalators are always out of order. And whoever thought carpeted trains was the way to go was out of their mind!

LOL that LA isn't even an option. What the fuck were they doing not building anything until the late '80s? (They had streetcars until the '50s).

BART is meant to be commuter rail, MUNI is system for intracity travel in SF.

R2 I agree. Madrid subway was very good when I visited the city 10 years ago.

DC are u fucking kidding me? Sorry US subways are 3rd world

Everything is better in NYC, so it's obviously the correct answer to the poll.

Does the London system still stop at midnight?

Bangkok for its mix of subway and monorail lines. Flawlessly clean and AIR CONDITIONED

R32 Some now run 24 hrs.

If you combine LA's subway and the light rail, it covers a large portion of the populated areas of LA County. (And if you add in some of the dedicated bus lines, it's even better.) And Metrolink (commuter rail) can take you even further. I went from the San Gabriel Valley to San Juan Capistrano completely on trains a couple of weeks ago.

They're currently extending the Purple Line subway out towards Westwood, so it will cover a lot of territory around Wilshire west of where it currently ends. And the Gold Line is being extended all the way to the San Bernardino County border. But there are lots of flaws-- like the fact that you can't get directly to LAX.

LA is not on the East Coast; it doesn't matter.

r36 But San Francisco is? Who knew?

If you look at the cities where people don't own cars, it comes out like you expect.

NY is number one by a country mile.

Then rounding out the top five is DC, Boston, Philly and then San Franciso.

Hong Kong

R38 - that’s a pretty good metric. Pretty good correlation to decent transit systems.

The OP framing of “subway” is a little too specific. What matters is the overall public transport - suburban commuting lines, subway, trolleys. NYC, Philly, DC, Boston, SF is the order I would give. Chicago is weird - seems like El doesn’t reach into a lot of neighborhoods. (Assume Boston is higher becaue it’s such a small city that people can walk without relying on transport).

[quote] DC Metro has borderline-shocking coverage gaps and lacks even a single stop in areas of the city such as Georgetown

That was deliberately done. Georgetown fought very hard to keep a stop from being built in its neighborhood. Personally as I live in Georgetown I think it was a wise decision. I was smart enough to live close enough to Dupont that I am fine with no stop in the heart of Georgetown.

In reality Foggy Bottom works fine as a stop close enough to Georgetown. This isn't NYC and it never will be.

I agree about Bangkok. I was very surprised at the excellent subway when I visited there. Berlin sucks - nothing but steps. Paris not far behind. Buenos Aires's subway is old and antiquated.

Dubai's system is pretty good. Low fares and clean.

[quote]Georgetown fought very hard to keep a stop from being built in its neighborhood. Personally as I live in Georgetown I think it was a wise decision

It was a not a wise decision, the freakin NIMBYs who fight against public transportation are the bane of cities being as good as they could be.

R12, I did but I haven't used public transit in all of those cities - just 4 of them - and limited. It's a weird poll. How would everyone have used the subway in all of the cities above, frequently enough to judge? I was on the red line, which took me everywhere & was under a 10 min walk from everything - or just connected to green and then went everywhere else. And the stations where underground, unlike Chicago - so you didn't freeze to death waiting. I know some are outside (and Chicago has some underground) but I mean the majority.

I never knew what r10 said, but it makes sense now.

The question's wrong.

Georgetown being left out of the DC Metro circuit is a *huge* lapse in the system. It doesn't make sense that there is no stop in Georgetown. IIRC, Adams Morgan is also not convenient to any of the Metro stops.

What’s a subway? I’m an Uber gal myself. I love burning up fuel.

"Georgetown residents prevented the Metro from putting a stop there" is a myth, just like "no DC buildings can be taller than the Washington Monument" and "you can't own land in DC." The reality is that Metro planners never thought about putting one there; the system was designed for commuters from the DC suburbs (as many posters have pointed out), and the geography of the area -- particularly its proximity to the Potomac -- would have made a station prohibitively expensive.

My goodness, the dreary lives of the hoi-polloi.

I lived in Philly for years before moving to LA. Philly is amish country subway wise (they only stopped using tokens what, last year?)

R48 is a triggered republican, posting from his big ugly dualie pickup truck. He's inhaled a few too many gasoline fumes in his day.

Most New Yorkers can't afford to own a car, the same probably goes for most city-dwellers in this country. So that metric is invalid. R38

We can afford cars--it's the parking costs that kill

So, subways are only for poor people.

Of course, subways are for......................

It's not even just parking costs, it is parking period.

What are you going to do with a car in Manhattan? You aren't going to be able to park it anywhere, it is only useful for taking you out of the city. That's what people would use a car for. It's a detriment to get around the city.

R53 sounds like he doesn't understand cities at all.

And Barcelona has to be the very worst. On my first trip there I rode it twice and got knocked down by pickpockets both times.

Half the time in LA, it's more convenient to Uber than to deal with parking