69 replies to this topic

[maverick]

From the ones I have ridden:

(1) Boston
(2) NYC
(3) DC
(4) Atlanta

The fact is, though, if the state of Georgia actually funded MARTA and developed the many ideas that organizations have had for transit, it could EASILY be 10x better and perhaps even challenge Boston and NYC for top honors.  There really is that much potential and money out there to do this.

Edited by maverick, 01 August 2007 - 05:34 PM.

[H0wl]

I love Boston.  The city is so small and the subway covers pretty much the whole city.  I have never had a problem with it.  I'd love to vote for my "favorite", the Chicago EL, but, let's face it...it just doesn't cut it.

[TheBostonian]

H0wl, on Aug 7 2007, 07:15 PM, said:

I love Boston.  The city is so small and the subway covers pretty much the whole city.

And ten other municipalities:

http://www.urbanplan...showtopic=17101

[H0wl]

Cool, thanks for that link.  

[RON-E]

out of the metro systems i have been on in that particular list, i would have to go 100% with DC. I absolutley loved this system, it had everything i love about metros in it. ease of access, clean on the trains, fast, gets you most everywhere in the city, and new lines under construction or development!

[phoenixnc]

I'll say NYC... I've only ridden Chicago and DC.

NY has the best density of stations and you can go pretty much anywhere. I didn't feel unsafe, but the stations REALLY need to be cleaned and have better lighting installed. There is so much charm with the old stations and low ceilings, but they have to be cleaned and redone to stay in the future.

Chicago's was good, but less convienient and it seemed very slow as well. I've heard there are a lot of problems with the tracks there.

DC was easily the cleanest, but it felt sterile. When I was in town, a student was taken into custody for eating on the subway. It also didn't serve the areas I wanted to go... it seemed more for tourists than actual residents, and the payment system was confusing.

[runawayjim]

phoenixnc, on Feb 3 2008, 09:51 PM, said:

DC was easily the cleanest, but it felt sterile. When I was in town, a student was taken into custody for eating on the subway.

are you kidding me?!?!  that's absolutely ridiculous.  many people use the time of their commute for breakfast.  that's just nuts.

i wasn't overly thrilled with the DC metro, though everyone raves about how wonderful it is.  NYC is by far the best i've been on (atlanta, philly, boston, NYC, DC).  DC was clean, but it didn't get you literally everywhere like NY, and you need a phd to figure out how much your fare is.

[chazman]

phoenixnc, on Feb 3 2008, 09:51 PM, said:

Chicago's was good, but less convienient and it seemed very slow as well. I've heard there are a lot of problems with the tracks there.

Hopefully the situation in Chicago will change with the CTA's committment to eliminate of slow zones.  Still NYC is the best system I've been on.

[vitaviatic]

This is an interesting poll, but it really is kinda like comparing oranges and tangerines. Not to split hairs here, but while these systems are indeed similar, their missions are often quite different. You really would have to judge on the separate merits.

Volume + utility = NYC (hands down)

Speed/distance + geophysical bridging = Bay Area's BART (hands down)

Architecture + ambience = LA Metro Red Line

"Quirky" old timey feel = Boston MBTA

My personal favorite however is Montreal (yeah, I know) because it has a more "Euro" feel to it, but more importantly because of the way it interacts with the Ville Souterraine. Like Tokyo (my worldwide favorite), you could literally live in the thing and not want for much (other than sunlight). While most American systems seem to go out of their way to strip riders of conveniences, these two systems make retail and services a part of the structure, and in so doing add life and income into the public transit systems. Montreal is unique in developing density by utilizing underground space in this way (Atlanta too, but Underground is much smaller, and tourist-oriented).

Also, I've noticed a lot of bloggers selling BART short (it doesn't go many places in SF). No, but Muni does. And the way they incorporated the streetcars on the second-level of the Market St. line deserves kudos. You have to view a system in context of its connectivity to other systems also, at which BART is tops (except for that noted Marin County problem).

[xivinrah]

I voted atlanta, because of the new rail line that will connect all of it's surrounding neighborhoods that do not fall along the north-south rail line and east-west rail line. The belt line will basically be another efficient means of taking the cars off of the highways, roadways, and other major thoroughfares. Not to mention, nearly every station will be surrounded by mixed use developments, (hopefully they won't suffer the drug-lord take over of Atlantic Station), but in many of these areas, undoubtedly the might possibly be, but hey... during the day, all of those things you won't really have to worry about.

It will be convenient, and will be the largest "new" rail line development in North America. While other cities this size already have established rail systems, this opens a new window of opportunity for Atlanta to express itself in terms of architectural design for its stations, it's rail layout, and most importantly to display it's effectiveness in making Atlanta much more connected than it is. My vote was based more so upon potential. I know not of the rail systems of the other cities, but I wouldn't want to be on anything dingy, dark, and outdated -- when I think of that image, I stereotypically think of NY and Chicago. Not sure if I am wrong or right.