Heavy Rail Mass Transit | North America

[TennBear]

Wait so, theres no way of knowing whether or not someone paid? Or do you have to show ticket/pay on board?

I understand that sometimes they ask to see your ticket, but it never happened to me. I'm certain that people maust be caught on occassion not paying.

[jctim]

I had to go with DC myself. Most of the obvious comments have been stated. But I concur it's probably the best pound for pound system out there.

The big thing NYC does nobody else does (I think Miami recently started) is run 24 hours. You know your a full blown 24 hour city when your subway system runs 24 hours too.

No you're wrong. Chicago's Red and Blue Lines both run 24/7. NYC and Chicago are the only cities that offer 24hour rail service.

[intcvlcphlga]

New York. It's so much bigger than any of the other systems in the US. The shear amount of infrastructure involved in putting the system together including multiple tunnels under the East River, lines across bridges, some stations are literally inches below the street while others are nearly 200' underground, etc. It runs 24 hours/day - something that doesn't happen in comparable cities like London, Tokyo and Paris. And, another innovation that is uniquely NY is that there are express and local trains. Additionally, NY's subway was originally built by private interests (IRT, BMT, etc - you still find the signs in some of the stations) and only pull together under one public umbrella in the 1960s.

Of the only other systems that are even remotely big, DC's is nice in its design and clearly laid out, but it doesn't serve many neighborhoods like Georgetown, Glover Park, Adams Morgan, etc. Boston's is great in its quirkiness with the lines downtown. Chicago's is okay, but I imagine the platforms get really cold in the winter.

[intcvlcphlga]

Because of the layout of DC I find it to be one of the most simple Rail systems in the nation, bur clearly I believe NYC gets you nearly anywhere you need to be, and I would wonder the ridership it has, compared to other local systems.

To answer your question (many months later), there were nearly 1.1 billion rides on the NY subway in the first nine months of the year. If my math is correct, that's an average of approximately 120,000,000 rides per month, 30,500,000 per week, 4,365,000 per day, 182,000 per hour, 3000 per minute,...actually, although it runs 24 hours/day, it is a bit busier at 9 am v. 4 am, but you get the point. I actually would have thought it was more considering there are 8 million + NYers and they don't all have chauffered rides to the office...

[UrbaniDesDev]

I lived in DC, Miami, NYC and Atlanta.

I voted DC. For me its the most logical layout and, its just the wide open spaces. The stations are grand vaulted ceilings and bright, wide open escalator entrances.

Atlantas was never convenient to me. Miami's, I hardly ever seen. I couldnt have survived without New Yorks subway, but long winding tranfer stations, when tracks cross right over each other was unnerving. I loved it dearly everyday

[sanka]

I cant believe people would vote for Atlanta's...it really doesnt go anywhere...compared to DC, Chitown, NYC, Boston and most others you cant compare. It just goes north and south or east and west. thats it.

it is cleaner than others, but who cares?? I'd rather have a dirty transit system that actually went somewhere than a clean one that goes nowhere!

[JB04]

^yeah who the hell did vote for atlanta's? its awful - does move alot of people but not convient enough locations?

ive only been on atl, nyc, and la subways and nyc's has the best locations but la's is great - better than driving in that horrific traffic nightmare (although atlanta's traffic isn't much better because of the bad mass transportation - its a vicious circle)

[lammius]

Mexico City puts US subways to shame. Take a look...

Mexico City metro photo

Next is New York, followed by the Canadian cities, followed by Chicago.

I don't understand all the hype about DC's Metro.

[Pope Urban]

Why are so many people citing safety as a concern for the NYC subway? It has a historic reputation for being unsafe but it's as safe as it can be these days, particularly in Manhattan. If anything, the constant, 24-hour ridership lends it an air of safety for me -- I feel safer in, for example, a UES 6 line station at 3am, which always has a few other people, than I do in a DC metro station 30 minutes before closing, which can be nigh abandoned.

[Copper]

How about frequency?

In Toronto during rush hour there is a train every 2 minutes and off peak its every 4-5 minutes.

[TheBostonian]

Here's a scale comparison of North American local rail systems:

http://www.radicalcartography.net/?subways

[Snowguy716]

I just love how Minneapolis' is so tiny! Only one line. Oh well, that will change in the coming years. At least one more line is gaining huge clout right now to run between Minneapolis and St. Paul via the University of Minnesota.

While there is only one line in Minneapolis, it is very convenient for travellers (Mall of America/Airport/Downtown) and very very clean/safe. I didn't notice any difference of being on a Minneapolis light rail line than from being on one in Europe.

[Ted80]

I agree that Atlanta's system is not very extensive. Many areas only accesable by car.

[socaguy]

Right...whenever I go to Atlanta I think...hmm, maybe I should ride the subway. Then I think where the closest Marta station is...and how inconvienant it would be to drive 10 miles west or southeast to go to places I really didnt intend on going to anyway.

There are only 2 lines...north to south and east to west. Then there are a couple of spurs I think.

Atlantas system has a high ridership, Alot of people do use them, but 4.8 out of 5 million Atlantans drive.

DC would get my vote on this one. I was brought up on the DC metro so it has sentimental value to me..

[miamivicefan]

Miami of course, because Metrorail has a stylish look.

[atlrvr]

DC for overall experience.

NYC for its ability to offer true car-free living.

Boston for its usefulness (though certainly not logical)

[damus]

I found Washington's aesthetics, in terms of the rail system, to be disappointing. I had heard great things about it, and while the stations were nice and open, the cars needed a little bit of touching up. A bigger gripe: the payment system was convoluted. I did not like having to check a chart to see how much to pay the attendant each time I went to use it. The three other systems I've used (Boston, NY, Montreal) all had flat rates. Why did they put the carpet down? It was all worn and torn up, which alone disappointed this person who was looking for the best system in the USA.

My favorite has to be Boston's. While some of the stations are old and dingy, the system has character. Many older stations have quite a historic feel, which you cannot replicate with a shiny new system. They play old music, still have the musicians singing or playing away (which, yes, many systems have but I like the ones in Boston), and I liked the character of the trains themselves particulary the green line (yes, I know, light rail) trains. My favorite has to be the Bacardi Party train. It has cracked me up each time I've seen it.

I've only been on Boston's commuter rail, and liked it. They're double deckers with table seats here and there, and get you to your destination faster than automobile travel usually would.

Montreal has a great system. The subway is actually a real subway, all underground (even though one of the stops I saw was underground, but with no roof), high usage; and considering it's a newer system and a good deal of the city built up in the 20th century before the subway, the stops are in pretty convenient locations.

[lebronstheman]

Yo, wait a minute. Where is Cleveland on this list? Doesn't Cleveland have heavy rail mass transit? (longer than Baltimore's, more established than Miami's... and Vancouver!? Please. CLEVELAND REPRESENT. We may not be the best (I voted for NYC, of course -- most comprehensive; takes you everywhere in NYC, no need for a car, frequent, yadda, yadda, yadda, ... you've heard it all before). But come on CLEVELAND HAS TRANSIT, RAIL MASS TRANSIT. And it's old and established. Yeah, it's carries a light load (but has potential, and is building up service), but it's useful, and until St. Louis, it was, for over 1/2 century, the ONLY rapid transit system in the ENTIRE MIDWEST outside of Chicago...

C'mon, one of you guys has to know about the Cleveland "Rapid" as we locals call it... Had to have ridden it at some point. Take the blinders off, pulleeze... Stop hatin' on my town!!

[lebronstheman]

[

CLEVELAND!!

[lebronstheman]

^ btw, the scene's from the University Circle Sta. in Cleve...

[runawayjim]

i voted NYC because it's fast, payment is easy, it's safe (although some people feel unsafe for some reason), and you can be almost anywhere in manhattan and only be a couple blocks from a subway station.

i've also used DC, atlanta, philly, and boston. philly was the dirtiest, hands down, although i like their trolley system that goes high speed underground. DC's stations were clean and the trains were decent, but payment confused the hell out of me and i don't recall the trains being super quick. atlanta was quick, but had a lot of ground to cover and if i remember correctly, there's only 2 lines that run perpendicular to each other (like philly's main lines). and boston's isn't anything spectacular. i don't like the token thing, although supposedly they got rid of it (i haven't been on it in several months). i also don't think their trains are easy to figure out and the green line is slower than molasses, even after it goes underground.

so NYC it is... mainly because of the convenience of it, but also because of the other things i mentioned.

[nowyano]

... and boston's isn't anything spectacular. i don't like the token thing, although supposedly they got rid of it (i haven't been on it in several months).

Really? I picked NYC for the sheer size and scope of it, but having been on the same lines you have minus Philly (NYC, DC, ATL, MIA) I have to say that while the MBTA does not come close to NYC it is way better than ATL, which is a joke of a system, and I personally feel that the system is easier to use than DC. I may be wrong but I believe that Boston covers more overall ground than DC not counting the commuter rails...

[runawayjim]

Really? I picked NYC for the sheer size and scope of it, but having been on the same lines you have minus Philly (NYC, DC, ATL, MIA) I have to say that while the MBTA does not come close to NYC it is way better than ATL, which is a joke of a system, and I personally feel that the system is easier to use than DC. I may be wrong but I believe that Boston covers more overall ground than DC not counting the commuter rails...

i didn't really say which order i liked them in... NYC is by far the best of what i mentioned. i guess boston's would be next, although i do like philly's even though they don't have a nice card system. DC was just too confusing to figure out how to pay.

as for commuter rails... boston does have a large commuter rail service, but i don't think it really goes more than an hour out of the city (not that there's much to go to once you get over an hour out of boston). NYC's goes out really far, as does DC's i think. i just wish boston and DC had electric commuter lines.

[bmorescottamanda]

Baltimore has a nice subway we just need more lines.

[TennBear]

I rode on the Boston Subway for the first time earlier this summer and I cannot imagine how over 10% of the respondents voted for the Boston system as being the best. The only reason that I can think of is that it is the oldest subway in the US. It is the worst system that I have ever rode on. Not only is it old, but through downtown it is even more crooked than the streets above and that is saying a lot. Not to mention that the lines break off and head out into differnent directions so that not every Green line will take you to the same places and coming back into downtown the trains end at different points and don't all go to the end or even all the way through downtown. I didn't even go into how bad the system smells. I will give it this, it does move a lot of people and shows that Boston was progressive enough to have had a subway prior to New York. I would have said that they should have updated and improved them with the construction of the Big Dig, but considering that the ceiling panels are coming down from the Big Dig tunnels I'm glad they didn't.