Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Tokyo's level of frequency is unmatched, but I think NYC's system is designed better, if that makes sense. I haven't experienced another major system with the local/express design that NYC built. It was an absolute genius design that separates the NYC subway from its peers. It is something you really only understand if you have used the NY subway a lot.
|
Express services in NY compensate for the slow speeds of local services, the consequence of complicated interlining, short station spacing, antiquated track geometry and signalling, speed restrictions and slow rolling stock. I haven’t looked at other cities, but the typical Underground end-to-end service runs to speed as express service in NY (c.43kph).
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Moscow, Rome, and maybe Barcelona. But yes, Chicago's is one of the larger systems in the world. Not many cities in the world that are not the capital and/or the nation's largest city will have a system as large as Chicago's.
|
Whilst many North American cities have long legacy route networks, most of these systems are unfortunately substandard in their service offering and are massively under-utilised, operating at low frequencies with inconsistent timetables (sometimes with long service gaps, and limited or no reverse/weekend services) and dated, slow rolling stock.
Chicago’s METRA may have double the route length and station count of say Barcelona’s commuter system, but pre-pandemic ridership was half that of Barcelona’s system, and that is despite METRA covering a population twice that of Barcelona’s. I suspect the prevailing issue with most North American networks is that there is a chicken and egg disconnect between transit orientated development and network provision.
Los Angeles sprawls a lot, and has polycentric elements, but it is heavily fragmented due to the lack of a cohesive large-scale transit system and that in turn harms its urban realm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote
Agreed, and I’ve hinted at this several times, including in this thread.
NYC Subway, considering the population density served, number of stations, express tracks, and 24-hour service, should have ridership that’s leaps and bounds ahead of London. London’s Underground is identical in route length, but has far fewer stations and mostly serves Greater London north of the Thames. So, smaller service area with far fewer people/density, no express trains, no 24-hour service, no AC — and it only lags behind the NYC Subway by like 500K riders.
And agreed about Manhattan. Wide avenues, parking garages along east-west streets in Midtown, fewer dense storefronts (amenities), more chain establishments, etc. It’s pretty telling that London manages to fit nearly all of its world-class amenities in an area the side of Midtown, and still be every bit the global powerhouse that NYC is. All those big-footprint office towers really spread out NYC’s urbanism, but that’s also what makes the city so grand.
|
Post-pandemic the Underground is now averaging 3.6mn journeys each day (7-day average) compared to 3.5mn for the NYC Subway. The Subway manages higher ridership Mon-Fri, but really drops off a cliff at weekends, nearly half the weekday ridership. Perhaps the Subway is more heavily weighted towards commuter traffic, while the Underground has higher leisure/social traffic?
* there are other heavy rail networks that serve areas not covered by the Underground, AC Underground trains (but not yet on every line0, an expanding weekend 24hr service, Underground trains run as fast as express trains, and there are technically other express services.
Prev
Linear Mode
