Which city has built the "prototype" mass transit system?
May 22nd, 2002, 06:30 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Which city has built the "prototype" mass transit system?
I am a traveler, but also very interested in urban planning. I am always curious about different cities' mass transit sytems and how effective they are.
Of course, the most effective mass transit systems are typically the oldest ones. That is because they built the Subway first, and then the city built around the lines. New York and Chicago are great examples.
As for newer cities, I've heard good things about the Portland system, have used Marta in Atlanta and found it sufficient. I have heard so-so things about the systems in St. Louis, Dallas, and San Diego.
What have your experiences been?
Of course, the most effective mass transit systems are typically the oldest ones. That is because they built the Subway first, and then the city built around the lines. New York and Chicago are great examples.
As for newer cities, I've heard good things about the Portland system, have used Marta in Atlanta and found it sufficient. I have heard so-so things about the systems in St. Louis, Dallas, and San Diego.
What have your experiences been?
May 23rd, 2002, 02:49 AM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Another way to design an effective subway system is to wait until the city is all built, to see what ends up where -- teh Washington DC Metro system seems to serve the city well and efficiently, though I suspect that the poorer sections of town are underserved. Also, all the stations look alike and gloomy. But it's so efficient and comfortable.
May 23rd, 2002, 05:22 AM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Personally, I liked the DC Metro and found it very efficient. As for the ultimate in subways, Tokyo is unbelievable. It is huge and you can go virtually anywhere in the city on it without using buses. Some lines are more like local lines and others are more like freeways (they have employees that push people on the trains in rush hour so that the doors can close). The other thing about their system that is great is that the subway system of the city ties seamlessly into the train and bullet train systems that serve the suburbs and other cities.
May 23rd, 2002, 05:38 AM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Although this is the US board, I've found the Paris metro to be the easiest mass transit system I've ever used. As far as how cities are laid out, New York wins that one. Walking point to point in NYC with no map is simple, but their subway system is not as easy to use as the Paris metro, in my opinion.
May 23rd, 2002, 09:04 AM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Statia:
The reason NY's subway is notas easy to use as the Paris Meto is NY's subway system was originally designed by independent buildrs with agreement from the city. In other words, allthe differnt subway ines were built as competition with each other. The city did not have the moeny to take on the building of subways, so it gave out the project to the private sector. Therefore, there was NOincentive to have easy transfers between the differntlines, and there is alot of duplication of stops, where is is no coverage in other areas (where it wasn't profitable for builders). It wasn't until the 1950's, I think, that the independent lines were taken over by the city, and became one, massive, complicated system. The Paris Metro, on the other hand, was always built as one, intergrated system by the city.
The reason NY's subway is notas easy to use as the Paris Meto is NY's subway system was originally designed by independent buildrs with agreement from the city. In other words, allthe differnt subway ines were built as competition with each other. The city did not have the moeny to take on the building of subways, so it gave out the project to the private sector. Therefore, there was NOincentive to have easy transfers between the differntlines, and there is alot of duplication of stops, where is is no coverage in other areas (where it wasn't profitable for builders). It wasn't until the 1950's, I think, that the independent lines were taken over by the city, and became one, massive, complicated system. The Paris Metro, on the other hand, was always built as one, intergrated system by the city.
May 23rd, 2002, 09:10 AM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
We found both London and Toronto to have very easy and cheap mass transit systems. It's great not having to worry about how to get somewhere while traveling. Both of these cities have user friendly systems. Too bad more American cities don't have this type of infra-structure.
May 23rd, 2002, 10:10 AM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ron, your assumption that the older systems are more effective because they were built first, and the city grew around them, is largely inaccurate. In some cases the residential or office densities that we see now came about partly because of the transit, but there are plenty of cases where the intent of the transit builders was to aid in suburban and lower density growth. Remember that a principal driving force at the end of the 19th Century was to create residential areas with open air and greenery, because the higher densities of the cities led to the spread of disease (which was true.) Thus part of the justification for the NYC, London, Paris etc. systems was to enable people to leave the city, not just to zip across it.
It's a huge dilemma for transport planners: if you build it, they will come, so every freeway built in LA to reduce congestion just made it easier for people to commute farther to work, thereby leading to suburbs being built farther and farther out into the boonies. The homes they left downtown were re-occupied by others, who then used the previously-existing roads, which then caused the suburbanites' commute to get longer and the number of cars on the road to grow, which led to demands for more freeways to reduce congestion and on and on...
Fitting a new system into an existing network is really hard and expensive. I think Washington DC has done a pretty good job, and I love Montreal's system. But the overall impact of new (especially rail/tram) systems is going to be marginal at best because we love the privacy and the convenience of our cars, and, bottom line, cars are incredibly effective people-movers. Efficient? Not very, but effective.
Sorry, don't mean to lecture.
It's a huge dilemma for transport planners: if you build it, they will come, so every freeway built in LA to reduce congestion just made it easier for people to commute farther to work, thereby leading to suburbs being built farther and farther out into the boonies. The homes they left downtown were re-occupied by others, who then used the previously-existing roads, which then caused the suburbanites' commute to get longer and the number of cars on the road to grow, which led to demands for more freeways to reduce congestion and on and on...
Fitting a new system into an existing network is really hard and expensive. I think Washington DC has done a pretty good job, and I love Montreal's system. But the overall impact of new (especially rail/tram) systems is going to be marginal at best because we love the privacy and the convenience of our cars, and, bottom line, cars are incredibly effective people-movers. Efficient? Not very, but effective.
Sorry, don't mean to lecture.
