The Most Utilized Subway Systems in the World

DAMN, that's hot! It's also at times like this I love having a wide screen monitor. Thanks for this.
 
Damn, look at Tokyo. Nearly twice as NYC. I'm surprised London isn't listed. Probably close to the top regardless.
 
I wonder where San Francisco would be if the city's (or entire Bay Area's) non-BART systems were included.
 
New York is #4 worldwide. Paris' network, dense and compact, is a paradigm of how a network should look in order to serve and hold together a real city. Moscow's is second best in this regard, and New York's is a distant third. In one way or another, the others are products and agents of sprawl; they function at their ends as suburban railroads (Washington, BART). Not as bad as highways, of course...
 
Is New York #4 or #3? Did you mean to include London on your list?
 
czsz said:
I wonder where San Francisco would be if the city's (or entire Bay Area's) non-BART systems were included.
Click to expand...

Overall, Bart carries 80% of the passenger traffic of the MBTA Red, Orange and Blue lines. Muni carries about 70% of the passenger traffic as the green line alone. S.F commuter rail carries about a 30% of the passenger traffic as MBTA commuter rail.

Overall, the T's rail based mass transit has greater ridership.
 
^^Really? Wow. I would have thought it would be higher than Paris. So much still left to learn. :/
 
London's ridership is less than Boston? That doesn't sound possible or likely.
 
^^The chart seems to be split up as US / World. London is probably bigger than Boston but not big enough for the World section?
 
Yes, the chart is split up into two sections:

--Top 5 in the US

--Top 5 in the World (not including US, or else NYC would have pushed Paris off the list)

London, i believe, has an annual ridership of 1.2 billion. That would make it behind Paris' 1.4 billion
 
statler said:
^^Really? Wow. I would have thought it would be higher than Paris. So much still left to learn. :/
Click to expand...
Paris' Metro blankets the city; it goes everywhere within the dense, compact city limits, so pretty much everyone uses it every day.

London's Underground leaves inner-city city residential areas like Fulham and even Chelsea to buses, while it wanders off into sparser, sprawling suburbs --just like Boston's subway.

Boston's South End is poorly served, along with Dorchester, Roxbury, Charlestown, South Boston, Jamaica Plain, and much of Somerville.
 
ablarc said:
Paris' Metro blankets the city; it goes everywhere within the dense, compact city limits, so pretty much everyone uses it every day.

London's Underground leaves inner-city city residential areas like Fulham and even Chelsea to buses, while it wanders off into sparser, sprawling suburbs --just like Boston's subway.

Boston's South End is poorly served, along with Dorchester, Roxbury, Charlestown, South Boston, Jamaica Plain, and much of Somerville.
Click to expand...

Can the T be fixed in this regard? Is it even possible at this point?
 
No.

First, Boston does not have as large an area as densely built as Paris.

Second, Paris' metro was built before there was widespread use of the car in Europe (arguably there still isn't, at least to the extent there is here).

Third, Paris is a huge anomaly among subway systems. The overwhelming majority do a far better job at shuttling commuters than serving as intracity connections. There must be some reason for this - maybe it is not budgetarily effective for any rapid transit system to be a mostly intracity system.
 
New York subway in Manhattan: fairly decent coverage with some gaps.
 
I was wondering, if the MBTA was able to incorporate a parallel track to all its heavy rail, will the ridership increase significantly?
 
I doubt it. Boston's system is over built as it is (if you can believe it!) compared to similarly sized cities. There really isn't much in the way of expansion that will lead to a dramatic increase in ridership other than the Green Line to Medford. Apart from that the best the T can do is to have cleaner trains and more of them and build more parking out in the suburbs.
 
The Boston transit system may be overbuilt in terms of of rapid transit line miles, but there are some obvious LRV surface lines that should be added to access underserved areas. These would be relatively cheap compared to elevated or tunneled rail lines.

LRV surface lines should be built along South Washington Street from Boylston Station to Dudley Square, and also along the RKG connecting North Station and South Station, and possibly on into Charlestown. In addition, there are several wide boulevards in and around Boston that would lend themselves to LRV lines on reservations, and also several abandoned railroad right-of-ways that, if converted to LRV lines, would serve populated areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top