I prefer not to use the term "subway", i prefer the term Metro/Mass Transit, many "subway" systems here either don't run underground or a large percentage of it is above ground.

My rank would be Tokyo, its lines of subway networks, commuter/regional/urban rail connects pretty much most places you need to go. With the dozen plus different companies of which are competing each other you can find lower fares on certain routes, instead of the occasional fare hike you see in other cities with one system. I can set my watch to trains in Tokyo/Japan, hard to in other cities.

Some say its confusing, I don't really think so if you are used to riding trains.

Speaking in general now, some people get confused on public transit, no matter how easy you make it for them. I've seen people get lost on one line public transit systems before.

They're not confusing to ride - it's just confusing buying the right ticket for the journey.

If you plan a journey that involves a couple of interchanges and don't realise that the last interchange means you are exiting one company's system and entering another's, you can find your train ticket being gobbled up by a machine, forcing you to pay for a brand new ticket to cover the last stretch of your journey.

JR's part of the service I think is fantastic - for the rest of the true subway system, I respect the difficulties involved and the ingenuity required to overcome them - I just wish there had been a bit more co-ordination between the companies and the system was more... 'cohesive' (not sure if that's the right word here).

But Tokyo evolved in a way quite different to any European city I'm familiar with, it makes sense that it's subway network did too. Doesn't mean I have to like it. But I do respect it.

I just went over this with MrLapLap who spent nearly 5 consecutive years living in Tokyo.

He loves the system, without reservations. But it took him over a year to feel that way.

Once fully indoctrinated into all its ways and nuances, he says it's hard to remember what the problems he initially experienced were or why he had them. (I stress here that he was using the true subway as he was based near Azabu Juban)

In his opinion, getting to grips with the Tokyo system is like getting aquainted with a vital piece of software. Initially it can be frustrating as you adapt yourself to the quirks of the system, but then you wonder how you ever got along without it.

Perhaps I'd have to stay there over a longer period of time to feel the same way. So my opinions are really those of an occasional user.

Yes, thats what they don't teach you or tell you. Which leads to a while figuring it out at the ticket machine if you don't know how to read the fare charts above the machines. I learned how to do transfer tickets after I found myself having to spend extra for the additional journey as well as learned how to use the orange transfer gate(s) when present!

I concur, and the system for informing you of delays and the like is certainly nicer too! A little schedule coordination between the companies would have helped move one across the system a bit quicker by ways of less wait time after transferring between lines.

Also, not all lines can be easily transferred to from the JR Yamanote line - example being Hibya line from Ebisu station on Yamanote line. You have to actually leave the station itself and walk a bit to go downstairs to get on the Hibya line there in the ground at Ebisu.

Sanosuke!

Yup, very deep. 4 lines but good coverage of city (except maybe outer suburbs) and multiple connection points between the lines. I wasn't there in winter but still chilly up top and toasty inside the metro.

I didn't make it a practice to give up my subway seat to those who need it more than me until a few months ago. Not because I was actively inconsiderate - I just hadn't noticed what I was doing.

Once I get on the train, if I'm alone, I space out completely, blind and deaf to everything except to which stop is next. The time goes by more quickly and as a bonus panhandlers and schizophrenic crazy people see that I'm in my own little world and don't hassle me. Not noticing someone like you who clearly should be sitting is an unfortunate side effect. Nowadays of course I pay a little more attention and make it a point to give up my seat as appropriate.

Should've ridden the V line, more chance of a seat!
 

Found this to be interesting, article from PC Today magazine February 2006. Among its survey finding:
Cleanest lines- 1&9, W
Dirtiest lines- L, N
Best chance of getting a seat- V
Worst chance of getting a seat- L
Best overall- 6
Worst overall- N

Want to learn more about NY City subway, go to www.straphangers.org

Montreal, Madrid and DC are my picks. Reliable, comfortable and quick.

Atlanta will likely end one-fare tickets and charge by length of travel, now that they've opened up shiny, new suburban stops where commuters can afford the surcharge.

The shortest system I've seen is Guadalajara. About four stops each on two lines.

And, as an added benefit, all trains and buses in the downtown area are free.

More complaints about L.A. metro. You used to be able to buy a round trip ticket for twice the cost of a one-way. Now you have to buy an all day. It's only about 50 cents more, but it's a waste. Oh, and the all day ticket is now $3 but the plan is to increase it to $8. There goes the incentive to even try to use mass transit in this city. At present, the newest line, the Gold line, is still at less than 80% predicted ridership, despite gas prices.

The positive thing, is that it is safe.

1, Tokyo; extensive frequent and ontime, just a little confusing.
2. London; extensive, frequent and crowded.
3. Sydney; extensive, not so frequent and not as crowded as London

Nicest in the US.
1. Washington Metro,

LA has a subway; :eek: :confused:

I'm still not sure why building good mass transit is so difficult. Here are the only requirements:
1) Door-to-door, it should be faster than driving (how hard could this be in a city with streetlights and traffic?)
2) It should cover the city adequately (and certainly should go to the doorfront of any major location in the city such as a stadium/convention center/airport)
3) It should be more or less safe, and as comfortable/attractive as car driving, meaning that stations should be properly designed, there should be no odors, and seats should be available for each customer the vast majority of the time.
4) It should cost less than driving for the end-user; as a rough guide, use $.48/mile in the US, and less in places like China.

Basically, if money were no object, would you choose not to own a car?

I've not been to Tokyo, but I know of no metro system that meets these basic requirements. That's rather stunning, isn't it?

Of the systems I'm roughly familiar with:
Boston is not good at all. It's unquestionably slower than driving door-to-door anywhere on the Green Line, and not much better on the Red south of Andrew/JFK. I was up in Boston last weekend, and an hour-long subway ride (Green B + Orange), with multiblock walks at either end, was a 12 minute, 10 dollar cab ride going in the other direction. Coverage of the city is fairly good (though both the convention center and the airport are directly on the subway line, and require bus connections), and the subway is more or less safe, but the stations and trains are very unattractive. If the whole network was kept up as well as, say, the Harvard stop, I'd have no problem. Cost isn't bad, though it was much cheaper until a couple years ago.

Beijing is quick and reliable; trains come every 3 minutes on the Circle Line, for instance. Coverage of the city is poor at the moment, but 3 more lines are due to open by the Olympics, and another 14 after that, at which time coverage would be fantastic. The network is also very cheap, and the physical plant is better than Boston. The only problem is that they simply need more capacity; riding the lines around rush hour makes ones feel like you're in a sardine, and obtaining a seat is near impossible.

As for lines I'm less familiar with,
London covers the city well, but is terribly expensive for public transit. Pyongyang (the stops I saw anyway) were beautifully decorated, and the trains came without a wait, but I think there are very few stops. New York has great coverage, little in the way of wait time, and 24 hour service, but damn, the stations are absolutely filthy. DC is a bit on the expensive side, but coverage is good. Shanghai doesn't cover nearly enough of the city, but the trains are very modern and the cost can't be beat. Portland's MAX is clean and efficient, but waiting in the cold Portland drizzle for an above-ground ride isn't the best. Kuala Lumpur is clean and modern, but not much quicker than walking, and doesn't cover much of the city. Chicago's El is a part of the city, no doubt, but the train speed is so incredibly slow that it's nearly worthless.

If you are willing to be flexible about the whole safety/comfort/odor thing you've just described NYC's subway!

I like Taipei's system too, it is very clean for the number of people that use it. what is interesting is that the cars on some lines were bulit in Yonkers (New York), but look much better than ones in New York. Taipei+Hong Kong+ Singapore are all nice in that that all cars are connected in a way that you can walk the whole train from the first car to the last with any doors.

As a Los Angeles Native, it is nice to have a new subway, but i wish they keep cars cleaner. Also BART (San Francisco/Oakland) seems dirty, but it maybe is that cars have carpets. I do not know any other subway cars that is carpeted. It seems that carpet would hard to keep clean?

I also like others think the systems in Japan are best in world for rail. Besides the subways, there are local trains that run like subways, and high speed rail connecting bigger cities.

Seems that way, huh?