A few I've been on:
Los Angeles:
Has a subway that's always been completely empty whenever I've been on it. The Metrolink is a convenient way to get into Downtown, I suppose, but it's still easier just to drive in. Biggest problem with the subway: it doesn't take you anywhere worth going. Every bus ride I've ever taken in Los Angeles has been a Kafkaesque nightmare. Still a car town, and there's really nothing wrong with that.
San Francisco:
BART is a good system but not real comprehensive. On the east side of the bay the stops are really far apart and when it crosses into San Fran it makes a weird diagonal of the city that makes it hard to access the northwest (around Golden Gate Park) and southeastern (whatever's down there) parts of the city. The buses are fine though. San Fran itself is small like New York but all those damn hills make it hard to walk around. There are about three taxis in the entire city of San Francisco and they're always occupied. I've never been on the cable cars but I've always assumed they're more for tourists and have limited practicality.
San Diego:
The light rail that takes you into Downtown is nice. It even has a stop at Petco. As of five years ago, however, wasn't comprehensive at all.
Seattle:
Has a tourist monorail that goes back and forth within locations downtown. The buses are fine.
Chicago:
The L or "el", however you spell it, is pretty good. The buses are fine too. I had no problem getting back and forth between my friend's place near Northwestern and Downtown, via subway, bus, or taxi.
Washington D.C.
Good subway. Clean, comprehensive, easy to use. One of the better urban subway systems in the U.S. Unusual feature: really far underground.
Boston:
The T is pretty good. Not a super-extensive system but covers the city and a few surrounding towns pretty well. The cars are old and noisy, that's about it.
New York:
Incredibly comprehensive system but the cars themselves can be kind of nasty. Not a nice way to get around but a very convenient way. Am currently using it five days a week. Buses are about the same.
London:
Cleaner and more pleasant subways than the one in New York, and just as comprehensive. The red double-decker buses are fun to ride in because they make you feel like you're in a Beatles documentary.
Paris:
Once I figured out how to use the Metro I found it very convenient. The cars (as of 10 years ago) were green and I remember that as a passenger you could manually open the doors. The buses were fine but I could never figure out how much I was supposed to pay.
Amsterdam:
Light rail system that I had no clue how to buy tickets for. I took a few free rides. I don't remember it going much further out than around the center of the city and I think the route I took from my hotel to the train station I could walk in about 10 minutes (as opposed to 5 minutes on the light rail).
Philadelphia:
Forgot about this one. Took some kind of a train from the airport to the city center, but not sure if it was really a subway. Also, the most terrifying, frightening bus ride of my life was out of Philadelphia and through Camden, New Jersey.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The best inter-city transportation systems I've been on are London, Paris, and NY. It's a 3-way tie for #1 -- I don't know or remember enough about them to differentiate.
In some ways, the most comprehensive and convenient is LA's freeway system, but given the horrible traffic on the 5, 405 and 10, it's utility is greatly diminished. My dad was saying that the freeways were noticeably lighter and faster when gas was expensive. We need a toll system in LA as soon as possible.
Post a Comment