CapitalSeven
Senior Member
I got 36.
|
|
|
doady
Senior Member
Wow you guys travel so much, I wish I could too. I've only been on 2 system: Toronto and Montreal. Outside of Ontario, I've only been to a handful of major cities, let alone used their transit system. Is that normal?
canrocks
New Member
That was far more fun than it should have been. I got 10, and it immediately made me sad.
Toronto
Montreal
New York
San Francisco MUNI
Paris
London
Prague
Budapest
Vienna
Vienna S-Bahn
As far as the worst logo goes, I'd have to say Naha. Anyone else notice that Wuppertal looks like a curling rock?
Toronto
Montreal
New York
San Francisco MUNI
Paris
London
Prague
Budapest
Vienna
Vienna S-Bahn
As far as the worst logo goes, I'd have to say Naha. Anyone else notice that Wuppertal looks like a curling rock?
rbt
Senior Member
Sure.. I'll play too. These are the systems I've used in the last 2 years from memory, so some would have been missed or mis-remembered. (16 in 2 years: Vegas and Ottawa don't seem to exist on their list)
Calgary (LRT and bus around the city)
Edmonton (LRT around downtown)
Montreal (Blue line only -- need to explore this city more)
Ottawa (97 on a regular basis)
Toronto (GTA - Mississauga, Vaughan, Barrie, Hamilton, Kitchener/Waterloo, GO Transit)
Vancouver (trolley buses around downtown and all skytrain segments)
Boston (Silver line and various heavyrail -- subway and commuter)
Chicago (Site-seeing tour and weather avoidance in lieu of walking)
Denver (Along the pedestrian way)
Miami Beach (Get back to my hotel)
New York (Most subway tunnels, bus from Laguardia)
Philadelphia (Train to the airport)
San Diego (LRT along waterfront)
San Francisco (BART To/from airport)
St. Louis (LRT to the airport)
Washington (Subway around the city)
Vegas (inter-hotel train)
London (Most tube lines over 3 days. I wanted to see the subway based suburbs)
Calgary (LRT and bus around the city)
Edmonton (LRT around downtown)
Montreal (Blue line only -- need to explore this city more)
Ottawa (97 on a regular basis)
Toronto (GTA - Mississauga, Vaughan, Barrie, Hamilton, Kitchener/Waterloo, GO Transit)
Vancouver (trolley buses around downtown and all skytrain segments)
Boston (Silver line and various heavyrail -- subway and commuter)
Chicago (Site-seeing tour and weather avoidance in lieu of walking)
Denver (Along the pedestrian way)
Miami Beach (Get back to my hotel)
New York (Most subway tunnels, bus from Laguardia)
Philadelphia (Train to the airport)
San Diego (LRT along waterfront)
San Francisco (BART To/from airport)
St. Louis (LRT to the airport)
Washington (Subway around the city)
Vegas (inter-hotel train)
London (Most tube lines over 3 days. I wanted to see the subway based suburbs)
ShonTron
Moderator
It's the end of the year again - but the website is down. This year, I got to add five systems that had logos on the site, bringing my count up to 20 from that list, plus 6 more that I think should have qualified.
Mexico City
Boston
Shenzhen
Hong Kong
Pittsburgh
Plus several metro-like systems this year not on the website (but in the Transit Maps of the World book):
Changchun LRT
Dalian LRT
So now my list looks like this (* denotes system in TMotW but not on site). I've also decided to come up with a metro ranking as well, based on Hipster Duck's city ranking. Toronto = 100. When coming up with the ranking, don't just count size or reach of system, also consider quality/frequency of service, usefulness, safety, etc. What's your list and ranking of systems you've been on?
Montreal (Metro and Commuter) = 95
Montreal has a nice subway system, but there's things that makes it lack badly. One is the poor coverage of (especially) the West Island. Train frequencies are a problem as well, and cars can be packed, especially on busy off-peak periods. The AMT has a lot of potential, but has really limited off-peak service, not even the hourly service as on the Lakeshore, but the electrified Deux-Montagnes line comes closest. Wins points for fare integration with AMT and new smart card.
Toronto (M,C,S) = 100
Vancouver (M,C) = 85+
The RAV/Canada Line will help coverage. If the Evergreen Line is built and the Millennium Line is extended to at least Granville or Arbutus (UBC would be ideal, but Broadway peters out after Arbutus), Vancouver will be well served, though it could use a commuter/regional line down to White Rock. The Skytrain is how ICTS can work wonders in a medium sized urban centre. The RAV Line is more conventional mini-metro technology, but it's the same principle. Integration with surface transit is very good.
Ottawa (DL, B)* = 55
The busway is really convenient if you are a 9-5 bureaucrat and live in the suburbs, as you get a one-seat ride almost to your front door for a slightly higher fare than the average fare. However, the regular busway routes are overcrowded and unreliable. The diesel light rail was a great example of providing a needed link (especially to Carlton) with minimal cost, but the LRT plans were messed up royally by "transit activists" and incompetent politicians and planners.
Atlanta (M) = 60
Nice basic system with better-than average headways amongst second-tier US cities with decent bus integration and airport service. However, system does not leave Atlanta and isn't well patronized.
Baltimore (M, L) = 55
One subway line and a three-branch LRT line. Connection between two systems downtown is indirect and confusing, and subway has low ridership. LRT route passes through low-density areas as it uses former railway and interurban ROWs (but pretty).
Boston (M, L/S, B) = 80
Frequencies a bit low, especially on Red Line branches, but the four subway lines cover the city-region well (almost all places of interest are near a station). Green Line, in oldest "subway" in North America is surprisingly slow and unreliable and crowded, but could be worse. Silver Line is a bit gimmicky.
Buffalo (L)* = 40
Poor Buffalo. The Subway is a neat idea, but overbuilt underground stations under a street with not a whole lot of traffic. 15-minute Saturday and 20-minute Sunday service very disappointing. Was planned to be part of a network that would go to UB North, Tondawandas, and perhaps east to Walden and the airport that was opposed by suburbs and had little interest. The local transit routes are not well served.
Chicago (M, C) = 90
The L is gritty and cool and covers Chicago well, including both airports. A tourist would do just fine sticking only to the system. Like Boston, its tracks moved around a lot over 100 years. But frequencies suck and the system is aging poorly and is constantly under threat of cutbacks.
Cleveland ("M", L) = 45
The "subway" is almost anything but, using infrequent one or two car trains with on-board fare collection off-peak, running mostly in active or former rail corridors at grade, but has the distinction of being the first rail link to an airport in NA. Shares track with an old, still functioning early light rail system to Shaker Heights. Depopulation in the rust belt city doesn't help things.
Detroit (P)* = N/A
Los Angeles (M, L, B) = 70+
LA's Red/Purple line is a bit of a joke, but Wilshire is the one arterial that deserves a subway, and it may happen soon. Meanwhile, LA has used LRT well and not so well, the Gold Line is a good example, the Green Line not so much. The Blue Line is a great idea, but runs in a somewhat inconvenient alignment. Expansion of the Gold Line east, the Expo Line and the Wilshire Subway will be interesting. Meanwhile, the red Rapid buses are a neat way of using buses in mixed traffic to provide faster service at minimal cost.
New York (M-MTA, M-PATH, C-NJT) = 150
New York's metro system, which includes PATH, means business, with frequent service, 24-hour routes, used by everybody (like Toronto) and covers the city well. Some of the branches though are poorly serviced, and while things improved, there's a lot of dank (but gritty in a good way). Takes you just about anywhere you want, except the airports (LGA in particular).
Newark (L)* = 45
Neat system to ride, the downtown stations are cool, but that's about it.
Pittsburgh (L) = 55
Pittsburgh's LRT is two routes that run frequently enough by bus standards, and the legacy of a once-great streetcar system. An expansion to the north will connect to the sports venues. Downtown underground stations are simple, operators friendly (at least in my experience), and interesting, but only limited in usefulness. There are minimalist busways to feed express buses downtown from middle and outer suburbs.
San Francisco (M, L/S) = 90
BART is a great hybrid subway/regional rail system, but of limited local use in SF. SF residents have the Muni Metro, which is relatively useful, including a Transit City-like T-Third line. However, the northwest part of the city is poorly served, and must rely on slow trolley and diesel buses. SF is a transit fan's paradise with one of the better commuter rail operations (Caltrain, which is also moving towards becoming a regional rail line), historic streetcars, cable cars, trolley buses, and Muni and BART metros.
San Jose (L)* = 50
Hybrid freeway-median and Transit City style LRT, minimally built but does a good job with its downtown street-running section, has signal priority, and is integrated with the VTA bus system.
Washington (M) = 100
Washington has a stunning Metro system, second to New York in terms of US ridership, and has some BART-ish regional rail attributes, and responsible for good TOD in some Virginia and Maryland suburbs, just like the TTC. Frequencies are a bit wanting though, and some stations are in poor or silly locations, and misses Georgetown.
Bonus: Morgantown (P)
Mexico City (M) = 120
Mexico's system is gigantic with 10 lines, and with insanely cheap fares (2 pesos a ticket). Integrates with buses in suburban areas, and serves the intercity bus terminals and airport. Cons: stations in sometimes really strange places, weird layout with line transfers at the ends of the lines, very long passageways to transfer between lines.
London (M, C, L) = 135
London's Underground covers London really well, especially with the local National Rail services that are integrated on passes and in some tickets. The DLR is a brilliant use of mini-metro technology, as is the Croydon Tramlink an inspired use of LRT. However, the Underground is especially crowded and unreliable, leaving me cursing the system even over a few days' stay.
Manchester (L)* N/A - only rode central sections.
Sheffield (L)* = 65 - nice use of LRT with long outer reaches almost into the countryside (Halfway)
Changchun (L)* = 70 - The LRT (not the heritage streetcar) is frequent and with metro-like preboarding and fast, with modern made-in-town Bombardier Talents and under expansion.
Dalian (L/S)* = N/A - only rode central sections
Hong Kong (M, C, S) = 135
The MTR is absolutely amazing - modern trains, clean, minimalist (but not sterile) stations (with differing tile patterns that reminds me a bit of what the TTC might have done in the 1980s/1990s), covers city well with huge mezzanine levels, but which generate profit from rents. Delightfully bilingual. One of the best smartcards out there. With the newly-acquired KCR, covers city very well.
Shenzhen (M) = 90+
Shenzhen's system is small, but will likely triple in size in the next 10 years, and be fitting of a city of 8-9 million. Stations are simple, with bus integration in the outer stations, very modern, but I found very sterile in appearance, only white and metal.
Mexico City
Boston
Shenzhen
Hong Kong
Pittsburgh
Plus several metro-like systems this year not on the website (but in the Transit Maps of the World book):
Changchun LRT
Dalian LRT
So now my list looks like this (* denotes system in TMotW but not on site). I've also decided to come up with a metro ranking as well, based on Hipster Duck's city ranking. Toronto = 100. When coming up with the ranking, don't just count size or reach of system, also consider quality/frequency of service, usefulness, safety, etc. What's your list and ranking of systems you've been on?
Montreal (Metro and Commuter) = 95
Montreal has a nice subway system, but there's things that makes it lack badly. One is the poor coverage of (especially) the West Island. Train frequencies are a problem as well, and cars can be packed, especially on busy off-peak periods. The AMT has a lot of potential, but has really limited off-peak service, not even the hourly service as on the Lakeshore, but the electrified Deux-Montagnes line comes closest. Wins points for fare integration with AMT and new smart card.
Toronto (M,C,S) = 100
Vancouver (M,C) = 85+
The RAV/Canada Line will help coverage. If the Evergreen Line is built and the Millennium Line is extended to at least Granville or Arbutus (UBC would be ideal, but Broadway peters out after Arbutus), Vancouver will be well served, though it could use a commuter/regional line down to White Rock. The Skytrain is how ICTS can work wonders in a medium sized urban centre. The RAV Line is more conventional mini-metro technology, but it's the same principle. Integration with surface transit is very good.
Ottawa (DL, B)* = 55
The busway is really convenient if you are a 9-5 bureaucrat and live in the suburbs, as you get a one-seat ride almost to your front door for a slightly higher fare than the average fare. However, the regular busway routes are overcrowded and unreliable. The diesel light rail was a great example of providing a needed link (especially to Carlton) with minimal cost, but the LRT plans were messed up royally by "transit activists" and incompetent politicians and planners.
Atlanta (M) = 60
Nice basic system with better-than average headways amongst second-tier US cities with decent bus integration and airport service. However, system does not leave Atlanta and isn't well patronized.
Baltimore (M, L) = 55
One subway line and a three-branch LRT line. Connection between two systems downtown is indirect and confusing, and subway has low ridership. LRT route passes through low-density areas as it uses former railway and interurban ROWs (but pretty).
Boston (M, L/S, B) = 80
Frequencies a bit low, especially on Red Line branches, but the four subway lines cover the city-region well (almost all places of interest are near a station). Green Line, in oldest "subway" in North America is surprisingly slow and unreliable and crowded, but could be worse. Silver Line is a bit gimmicky.
Buffalo (L)* = 40
Poor Buffalo. The Subway is a neat idea, but overbuilt underground stations under a street with not a whole lot of traffic. 15-minute Saturday and 20-minute Sunday service very disappointing. Was planned to be part of a network that would go to UB North, Tondawandas, and perhaps east to Walden and the airport that was opposed by suburbs and had little interest. The local transit routes are not well served.
Chicago (M, C) = 90
The L is gritty and cool and covers Chicago well, including both airports. A tourist would do just fine sticking only to the system. Like Boston, its tracks moved around a lot over 100 years. But frequencies suck and the system is aging poorly and is constantly under threat of cutbacks.
Cleveland ("M", L) = 45
The "subway" is almost anything but, using infrequent one or two car trains with on-board fare collection off-peak, running mostly in active or former rail corridors at grade, but has the distinction of being the first rail link to an airport in NA. Shares track with an old, still functioning early light rail system to Shaker Heights. Depopulation in the rust belt city doesn't help things.
Detroit (P)* = N/A
Los Angeles (M, L, B) = 70+
LA's Red/Purple line is a bit of a joke, but Wilshire is the one arterial that deserves a subway, and it may happen soon. Meanwhile, LA has used LRT well and not so well, the Gold Line is a good example, the Green Line not so much. The Blue Line is a great idea, but runs in a somewhat inconvenient alignment. Expansion of the Gold Line east, the Expo Line and the Wilshire Subway will be interesting. Meanwhile, the red Rapid buses are a neat way of using buses in mixed traffic to provide faster service at minimal cost.
New York (M-MTA, M-PATH, C-NJT) = 150
New York's metro system, which includes PATH, means business, with frequent service, 24-hour routes, used by everybody (like Toronto) and covers the city well. Some of the branches though are poorly serviced, and while things improved, there's a lot of dank (but gritty in a good way). Takes you just about anywhere you want, except the airports (LGA in particular).
Newark (L)* = 45
Neat system to ride, the downtown stations are cool, but that's about it.
Pittsburgh (L) = 55
Pittsburgh's LRT is two routes that run frequently enough by bus standards, and the legacy of a once-great streetcar system. An expansion to the north will connect to the sports venues. Downtown underground stations are simple, operators friendly (at least in my experience), and interesting, but only limited in usefulness. There are minimalist busways to feed express buses downtown from middle and outer suburbs.
San Francisco (M, L/S) = 90
BART is a great hybrid subway/regional rail system, but of limited local use in SF. SF residents have the Muni Metro, which is relatively useful, including a Transit City-like T-Third line. However, the northwest part of the city is poorly served, and must rely on slow trolley and diesel buses. SF is a transit fan's paradise with one of the better commuter rail operations (Caltrain, which is also moving towards becoming a regional rail line), historic streetcars, cable cars, trolley buses, and Muni and BART metros.
San Jose (L)* = 50
Hybrid freeway-median and Transit City style LRT, minimally built but does a good job with its downtown street-running section, has signal priority, and is integrated with the VTA bus system.
Washington (M) = 100
Washington has a stunning Metro system, second to New York in terms of US ridership, and has some BART-ish regional rail attributes, and responsible for good TOD in some Virginia and Maryland suburbs, just like the TTC. Frequencies are a bit wanting though, and some stations are in poor or silly locations, and misses Georgetown.
Bonus: Morgantown (P)
Mexico City (M) = 120
Mexico's system is gigantic with 10 lines, and with insanely cheap fares (2 pesos a ticket). Integrates with buses in suburban areas, and serves the intercity bus terminals and airport. Cons: stations in sometimes really strange places, weird layout with line transfers at the ends of the lines, very long passageways to transfer between lines.
London (M, C, L) = 135
London's Underground covers London really well, especially with the local National Rail services that are integrated on passes and in some tickets. The DLR is a brilliant use of mini-metro technology, as is the Croydon Tramlink an inspired use of LRT. However, the Underground is especially crowded and unreliable, leaving me cursing the system even over a few days' stay.
Manchester (L)* N/A - only rode central sections.
Sheffield (L)* = 65 - nice use of LRT with long outer reaches almost into the countryside (Halfway)
Changchun (L)* = 70 - The LRT (not the heritage streetcar) is frequent and with metro-like preboarding and fast, with modern made-in-town Bombardier Talents and under expansion.
Dalian (L/S)* = N/A - only rode central sections
Hong Kong (M, C, S) = 135
The MTR is absolutely amazing - modern trains, clean, minimalist (but not sterile) stations (with differing tile patterns that reminds me a bit of what the TTC might have done in the 1980s/1990s), covers city well with huge mezzanine levels, but which generate profit from rents. Delightfully bilingual. One of the best smartcards out there. With the newly-acquired KCR, covers city very well.
Shenzhen (M) = 90+
Shenzhen's system is small, but will likely triple in size in the next 10 years, and be fitting of a city of 8-9 million. Stations are simple, with bus integration in the outer stations, very modern, but I found very sterile in appearance, only white and metal.
Last edited:
MisterF
Senior Member
Port Hope has two bus routes!! Yeah I know, you posted that a year ago.
I've only been on 5 subway systems, 6 if you count the Ottawa Transitway. I really need to get to Montreal and New York City.
Whoaccio
Senior Member
I will just add a few that less people may have visited
Toronto - 100: May not be the most extensive or pretty system, but (relative) cleanliness and really good train frequency are major pluses. Good integration with feeder buses. Flat fare would really ease the experience for tourists & non-english speakers, I imagine.
Budapest - 90: Line 1 is a UNESCO World Heritage site (built in 1896) and really is a fun ride. Decent coverage. Clean and pleasant stations outside of Line 1. Good bus/tram coverage, with POP! Unfortunately the metro fare system was confusing as all hell -since changed- if you don't speak Hungarian. What is worse is their fare enforcers can be real jerks. If you are caught with the wrong ticket, you are basically looking at an obligatory bribe or getting kicked out. Tsk Tsk, Budapest
Bucharest - 110: Large coverage, big stations (sort of what I imagine the Allen Rd. section of the TTC was going for...) and new trains (once again, beat the TTC with their Bomber Movias) with totally interconnected cars. Bucharest is the only subway system I have seen this on -DLR excluded- and at first it was a little bit unnerving being able to see 5 cars up or down the train. Good feature though, can't wait till the TTC gets them. I recall headways being a bit slow, but nothing out of the ordinary. A solid extension scheme in the works.
Toronto - 100: May not be the most extensive or pretty system, but (relative) cleanliness and really good train frequency are major pluses. Good integration with feeder buses. Flat fare would really ease the experience for tourists & non-english speakers, I imagine.
Budapest - 90: Line 1 is a UNESCO World Heritage site (built in 1896) and really is a fun ride. Decent coverage. Clean and pleasant stations outside of Line 1. Good bus/tram coverage, with POP! Unfortunately the metro fare system was confusing as all hell -since changed- if you don't speak Hungarian. What is worse is their fare enforcers can be real jerks. If you are caught with the wrong ticket, you are basically looking at an obligatory bribe or getting kicked out. Tsk Tsk, Budapest
Bucharest - 110: Large coverage, big stations (sort of what I imagine the Allen Rd. section of the TTC was going for...) and new trains (once again, beat the TTC with their Bomber Movias) with totally interconnected cars. Bucharest is the only subway system I have seen this on -DLR excluded- and at first it was a little bit unnerving being able to see 5 cars up or down the train. Good feature though, can't wait till the TTC gets them. I recall headways being a bit slow, but nothing out of the ordinary. A solid extension scheme in the works.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Some of the key ones:
Paris(M-RATP, C-RER) = 300
The metro is a little on the slow side (except 1 and 14), but it sort of serves the same purpose as surface transit in Toronto. The RER handles the volume and the speed and it has plenty of both.
Berlin (M,C) = 300
Again, like Paris, the U-bahn stops every 400 m and winds around curves at 10km/h an awful lot. It nevertheless covers most of the inner city with a dense net and the trams bridge some of the gaps. The S-bahn is still the jewel in the crown and it has unmatched speed, capacity and frequency.
New York (M - MTA, Path, C- LIRR, NJT) = 175
When traveling in Manhattan, basically stick to the IRT subways (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) and the A,C,E and walk the rest of the way. Great for traveling within and to Manhattan, but lousy for commuting within the outer boroughs. The G train is about as reliable as the Queen streetcar, as is the F at least in Park Slope.
San Francisco (C - BART = 120, M - Muni = 60), so = 90.
BART is a better regional transportation solution than GO, but it costs so much more to build and is entering the realm of gadgetbahn at least with respect to the area it needs to cover. This is, nevertheless, very important because San Francisco is such a polycentric city region. I look forward to the electrified Caltrain corridor with Siemens Desiro EMUs. MUNI is awful, considering how dense and compact the city of San Francisco is. This is probably where I first cultivated my infamous hatred for LRTs. It is a sin that it takes longer to commute from the Outer Sunset district to downtown than it takes from Fremont, or maybe even Dublin Pleasanton (over the bay and behind a mountain range) on BART.
Vancouver (M - 95)
While the rest of the bus system is nowhere near TTC quality, the skytrain service does its job very well. I never waited more than 5 minutes and it rocketed from New West to downtown in what seemed like 15 minutes. Unlike TTC, this system is expanding and people who advocate rolling out streetcars are considered to represent the fringe opinion, not the central authority.
Paris(M-RATP, C-RER) = 300
The metro is a little on the slow side (except 1 and 14), but it sort of serves the same purpose as surface transit in Toronto. The RER handles the volume and the speed and it has plenty of both.
Berlin (M,C) = 300
Again, like Paris, the U-bahn stops every 400 m and winds around curves at 10km/h an awful lot. It nevertheless covers most of the inner city with a dense net and the trams bridge some of the gaps. The S-bahn is still the jewel in the crown and it has unmatched speed, capacity and frequency.
New York (M - MTA, Path, C- LIRR, NJT) = 175
When traveling in Manhattan, basically stick to the IRT subways (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) and the A,C,E and walk the rest of the way. Great for traveling within and to Manhattan, but lousy for commuting within the outer boroughs. The G train is about as reliable as the Queen streetcar, as is the F at least in Park Slope.
San Francisco (C - BART = 120, M - Muni = 60), so = 90.
BART is a better regional transportation solution than GO, but it costs so much more to build and is entering the realm of gadgetbahn at least with respect to the area it needs to cover. This is, nevertheless, very important because San Francisco is such a polycentric city region. I look forward to the electrified Caltrain corridor with Siemens Desiro EMUs. MUNI is awful, considering how dense and compact the city of San Francisco is. This is probably where I first cultivated my infamous hatred for LRTs. It is a sin that it takes longer to commute from the Outer Sunset district to downtown than it takes from Fremont, or maybe even Dublin Pleasanton (over the bay and behind a mountain range) on BART.
Vancouver (M - 95)
While the rest of the bus system is nowhere near TTC quality, the skytrain service does its job very well. I never waited more than 5 minutes and it rocketed from New West to downtown in what seemed like 15 minutes. Unlike TTC, this system is expanding and people who advocate rolling out streetcars are considered to represent the fringe opinion, not the central authority.
andomano
Active Member
Is there something key I'm missing on the website in the first post? I'm not finding this counter on what appears to be spanish.
ShonTron
Moderator
I said the site was down with the recent bump. All it was you selected an incomplete set of logos from a page to show which systems you've been on.
Long Island Mike
Senior Member
Metros/City Rapid Transit visited...
Everyone: This has become an interesting topic because of opinion post like Shontron's on City Rapid Transit sytems.
In the course of time since I started traveling away from the NYC area in the mid 70s I have been to and ridden: Chicago,Philadelphia,Baltimore,Washington DC,Atlanta,San Francisco,Boston,Buffalo,Cleveland,St.Louis and in Canada Montreal and Toronto naming some systems off the cuff.
I want to take notes here and chime in with opinions of my own sometime soon. LI MIKE
Everyone: This has become an interesting topic because of opinion post like Shontron's on City Rapid Transit sytems.
In the course of time since I started traveling away from the NYC area in the mid 70s I have been to and ridden: Chicago,Philadelphia,Baltimore,Washington DC,Atlanta,San Francisco,Boston,Buffalo,Cleveland,St.Louis and in Canada Montreal and Toronto naming some systems off the cuff.
I want to take notes here and chime in with opinions of my own sometime soon. LI MIKE
Ansem
Banned
Explore all the subway and LRT systems in the world
http://urbanrail.net/index.html
This website is fantastic and I thought I would share it with those of you who never seen it.
So we can compare our system with the others.
What did we do better than others?
which system do you like the most?
Which system Toronto should take ideas from?
or post general comments
http://urbanrail.net/index.html
This website is fantastic and I thought I would share it with those of you who never seen it.
So we can compare our system with the others.
What did we do better than others?
which system do you like the most?
Which system Toronto should take ideas from?
or post general comments
Ansem
Banned
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Amen. I never understood why the TTC had to get rid of its lovely cream colour.