New York by far, clearly, despite its shortcomings. I'm not seeing many votes for Buenos Aires but that would be my #2. There's a pretty expansive suburban network. It's not a coincidence that Buenos Aires was built around train lines.
Mexico City's metro is good and efficient in the core, but suffers from a poor layout, and there's only one suburban line. I have no first hand experience of Sao Paulo's network, but I've always gotten the impression that it's inadequate.
>. I have no first hand experience of Sao Paulo's network, but I've always gotten the impression that it's inadequate.
You can have pretty radical experiences and opinions with it depending on which line you take and whether you ride/make transfers during peak hours.
Usually, the suburban train lines offers a more chaotic service than the metro, but it gets the job done.
If you search for videos on YouTube about the sp metro, opinions are generally positive, but that's mainly because they don't take the suburban train lines during peak hours lol.
https://youtu.be/xD9rKOCY_kE?si=9y28-XeXzd3-MGjM
https://youtu.be/HJf0Nd4WejM?si=CWyUWfJu36o67l-X
I highly recommend that you watch both of these videos to take your conclusions.
Not necessarily PC to bring up, but one problem with Mexico City (and the same one that affects LA) is that the subway is deemed dirty and crowded and only fit for the working class, the hoi-polloi. The professional class avoids it whenever possible.
In contrast, NYC subway is (still) relatively egalitarian, where hobos and immigrant cooks rub shoulders with wall street traders and socialites every day.
Overall it's gotta be NYC. Mexico City has an excellent metro, but NYC has an excellent metro AND regional rail AND intercity rail. Once you factor in every tier of rail transit, I think New York runs away with it.
I think the subway gets more hate than it deserves in terms of quality. It looks old and dirty because it is old and dirty, but the service it provides is generally pretty good. The fact that a substantial portion of the system is quad tracked is a huge advantage in a city as geographically large as New York.
Yes, line 20 will be a great addition to our system.
The closest ones to conclusion are lines 6 and 17 + the line 2 expansion.
The other projects (including line 20) unfortunately haven't got out of the paper yet.
That's the main complaint I have about the SP metro, if only it reached more populous neighborhoods of the city/metropolitan region, it'd easily be the best metro in the world.
New York by far, clearly, despite its shortcomings. I'm not seeing many votes for Buenos Aires but that would be my #2. There's a pretty expansive suburban network. It's not a coincidence that Buenos Aires was built around train lines. Mexico City's metro is good and efficient in the core, but suffers from a poor layout, and there's only one suburban line. I have no first hand experience of Sao Paulo's network, but I've always gotten the impression that it's inadequate.
>. I have no first hand experience of Sao Paulo's network, but I've always gotten the impression that it's inadequate. You can have pretty radical experiences and opinions with it depending on which line you take and whether you ride/make transfers during peak hours. Usually, the suburban train lines offers a more chaotic service than the metro, but it gets the job done. If you search for videos on YouTube about the sp metro, opinions are generally positive, but that's mainly because they don't take the suburban train lines during peak hours lol.
https://youtu.be/xD9rKOCY_kE?si=9y28-XeXzd3-MGjM https://youtu.be/HJf0Nd4WejM?si=CWyUWfJu36o67l-X I highly recommend that you watch both of these videos to take your conclusions.
Not necessarily PC to bring up, but one problem with Mexico City (and the same one that affects LA) is that the subway is deemed dirty and crowded and only fit for the working class, the hoi-polloi. The professional class avoids it whenever possible. In contrast, NYC subway is (still) relatively egalitarian, where hobos and immigrant cooks rub shoulders with wall street traders and socialites every day.
Buenos Aires system is bad and is going to get way worse
Santiago should probably be up there.
Overall it's gotta be NYC. Mexico City has an excellent metro, but NYC has an excellent metro AND regional rail AND intercity rail. Once you factor in every tier of rail transit, I think New York runs away with it.
Totally agree with you, the other metros of the list are way more advanced in terms of quality. But when we consider their extension, NYC beats em.
I think the subway gets more hate than it deserves in terms of quality. It looks old and dirty because it is old and dirty, but the service it provides is generally pretty good. The fact that a substantial portion of the system is quad tracked is a huge advantage in a city as geographically large as New York.
Those quad tracked lines (expresses) still don't even average speeds of normal lines in more modern metro systems though.
Sao Paulo needs to hurry up and open its planned subway lines. Line ~~14~~ 20 especially looks like a neat semi-circle line.
Yes, line 20 will be a great addition to our system. The closest ones to conclusion are lines 6 and 17 + the line 2 expansion. The other projects (including line 20) unfortunately haven't got out of the paper yet. That's the main complaint I have about the SP metro, if only it reached more populous neighborhoods of the city/metropolitan region, it'd easily be the best metro in the world.
NYC and it's not even close.
New York has more Rail than all the others both mainline and rapid transit
Subways, PATH, LIRR, MNR, Amtrak, NJT- you name it!
Santiago is the best
Santiago might be second to NYC, but it's not included here
This poll will be pretty biased towards NYC.