Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Subways of the world, to scale

fakeisthenewreal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 61 posts

Re: Subways of the world, to scale

#21

Post by pmjordan »

yread wrote: post #12

[2004] Some are seriously dated. For example Valencia http://www.metrovalencia.es/planos.php?page=103

Oddly enough, the Vienna map seems to include the new part of the U2 line to the football stadium, which was opened shortly before the Euro 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_U-Bahn#3rd_expansion_pha...

Re: Subways of the world, to scale

#22

Post by CWIZO »

Interesting, I always thought London had the biggest underground network. As far as I know Glasgow is missing.

Which city, do you think, has the best one? I've only been on the underground in London, Glasgow and Munich. And to me, London seems the best, you really don't need a car there (well at least in the centre).

Re: Subways of the world, to scale

#23

Post by pmjordan »

limmeau wrote: post #2

Including the S-Bahn of Berlin but not the RER of Paris or the S-Bahn of Munich looks like an arbitrary decision. Yes, I know the shapes of the pantographs differ, but that's not relevant to me at that scale.

Yep, the Vienna map only includes the U-Bahn, not the S-Bahn, even though some of the tracks of both U-Bahn and S-Bahn were built for the "Stadtbahn". (e.g. U4, U6, S45) But then the U2 used to be a tram line, so it's difficult to draw the line.

Re: Subways of the world, to scale

#24

Post by drewda »

gojomo wrote: post #4
Empact wrote: post #3

As for the effects of these differences in layouts, here's an interesting analysis of SF Bart vs. DC Metro, which finds the DC network-style system far more effective - 2.5x the ridership for the same track length ( http://www.ctchouston.org/intermodality/2006/05/06/tale-of-t... ) I'm not sure what institutional reason leads Bart to continue expanding outward, rather than running new tunnels in SF proper, but it does…

Don't trust a Houstonian to interpret SF transit! MUNI light rail, subways, and buses handle most shorter trips within SF -- so Metrorail is more comparable to a mix of MUNI plus BART. (It's possible for visitors to the bay area, or even residents of outlying suburbs, to almost completely overlook MUNI trains. I know when I lived in Berkeley, and took BART into SF, I had no appreciation of all the places MUNI went, e…

Two bits of BART history:

- My understanding is that BART was originally intended to go around the entire bay, but budget squabbles among the counties led Santa Clara (San Jose), San Mateo (the Peninsula), and Marina to drop out (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Bay_Area_Rapid_T...).

- The D.C. Metro is actually based on BART and uses the same trains, ticketing system, and fare structure originally designed for BART.

Re: Subways of the world, to scale

#25

Post by buster »

CWIZO wrote: post #22

Interesting, I always thought London had the biggest underground network. As far as I know Glasgow is missing. Which city, do you think, has the best one? I've only been on the underground in London, Glasgow and Munich. And to me, London seems the best, you really don't need a car there (well at least in the centre).

Actually, i was quite unimpressed by the London metro last time i visited. London is quite famous for its underground but due to it's age it seems to be extremely overcrowded. My experience on a weekend trip has been that the train did only stop every two stations because of so many people and it was just overcrowded.

On the other hand this made me realize how good the Berlin system actually is.

Re: Subways of the world, to scale

#26

Post by metatronscube »

CWIZO wrote: post #22

Interesting, I always thought London had the biggest underground network. As far as I know Glasgow is missing. Which city, do you think, has the best one? I've only been on the underground in London, Glasgow and Munich. And to me, London seems the best, you really don't need a car there (well at least in the centre).

Yeah the clockwork orange is missing, its a shame because it was one of the oldest, but its tiny compared to these ones. I would agree that London is one of the most comprehensive, its probably not as modern feeling (and clean) as some of the rest, but it is one of the best IMHO.

Re: Subways of the world, to scale

#27

Post by jeffreyg »

gojomo wrote: post #4
Empact wrote: post #3

As for the effects of these differences in layouts, here's an interesting analysis of SF Bart vs. DC Metro, which finds the DC network-style system far more effective - 2.5x the ridership for the same track length ( http://www.ctchouston.org/intermodality/2006/05/06/tale-of-t... ) I'm not sure what institutional reason leads Bart to continue expanding outward, rather than running new tunnels in SF proper, but it does…

Don't trust a Houstonian to interpret SF transit! MUNI light rail, subways, and buses handle most shorter trips within SF -- so Metrorail is more comparable to a mix of MUNI plus BART. (It's possible for visitors to the bay area, or even residents of outlying suburbs, to almost completely overlook MUNI trains. I know when I lived in Berkeley, and took BART into SF, I had no appreciation of all the places MUNI went, e…

He said he's lived in both SF and DC, if you had bothered to read past the first sentence you'd know this..

Re: Subways of the world, to scale

#28

Post by Sukotto »

Empact wrote: post #3

As for the effects of these differences in layouts, here's an interesting analysis of SF Bart vs. DC Metro, which finds the DC network-style system far more effective - 2.5x the ridership for the same track length ( http://www.ctchouston.org/intermodality/2006/05/06/tale-of-t... ) I'm not sure what institutional reason leads Bart to continue expanding outward, rather than running new tunnels in SF proper, but it does…

On the face of it, it seems like there should be an inverse relationship between the people paying the most taxes and the areas of Seattle most in need of public transit. People with money are more likely to drive a car and therefore less likely to need transit.

Did I misunderstand your comment?

Re: Subways of the world, to scale

#29

Post by tome »

buster wrote: post #25
CWIZO wrote: post #22

Interesting, I always thought London had the biggest underground network. As far as I know Glasgow is missing. Which city, do you think, has the best one? I've only been on the underground in London, Glasgow and Munich. And to me, London seems the best, you really don't need a car there (well at least in the centre).

Actually, i was quite unimpressed by the London metro last time i visited. London is quite famous for its underground but due to it's age it seems to be extremely overcrowded. My experience on a weekend trip has been that the train did only stop every two stations because of so many people and it was just overcrowded. On the other hand this made me realize how good the Berlin system actually is.

London Underground trains always stop at every stop[1].

[1] actually not always, but with very rare exception.

{EDIT:

I'm getting downvoted so I think I misunderstood what you were saying.

On rereading again I now think you were saying "unusually due to overcrowding the trains were missing out every other station". Previously, I thought you meant "unusually due to overcrowding the trains stopped as frequently as every other station [whereas usually they visit fewer stations than that]".

I was trying to point out that stopping often is usual Underground behavior, thinking that you were assuming it wasn't.

}

Post reply on HN