This is totally subjective of course but I am curious to know what criteria we are using to make our determination of which is the best. I use the following. Coverage area, frequency of service, euqipment used, fares, stations and facilities, saftey, and convenience to the CBD of the city it serves. I use mostly the same criteria for subways with the exception of the last one.
I will admit that the DC Metro is nice and has all the bells and whistles people like for a subway system. However, the fare structure leaves much to be desired (zonal as opposed to a flat rate) and it leaves a major section of the city without service as the only stop remotely close to Georgetown is Foggy Bottom. I feel the same way about BART in the City of San Francisco as I think it is quite adequate in the City of Oakland but I might argue BART as more of a commuter operation and less of a subway but that too is very much open to debate.
As for which subway is the best hard to say as different ones are better in different categories. For example I have ridden subways in Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C., Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Francisco (some would argue the MUNI MArket Street subway as one even BART), Toronto and Montreal.
For coverage area, frequency of service, and fares I would go with New York, placing Philly at the opposite end of the spectrum as their subway costs $2 a ride and does not really go anywhere except the Center City Area. Los Angeles too does not truly go anywhere particular especially downtown as they got into the subway game very late.
For equipment I would go with Montreal as they use trains similar to those in the Paris Metro operating with rubber tires. Since the cars do not go above ground with the exception of one station so they took all of the glass out of the windows between the cars replacing them with mesh grates to circulate the air. It makes for an interesting ride. DC and BART are a close second (a tie) because of the carpeting (and for BART the comfortable seats) as well as their general apperance.
Stations and facilities is split as I like the older New York stations for their charm, but I like the DC and LA stations for their cleanliness, and I hate BART's for their antiseptic look.
As for saftey it all depends on the situation and where I am but overall I felt quite safe on the Montreal, DC, BART, Boston, and Atlanta systems. The increased visible police presence on the NYC subway makes me feel fairly safe but some of the neighborhoods served are not wonderful and when riding through those I am on a more heightened alert. I felt the least safe on the Los Angeles subway because they allow people to ride on the honor system meaning no turnstiles or fare collection equipment to allow entry just periodic checks by the LAPD, thus anyone can get on. Proof of payment on a subway system is a joke but that's another topic in itself.
So using my own subjective standards NYC has the best subway system but the others have positive aspects about them as well
I will admit that the DC Metro is nice and has all the bells and whistles people like for a subway system. However, the fare structure leaves much to be desired (zonal as opposed to a flat rate) and it leaves a major section of the city without service as the only stop remotely close to Georgetown is Foggy Bottom. I feel the same way about BART in the City of San Francisco as I think it is quite adequate in the City of Oakland but I might argue BART as more of a commuter operation and less of a subway but that too is very much open to debate.
As for which subway is the best hard to say as different ones are better in different categories. For example I have ridden subways in Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C., Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Francisco (some would argue the MUNI MArket Street subway as one even BART), Toronto and Montreal.
For coverage area, frequency of service, and fares I would go with New York, placing Philly at the opposite end of the spectrum as their subway costs $2 a ride and does not really go anywhere except the Center City Area. Los Angeles too does not truly go anywhere particular especially downtown as they got into the subway game very late.
For equipment I would go with Montreal as they use trains similar to those in the Paris Metro operating with rubber tires. Since the cars do not go above ground with the exception of one station so they took all of the glass out of the windows between the cars replacing them with mesh grates to circulate the air. It makes for an interesting ride. DC and BART are a close second (a tie) because of the carpeting (and for BART the comfortable seats) as well as their general apperance.
Stations and facilities is split as I like the older New York stations for their charm, but I like the DC and LA stations for their cleanliness, and I hate BART's for their antiseptic look.
As for saftey it all depends on the situation and where I am but overall I felt quite safe on the Montreal, DC, BART, Boston, and Atlanta systems. The increased visible police presence on the NYC subway makes me feel fairly safe but some of the neighborhoods served are not wonderful and when riding through those I am on a more heightened alert. I felt the least safe on the Los Angeles subway because they allow people to ride on the honor system meaning no turnstiles or fare collection equipment to allow entry just periodic checks by the LAPD, thus anyone can get on. Proof of payment on a subway system is a joke but that's another topic in itself.
So using my own subjective standards NYC has the best subway system but the others have positive aspects about them as well
