rorylawless 3 days ago

It isn’t universally awful in the US. Washington, DC’s system is great and should be the cornerstone of any revitalization that isn’t so reliant on the federal government.

  • Bnjoroge 3 days ago

    I wouldnt call dc's metro "great", maybe relative to other cities, it is, but globally it's subpar. Often late, dirty, limited reach etc

  • wat10000 3 days ago

    DC's system is OK. It suffers from being both a commuter rail system and a city transit system mashed together. It needs more tracks so that maintenance can be performed without massive delays and so express trains can be run. Coverage is lacking. It's good if you're going places it serves, but there are a lot of places it doesn't go, like Georgetown. And the hub-and-spoke model makes it quite painful for a relatively decentralized city. Going between, say, Bethesda and Tysons is physically possible but takes ages because you have to go all the way downtown first.

    It gets a lot of things right and is great if it has a good route for the trips you want to make when you want to make it, but mostly it shines because the situation is so much worse in any other American city that's not New York and maybe Chicago.

  • johnisgood 3 days ago

    Thanks, good to know! How are the trains across the country though?

    • altcognito 3 days ago

      Trains are not an efficient use of time for travel within the US.

      The US is huge. If you were take a 300mph (nearing 500kph) train (which would make it the fastest train in the world), it would be OVER an 8 hour trip from New York to LA. (Again, about 2500 miles or 4000k)

      Even in some of the densest areas, the trip times end up being pretty long due to distances: dc to New York? 600 kilometers or almost 400 miles.

      • TulliusCicero 3 days ago

        People aren't taking trains from Madrid to Tallinn, either.

        The proper point of comparison here is more medium length trips. There's no reason not to have a high speed train for Portland - Seattle - Vancouver, for example.

      • CalRobert 3 days ago

        This is irrelevant, though, since the size of the country isn’t what determines where people go. It’s not like trains got less practical when Alaska got admitted to the union.

        Sprawling, low density, single use zoning, combined with parking minimums, have much more to do with it.

        Here’s a video that explores the topic if you’re curious https://youtu.be/REni8Oi1QJQ

      • short_sells_poo 3 days ago

        I see your point, but consider this: getting to and through a major airport is a huge pain the ass. Trains also tend to take you to city centers more often than airports, which almost always need to be a significant distance from anything interesting due to the noise.

        Let's take a hypothetical scenario:

        - 5 hours flight time (average for NY and LA), 2 hours on each side to get to and from the airport to the actual city. Total is 9 hours.

        - 10 hours train time and 1 hour on each end (which is generous given the proximity of train stations to city centers), 12 hours.

        The difference is not that much, and a train ride is so much less faff than a flight that it's not even funny. Little to no security theater, you don't get fondled by security agents, you don't have to stand hours in line with silly passport controls and luggage checkins/pickups. And the list goes on.

        A good train infrastructure can be vastly more pleasant than a good air infrastructure. Where air wins out is intercontinental flights where trains are truly not an option anymore.

      • dpc050505 3 days ago

        How long would it take from New York to Philadelphia, or Boston to DC? How long would it take between San Diego and SF? What about a train between Chicago and Detroit?

        We're building a fast train from Toronto to Quebec city in Canada. It's going to be a lot more comfortable and way faster than driving. A MP in my family takes the train from Montreal to Ottawa very frequently, they don't want to bother with parking in the capital and they can work on the train.

eloisant 3 days ago

It's pretty good in NYC. I heard it's nice in Boston too.

  • krige 3 days ago

    Compared to rest of US? Maybe. Compared to Europe? Absolutely not.

    • drnick1 3 days ago

      I don't think so, the busiest lines of the London subway ("tube") don't even have AC.

      I also rode the subway in Paris some years ago and it wasn't anything to write home about.

  • clickety_clack 3 days ago

    If they ran the suburban rail more frequently Boston would have a phenomenal system.

    • ghaff 3 days ago

      The suburban rail in Boston is very much commuter rail. I live about 50 miles west (pretty near a station though I have to drive) and I'll absolutely take it for a 9-5ish urban event. But it's completely useless for anything in the evening.

      • kevin_thibedeau 3 days ago

        NJ Transit is commuter rail and they made it not suck by providing usable evening and weekend service.

  • quotz 3 days ago

    Its good in NYC for american standards. For european standards the NYC subway is abominable. The smells, the grime, the homeless, its honestly like visiting the 6th ring of hell. Source: I am a european living in NYC.

    • adastra22 3 days ago

      It’s not much different from Paris subway. We should still strive for better - Taipei is a much better model than any European city.

      • quotz 2 days ago

        Paris as a city has gone very downhill the past 5-10 years. The subway there is a prime example.

        • adastra22 2 days ago

          I haven’t been to Paris in more than 5 years. It was disgusting before.