|
|
| Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible (1168124) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Jul 23 18:55:31 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jul 23 15:19:41 2012. Other than London and New York, would you say that's it outside of Asia?Admittedly, I suspect it depends on one's biases. London, Paris, Moscow, and New York are obvious candidates due to their history and large size, but what about Madrid or Barclona? Or Belin (U+S-Bahns), Hamburg (again U+S-Bahns), Munich, and even Stockholm? Or Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Sao Paolo, or Santiago? Do you look at pure system length or do you start looking at ridership as well? CTA is a somewhat extensive system, but there are other systems with more ridership in a small footprint. And should one take into account complimenting modes like streetcar and regional railway networks? If one looks at non-Chinese systems due to their recent growth, CTA certainly wouldn't constitute a major global system, but you certainly wouldn't write off the system as a one-line, low ridership wonder. FWIW, within the United States, CTA is the last big metro system that I have to ride. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|