[dkhenry]

If you look at Washington DC's metro its pretty much the same QoS as you get off the Berlin metro. So I am not quite sure how its considered "primitive"

Berlin - 4 - 5 minute trains DC - 6 minute trains

Berlin - 9 lines, 170 stations DC - 6 lines, 91 stations

and thats not even the biggest metro system in the US. So really the problem isn't going back to the US, its going back to whatever place you're going to in the US. I am sure if you moved out to Zwiesel you would be in the same situation

[nharada]

Metro and subway systems in the US are to me basically comparable to systems abroad. I'd argue most US city rails are better than Berlin's.

Where you immediately notice is longer distance commuter and cross-country lines. I often take the train from Chicago to Detroit, and every time we stop partway for ~15-30 mins because the company can't run trains in both directions on the tracks. Even when we are moving, most of the time we can't come close to our top speed of 130 mph because we aren't on high speed track. Compare this to EU trains which run across the country non-stop at top speeds of 180 mph. Granted, not everywhere has high quality service, but most major cities do, which definitely can't be said about the US.

[kuschku]

Here is a map of high speed rail in europe: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/High_Spe...

The <200km/h category in Germany, at least, is all 180km/h or higher.

[dkhenry]

That I can agree with. I don't often ride long distance rail because even on the Northeast line which is I think the line with the highest ridership you often have to stop for freight trains and other trains.

[rayiner]

I've never had to stop for a freight train on the northeast (between DC and NYC anyway), because Amtrak owns those tracks. You do sometimes have to stop for local commuter trains that share the tracks, or (more commonly) an acela overtaking a regional. By far the most common reason for delay, though, is the aging equipment.

[randomsearch]

My experience is that the US has awful public transit, with the arguable exception of NYC, purely because of its subway.

Here's the stats for Berlin vs Washington, as you wanted to make the comparison.

Berlin subway (U-Bahn) has 10 lines, 94km (route length). Berlin trams have 22 lines, 190km.

Washington Metro has 6 lines, 118km. No trams (under construction?).

I'm excluding the S-Bahn, as Washington doesn't have anything comparable.

Berlin's subway alone carries about 500 million passengers a year, versus 200 million on the Washington metro.

The difference in this case is quite easily explained by density of population - Washington is much smaller than Berlin, with 700k vs 3.5 million. However, this doesn't explain why other US cities have such poor public transit.

If you look at the numbers transported by American metro (subway) systems, there are 18 subway systems in Europe that carry more passengers than Chicago, the USA's second busiest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems

[Zach_the_Lizard]

>Washington Metro has 6 lines, 118km. No trams (under construction?).

DC is building a streetcar system. The H Street line is basically done and the streetcars are running, but there are issues to work out before it can officially open. Poor project management made it take forever and ended up having neighboring jurisdictions (Arlington) cancel their streetcar plans.

>The difference in this case is quite easily explained by density of population - Washington is much smaller than Berlin, with 700k vs 3.5 million. DC is not less dense than Berlin is. DC is about the same density, actually. What DC is is small: DC is ~69 square miles vs 344 square miles for Berlin. The Metro actually travels relatively far into the suburbs covering far more than just DC itself (DC again being really tiny).

What is much less dense is the surrounding area. Arlington and Alexandria (both part of DC at one point, but now part of VA) are also relatively dense by US standards (especially where the Metro goes; many people do not own cars or own one car per family) but outside of those and a few other pockets of density most of the region is significantly less dense and thus the number of trips is lower.

Also, the DC area does have two commuter rails systems: MARC and VRE, run by Maryland and Virginia respectively. MARC reaches all the way to West Virginia. Based on a cursory browsing of Wikipedia (so it must be true) this seems to be what the S-Bahn is. Not sure how comparable they are though.

> However, this doesn't explain why other US cities have such poor public transit.

Many parts of the US experienced growth after cars came on the scene, and the infrastructure was designed with them in mind. This has since been shown to be a bad thing, but at the time it seemed like the way cities of the future should be built.

From then on, local governments basically mandated suburban living. Places like New York, DC, San Francisco, Chicago, etc. grew up before the car and so weren't ruined. Their suburbs may have been, but the cities themselves weren't. We are now trying to undo the damage.

[sentenza]

Wait. Shouldn't a more dense city mean more usage of public transportation? Because

a) the financial viability of public transportation increases with population density and

b) more densely populated means less parking space.

[akgerber]

The Washington Metro is comparable to the S-Bahn. DC doesn't have a system comparable to the Berlin Metro, because it doesn't have the dense tenement neighborhoods to support such a system.

The DC metro area actually has more population than the Berlin metro area. Most of it is just built in sprawling postwar American style, though it's urbanizing more than many equivalent American cities.

[smackfu]

How do those stats turn into "awful" in your mind? Maybe "not as good".

[ramgorur]

the QoS parameter should also include

1. cleanliness 2. how much stinky the seats are 3. how much greasy/sticky the platforms are etc.

and yes, I am talking about WMATA