Gordon Douglas
neighborhood enthusiast, doctoral student
re: http://www.good.is/?p=15615
Well Go(o)d knows I love me some mass transit and some quality visual
display of quantitative information, but I have to agree with others
here that this one seems strangely (and unusually, for you guys)
confusing...
most frustrating at least to me, as the anonymous individual at 12:30
noted, how can you talk about urban transit systems and then only use
municipal population figures? Of the five US ones, only in NYC does the
system lay entirely within the city, while for BART and DC Metro the
greater metropolitan areas figure in extremely importantly...
which brings in the commuter issue that others have wisely noted...
BART as a system is questionably qualified without also including other
primarily-suburban ones (Muni Metro would seem a more apt example for
just including S.F., but then, as light rail, it's not technically a
"subway" system either as usually defined). Then again, most large
transit systems today are multi-modal,
making it even harder to draw the line at heavy rail v. light rail v.
fixed-guideway bus, etc. (just look at TfL's Undergound, Overground,
DLR and Tram service!). I'm all for considering a system a system (and
while SF doesn't include Muni, the calculation for track length on the
T includes heavy and light rail, so I guess we agree) but it could be
made clear on the graphic.
Lastly, the NYC Subway is effectively 229 miles long, only slightly
longer than Tokyo's. Yes it has many lines running along its routes (on
different tracks, giving a huge number of actual track mileage and
"revenue miles"), but that large number is kind of deceiving. If the
CTA and NYMTA were shown at appropriate length, NYC would still be
longest, but more accurately reflect the level of service (re C4Rlo's
comment) in my opinion. Maybe I'm just picky - goodmarked anyway for
effort and the nice touch of accurate rail car illustrations. Yay!
Well Go(o)d knows I love me some mass transit and some quality visual
display of quantitative information, but I have to agree with others
here that this one seems strangely (and unusually, for you guys)
confusing...
most frustrating at least to me, as the anonymous individual at 12:30
noted, how can you talk about urban transit systems and then only use
municipal population figures? Of the five US ones, only in NYC does the
system lay entirely within the city, while for BART and DC Metro the
greater metropolitan areas figure in extremely importantly...
which brings in the commuter issue that others have wisely noted...
BART as a system is questionably qualified without also including other
primarily-suburban ones (Muni Metro would seem a more apt example for
just including S.F., but then, as light rail, it's not technically a
"subway" system either as usually defined). Then again, most large
transit systems today are multi-modal,
making it even harder to draw the line at heavy rail v. light rail v.
fixed-guideway bus, etc. (just look at TfL's Undergound, Overground,
DLR and Tram service!). I'm all for considering a system a system (and
while SF doesn't include Muni, the calculation for track length on the
T includes heavy and light rail, so I guess we agree) but it could be
made clear on the graphic.
Lastly, the NYC Subway is effectively 229 miles long, only slightly
longer than Tokyo's. Yes it has many lines running along its routes (on
different tracks, giving a huge number of actual track mileage and
"revenue miles"), but that large number is kind of deceiving. If the
CTA and NYMTA were shown at appropriate length, NYC would still be
longest, but more accurately reflect the level of service (re C4Rlo's
comment) in my opinion. Maybe I'm just picky - goodmarked anyway for
effort and the nice touch of accurate rail car illustrations. Yay!
