Munich Tops Europe Transit Study

[M II A II R II K]

Munich Tops Europe Transit Study


MARCH 2, 2010



Read More: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

Munich has Europe's best public transport, according to a new study published Tuesday that finds commuters and visitors in 22 other cities face a range of quality in public information, travel times and charges. The survey of 23 European cities found nine offering only "acceptable" bus, streetcar and metro services and said more must be done to make public transport an attractive alternative to driving a car into a city.

The study by EuroTest, a group of automobile clubs in 15 nations led by Germany's ADAC, rated local public transport on travel time, information, ease of transfer, costs, operating hours and access to bike and car parking. Of the cities surveyed, only Munich rated "very good" because of fast connections, "plenty of information at stops and in vehicles" and an "extremely impressive" Web site.

The survey said public transit is "good" in 11 cities—Helsinki, Vienna, Prague, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Frankfurt Barcelona, Leipzig, Cologne, Rome and Bern. However, their evaluation shows weak points. While Rome has cheap public transit and good transfers, it informs travelers very poorly. And taking a bus in Frankfurt is relatively expensive. The study rated public transportation as only "acceptable" in Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Warsaw, Oslo, Lisbon, Madrid, London and Budapest.

A "very poor" grade went to Zagreb—where downtown street cars average only 13 kilometers (nine miles) per hour—and to Ljubljana. Both are now revamping their transit systems.

PDF Results

[Busy Bee]

Public transport just "acceptable" in Paris? Good god, these study folks outta hit up some US cities to see what unacceptable really looks like.

[Busy Bee]

I can vouch for Ljubljana though. I was there in Fall 2007 and their overall system as well as intermodal facilities left a lot to be desired. There train station had poor connections to local transport, little to no multi-lingual signage and a regional bus parking lot out front that looked like a scene from Afghanistan. It could be much different now though. 2-3 years in a developing new Euro-zone capital city can be like 10 years here in the states.

[jaxg8r1]

I had no trouble getting around Munich. Although it does take forever to get into the city from the airport (on the S-Bahn).

Speaking of Amsterdam, come to think of it, I don't remember even taking public transit (Except from Schipol Airport to the city center). Amsterdam is far more human scaled (IMO), so walking/biking seemed so much more natural (and obvious) than most every other city in Europe I've been.

And IMO, transit in Madrid was awesome. One of the most highly developed systems in the world. (as was Berlin, although it was somewhat strange that one half of the city was primarily streetcars/trams, while the other half was mostly metro....I suppose a product of the city being split for so long).

[WonderlandPark]

Best experience on a Metro has to be Moscow. Not much English in the stations to help you find your way, sure. And the rolling stock can be almost archaic. But the stations are STUNNING (even the new ones) and the train headways can be 90 seconds, that's right, seconds. (May be actually 75 seconds IIRC). Of all things the Russians can or cant do, but they sure kmow how to run a heck of a Metro. 325 km, 200 stations and it costs pocket change.

[Crawford]

I would agree with Munich.

Huge system, very modern (and quite grand in parts), excellent frequency and coverage, and serving a medium-sized metro area, so very good pound-for-pound coverage.

Vienna, Frankfurt, Oslo, Zurich, Paris and Madrid would probably rank very highly apples-to-apples. Rome has to be the worst in Western Europe.

[Evergrey]

Why bump a 4 year old study?

[LMich]

It was a commercial spammer who did it. And, unfortunately, someone else had responded before moderation was able to get to him.