Subways of the world, to scale

As for the effects of these differences in layouts, here's an interesting analysis of SF Bart vs. DC Metro, which finds the DC network-style system far more effective - 2.5x the ridership for the same track length (<a href="http://www.ctchouston.org/intermodality/2006/05/06/tale-of-two-subways/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ctchouston.org/intermodality/2006/05/06/tale-of-t...</a>)<p>I'm not sure what institutional reason leads Bart to continue expanding outward, rather than running new tunnels in SF proper, but it doesn't seem to be cost-effectiveness driving them to do it.<p>Interestingly, Seattle made a special institutional provision to ensure this doesn't occur there - they have a system of "sub-area equity", whereby the tax revenues for each of several regions must be spent within that region. So, for example, political power in the suburbs or a desire to expand the agency's tax base doesn't drive them to unfairly allocate transit where it's relatively unneeded, and they can get their second central tunnel whenever the tax revenues for the core call for it.

Including the S-Bahn of Berlin but not the RER of Paris or the S-Bahn of Munich looks like an arbitrary decision. Yes, I know the shapes of the pantographs differ, but that's not relevant to me at that scale.

a design issue: as I scrolled down the page, at half way I was confused if the city name was associated with the map on top of it or below it. of course I could have scrolled back to find out which was which, but it seemed a poor design if I had to do that.

[2004]<p>Some are seriously dated. For example Valencia <a href="http://www.metrovalencia.es/planos.php?page=103" rel="nofollow">http://www.metrovalencia.es/planos.php?page=103</a>

It's not quite obvious what the point here is. Many of the cities listed (at least Amsterdam, Munich and Paris) have lightrail lines which can be used seamlessly from the subway. In the case of Amsterdam, the lightrail lines are what you'd actually use to move within the city.<p>On the larger scale, you get Paris' RER lines or Hamburg's S-Bahn and, for most European cities also a comprehensive train network that makes it possible to commute from larger cities that are as far away as 100km (e.g., from Maastricht, Den Haag or other Dutch cities to Amsterdam) - probably also for the (relatively large) Cologne/Düsseldorf area, which comprises as many people as Berlin, but has many local governments instead of one.<p>Not sure how to visualize this, though. (Ideally, you'd provide maps based on (i) actual scale, (ii) commute time, and (iii) commute cost.

Interesting, I always thought London had the biggest underground network. As far as I know Glasgow is missing.<p>Which city, do you think, has the best one? I've only been on the underground in London, Glasgow and Munich. And to me, London seems the best, you really don't need a car there (well at least in the centre).

The Vancouver Translink map is missing the new Canada Line.

I'm surprised the pathetic Toronto TTC subway made its way to the list. For a city of its size it could really enjoy a more intricate subway system. There are buses and trams here indeed but they get stuck the traffic just like every other vehicle during the rush hour.

Well, technically, not all of these are strictly subways: there's plenty of above-ground lines represented here.<p>Still, it's very interesting to see these to scale. I did not realize Parisian subway system was so compact.

The most bizarre thing is that they don't all appear to be normalized to point North at the top.

How come there's a "thank you" for a Los Angeles map, but I don't see it on the site?

They forgot Glasgow. I'll add it here: o<p>;)