Were this conversation a bus line, it would meander around a bunch of side streets before finding its way back to the main street, then meander again a few blocks later.
I'm probably about to repeat some things that have already been said in this reply, but: by "iconic" the OP didn't mean "best performer operationally" or "most historically significant" or "has most distinctive rolling stock" or "was influential in graphic design" or anything like that.
It was: If you saw a shot of this in the opening or establishing shots of a TV show or film, would you instantly make an association between the {rapid transit (line|station) | surface rail transit (vehicle|route)} and the city it's in? Or perhaps vice versa, if you saw or knew that a show was shot (set) in a certain city, would you recognize its rapid transit/streetcar/light rail line when you saw it?
That's a purely aesthetic criterion - and it's based on the whole package, not one single element.
That last is important in understanding why Chicago's 'L' — especially the Loop — is considered iconic. I'll have more to say on that below.
But right now, I'd say that there are only three US subway/rapid transit systems that would qualify as "iconic" according to this standard:
New York.
Chicago.
Washington.
New York because, well, New York.
Chicago because it's actually a distinguishing feature that sets the city apart from
every other city on the planet. Specifically, it has an elevated railroad system that runs through and encircles the heart of downtown. It's not an establishing shot (or more accurately, montage of shots) of Chicago if one of them doesn't include a CTA train making its way along the 'L'.
(And that scene where Jake and Elwood Blues rent a flophouse room next to a leg of the Loop 'L' and can't hear each other because trains are passing by their window every five seconds is one of the funnier movie scenes I've ever seen.)
Washington because it's architecturally distinctive and original in a way no other underground rapid transit system is save Moscow's. (And we wouldn't recognize Moscow's because there are hardly any films or TV series either set or shot there.)
Now, on to the specifics:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD
To me, NYC is just big, not iconic. Nobody puts “ride the subway” on their NYC tourist list. It’s how you get around the city.
|
That's true of every city's subway save one: Moscow's. People
do go there to ride the subway.
That's because the stations there are all architectural showpiece. The ones on the initial subway lines (first one opened in 1935) are for the most part downright palatial. They look like these:
Arbatskaya station, Line 4
Alex 'Florstein' Federov via Wikimedia Commons; licensed under
CC BY-SA 4.0
Krasnoprensenskaya station, Line 8
A. Savin via Wikimedia Commons; freely licensed
And even the newer stations are outstanding architecturally. There's even one station that resembles one of those on our architecturally most distinctive subway:
Krasnogevardeyskaya station, Line 2, opened 1985
Alex 'Florstein' Federov via Wikimedia Commons; licensed under
CC BY-SA 4.0
Washington's is iconic because it's instantly recognizable and is known as being in Washington. (And this is neither here nor there as far as this discussion is concerned, but in terms of average daily ridership, Washington's is the second-busiest rapid transit system in the country, after New York's.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
No offense but DC, Atlanta and BART basically all have the same look because they were built basically together. SF is iconic due to its cable Cars not BART.
The T is more Iconic than the DC metro. The Trains are actually colored. That’s pretty unique in America (although Philly has Blue/Orange Trim)
|
I agree with those who have said that the rolling stock doesn't rise to the level of making the Boston subway instantly recognizable, but the T-in-a-circle logo
does.
Did Stockholm really start using this symbol before Boston? The logo was part of a comprehensive system graphic standard developed for the new MBTA by Cambridge Seven Associates in 1964. C7A's goal even then was to have the logo become a standard symbol that could be used to identify "transit," just like the "H" on a blue rectangle for "hospital." Three other US transit systems use the symbol (each slightly altered off the original save one, I think): Birmingham (Jefferson County, Alabama); Minneapolis-St. Paul; Pittsburgh.
In Stockholm, the T stands for "Tunnelbana" ("tunnel railway" - "subway"). Ergo, I don't think the symbol is used in Stockholm the way it is in Minneapolis, Birmingham or Boston. (In Pittsburgh, it's used as it is in Stockholm - to refer to the light rali system that runs in a subway tunnel downtown.
Quote:
|
DC is like LA or Atlanta in it has a Subway but I don’t think it really has the same association with the city. The Red Line on the Longfellow is usually in the opening montage, like the Loop in Chicago is. Plus the Green Line/Kenmore Station is usually in opening shots of Red Sox national broadcasts.
|
I'll give you that, but it's usually part of a shot that includes Beacon Hill behind it or the Charles River around it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci
Ferries IMO should only be included if they are part of the transit system.
|
It may be operated by the New York City Department of Transportation rather than the (New York) Metropolitan Transportation Authority, but the Staten Island Ferry is very much "part of the transit system." Since the planned subway tunnel under the Narrows from Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, never got built, riders of Staten Island's one rapid transit line change at St. George ("downtown" SI) for the ferry ride to Manhattan.
The San Francisco cable cars (one of the few pieces of rolling stock in the USA that are themselves iconic) are tourist attractions that perform a transit function too. The Staten Island Ferry is a transportation facility that also performs a tourist-attraction function.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Quiet_One
I'd rate the most iconic transit systems in this order:
1) NYC subway
2) San Francisco cable cars
3) Disney monorail system
4) Chicago L
5) Amtrak
I feel like even a person who never left their house could instantly recognize those transit systems, because they are prominent in TV, movies, and culture.
The DC Metro is iconic, but really only for people who have used it. The system hardly ever makes an appearance in movies or popular culture about DC. Same with Philadelphia and Boston. When movies and TV shows take place in NYC, SF, or Chicago, you will almost always see the subway, cable cars, and L. That's not the case with other cities, like Boston and Philadelphia. Rocky didn't take the train.
|
But he did jog under the Frankford El on that incredible (and physically impossible in the time he took to finish it) run through just about every part of the city on his way from South Philly to the Art Museum steps.
And if Rocky wanted to get from South Philly to Kensington (where the shot with the el in the background occurs) in a hurry, he would take the subway and El.
I think the Disney monorail is less iconic than Cinderella's castle (like monorails, a common element in every Disney theme park and now part of the logo for Walt Disney Pictures).
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
Dallas has a transit system??? (Seriously)
|
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) is the most extensive light rail transit/light metro system in the United States. Traffic on it has reached the point where the section in downtown Dallas, which operates in city streets, will be buried in a subway tunnel.
Just like Pittsburgh, Ottawa — and Boston, 123 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
I’m just basing. Off of most well known used or most famous..not off the look of it as the old ones look the same and the new ones look the same.
DC or Boston is a toss up but Boston’s is older/historic And I think more famous/and has a better more iconic logo and is more tied into the development of the area. DCs is a better system and maybe is more used??
|
Well, yes, Boston's system aided the development of communities along it, where Washington's was inserted into already-existing urban fabric. But the Washington Metro has reshaped much of the Washington landscape, most notably in some of its suburbs: Bethesda, Silver Spring, and Arlington.
In all three cities, it spurred denser development around the stations, just as Canada's first subway line along Yonge Street in Toronto (1954) did.
As for "is more used," I refer you to my reply to
GeoffD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne999
Agree history is a factory...and generally I think we’ve all lost our minds even from city data standards when we’re talking about the iconic nature of vaulted ceilings in subways
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Quiet_One
I see my Amtrak idea is getting a little ridicule, which I fully understand. But I'm going to double down 
It is an important transit system. It's essential to many Americans, and is the only transit available in many US towns/cities, even if it isn't specific to a single city. I would say most Americans are familiar with Amtrak even if they never ride. If you asked the average American to say what Amtrak is, I bet they'd know it's trains. Ask them what a SEPTA, BART, or PATH is and they probably won't have a clue, unless they live near those systems. I don't have a source for any of this though.
I have no doubts that Amtrak is one of the most well-known transit systems in the US. But I also think it's one of the most iconic. That's mostly because of its association with romantic passenger train service of long ago and because of it's iconic routes and views.
For example, try to find lists like these for any other transit systems in the US:
(links snipped, though they prove my point below)
Plus, if we're going to start comparing iconic stations, then Amtrak has plenty of those. |
It does. But it's not considered "transit" any more than an intercity bus is. Even though the company that owns Greyhound is called First Transit, the company doesn't use the word when talking about Greyhound. Amtrak and Greyhound, like the airlines, are intercity transportation; in the US, we use "transit" to refer to public conveyances that get us around
within the city and its environs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09
Yep.
I took the subway in Paris, and it was not too distinctive at all. Probably a bit more distinctive some of the other Euro cities I visited, but no where near London in terms of being a stand out iconic transit system. I'll give NYC the benefit of the doubt simply because it was one of America's earliest, and is depicted so much in film/tv more than any other subway system.
|
The London Underground is another system that's partly iconic because of its logo, the red circle with a blue bar across it known as the "roundel." Transport for London uses it for all of its services, including bus, light rail and Overground (a more recent addition that uses abandoned surface and above-ground railroad lines), and you can find shops where it is used as a stand-in for London itself, like the Houses of Parliament or Tower Bridge.
But the distinctive profile of the "Tube" stations (the later ones on the deep underground lines) also say "London" to me too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09
Only Vancouver and Montreal stand out as the most known to people outside the country. I assume people think Toronto has a train, but don't know how iconic it's perceived to be outside of Canada.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
|
Wish you'd identified the stations on these thumbnails, as some of them have either been added or remodeled since I was last on the T and the names are impossible to read on a number of them.
Boston's stations are architecturally distinctive — more so than their New York (
pace the mosaics) and Philadelphia counterparts. But someone from outside the area wouldn't instantly pick up on the stations and say, "That's Boston."
Washington's more architecturally uniform stations, especially the first ones with their waffled squashed-oval vaulted ceilings, are not only distinctive but also quickly recognised as being part of Washington. They're just about the only works of Brutalist architecture people actually like as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
|
Again, station names.
Actually, about one-quarter of all the rapid-transit stations in Boston are old:
Tremont Street Subway (Green Line from Haymarket to Boylston): 1897-98
State and Government Center (nee Scollay Under) (Blue Line): 1904
Washington Street Tunnel (Orange Line, Essex-Haymarket): 1908
Boylston Street Subway (Green Line): 1912-13
Cambridge Subway (Park Street-Harvard Square [station rebuilt 1984]): 1909-12
Bowdoin station, Blue Line: ~1915
Dorchester Subway (Washington-Andrew): 1912-1917
Dorchester Subway Extension: (JFK/UMass-Ashmont, plus light rail line to Mattapan): 1925-27
Huntington Avenue Subway (Green Line, Prudential and Symphony stations): 1941 (WPA project)
In addition, the Blue Line extension beyond Maverick Square opened to Orient Heights in 1950 and Wonderland in 1952, and the Highland Branch Green Line took over an old Boston and Albany commuter rail line in 1957, before the formation of the MBTA. So that makes more than half the current system predate the post-1971 extensions and realignments.
Several of the stations in the two sets of thumbnails are on these original line segments. All but the original two have gotten makeovers since they opened, some more than one, and Harvard, JFK/UMass and Ashmont at least have been totally rebuilt and Haymarket (Green Line) relocated south into what had been a stretch of subway tunnel between it and Scollay Square.
Quote:
Originally Posted by masssachoicetts
At the end of the day. Every subway/metro/T system in the country (USA) sucks. Comparing NYC/Philly/DC/Boston/Chicago to be the most iconic is basically a race to the bottom. Boston may be the first subway, NYC the most extensive in NA, Chicago with above ground lines, and DC with cool stations.. but they are all terrible lol. No single system is reliable, great and modern. I mean the subway system I lived off of in NYC had 3 derailments in a year with a 58% on time performance rating. The one I live by in Boston, just started getting better. I got stuck in the DC Metro tunnel for an hour because it rained and messed up the signaling lol.
With that said, any subway system in America could be the most iconic. Any could be put in the top 5. Until one comes out to Euro/Asian standards, these debates are pointless. I haven't found a system that is reliable enough to round off the 'iconic' indicator.
|
Now you're venturing into service quality. That determines whether a subway does its job but doesn't determine whether a line or system is "iconic" or not. That judgement's an aesthetic one, by and large.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bostonkid123
Nearly choked on my coffee when I read this. Right let's talk about transit but forget about ridership, coverage, system reliability, functionality, or every other factor that defines what a modern public transit should be. 
Nonetheless, fun thread!
Here's my criteria for the "top 5" most iconic/picture-worthy transit systems:
1. Oldest, most antiquated rolling stock (e.g. no A/C, no accessibility, cramped interiors)
2. Frequent system breakdowns (e.g. NYC or Chicago)
3. Rampant cleanliness issues around stations (e.g. rats, trash, urine smell, graffiti, etc. etc.)
4. Minimal frequency, utility (e.g. goes in a loop, does nothing to alleviate people's daily need to get from point A to B)
5. Inconsistent state/municipal funding that has led to service deteriorations over the years |
See? You yourself used "picture-worthy" here.
You can't take a picture of a late train and have non-riders instantly know that train's late. Nor can you take a picture of a bus line or loop and have someone know that a given line or loop is useful or useless.
There are people that like to look at pictures of money, true. But you can't tell from those that what they represent is not enough money coming from Washington or the state capital.
Legendary f**k-ups are one thing, but we don't consider those "icons."
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley-88888888
[never been to chicago] are yoo saying chicago has no underground tunnels (then technically, chicago doesnt have subway service) ?
|
No! Chicago does have subways.
The city had planned to replace the Loop 'L' with a network of subways beginning in the 1920s. (I've seen an editorial cartoon from that era that depicted money-hungry downtown merchants using a "Loop Tube Magnet" to pull shoppers out of their neighborhood shopping districts and into the city center.)
Money troubles appear to have sidelined or scaled back these plans. But work did begin on two subway lines in 1939. The first line of the "Initial System of Subways," under State Street, opened in 1943; a parallel line under Dearborn Street opened in 1952. The Blue Line uses the Dearborn Street subway to get from the Eisenhower Expressway median to the Milwaukee Avenue elevated. The Red Line runs over State Street south of it and on an elevated viaduct then an embankment north of the subway.
When I visited Chicago in the early 1970s, there was much ink spilled in the papers over a plan to build a subway that would connect the Lake Street el and the Dearborn (or was it State?) Street subway. The long-range plan was to replace the Loop with subways still. Those have now been abandoned for good, and the (Union) Loop Elevated is now a National Historic Landmark.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
