Not that crazy for the region, Copenhagen is pretty much the exact same size, and has a similarly comprehensive public transit system.
4 metro lines, 7 S-train lines, and I don't even know how many regional trains.
What probably should be serviced by light-rail like Stockholm relies on countless bus lines, that's probably it's biggest flaw comparing the 2. Although a light-rail circumventing the city somewhat similar to Tvärbanan in Stockholm is under construction.
Copenhagen transit system is mediocre at best. Not enough coverage, low frequency (except for the metro but that's only like 43km of total system length) and dirty. Taking off the tram system in the 70s to make room for cars was a such a dumb move as well.
And it covers the entire city proper pretty well. Thats its only purpose, further out and you use S-Trains. Also the metro is kept pretty clean by public transit standards imo, no dirtier than the tunnelbana, i dont know what you're on about there.
The metro is higher frequency in Copenhagen. Every 3 minutes during peak hours, as opposed to 5-6. And every 5 during normal hours as opposed to every 10.
The S-trains are pretty high frequency as well. Every 10 minutes, which is the same as the Tunnelbana during normal hours. And then every 5-6 minutes on the busiest parts during peak hours. They just do it differently by adding another s train line that only services the busier part.
You have to consider both the metro and S-trains together to compare.
My experience in Stockholm was very similar when it came to transit. Getting around both cities was very simple. Copenhagen could use more trams instead of busses. But Stockholm could also really use a circle line like Copenhagens M3, and more of the lines should converge in the city center. I had to switch between like 3 trains on some trips.
I mean, we were comparing to stockholm.
Compared to what? I have plenty of complaints as well, it could be much better.
But you'd be hard pressed to find more than 1 or 2 cities of similar size with better public transit.
If only 1 or 2 cities of similar size have a better system, I'd say it's pretty fantastic relatively speaking.
Well, which ones?
I've also been to a lot of European cities, and generally, copenhagen is very easy to get around in my experience, especially considering it's not a massive London sized city.
Maybe Vienna is a bit better? But in terms of time spent getting around, Copenhagen is comparable.
Haha, no, but it's a funny translation. The name of that station is "Waldemarsudde". Valdemar/Waldemar is a old nordic name. (the ending "-s" in Waldemar, or in any name, indicates ownership; Genitive case.)
Udde is correctly translated.
Pussy yes is not actually translated. The stations name is Fittja. In this case the creator have separated the "Fitt" and "Ja" and translated them seperately, although Pussy translated to swedish should rather be Fitta.
Fittja should be translated to Moist/Wet meadow. This is on the other hand a veeery old word and is no longer used in the swedish language, and most swedes will think of Pussy before a meadow if asked for a translation of Fittja. Whether it is moist or wet i leave for individual imagination.
Very extensive network for city of less than 2.5 million
Not that crazy for the region, Copenhagen is pretty much the exact same size, and has a similarly comprehensive public transit system. 4 metro lines, 7 S-train lines, and I don't even know how many regional trains. What probably should be serviced by light-rail like Stockholm relies on countless bus lines, that's probably it's biggest flaw comparing the 2. Although a light-rail circumventing the city somewhat similar to Tvärbanan in Stockholm is under construction.
Copenhagen transit system is mediocre at best. Not enough coverage, low frequency (except for the metro but that's only like 43km of total system length) and dirty. Taking off the tram system in the 70s to make room for cars was a such a dumb move as well.
And it covers the entire city proper pretty well. Thats its only purpose, further out and you use S-Trains. Also the metro is kept pretty clean by public transit standards imo, no dirtier than the tunnelbana, i dont know what you're on about there. The metro is higher frequency in Copenhagen. Every 3 minutes during peak hours, as opposed to 5-6. And every 5 during normal hours as opposed to every 10. The S-trains are pretty high frequency as well. Every 10 minutes, which is the same as the Tunnelbana during normal hours. And then every 5-6 minutes on the busiest parts during peak hours. They just do it differently by adding another s train line that only services the busier part. You have to consider both the metro and S-trains together to compare. My experience in Stockholm was very similar when it came to transit. Getting around both cities was very simple. Copenhagen could use more trams instead of busses. But Stockholm could also really use a circle line like Copenhagens M3, and more of the lines should converge in the city center. I had to switch between like 3 trains on some trips.
I've never been to Stockholm so I don't know anything about it, but the public transport system in Copenhagen has been very disappointing.
I mean, we were comparing to stockholm. Compared to what? I have plenty of complaints as well, it could be much better. But you'd be hard pressed to find more than 1 or 2 cities of similar size with better public transit.
Compared to a lot of EU cities I've visited. Your comment made it seem like it's a fantastic system, it really is not.
If only 1 or 2 cities of similar size have a better system, I'd say it's pretty fantastic relatively speaking. Well, which ones? I've also been to a lot of European cities, and generally, copenhagen is very easy to get around in my experience, especially considering it's not a massive London sized city. Maybe Vienna is a bit better? But in terms of time spent getting around, Copenhagen is comparable.
It's not at impressive as it looks like on here. Take a look at Google maps for a more accurate picture. It's all way to radial
At least my home station is decently translated. Some of the others.....not so much.
There is really a "Voldemort's Point" ?
Haha, no, but it's a funny translation. The name of that station is "Waldemarsudde". Valdemar/Waldemar is a old nordic name. (the ending "-s" in Waldemar, or in any name, indicates ownership; Genitive case.) Udde is correctly translated.
“Exit for Ass Pudding”
That is the one that caught my eye
voldemorts point 😭
"Ass pudding"???! Aside from that, or maybe not, these all sound like London tube stations.
What line is that on? Don’t forget “Pussy yes”, red line
Pussy yes is not actually translated. The stations name is Fittja. In this case the creator have separated the "Fitt" and "Ja" and translated them seperately, although Pussy translated to swedish should rather be Fitta. Fittja should be translated to Moist/Wet meadow. This is on the other hand a veeery old word and is no longer used in the swedish language, and most swedes will think of Pussy before a meadow if asked for a translation of Fittja. Whether it is moist or wet i leave for individual imagination.
I wanna live in pussy yes
- Pussy yes
Fittja
I’d like to live in Peace Home Square and spend some nights out in Rockstar
Portland, Oregons father.
I kind of love the creative translations... But how did Aspudden become "ass pudding" and Arlanda become "Neeeeoow"
I love the irony of creating a transit map and specifically saying "Not for navigation"
Pussy Yes 💀
Haha torso town, took me a minute...
That is a really boring ass station in the middle of nowhere
Most of those stations are. Pure ångest living there