Best and worst metro systems of Europe ranked, Budapest takes a surprising spot
New research reveals which European cities have the best, worst, and busiest metro systems. Luggage storage company Bounce conducted a study of metro services across European capital cities, with some surprising results, Euronews reports.
Bounce’s analysis considered a variety of factors, including average Google review scores for stations, the length of the metro system, the number of stations, annual ridership, and online feedback. These metrics were combined into an overall ‘underground index’ score.
The article states that although the London Underground is one of Europe’s most famous metro networks, it didn’t make the top five in this ranking. It lost points due to its high number of passengers and complex layout, which can be confusing for tourists.
The best and worst metro systems in Europe
Oslo topped the rankings with a score of 8.06 out of 10. Known as the Oslo T-Bane, the system features 101 stations spread across 85 km of track, serving all 15 boroughs of the city as well as parts of the neighbouring Baerum municipality.
Sofia ranked second after Oslo, with a score of 7.64. As Bulgaria’s only metro system and one of the newest in Europe (opened in 1998), Sofia’s network covers 52 km and includes 47 stations, including one at Sofia Airport.
In third place is Athens, with a score of 7.29. The Athens Metro offers a direct connection to the airport, providing affordable and efficient access to the city centre. It has 62 stations over 70 km of track, serving more than a quarter of a million passengers annually.
Rounding out the top 10 are Madrid (6.74) and Warsaw (6.60). Other cities in the top ranks include London, Lisbon, Copenhagen, Bucharest, and Prague.
On the other end of the spectrum, Budapest was ranked the worst metro system in Europe, scoring just 3.13 out of 10. Despite its popularity with tourists, Budapest’s metro system, which includes 48 stations across 39 km, struggles with a high number of passengers (over 382 million annually). While the stations received a respectable Google review score of 4.05 out of 5, 75% of online reactions were negative, with only 1% being positive. The lowest-rated station, Határ út, received a score of just 2.80 out of 5, with reviewers criticising its poor cleanliness and overall unpleasant atmosphere.
The second worst metro system is in Brussels, with a score of 3.20 out of 10. Brussels’ metro system includes 59 stations over 40 km of track. Just behind Brussels is Rome, with a score of 3.75. Rome’s metro system, though larger, with 73 stations spread over 64 km, also received low marks.
“Travellers in Europe might go their entire trip without ever getting in a car. Many airports have their own metro or railway station with links directly to the city centre, while buses and metros can often take you to any part of larger cities,” says Cody Candee, CEO and Founder of Bounce.
While not all metros are created equal, he adds, they all have something to offer: “Aside from being a quick and practical way of getting around, many metro stations have beautiful designs, and visiting them can be an experience in itself.”
Read also:
Hungary is a third world country, an oppressive dictatorship, very backwards. Still, Budapest’s public transportation, even though technologically quite primitive, is surprisingly efficient.
I was on the Budapest Metro several times in the summer while on Holiday from the UK.
Used Hatar Ut to get on as my starting point and never had a problem, clean, not too busy and trains regular.
Decent Metro, good City and even better Country, Love Hungary.