Why can no single metropolitan authority get the formula for mass transport right? My 3 candidates from personal experience:
- London Underground
Pro:
- Frequent trains; no waiting
- Bright and well-kept stations
- Extremely good customer information systems
- The tube map! (Even though it can be misleading since it doesn't pay attention to what's going on above ground)
Con:
- Trains are tiny (because the tunnels are too small)
- All trains are local, hence slow (see NYC)
- The network is relatively small
- It's very expensive
- The travel-zone system is confusing
- The air quality is *terrible*
- Paris Metro
Pro:
- Trains are huge, thanks to the elimination of inter-carriage walls (all the trains are just huge continuous tubes) and double-decker trains
- The network is huge, and stops are frequent
- Stations are also clean and well-kept
- Air quality is fine
- Fairly affordable
Con:
- Is always having a strike :-) [Ed pointed this out]
- The map is awful, it looks like someone threw up on the wall
- Customer information is middling (can't judge properly, 'cause I don't speak French :-)
- All trains are local and slow
- NYC subway
Pro:
- Big trains
- Large tunnels, so large trains and extra tracks, which allows...
- Express trains! These rock; skip 20 stations and get to the other end of the city in 10 minutes instead of 40.
- Very cheap, and no zone system, so easy to use too
- The map is pretty good, and shows above ground, which is useful.
- Air-conditioning in trains!
Con:
- Customer information is lousy: no digital info signs, and inaudible announcements
- The stations are dirty and feel run-down
- The network is not particularly extensive: it covers all of Manhattan, but only crosses the river at one point
With the exception of London's tiny tunnels, all of the cons are fairly easy and inexpensive to overcome. So why don't they? And it's easy to bring in the pros as well: London should eliminate zones and introduce carriageless trains, and do something about the fog'o'crap that makes it impossible to see the other end of the platform if you're at one end. Paris should bring in digital signs and deal with that map of theirs, as well as introducing express trains. NYC should also bring in signs and clean up their stations: the quality of the stations makes NYC's subway *feel* like the worst subway, when it's actually the best of the bunch.
Okay, now you can hire me as a consultant. Come on, Ken.
All content is copyright © 2000-2008 Seldo.Com and licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-sharealike license. Remix away!
Comments
J
The NYC subway system crosses "the river" at several points. There are five crossings from Manhattan to the Bronx (1/9, B/D, 2, 4/5, and 6), five from Manhattan to Queens (F, N/W, R, V/E, and 7), and ten from Manhattan to Brooklyn (L, J/M/Z (to Williamsburg), F, B/D, N/Q, A/C, 2/3, J/M/Z (to Brooklyn Heights), R, and 4/5). All told, this amounts to twenty distinct ways to get from Manhattan to the outer boroughs.
A better criticism of the NYC subway system is that unlike the Tube, it doesn't offer a direct connection to the city's airports.
John
I whole heartedly agree with you on most aspects of your rant (and raves). Like you said, they all suck in some shape or form.
My favourite underground system must be the MTR in Hong Kong. You will think every metro rail in the world is a DUMP compared to the one they have.
Pro:
Very very frequent trains (at least every 3 mins or every 1 min at peak time).
Huge trains with no carriages
Map is extremely easy to follow with pretty lights to tell you which station you're at.
The message announced is tri-lingual. (Mandarin, English and Cantonese).
Wonderfully air conditioned trains and stations.
Very clean owing to no food or drink allowed anywhere. (There's a huge fine if you're caught eating)
dave
Double decker trains would have been part of their national rail network (very common in Europe), the other trains were probably RER trains (what does that mean?) but the metro is very narrow - one of the nice things about the Paris metro is at least one of the lines the trains actually have tyres which seemed a bit odd.
I liked the way they tried to explain the Paris bus system in English, the instructions at the bus stop said something like "you must always board through the front door except on the buses that you don't have to".
As for Europe the most reliable I've come across so far is the U-bahn in Munich and Vienna both are fairly clean, frequent and on time and in Munich they're replacing the trains with new carriageless trains.
Amsterdam metro seems to work but it's nowhere near as clean as their other public transport.
...and back in my homeland Metro refers to a lot of things, the train system, the local radio station, the major shopping centre, a taxi company and of course that free newspaper. What is it with Tyneside and the word 'Metro'?