"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
Another interesting difference is the almost complete lack of underground
line in south London - here, the suburban surface rail network was very
well-developed early on (and extensive urbanisation was later than in the
north, i think), so the need for tubes never arose. I don't know if
there's a a parallel in New York - are there any boroughs with surface
rail lines rather than subways?

Well, in the Bronx where I grew up, some of the lines, such as the #6 are
almost completely above ground, though it does go under for about the last
quarter of it's journey before going into Manhattan, which is completely
below ground. The only other line that I am familiar with that is just about
all above ground is the #7 Flushing line train, which only goes below ground
at its eastern terminus at Main Street in Flushing. On the whole, the system
is a mix of both above and below ground service. Even in Manhattan, the #1
Broadway local train is on an elevated section through a part of Harlem, the
last elevated subway in Manhattan, albeit for a short stretch.

I am living now in upstate NY, in the city of Rochester, which does not have
a subway though it did up until the 50's. It was at the time, the smallest
American city to have a subway system, though quite frankly, it is not large
enough to really need one. There is an adequate bus system that has gotten
better in the 6 years I have been here.