"David Spiro" a écrit dans le message de
...
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
I have traveled the London tube, and found it superior in some ways to
NYC, even with its problems, and not as good in others.

Interesting - would you like to expand? We've had at least one thread on
this comparison in the past, but it'd be interesting to hear you
opinions.

Well, for one, I found the London system far easier to navigate than NYC.
I
think that this is in part due to the fact that there is no
"express/local"
service on the Underground, at least not that I am familair with or have
heard of. The express/local idea can be confusing to navigate, even to the
natives! Imagine being a tourist. On the other side of the coin, the
"express/local" type of service that NYC runs is a very efficient way of
moving people around (minus delays, of course) as you can allow for faster
service based on your destination. I don't know that this was easier to
achieve due to the cut-and-cover method, or simply was a brilliant idea at
the time.

The London service also seems to be more expansive in terms of its
coverage
to local neighborhoods. There are too many places in the outer boroughs of
NYC where the only way to reach a subway is to first take a bus. This is
especially true in Queens, less so in Brooklyn and the Bronx. As far as
overall service is concerned, I would be hard pressed to comment, as I am
not a daily commuter in London. I can tell you that in the two times I
have
been there, I had nothing but a fine experience on the Underground. Of
course, back in 1989, I couldn't say the same of the then British Rail,
which really screwed up my travel plans........it was better in 1999, when
I
used GNER, though I don't know how things are these days with all that I
have read.

This means that stations are rather
different in structure, and the tunnels, and thus the trains, are smaller
(i assume because digging wide deep tunnels was ruinously expensive).

Ah, so that explains why the trains were narrower as well. I always
wondered
about that. Actually, if you go back to the history of NYC, there was a
time
in the 1800's when a "pneumatic tube" system of trains was developed,
though
it did not last long. In the pictures that I have seen of it, they seemed
to
be about the same width as the London trains, perhaps a bit smaller.

As nobody has yet mentioned it, I'd like to point out that there's an
excellent unofficial Web site nominally on the NYC Subway - but with a lot
on others, and relevant links too, eg the bibliography at:
http://www.nycsubway.org/biblio/othercities.html .

Also, AFAIK, the typical lack of integration among lines originally intended
to compete with each other is even more pronounced in NYC than in London
where, as has been mentioned, the central tube lines were subsequently
extended into the suburbs along the rights-of-way (if not the tracks) of the
'main-line' railways. , You will see far more stations idenified by the
'double-arrow' symbol indicating interchange with 'National Rail' on the
pocket route map for London than the corresponding symbols for interchange
with PATH, Metro-Rail and the LIRR on the NYC map. Of course, the local
topography may be relevant here.

Finally, after about a century of different fare policies (flat fare in NYC,
distance-based fare stages in London), there now seems to be a convergence
towards a more sophisticated zone-based system with stored-fare cards...

Regards,

- Alan (in Brussels)