Battle of the Giants: New York City Subway vs. London Underground
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 พ.ย. 2022
- New York and London have some of the world's most famous rapid transit systems - but which one do I actually think is better? In the return of the acclaimed transit battle series, I discuss just that!
As always, leave a comment down below if you have ideas for our future videos. Like, subscribe, and hit the bell icon so you won't miss my next video!
=PATREON=
If you'd like to help me make more videos & get exclusive behind the scenes access and early video releases, consider supporting my Patreon! Every dollar goes towards helping my channel grow & reach more people.
Patreon: / rmtransit
=ATTRIBUTION=
Epidemic Sound (Affiliate Link): www.epidemicsound.com/referra...
Nexa from Fontfabric.com
Map Data © OpenStreetMap contributors: www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
=COMMUNITY DISCORD SERVER=
Discord Server: / discord
(Not officially affiliated with the channel)
=MY SOCIAL MEDIA=
Twitter: / rm_transit
Instagram: / rm_transit
Website: reecemartin.ca
Substack: reecemartin.substack.com
=ABOUT ME=
Ever wondered why your city's transit just doesn't seem quite up to snuff? RMTransit is here to answer that, and help you open your eyes to all of the different public transportation systems around the world!
Reece (the RM in RMTransit) is an urbanist and public transport critic residing in Toronto, Canada, with the goal of helping the world become more connected through metros, trams, buses, high-speed trains, and all other transport modes.
Have friends in the other city? Send them this video and start a debate! Which do you think is better?!
Do Canada's two main metros: Toronto VS Montreal
The metros of Oslo, Stockholm and Copenhagen. Would be fun to see
Please do a Battle video of NY vs. London, but include the DLR and the Overground and the Elizabeth line, and PATH and LIRR and Metro North.
Tokoyo would be heavy weight champion
Bro you move too much when camera is pointing at you. Video quality is excellent, but bruh I feel like you're dancing there, not explaining.
The Elizabeth Line has taken things to a whole new level in London. An amazingly smooth ride and a fast way to cross the city (and beyond) from East to West. What's not to like?
Of course it's not strictly a London Underground line, but it IS a line, and it IS in London, and it DOES go underground and of course it IS an integrated part of the TfL network.
Yh
Truth!
An it is a underground line, call it anything is down to the idiot politicans who didn't want to give TFL and London Underground a new underground line to play with.
End they will do south-west -> north-east next line like that, called crossrail so far
@@michapiotrstankiewicz2713 Yes, I'm looking forward to it!
Being a fairly recent Londoner originally from Toronto, I’d think you’d need to include the DLR, Overground, and Elizabeth Line in your comparison, because as a daily commuter, transferring between these is all seamless. So seamless in fact that I didn’t realize they were classified any different.
I agree, without learning anything about the different Underground lines you would assume they were all under the same network so I think it should've been part of the comparison. End of the day it's only politics that has meant the Elizabeth Line isn't under TFL, not really relevant to the different categories of the video though.
If it’s on the underground map it should be part of the comparison
Plus: Croydon Trams and National Railways Network (within LU bounduary)
These are available for Oyster Card / Contactless users as well
@@JM-ss4mp and with frequencies to match
@@JM-ss4mp It's run by TFL as is part of the DLR. Oyster cards can be used on Thames Clipper River buses, London buses, trams, London Overground, Dockland Light Railway, and part of the National Rail, you really need to do more research you don't appear to know what you are talking about.
I feel like it would be better to judge the whole transport network of each city, including the DLR, overground and purple train in London and the PATH and LIRR in NY. These other networks integrate with the main systems and hugely impact the experience of riders.
PATH doesn't really integrate with the NYC Subway.
@@davidfrischknecht8261 I'm not sure how it integrates any less than the LIRR (or the other 2/3 of the regional rail network, MNRR and NJT) do with the subway system...all of those interface with the subway network at specific points and provide additional connectivity, which is generally a good thing. But at the same time I would definitely say none of that is integrated as well with New York's subway network as the additional rail systems in London are with the underground.
Besides, the 6th Avenue Subway is literally built around PATH's 6th Avenue line because it was in the way, so in that sense PATH is completely integral.
Ah - I wanted Tube and Subway - a full separate all PT video might be in order though!
I agree. The fact that London has a different branding for it's express line makes it rather arbitrary. The Metropolitan line could well have transferred to British Rail as it's essentially a suburban railway with a very short underground section at one end (I think it would have just been possible to terminate all Met line at Baker St, so keeping it separate from the other sub-surface lines). Had it done so then the Underground network would be a lot smaller, even though the overall transport network would be the same.
@@joegrey9807 The Met line also the only one that has non stopping services (eg. Harrow on the hill fast to Baker st) described as 'fast' and 'semi-fast' @RMTransit saying the ny subway is the only of the two with express services is technically not the case if you consider these suburban parts of the Metropolitan line
I’m biased because I’m British but the London Underground is better
I would agree, at least the trains are cleaner and easier to understand on a map.
Edit: just my opinion, it's easier for me to imagine a mental image of the underground map and define the most efficient route compared to the subway.
I am biased because I am a New Yorker, but the London underground is better.
As an American, London is better at building interchange and suburban stations, so I’ll give it the edge there, but NYC’s extensive four-tracking is pretty cool.
Maintenance-wise, I’ll give it to London, I don’t think leaning on 24/7 service is too beneficial for quality.
NYC has the edge in pricing fairness because it has no fare zones.
As for trains, London’s cars are more aesthetically appealing and have better wayfinding. NYC’s are larger, but London is farther along in implementing CBTC, so it has an edge. Perhaps if the MTA adopted that asymmetrical interior design with branching poles and no middle seats to better manage crowding, it would outdo London by far.
I know this is an inevitable outgrowth of history (separate companies being established simultaneously) and institutional inertia, but the loading gauges and accessibility need to be far more consistent across both systems.
I’m surprised that the standards are so low but London is better because they don’t have rats, disgusting stations, and risks of a random crackhead throwing his feces at you
Nah NYC Subway with express service and flat fare
Another thing about 24 hr service is that London’s is only for a few lines, while New York serves every single station 24 hours a day. Not all the lines run, but it’s pretty impressive that no matter what station you’re at, not matter what time of day or night it is, there will be subway service.
It's their excuse for never really cleaning anything.
@@emjayay they do clean we just mess it up. But it’s why overnight the trains run less because they use that time to fix/clean. Which is impressive because to keep it running WHILE trying to clean after an over populated city is wild
What’s the point of a 24h station without a 24h train?
@@dafaeriequeene All stations have 24 hour service, but since most subway stations in NYC run multiple lines on the same track, certain lines might not run at all times.
@@h8GW ah okay. Well they could close the ones that don’t get any overnight trains and clean them. And they can still clean the other stations overnight with the trains running. No excuse for nyc subway to be so filthy
I'm a Londoner who recently visited NYC in September - agree with many of the points of this video! I hear lots of moaning and complaining from New Yorkers about the Subway - but it seems much improved compared to my visit 10 years ago (OMNY, new trains, CBTC etc).
In a few years time, NYC might have us beat with subway expansion, open gangway trains and a few more station refurbishments! TfL have got no money...
London are getting the new tube for London which may improve wayfinding
not really as it seems to be mainly for picadilly (though it will go onto Central,W&C + Bakerloo if TFL can do it, though unlikely), meaning thats where some improvements will be seen. It's likely there'll be minimal improvements apart from that potentially, which may see the 1972 stock make it to 60-65 years old
You should visit Montreal and try the subway there. Not as expansive but hoky cow the subway is a better experience there.
@@DinoteddiI’d expect a significant shift if Labour get into power in the next election given their talks of further devolution. If London is allowed to further raise its own capital for projects I’d expect things like the Northern Line split, Bakerloo extension phase 1 and even maybe, just maybe Crossrail 2 to start rolling.
Only 2 of the new trains will have fully open gangways, the vast majority of the new trains will not have them unfortunately
As a New Yorker who lives in London now, I can honestly say The Tube is much better than the Subway. One key element you forgot was that at least on The Tube I don't feel like I'm going to be pushed on the tracks and die!
agreed, also the subway is cheaper but God is it filthy.
You know America... All about depopulation. Lol
Yes! The suicide doors are so nice to have but I do wish they were on other lines than the Jubilee and Elizabeth
But the Subway runs 24 hours I can get out of the club or whatever and take it at 4 am. When I was in London I had to take a bus since the tube is closed in the early morning.
Now that you mention it, it's quite impressive how safe the tube feels.
For me the integration of the transport systems in London is so important that it pretty much outweighs everything else. Having one authority managing the Underground, many suburban and orbital rail lines, one of the 'RER style' cross city lines, elevated automated light rail, trams, buses, hire bikes and river boat piers, (as well as streetscapes, cycle paths, roads, taxi licensing, Victoria Coach Station, and even non-transport things like the dangleway), helps to make transport in the wider urban area much more seamless than many other cities. It also helps to get the fares system relatively easy to manage (even if it is expensive) with contactless payment, and fare capping. And there's generally good mapping, cohesive branding, and way-finding within and between modes, which would be difficlut with different authorities managing different systems.
For new yorkers, the subway and the buses, both under the same organization, is all we really need. I really appreciate how the flat $2.75 can let you go anywhere in the city (subway or bus) and has a built in free bus transfer (within 2 hrs)
@@shasan2393 does that apply to the whole of the built up area, whether in NY or NJ? What about people needing to use suburban rail? Or ferries?
Unfortunately, despite being under the same umbrella transit organization as NYC Subways/Buses (the Metropolitan Transportation Authority), the metro-north and LIRR commuter rails don’t offer even discounted transfers between commuter trains and the subway. Similarly, PATH trains and NJ commuter rail/buses don’t even pretend to work in tandem with the MTA.
Interestingly enough, the county transportation authorities in the surrounding suburbs offer free transfers (ex. The Bee Line bus system in Westchester County offers free subway transfers AND you can use your metrocard on their buses)
On the whole, a good video and pretty fair. As a Londoner, the only bit that felt wrong is the whole "but that's not part of the Tube" argument. When you live in London, the Oyster card gets you everywhere, and for the most part, it really does all feel like a well integrated system. The Underground, Elizabeth Line, DLR and perhaps Thameslink all feel like basically one system. I semi agree about the south of London bit, but when you factor in the JLE extension, Thameslink, Northern Line extension and the HUGE number of frequent mainline rail services available with your Oyster card, it's wayyy less bad than it looks if you just look at a pure Tube map. That all being said, London desperately needs a southern extension to the Bakerloo line and Crossrail 2. And yes, the noise on the JLE is hideous. I don't know how they got that so badly wrong on such a modern system.
The line keeps curving because when they were surveying the land south of the thames. (Very unsuitable for tunneling, one reason why there are few tube lines there) they had to pick out the most stable and easiest to tunnel parts. Or else the tunnel would collapse and thats kinda bad. The constant curving and still needing to maintain speed is what basically crushes your ears.
@@j2m3_raiden5Thank you! People don’t seem to realise it was noisy JLE or no JLE.
Yes, Mark, a Bakerloo extension to my neck of the woods- to Lewisham. And hopefully with the old-style trains that I find charming. --- Yes, the JLE noise is awful- agreed.
London can have it’s Crossrail 2 and Tube extension when the north gets its fully completed HS2 and NPR sooo never?
@@j2m3_raiden5 That's really interesting. Never heard of that before!
It seems a bit arbitrary to exclude parts of the London system that are not officially part of the Underground. The distinction only really matters to train nerds. Most people experience it as one integrated system. Even if a journey includes Overground, DLR, or Elizabeth line, most people would still say they took the tube, regardless of the technical distinction.
seems like the only reason they weren't included is just to give the nyc subway a chance. if those systems were included, london would win no diff.
Well they’re experienced separately for the most part in the NY area. London’s advantage here is overwhelming
@@Sasujerk exactly, NY subway sucks ass. Is the only thing it can win on seriously digital displays, a weird light up led map (both of which TfL could easily include onto the PIS and which they already do with the Elizabeth Line) and train sizes? Like come on, what improvement can really be realistically done to the tube network to increase size?
@@hx0d I’ve gone on the tube but I personally like the nyc ones better. Might be nostalgia though
@@Sasujerk, I was genuinely expecting an unbiased comparison, but when he started repeatedly calling the Subway "powerful" (whatever that even means), I knew that this isn't it. But what really takes the biscuit is when he talked about expansion for a mere 30 seconds or so and declared that the Elizabeth line, which is like a Tube line in just about every aspect but name, does not count for anything here, and awarded the point to the Subway - whilst showing that the Elizabeth line directly connects with five Tube lines!
As a retired NYCT motorman who travels, I give you and this video kudos. You hit the nail squarely on the head. well done!
@@MelGibsonFan there is a weekly publication "The Chief" that lists upcoming city and state exams. Check the newsstands on Mondays (if memory serves)
@@metromaster2010 i have a question too, What trains did you operate?
As someone that has lived in both cities the tube wins, simply because they are far far more frequent than the subways. In London you get annoyed waiting more than 4 minutes for a train, in NYC that’s fast. Also the tube feels way safer and generally is a nicer environment than the subway.
not only that. What about the signalling and directions? Very efficient. Whereas in London tgey are even better than in Paris. New York subways utterly incomprehensible. In subway stations practically non-existent. on most of the trains in New York no display of the routes showing where you are and the next stop. No announcements, nothing. The only good thing is that, yeah you can get a train back home or the hotel at any time of the night compared to London ( providing you can work it out where it's going) that underground closes predominantly at 00.30 or 40. That's it.
Since people are bringing it up, as I mentioned, in the video, I think it’s important to distinguish New York’s Express services because most lines through the equivalent of central London, in New York, have entirely separate express tracks, which is just something London doesn’t really have at the moment.
It would be nice for Toronto to have express subway lines (especially along line 2), though hopefully GO RER expansion will act as an express subway network within Toronto when it's finally completed.
Can you do an explainer on Edinburgh, Scotland?
@@louisballany9778 Edinburgh is a much much smaller city with, in comparison, practically zero public transportation apart from buses and a tram, so it’s probably not worth it, but I Edinburgh is a super awesome city nonetheless
@@louisballany9778 Edinburgh's local transport network is mostly buses plus half a tram line.
@@duncanconduit 75+ bus lines is not "practically zero" public transport🤦♂️
I haven’t been to New York but getting to and around London as a pedestrian is fabulous! Even ferries are integrated into the transport network. But the whole place is super walkable and there’s just cool stuff to see everywhere
I don’t doubt London’s walkability at all! I was just in NYC and being a pedestrian is AMAZING! You get treated like a king, and the cars are miserable
@@leeszikiat7953 That’s A Rarity In The Rest Of The Country
@@Jaypro128 indeed, very sad that is the case. I think many big cities are trending the right direction tho
ny also have ferries and a big bus network throughout the whole city. Along with the underground trains, there are also railroads that get you further out of the city.
The thing about the New York subway system is that you have to know whether you are going uptown or downtown. It took me a good few days to understand this.
Current policy for TfL is, I’ve been told, to not build any new tube lines. Instead, the focus is on projects like Crossrail 1 and 2, providing mainline loading gauge tunnels and trains and bringing terminating services through the centre. That said, there is still the ever present spectre of the potential Bakerloo line extension, but that’s considered a one-off and really about completing the line to a normal through service (I imagine to balance passenger flows a bit in each direction).
Since TfL plans and manages the entire public transport system for London, they don’t really see a competition between modes. The system is designed as a whole, including data from the National Rail rail utilisation surveys for the whole south east, and RER style lines are currently seen as the best way to help people complete more journeys faster
Indeed, I think a few of the criticisms were down to the somewhat arbitrary decision to only consider tube lines. London's transport is very well integrated, so while I understand it from a "focus on one aspect for the video" perspective, it also doesn't really make sense to do so because nobody would actually use the system in such a way.
The tube is really more of a "legacy" system, it'll get small QoL upgrades and enhancements, but the big stuff will be done on other modes (see: Overground, Elizabeth Line, Thameslink etc)
Exactly, this comparison is very bias and misleading. London should of won by far.
which look like tube lines, smell like tube lines, runs like tube lines an is a tube line! Honestly TFL insistence that Elizabeth lines isn't a tube line is probably the most stupid thing in the transort industry at the minute. They and DfT will give in eventually.
@@DavidKnowles0 just because a train runs in a circular tunnel under London doesn’t mean it’s a tube
@@DavidKnowles0: it's not a tube line 'because it uses the National rail network and ... its trains are much bigger.'
I last went on the New York subway in 1988. It has improved so much since then! They are both pretty great systems, and the important thing is they keep improving.
i'd love to see Toronto vs Chicago. Both are costal cities on the great lakes with similar population, but completely different approches to public transit.
I can do it!
They both do well with a gridded network of buses. Chicago less so than Toronto but still better than most American cities.
Yerkies vs Yerkies.
Chicago has a more extensive subway system. But maybe Metra vs Go Transit would be a good video. Metra has zero plans to electrify and wants to use freight locomotives instead, which is disappointing.
@@RMTransit please make Chicago vs Toronto. Not just subway but full transit system vs transit system.
NY recently announced the Interborough Express, which is our equivalent of the London Overground. It would run through some underserved neighborhoods and connect Brooklyn and Queens without having to head into Manhattan. It has the potential to alleviate crowding on the Subway while also taking advantage of existing freight lines. Once built, it would be a great addition to NYC’s commuting network.
I really hope the MTA chooses subway style trains for the mode, that project sounds absolutely amazing on paper.
Hopefully it'll get built in my lifetime 😒
@@HallsofAsgard96 i feel u 🥲
It's been proposed periodically for decades. This time the governor is behind it. (MTA is actually a state agency, not city.)
Announcing is not especially promising as we know.
A few other things to consider. One of my favourite things about the NYC Subway (and a point I think is often overlooked) is how incredibly shallow it is. Most underground stations in places like Manhattan and Brooklyn are at most like 15 steps deep. It's something that makes using the system SO MUCH MORE CONVENIENT than trying to squeeze yourself into a high speed elevator, or wait for 5 minutes on an escalator. Not only does the shallowness make travelling the system faster, but it also allows the subway to be far more useful for short trips, even if it's just a couple of blocks.
Yep, I made sure to bring that up this time around - most stations are very shallow!
@@RMTransit Apologies, I guess I missed it.
True about the shallowness of the stations but on the flip side there are just as many elevated stations with no elevator's or escalators to make it easy for elderly or disabled passengers.
Ah, but we don't want passengers using the Underground for just a couple of stops - it prevents people using it who are making longer journeys...
Some of the stations in upper Manhattan go deep underground.
The reason for the noise on the tube is curved lines and platforms. With some minor exceptions, NYC subway lines are really really straight, line the streets above them. The lines of the tube were often built to mirror the streets above, especially those built 100 or more years ago.
It’s really not just that, because if it was the Jubilee line extension wouldn’t be so loud! I think it also have to do with the way the track is affixed to the tunnel and the actual tunnels themselves.
@@RMTransit Agreed. I could partially forgive London's original tubes, but come on, the Jubilee Line Extension was opened in 1999!
@@RMTransit the curves at Camden Town are the Northern Line's problem, that bottleneck needs a complete rebuild except ££££.
Even newer lines in London aren’t particularly straight because of a combination of topography (the Thames is very wiggly, and the soil is a horrible mixture of clay and waterlogged sand that needs to be carefully navigated through by TBMs) and existing tunnels or foundations. The JLE basically had to handle the worst of all these factors, and it’s only with the Crossrail dig that we got a tunnelling method that could handle the soil and fine navigation required to avoid nasty curves (and for the former, only by having lots of access shafts to change the TBM for another one).
For my money, the JLE is no where near the worst offender for offensive noise. That would be the Central line section from Liverpool Street to Stratford (built in the 40s). I can’t ride that bit without noise cancelling headphones. The line does a 90 degree turn just outside Liverpool St, approx. under Shoreditch High St station, and then another milder but still sharp one after Bethnal Green.
Yea, in NY Subway the 14th St Union Square line for the 4,5,6 train are extremely curvy too, you will hear a loud screeching when they're going through
I think London’s stations and trains look “nicer” but prefer the look of New York’s stations (not the really bad ones) and trains. New York’s stations and trains feel more industrial and utilitarian, which I think it fits New York well. I’m thinking of the prevalence of exposed brick in apartments for example.
Especially their older retro trains that quite make them stand out compared to other subways across the world
Good point
They all have boring names though and all look the same outside and in. London Underground stations are much more unique and architecturally pleasing.
@@Triplen01 ah yes cause waterloo is a perfect station name that definitely tells me where in the city i am yet something like 3 av-149 st dosen't
@@apexhunter935 thats your defence? If you dont know your city thats on you.
I loved the Tube when I was there. Took it from Heathrow and used it extensively during my London visits. It is safe and easy to navigate and the stations all have such a history. Never been to NYC so I can't really comment on their subway but it has helped make New York one of the greener cities in America since everyone uses mass transit there.
I'm a New Yorker and I've been to London once and did like the fact that like even Chicago, an underground line does run to the airport ( the Piccadilly Line). The stations in London are in much better shape also. But one advantage New York has is that the subways do run 24 hours which fosters a better nightlife here. And we do have extensive express service. The A and D lines can get one from Harlem to Midtown Manhattan in 10 minutes.
For me safety has always been a big point of the Underground. No matter what part of London you’re in, you enter a staffed station with proper barriers. The Subway is a free for all and there are parts you wouldn’t use late at night.
Regarding way finding, London's system may seem dated and intimidating at first unlike NYC's new digital screens, but it's very well thought out and designed. You pretty much never have to pause to check the route once you get a hang of it.
In summers it can be a nightmare since London tube isn't air conditioned.
one thing I will say about speed is that, despite not having express service on the same level, the average speed of a London Underground train is still actually higher than a nyc subway train. the tube (bar a couple sections like the central portions of the district line) is fast, both in the suburbs and the central city, even if they're mostly all stop. the tube remains the fastest way to get around London and with the Elizabeth line that's only improved. express service is powerful, but maintaining your infrastructure to run trains as close to the max speed as possible is equally as powerful for unlocking speed.
I agree - London does seem to have higher speeds outside of core in particular!
@@RMTransit This is largely due to stop spacing distances. New York has very very close station spacing, sometimes just a couple of blocks apart (but we have express services to make trips quite speedy and collect from local services) meanwhile London has longer station spacing. I think that in NY the idea is just extreme ease of access: you're almost always a 5-10 min walk from the station, and the station is only a flight of stairs or two to the platform, whereas deep lines like in London might be more necessary to optimize for speed since it takes longer to get to platform level. It should also be noted that NYC has a SSS initiative (saving safe seconds) wherein they're upgrading speeds across the subway, so speeds have increased over the past few years and will continue to increase over the next two. Ofc signaling also plays apart, and older fixed block subway signaling forces trains to slow down unnecessarily, but again this should be improved as more and more lines add CBTC.
@@RMTransit service frequency in londons just better as well. The victoria line maintains 36 trains an hour at peak as its basically automated. Just w a driver to operate doors and start the system. Most other lines in london run every 2-4 minutes between every train. Can't say the same for service reliability or frequency in NY
@@j2m3_raiden5 The IRT Flushing Line currently carries 22tph in its manhattan section. But it is limited to this since the flushing line interlines with itself. There is a 7 local service and a 7 express service and they both have to merge with each other at Queensboro Plaza. If the Flushing line didn’t have that express service it could probably run 30tph.
@@edot_nyc thats really cool. I think the equivalent would just be the metropolitan. 24 tph on peak and has some express services.
As a New Yorker and MTA employee, I'm very surprised that you had it this close. I thought the Tube would wipe the floor with us.
Same lol
The convenience and accessibility is pretty close. NYC just really needs to improve its cleanliness. A lot of the stations are really gross with trash everywhere and a constant smell of urine.
I thought too because people are over critical about the NYC subway
Excellent video. For me the frequency of trains is a big plus for london. Also speaker quality is far better in London. Especially important as NYC has so many changes in lines on regular basis. Finally nyc subway as a de facto homeless shelter is just sad.
I'm surprised service frequency wasn't discussed much as London services are way more frequent on average (on a per line basis). Waiting 6 mins was considered a good connection in NYC (and I've experienced much worse wait times) and the same gap would bother me in London.
Just for that fact alone, I consider London tube to be the superior system over NYC subway
After spending 8 days in NYC, that is what bothered me most. Having to wait up to 14 minutes for each connection. You would never see double digit wait times on the underground, rarely would you wait more than 3 or 4 minutes for a connection.
Having visited NYC last month and living in London, a couple of observations. I found navigating the stations difficult to find my line. Signage in London is generally better I think. The other was the dual platforms with trains arriving either side. Platforms were uneven in places and narrow and felt quite cramped. Of course rush hour in London would be a place to avoid.
I live in New Jersey, the state that is directly across the Hudson from New York. Although I live about an hour from NYC, I still feel that since i go there a lot, I can comment on how much I love the metro system. Yes, it has many flaws, including cleanliness, but the fact that the metro decreases the amount of cars is a good thing for many reasons, mostly traffic inside the city and enviormental reasons
He couldn't mentioned the massive lack of stations in the outer boros i.e most of Queens, parts of Brooklyn and Staten Island minus the Staten Island Railway.
It would be impossible for NYC to function without the subway. There are over 5 million trips on it each day, and if those people had to use cars, the whole city would be choked. It's painful to even think about.
@@camthesaxman3387 Yeah that's why I said he should have mentioned the lack of transit in the outer boros
As a New Yorker who’s spent significant time in London, London’s system is just clearly better in basically every category.
As a Spaniard, the fight between Barcelona and Madrid's metro systems is always on the eye of the hurracain. It would be a crucial video to put an end to this civil war that's appearing between both cities hehe. Greetings from Madrid.
Madrid solos
just like in football
hala madrid
East coast beast coast, NYC’s express trains are like nothing else. The jump from 59th to 125th is insane, and I adore how cushy it is on the r46s
Better suspension finally, but world's worst seats (the blue benches shown in the video).
Exactly, from E180st to 3Av 149 St is also a huge jump, then 42nd St to 14th street, let's not forget that, Express trains really add an entirely new layer to the whole line
I think a really cool comparison would be a three-way matchup between the “great society” metros (Washington’s Metro, SF Bay’s BART, Atlanta’s MARTA). All three began construction around the same time, so it seems like it’d be easy to compare them all.
would like to add the first of our R211T Open Gangway trains is here and sitting in the Pitkin Yard maintenance shop undergoing initial activation before beginning testing on the Rockaway Line Test Track.
I get nyc subway has more issues and problems with funding but I can get on the train anytime of the day and pay way less to get much further than I can on the tube. Lived in both cities and for me NYC subway takes the W
The Paris Metro and the London Underground might also make for an interesting comparison.
London. London would win. The Paris Metro, like much of Paris, has such a problem with crime that you'll be warned of pickpocketing at every stop. Also, some of the trains are so old that they don't automatically open. You have to open them yourself
I was in both cities this summer, jumping from one to the other. IMO, London Underground is leagues ahead of Paris Metro.
I don’t know if this is still the case, but when I was in Paris in 2015 some of the doors had to be manually opened. Something about that just freaked me out😂
@@jandron94 Of course!
@@jandron94 I have been to Paris many times for many reasons. Last summer, as it happened, I was in Paris, and then in London. I used both systems back-to-back so I think I am qualified to compare them. Paris metro is far worse than London (or Madrid and others in Europe for the same matter) in almost all departments: Cleanliness, state of the stations, overall quality of trains, beggars and sketchy people. It even seemed that the concept of tapping your payment was unheard of. Those vintage ticket machines where a touchscreen is an alien concept, and those quaint carnets. Craptacular, indeed!
I was right on with you throughout this video in reasoning for scoring the 2 systems!! I love both subway systems and I have taken many, many trips on both systems when traveling to London and Manhattan and the NY boroughs. I'd love to see more video series like this one! This is fabulous and what a comprehensive job of looking at both subway systems and the pros and cons! Thanks so much!! Cheers!! 🙂
Manhattan isn't the only part of nyc
@@apexhunter935 Obviously. But it's by far my favourite part.
When it comes to your note regarding interlining in the MTA, I would note that in my experience it allows the MTA much greater flexibility in emergencies or service changes. Being able to divert trains temporarily onto other routes is something that the Underground lacks.
I agree with the flexibility because with all the switches and express tracks there's a lot of space to lay up trains when the weather is really bad out plus at night and on weekends when some sections of track are shut down for work they usually can keep the trains running if not they always run free shuttle busses upstairs...
@@istaycatchingfish2552 Fun fact: they fill the the underground express tracks with parked trains when a big snowstorm is coming (so no express service underground).
@@emjayay Here's a fun fact apparently English isn't your first language because my comment literally said the SAME EXACT THING 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡 And even though the trains are stored there at times trains can run express on the local thanks for your input though 👍
I agree as well NYC subway just so damn flexible with services changes, even trains with automated announcements can cope with service changes
@@emjayay another fun fact, there is physically not enough yard space to store all of the trainsets.
I would say that the Northern Line has just recently opened an extension to Nine Elms (where the US Embassy is now based) and Battersea Power Station so the underground has been extending to a small extent. Also there are plans to extend the Bakerloo Line in SOUTH :London from Elephant and Castle to Lewisham.
While the New York stations aren't crisp and modern, I think they have a charm all their own that represents the city and completes a cohesive picture of what people believe or imagine New York to be.
If you like rats and filth. (I live there.)
Here is the general issue, and I am speaking as a NYCTA train conductor who sees these things all the time... No one wants us at the MTA to have the money we need.
That is New York's primary problem.
Every time some sort of plan or idea comes around to fund expansions or upgrades, someone else gets in the way.
For example, the congestion pricing plan that dates back to Mike friggen Bloomberg's time in office. Everyone is still trying to carve out exemptions to having to pay. New Jersey doesn't want to pay because of the tolls on the bridges and tunnels, nevermind the fact that money goes to the Port Authority, not the city or ether State. Some of the upstate communities west of the Hudson don't want to pay because they don't have a direct ride into the city by rail... again, not something we have control over... That's New Jersey Transit's job.
Hell, former governor "Prince Andrew" Cuomo took several million dollars from us to buy snow making equipment for state owned Ski resorts.
I mean, just look at what happened when he butted heads with Andy Byford.
Which is the other problem, politicians not taking the system seriously. We're a state agency, responsible to a government that, for the most part, doesn't use us. If NYC was still the state capitol, I am 90% we would not be in as bad a hole as we are now.
Same can be said with the UK government at the moment. The centre right Conservatives (Tories) keep doing spending cuts which affect every matter of public sector. Its gotten so bad paramedics in 10 regional services have voted to strike, nurses are striking on the 15th and 20th, fire brigade are balloting whether to go on strike, the railway workers are doing strikes every month and are now doing 48 hr strikes which will kill me, bus drivers are on strike in certain companies in london and so is the postal service.
Government just isnt doing what the public literally needs and wants. Especially with high inflation, no wage increase since the 2000s and high cost of living. There isnt enough money for TFL (Transport for London) to do the expansions it wants either. We're dying lol
@@j2m3_raiden5 Yes, but don't forget the UK has a debt of about £2.3 trillion and a deficit of about £30 billion. Money just isn't freely available these days, sadly.
Yes, I live in London and have travelled on the subway occasionally for years (first time 1979). I love going on it, but some of the stations are in a deplorable state. It definitely needs a lot more $$$$ . A bit of love wouldn't hurt either.
@@julianbassett5172 yeah. Too much money just thrown away in covid and wasted. Though Japan has the highest debt in asia and its got an outstanding railway system.
You summed it up perfectly about NYC. It feels like the subway is treated like a Red-Headed Stepchild and then wonder why there are so many problems down there. If politicians took, hell everyone took it seriously, the NYC Subway would be even more spectacular than it is.
London's system is a bit older than New York's, so there are limitations due to that factor. Glad to see NY has finally gone contactless. I'm so used to just tapping my card in London, messing around with coins or tokens in the Big Apple always seemed a bit fiddly.
Would be better if it was free tbh
I really like this idea! especially if it takes into account similar population sizes or at least mentions that system might have less services than the other because of population difference. I hope you continue making more comparisons of this series!
Thats the plan!
The "moving maps,"
as I call them, in the NYC subway showing the stations is very helpful.
Both systems do badly need expansion. NYC should be working on Phase 2 of the SAS starting next year (fingers crossed), but London really needs Tube service below the Thames. I was bummed to hear that the Bakerloo Line extension was delayed due to COVID hurting finances (though they luckily safeguarded the route to build it in the future).
NYC desperately needs circumferential lines that connect the outer boroughs without going through Manhattan. Jamaica -> Flushing -> College Point-> Parkdale -> Bronx Park -> Fordham U -> University Heights -> finishing in Manhattan’s Inwood area
Phase 2 and IBX is in the works. MTA and PATH is considering unifying under one structure
@@williamerazo3921 Where did you see that about the MTA and PATH?
@@gevans446 I’m curious about that too as I haven’t heard a thing. There’s also the Port Authority owned JFK AirTrain which should be extended and repurposed and as a NYC Subway line
@@eriklakeland3857 I agree on the Jamaica to Flushing line, I believe most Buses already do that or it can be solved with the extension of the existing lines on the Jamaican line, what's very much needed is the extension of the N and W train to LGA and the Jamaica line to JFK, the airtrain fares are ridiculous
The Issue for London right now is that TfL doesn't have the money to do what it wants to do, there's been plans to extend the Bakerloo line and upgrade more of the system, but because TfL relies almost entirely on fares for funding it can't right now do these things, it's also why the Underground has fares as high as it does.
Why don’t TfL have any money???? They just did the whole super expensive Elizabeth Line
@@thh982construction for these projects are usually funded over decades, funding for the crossrail first started in 2007 and wasn’t paid off until 2019. Following the pandemic a lot of their customers worked from home so they took a massive hit, tfl just doesn’t have the money to even propose such projects at the moment. They’ve had to rely on government bailouts to even keep services running thus far. Hopefully soon their revenue will stabilise back to pre-pandemic levels and they’ll be in a better position to start putting profits into improvements and extensions.
@@thh982 The thing Is that was over 10 years and when they had started with the project TFL had funding via the government and the grant they got. Plus business taxes and the London taxpayers funded the project, thsts why it was able to be completed.
@@thh982 COVID. Everyone was working remotely and no one was using public transport (compared to pre COVID). A lot of people that had to travel did so via things like Uber. So it had the knock on effect of affecting TfL's funds and causing them to take money from the UK government to stay afloat. So much so they're considering axing some bus routes to save money. That said I do believe passenger numbers have recently returned to pre COVID levels.
But the good thing is the Bakerloo Line extension was already safeguarded. So if and when TfL get enough money in the future for it, they'll start it.
@thh982. The Lizzie line should have been up and running in 1990s. It's 30 years late!
As someone who in from NYC and lived in London for a year, I think some points are missing. Two additional points not covered:
1. Cost- London uses zone pricing while NYC is flat rate. I feel this is a signal to how each city feels about their system. NYC truly wants all NYCers (as in all 4 mainland boroughs) to be able to use the system. A working family in the Bronx can get on the train and for no more than what they pay on a daily basis, go to Coney Island for a family fun day. The outer-boroughs have a higher share of lower income people and a flat rate ensures they don't pay more for the train than those with higher incomes in Manhattan who may only go a few stops to and from work. You can pay 8pound or more on London tube which was crazy to me.
2. Accessibility- I mean this in terms of number of stations and locations. In NYC, many in all 4 mainland boroughs can use the subway on a daily basis and as their only form of transportation. Alot can be done in sections of BK and Queens but still way ahead of London. It was glossed over that the tube in South London is seriously lacking. In fact, I found you basically have to use buses in London if you want to get all around town (bus system was amazing). NYC is much more inclusive and again, that has social implications for all economic groups.
South London has an extensive heavy rail system, with multiple TfL transport modes
@@InstrumentalsBeats it may just be an Apple to Oranges issue but when we talk about the system in NYC we just talk about the subway so when I compare to London I’m thinking just about the tube. I took several types of trains in LDN but getting to places only using the tube was a bit harder compared to just relying on the subway in NYC
The tube can take you to Heathrow, but there are also well integrated rail services to all other London airports. City, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton or Southend.
As a Londoner I must point out that apart from City these others are of course not even remotely in London. Southend's branding only changed relatively recently. Are we getting Edinburgh London Airport next ?
The clear cage match that should be done is Toronto vs Montreal.
- 470 mil VS 400 mil ridership (2019)
- 75 km VS 70 km of length
That's a very similar weight class!
And you could even briefly discuss how these matchups may change when the REM and Ontario Line open up.
Toronto also will soon add the Crosstown LRT which will inevitably stretch from the Airport all the way east to Malvern/Morningside Heights, a 70km addition to rapid transit network coverage.
I might just be spoiled by London but i was shocked during my recent visit to NYC to find myself waiting more than 2 minutes for a train at really busy stations
As a New Yorker, I was amused by the pigeon on the London train at 4:10 - 4:14!
Saw the pigeon. Looked for this comment. Found it. Saw Reece also found it. Satisfied.
For a number of years I would travel between Paddington (Met) and Kings Cross. It was common to see a pigeon hop on at Paddington and hop off at Edgware Road. I'm not saying once or twice but at least 3 or 4 times a week.
As a Londoner myself, the London Underground has a few express services as well. The Piccadilly Line runs express between Acton Town and Hammersmith while passing through 4 District Line Stations and the Metropolitan Line runs express between Finchley Road and Wembley Park while passing through 5 Jubilee Line Stations, between Wembley Park and Harrow-on-the-Hill while passing 2 Metropolitan Line Stations during Peak Times and finally between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Moor Park while passing through 4 Metropolitan Line Stations on the Watford Branch because it shares the tracks of the Chiltern Main Line branch from London Marylebone to Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire but the Metropolitan Line terminates at Amersham (also in Buckinghamshire) on that line along the way by means of 2 centre reversing sidings West of the Station itself whereas the Chiltern Line continues all the way to Aylesbury.
As someone who lives north of DC and visits NYC every once and a while Londons metro sounds way better then new york or anything on this continent lol
All the branching in New York's system makes for truly craptacular wait times in some parts of the network, but it's hard to envision how you solve that other than by maximizing capacity in the core, and even then you're still only distributing some of that capacity to each branch. The one route that is usually held up as suffering most from this is the R, which has to share the Queens Boulevard Line with the E, F, and M, then its "home" Broadway Line in Manhattan with the N, Q, and W, then much of the 4th Avenue Line in Brooklyn with the N and D (and sometimes W). Obviously all of those corridors have service from trains on other routes, but if you specifically need the R-say, if you're at the southern end of the 4th Avenue line toward Bay Ridge-that's not a lot of consolation.
4:14 As someone who's not a new yorker those signs really are so helpful
Real legends like both lines equally, they both have pros and cons
The underground isn't a complete system without everything else, to the degree that I think it's fine that we're probably not getting any London Underground TM extensions any time soon. Expansions of the trams, DLR and overground seem like better value for money than expansions of existing London Underground lines as a rule, and crossrail 2 is probably more important than another tube line. Where London is lacking imo is local transit, we really need to upgrade a lot of bus routes into at least trolleybuses, but ideally light trams.
I find the experience of riding both systems to be disparate due to the differences in culture and history as much as the differences in physical infrastructure. I daresay I've had more negative experiences in NY than I have in London including wayfinding in some of the more convoluted platforms and social interactions. Riding in NY is a more "exciting" and potentially anxiety inducing experience due to the range of people one can come across there versus the more placid experience in London where people are simply far more reserved. I find London to have a more romantic vibe owing to its longer history and I still find a thrill getting off at Trafalgar Square or Tower Hill. But NY's 42nd Street station is an unique experience as well. One thing I do like about London's system are the variety of trains one can ride and there's nothing like riding on the PIcadilly line and looking out the window and feeling as though the tunnel is literally inches away from your face for the full tube ambience.
Haha, I concur with all of your points - especially re the Picc!
NYC native who lived in London for 2 years. I prefer the tube because it is just simpler to understand. NY’s express v. local, 3 different lines on a track, certain lines or sections of track shut off on certain days, times of day, etc. I’d rather devote the extra brain energy to memorizing bus lines for when the tube doesn’t run overnight than have to navigate NY’s random shutdowns for maintenance due to 24hr service.
I would really love a three way battle between Copenhagen Stockholm and Helsinki!
They all are really great at mixing different modes/systems, and each have done it in different ways. Also, they're all capitals in the Nordics, so it adds hype to the battle
Edit: to clarify, it should be all of their PT, not just the metros
I’ve used both and enjoyed both. I don’t like the idea of comparing the 2 because they’re so different but as great as the London Tube was, I’ll always go with the NYC Subways. It’s flawed but you can get where you need to go and if there’s an issue, there are alternatives, the key is reading the signs & knowing where to go. There’s always room for improvement but I’m glad it’s nowhere where it was when I was a kid in the 80’s & 90’s. Even with that, I loved riding the Tube and I can’t wait to go back to London to ride it again. Both systems are great to me in their own way.
I'ts interesting that you would say that the connectivity issues in NYC are west of the Hudson and not the majority of Queens and East Brooklyn. Since the MTA is technically for the city of limits of NYC, expanding West is not nearly as important as lack of service in the outer boroughs.
Right. A lot of place in NYC don't have stations.
To me, that’s the biggest flaw of the NYC Subway. The fact that there isn’t as much subway service in the outer boroughs as there is in Manhattan is a crime. It also has to do with the powers that be who was running things in the 40’s, 50’s & 60’s which did an amazing job stifling transit expansions and even eliminating lines like the Elevated Lines throughout the city. We’re still suffering from that.
As someone who lives in Queens, London makes NYC look amazing when you consider accessibility. Its true a lot can be done but IMO NYC is way ahead in this match-up.
Compared to the cute little Tube mice, the NYC Subway rats are the size of raccoons!
They really are quite substantial!
can you please make a video on the Frankfurt Area. The Area is filled with some significant mid-sized cities such as Wiesbaden, Mainz, Darmstadt, Hanau, Aschaffenburg, and several others. This makes the way the train lines serve the settlements, especially Regional Rail and S Bahn, interesting IMO. Like the Main-Spesshart Express which switches from Regional Express to regular commuter the closer it gets to Frankfurt HBF.
Yes! 2023!~
If you do that, it would make sense to do it for the Rhine-Ruhr area too, it's an even bigger metro area with over 10 Million people.
@@RMTransit please take choose a city, if you want to do, because these would be an apt comparison. German City rails have tons of flaws, would be great to see them listed.
One difference I noticed years and years ago is how each line is named. Names of the different lines in London, like Waterloo, sound nicer than the numbers and letters New York uses, but for me using the system the numbers and letters are easier. Although I sometimes did usd the old IRT, BMT, or IND name when I was growing up in New York.
All that said, I think it could be interesting to compare Tokyo to either NY or London, and also Boston to Chicago.
Tokyo vs. NY or London would not be a fair fight at all.
Great comparison! As a guy that has been lucky enough to use both, this video is spot on. Andy Byford really helped us years ago in America… But he was from London lol
I live in Brooklyn and Im usually using the train. Me personally, I think London's Subways are actually a lot better than New York if we're talking about how it looks, smells, feels, and crime wise. Some stations here are insanely dirty, smell like piss, rats and roaches everywhere, and cleaning isn't a neccessity. I'd say it's a lot more grimier and dangerous here. Subway crime is common in this city, London looks and feels more comfortable and cleaner.
Also, of interest, which I only learned a bit recently, the reason for the "bigger" trains on both systems is the same reason, mainline connections. A long time ago parts of the BMT (the "lettered route" division, along with the IND) did have through service onto the Long Island RailRoad, and vice versa. Only later that the FRA would rule that transit and "mainline" were not to mix. The "Subsurface" lines in London all evolved from a couple of railways who thought of themselves as mainline railroads who just happened to go underground in London (to get around the zone where tracks were excluded from, nobody said no going under) (Of interest, the IRT or "numbered" lines in New York chose their loading gauge and narrower tunnels so that they WOULD NOT connect to mainlines, apparently that's also why Toronto's streetcars and the blue line in Philadelphia use non-standard track gauges)
I’d love to see a show down with Hong Kong vs Singapore
I live in New York but have been in London for about 4 months now. Advantages of NYC: 24 hour service, express trains, spacious trains. Advantages of London: cleanliness, reliability, and FREQUENCY! To me, this last point is what tips the scale to London - I usually get a train within 2 minutes in London, whereas it's not uncommon to have a wait of 7+ minutes in NYC (especially the cursed C train...) That is just a game changer.
You also need to factor the time it takes to get to the subway. In New York, I can sprint down to a train in 30 seconds, in London it takes forever to get to to the trains
I actually enjoy both! The older charm of the subways always is a joy!
I’d love a proper full Sydney vs Melbourne public transport battle! I’ve seen you do individual videos on Sydney and Melbourne but I’d love to see a comparison. Also if it compares current projects under construction that would be nice too…
The narrow subway trains in NYC was originally owned by the Interborough Rapid Transit Company and sold to the New York City Board of Transportation in June 1940. The BMT and IND were built later and have letters instead of numbers.
Howabout Thameslink, linking Cambridge and Peterborough via the Eurostar terminal station at St Pancras to Luton and Gatwick Airports and Brighton on the south coast? That is such an amazing service and in the "core" section integrates seamlessly with the Underground.
Fantastic. You crushed this! I totally devoured all of your points and observations. A couple of other fun (and serious) categories in the future: colour scheme, lighting, voice prompts upon station entry and SAFETY. The last is one that you should revisit in a Battle of the Giants. Otherwise, good stuff!
Awesome review! I have been on both but definitely prefer the London Underground. And I love both cities. The options for going from Heathrow to the city are definitely much better than NYC airports.
The lack of service across the Hudson in to northeast New Jersey should definitely be addressed. Hudson County should be treated as the sixth borough of NYC in that regard, and then have connections from Hudson county to the surrounding counties. Basically a west of the Hudson subway service integrated with the MTA, PATH and regional rail commuter lines. One thing that wasn't really mentioned in regard to the NYC system, is the lack of subway coverage in eastern Queens and parts of southern Brooklyn (like the Flatlands area), and there's no direct subway connection to Staten Island.
Hudson county already has a LOT of connections between PATH and the new light rail to get people to Hoboken Terminal. The connection to Bergen County however is truly miserable given how close it is to New York. But knowing the rich suburbs that Bergen County is comprised of I would venture to guess it was an intentional design
@@SigmaRho2922 I know that, and I stated that in my comment! I was making the case that the PATH trains should be integrated into the MTA system (this was actually tried but for bureaucratic reasons it flopped), and the subway should be expanded from the existing system from Hudson County in to the surrounding counties.
@@roccoisdaman Hudson County has sufficient connections, though I would like to see pedestrian bridges and possibly elevated trams across the Hudson for easier access. There should be a subway across the George Washington bridge into Bergen County IMO. To be clear, my idea was that the MTA should operate West of the Hudson River, and the system should mostly branch off from Hudson County into the surrounding counties. They can utilize the existing transit infrastructure that already exists.
Agreed about missing service in Brooklyn, Queens and SI.
Very good review! Having lived in London for 8 years near the Jubilee Line I always found the lack of headroom and space + the expensive fares difficult to accept. Overall a great system but at the end of the day you mainly use the lines that are close to where you live.
Maybe doing a video on the bus services of London would be fun. The iconic double decker buses, some of which are now battery electric! A few years ago, I remember riding a hybrid double decker bus that was so quiet, smooth, vibration free, and quick acceleration that I thought it was magic!
The Boris busses are hot inside on an average spring day - so they put in opening windows with a horizontal bar right at my eye level (boo). Ride well unlike almost all modern buses though.
I really love the extensive quad tracking and express services of the NYC subway… it’s something they definitely isn’t highlighted enough bc not only does it increase speed but also capacity and distributed and reduces crowding. Some other exciting things abt the NYC subway are the extensive CBTC work going on, the new upcoming trains (any minute now…), and upcoming CELL COVERAGE in every tunnel in the system. Lastly… IBX is still happening!
But even with that, automated announcements and cheap cameras and screens the unions (I'm generally pro) will go nuts over losing the completely unnecessary conductors costing many hundreds of million dollars a year.
@@emjayay and how are Conductor’s “completely unnecessary”?
On London expansions, don't forget that the Northern Line extension opened earlier this year, and the Bakerloo Line extension into south London is also on the cards and may well beat the second avenue subway
The NYC Second Ave subway was in the plans about 75 years ago and recently was built part way at the cost of a bazillion dollars.
I think you should have considered system redundancy. London has very low redundancy, so if your line is down, you're stuck on a bus. In Manhattan at least, and even sometimes in the other boroughs, just walk over an avenue and take another train.
I'm really intrested to see what the New tube for London will bring to the deep level signs. I feel like it will be more like the modern new york stock in stuff like the wayfinding. Also apparently it will bring aircon and usb ports, which would help give it a massive boost.
One thing I'm less sure about is that over time, tfl plans to intergrate more platform doors to the system, with these new trains being able to use the signalling on the jubilee line. Overall, the Jubilee line extenstion is great, and if while putting platform doors in they modernise or at least clean up the stations at the same time, the system will greatly benefit.
I think a battle between the Copenhagen Metro, Vancouver Skytrain and the DLR would be very interesting.
I would like to someday ride the entire networks in both London and NYC. London has more variety in rolling stock, and also has (like you mentioned) the trams, DLR, Overground, etc. Riding all the NYC LIRR and Metro services would be fun as well.
NYC Used To Have More Variety With The R26-R36 Cars
I LOVE the sound of the London Underground! Such an iconic noise for me. Shame people don't like it.
As a native New Yorker who had ridden extensively on both systems, I would say New York should be the winner. Of course tho opinion is totally biased. With that said, the London Tube certainly out performs New iYork in terms of cleanliness
An interesting comparison would be the Washington, DC metro vs the T in Boston. I've ridden both systems before. They seem to be of a similar size and have a similar number of lines to each other.
DC Metro is more of a commuter line like BART, from the late 60s-70s and the trains are similar. Somehow DC trains still have one interior sign that only tells the line name, not next stop.
(Wall of text inbound)
I know it would've made an extra category and possibly make a tie, but I'm surprised you didn't talk much about the track itself. You did mention how the size difference of the trains in each city, and the station depths, but something else to consider is how the tracks compare outside of the "city." I'm not sure what counts as outside London, but there's plenty of areas where the Tube runs parallel to, or shares track with, National Rail trains. Of course that's because the Subsurface lines were meant to carry mainline trains in the old days, but then you have cases the Central Line which literally took over some ex-Great Eastern branches from BR in the late 50's. Because of this, many of the lines have their outer ends at grade, or at least above ground.
The NYC Subway is kind of the opposite in that regard. The lines were pretty much all made to serve Manhattan and the Tri-Boroughs, not _really_ the suburbs...at least they aren't now. The Subway also has _elevated_ track, with trains just running above the streets rather than underneath them. Add the sheer size difference between Subway trains and regular US stock, there's no real interconnectivity or parallel running. Apparently the LIRR used to run a joint service to Manhattan over the BRT Broadway Line (ironically using cars based on IRT designs) but it ended in 1917. The closet connectivity the Subway has to "National" railroads are how the Flushing Line sort of parallels the LIRR Port Washington Branch, and how the Dyre Av Line was taken from a defunct commuter railroad in 1940.
I also think a mention must be made comparing the PATH to the Waterloo & City Line. Respectively, both railroads were created by "Mainline" railroads (Pennsylvania Railroad and London & South Western Railway) to connect heavily used commuter stations (Exchange Place and Waterloo), to the inner city by burrowing under a river (Hudson and Thames). And both systems are somewhat notorious for pretty much not evolving since their inception, and using trains similar to, but not quite identical, to the trains used on the main rapid transit network. Weirdly, their position in ownership has somewhat switched. PATH is owned by NY & NJ Port Authority, though it's technically registered as a commuter railroad instead of rapid transit, and isn't part of MTA despite using the same fare system. The W&C on the other hand _was_ registered as just an extension of the National Network until the 90s, when it joined the Underground depite still being physically seperate from the rest of the Tube.
What would be interesting is a three battle comparison between the Stadtbahnen of Cologne, Frankfurt and Stuttgart given that they all were developed around the same time, were supposed to be full blown metros and were intended to replace the trams entirely with varying degree of success depending on the city.
In New York, you have always got an available seat. In London, having the ability to sit down feels like winning the lottery.
I think for me the one area the London Underground edges it is the integration with other rail systems. The Victoria line for example goes from terminus to terminus under the city, and also has cross platform transfers with deep level commuter lines such as the Northern City lines. Near where I am at Canada water there are two underground stations, one a deep level Jubilee line station for the Tube, another is a cut and cover station for the east London line
Yep, the integration between systems is much better in LDN
If New York and London could fix their project cost problems their systems would be out of this world better than they even are right now
Thanks Reece! Looking forward to your Helsinki, Finland video. 🇫🇮
If you can make videos about Riga, Latvia and Poland, that would be great.
Sounds like they're building a very long railway across the Baltics and Poland.
Fellow New Yorker here, London Underground is superior in comparison to NYC. It’s more organised, cleaner, less stressful, more straightforward in use and less dangerous in my experience/opinion. I actually enjoy using the London underground and dred having to use the trains in NY.
I think London is better currently but NY has so much potential! Btw I actually like this video concept. I would love to see something like Berlin vs Madrid or Stockholm vs Vienna or something like this
Ive lived in both cities and used both services in the past year and what used to be a fairly even comparison in terms of reliability and frequency of trains has been completely upended in favor of London mostly because of the dramatic fall off in servicw in New York.I have found myself waiting upwards of 1/2 hour for a train wheras in London its very rarely more than 7/8 mins
The NYC subway is going through now a massive signaling upgrade on most lines. That might make your scores even out eventually.
Honestly at this point it comes down to personal preference.