A Tale Of Two Metros: How The London Tube Beat The New York Subway

[M II A II R II K]

A Tale Of Two Metros: How The London Tube Beat The New York Subway


16 Dec 2019

By John Surico

Read More: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ew-york-subway

On the evening of 18 November 1987, a lit match fell between the cracks of an old wooden escalator in Kings Cross underground station, landing on decades of accumulated grease, grime and dust. The resulting fire killed 31 passengers below ground. Until Grenfell Tower it was the most serious fire in London since the Blitz, but the catastrophe was also a wake-up call for the city’s mass transit system. After an investigation, the top two senior London Underground and London Regional Transport officials resigned. Across the pond in New York City, meanwhile, the subway system was in rude shape. Government investment was flooding in. Stations were being renovated; subways cleaned of graffiti and decay; and years of deferred work finally being addressed. Ridership responded in kind, rising by 7.4% between 1984 and 1994.

- The story of how the two most important metros in the western world, serving cities with such similar pressures of population (between 8 and 9 million, and growing) and hyper-development, diverged so drastically is a story of many things – but chiefly, says Nicole Badstuber, an expert who studies transport governance at University College London and once worked for Transport for London (TfL), it is “a story of maintenance”. --- “Basically since the end of the second world war, there was no investment” in the London transit system, she says. The fire was an explicit message that new cash was needed immediately. So, too, was image: the Thatcher era saw London’s new role as global banking capital find its home in the London Docklands, where the towers of Canary Wharf were rising. The new pressure resulted in two new high-tech arteries to serve Canary Wharf: the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and the Jubilee Line tube extension. Suddenly British developers were convinced of transport’s role in expanding wealth generation.

- “There was no way [developers] could get this amount of workers without having mass transit,” says Badstuber. “That is important because you not only had a business lobby and a developer lobby starting to say, ‘We need to invest in transport,’ but also, you now have a separate level of clientele that’s using the network, and has certain expectations.” --- That same lobby also endorsed the idea that transit should be governed by the city, not the national government, an idea that was overwhelmingly passed by referendum in 1998. Transport for London (TfL) was born, and the newly elected mayor, Ken Livingstone, whose fierce advocacy for public transport and equity was crucial in getting the agency created, put a majority of his office’s budget into transport. --- With main arterial roads under its jurisdiction, TfL successfully revamped the city’s long-ignored bus system: it created bus-only lanes, introduced flat fares and increased service. It also poached the head of the New York subway, Bob Kiley, and by the late 2000s it had taken control of all London Underground lines – previously controlled by companies through public-private partnerships.

- In New York, the story took a very different turn. Although it has similar modal share figures to London, the subway system has now spawned entire sub-genre of reporting spawned to ask the question: “What happened?” An excellent investigation by the New York Times in 2017 pointed to two key factors. First, in the 1990s, elected officials began a pattern of diverting maintenance funds to other political priorities. Second, too much has since been spent on vanity projects and consulting fees, leaving the system starved for cash. In 2019, only two of New York’s 27 lines have modern signal systems; in London, half of the system is online, with the rest expected by 2023. --- Unlike TfL, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is a holding entity for separate operating companies (including the Long Island Railroad and Metro-North); unlike TfL, it doesn’t control street operations; and unlike TfL, it doesn’t answer to the city but to the governor of New York state, which many critics say leaves it too vulnerable to politics. --- Moreover, the federal government’s financial contribution, says Mitchell Moss of the NYU Rudin Center for Transportation, is “modest”, and usually goes to huge capital projects such as East Side Access, which will link commuter rail to Grand Central Terminal.

.....

[Crawford]

Odd article, because the London tube has basically always been better run than the NY subway. The MTA has been a mess for 60-70 years, and the private companies were a mess before consolidation. Moses started harming the subways as early as the 1930's.

Also, they aren't that similar. NY subway has far higher ridership, much more extensive rolling stock, far more employees, etc. I don't think they've had comparable ridership in at least a century. The tube covers a much larger geography, and is much more spaced out, reaching deep into the suburbs, almost like an S-Bahn. The NY subway runs through much denser geography, with closely spaced stations, usually express/local.

Overall, the NY subway is more easily compared to Paris Metro, with similar challenges and similar service geographies.

[Quixote]

^ 5.6 million (New York City Subway) vs. 5 million (London Underground) isn’t that huge of a difference when the latter doesn’t even serve half of Greater London, which has half the population density of NYC. Then you factor in the fewer number of stations, limited 24-hour service, and no express lines, and it becomes evident that the NYC Subway is underperforming relative to the Underground.

I’d be curious to see how LIRR/Metro-North/NJ Transit compare to London’s sprawling, bread-and-butter commuter rail network of 1,000+ stations.

[JMKeynes]

That article is ridiculous. London's system is better because it charges way more. NY needs to charge way more, but radical socialists in NYC oppose that. As a result, the system suffers.

If NY ever charged the appropriate amount and fixed the system, it would be way better than London's due to the express trains, which London lacks.

[iheartthed]

It's much easier to maintain a system that isn't 24 hours.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ 5.6 million (New York City Subway) vs. 5 million (London Underground) isn’t that huge of a difference when the latter doesn’t even serve half of Greater London, which has half the population density of NYC. Then you factor in the fewer number of stations, limited 24-hour service, and no express lines, and it becomes evident that the NYC Subway is underperforming relative to the Underground.

I’d be curious to see how LIRR/Metro-North/NJ Transit compare to London’s sprawling, bread-and-butter commuter rail network of 1,000+ stations.

I mean, this is cherry-picked data, though. The London Underground covers a larger land area than does the NYC subway, and very well cover a larger population. So, the fact that it has lower ridership than does the NYC subway might indicate that the London Underground is underperforming.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I mean, this is cherry-picked data, though. The London Underground covers a larger land area than does the NYC subway, and very well cover a larger population. So, the fact that it has lower ridership than does the NYC subway might indicate that the London Underground is underperforming.

NY Communists who think that the city exists merely to serve the poor (who, more often than not, refuse to work and collect absurd dole benefits instead) should stop blocking massive fare increases that the system needs. These are the same morons who chased Amazon away.

[M II A II R II K]

So if NYC charged higher fares it would be better upgraded and expanded more often, and assuming of course it received enough government subsidies as well.

[Nouvellecosse]

Communists and socialist don't believe in starving public transit of funding. They may want public services to be affordable and accessible to everyone, but they don't see any value in blocking one source of funding such as user fees without replacing it with another such as subsidies. Surely everyone has seen the metro systems built by the USSR. Spoiler alert: They're somewhat dissimilar from the NY subway.

Obviously a lot of people have specific targets to which they want to pin blame for everything in keeping with their world view, but shouldn't they at least be a little plausible?

[M II A II R II K]

Even with more expensive fares there could be a whole host of discount programs to make it more affordable for those who need it so more people can get to work and shop.

[bilbao58]

I'll take the Paris Métro.

[Dale]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

I'll take the Paris Métro.

I’ll take Moscow’s.

[dc_denizen]

I like express lines. Nyc wins

[nito]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Also, they aren't that similar. NY subway has far higher ridership, much more extensive rolling stock, far more employees, etc. I don't think they've had comparable ridership in at least a century. The tube covers a much larger geography, and is much more spaced out, reaching deep into the suburbs, almost like an S-Bahn. The NY subway runs through much denser geography, with closely spaced stations, usually express/local.

A few points.
- Ridership on the Subway is currently higher, but has been declining for several years, whilst that for the Underground has been growing most years. Consider the diverging population and investment trajectories of both cities and it isn’t inconceivable that there will be a convergence point in terms of ridership.
- The Subway has 49% more carriages than the Underground but the rolling stock in London is better maintained, more modern and better utilised through the application of digital signalling.
- 50,129 people work on the Subway compared to 20,903 on the Underground, which is a considerable difference. Even if you subtract the 3,155 train conductors, you’d still have double the headcount. Perhaps the difference id down to London having more automated modern processes and padding from unions in New York?
- There are two sections that run quite far afield, the Metropolitan out to Chesham and the Central out to Epping, but these are the exception. The bulk of the network is concentrated in north London.

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

That article is ridiculous. London's system is better because it charges way more. NY needs to charge way more, but radical socialists in NYC oppose that. As a result, the system suffers.

If NY ever charged the appropriate amount and fixed the system, it would be way better than London's due to the express trains, which London lacks.

It certainly does cost more and having the zone-fare model makes the system equitable in terms of longer journeys, akin to the system used on the LIRR.

London doesn’t have distinct local/express setups like New York, but there are numerous sections where the Tube and other National Rail lines run parallel (e.g. Chiltern Railways and Metropolitan Line, District Line and c2c, South Western Railways inner and outer commuters, etc…) and offer a similar local/express service. Stations in London are also further apart which enables faster running speeds. The rolling stock also typically has faster acceleration and deceleration, and the introduction of digital signalling enables headways of 100 seconds which is not found in New York.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's much easier to maintain a system that isn't 24 hours.

There is currently 24hr service (Fri, Sat + Sun) on 5 Underground and 1 Overground lines. The ambition is to expand this to other Underground lines, the DLR and Crossrail, and other nights of the week, with Thursday likely next.

Originally Posted by Quixote

I’d be curious to see how LIRR/Metro-North/NJ Transit compare to London’s sprawling, bread-and-butter commuter rail network of 1,000+ stations.

There are close to 20 train operating companies running out of London, but unlike North American operators there is more a blur in their operation. There isn’t a solitary intercity rail operator like Amtrak, and some operators serve other urban and rural areas as well as London (e.g. West Midlands Railway), so only the most London focused operators are included.

The largest is by a considerable margin is Govia Thameslink Railway which runs metro-like services in south London (where the Tube doesn’t operate) and inner and outer commuter services to the north and south of London.

[canucklehead2]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

That article is ridiculous. London's system is better because it charges way more. NY needs to charge way more, but radical socialists in NYC oppose that. As a result, the system suffers.

If NY ever charged the appropriate amount and fixed the system, it would be way better than London's due to the express trains, which London lacks.

Spoken like a true troll... See yourself out.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Dale

I’ll take Moscow’s.

I'll take Shanghai's.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

Spoken like a true troll... See yourself out.

He is a troll for dissin' on Socialists? No, that is called an opinion.

[Nouvellecosse]

No, because it was so outlandishly off-topic and nonsensical. I mean, literally claiming that people are communists just for being affordability advocates (a concern shared by people across the political spectrum) while actual communists are amazing at public transit. Yet he manages to blame them for the transit problems in the epicenter of capitalism. Faceplant to the Nth degree.

[dc_denizen]

You don’t understand the situation in New York well enough.

the MTA is padded with plenty of corrupt , underworked, and overpaid unionized workers, as was very clearly laid out in the New York Times expose a couple years back.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...elays.amp.html

Also, ridership on the subway has plateaued this year, but has not really declined . Ridership is up 77% since 1991.

These articles also never really account for the fact that greater New York at around 20 million people is a lot bigger than greater London (11-12 million)

[Pavlov's Dog]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

NY Communists who think that the city exists merely to serve the poor (who, more often than not, refuse to work and collect absurd dole benefits instead) should stop blocking massive fare increases that the system needs. These are the same morons who chased Amazon away.

So you favor the local government giving billions to the World's most valuable corporation but against people receiving welfare? That seems like a very inconsistent ideology.

BTW I completely agree that a fare increase is a much needed solution raising capital for the Subway. Transferring authority over the Subway from the state government to the city is also a no-brainer.