| ▲ | TuringNYC 9 hours ago |
| I cant speak to all this, but as an American doing a lot of work in London, wow transportation is incredibly great. Shockingly impressive. Traveling to London, and getting around London, and doing a lot of meetings in a small trip, is easier than anywhere in the US now because of how beautifully their transit system works (despite occasional delays which can be expected.) The rollout of the Elizabeth Line from Heathrow airport is also eye-opening. In NYC we speak about new subways lines with hundred-year plans (recall the 2nd ave subway extension) but in London the smoothly operating Elizabeth Line seemed to be introduced out of thin air. |
|
| ▲ | pjc50 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The Elizabeth Line, formerly known as Crossrail, is a lot more similar to the hundred year plan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail My dad was a tunnels engineer and worked on Crossrail feasibility studies at several points in his career across decades. London is is many ways one of the less impressive subway systems simply because much of it is so old, with small trains running in Victorian era tunnels. Not as bad as the Glasgow one, which feels like travelling on a 2/3 scale model of a subway with alarmingly narrow platforms. It is however a point of contention within the UK that London public transport is better than public transport in almost every other city, due to being properly nationalized. |
| |
| ▲ | rmccue 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Not as bad as the Glasgow one, which feels like travelling on a 2/3 scale model of a subway with alarmingly narrow platforms. For anyone who's not aware, the Glasgow Subway is literally smaller - the track gauge is 4ft (85% of standard gauge), and the rolling stock (trains) is similarly scaled down, to the point that you probably have to duck if you're over 6ft. | | |
| ▲ | nanna 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I remember that one of Stockholm's train line is also endearingly tiny too? | | | |
| ▲ | browningstreet 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Budapest subway is something similar, too. | | |
| ▲ | inglor_cz 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The oldest line which was inaugurated in the late 19th century, yes. (Though IIRC it is standard gauge.) The three modern lines are spacious and high-capacity. |
|
| |
| ▲ | nialv7 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Very true. If you really want to see rail lines materialise out of thin air, go to any major cities in China. | |
| ▲ | ghaff 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's a pretty extensive system and the pretty new Elizabeth Line is great. But if you take something like the Piccadilly Line in from the airport, you probably shouldn't have a lot of luggage because a lot of stations just have stairs and platforms are often at a significant offset from the underground cars. (The double decker busses also work pretty well although they're not generally my default.) | | |
| ▲ | matt-p 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The Piccadilly Line was opened in 1906 for gods sake, forgive them for not catering to people with 3 suitcases very well! That's part of the reason we built the Elizabeth Line, to enable a better transport option for people coming into heathrow. | | |
| ▲ | inglor_cz 24 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It is interesting how infrastructure silently reflects society of its time. In 1906, people travelling with three suitcases would likely have servants carrying them, and no one cared particularly about comfort of servants. | | |
| ▲ | matt-p 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'm not sure they'd of gotten the tube at all, unless perhaps to connect to a mainline station for a trip to the country? I still feel it more likely they'd of been driven, either by horse drawn or maybe even car (at least to the station) even in 1906. |
|
| |
| ▲ | zabzonk 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > a lot of stations just have stairs Very few, if any. They may not have escalators (Covent garden, for eg., but no-one in their right mind uses that - just use Leicester Square and walk on the street) but there are almost always ways of getting up to the street, and assistance is signposted for people with problems. > platforms are often at a significant offset from the underground cars Not sure what you mean here - mind the gap? Typically less on the Piccadilly than some other lines - Bank on the Central is particularly scary. Based on living 30-odd years in London, most of it using the Piccadilly line on my daily commute and to get to LHR. Sounding like a TfL groupie here, but it is a pretty good transit system, given geographic and budgetary constraints. | | |
| ▲ | ghaff an hour ago | parent [-] | | It's not just the gap. The platform can also be a somewhat significant step up from the car. Normally not a big deal but a couple years back I had both real dress clothing and clothes for a long walk in my luggage on a fairly long trip overall. Agree that the Underground is good in general. I've used it a lot. That particular trip was just a case of having heavier luggage than I usually carry and I should have handled things differently. |
|
| |
| ▲ | kakacik 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | To americans, London public transport feels amazing. To rest of Europe, its lets say OKish | | |
| ▲ | matt-p 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've lived in and visted many other cities in Europe. Public transport is often much cheaper than London, but there's few examples where I'd really say it was /better/. Can you think of an example? | | |
| ▲ | Beretta_Vexee 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Oslo and Madrid come to mind. For the worst than london, The Rome underground is so sparse, it not really usefull. Paris is dense, chaotic and overcrowded. | | |
| ▲ | matt-p 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Every single time I've been in Madrid the metro has been on strike. Every time. They run about 50-60% of services which means everything is slow and packed. I would actually say it's one of the worst in europe in my (I guess limited) experience due to that. I will have to try Oslo! |
| |
| ▲ | storus 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Anywhere in Germany? E.g. Frankfurt has much higher density of subway lines and trams. | | |
| ▲ | matt-p an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Frankfurt is less than a tenth the size, I'm not sure it's really a comparison. I found Berlin to be no better/slightly worse. | |
| ▲ | walthamstow 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Of course the transport is good in most DE cities but seriously, Frankfurt is a village compared to London. London's network is both vast and dense. |
|
| |
| ▲ | short_sells_poo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | To people who have to commute to London, particularly if it's not a mainline train, it's tragically bad and overpriced. Train outages happen on a daily basis, the fare is very expensive compared to mainland Europe and the quality is quite a bit worse. | | |
| ▲ | matt-p 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | True, but it's not london public transport (e.g not TFL) and that may actually be the only reason it's bad. Look what happened when TFL took over national rail services inside london (silverlink > overground). |
| |
| ▲ | WentFullRetard 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | PunchyHamster 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I feel that's more "US public transport being bad" |
| |
| ▲ | nervousvarun 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Right as an American this reads like "American who's never been to large Asian cities like Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing etc.. | | |
| ▲ | esseph 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | [delayed] | |
| ▲ | christophilus 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm with you. Tokyo is incredible. It's the only large city I've ever been to where I left thinking, "I'd love to live there." Transportation in Japan is a whole other level compared to my experiences in Germany and Austria. I've never been to England, though, so can't make that comparison. | | |
| ▲ | dasil003 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | London and Berlin felt pretty comparable to me, with the airport situation better in London but the biking situation better in Berlin (marginally). Tokyo is just on another level entirely. | |
| ▲ | adastra22 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You should visit Taipei. |
|
| |
| ▲ | s_dev 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | A big problem in America is the entrenchment that is happening. People are becoming so polarised there is no common ground left for discussions and people aren't open to new ideas or thinking. I genuinely feel I can't even discuss this with many Americans. They stalwartly believe car culture is superior in every single aspect, any deviation from this narrative is simply met with 'you don't understand'. I recall in Ireland they asked an American on public TV what he thought of one of the few pedestrians only streets in Dublin (Liffey Street). He pointed out that he would be sorry for the loss of the trade on that street for the business involved compared to if cars were allowed to drive on it. It's then pointed out they make way more money since the transition as it's a city centre location with enormous footfall. He just counters that's not possible and cited some example in the US. | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | There was a big argument on my local (American) Nextdoor recently because someone encountered a line of cars on a road that had recently had a bike lane added to it. People were outraged about bike lanes. And not just in the sense that they had to pay (via taxes) for something they didn't feel was useful. The fact that the lane even existed was an affront. They seemed to actually believe that the bike lane caused delays for cars merely by existing. | |
| ▲ | DrScientist 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | As I understand it the US car lobby had a big hand in designing modern America, in such a way that for most cities it really isn't possible to use anything else. On the other hand a lot of European cities were laid out in the time of horse and cart. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | johnisgood 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think it is widely known that public transport in the US is god awful. Public transportation is lovely in most European countries, IMO. |
| |
| ▲ | rorylawless 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It isn’t universally awful in the US. Washington, DC’s system is great and should be the cornerstone of any revitalization that isn’t so reliant on the federal government. | | |
| ▲ | johnisgood 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thanks, good to know! How are the trains across the country though? | | |
| ▲ | altcognito 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Trains are not an efficient use of time for travel within the US. The US is huge. If you were take a 300mph (nearing 500kph) train (which would make it the fastest train in the world), it would be OVER an 8 hour trip from New York to LA. (Again, about 2500 miles or 4000k) Even in some of the densest areas, the trip times end up being pretty long due to distances: dc to New York? 600 kilometers or almost 400 miles. | | |
| ▲ | TulliusCicero 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | People aren't taking trains from Madrid to Tallinn, either. The proper point of comparison here is more medium length trips. There's no reason not to have a high speed train for Portland - Seattle - Vancouver, for example. | |
| ▲ | CalRobert 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is irrelevant, though, since the size of the country isn’t what determines where people go. It’s not like trains got less practical when Alaska got admitted to the union. Sprawling, low density, single use zoning, combined with parking minimums, have much more to do with it. Here’s a video that explores the topic if you’re curious https://youtu.be/REni8Oi1QJQ | | |
| ▲ | adastra22 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The question was what the train network is like outside the cities. And the answer is we don’t use trains because it is not efficient for the scale of the country. This is correct. Most people ARE interested in coast to coast travel. It is called flyover country for a reason. There are a few exceptions like the Baltimore corridor, or the San Francisco peninsula, and these are in fact serviced by good trains. | | |
| ▲ | estebank 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Train travel from LA to NY wouldn't be efficient, but there are plenty of population poles like LA to SF where train travel would make sense and a network of those could make cross country travel feasible if not in a hurry. But as the GP pointed out, it is not that useful if you can arrive to LA by train, if then when you arrive you need to rent a car before you've even left the station. It is always shocking to me when I land at an airport in the US and there no public transport available. It is common for conversations about good local public transport to have a retort in some sub-thread about how big the US is, as if the feasibility of long distance travel affected the feasibility of other modes of local travel. You mention the SF peninsula. When I first moved there, I lived in the westside of SF and had friends living in Sunnyvale. On a weekend, it took 4 hs to get to Mountain View (~40miles, at the time, checking now it seems like Caltrain weekend service might have improved, so the same trip would take about 2hs), and then had to be picked up by car to finish the rest of the trip. It was faster (~3:30hs, if more expensive) to go from Paris to Amsterdam (>300miles) by train. |
| |
| ▲ | altcognito 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It is highly relevant to the question asked. What you’re addressing is how cities should be built. | | |
| |
| ▲ | dpc050505 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How long would it take from New York to Philadelphia, or Boston to DC? How long would it take between San Diego and SF? What about a train between Chicago and Detroit? We're building a fast train from Toronto to Quebec city in Canada. It's going to be a lot more comfortable and way faster than driving. A MP in my family takes the train from Montreal to Ottawa very frequently, they don't want to bother with parking in the capital and they can work on the train. | | |
| ▲ | altcognito 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > What about a train between Chicago and Detroit? I've ridden the Wolverine, it isn't half bad. I 100% agree trains might be underfunded in the US. The LA to NY flight will stay preferred to a hypothetical high speed train due to time. It is unlikely ever to be less than 10 hours. For train rides under 4 hours, and if you can get trains running smoothly (less stops), the time spent on the train and the overall integration of trains is a lot better as a mode of transportation. |
| |
| ▲ | short_sells_poo 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I see your point, but consider this: getting to and through a major airport is a huge pain the ass. Trains also tend to take you to city centers more often than airports, which almost always need to be a significant distance from anything interesting due to the noise. Let's take a hypothetical scenario: - 5 hours flight time (average for NY and LA), 2 hours on each side to get to and from the airport to the actual city. Total is 9 hours. - 10 hours train time and 1 hour on each end (which is generous given the proximity of train stations to city centers), 12 hours. The difference is not that much, and a train ride is so much less faff than a flight that it's not even funny. Little to no security theater, you don't get fondled by security agents, you don't have to stand hours in line with silly passport controls and luggage checkins/pickups. And the list goes on. A good train infrastructure can be vastly more pleasant than a good air infrastructure. Where air wins out is intercontinental flights where trains are truly not an option anymore. | | |
| ▲ | altcognito 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Eh, you're overselling it. Even in a hypothetical world with a 12 hour train trip, it still loses to an 8 hour plane trip. You're losing an entire day on the train. You still have to deal with luggage pains, now you're eating on the transportation which will be inferior, and will have similar problems with last mile transportation. Flying is currently not a great 8 hour experience, but it beats losing an entire day. I can do LA to NY for a weekend trip. (I personally wouldn't but there are some that would for sure) Trains can and do make sense even in the US, and we do ourselves great harm by underinvesting in them, but there will always be a place for plane travel. | |
| ▲ | adastra22 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you’re taking more than a half hour to get from the city center to the airport, you’re doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | eloisant 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's pretty good in NYC. I heard it's nice in Boston too. | | |
| ▲ | krige 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Compared to rest of US? Maybe. Compared to Europe? Absolutely not. | |
| ▲ | clickety_clack 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If they ran the suburban rail more frequently Boston would have a phenomenal system. | | |
| ▲ | ghaff 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The suburban rail in Boston is very much commuter rail. I live about 50 miles west (pretty near a station though I have to drive) and I'll absolutely take it for a 9-5ish urban event. But it's completely useless for anything in the evening. | | |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | NJ Transit is commuter rail and they made it not suck by providing usable evening and weekend service. |
|
| |
| ▲ | quotz 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Its good in NYC for american standards. For european standards the NYC subway is abominable. The smells, the grime, the homeless, its honestly like visiting the 6th ring of hell. Source: I am a european living in NYC. | | |
| ▲ | adastra22 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s not much different from Paris subway. We should still strive for better - Taipei is a much better model than any European city. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | oceansky 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I've visited Paris and London a few months ago as a tourist. I am really impressed by London public transport, both the classical red double deck buses and the subway. |
|
| ▲ | sjhuda 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Thin air? It was delivered 3 years late and cost £5bn more than it should have. While projects like HS2 to the North are scaled back. The UK uses other parts of the county as a piggy bank to fund London projects. I have a dog in this fight as I'm quite close to the public transport industry in the North and it's pretty disheartening to see politicans use us as some sort of "policy win" and then never follow through with it. Manchester only recently got devolved powers meaning the region did not have to get approval from Westminster on how they use their money and the bus and tram system has completely improved in the sapce of a couple of years (unified tickets, tap and go) with the suburban rail to come into that this year. What is also interesting is that London's productivity growth is falling compared to Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool. So those cities that aren't getting the fancy new train lines are actually performing better. |
| |
| ▲ | blibble 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The UK uses other parts of the county as a piggy bank to fund London projects. it's the exact opposite | | |
| ▲ | dijit 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is demonstrably false. The data shows the exact opposite. Transport spending in London was £1,313 per capita in 2023/24, compared with just £368 per head in the East Midlands[0] - nearly 4x the investment. Over the decade to 2022/23, if the North had received the same per person transport spending as London, it would have received £140 billion more[1]. The East Midlands got just £355 per person, the lowest of every nation and region[1]. Yes, London generates a fiscal surplus, but that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. London receives the highest investment spending for both economic and non-economic areas, relative to population size[2]. In 2022, infrastructure construction spend in London was £8.8 billion, whilst Scotland came second with £3.6 billion[3]. It's circular logic: * invest heavily in London -> infrastructure drives productivity -> higher productivity generates more tax revenue -> claim London 'subsidises' other regions -> use this to justify more London investment. Infrastructure investment enhances productive potential[4], but all other regions are systematically denied it. London has returns on investment because it's the only place that actually gets proper investment. You can't starve regions of infrastructure for decades, watch their productivity stagnate, then point to London's tax surplus as proof they are subsidising others, that's fucking stupid. --- [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1134495/transport-spendi... [1] https://www.ippr.org/media-office/ippr-north-and-ippr-reveal... [2] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06... [3] https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity... [4] https://www.bennettschool.cam.ac.uk/blog/what-role-infrastru... | | |
| ▲ | direwolf20 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You're describing economies of scale — they inevitably happen. London has high returns not only because of investment but also because it's a huge city and big cities generate good returns. If you built the Elizabeth line in the middle of nowhere, you wouldn't get a return. The return is enabled by the fact it's a big city. | |
| ▲ | matt-p 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Elizabeth line will pay for itself very very quickly. It's entirely possible that investment in say a tram network in the east midlands will never pay for itself. Left with business cases like that it's not really a shock what the goverment choses. I agree it's unfair and self fulfilling, but this is what life is like, success breeds success and failure, well. I think north of 62% of elizibeth line spending was spent with companies outside the M25, for example building the trains kept a chunk of Derby in work when the factory would have otherwise closed (more than once!) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cew407745jko | |
| ▲ | blibble 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > This is demonstrably false. The data shows the exact opposite. it is not > Yes, London generates a fiscal surplus thank you the only regions of the UK that generate a net return to the treasury are London, the South East and East of England (the East of England certainly has reasons to be upset, they have naff all infrastructure AND are a net payer) > You can't starve regions of infrastructure for decades, watch their productivity stagnate, then point to London's tax surplus as proof the system works, that's fucking stupid. fortunately I didn't claim that please put the strawman down | | |
| ▲ | dijit 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're confusing cause and effect. London's surplus exists because the entire country funded its infrastructure for decades. You've just admitted London got massively more investment - then you point at the returns from that investment as proof London subsidises everyone else. That's absurd. Where did the £140 billion extra that London received come from? National taxation. Including taxes from the regions that got a fraction of the spending. They funded your infrastructure, then you claim the resulting productivity is you being generous. You're not subsidising the UK. You're taking credit for returns on investment the entire country paid for, but only London received. That's not generosity, that's just spending other people's money on yourself then acting smug about the results. The 'net return to the treasury' you're celebrating was built with everyone's taxes concentrated in one place. London isn't the benefactor, it's the beneficiary masquerading as an altruistic donor. | | |
| ▲ | blibble 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You're confusing cause and effect. you are arguing against a point I never made (and no, I don't live in London, I live in an underfunded region too) |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | youngtaff 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Although Yes CrossRail was partly funded by a levy on London homes and businesses, London get's more funding per capita for public transport than anywhere else in the country Imagine what we achieve if we invested London levels of money in transport across the rest of the country | | |
| ▲ | etothepii 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | London pays more taxes per capita than the rest of country. | | |
| ▲ | yardie 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | And decisions made in London have drained those other cities of investment and tax revenue. |
| |
| ▲ | whywhywhywhy 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Imagine if the money spent on transport in London wasn't funding things like fake jobs to carry people to massive pensions because TFL employees can't be made redundant. |
|
| |
| ▲ | tenzo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > What is also interesting is that London's productivity growth is falling compared to Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool. So those cities that aren't getting the fancy new train lines are actually performing better. What data is this based on? | | | |
| ▲ | matt-p 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 3 years late is practically early in UK infrastructure! HS2 was originally due to open in December! We're a decade off at least. |
|
|
| ▲ | pdpi 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Some bits about the service can be pretty astounding. I used to live near the Central line. The station near home was open air and the exit was at the very end of the platform, so I always wanted to make sure I entered the train from the correct end. Service on the Central line is frequent enough (24 trains per hour off-peak), that, if I hopped off the train from the wrong end, the time it took me to walk the length of the platform was long enough for the next train to arrive. |
| |
| ▲ | mft_ 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Hah, the joys of optimising your morning commute on the Underground. “If I stand here on the platform, then the door will open right in front of me, and I’ll be exactly at the exit of the next platform where I need to change…” | | |
| ▲ | dasil003 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah or “the signs all say to walk down this long passage, and then back via a circuitous route for flow control, but my destination is actually 100 feet away through this unmarked passage so I’ll just go that way” situation at Bank |
|
|
|
| ▲ | martypitt 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I've lived in London for a decade, and feel incredibly lucky to have access to the transit here - having lived in Aus, NZ and Canada previously. It's not perfect. It's late sometimes, pollution sucks, and often crowded - but people here who like to criticise it really don't recognise how much better they have it than lots of other places. Same with travel from here to Europe (by train), is just awesome. |
|
| ▲ | anonymous908213 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Under the project name of Crossrail, the system was approved in 2007, and construction began in 2009. Originally planned to open in 2018, the project was repeatedly delayed [...] The service is named after Queen Elizabeth II, who officially opened the line on 17 May 2022[...]. I wouldn't say thin air, exactly. |
| |
| ▲ | TuringNYC 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >> I wouldn't say thin air, exactly. Fair but have you seen how long things take in the US? The original proposal for the 2nd ave line was in 1920 and they have only managed to deploy four stops. I read about it in the news when I was in 5th grade and still read about it now, 40yrs later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway Similar for the Hudson tunnel which is supposed to allow commuter trains to function w/o the current madness... | |
| ▲ | 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | philipallstar 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The Elizabeth Line was unbelievably expensive to build; that's how the UK did it. |
| |
| ▲ | TuringNYC 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >> The Elizabeth Line was unbelievably expensive to build; that's how the UK did it. Fair. But what is also expensive is every single citizen taking $100 Uber rides to the airport, like in NYC. In NJ, the transit service has become so volatile and sporadic and opaque that people have reduced NJTransit use for Newark airport in favor of simply driving. | | |
| ▲ | direwolf20 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That cost doesn't show up on government books, so we can pretend it doesn't exist. The joys of decentral planning. | |
| ▲ | matt-p 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wrong, $100 Uber rides boost employment and the economy! (Just ignore the impacts of congestion, wasted time, road spending) |
| |
| ▲ | flurdy 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But it is also really good. I love the completely enclosed platforms, ie shielded from the track and train by a glass wall/doors, like the Jubilee line, but all the way to the ceiling. This makes it both safe and very quiet. Though the platforms are huge, as the trains are long, you have to really make a conscious decision on which exit to use as they come up very far from each other. Unlike other tube stations, where if you don't pick the most optimal exit, you just have to cross the road. | |
| ▲ | chpatrick 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's a massive investment in the areas near its stations. |
|
|
| ▲ | techterrier 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| having done a lot of work on it in a previous career, I can confirm that it was born out or no shortage of blood, sweat and signalling snafus. |
|
| ▲ | interludead 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And for a city that wants to be a global startup hub, that kind of frictionless mobility matters way more than people realize |
|
| ▲ | direwolf20 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Many European cities have this. London has the biggest, though. And Asian cities. Paris has a metro, Berlin has a metro, Tokyo has a metro, many cities in China but that information is a bit less accessible. China built an entire national high speed rail network while America was waiting to see if the Hyperloop was anything. |
|
| ▲ | VoodooJuJu 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
