Why London is beating American cities

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by JManc

Yes, NYC acts like a state within a state; my birth certificate was issued by NYS while my marriage certificate was issued by NYC.

Interesting; in California, those would be issued by whichever county you were born in/married in.

Sample birth certificate, Los Angeles County:


Sample marriage license/certificate, Los Angeles County:

[nito]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

^ wow we rarely see so many incorrect remarks on a reply —
this comedian is like an aussie version of you —

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5e5z...c5eWw2aTVmeTNs

Such as?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by nito

Such as?

The post is perfect. Very informative and full of data. BTW, RM Transit post a video right now:

All About London's ENORMOUS Suburban Rail Network

• Video Link

He stated only Tokyo gets than comprehensive. And of courses, BUSES. Buses are transit and London has a massive system carrying as much people as the Underground. That's the same case of São Paulo, where the bus system (pre-pandemics) carried as much passengers as the subway (Metrô) and railway (CPTM) combined.

Anyway, it might come as a shock for many SSPers but there is life outside the US.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by nito

New York metro area rail service is the best in North America, but it is significantly behind peer cities on pretty every conceivable measure (network scope, capacity, frequencies, rolling stock, destinations, ridership, connectivity, accessibility, investment, etc…). The lack of orbital rail inside the city and further afield is a massive handicap, particularly in the post-pandemic world where not everyone wants to go in and back out again.

I know this statement is meant to be provocative but it's also very misleading. Not a single city in the western hemisphere outperforms New York metro area rail. Globally we're talking London, Paris, Tokyo, and maybe some Chinese cities, have comparable or better rail servicing the suburban fringe, but that's literally it.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I know this statement is meant to be provocative but it's also very misleading. Not a single city in the western hemisphere outperforms New York metro area rail. Globally we're talking London, Paris, Tokyo, and maybe some Chinese cities, have comparable or better rail servicing the suburban fringe, but that's literally it.

Paris and Tokyo yes. London maybe equal. China doesn't really have suburban rail using Western definitions.

The UK doesn't have good rail service for European standards. They never electrified or grade separated most of the system. London has pretty bad suburban service relative to size for European standards, and the infrastructure doesn't appear better than in NYC, to me. No suburban third-rail, less electrification, no 24 hour service, less grade separation, and the main lines don't have higher capacity. It's a vast suburban system, with very good frequencies, but not really like in Paris or Berlin, where you have a metropolitan-wide network.

It doesn't really make sense to directly compare NA suburban service with European suburban service tho, bc they serve completely different constituencies. Suburban rail in Europe is the same as the bus, priced the same with the same demographic. In continental cities, suburban rail is much more working class than urban Metro. Suburban rail in NA is (stupidly) service narrowly targeted to white collar executives in affluent railroad centers. There has never been a tradition of serving working classes on the fringe via suburban service, and the system pricing and scheduling reflects this. Working class Americans drive old vehicles, they don't use transit.

UK is kind of in-between Europe and NA. They have commuter towns for affluent professionals, as in NA. The service leans more Euro-style, but still functions more as a work shuttle for professionals. and not like in Germany and France where people take it to the dentist and school and sports club.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Suburban rail in NA is (stupidly) service narrowly targeted to white collar executives in affluent railroad centers. There has never been a tradition of serving working classes on the fringe via suburban service, and the system pricing and scheduling reflects this. Working class Americans drive old vehicles, they don't use transit.

Yeah, that's a good point. When I was on the RER the ridership definitely felt like it skewed more immigrant and working class than NY area commuter rail. The RER cars were also far less comfortable than typical rail cars on any of the NY area commuter systems. I was literally sitting thigh to thigh with the person next to me, and with my legs between the person in front of me because it was so crowded and tightly packed. Tokyo is the only city I've ever been to that has comparable quality of railcars for suburban commuter rail. I don't get this claim that the NY commuter rail stock is supposedly antiquated lol.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Interesting; in California, those would be issued by whichever county you were born in/married in.

I think New York does that as well if I recall but they are issued on behalf of the state dept. of health while NYC has their own issuing body.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, that's a good point. When I was on the RER the ridership definitely felt like it skewed more immigrant and working class than NY area commuter rail. The RER cars were also far less comfortable than typical rail cars on any of the NY area commuter systems.

Yes. On the Continent, the RER/S Bahn type systems are more for the working class & poors, and for "normal" getting around, not necessarily commuting. You take it to the doctor, to school, to soccer practice. My nieces and nephews in Germany use it to get around like kids in the U.S. use bikes.

It's the inverse of North America, where it's for professionals commuting to work. So it's really hard to compare the systems with such wildly different functionality. The median income on Metro North is something crazy like 5x the median U.S. household income. I bet you a German S-Bahn system has lower median income than overall German medians.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Paris and Tokyo yes. London maybe equal. China doesn't really have suburban rail using Western definitions.

The UK doesn't have good rail service for European standards. They never electrified or grade separated most of the system. London has pretty bad suburban service relative to size for European standards, and the infrastructure doesn't appear better than in NYC, to me. No suburban third-rail, less electrification, no 24 hour service, less grade separation, and the main lines don't have higher capacity. It's a vast suburban system, with very good frequencies, but not really like in Paris or Berlin, where you have a metropolitan-wide network.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but are you saying that London suburban rail don't use 3rd rail and has less electrification than in NYC? London's suburban rail is overwhelmingly electrified with only a few diesel services, and around half is 3rd rail (mainly the areas south of the Thames). Third rail is generally considered inferior for mainline rail services, but it would be expensive to convert vast areas of legacy infrastructure. And while the frequency of some individual services is only half-hourly off-peak, many stations are served by more than one service. So the details are important on that one. Even in say, Berlin, most individual services on the S-Bahn only run every 20 minutes so stations not serviced by multiple services aren't frequent compared to rapid transit either.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I know this statement is meant to be provocative but it's also very misleading. Not a single city in the western hemisphere outperforms New York metro area rail. Globally we're talking London, Paris, Tokyo, and maybe some Chinese cities, have comparable or better rail servicing the suburban fringe, but that's literally it.

He played all sorts of games in that post.

What percentage of A or 1 passengers ride their whole line from endpoint to endpoint? Yet he pretends that his is an argument against the use of the term "express" on the NYC subway.

Also, he neglects that the length and width of most NYC subway trains is on par with the new Crossrail trains, and that the rest of the London network runs dinky, sub-PATH scale trains.

The length of the NYC trains contributes to interlining delays since it takes much longer for a 600-foot train traveling at 15mph to clear a junction than a 250-foot train in London. This is also a problem with the BART system. But these delays are not some sort of critical flaw with the NYC system. Also, the very long platforms mean that most subway stations have several sidewalk entrances.

[Doc_Love]

London is a special kind of city, New York was meant to be modeled after it a mega city with government and economic power centralized and a major port. The Jeffersonians were terrified of that much concentration of power which is why DC to this day isn’t fully self governing.

Oh and the whole special relationship with the former British Empire and now the UK and Commonwealth being in on Breton Woods a British financial service has historically been as good or nearly as American though the balance of power changed and the late 60’s & 70’s were a rough time for the old boys stock market model. Had to open top clubs and institutions up to Arab oil money. Plus there was a crowd of young smart men who due to their social status were blocked from the highest financial social clubs. Quite interesting that British finance, Thatcher let the country’s industry while much of it old be ripped up for scrap and the money invested in the market. The financial boom of the 80’s in America had its roots in a disgraced individual from this time.

Adam Curtis did a good job on covering it, I’d recommend watching his old docs if you haven’t already. He’s got some good new work as well.

Financial hubs do well a Capitol & a major port it’s got a lot going for it US cities don’t. All that Cayman and Cypriot off shore money getting cleaned up in the tax havens and put into the international finance system via London or New York. Not that the US doesn’t have Delaware & Panama but the UK has off shore tax havens down to an T.

London is also a great world Capitol with the legacy of the heart of the largest Empire in history. It’s also a damn fine city.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I know this statement is meant to be provocative but it's also very misleading. Not a single city in the western hemisphere outperforms New York metro area rail. Globally we're talking London, Paris, Tokyo, and maybe some Chinese cities, have comparable or better rail servicing the suburban fringe, but that's literally it.

New York is one of the largest cities of planet. And right here in Americas it's tied with São Paulo, which is never regarded as a public system transit powerhouse. And as São Paulo is expanding at a much faster rate than New York, the Brazilian one will be clearly ahead in near future.

New York definitely has a good and comprehensive system (although very rundown and not well kept), but it's far away from the best in the world as you implied.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Paris and Tokyo yes. London maybe equal. China doesn't really have suburban rail using Western definitions.

The UK doesn't have good rail service for European standards. They never electrified or grade separated most of the system. London has pretty bad suburban service relative to size for European standards, and the infrastructure doesn't appear better than in NYC, to me. No suburban third-rail, less electrification, no 24 hour service, less grade separation, and the main lines don't have higher capacity. It's a vast suburban system, with very good frequencies, but not really like in Paris or Berlin, where you have a metropolitan-wide network.

It doesn't really make sense to directly compare NA suburban service with European suburban service tho, bc they serve completely different constituencies. Suburban rail in Europe is the same as the bus, priced the same with the same demographic. In continental cities, suburban rail is much more working class than urban Metro. Suburban rail in NA is (stupidly) service narrowly targeted to white collar executives in affluent railroad centers. There has never been a tradition of serving working classes on the fringe via suburban service, and the system pricing and scheduling reflects this. Working class Americans drive old vehicles, they don't use transit.

UK is kind of in-between Europe and NA. They have commuter towns for affluent professionals, as in NA. The service leans more Euro-style, but still functions more as a work shuttle for professionals. and not like in Germany and France where people take it to the dentist and school and sports club.

Bolded part is wrong. Just check the video: it's one of the most comprehensive and dense system in the world.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

New York is one of the largest cities of planet. And right here in Americas it's tied with São Paulo, which is never regarded as a public system transit powerhouse. And as São Paulo is expanding at a much faster rate than New York, the Brazilian one will be clearly ahead in near future.

New York definitely has a good and comprehensive system (although very rundown and not well kept), but it's far away from the best in the world as you implied.

It is one of the best in the world. Again, no city in the western hemisphere has a transit system that is even half as good as New York's. 99.9% of the world doesn't have a transit system as good as New York's. It is also not a "rundown" system. The entire thing has been rebuilt from end-to-end since the turn of the century. Most of the subway cars have been replaced since the turn of the century. Some of the subway stations appear worn, but that's because they were built 130 years ago.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Yuri

The post is perfect. Very informative and full of data. BTW, RM Transit post a video right now:

All About London's ENORMOUS Suburban Rail Network


He stated only Tokyo gets than comprehensive. And of courses, BUSES. Buses are transit and London has a massive system carrying as much people as the Underground. That's the same case of São Paulo, where the bus system (pre-pandemics) carried as much passengers as the subway (Metrô) and railway (CPTM) combined.

Anyway, it might come as a shock for many SSPers but there is life outside the US.

welp, that settles it then and it does come as a shock that nyc has no busses.

[UrbanImpact]

The British have declared New York City #1 🙂https://www.timeout.com/newyork/news...l-index-052324

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Anyway, it might come as a shock for many SSPers but there is life outside the US.

Actually, this is a myth...

[homebucket]

Wow San Jose coming through as the number 3 global city ahead of Tokyo and Paris!

[veep]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

The British have declared New York City #1 ������https://www.timeout.com/newyork/news...l-index-052324

San Francisco + San Jose = 193.2. The Bay Area is #1 by a massive margin.

[JManc]

I assuming they are going by metro area because much of SJ's heft is actually in NW Santa Clara county.

[homebucket]

Well gyatt, I guess the real question is why is the Bay Area beating London?