Why London is beating American cities

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The UK only has one London. I'm skeptical that transit in Birmingham or Manchester is much better than Chicago or Washington, D.C.

Chicago has almost 10 million people. Washington 6 million. Birmingham and Manchester are around 4 million each. And that's Britain, which is far from the best example. Also, London is almost 25% of the UK; NY is only 6%-7% of the US.

I searched on Wikipedia, and Manchester bus system, for example, carries 220 million passengers. Their tram, another 36 million. Birmingham bus system is at 260 million. In comparison, Chicago subway carries 106 million and their buses 161 million; and Washington 136 million on subway and 103 million by bus.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I have never once criticized muppet for TALKING about London (or any other topic).

But I certainly found his bad habit of photo-spamming discussion threads with dozens upon dozens of redundant pics to make a point annoying.

In discussion threads, posting several pics to illustrate a point or topic are certainly welcome, but they shouldn't be overdone. Making a post with like 63 pics in a row should go in the city photos forum.

You might have a point. Muppet posts are getting on the way of much more important issues, like discussing for endless pages on how many Vietnamese immigrants live in a neighbourhood in a random American suburb.

As SSP is not even a dying forum (it's already a dead one), I suppose we should embrace more discussions, bringing some variety, instead of curtailing them. But that's just me.

[Crawford]

Ridership isn't directly related to transit quality, obviously. Washington has a world-class subway system; one of the better ones anywhere. There's no real subway system in the UK outside of London (yes, there's a tiny 19th century loop in Glasgow).

And the Chicago suburban rail network is far larger/more comprehensive than anything in the UK outside of London.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Ridership isn't directly related to transit quality, obviously. Washington has a world-class subway system; one of the better ones anywhere. There's no real subway system in the UK outside of London (yes, there's a tiny 19th century loop in Glasgow).

And the Chicago suburban rail network is far larger/more comprehensive than anything in the UK outside of London.

Only a tiny fraction of workforce uses them. They're almost decorative.

And of course, transit is not only subway: São Paulo has a great one and I only ride buses. Same for London: when I'm there, I stick with buses and ignore the Underground. Both cities have very good bus systems which are as important as their rail transit.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Yuri

I suppose we should embrace more discussions,

I fully support more discussion.

I do not support image-spamming.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Beating American cities in what?

The use of wallpaper?

I have yet to read the article, BTW.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I fully support more discussion.

I do not support image-spamming.

By making forumers unwelcomed, we'll have neither.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Chicago has almost 10 million people. Washington 6 million. Birmingham and Manchester are around 4 million each. And that's Britain, which is far from the best example. Also, London is almost 25% of the UK; NY is only 6%-7% of the US.

But it's not correct to say that we don't have examples of transit done well. We have a city with one of the best transit systems in the entire world.

Originally Posted by Yuri

I searched on Wikipedia, and Manchester bus system, for example, carries 220 million passengers. Their tram, another 36 million. Birmingham bus system is at 260 million. In comparison, Chicago subway carries 106 million and their buses 161 million; and Washington 136 million on subway and 103 million by bus.

So it sounds like Chicago and Washington have far better rail systems than Birmingham and Manchester.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

The use of wallpaper?

I have yet to read the article, BTW.

I heard the food sucks in London. That’s enough for me to not want to visit.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But it's not correct to say that we don't have examples of transit done well. We have a city with one of the best transit systems in the entire world.

It makes a top 20, no more than that. New York is ok, but it standis alone showing how bad the US is in this regard.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

So it sounds like Chicago and Washington have far better rail systems than Birmingham and Manchester.

But a worse public transit overall. Those figures alone suggest both British cities have very good and robust bus systems.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Only a tiny fraction of workforce uses them. They're almost decorative.

And of course, transit is not only subway: São Paulo has a great one and I only ride buses. Same for London: when I'm there, I stick with buses and ignore the Underground. Both cities have very good bus systems which are as important as their rail transit.

Agreed. SF for US standards has a decent rail system but the backbone is the local Muni bus, with over 140 million passengers (~160 million pre-pandemic). Not bad for a city of 800,000.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Yuri

I searched on Wikipedia, and Manchester bus system, for example, carries 220 million passengers. Their tram, another 36 million. Birmingham bus system is at 260 million. In comparison, Chicago subway carries 106 million and their buses 161 million; and Washington 136 million on subway and 103 million by bus.

are you comparing same year? 2019 service in Chicago was ~460 million combined between CTA bus and rail, not including metra (commuter rail) or PACE (suburban buses). Last year was down to ~279 million between CTA bus and rail.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I'm skeptical about this. I just saw someone complaining on Twitter about how impossible it is to find a gym open after 8pm in NYC. When I was in my 20s you could easily find 24-hour gyms in the city, and even the most mom-and-pop operation was open until at least 9pm. On the other hand, there are more bars now than ever before.

The gym situation is really bad in NYC. The worst I remember, and worse than most American cities Imo. I don't know whats going on.
The gyms are still on the COVID schedule.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by JManc

We have three bedrooms upstairs, two we use as offices but no way in hell would we ever rent them out to strangers.

You will if US gets Canadian/UK level salaries.
Their engineers get paid like our McDonalds workers.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I heard the food sucks in London. That’s enough for me to not want to visit.

Hehe you mean like this?



I haven't been to London since the mid-1990s, and I don't totally doubt that their available cuisine has improved since then, but when I was there, I ate Indian food most of the time. I ate at a few pubs, but I felt even their pub food wasn't as good as the pub food in California. I asked for a salad and got a tiny bowl of cut up tomatoes and some lettuce, and both looked like they were in the fridge for too long. Haha!

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

It makes a top 20, no more than that. New York is ok, but it standis alone showing how bad the US is in this regard.

Definitely higher than 20. The NYC transit system is arguably better than London's, and is clearly better than anywhere else in the world except Tokyo, Paris, and maybe two or three Chinese cities. And honestly, we're really just splitting hairs with trying to rank the systems in these cities one way or another.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Definitely higher than 20. The NYC transit system is arguably better than London's, and is clearly better than anywhere else in the world except Tokyo, Paris, and maybe two or three Chinese cities. And honestly, we're really just splitting hairs with trying to rank the systems in these cities one way or another.

But by what metric? Why would it be better than São Paulo's, for instance? Headways are shorter here, more passengers are carried and the system will much better kept. Regarding London, they're similar, but London is usually ranked better, even without including their bus system that's superior than New York.

So you have London, Paris, Moscow (?), several Chinese cities, Tokyo, Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto, São Paulo, Seoul. New York is definitely top 20, but not necessarily a top 10. Given the massive size of the metro area and how wealthy they are, even New York could do better and US has only NY.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by Yuri

But by what metric? Why would it be better than São Paulo's, for instance? Headways are shorter here, more passengers are carried and the system will much better kept. Regarding London, they're similar, but London is usually ranked better, even without including their bus system that's superior than New York.

So you have London, Paris, Moscow (?), several Chinese cities, Tokyo, Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto, São Paulo, Seoul. New York is definitely top 20, but not necessarily a top 10. Given the massive size of the metro area and how wealthy they are, even New York could do better and US has only NY.

NYC system is definitely objectively better than Osaka if you ever rode on both.
Seoul is okay. I think once they do the current expansions, the coverage will be comparable. Moscow is similar. Tokyo is objectively better.
I cannot speak for Brazil or China.

[lio45]

South Asian food was good in London when I was there (many years ago).

In general, yeah, you don’t visit Britain for food.

In the case of homebucket’s home region of the Bay Area, if all you care about is food, I’d say there’s little need to travel internationally (great for the environment, too!)

[JManc]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I heard the food sucks in London. That’s enough for me to not want to visit.

"Native" British food is straight up nasty but fortunately the Brits think so as well because there is no shortage of amazing ethnic foods. Every time I'm there, I make a beeline to local Indian and Turkish joints. The Bay Area does have comparable South Asian food though. Fremont is a Mecca of fantastic Indian.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Definitely higher than 20. The NYC transit system is arguably better than London's, and is clearly better than anywhere else in the world except Tokyo, Paris, and maybe two or three Chinese cities. And honestly, we're really just splitting hairs with trying to rank the systems in these cities one way or another.

With NY vs London, I disagree that it's at all arguable. London would be the clear and decisive winner. NY subway vs London Underground is arguable, but the overall transit systems? London has way too much other stuff. DLR is a good match for PATH, but there's around triple the number of suburban rail routes in Greater London including stuff like Thameslink, Elizabeth Line, and the Overground. And the suburban rail is generally more frequent. I think people outside London forget a lot of the other stuff since it mostly isn't as visible and iconic.