Alexandra Kytka
  • Home
  • About
  • Blog
  • Music
  • Religious War Podcast
  • Portfolio
  • Home
  • About
  • Blog
  • Music
  • Religious War Podcast
  • Portfolio
Search by typing & pressing enter

YOUR CART

Read what I have to say about...

All Black Lives Matter Christianity City Living London London VS New York Media New York Politics Religion Transit

10/16/2018 Comments

SO WHAT'S ACTUALLY BETTER: the NYC Subway or the London Underground?

Picture
Picture
"Oh, you're from New York? You must be LOVING the tube!" 

The amount of times I've heard this in the month that I've been living in London is unbelievable. And most of the time from Californians (might I remind them, L.A. barely has a transportation system, but I digress). 

But is there any truth to it? In a battle of metro/subway systems, who comes out on top? 
Here's my hot take. 

*A quick sidenote, this has to do all with the actual experience of taking the train, rather than an analysis of the routes and effectiveness of the system. If you're looking for that, I'm sure it's somewhere online with loads of statistics. 


1. The Tube has a shorter learning curve once you're underground. 

I've lived in New York City for most of my life, and I still sometimes don't know where I'm supposed to go. But the Tube's signage is outstanding- there's always information for where each line takes you as you're waiting for the train, always signs telling you the "way out," where to catch another line, etc. There's the ease of contactless payment that avoids the awkward watching-tourists-swipe-twelve-times-in-a-row thing, and the speakers even tell you what side of the train (left/right) the next station will be on! (Although counterpoint, transfers may take longer because of the extensive corridors you may have to go through.)

That being said, the tube better have good signage, because

2. The Tube doesn't have Wifi or service in most stations and that is FRUSTRATING. 

It's the 21st Century. We are more than capable in creating underground service. And yet, in London, unless you're on a line that operates in stations above ground, you probably won't ever have service. 

Now, service on the subway in NYC is spotty and not perfect, but in recent years, I've had the assurance that at some point on my train ride, I'll have service at various points. So, I'm not usually stressed out about how to get to where I'm going because I can look it up again once I get closer. Ah, the wonders of Citimapper alerting me to get up before my stop. 

3. They're both? Kind of? Gross?

The key point that most of these aforementioned people have queue'ed me in on, was that the subway is disgusting. I can't fully argue with this. Although I think Europeans take the pizza rat meme too seriously, there's a point to the image of a hairy rodent sliming along the stairway of a global cities' streets. 

That having been said, the Tube isn't so great either. I will say, generally, I've found the NYC traincars to be cleaner. Most of them are fairly new, and made out of metal/plastic, which is easily cleaned. On the other hand, the tube's trains really depend on which line you're on. The Circle and District Lines are pretty clean, while the Picadally and Jubilee Line sort of break down. They're also pretty cramped and have fabric-lined seats, which I can't imagine are harsh to incoming germs in the area.

On the other hand, the tube's stations are much cleaner. It also depends where you are in London, but I haven't witnessed anything close to the unadulterated stench of the Lexington Avenue and 53rd street station. 

4. The Subway is such a cultural experience. 

There's a simultaineous annoyance and endurance about the street performers who enter the trains. I usually roll my eyes at the dancers flinging themselves over the metal bars, but there's a few singing groups on the F train I really appreciate and even take off my ear buds for. I've seen a few performers in the stations of London, but nothing close to the amount of performers in the NYC subway. Entering Union Square will surely have you in awe at the level of talent that is so clearly apparant in this city. 

Some of you may see this as a negative, but I love it. Point to NYC for me. 

5. The Subway is FLOODED with delays. 

You knew this. I knew this. Bill DeBlasio knows this (or has at least, been told). And yes, the Brits seem to be on strike every few days, which causes more crowds on the working trains, but that only turns into a slighly longer commute than usual. One time in New York delays turned a 20 minute journey into an hour one. That's miserable (I'm looking at you, 1 train). 

So, which one's better?

In terms of getting you where you need to go, I might have to go with the Tube. It's seemingly more reliable and gets the job done. (I'm not even including double decker buses in this analysis, those are really where it's at, excitement-wise). 

But NYC is my home, and there's a certain weight of culture and iconicity that would seem to boost up the subway's rep. If you're in for an experience, the subway's music and access to wifi might be a better option

So, I guess the anwer is it depends. Do you prize a metro-system for its effectiveness or its other more 'fun' qualities. Or do you just care about how clean it is? In that case, which one is 'less-worse' may actually be a better question. 

And here's an extra flick of me on the subway with my bestie just for fun. 
Picture
Comments

    The Author

    I'm a New Yorker living in London to study philosophy. Subscribe for postings about urbanism, city living, and comparative culture. 

      Subscribe to this blog

    Subscribe to Newsletter

    Categories

    All Black Lives Matter Christianity City Living London London VS New York Media New York Politics Religion Transit

    RSS Feed

    RSS Feed

Contact Me

Home

About

Copyright © 2019