So I've been to my fair share of European cities now, and feel like I can make a stab at judging their levels of transit provision. I take a lot of digs at the London underground so I suppose it's really only fair I do a bit of compare and contrast!
In the last few years I've ridden underground systems in London, Munich, Madrid, Barcelona and Paris. Amsterdam and Dublin do not have underground systems, instead relying on overground tram networks. Here are a few pluses and minuses on all of these:
Paris - an extensive combination of small trains running on tires and massive trains that run into the suburbs. The underground trains stop approximately every one minute, convenient if you're lazy, otherwise a bit overkill. Not the cleanest or the newest but the same could be said for Paris in general. The French have other priorities. Ticketing system is relaitvely straightforward and stations have ticket machines with an English option. Recommend only using when travelling great distances.
Barcelona - my most recent experience, system covers the city center quite comprehensively but doesn't run very far outside of the center. Stations relatively far apart, ticketing was easy (English option again) and all of the trains were relatively modern, some of them extremely so, with all of the carriages being open ended like you were traveling around inside of a speedy worm. It was also, in general, quite clean. Recommend for frequent use, beyond reason. Was also very cheap.
Madrid - again quite comprehensive and easy to follow. A little more dodge than the one in Barcelona and a little more confusing regarding ticketing (you needed an extra little ticket to get to and from the airport, although I might be confusing it with Munich!). But again modern and got me where I needed to go. Recommend for longer distances and travel to the airport.
Munich - most complicated ticketing system I've ever come across, although I would probably think that about London if I didn't use it every day. Also a combination of city only and regional trains. We got lost in stations on multiple occassions and often opted to walk, even though it was beyond freezing outside. Recommend for leaving the town centre, but walk around in town.
London - by far the most comprehensive system in regard to reaching beyond the city center. Ticketing is somewhat confusing, especially when you add Oyster cards into the mix. Within the heart of London it can be easier to walk, but anything beyond and you'd be a bit silly to pass it up. However, extreme crowding is an issue. Also the only city where I've seen live screens detailing the current level of service on each line. Not sure if the other cities just don't frequently distribute this information or if they don't have problems with delays.
So there you have it, a very quick comparison of underground systems in a small smattering of European cities. In general terms, when visiting a city I think it's best to do as much walking as possible to see bits of the city you would otherwise miss, but it's also worth doing a little research about these systems as I foresee things being quite troubling if you choose to forego them altogether!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I like to walk or take a bus rather than use a subway for short trips because my sense of direction is about the worst I've ever encountered in anyone, and I get very disoriented when I surface. I mean seriously turned around. But that happens when I drive, too, and when I exit a building in a door other than the one I entered. Really bad -- I could never have a job that required lots of travel!
One thing I've noticed about subways -- they are great for zipping around when it's too far/icky to walk, but they are only for the spry. As the population ages, use may decline, while little buses for the old folks with a nice driver to help people in and out may increase. Just a thought...
Granted it's been 13 years, but I don't remember having any problems with Munich's underground. And the Metro in Paris was great when I had a really short time to see as much as I could and had an unlimited use 3 day pass.
i thought some of the trains in barcelona made the tube look pretty outdated. though the stations themselves were not as good. Like the gatelines were very slow (it took ages for the ticket to be read) and the platforms quite narrow. Though if its like the tube it very much depends what station you use.
im looking forward to my new airconditioned trains that will run on our line - due to be finished by 2017! I think i will be long gone! if its one thing ive learned london is a young person's city!
just to add to that in my break! one thing i found interesting about barcelona was the number of 'old' people (i.e. people over 70) its probably not that many im just used to not seeing any at all in london! we did keep on saying where are all the local 20-30 crowd as the only people we could spot were tourists!
I think the only confusing thing about Paris is taking the train to and from the airport, because you have to buy a specific ticket for that. You can only buy this specific ticket at specific stations.
The maps are straightforward, service is frequent, and everything is relatively easy to get around, but that airport thing, unless you're aware of it, can really get you.
San Francisco, on the other hand -- just forget it. The bus and the train are not the same agency. They do not accept each other's tickets. You can't even fit ON the bus during peak hour.
There's another train that gets you to the farther suburbs, and that one has three different kinds of service that may or may not go to all stations. If you go take the bus to the train, take the train across the bay, and want to take the bus on that side you'll need to buy 3 different tickets from 3 different places.
No wonder we have bad traffic!
Post a Comment