London Tube Vs. NYC Subway

NYC Subway and the London Tube. Two different cities, two completly different transport systems. But which is better? Well it's hard to judge but I think it can be broken down into several areas.

Cost

Considering London is divided up into zones and depending on which zone you are traveling to will cost you more money, the subway in NYC is a dream. It's $2, plus transfers from the subway to bus or bus to subway are free as long as it's within a two hour period. Hands down, NYC wins this one.

NYC 1 London 0

Oystercard vs. Metrocard

Excluding the fact that the new Oystercards have IKEA written all over them, I think the overall look of the Oystercard has a simple yet efficient design and is a lot more professional looking. Forgetting the fact that no one knows why it's called an "oystercard" (besides the obvious lame excuse of "london is your oyster") I think the Big Smoke wins this category. Metrocards look a bit outdated even though the name makes the most sense.

NYC 1 London 1

Appearance

I've always taken the look of the subway for granted. After all it's underground why wouldn't it look like a deep dark cavernous post-apocalyptic garbage dump? However after having it pointed out to me that NYC city subways look "unfinished" and as if they just stopped building when they felt like it, I think London's clean, eye pleasing, relatively sleek interiors (underground station and actual train cars) are aesthetically more pleasing, even though every given space (as mentioned with Oystercards) is filled with advertisements and free newspapers strewn everywhere.

NYC 1 London 2

Efficiency

Ha. This is tough. Seriously. I think this is open to a bit of interpretation, seeing as in both cities it will always depend which line you live on. I happen to live on the Piccadilly line and will not even begin the rant which is brewing in my mind right now. But perhaps the real test of underground systems is the weekends. In London most lines seem to be closed or partially closed on weekends for "refurbishment". In NYC, the same happens but albeit less frequently (probably why they get low marks for appearance!), however I do remember a time in the summer when it was near impossible to get any subway line going downtown. But if push comes to shove, I'd have to go with NYC subway getting the gold star for efficiency. Hear, that MTA?

NYC 2 London 2

Ease of Deciphering Map/Signs

Even though the tube maps looks like a lump of multi-colored spaghetti, it wins in my book. The NYC subway is pretty easy to decipher, as long as it's during the day. Sure there are express and local trains on the same line, with tiny transfers and directions written on the map. But once it hits midnight local can run on express track and all kinds of chaos takes over. Try to read this on the map or even signs on the platforms and you can end up in Brooklyn instead of downtown Manhattan. So for this I say London's spaghetti map wins. However only slightly since NYC may have trains issues after dark, but at least there are trains after dark!!! So I may have to give NYC an extra point just because it is a 24-hour service.

NYC 3 London 3

Annoyances/Entertainment

In NYC it's beggars on the trains, in London it's buskers in the stations. Granted we do have some pretty talented beggars. I've seen kids do acrobatics on moving trains (and I would say that the train ride is a bit rougher and more bumpy than the Tube) and been wowed by singers, percussionists and rappers. However being broke, it's a bit hard when these people are asking for money, or more likely homeless people begging for it. So in this case I would have to go with London, as there are minimal beggars on the train and buskers throughout the stations who are playing for fun and whatever cash they can rake in.

NYC 3 London 4

Weather

Now I'm not sure whether (haha) to divide this into two categories- weather inside the stations/subway cars and weather outside effecting the service (you know I'm talking to you London Underground). I think the combination should be alright for now. I'm going to go for NYC for this one. It maybe be as hot as hell in the stations but at least the subway cars have AC. Plus the actual subway lines are hardly ever effected by outside weather (unless extreme, or the station becomes flooded). So all in all NYC deals with its weather pretty well. Whereas London gets a bit of snow or it can be a few degrees too hot and the whole process slows down or shuts down completely. They don't get weather in one extreme or the other too frequently so maybe they should get a bit more credit or slack, but some lines are always unbearably not matter what the weather- Victoria and Central lines, I'm looking at you.

NYC 4 London 4

So by my count, that's a tie. Obvioulsly it's all a matter of personal opinion but regardless of which city wins, we all know that whatever the transport- London Tube or NYC Subway- all of us city dwellers can't live without either system.