T vs. Tube

By adamg - 3/31/09 - 9:01 pm

Jason, just off a plane from London, compares the two. One guess which one he preferred.

The T

Comments

Grass is greener?

By Othemts - 3/31/09 - 10:44 pm

My friend who lives in London hates the Tube and refuses to ride it. She claims it is slow, crowded, breaks down a lot, too hot, people are rude and numerous other things I won't repeat on a family website. I think it's a law that every city dweller thinks that their city has the worst public transit system in the world.

PS - I think the T and the Tube are great, but I'm a transit geek.

The T is okay

By david_yamada - 3/31/09 - 11:10 pm

Most of the "great" subway systems are in the world's largest cities. For a medium-sized city like Boston, this is a decent subway system. It's dependable enough, and runs frequently enough, that if you live within reasonable walking distance of a T station, you don't need a car. Not many mid-sized cities can make that claim.

Boston is not London, New York, or Paris. It's got some good and bad elements of a "big city," while other aspects of it are more reminiscent of a college town on steroids. But when it comes to the T, it does okay.

I agree, wholeheartedly.

By Biggie_Robs - 4/1/09 - 12:16 am

The T is okay, but I love, love, love the choob.

London is grand, the Tube is a way to get around

By david_yamada - 4/1/09 - 1:48 am

It's London, not the Tube, that floats my boat. The Tube is a convenient way to get around London, and it does a fine job, but I've never considered it anything but a means to an end, so to speak. When London warms up, the Tube can get pretty toasty and smelly. And entering the Tube, like entering the NYC subway, means that you have to move at a fast city pace, even if you're not into it.

Perhaps my biggest complaint in terms of travel options with the T is its spokes of the hub design. All points lead to downtown. But if you want to go, say, from JP to Brookline, the T is definitely not your friend.

If the T charged what the Tube charges . . . .

By deselby - 4/1/09 - 5:44 am

maybe it would be nicer. I prefer having cheap transportation.

I guess cost is no object to "Platinum Elite" Jason. I always found fares in London to be shockingly high, and spent time commuting to work in London years ago. Even with an "Oyster" card, the lowest fare in Zone 1 of central London is about $2.30.

A one month travelcard pass in Zones 1-2, comparable to a MBTA subway/bus pass, is $142 (99.10 GBP) vs. $59 for the T.

Plus they charge you 2GBP for the Oyster card to begin with. If you don't get an Oyster card, they gouge you with a minimum 4GBP fare.

Logan vs. Schiphol

By shane_curcuru@d... - 4/1/09 - 8:16 am

I just returned from Amsterdam, and noticed many similar things about the airports as well. Sigh. I love our history and society, I just wish we could keep the city a bit cleaner and more approachable to tourists.

The cap to it all (difference in conveniences, cleanliness, and amenities available to air travellers) was that I waited longer just to get my bags in Logan than I waited for everything dealing with customs (passport, bag check, boarding pass, or waiting for bags) at Schiphol. Admittedly, it wasn't a very busy day in either case (i.e. the passport line at Schiphol could have been much worse) but it was still a startling difference.

P.S. It's pronounced similarly to "Ship-pol".