Live tube map

[Dave B]

Prompted by Mark's Facebook map of the world (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140665)thread, I thought I too would post a cool map. Live London Underground map - staggering to see how many little yellow pins are working their way round the network at any one time:

http://traintimes.org.uk/map/tube/

There's a link to a National Rail version on the site, which also appeals to my inner geek.

[Mark]

That is pretty cool indeed!

[Eki]

U-tube

[Mark]

U-bahn?

[schmenke]

Pretty cool :)

I've always thought that the London tube is an example of how a municipal transit system should be established (although I've only ever used it once, briefly).
The system in our cowtown city of ~1 million inhabitants is woefully inadequate and our city administrators still plan with the assumption that the passenger vehicle is the primary means of transport :s . The link shows the two meagre LRT lines in our city, both of which are completely above ground. During non-peak hours I've waited up to 1/2 hour for a train to arrive, and it's been known to freeze up, literally, during extreme cold :dozey:

http://www.calgarytransit.com/route_maps/lrt_stop.html

[Mark]

That's the advantage I've found with the London Underground, unlike pretty much every other public transport I've ever used, there is very little waiting time. I don't think I've ever waited more than a couple of minutes for a tube train. So you can plan journeys using several different lines without having to worry that changing trains is going to cost you half an hour!

Even in Newcastle with the metro, they don't have enough trains so it's often nearly a 15 minute wait sometimes.

[Mark in Oshawa]

That is just outstanding. Why would anyone drive in London if they didn't have to based on the density of the "Tube"....

[Dave B]

That is just outstanding. Why would anyone drive in London if they didn't have to based on the density of the "Tube"....
That's the argument against rolling out congestion charging based solely on it's (general) success in London: most other towns and cities in the UK simply don't have such good public transport as an alternative.

[Mark]

But the politicians don't seem to grasp this fact!

[Mark in Oshawa]

That's the argument against rolling out congestion charging based solely on it's (general) success in London: most other towns and cities in the UK simply don't have such good public transport as an alternative.

Lets face it, the reality is anyone driving into midtown London isn't doing it because he likes driving, he is doing it because he either lives there or has something he has to do that wont allow him to take the Tube. Which is why a predatory and discriminatory tax on "congestion" is just a tax grab by a Mayor who obviously has an anti-car and anti freedom of choice agenda.

[Dave B]

Lets face it, the reality is anyone driving into midtown London isn't doing it because he likes driving, he is doing it because he either lives there or has something he has to do that wont allow him to take the Tube. Which is why a predatory and discriminatory tax on "congestion" is just a tax grab by a Mayor who obviously has an anti-car and anti freedom of choice agenda.
Yes and no. You make a good point, but I remember when I worked in North London in '98 driving down the M1 on a summer's day and seeing from a distance the cloud of brown smog hanging over the city. Something needed to be done about traffic levels, and in defence of congestion charging the air quality has increased massively.

But as you correctly say, the charge fails to take into account whether somebody wants or needs to drive into London, and only considers their financial ability to do so.

[BDunnell]

Lets face it, the reality is anyone driving into midtown London isn't doing it because he likes driving, he is doing it because he either lives there or has something he has to do that wont allow him to take the Tube. Which is why a predatory and discriminatory tax on "congestion" is just a tax grab by a Mayor who obviously has an anti-car and anti freedom of choice agenda.

Which Mayor? Don't forget, the current incumbent is a Conservative, and he neither pledged to scrap the charge, nor decided to do so once in office.

And as for the rest of your post, it is, I feel, completely wrong to assume that every car journey in London is necessary. Many people will use their cars in London merely because they can. I lived in London for nine years and never once was I unable to make a journey I wished to make on public transport, except in exceptional circumstances like snow and after terrorist attacks. I'm sure far, far more people than you give credit for would actually be able to manage without driving in London if they tried — and many more people need to do so, because congestion in some areas remains appalling. Interestingly, though, where I last lived in London, congestion on my bus route to the railway station decreased markedly during the school holidays. There should be no need in a capital city to make the school run by car.

[Mark]

That's probably more to do with parents taking holidays at the same time as their kids than school run traffic. You see the same affect on motorways, well away from schools.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Which Mayor? Don't forget, the current incumbent is a Conservative, and he neither pledged to scrap the charge, nor decided to do so once in office.

And as for the rest of your post, it is, I feel, completely wrong to assume that every car journey in London is necessary. Many people will use their cars in London merely because they can. I lived in London for nine years and never once was I unable to make a journey I wished to make on public transport, except in exceptional circumstances like snow and after terrorist attacks. I'm sure far, far more people than you give credit for would actually be able to manage without driving in London if they tried — and many more people need to do so, because congestion in some areas remains appalling. Interestingly, though, where I last lived in London, congestion on my bus route to the railway station decreased markedly during the school holidays. There should be no need in a capital city to make the school run by car.

Ben, I don't care if he is a "Conservative", he is a politician, and they never met a tax they couldn't defend if the political option was telling the people they couldn't have something.

Your experience's in London notwithstanding, I beg to differ on people driving in London. YOU may feel people could do it all with transit, but most people don't enjoy sitting in traffic. I know in the case of Toronto, a city far less served with a subway net people sit in traffic and HATE it with a passion. But when it comes to the convenience of not waiting for transit, or being able to make multiple stops on the way home for whatever reason, a car will beat waiting for buses all the time. IF Toronto had a "Tube" option like London, I suspect it would change a lot of people's opinion. Maybe Londoners take it for granted. London and New York have the two most densely detailed subway systems on the planet, and no New Yorker drives in Manhattan unless he has a damn good reason to. I am going to go out on the limb Ben and say you may think they could do it with transit, but I disagree. I just know human nature. I am one of the more pro car guys of anyone who posts on this board and if I had the option, I wouldn't drive in town. It just makes no sense.....and I can read the paper on the train. People frown on you doing that and going for a drive!

[BDunnell]

YOU may feel people could do it all with transit, but most people don't enjoy sitting in traffic.

In which case, why do they go by car? I'm not sure what your point is here.

[Mark in Oshawa]

In which case, why do they go by car? I'm not sure what your point is here.

They go by car if they have mulitple stops. They go by car if they are possibly needing to pick up groceries or shopping. They go by car if they don't want to wait for a bus in the inclement weather. As I said, I don't see why anyone in London WOULD drive if they have to. In Toronto, a city with only a few major subway lines, but extensive streetcar/LRT and bus links, come winter time is a city that is more comfortable in the car..even if if you are stuck in traffic.

My point all along in this thread is transit has to be appealing enough to pull people out of the car. In London's case, That is true, leaving only those who really have no other options for their personal lifestyle needs. Personally, I am thinking some must just hate being near other people, because I know sitting in traffic, no matter where you are is miserable.

[Drew]

Even in Newcastle with the metro, they don't have enough trains so it's often nearly a 15 minute wait sometimes.

A 15 minute wait? My god most people down here would laugh at you for complaining about that. My local train station has 9 trains a day in each direction and if you miss one train (or they cancel it, which seems to happen a bit) then you have to wait 2 hours or so for the next one. Oh well, I guess we're lucky to have anything at all :p :


As I said, I don't see why anyone in London WOULD drive if they have to. In Toronto, a city with only a few major subway lines, but extensive streetcar/LRT and bus links, come winter time is a city that is more comfortable in the car..even if if you are stuck in traffic.

My point all along in this thread is transit has to be appealing enough to pull people out of the car. In London's case, That is true, leaving only those who really have no other options for their personal lifestyle needs. Personally, I am thinking some must just hate being near other people, because I know sitting in traffic, no matter where you are is miserable.

I think the problem is getting from one side to the other, although the system there is good it can be quite slow. I went from Victoria coach station to Heathrow airport and it took about an hour even though it didn't look that far on the map. But they are going to build this crossrail, so that'll speed things up!

I bet that Toronto is a lot more spread out that London is and has less people too. Toronto was probably built as a car city, whilst London was being built well before the car was even invented. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be typical for North American cities.

[Azumanga Davo]

Even in Newcastle with the metro, they don't have enough trains so it's often nearly a 15 minute wait sometimes.

That's a very good frequency for an inner-city light rail option though. When they first started the South Hylton link, sometimes it would take an hour for the next one. That was before they equalised the route distances a bit better though.

[Mark]

A 15 minute wait? My god most people down here would laugh at you for complaining about that. My local train station has 9 trains a day in each direction and if you miss one train (or they cancel it, which seems to happen a bit) then you have to wait 2 hours or so for the next one. Oh well, I guess we're lucky to have anything at all :p :

Well I'm talking about the city centre here!

If were talking about local train stations, firstly, Chester-le-Street is lucky to have one at all, and the frequency is similar to yours, about 8-9 trains per day, usually with a 2 hour gap between each.

[Mark]

That's a very good frequency for an inner-city light rail option though. When they first started the South Hylton link, sometimes it would take an hour for the next one. That was before they equalised the route distances a bit better though.

Back in the day, Metro's used to be every 3-4 minutes, but then they built the Sunderland link and are now operating a much larger network with the same number of trains, so the frequency has gone down.

[MrJan]

I bet that Toronto is a lot more spread out that London is and has less people too. Toronto was probably built as a car city, whilst London was being built well before the car was even invented. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be typical for North American cities.

Because of the system of blocks that seems to be used on the other side of the pond it seems much easier to get around. Also the roads looked nice and wide. I still found the Subway to be a good way to get around, although it was longer distances between stops. Also there are only a handful of lines, although this does make it less confusing for visitors.

As a rule I hate public transport but the Tube is a great way of getting around, just that it isn't of much use in the majority of cities.

[Mark]

From what I gather one of the big advantages of the tube in London is that it goes some considerable distance outside of the city centre, and connects up with lots of mainline rail services too.

In Newcastle and Gateshead, because of the topography building railways everywhere is not easy so the Metro doesn't reach a massive amount of the population.

My local railway station has such infrequent trains because it's on the East Coast Main Line, which is chock full of trains going between Edinburgh and Southern England, and there's no room for a more regular service (such as the metro) to use the same tracks.

[Mark]

Of the cities I've visited where you don't need a car, London is one, New York is another as mentioned. But also Zurich, which doesn't have a subway, but it does have an excellent and extensive tram and trolley bus system which will take you pretty much anywhere you want to go! And to go outside of the city you have the Swiss rail network by reputation the best in the world!

[schmenke]

Of the cities I've visited where you don't need a car, London is one, New York is another as mentioned. ...

Hong Kong :up:

To a lesser extent, Montreal. Although not nearly as extensive as the tube in London, Montreal does have an underground "Metro" (modelled after the one in Paris), connected to a network of buses and trains that reaches a fair bit into the suburbs. The general consensus with Montrealers is that they will avoid driving to the city centre as long as public transportation is reasonably nearby.
It's been a while, but from what I remember, subway arrivals were less than 5 minutes apart during peak hours, dropping to ~10 during non-peak times.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Of the cities I've visited where you don't need a car, London is one, New York is another as mentioned. But also Zurich, which doesn't have a subway, but it does have an excellent and extensive tram and trolley bus system which will take you pretty much anywhere you want to go! And to go outside of the city you have the Swiss rail network by reputation the best in the world!

I've managed plenty of visits to Manchester without using my car. The railway and tram network is quite well integrated and regular. Although living there would require a car until the networks expansion is completed.

[Mark]

I've managed plenty of visits to Manchester without using my car. The railway and tram network is quite well integrated and regular. Although living would require a car until the networks expansion is completed.

Visiting a place is one thing. Working and living there is quite another!

[Drew]

Back in the day, Metro's used to be every 3-4 minutes, but then they built the Sunderland link and are now operating a much larger network with the same number of trains, so the frequency has gone down.

Ahh I had no idea that it used to be so frequent, well yes that's annoying.

I'd like to add loads of cities in Germany to this public transport list. Berlin and Frankfurt have extensive underground, suburban and regional trains. The Ruhr area (I dunno the english name, but Cologne, Bonn etc) are all extremely well connected too. Plus you can buy a card called the Bahncard 100 for about €3,500 which gives you unlimited train travel within Germany. But still Germans complain about their trains :p :