| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
London vs New York
This web site may be of interest to the visitor to London. The
Underground and taxis are discussed. http://hometown.aol.com/nerdbird1/LondonNYC.html |
London vs New York
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Nerdbird wrote:
This web site may be of interest to the visitor to London. The Underground and taxis are discussed. http://hometown.aol.com/nerdbird1/LondonNYC.html Quite entertaining! Other things that spring to mind (from my modest knowledge of London and thoroughly scanty knowledge of NYC): - You don't mention buses; i think they're cheaper and a lot more dense and frequent in London, more geared towards local trips than commuting. - What are New York's night buses like? - The Underground is mostly more frequent than the Subway, but the trains are shorter, so the capacity of a line is less (i think); that and the narrower, lower carriages means they're even more densely packed than in New York (or rather, are packed to capacity for longer - i've been on the Lexington Avenue line through the financial district in the peak, and that's as bad as anything we have!). - London has more commuter rail than New York (particularly south of the river), and it's often this which provides a more expressish service to the outer reaches of the city. - Hmm, is south-of-the-Thames London comparable to west-of-the-Hudson Jersey in transport terms? - A big one - London has rail links to all its airports! Stanstead has a rail and a tube line, City has light rail (and used to have a railway line), and the three outside the city, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton, all have trains. In NYC, JFK and Newark have AirTrains, but they're only shuttles that get to you to Subway/LIRR stations, so there's no single-seat ride anywhere useful; i don't think LaGuardia has anything at all. - I think NYC yellow cabs are cheaper than London black cabs. - London has minicabs as well as real taxis; they're like NYC yellow cabs in that they're smaller, cheaper and nastier, and (generalising wildly) you're likely to have an incomprehensible immigrant rather than an obese cockney as a driver (actual line delivered to me by a minicab driver, quite earnestly, as a comment on traffic conditions: "I wish i had a gun with a ****ing silencer"). - Cycling is, from what my American correspondents tell me, a much faster method of suicide in NYC than in London! - Our street furniture is indeed terrible; a legacy of decades of car-centric planning. - Navigation on foot; aaaah, man up and learn your way! :) Once you get the hang of it, you can have hours of fun figuring out the best route, whereas in NYC, it's always obvious. - I take it you know we do have a planetarium, but just think it's rubbish - which is fair enough. - Turkish, greek and urdu are other languages you hear a lot in London - more so than the western european languages, in fact. - We do have a couple of jewish neighbourhoods, which you probably never ran into: Golders Green is the big one, and Stamford Hill is smaller, poorer and much more orthodox, with furry hats and curly sideburns everywhere you look. tom -- Formal logical proofs, and therefore programs, are *utterly meaningless*. -- Dehnadi and Bornat |
London vs New York
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message .li... On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Nerdbird wrote: This web site may be of interest to the visitor to London. The Underground and taxis are discussed. http://hometown.aol.com/nerdbird1/LondonNYC.html Quite entertaining! Other things that spring to mind (from my modest knowledge of London and thoroughly scanty knowledge of NYC): - You don't mention buses; i think they're cheaper and a lot more dense and frequent in London, more geared towards local trips than commuting. - What are New York's night buses like? - The Underground is mostly more frequent than the Subway, but the trains are shorter, so the capacity of a line is less (i think); that and the narrower, lower carriages means they're even more densely packed than in New York (or rather, are packed to capacity for longer - i've been on the Lexington Avenue line through the financial district in the peak, and that's as bad as anything we have!). - London has more commuter rail than New York (particularly south of the river), and it's often this which provides a more expressish service to the outer reaches of the city. - Hmm, is south-of-the-Thames London comparable to west-of-the-Hudson Jersey in transport terms? - A big one - London has rail links to all its airports! Stanstead has a rail and a tube line, City has light rail (and used to have a railway line), and the three outside the city, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton, all have trains. In NYC, JFK and Newark have AirTrains, but they're only shuttles that get to you to Subway/LIRR stations, so there's no single-seat ride anywhere useful; i don't think LaGuardia has anything at all. - I think NYC yellow cabs are cheaper than London black cabs. - London has minicabs as well as real taxis; they're like NYC yellow cabs in that they're smaller, cheaper and nastier, and (generalising wildly) you're likely to have an incomprehensible immigrant rather than an obese cockney as a driver (actual line delivered to me by a minicab driver, quite earnestly, as a comment on traffic conditions: "I wish i had a gun with a ****ing silencer"). - Cycling is, from what my American correspondents tell me, a much faster method of suicide in NYC than in London! - Our street furniture is indeed terrible; a legacy of decades of car-centric planning. - Navigation on foot; aaaah, man up and learn your way! :) Once you get the hang of it, you can have hours of fun figuring out the best route, whereas in NYC, it's always obvious. - I take it you know we do have a planetarium, but just think it's rubbish - which is fair enough. - Turkish, greek and urdu are other languages you hear a lot in London - more so than the western european languages, in fact. - We do have a couple of jewish neighbourhoods, which you probably never ran into: Golders Green is the big one, and Stamford Hill is smaller, poorer and much more orthodox, with furry hats and curly sideburns everywhere you look. tom -- Formal logical proofs, and therefore programs, are *utterly meaningless*. -- Dehnadi and Bornat "- A big one - London has rail links to all its airports! Stanstead has a rail and a tube line, City has light rail (and used to have a railway line), and the three outside the city, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton, all have trains. In NYC, JFK and Newark have AirTrains, but they're only shuttles that get to you to Subway/LIRR stations, so there's no single-seat ride anywhere useful; i don't think LaGuardia has anything at all." Which tube goes to Stansted? :-) |
London vs New York
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:47:18 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote: On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Nerdbird wrote: This web site may be of interest to the visitor to London. The Underground and taxis are discussed. http://hometown.aol.com/nerdbird1/LondonNYC.html Quite entertaining! Yep not bad. Other things that spring to mind (from my modest knowledge of London and thoroughly scanty knowledge of NYC): - You don't mention buses; i think they're cheaper and a lot more dense and frequent in London, more geared towards local trips than commuting. I'd generally agree with you. NYC's bus system is largely based on the 5 boroughs with distinct networks in each and not many links over borough boundaries. There is an express network which the MTA have recently taken over from private operators. These do link the Boroughs to Manhatten for commuter flows. - What are New York's night buses like? Not dissimilar to the concept used in London - i.e. 24 hour service on key corridors. There is not the same need as in London for longer distance routes as the Subway is 24 hours in NYC. - The Underground is mostly more frequent than the Subway, but the trains are shorter, so the capacity of a line is less (i think); that and the narrower, lower carriages means they're even more densely packed than in New York (or rather, are packed to capacity for longer - i've been on the Lexington Avenue line through the financial district in the peak, and that's as bad as anything we have!). I'd broadly agree with that. It's a while since I was in NYC but the thing I found frustrating (i.e. different to London!) is the complex service pattern and generally quite wide headways if you need a specific service. It's OK if you can catch an express between your origin and destination or there is a frequent stopping pattern of service. I have used the Subway in the early morning and survived! London is now catching up with NYC with its never ending variants of what line or station is open or closed at any point in time! I think I'd struggle to cope with a Subway system that is subject to such frequent change to its operating pattern. - London has more commuter rail than New York (particularly south of the river), and it's often this which provides a more expressish service to the outer reaches of the city. Yes. The statements about our lack of express services is just plain wrong. Almost every radial line from a London terminal has a mix of all stops, semi fast and expresses. Only the orbital lines and perhaps a few radial lines have no difference in stopping patterns at peak and off peak times. - Hmm, is south-of-the-Thames London comparable to west-of-the-Hudson Jersey in transport terms? I'd say South London's rail network has a far higher density that any part of the NYC suburban rail network. - A big one - London has rail links to all its airports! Stanstead has a rail and a tube line, City has light rail (and used to have a railway line), and the three outside the city, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton, all have trains. In NYC, JFK and Newark have AirTrains, but they're only shuttles that get to you to Subway/LIRR stations, so there's no single-seat ride anywhere useful; i don't think LaGuardia has anything at all. I think Stanstead should read as Heathrow! - I think NYC yellow cabs are cheaper than London black cabs. I don't use taxis. - Cycling is, from what my American correspondents tell me, a much faster method of suicide in NYC than in London! Perhaps but I think London is now better at providing road space and some level of priority for cycles than NYC. - Navigation on foot; aaaah, man up and learn your way! :) Once you get the hang of it, you can have hours of fun figuring out the best route, whereas in NYC, it's always obvious. I didn't find NYC to be always obvious. Of course this is all down to familiarity and I've got more of the London street pattern imprinted in my brain that New York's but that's only to be expected. - Turkish, greek and urdu are other languages you hear a lot in London - more so than the western european languages, in fact. And in my part of London you'll hear most of the Eastern European languages. Obviously a subway trip to Brighton Beach will make you think you're on the wrong side of the Atlantic for Russia. - We do have a couple of jewish neighbourhoods, which you probably never ran into: Golders Green is the big one, and Stamford Hill is smaller, poorer and much more orthodox, with furry hats and curly sideburns everywhere you look. Don't forget Gants Hill and Barkingside. Not as obviously orthodox as GG or SH but plenty of Jewish businesses and synagogues. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
London vs New York
Graham Harrison wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message .li... On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Nerdbird wrote: This web site may be of interest to the visitor to London. The Underground and taxis are discussed. http://hometown.aol.com/nerdbird1/LondonNYC.html Quite entertaining! Other things that spring to mind (from my modest knowledge of London and thoroughly scanty knowledge of NYC): - You don't mention buses; i think they're cheaper and a lot more dense and frequent in London, more geared towards local trips than commuting. - What are New York's night buses like? - The Underground is mostly more frequent than the Subway, but the trains are shorter, so the capacity of a line is less (i think); that and the narrower, lower carriages means they're even more densely packed than in New York (or rather, are packed to capacity for longer - i've been on the Lexington Avenue line through the financial district in the peak, and that's as bad as anything we have!). - London has more commuter rail than New York (particularly south of the river), and it's often this which provides a more expressish service to the outer reaches of the city. - Hmm, is south-of-the-Thames London comparable to west-of-the-Hudson Jersey in transport terms? - A big one - London has rail links to all its airports! Stanstead has a rail and a tube line, City has light rail (and used to have a railway line), and the three outside the city, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton, all have trains. In NYC, JFK and Newark have AirTrains, but they're only shuttles that get to you to Subway/LIRR stations, so there's no single-seat ride anywhere useful; i don't think LaGuardia has anything at all. - I think NYC yellow cabs are cheaper than London black cabs. - London has minicabs as well as real taxis; they're like NYC yellow cabs in that they're smaller, cheaper and nastier, and (generalising wildly) you're likely to have an incomprehensible immigrant rather than an obese cockney as a driver (actual line delivered to me by a minicab driver, quite earnestly, as a comment on traffic conditions: "I wish i had a gun with a ****ing silencer"). - Cycling is, from what my American correspondents tell me, a much faster method of suicide in NYC than in London! - Our street furniture is indeed terrible; a legacy of decades of car-centric planning. - Navigation on foot; aaaah, man up and learn your way! :) Once you get the hang of it, you can have hours of fun figuring out the best route, whereas in NYC, it's always obvious. - I take it you know we do have a planetarium, but just think it's rubbish - which is fair enough. - Turkish, greek and urdu are other languages you hear a lot in London - more so than the western european languages, in fact. - We do have a couple of jewish neighbourhoods, which you probably never ran into: Golders Green is the big one, and Stamford Hill is smaller, poorer and much more orthodox, with furry hats and curly sideburns everywhere you look. tom -- Formal logical proofs, and therefore programs, are *utterly meaningless*. -- Dehnadi and Bornat "- A big one - London has rail links to all its airports! Stanstead has a rail and a tube line, City has light rail (and used to have a railway line), and the three outside the city, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton, all have trains. In NYC, JFK and Newark have AirTrains, but they're only shuttles that get to you to Subway/LIRR stations, so there's no single-seat ride anywhere useful; i don't think LaGuardia has anything at all." Which tube goes to Stansted? :-) No tube goes to Stansted, but when he says "Stanstead [sic]" he must mean "Heathrow." Luton does not have a one-seat rail journey to the centre--you have to take a shuttle to Luton Airport Parkway first. -- Michael Hoffman |
London vs New York
Michael Hoffman wrote:
Luton does not have a one-seat rail journey to the centre--you have to take a shuttle to Luton Airport Parkway first. Eh? Half FCC train stop at Luton Airport Parkway. Or am I missing the point? Peter |
London vs New York
"Peter Robinson" wrote in message
Michael Hoffman wrote: Luton does not have a one-seat rail journey to the centre--you have to take a shuttle to Luton Airport Parkway first. Eh? Half FCC train stop at Luton Airport Parkway. Or am I missing the point? You then have to get a shuttle bus, as the railway station isn't adjacent to the terminal. Strictly speaking, therefore, Luton is no more rail connected than Heathrow was before 1977. |
London vs New York
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:22:52 +0100, Peter Robinson
wrote in : Michael Hoffman wrote: Luton does not have a one-seat rail journey to the centre--you have to take a shuttle to Luton Airport Parkway first. Eh? Half FCC train stop at Luton Airport Parkway. Or am I missing the point? Just the point that you have to take a shuttle bus between the railway station and the airport, I guess. -- Ivan Reid, School of Engineering & Design, _____________ CMS Collaboration, Brunel University. ] Room 40-1-B12, CERN KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty". |
London vs New York
Peter Robinson wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote: Luton does not have a one-seat rail journey to the centre--you have to take a shuttle to Luton Airport Parkway first. Eh? Half FCC train stop at Luton Airport Parkway. Or am I missing the point? Graham Harrison said that all London airports have direct rail links to the centre, as opposed to NYC where the "rail link" to two airports involves getting a rail shuttle from the mainline rail station. I was pointing out that Luton is not any better than that. -- Michael Hoffman |
London vs New York
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:47:18 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote: On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Nerdbird wrote: This web site may be of interest to the visitor to London. The Underground and taxis are discussed. http://hometown.aol.com/nerdbird1/LondonNYC.html Quite entertaining! Yep not bad. Other things that spring to mind (from my modest knowledge of London and thoroughly scanty knowledge of NYC): - You don't mention buses; i think they're cheaper and a lot more dense and frequent in London, more geared towards local trips than commuting. I'd generally agree with you. NYC's bus system is largely based on the 5 boroughs with distinct networks in each and not many links over borough boundaries. There is an express network which the MTA have recently taken over from private operators. These do link the Boroughs to Manhatten for commuter flows. Not exactly. (But impressively close for someone who doesn't ride the buses in question!) MTA New York City Transit has operated a large number of express routes between Staten Island and Manhattan and several express routes between Queens and Manhattan and between Brooklyn and Manhattan for decades. (There's also an express route between Queens and the Bronx, but that's an anomaly.) The various city-subsidized private bus operators operated many local routes in Queens and Brooklyn, along with express routes between Queens and Manhattan, Brooklyn and Manhattan, and the Bronx and Manhattan. Those routes were recently taken over by the newly formed MTA Bus. - What are New York's night buses like? Not dissimilar to the concept used in London - i.e. 24 hour service on key corridors. There is not the same need as in London for longer distance routes as the Subway is 24 hours in NYC. Generally, New York doesn't have any specific night buses. Some bus routes run all night - that's all. London is now catching up with NYC with its never ending variants of what line or station is open or closed at any point in time! I think I'd struggle to cope with a Subway system that is subject to such frequent change to its operating pattern. Catching up? With three exceptions, every single subway station in New York is open around the clock. (The three exceptions are the two northernmost stations on the 3, which are replaced by bus service at night, and Broad Street on the J/M/Z, which is closed on weekends, when the J is cut back to Chambers Street.) But our route patterns can certainly get confusing. - London has more commuter rail than New York (particularly south of the river), and it's often this which provides a more expressish service to the outer reaches of the city. Yes. The statements about our lack of express services is just plain wrong. Almost every radial line from a London terminal has a mix of all stops, semi fast and expresses. Only the orbital lines and perhaps a few radial lines have no difference in stopping patterns at peak and off peak times. The statements about your lack of express services were probably referring to the Underground, where they're largely accurate, except on the western Piccadilly and Metropolitan. - Navigation on foot; aaaah, man up and learn your way! :) Once you get the hang of it, you can have hours of fun figuring out the best route, whereas in NYC, it's always obvious. I didn't find NYC to be always obvious. Of course this is all down to familiarity and I've got more of the London street pattern imprinted in my brain that New York's but that's only to be expected. If you stick to one of NYC's grids, it's trivially easy to get around. If you should find yourself, however, in a part of NYC where there's no grid, or if the grid begins to break down, or if you should find two grids meeting at odd angles, then things can get very confusing. - We do have a couple of jewish neighbourhoods, which you probably never ran into: Golders Green is the big one, and Stamford Hill is smaller, poorer and much more orthodox, with furry hats and curly sideburns everywhere you look. Don't forget Gants Hill and Barkingside. Not as obviously orthodox as GG or SH but plenty of Jewish businesses and synagogues. Also Hendon and Edgware. (I didn't realize Gants Hill and Barkingside were Jewish. The various lists of kosher restaurants that I consulted didn't include any in those neighbo(u)rhoods.) -- David of Broadway New York, NY, USA |
London vs New York
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:05:00 -0700, Nerdbird
wrote: This web site may be of interest to the visitor to London. The Underground and taxis are discussed. http://hometown.aol.com/nerdbird1/LondonNYC.html Found this site very interesting. I'm a Londoner yet know nothing of NYC. I've never been able to find (or have someone explain) the Uptown/Downtown concept. I mean, where exactly is Uptown New York? Simon |
London vs New York
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:47:18 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
- I take it you know we do have a planetarium, but just think it's rubbish - which is fair enough. The Peter Harrison Planetarium, which opened this year? -- jhk |
London vs New York
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:47:18 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote: - I take it you know we do have a planetarium, but just think it's rubbish - which is fair enough. Closed last year, was it not? |
London vs New York
PigPOg wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:05:00 -0700, Nerdbird wrote: This web site may be of interest to the visitor to London. The Underground and taxis are discussed. http://hometown.aol.com/nerdbird1/LondonNYC.html Found this site very interesting. I'm a Londoner yet know nothing of NYC. I've never been able to find (or have someone explain) the Uptown/Downtown concept. I mean, where exactly is Uptown New York? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uptown%2C_Manhattan -- Michael Hoffman |
London vs New York
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Graham Harrison wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message .li... On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Nerdbird wrote: http://hometown.aol.com/nerdbird1/LondonNYC.html - A big one - London has rail links to all its airports! Stanstead has a rail and a tube line, City has light rail (and used to have a railway line), and the three outside the city, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton, all have trains. In NYC, JFK and Newark have AirTrains, but they're only shuttles that get to you to Subway/LIRR stations, so there's no single-seat ride anywhere useful; i don't think LaGuardia has anything at all. Which tube goes to Stansted? :-) *headdesk* Sorry. Heath Row, of course. tom -- I KNOW WAHT IM TALKING ABOUT SO LISTAN UP AND LISTEN GOOD BECUASE ITS TIEM TO DROP SOME SCIENTISTS ON YUO!!! -- Jeff K |
London vs New York
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:16:36 +0100, James Farrar wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:47:18 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote: - I take it you know we do have a planetarium, but just think it's rubbish - which is fair enough. Closed last year, was it not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Planetarium But there is a new one in Greenwich: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Harrison_Planetarium -- jhk |
London vs New York
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Michael Hoffman wrote:
Peter Robinson wrote: Michael Hoffman wrote: Luton does not have a one-seat rail journey to the centre--you have to take a shuttle to Luton Airport Parkway first. Eh? Half FCC train stop at Luton Airport Parkway. Or am I missing the point? Graham Harrison said that all London airports have direct rail links to the centre, as opposed to NYC where the "rail link" to two airports involves getting a rail shuttle from the mainline rail station. Actually, i think it was me who said that. I was pointing out that Luton is not any better than that. Using Google Maps' routes, Luton Airport Parkway to the terminal (well, the bus station) is 1.5 miles, Howard Beach or Jamaica to JFK is 4.9. I wouldn't say that was 'no better', but you're right, it's still not a distance you'd want to walk, so it's a two-seat ride. Recliner pointed out that "strictly speaking, therefore, Luton is no more rail connected than Heathrow was before 1977", which is true - but even in 1977, Heathrow was only ~1.5 miles from Hatton Cross (assuming there was a route more direct than via the A4). Hayes & Harlington and West Drayton are both ~3.5 miles away, FWIW; Hounslow West is 4.4. The distance at Luton is probably short enough that there's no justification for a real rail branch into the airport, unlike at Stansted. Unless someone decided to build a link from the MML to the Cambridge branch of the ECML at Hitchin, in which case it would be on the way :). Speaking of Stansted, i wonder why the terminal was placed where it was; if it had been at the southwestern corner of the airport, it would have been close enough to Bishops Stortford station that a rail branch could have been avoided, as at Luton. It would have been closer to the M11, too. tom -- I'm not quite sure how that works but I like it ... |
London vs New York
PigPOg wrote:
Found this site very interesting. I'm a Londoner yet know nothing of NYC. I've never been able to find (or have someone explain) the Uptown/Downtown concept. I mean, where exactly is Uptown New York? In general, downtown refers to the central business district. In NYC it refers specifically to lower Manhattan (our /original/ central business district, which has since grown quite a bit northward). The area called downtown is alternatively referred to as lower Manhattan. There is no location called uptown. However, downtown and uptown are both very commonly used as directions within Manhattan. They are essentially synonymous with south and north, respectively. (So in about a half hour, I'll be getting on a downtown - that is, southbound - train to go to work, since I live in Manhattan north of where I work.) The same terminology can be extended to the Bronx. In modern usage, it is never extended to the other boroughs, although mosaic tiling (installed when the line was built in the 1920's) in some of the 4th Avenue line subway stations in Brooklyn directs passengers to the uptown (southbound!) and downtown (northbound!) platforms. -- David of Broadway New York, NY, USA |
London vs New York
Michael Hoffman wrote:
PigPOg wrote: On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:05:00 -0700, Nerdbird wrote: This web site may be of interest to the visitor to London. The Underground and taxis are discussed. http://hometown.aol.com/nerdbird1/LondonNYC.html Found this site very interesting. I'm a Londoner yet know nothing of NYC. I've never been able to find (or have someone explain) the Uptown/Downtown concept. I mean, where exactly is Uptown New York? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uptown%2C_Manhattan This New Yorker suspects that that page was not written by a New Yorker. It's not accurate in the slightest. (But I'm too lazy fix it, so I really have no right to complain.) -- David of Broadway New York, NY, USA |
London vs New York
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, David of Broadway wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote: On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:47:18 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote: On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Nerdbird wrote: http://hometown.aol.com/nerdbird1/LondonNYC.html - London has more commuter rail than New York (particularly south of the river), and it's often this which provides a more expressish service to the outer reaches of the city. Yes. The statements about our lack of express services is just plain wrong. Almost every radial line from a London terminal has a mix of all stops, semi fast and expresses. Only the orbital lines and perhaps a few radial lines have no difference in stopping patterns at peak and off peak times. The statements about your lack of express services were probably referring to the Underground, where they're largely accurate, except on the western Piccadilly and Metropolitan. Strictly speaking, that're true, but my point was that NR trains act as expresses for LU lines in some situations. For example, the Great Northern from King's Cross, which only has stations north of Finsbury Park (if you forget about Moorgate and all that) is the express service of the northeastern Piccadilly. The London, Tilbury and Southend line is the express service of the eastern District. Other lines don't have such close correspondence to LU lines, but often serve overlapping areas at the edge of town, providing a quicker service in. tom -- I'm not quite sure how that works but I like it ... |
London vs New York
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Jarle H Knudsen wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:16:36 +0100, James Farrar wrote: On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:47:18 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote: - I take it you know we do have a planetarium, but just think it's rubbish - which is fair enough. Closed last year, was it not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Planetarium But there is a new one in Greenwich: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Harrison_Planetarium I must confess to the dual crimes of not knowing the London Planetarium had effectively closed, or that the Harrison Planetarium had opened - happily, crimes which for this purpose cancel out! tom -- I'm not quite sure how that works but I like it ... |
London vs New York
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Michael Hoffman wrote: Peter Robinson wrote: Michael Hoffman wrote: Luton does not have a one-seat rail journey to the centre--you have to take a shuttle to Luton Airport Parkway first. Eh? Half FCC train stop at Luton Airport Parkway. Or am I missing the point? Graham Harrison said that all London airports have direct rail links to the centre, as opposed to NYC where the "rail link" to two airports involves getting a rail shuttle from the mainline rail station. Actually, i think it was me who said that. I was pointing out that Luton is not any better than that. Using Google Maps' routes, Luton Airport Parkway to the terminal (well, the bus station) is 1.5 miles, Howard Beach or Jamaica to JFK is 4.9. I wouldn't say that was 'no better', but you're right, it's still not a distance you'd want to walk, so it's a two-seat ride. I've never taken the Luton bus, but the AirTrain is the same system used for intra-airport travel at both EWR and JFK. If you're going to count it as being a two-seat ride, perhaps you should also count the terminal at LGW that doesn't have a rail station (can never remember which is which). -- Michael Hoffman |
London vs New York
David of Broadway wrote:
PigPOg wrote: Found this site very interesting. I'm a Londoner yet know nothing of NYC. I've never been able to find (or have someone explain) the Uptown/Downtown concept. I mean, where exactly is Uptown New York? In general, downtown refers to the central business district. In NYC it refers specifically to lower Manhattan (our /original/ central business district, which has since grown quite a bit northward). The area called downtown is alternatively referred to as lower Manhattan. There is no location called uptown. There is certainly a downtown and a midtown though. Where does midtown stop? I would have said 59th Street. That doesn't mean that anyone calls the Upper East/West Side "Uptown" though. -- Michael Hoffman |
London vs New York
24 hour running and express services are things I really wish we had.
New York also has its 2nd Avenue line under construction now, while we still need to wait for our biggest project - Crossrail - to be given the go-ahead. When it comes to buses, it seems that New York's street traffic is a lot less bad than London's, making buses a bit faster. |
London vs New York
A point where I think London does much better is connections between
lines. There are quite a few cross-platform ones, and walks between stops seem to be shorter. There also seem to be more of them. New York for example, has so many lines crossing each other in Western Brooklyn without any connections between them. |
London vs New York
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 07:56:12 -0400, David of Broadway
wrote: PigPOg wrote: Found this site very interesting. I'm a Londoner yet know nothing of NYC. I've never been able to find (or have someone explain) the Uptown/Downtown concept. I mean, where exactly is Uptown New York? In general, downtown refers to the central business district. In NYC it refers specifically to lower Manhattan (our /original/ central business district, which has since grown quite a bit northward). The area called downtown is alternatively referred to as lower Manhattan. There is no location called uptown. However, downtown and uptown are both very commonly used as directions within Manhattan. They are essentially synonymous with south and north, respectively. (So in about a half hour, I'll be getting on a downtown - that is, southbound - train to go to work, since I live in Manhattan north of where I work.) The same terminology can be extended to the Bronx. In modern usage, it is never extended to the other boroughs, although mosaic tiling (installed when the line was built in the 1920's) in some of the 4th Avenue line subway stations in Brooklyn directs passengers to the uptown (southbound!) and downtown (northbound!) platforms. Well done David - perfectly clear now! Kind regards, Simon |
London vs New York
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, David of Broadway wrote:
PigPOg wrote: Found this site very interesting. I'm a Londoner yet know nothing of NYC. I've never been able to find (or have someone explain) the Uptown/Downtown concept. I mean, where exactly is Uptown New York? However, downtown and uptown are both very commonly used as directions within Manhattan. They are essentially synonymous with south and north, respectively. Whereas the Manhattan grid doesn't actually run dead north-south. They're a sort of a local approximation to north that's more useful than what a magnet has to say about it. In Silicon Valley hacker culture, the same concept exists, based on an axis running along El Camino Real - towards San Francisco is "logical north", and away from it is "logical south": http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/L/logical.html And indeed, and on-topically, not entirely unlike the 'up' and 'down' used on railways! tom -- 22% Essential Components, 22% Repetitive Patterns, 56% Pauses |
London vs New York
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Michael Hoffman wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Michael Hoffman wrote: Peter Robinson wrote: Michael Hoffman wrote: Luton does not have a one-seat rail journey to the centre--you have to take a shuttle to Luton Airport Parkway first. Eh? Half FCC train stop at Luton Airport Parkway. Or am I missing the point? Graham Harrison said that all London airports have direct rail links to the centre, as opposed to NYC where the "rail link" to two airports involves getting a rail shuttle from the mainline rail station. Actually, i think it was me who said that. I was pointing out that Luton is not any better than that. Using Google Maps' routes, Luton Airport Parkway to the terminal (well, the bus station) is 1.5 miles, Howard Beach or Jamaica to JFK is 4.9. I wouldn't say that was 'no better', but you're right, it's still not a distance you'd want to walk, so it's a two-seat ride. I've never taken the Luton bus, but the AirTrain is the same system used for intra-airport travel at both EWR and JFK. If you're going to count it as being a two-seat ride, perhaps you should also count the terminal at LGW that doesn't have a rail station (can never remember which is which). Fair enough. The criterion should probably be how many seats there are between baggage reclaim and city centre - i take it the reclaim (and check-in) for that terminal is in the terminal itself, and not the main bit? I've never used Gatwick myself ... tom -- 22% Essential Components, 22% Repetitive Patterns, 56% Pauses |
London vs New York
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Michael Hoffman wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Michael Hoffman wrote: Peter Robinson wrote: Michael Hoffman wrote: Luton does not have a one-seat rail journey to the centre--you have to take a shuttle to Luton Airport Parkway first. Eh? Half FCC train stop at Luton Airport Parkway. Or am I missing the point? Graham Harrison said that all London airports have direct rail links to the centre, as opposed to NYC where the "rail link" to two airports involves getting a rail shuttle from the mainline rail station. Actually, i think it was me who said that. I was pointing out that Luton is not any better than that. Using Google Maps' routes, Luton Airport Parkway to the terminal (well, the bus station) is 1.5 miles, Howard Beach or Jamaica to JFK is 4.9. I wouldn't say that was 'no better', but you're right, it's still not a distance you'd want to walk, so it's a two-seat ride. I've never taken the Luton bus, but the AirTrain is the same system used for intra-airport travel at both EWR and JFK. If you're going to count it as being a two-seat ride, perhaps you should also count the terminal at LGW that doesn't have a rail station (can never remember which is which). Fair enough. The criterion should probably be how many seats there are between baggage reclaim and city centre - i take it the reclaim (and check-in) for that terminal is in the terminal itself, and not the main bit? I've never used Gatwick myself ... There are two terminals in Gatwick. I've never thought of either of them as being the "main bit." One happens to have a rail station, but they both have access via road (and coaches stop at each one). -- Michael Hoffman |
London vs New York
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:28:21 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote: The criterion should probably be how many seats there are between baggage reclaim and city centre Right, so Heathrow to central London by Piccadilly line is a zero-seat ride, then :) |
London vs New York
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 07:58:41 -0400, David of Broadway
wrote: Michael Hoffman wrote: PigPOg wrote: On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:05:00 -0700, Nerdbird wrote: This web site may be of interest to the visitor to London. The Underground and taxis are discussed. http://hometown.aol.com/nerdbird1/LondonNYC.html Found this site very interesting. I'm a Londoner yet know nothing of NYC. I've never been able to find (or have someone explain) the Uptown/Downtown concept. I mean, where exactly is Uptown New York? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uptown%2C_Manhattan This New Yorker suspects that that page was not written by a New Yorker. It's not accurate in the slightest. (But I'm too lazy fix it, so I really have no right to complain.) Darn; your parenthetical comment means I can't really point you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sofixit :-) |
London vs New York
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 05:57:34 -0700, sweek
wrote: 24 hour running and express services are things I really wish we had. The greatest advantage of the four-track system [1] is that it allows 24-hour running. The express trains often save you less time than you might think. [1] Well, it mostly is... I was particularly intrigued by the three-track layout on the 7 in Queens... |
London vs New York
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:33:15 -0400, David of Broadway
wrote: Paul Corfield wrote: Not exactly. (But impressively close for someone who doesn't ride the buses in question!) MTA New York City Transit has operated a large number of express routes between Staten Island and Manhattan and several express routes between Queens and Manhattan and between Brooklyn and Manhattan for decades. (There's also an express route between Queens and the Bronx, but that's an anomaly.) OK - I was going from memory and failed to load up a MTA Bus Map ;-) The various city-subsidized private bus operators operated many local routes in Queens and Brooklyn, along with express routes between Queens and Manhattan, Brooklyn and Manhattan, and the Bronx and Manhattan. Those routes were recently taken over by the newly formed MTA Bus. I knew I'd got a bit of it correct. - What are New York's night buses like? Not dissimilar to the concept used in London - i.e. 24 hour service on key corridors. There is not the same need as in London for longer distance routes as the Subway is 24 hours in NYC. Generally, New York doesn't have any specific night buses. Some bus routes run all night - that's all. But many of London's routes are now on exactly this basis - the daytime route but running all night. London is now catching up with NYC with its never ending variants of what line or station is open or closed at any point in time! I think I'd struggle to cope with a Subway system that is subject to such frequent change to its operating pattern. Catching up? With three exceptions, every single subway station in New York is open around the clock. (The three exceptions are the two northernmost stations on the 3, which are replaced by bus service at night, and Broad Street on the J/M/Z, which is closed on weekends, when the J is cut back to Chambers Street.) What I meant was that with the scale of work going on in London we have almost as long lists of what is open, what is half open, closed and what is replaced by a bus as NYC used to have for its subway system. I wasn't alluding for a moment to our system being open 24 hours which it demonstrably is not (for LU). There are a few exceptions on rail routes. But our route patterns can certainly get confusing. Err yes. While I know you've had to close large sections of the network for rehabilitation works I do find it quite odd that the route and service pattern changes as much as it does. The statements about your lack of express services were probably referring to the Underground, where they're largely accurate, except on the western Piccadilly and Metropolitan. I don't think they were. The website author mentioned rail rather than Tube or Subway. - We do have a couple of jewish neighbourhoods, which you probably never ran into: Golders Green is the big one, and Stamford Hill is smaller, poorer and much more orthodox, with furry hats and curly sideburns everywhere you look. Don't forget Gants Hill and Barkingside. Not as obviously orthodox as GG or SH but plenty of Jewish businesses and synagogues. Also Hendon and Edgware. True but really just a continuation of the Golders Green area. (I didn't realize Gants Hill and Barkingside were Jewish. The various lists of kosher restaurants that I consulted didn't include any in those neighbo(u)rhoods.) Well there's certainly a synagogue and a range of kosher businesses that follow Sabbath opening and closing rules. Can't think of a kosher restaurant in the area but I'm just commenting from what I've seen from the bus. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
London vs New York
"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message
... There are two terminals in Gatwick. I've never thought of either of them as being the "main bit." One happens to have a rail station, but they both have access via road (and coaches stop at each one). Weeell, the south terminal (which has the rail station) was built first so I always think of it as the "main bit". If you take off from or land at the north terminal you have to get the little shuttle thingy to the trains. Ian |
London vs New York
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Michael Hoffman wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Michael Hoffman wrote: Peter Robinson wrote: Michael Hoffman wrote: Luton does not have a one-seat rail journey to the centre--you have to take a shuttle to Luton Airport Parkway first. Eh? Half FCC train stop at Luton Airport Parkway. Or am I missing the point? Graham Harrison said that all London airports have direct rail links to the centre, as opposed to NYC where the "rail link" to two airports involves getting a rail shuttle from the mainline rail station. Actually, i think it was me who said that. I was pointing out that Luton is not any better than that. Using Google Maps' routes, Luton Airport Parkway to the terminal (well, the bus station) is 1.5 miles, Howard Beach or Jamaica to JFK is 4.9. I wouldn't say that was 'no better', but you're right, it's still not a distance you'd want to walk, so it's a two-seat ride. I've never taken the Luton bus, but the AirTrain is the same system used for intra-airport travel at both EWR and JFK. If you're going to count it as being a two-seat ride, perhaps you should also count the terminal at LGW that doesn't have a rail station (can never remember which is which). Fair enough. The criterion should probably be how many seats there are between baggage reclaim and city centre - i take it the reclaim (and check-in) for that terminal is in the terminal itself, and not the main bit? I've never used Gatwick myself ... You wouldn't normally sit on the short shuttle ride from the north to the south terminal (I don't remember there being any seats). It's not much different to the shuttle trains that take you to remote piers in airports like Stansted, except that it's land rather than air-side. In fact, it's probably quicker and easier than the walk to the HEx station from, say, Terminal 1 at Heathrow. |
London vs New York
Ian F. wrote:
"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message ... There are two terminals in Gatwick. I've never thought of either of them as being the "main bit." One happens to have a rail station, but they both have access via road (and coaches stop at each one). Weeell, the south terminal (which has the rail station) was built first so I always think of it as the "main bit". If you take off from or land at the north terminal you have to get the little shuttle thingy to the trains. Yes, but if you come via some other means of transportation, you don't. It's not like, say, a satellite terminal at Stansted. -- Michael Hoffman |
London vs New York
On Jul 31, 5:04 pm, James Farrar wrote:
The greatest advantage of the four-track system [1] is that it allows 24-hour running. I don't think this is actually as important as it's made out to be. The system has a lot of two track sections that are also 24 hour, and even in the four track sections one pair is generally in use 24 hours a day, with only occasional diversions for engineering. It'd be interesting to find out what working practices allow this and whether they could be applied in London. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
London vs New York
David of Broadway wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote: PigPOg wrote: On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:05:00 -0700, Nerdbird wrote: This web site may be of interest to the visitor to London. The Underground and taxis are discussed. http://hometown.aol.com/nerdbird1/LondonNYC.html Found this site very interesting. I'm a Londoner yet know nothing of NYC. I've never been able to find (or have someone explain) the Uptown/Downtown concept. I mean, where exactly is Uptown New York? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uptown%2C_Manhattan This New Yorker suspects that that page was not written by a New Yorker. It's not accurate in the slightest. (But I'm too lazy fix it, so I really have no right to complain.) In my experience, entries in Wikipedia are more often wrong than right. |
London vs New York
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:38:51 +0100, Michael Hoffman
wrote: Ian F. wrote: "Michael Hoffman" wrote in message ... There are two terminals in Gatwick. I've never thought of either of them as being the "main bit." One happens to have a rail station, but they both have access via road (and coaches stop at each one). Weeell, the south terminal (which has the rail station) was built first so I always think of it as the "main bit". If you take off from or land at the north terminal you have to get the little shuttle thingy to the trains. Yes, but if you come via some other means of transportation, you don't. It's not like, say, a satellite terminal at Stansted. There are also shuttles to the satellite at the South terminal. -- Terry Harper Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org |
London vs New York
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:38:51 +0100, Michael Hoffman wrote: Ian F. wrote: "Michael Hoffman" wrote in message ... There are two terminals in Gatwick. I've never thought of either of them as being the "main bit." One happens to have a rail station, but they both have access via road (and coaches stop at each one). Weeell, the south terminal (which has the rail station) was built first so I always think of it as the "main bit". If you take off from or land at the north terminal you have to get the little shuttle thingy to the trains. Yes, but if you come via some other means of transportation, you don't. It's not like, say, a satellite terminal at Stansted. There are also shuttles to the satellite at the South terminal. Not any more there aren't, and not for several years. You now take travelators, outbound on the low level and inbound on the high level. I assume they did away with the airside shuttle a few years ago to fully segregate arriving and departing pax. There are still a few relics of the old shuttle track visible, which is one of the few (or only) airside abandoned railways in the UK. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:28 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk