Is the London Underground worse than other countries?

Question

A friend of mine, from Sweden, told me that the London Tube is among the worst in Europe. And the amazing thing is Londoners are so used to the situation that they rarely complain.

Is it true, or is it just a myth that London's infrastructure is inferior?

Answer 1

Its the biggest and busiest underground service in the world. No other metro has as many trains, as many services, as many routes, as many stations. So while its "service" may not compare to other countries, its got a lot more work to do to keep up.

Answer 2

London Underground is a fairly extensive network covering an enormous area. The trains run every few minutes off peak and every 2-3 minutes peak. The trains are fairly safe, particularly if you are being sensible. The stations are reasonably warm and well lit. Given how extensive the network is and the number of people that do use it, I think it runs quite well. It is simply that it is the oldest underground system in the world. It was not built to handle this many people nor was it built to enable expansion. Unfortunately, this means that when things go wrong, they tend to go wrong very noticeably and they usually go wrong at peak rush hour. All things considered (reliability, security, safety, cost, cleanliness, ease of use, staff professionality, comfort amongst others), I would definitely rate London Underground in the top three.

Answer 3

There is no doubt that any underground system in Germany beats London for cleanliness, maintainence and all round service. Berlin is the best underground system in Europe in my book. No other city comes close.
As for London, the service is good, but so many of the stations are in a bad state of repair, as are a lot of the trains, particularly the older trains on the District Line. Also, the tickets on the London Underground are incredibly expensive - probably the most expensive metro system in the world. In contrast, Berlin's U-Bahn tickets are fantastically cheap.

Answer 4

I thought the Underground was very user friendly and functional. Maybe my standards aren't as high as some, but it was quite clean and easy to navigate. I also used the Paris subway system and the Roman one. Paris was amazing, it was clean, and very easily accessed from about anywhere in the city. The Roman one was HORRIBLE. There are two tracks and it was about 100 degrees with no airflow, cramped, and a constant threat of being mugged. London may not have the best service, but service comes after ease of use and security.

Answer 5

There was a recent review of large scale underground systems around the world. London (albeit the most expensive) came out as being the best. Trains regular, clean, good facilities etc. etc. I can tell you from experience that Paris' and Rome's are nowhere near as well run as London's. I can't remember where I saw the review however.

Answer 6

Its pretty awful. German underground is brilliant - in every town I've visited (Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Berlin, Cologne). Paris is getting better its more open and the trains are improving. Rome isn't great either. But London.... Its only modernised down by Docklands and Canary Wharf.

Answer 7

It is certainly the most expensive! Trains tend to be rather more comfortable than elsewhere. Don't forget it's the worlds oldest system - some of it is showing its age. Also it is suffering from years of underinvestment. I believe in terms of size it is not as big as the New York system.

Answer 8

the Parisien Metro is better than the tube but can't compare from undergrounds in the rest of Europe

Answer 9

I don't think so it is the busiest underground service in the world but it is little bit older that's all.

Answer 10

It's not that bad. But then it is alot older than most I have travelled on in Europe.