matt-p 3 days ago

I've lived in and visted many other cities in Europe. Public transport is often much cheaper than London, but there's few examples where I'd really say it was /better/. Can you think of an example?

  • Beretta_Vexee 3 days ago

    Oslo and Madrid come to mind. For the worst than london, The Rome underground is so sparse, it not really usefull. Paris is dense, chaotic and overcrowded.

    • 4ndrewl 3 days ago

      Ok, Oslo would be a small city in the UK - London has 12x the population. Madrid is closer. Paris is great - the ride is very smooth.

    • matt-p 3 days ago

      Every single time I've been in Madrid the metro has been on strike. Every time. They run about 50-60% of services which means everything is slow and packed. I would actually say it's one of the worst in europe in my (I guess limited) experience due to that. I will have to try Oslo!

  • storus 3 days ago

    Anywhere in Germany? E.g. Frankfurt has much higher density of subway lines and trams.

    • matt-p 3 days ago

      Frankfurt is less than a tenth the size, I'm not sure it's really a comparison. I found Berlin to be no better/slightly worse.

    • walthamstow 3 days ago

      Of course the transport is good in most DE cities but seriously, Frankfurt is a village compared to London. London's network is both vast and dense.

short_sells_poo 3 days ago

To people who have to commute to London, particularly if it's not a mainline train, it's tragically bad and overpriced. Train outages happen on a daily basis, the fare is very expensive compared to mainland Europe and the quality is quite a bit worse.

  • matt-p 3 days ago

    True, but it's not london public transport (e.g not TFL) and that may actually be the only reason it's bad. Look what happened when TFL took over national rail services inside london (silverlink > overground).