There is definitely some room for improvement on the Tube
The London Underground is a delightful bit of public transport – the map is easy to read, there are lots of lines (albeit not so many south of the river) and you can pretty much get across the city using it.
But could it be improved? To learn a bit more about what we could be doing better, I travelled along the French network to see how it stood up compared to the London Underground.
A geographically accurate map was jarring at first, but it’s useful in its own way
The first thing that struck me was how good the map for the Metro is. There are more standardized maps that are similar to the London Underground online, however, at every station, the maps are geographically accurate.
I could see the true distance between all stations and landmarks. The London Underground map is iconic and pretty handy, but I found this map more practical in its own way.
Like any good tourist, I started my journey on the Metro heading to the Eiffel Tower. Getting on Line 9 (such practical names!) I was immediately struck by how silent and smooth it was.
It’s a lot quieter than the Victoria line, that’s for sure.
The Tube is well known for how loud it can get. MyLondon has previously reported on the noise of the Underground causing houses to shake.
This Metro really light and breezy. Even when it was busy it was manageable. A downside is that there is a distinct lack of seats, with the rows that we have on the Tube nowhere to be seen. The majority of seats are banks of four, like parts of the Elizabeth line.
While this is a downside, it actually allows for plenty of standing space and the high ceilings of these rectangular trains are practical. It means that no matter how busy a train is, it still feels like there is space.
This is pretty handy for us taller passengers, so we don’t alight the train with neck pain after standing with our heads at a 45-degree angle for the journey.
As the train sped on I was able to scroll away on the socials because the Metro has an internet connection throughout. The Tube is expanding the 4G and 5G network to a number of stations and line, but it’s just on a handful of the 272 stations and 11 lines, whereas the Metro has full coverage at all of its 308 stations and 16 lines.
The signs on the Metro seem quite old school but they’re actually quite smart. They have little LED lights at each of the stations. The upcoming stations are all lit up, with the next station flashing, and then the stations that have been passed have their lights off.
On my journey, the announcements at some stops were in three different languages. This was super handy for me as a tourist and is definitely something that could be implemented on the Tube.
Compared to the Tube where you can be none the wiser to where you are at times, this makes it easy for everyone to know where they are and what’s coming up.
I got to Trocadéro, the station for the Eiffel Tower, in no time. Entering a station is much like the Tube – there are barriers where you tap your card or put your ticket through. To exit, you just walk out through one-way barriers, similar to the New York City Subway.
The stations and trains are clean and overall it feels less stuffy and easier to breathe.
From noise to efficiency, my journey on the Paris Metro was smooth-sailing. The Tube could definitely learn a thing or two.
Comment (0)