In today's rapidly changing world, where a product is rendered obsolete five minutes after it's bought, the relative permanence of some things is worth appreciating. This past week, the world famous London underground, the world's first subway/metro system, an institution that has grown with the city and made it one of the top destinations in the world for tourists and its residents, celebrated 150 years of existence. From its humble beginnings as a single line running a few miles, with steam locomotives belching smoke and perhaps causing several premature deaths for its original set of passengers, the network has literally created the greater London metropolitan area by providing people an option to live beyond the city center but still have access to it. It is also, by default, the mother of all other transit systems, the benchmark not just for design but also style (the iconic tube map is perhaps one of the most recognized images in the world, quite remarkable given that it does not feature a face or logo for a company).
The longevity of the tube has not come for free, of course - millions of pounds are invested every year to keep it running smoothly, and fares continue to rise, much to the anger of commuters. But it would be a brave person who advocated doing away with the system, or at least questioning whether it met a benefit to cost hurdle, which every public (and private) investment needs to do in today's cash strapped world, where there is money to throw away on nonsensical products, but not on projects for social good. What is even more remarkable is the foresight of the individuals, who saw a future where the city degenerated without a properly designed transport system, and drove through the implementation in the face of what was likely widespread criticism.
It is somewhat fortuitous that the system, and those of most European cities thereafter, arose at a time when the modern auto industry did not exist, or was in its infancy. The outcome might well have been different if you considered 1963 instead of 1863 - the solution might have been to build wide highways with thousands of cars instead of narrow tunnels with hundreds of people jammed into a long metal tube. Most US cities that did have trains or trams found those quickly ripped up and replaced by roads - a conspiracy of the auto companies that does little to support the assertion of providing a level playing field to competition.
The developing world, unfortunately, will not enjoy the benefits of this foresight - systems being installed in India are coming at a time when population has crossed the 10 million mark in cities like Delhi and Mumbai, and well over 5 million in some others. Using (or avoiding) mass transit is as much a statement of class as it is of cost and convenience - the dream of car ownership trumps the desire to stand alongside fellow travellers, no matter that the choked roads are no match for the empty tracks. In London, in contrast, the tube is used by all classes of society, from the football hooligan to the banker, the NHS nurse to the thousands of immigrants who flood the city every year in search of a better life. Perhaps the fact that the tubes, in addition to providing a path for trains, also gave safe haven to Londoners from falling Nazi bombs, where both rich and poor alike perished, has resulted in it being regarded as an essential service. And with that comes the will to support it in the coming 150 years.
The longevity of the tube has not come for free, of course - millions of pounds are invested every year to keep it running smoothly, and fares continue to rise, much to the anger of commuters. But it would be a brave person who advocated doing away with the system, or at least questioning whether it met a benefit to cost hurdle, which every public (and private) investment needs to do in today's cash strapped world, where there is money to throw away on nonsensical products, but not on projects for social good. What is even more remarkable is the foresight of the individuals, who saw a future where the city degenerated without a properly designed transport system, and drove through the implementation in the face of what was likely widespread criticism.
It is somewhat fortuitous that the system, and those of most European cities thereafter, arose at a time when the modern auto industry did not exist, or was in its infancy. The outcome might well have been different if you considered 1963 instead of 1863 - the solution might have been to build wide highways with thousands of cars instead of narrow tunnels with hundreds of people jammed into a long metal tube. Most US cities that did have trains or trams found those quickly ripped up and replaced by roads - a conspiracy of the auto companies that does little to support the assertion of providing a level playing field to competition.
The developing world, unfortunately, will not enjoy the benefits of this foresight - systems being installed in India are coming at a time when population has crossed the 10 million mark in cities like Delhi and Mumbai, and well over 5 million in some others. Using (or avoiding) mass transit is as much a statement of class as it is of cost and convenience - the dream of car ownership trumps the desire to stand alongside fellow travellers, no matter that the choked roads are no match for the empty tracks. In London, in contrast, the tube is used by all classes of society, from the football hooligan to the banker, the NHS nurse to the thousands of immigrants who flood the city every year in search of a better life. Perhaps the fact that the tubes, in addition to providing a path for trains, also gave safe haven to Londoners from falling Nazi bombs, where both rich and poor alike perished, has resulted in it being regarded as an essential service. And with that comes the will to support it in the coming 150 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment