Comparing ridership statistics between UK and Japanese stations...JR only lists boarding/entering passengers, while other Japanese private railways list combined entries and exists, like UK does. So to compare them, I'll just double JR numbers...
-
-
Here's London Underground ridership at those same top five stations, then the combined ridership for them: Waterloo - 100.4m/yr -> 199.8m Victoria - 83.5m/yr -> 159.4m Liverpool Street - 71.6m/yr -> 138.9m London Bridge - 70.7m/yr -> 118.6m Euston - 43.1m/yr -> 87.2m
Show this thread -
At these stops, Tube ridership accounts for over 50% of the total ridership! In Japan it is usually the reverse--intercity and suburban ridership accounts for about 82% of the traffic at Shinjuku, with subways making up the remaining 18%
Show this thread -
I would like to think that a big factor in this difference in shares is that subways and intercity/suburban railways in Japan are very similar in service standards, frequency, fare collection, rolling stock, etc...
Show this thread -
...and that with all else being about equal, the suburban and intercity railways have a much larger service area to draw from--something they can't take full advantage of if they are operated at lower standards (esp re: frequency and fare collection) than subways.
Show this thread -
But, even if there's some truth in this suspicion, I know it's not the whole story. I'm not sure how the Tube compares to intercity rail in terms of price for a ride, but I know that in Japan, subways almost always cost more per mile than intercity and suburban railways.
Show this thread -
Still--if you really want excellent ridership, you can't be relying on just the core urban population! So much of any "metropolitan area's" population is in its suburbs--the rail network has to work for them as well
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.