Content Transport System

2

ContentTransport System

Comparisonand Contrast of London and Amsterdam

Presentedto

Institution,State

Atransportsystemrefersto a networkof meansof transportthrough which peoplemovefrom one placeto another.Atypicaltransportsystemencompassesdifferentmodesof travelssuchas citybuses,trams (lightrail),ferries,rapidtransits,andtrolleybuses, among others (Costa&amp Fernandes 2012).Surfacetransport,airlines,rail,andundergroundcarrierscharacterizetransportsystemsfora bigcitylike London andAmsterdam (Kapoor,Millard, Weerakkody 2015).However,differencesin thelevel of developmentcoupledwith othergeographic anddemographic factorsmaketransportsystemvaryfrom one cityto another.Thereexistsignificantsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetween the transportsystemin London andAmsterdam.Thispaperattemptsto compareandcontrastthetransportsystemsforLondon andAmsterdam cities.Theanalysiswill base on themodesof funding, theorganization,management,andthequalityof thetwo cities.

First,there existsimilaritiesbetween thetransportsystemsof thetwo citiesbased on organization.Forinstance,thekey modesof traveldominate thetransportnetworkof thetwo cities.Themodesof transportin bothLondon andAmsterdam are surfacetransport,underground,andrailwaysystem.Surfacecarriagein thetwo citiescoversdifferentwaysof travel(Kapoor,Millard Weerakkody 2015).Theseformsof transportincludebuses,cycling taxi andcarhire services,among others. Forexample,iDBUS andMegabus constitutesomeof themajorbuscompaniesin London whileConnexxion entailsa significantbuscompanyin Amsterdam (Malone 2013). Themajorairportsin London includeLondon Gatwick, London Heathrow, London Luton, London City, andLondon Stansted Airport. Furthermore,theallhavesubwayandwaterservicesthat connectdifferentpartsof thetwo cities.Forexample,ferriescarrypeoplefrom Amsterdam-North to therestof thecity.

Second,thetwo citiesfeatureadvancedcycling landscapes.Cycling offersanotherwayto discoverthecityof London by helpingcyclists to savesomemoneyandgetfitconcurrently (Tolley&amp Turton 2014).TheBarclays Cycle Hire of London operatesin 400 differentplacesin thecity,with manybikesexceeding6000. On thesamenote,cycling in Amsterdam offersan excellentopportunityto discoverthecityanda bigpartof theDutch culture.Amsterdam dedicatesresourcesto developingbike lanesacross thecity,besides manybicyclerental firms whereone can hirea bike. Unlike, Amsterdam, thecityof London has an enhancedcross-rail system.Thecross-rail entailsa jointventurebetween theTransport forLondon andtheDepartment of Transport to developa brandrailwayto connectAbbey Wood andSheffield in theeast, to Heathrow andMaidenhead in thewest(Costaand Fernandes 2012).Thedevelopmentof theprojectis underwaywith thecentralunitanticipatedto befinishedbefore thestartof 2019.

Also,thetwo companiesfeaturewell-established publictransportsystem.However,theydifferin theformof management.In London, thelocalpublicbodyaccountablefortransportmanagestheprovisionsof thepublictransport.On thecontrary,thepublictransportnetworkin Amsterdam City is distinctlyorganizedinto regionandhardwareandis ownedandmanagedby eitherthestateortheregionalauthority(Rodrigue,Comtois and Slack 2013).Thecityareaof Amsterdam fallsunder four areasthat includeZaanstreek, Waterland, Amsterdam, andAmstelland-Meerlanden. Nonetheless,after everysix years,thepublictransportsystemin thecityis puton auctionby theprovincialgovernmentorregionalauthorities.An operatingcompanywith thebestquantitative andqualitative bidandone that meetstheestablishedstandardsandcriteriawinstheconcessionto managethepublictransportsectorforthefollowingsix years.Thewinningoperatorbecomestheconcessionholder(Malone 2013). Forexample,theAmsterdam communitytransportagency(Gemeentelijk Verviers Bedrijf (GVB)) runsthecity’spublictransportnetwork.Besides that,GVB is thesolecompanythat operatesmorebuses,apartfrom operatingtrams as wellas thesubwaysin thecity.However,Connexxion organizesbustravelin theregioncoveringZaanstreek, Amsterdam, andAmstelland-Meerlanden area.

Moreover,transportin thetwo citiesrequireselectronicpaymentsystem.Visitors,as wellas localtravelers,donot paythefarein cashratherthrough an electronicsystem.In London, Oyster Card, Travel Card, among othermodesof electronicpaymentsare necessaryformostcommonformof publictransportservices(Kapoor,Millard, Weerakkody 2015).On thecontrary,mostformsof publictransportin Amsterdam callfortheOV-Chipkaart.TheOV-Chipkaartentailsa plasticorpapercreditticketanalogousto a cardthat ticketreadersdetecttheembeddedmemorychipin theticket.Atravelerswipes thecardacross thefaceof theticketreaderonce heentersandexits thevehicle.There are three kindsof OV-Chipkaart:anonymous,personalized, anddisposable.

Furthermore,there existsimilaritiesanddifferencesin thesourcesof funding forthetransportsystemin London andAmsterdam. In London, Transport incomeandfinancingcomefrom differentsources,includingfares,governmentgrants,borrowing,networkcompliancecharges,andthecongestioncharge(Kapoor,Millard, Weerakkody 2015).Incomefrom passengersconstitutethelargestsourceof funding that London directsto leveraging thecostsof runningandimprovingits transportsystem(Costaand Fernandes 2012).TheMayor of thecitytakesthedecisionson fareseachyear.Thecitygeneratesmoreincomefrom advertising,developments,andpropertyrentalandpropertysales.Moreover,itborrowsfrom a varietyof sourceapplyingdifferentmechanismssuchas bond,loansfrom financialinstitutions,andcommercialpaper.However,itborrowson thebasisof marketconditions,thelevel of flexibilityprovidedandthecostof borrowing.In addition to theprimarysourcesof funding London uses,Amsterdam alsoappliesmotorvehicletaxes(suchas thetaxon passengercarsandmotorcycles),roadfees,andfuelleviesas sourcesof finance.TheabsoluteCO2 emissionlevel basisreplacedthenetlistpriceforvehiclesaletax.In contrast,a greatdealof publictransportfunding in Amsterdam comesfrom thestate(Tolley&amp Turton 2014).

Moreover,thequalityof thetransportsystemin bothLondon andAmsterdam is high.Forinstance,theyhaveextensiveandreliabletransportnetwork.Also,theyallfeaturemanyalternativesthat peoplecan choosefrom during their travel.Forexample,one can opt to takea busortaxi, rideinthe tram,trolley orsubway,andtakean airplane,cycleora ferry.Besides that,thetwo transportsystemsinvolveadvancedmethodsof payingthefare.Whiletravelingin London callsforOyster, cruisingin Amsterdam necessitatesOV-Chipkaartallof which are electronicmethodsof payment(Kapoor,Millard, Weerakkody 2015).Forinstance,London’s famousred busesoffera convenient,cheap,andquicktravelaround thecity.Unlike in othercountriesin Europe whereitis relativelyeasyto haila taxi, thesituationI Amsterdam is thecompleteopposite,especiallyduring weekends.Furthermore,taxi servicesin thecityare quiteexpensivecomparedto otherEuropean cities.

Inconclusion,itis worthto notethatLondon andAmsterdam havea lotsharein termsof their transportsystem.Forinstance,theyfeaturea moreorlesssimilarorganization.Also,theyhavesimilarsourcesof funding andhaveadvancedandhigh-quality transportsystems.However,thetwo citiesexhibitsomedifferencesconcerningthemanagementof their transportsystems.Nonetheless,I believethatLondon has a moreefficienttransportsystem.

ReferenceList

Costa,Á, &amp Fernandes, R, 2012, Urbanpublic transport in Europe: Technology diffusion and marketorganisation.TransportationResearch Part A: Policy and Practice,46(2),269-284.

Kapoor,K, Millard, J, Weerakkody, V, 2015, SmartTransportfor Smarter Cities in the UK.

Malone,P, 2013, City,capital and water.Routledge.

Rodrigue,J, P, Comtois, C, &amp Slack, B, 2013, Thegeography of transport systems.Routledge.

Sassen,S, 2011, Citiesin a world economy.Sage Publications.

Tolley,R, &amp Turton, B, J, 2014, Transportsystems, policy and planning: a geographical approach.Routledge.