London Transport system Vs. Hong Kong Transport System


LondonTransport system Vs. Hong Kong Transport System

Transportsystem has been perceived as a significant element because it isclosely associated with economic development. Cities that are welldeveloped are also indicated to have a well developed transportsystem. For instance, cities like London and Hong Kong have beenassociated with world class developments in different aspects,transport system being one of them. Any government will always tendto offer the required support in ensuring the development of atransport system. It is important to ensure that the transport systemthat is developed in a given area keeps to the quality standardsrequired this will help in ensuring efficiencies in the transportsystem (Inderwildi&amp King, 2012).Besides, it is also important to have a good plan on the organizationand funding of transport system for its development. The primaryfocus of this paper is to discuss the transport systems of two citiesand compare and contrast them differences and similarities amid theHong Kong and London transport systems will be discussed. Thecomparison will be on the basis of organization, quality, and fundingof the two systems.

Organizationof the Transport System

Thetransport systems of the two cities can be compared in terms of theirorganization. The transport system in the two cities is similar inthat it is organized into three primary units, which entail theunderground, rail and surface transport. The surface transport unitcomprises elements like cycling, buses, river services, taxi, privatehires, and coach stations. When it comes to underground and railunits, the two cities have a similarity in that the systems havetrams, airlines, over ground and underground railway. The transportsystems in the two cities are similar in that railroad transport isperceived to be a major form of transport. Besides, the rail andunderground units in the cities are under the control of thegovernment.

However,the transport system in the two cities differs since the building ofnew railways and maintenance of new ones is handled differently. InHong Kong, the management and building of new railways has been putunder the government control, where it uses MTR Corporation. InLondon, the government seeks partnerships with different departmentsin building new railways (Thornley, 2003). Another difference betweenthe transport systems in the two cities is that cross rail hasalready been established in Hong Kong, whereas, in London, cross railis in the course of being established.

Fundingof the Transport System

Fundingis also a central factor when making a comparison of the transportsystem of the two cities in consideration since it is not possible tohave proper transport systems in the cities without proper funding.Moreover, it is critical to ensure that the source of funding for atransport system is robust enough to avoid failures in the transportsystem. The two transport systems are similar in because theirrevenue as well as funding regularly comes from a varied range ofsources, and this entails ticket sales, congestion charges,borrowing, and governmental grants. Besides, the transport systems ofthe two cities are similar in that they also derive their revenuesfrom advertisements put on major highways. The two systems permitmarketers to put billboards on the highways however, this is not forfree but attracts certain fees. In most cases, marketers usually payfees depending with the time that they want the advert to remain onthe billboard. Furthermore, another similarity amid the two transportsystems is that they also receive incomes from property rentals. MTRhas engaged in funding of different housing projects, where reapsprofits that can be used in funding the transport system (Padukone,2013).Besides, the two transport systems have a similarity in that theyhave varied sources of funding for maintenance of the railways.Nevertheless, there is a difference in the two transport systems inthat they have a difference in their major source of funding. InLondon, the chief source of funding for the transport system is farespaid by commuters. However, in Hong Kong, government grants are thechief source of funding for the transport system. Thus, the primarysource of funding for the transport systems in the two citiesdiffers.

Qualityof Transport System

Qualityof the transport system is another factor that can be used incomparing the systems of the two cities. Quality is of immenseimportance because it can help in ensuring efficiency of a transportsystem. Transport systems that are not based on quality are likely tobe non-effective in delivery and costly to maintain. In general, thequality of transport systems in the two cities can be considered tobe exceedingly high. The transport network in the two citiesconstitutes the incorporation of design and technologies of the 21stcentury. This makes both transport systems be examined in terms ofhaving attained quality. The two cities have a similarity in thatthey are striving to ensure that the transport systems do not pollutethe environment especially in the capital regions of the cities. Theprimary purpose of this initiative is to ensure that occupants in thecities live in clean environment that is free of pollution.Nevertheless, the Hong Kong transport system can be seen to have setthe pace for quality especially when it comes to cross rail (Zheng,2013).MTR Corporation, which has been involved in building of railway inHong Kong, has been contracted to build cross rail in London(Neather,2014).This may be based on the quality of the transport work done by theMTR Corporation based in Hong Kong.


Fromthe analysis of the transport systems in the two cities, it isevident that the cities have similarities in the manner theirtransport systems are organized, funded and quality maintained. Interms of organization, it seems the two cities have their transportsystems organized in almost a similar manner. This is because thecities use three chief units in their transport systems. The use ofthe railroad is perceived as a major transport unit for the cities.Besides, sources of funding have also been indicated to be similar inthe two cities for instance, the incomes from advertisements,government grants, and fares from commuters among others. Despitethese similarities, it is evident that the two systems havedifferences. One such difference in the development of the railwaysystem Hong Kong seems to be ahead in terms of building cross railwhile London is on the course of building cross rail. Besides, thetransport system’s chief source of funding is different. Inpersonal perspective, the Hong Kong transport system can be perceivedto be more efficient than the London’s because the Hong Kong systemhas been depicted to show some aspects of benchmark to the London’ssystem for instance, London has contracted MTR Corporation in thebuilding of cross rail.


Freemark,Y. (2010). HongKong’s Expanding Metro a Model of Development-Funded Transit. TheTransport Politic.

HongKong Travel Guide. Retrieved from

Inderwildi,O., &amp King, D. (2012). Energy,transport, &amp the environment: Addressing the sustainable mobilityparadigm.London: Springer.

Neather,A. (2014). HK2:why Transport for London is looking to the Hong Kong Metro forinspiration.Retrieved from

Padukone,N. (2013). The Unique Genius of Hong Kong`s Public TransportationSystem. TheAtlanticRetrieved from

Penny,C., &amp Institution of Civil Engineers (Great Britain). (1996).ChannelTunnel transport system: Proceedings of the conference organized bythe Institution of Civil Engineers and held in London on 4-5 October1994.London: T. Telford.

Thornley,A. (2003). TheCrisis of London.London: Routledge.

Transportin London. Retrieved from

Zheng,Y. (2013). Hashe got the job done?: An evaluation of Donald Tsang`s administration.HongKong: City University of Hong Kong Press.