Does the boundary of class stratification pass through the subway?

Publicist Maxim Sokolov ( m-yu-sokolov ) thought about the meaning of the “people traveling in the subway” traffic. Reminding readers of the prevailing judgment among a certain part of Muscovites that the use of the subway is the lot of losers and low-income people, m-yu-sokolov suggests discussing the question of whether it is possible to consider subway passengers as owners of low social status, and tell what ideas this Account exist in other major cities in Russia and abroad.

“ With regard to Moscow, the turnover is quite meaningful ,” notes m-yu-sokolov , “class stratification is very noticeable when descending to the underworld. I didn’t notice that in the European subways - it cannot be said that the underworld was strictly subscribed only for classes below the average. In the 30s. indeed one could say in French “people traveling by subway”, but now it’s still an anachronism, and underground the merging of estates.
It is interesting how this is the case in other subways b. USSR, as well as in subways outside of France, Germany and Italy . "

Most commentators disagree with the statement about" class stratification. "

False, in your :-) metro the same percentage of people in different groups (except for millionaires and individual taxi lovers) is the same as in Moscow itself. For example, I prefer the metro precisely for reasons of speed and safety (+ ecology), even when I arrive at the MSC with a driver (I usually leave it near one of the extreme stations).

Paul Khlebnikov was not a declassified person or a pauper. But he rode on the subway.

Oh, and the other day I saw Michael O'Leary in the London Underground - the uncle who runs the Ryanair. Billionaire, by the way.

I ride the subway simply because I work on the other side of the city on a green branch. With quite obvious belonging to the middle class and the presence of a car.

As many readers rightly point out, if you take into account the legendary Moscow traffic jams and the aggressiveness of drivers, the metro is still an inexpensive and relatively convenient alternative to a personal car or taxi.

you build in vain. That people in the subway are excessive - yes. But people travel all sorts. And rich Pinocchio, too, to which the witness himself. And the reason, as elsewhere, is traffic jams. For some, it’s better to choke on the subway for half an hour than sit luxuriously in your car, but four hours breathing exhaust. :)

Everything descends into the subway, regardless of social affiliation, and even in ordinary life. a couple of my acquaintances - let's say not poor people with personal cars - keep a metro pass in their wallet (they didn’t check the rest). because from china city to Krasnopresnenskaya, it’s better to take the metro. or from Krasnopresnenskaya to Novoslobodskaya.

According to my observations, in the morning rush hours the metro towards the center goes entirely to the middle class + students. (Gray branch, south). It is understandable. In recent years, I bought a lot of this class in Butovo. And how to go from Butov to the center or through the center? By car in Warsaw? Or the union? Oh well.

I already changed 3 cars in Moscow, but I went to work — from work for all 4 years — well, maybe 20 times. And for the most part at night, it’s very nice to fly along the empty 3rd ring or in the center :). And so I need a car in order to just go outside the metropolis on the weekend, breathe air. Or travel on vacation. I’m not ready to stand in traffic jams, agree with the ugly Moscow driving culture, be late for meetings, etc. ... Therefore, I go by metro. But in Kiev, the flux density is still 2 times lower, it really makes sense to move on wheels. And a completely different mentality among drivers is to let pedestrians pass, do not run in lanes unnecessarily, do not fart annoyingly, turn on turn signals, do not blink with special signals, etc., in short, if possible not to be rude.

According to the observations of bloggers, the degree of "respectability" of public transport in general and the metro in particular in other cities and countries varies greatly depending on the specific type of transport and the way the city economy is organized.

In the St. Petersburg metro, the predominance of women, children, old students, over men, "having a car."

We have [Nizhny Novgorod. - Note Ed.] metro small, 2 branches, 13 stations. They ride it very little, because it is inconvenient. We rather use the term “people riding minibuses” - that’s where the cesspool is, the grooves are broken, drove all as one Radio Chanson fans, it’s crowded and dirty. For example, I try not to meddle in these minibuses, only if absolutely necessary.

The New York elite lives in Manhattan. And practically doesn’t leave from there - see the series “Sex and the City” for an illustration, but I myself know many Manhattanites. Question: How will a resident of Manhattan go between an apartment in Greenwich Village and an office in Midtown? The answer is by taxi. In the New York subway, poor students and oppressed minorities are worse than in Moscow. I saw with knives, waving it repeatedly (although I don’t live in New York, I’m on short visits). Other American cities are usually arranged differently: There is an elite quarter in the center (for example, Boston's Back Bay and West End - from there they go by taxi to the offices - it's not a big deal. But most of them live in saburbas and go on an electric car (so as not to be stuck in traffic). so the train is a pretty decent audience, again from the station people are spreading by taxi or going to the metro for a maximum of a few stops in the center. Is there a decent audience in the metro that depends heavily on whether the metro goes to wealthy saburbas. [...]

Metro [In Washington. - Note Ed.] - very expensive and very clean. Metro - transport of officials traveling from the suburbs to DC and vice versa. There is, however, one dangerous line - red: to the north it goes to black quarters. To the south - already quiet and smooth and God's grace. Especially from Central Station and further south. How they cut off socially dangerous elements - I can’t imagine; agree, apparently. But they do not reach the center. In general, an analogue of the metro in Washington is a bus: it is a transport of the poor, black and dangerous. They can show a knife on the bus.

Compared to the Moscow and St. Petersburg subways, the Paris Metro looks like a pretty cesspool, home to clochears and “vulnerable minorities”. So the truth seemed ten years ago and at the height of the working day.

In Rome, especially in the evening, tourists and emigrants make up the majority of the metro. However, the same can be said about any type of public transport.

In Switzerland there is no worthy L.M. Kaganovich in order to create a wide metro network, but very decent workers travel by train (for example, I practiced extensively). Actually, to move to the Italian (best) part of the country from the north, this is the best option if you travel one day. It’s very convenient: on the platforms you can see in advance where the class wagon will arrive, not to mention well-calculated transfers, a lot of information with schedules, and a subscription generally cheap. Again, the aesthetic component: the views from the train window are more fun than from the car riding in the bath, especially when the train is panoramic. [...] But in Moscow a car, a PMC, is not needed at all, especially if you live and work near the metro. And if you need it, it’s cheaper to take a taxi or rent, so the Moscow metro is not of a class nature: look at the coats of users.

Do you ride the subway or car?