Fares in London cover 91% of operating expense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio
London's system is OK for it's age. Trains very in age from under 1 year to approaching 40 (with replacements on order, or planned), some lines have new signalling systems, others don't -- yet. That's not much different to Hong Kong.
Typically two adjacent lines will share two stops in common. The first will be designated to transfer in one direction, and the second for the opposing direction.
They arrange these transfers so that your next train is waiting on the opposite side of the platform.
London is never going to be able to do that.
I always laugh at the idiots getting stuck in the doors after a mad dash. Can they really afford not to wait?
|
===+===
|
They exist in London where it was possible to install them, but it's very difficult to retrofit (if underground) so many of the old lines are stuck the way they are -- with an underground walkway between lines.
Note that capital expenses (fixing tunnels, buying new trains) are not included in operating expenses, so London Underground runs at a significant deficit:
2,542m (Operating expenses) + 1,227m (Capital expenditure) - 2,286m (Fares) = 1,483m
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/annual-report...