News report from our man in New York

Time to break up travel reports with a breaking opinion story.

Pick the odd one out:
1. New York
2. London
3. Munich
4. Singapore
5. Auckland
6. Los Angeles

If you said Los Angeles you get half a point because they ARE odd there; but no, the correct answer is Auckland (and not because it's the only southern hemisphere city on the list).
Why then?

It's the only city (or perhaps - metropolis) without a metro train system (yes, even the infamous LA is getting in on the action now); and the Britomart terminal doesn't count, you need to have actual trains for it to work.
If you look at most large 'western' cities they will be likely to have a metro system of some kind, that functions (for better or worse); and the reason they work is that large numbers of people use them daily to: travel to and from work/go shopping/be tourists/...
because they are:
1. Cheap
2. Fast
3. Easier than driving
4. More environmentally conscious than driving (I bet London didn't think of that one when they started the underground in the late 1800's)

Having spent today using the New York subway to get all over Manhattan (for a total of $7), I find them to be generally excellent; and from a statement I heard today, another 5 million people in New York agree with me.

So why not Auckland!

The obvious answer is because of the cost, they aren't cheap. But if the metro will be used for 100 years, perhaps someone should think about how history might value such a decision.
I know I'd like it.

(PS: Aucklander's, take a look at Wellington's example. Electrified rail. The Future. In the 20th Century.)

In other news; being atop the Rockefeller Centre during a lightning storm is not advised.
But the view is excellent.

I'm Russell Browning reporting from New York city, back to you in the news room.