How costly is London compared to NY?
 

Specifically, groceries, restaurants and taxis - should I expect these to cost more than in NY?<BR><BR>Also, how walkable is London? ie I would say NY is highly walkable, Rome not very walkable due to cobblestones and hills.<BR><BR>Thanks!

I have visited them both and I would say they are at about the same price level. *VERY* expensive! You will need a lot of money to visit NYC or London. About 50% more expensive than continental European cities such as Paris, Rome and Amsterdam.

London is very walkable, but the distances can be large. Get a tube pass to bridge large distances. Similar to NYC.

London is more expensive than New York, particularly for an American because the pound is so strong. It is walkable, but the distances are long. The tube is great.

I found London to be very walkable. At one point I started walking from Oxford Circus upto Regents Park over to King's oss where I was staying. Quite enjoyable with no real hills until I reached the King's Cross area.

I find NY and London "prices" to be about the same with one slight (albeit important) difference.<BR><BR>I'll use an example. Subway fare in NY is $1.50. Subway fare in London is &pound;1.60. One day pass in NY is $4.00. One day pass in central London is &pound;4.10. As a general rule, the numbers on the prices will be the same but the London prices are in sterling making them 45% more expensive than NY. A meal that costs $20 in NY will cost about &pound;20 in London.....

Both come out to about the same. Transport is less expensive in NYC (But London's is generally better), while Theatre is MUCH less expensive in London.<BR><BR>Hotels are about the same - high end ones a little more in London. But there is a much greater choice of good budget accomodation in good neighborhoods in London. <BR><BR>And with a cheap B&B and all the free and inexpensive cultural options, a thrifty traveler can actually do better in London.

As you might be able to infer from Jeff's excellent post: what costs $1 here will cost roughly &pound;1 there. My folks told me the price board in a London Starbucks is practically the same as the US - they just traded "$" for "&pound;" and left the numbers the same ;)<BR><BR>Of course the rate at the moment is $1.43=&pound;1

I was in NYC in May and London last month and would agree that both cities are very expensive. Also agree about the costs of the subways and walking. Theatre tickets for good seats to Lion King and My Fair Lady were about $60, not sure what they are in NYC. MFL was wonderful but my wife and I were bored with LK although my children liked both.<BR>Food is more expensive in London and not as good in general and I would agree again with the pound cost = dollar cost equation above.(about 40% more expensive) White rice for 4 in London china town was $12! Hotel costs I thought were very similar, ie. very expensive. If you have a family however you may find NYC more affordable as you can find rooms to take a family of four in NYC much more easily than you can do that in London or anywhere else in Europe. I also should note that the costs for some of the sights in London were quite high. Tower of London and Westminister Abbey were about $45 each for the family ticket. Thankfully the British Museum and Natural History museum etc. were free.

According to the "Big Mac index", the purchasing power in the U.K. is about 12% less than in the U.S.<BR><BR>The Big MAC index looks at the price of a Big Mac in various countries to determine a level of purchasing power, adjusted for exchange rates. It is actually a legitmate economic tool.

That big mac thing is about as stupid an idea as I've heard. McDonalds is American. Their prices are obviously much higher in the UK and other countries than they are in the US. They can get away with it there because if people want to seek out a McDonalds, then they will pay more there than the average person in the US would.<BR><BR>Guinness is a great "beer". Guess what. It is a lot cheaper in most bars in the UK and in Ireland than it is in the US. So what are we to infer from that? That actually money goes further in the UK than the US?

The difference between Big Macs and Guiness is that the Big Macs are manufactured locally and thus reflect local prices for ingredients, leases, staff wages, etc. They're a good combination of local economic factors.<BR><BR>Guiness, OTOH, is just another export, so of coures it's cheaper at its source.

With considerable time in both cities, I can agree with most of the above, before we got sidetracked onto the Guinness-Big Mac debate. <BR><BR>A couple of points: Although the prices of the tube and the subway are comparable, New York runs continually while London's shuts down late at night. Not of major consequence for most people, but good to know.<BR><BR>In addition, while there seem to be many more things to do in London that are free - many museums, cathedrals, public buildings, etc. In New York, it seems that money just flies out of your pockets. <BR><BR>

KenCT, I think one of the points about subway fares was that they are NOT comparable, but fall into the one-dollar-one-pound phenomenon -- things that cost one dollar in NY are likely to cost a pound (i.e., 40 percent more) in London. A single ride in NYC costs $1.50 and a ride in London (for zones 1 and 2, I believe) is &pound;1.60, which is about $2.30.<BR><BR>But I agree with you completely about free museums in London -- one could put together a good vacation without paying admission for anything. And I don't recall any of those "voluntary" admissions fees in London, either.

Yes xxxxx, we should inform the Economist, one of the most respected business publications in the world, that their index doesn't make sense. BTW, the Economist is a British publication so the myopic-American arguement doesn't work.<BR><BR>As Mr. Smith and his invisible hand correctly point out, the index makes sense because McDonald's sources locally. It is a measure of the real exchange rate from one country to another, in terms of purchasing power.<BR>