Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about here. First of all, the multiple new underground and elevated stations being built and designed have nothing to do with the bus tunnel, as do the existing underground and elevated stations that are not downtown. Not to mention, when the buses vacate the downtown tunnel in 4-5 years that tunnel will be exclusively rail as well.
In terms of the big picture, the majority of Seattle's light rail line is grade-separated or underground, just like a heavy rail system. The currently open Central Link has a portion that is at grade, but it receives total signal priority so there are no stops. The other multiple lines either under construction or in design are entirely underground or grade-separated.
And, yes, there is no reason not to call University Link and North Link a subway line (as well as the Ballard line currently being studied). In the end, they will connect nearly a dozen busy nodes in Seattle via underground stations with trains riding through them. Trains will come every 7 minutes during peak and it will function almost entirely like a heavy rail system, albeit with less capacity.
I've ridden many heavy rail subway systems and traditional light rail systems (Portland and SLC) - Seattle system very much feels like a heavy rail subway system. It doesn't ever get caught in mixed traffic and is usually underground or elevated. The buses will be removed from the Downtown tunnel in 4-5 years, but the other underground tunnels are/will be exclusively rail from the beginning.
Here is the currently open Beacon Hill subway station - how exactly is this not a subway?
And here is the Mt. Baker Elevated station:
Also, check out the design for the new underground and elevated stations opening in 2016 and 2021 - hard to argue they are any different in design and function than a heavy rail system aside from capacity. Most light rail system are less reliable and ride on shared roads. That is absolutely not the case with Seattle's system.
Rail lines are deemed "heavy rail" not just based on whether they go underground or not and whether they are grade seperated...although these things are part of it. The piece you didn't mention is the capacity of the rail cars. Heavy rail vehicles are longer, wider, and can fit far more people per car than light rail vehicles.
Here's LA's Gold Line and Expo Line- both light rail lines despite having several underground stations and despite being grade seperated for much of their lengths.
In fact, now that I think about it- isn't there also a difference in the standard distance between the rails for heavy rail vs light rail? Can any train geeks confirm?
Rail lines are deemed "heavy rail" not just based on whether they go underground or not and whether they are grade seperated...although these things are part of it. The piece you didn't mention is the capacity of the rail cars. Heavy rail vehicles are longer, wider, and can fit far more people per car than light rail vehicles.
He's not saying that LRT that runs underground should be called heavy rail. He's saying that LRT that runs underground should be called a "subway."
He's not saying that LRT that runs underground should be called heavy rail. He's saying that LRT that runs underground should be called a "subway."
Oh whoops, missed that. Well in that case, I don't think there is an official standard so to each their own. Hell- in London (and I'm assuming the whole UK) the term "subway" refers to the pedestrian linkages that run underneath streets and roundabouts and has nothing to do with trains.
Oh whoops, missed that. Well in that case, I don't think there is an official standard so to each their own. Hell- in London the term "subway" refers to the pedestrian linkages that run underneath streets and roundabouts and has nothing to do with trains.
This is from APTA's site.
Quote:
Heavy Rail is a mode of transit service (also called metro, subway, rapid transit, or rapid rail) operating on an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic. It is characterized by high speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multi-car trains on fixed rails; separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded; sophisticated signaling, and high platform loading.
Quote:
Light Rail is a mode of transit service (also called streetcar, tramway, or trolley) operating passenger rail cars singly (or in short, usually two-car or three-car, trains) on fixed rails in right-of-way that is often separated from other traffic for part or much of the way. Light rail vehicles are typically driven electrically with power being drawn from an overhead electric line via a trolley or a pantograph; driven by an operator on board the vehicle; and may have either high platform loading or low level boarding using steps.
I understand these are official terms but I really don't think of LA's LRT system to be a tramway, streetcar or trolley - really in any way other than in an few short sections. One thing that separates our LRT trains is that we have high platform loading on all lines, as opposed to other cities in which the trains are low level boarding with steps up to the train.
I understand these are official terms but I really don't think of LA's LRT system to be a tramway, streetcar or trolley - really in any way other than in an few short sections. One thing that separates our LRT trains is that we have high platform loading on all lines, as opposed to other cities in which the trains are low level boarding with steps up to the train.
Oh whoops, missed that. Well in that case, I don't think there is an official standard so to each their own. Hell- in London (and I'm assuming the whole UK) the term "subway" refers to the pedestrian linkages that run underneath streets and roundabouts and has nothing to do with trains.
I think most people can agree that a subway system requires rail transportation. Buses and other "non-rail" transit would be excluded from being called a subway. If that wasn't the case than someone could hypothetically ride their car or automobile through an underground tunnel and call it a subway.
I can't tell the difference from two short videos of systems I have never been on, they probably aren't huge. The real difference is how much grade-separation the lines have, that is really what differentiates what is a tram/streetcar and what is LRT to me.
It looks like they use different vehicles though, that is for sure. Looks like with the LYNX car you need to walk up stairs after boarding (similar to how it was on the Green Line in Boston, if recall correctly). The Paris cars look different with lower boarding but it looks like the floor of the cars is very low too, so you don't need to step up into the car.
I think most people can agree that a subway system requires rail transportation. Buses and other "non-rail" transit would be excluded from being called a subway. If that wasn't the case than someone could hypothetically ride their car or automobile through an underground tunnel and call it a subway.
Why is that? MBTA designates the Silver Line a "subway" as Deezus pointed out. A car obviously would not qualify because it's not mass transit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
