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.
There aren't too many other modes of public transportation to open it up to. If it runs underground, then why not call it a subway? You can't say that capacity now matters all of a sudden.
Capacity is a factor but it's not the end all of everything when deciding whether or not if something is a subway system. Having rail tracks would be a great starting point when determining if a city has a legit subway system. It would be a great indicator for separating actual subway transit from other modes of transit that happen to go underground. Mass transit that runs on wheels should be excluded from being called a subway system. To me they are just buses that happen to run underground. However, I don't believe that a subway system has to be heavy rail in order to be a "true subway" system. A city can have a light rail subway system, even though some people refuse to acknowledge that they actually do exist. Most light rail subway lines operate just the same as heavy rail subway except for capacity levels and heavy rail built.
Well, I can't wait for the unmitigated disaster that's going to turn out to be. I'll be right here waiting to say "I told you so."
Just like you did with McMillan.......
I'm no expert on any other cities, however, I know all the behind the scenes things happening in DC. I told you about McMillan and I'll tell you about streetcar lanes and signal priority, community meetings are just for show. The city really doesn't care if people don't like it.
Capacity is a factor but it's not the end all of everything when deciding whether or not if something is a subway system. Having rail tracks would be a great starting point when determining if a city has a legit subway system. It would be a great indicator for separating actual subway transit from other modes of transit that happen to go underground. Mass transit that runs on wheels should be excluded from being called a subway system. To me they are just buses that happen to run underground. However, I don't believe that a subway system has to be heavy rail in order to be a "true subway" system. A city can have a light rail subway system, even though some people refuse to acknowledge that they actually do exist. Most light rail subway lines operate just the same as heavy rail subway except for capacity levels and heavy rail built.
Call it what you want. As Deezus says, it's just a name. At the end of the day, though, a heavy rail "subway" system moves way more people than a light rail "subway" system, and that's all that matters.
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.
Its not like you or I have any control over the usage of the phrase. In London, they call the underground pedestrian passageways "subways". That's all I'm saying.
Probably DC, suburbs/exurbs are spreading very quickly into once rural areas (Loudoun Co. VA, Frederick Co. MD, Charles Co. MD, etc.).
Second would have to be LA, though I have a feeling the topography of the area will eventually put an end to the expansion.
Third is Seattle, but I can see it becoming #2.
Probably DC, suburbs/exurbs are spreading very quickly into once rural areas (Loudoun Co. VA, Frederick Co. MD, Charles Co. MD, etc.). Second would have to be LA, though I have a feeling the topography of the area will eventually put an end to the expansion.
Third is Seattle, but I can see it becoming #2.
Well that would be a reason for it to urbanize even more, there is nowhere left to build except infill in the existing urban area.
I call it both. I use "subway" no matter what city I'm in. In Boston, I called it the "T," the train and the subway. In DC, I called it "Metro," the train or the subway. I've never lived in Chicago, but if I moved there, I'd still call it the subway.
I also call it the subway wherever I'm at. That way there is no confusion.
also I'm ont a fan of the newer sterile systems in general that happen to be light rail in many cases. I prefer commuting in an area that looks kind of like a sewer.
I also call it the subway wherever I'm at. That way there is no confusion.
also I'm ont a fan of the newer sterile systems in general that happen to be light rail in many cases. I prefer commuting in an area that looks kind of like a sewer.
LA's transit system and stations are just nice IMO, not sterile. It feels well-used and can be gritty on some of the South LA lines, but it won't fulfill your need to commute in a sewer... The Gold Line through Pasadena is pretty clean cut and I suppose borders on sterile, but those stations in the middle of the 210 are pretty nasty (and have a surprising number of homeless and panhandlers).
LA's transit system may not be super-expansive but it definitely feels like a big city transit system - (un-permitted) performers in the stations, solicitors on the train cars selling candy bars and gum, that kind of stuff.
LA's transit system and stations are just nice IMO, not sterile. It feels well-used and can be gritty on some of the South LA lines, but it won't fulfill your need to commute in a sewer... The Gold Line through Pasadena is pretty clean cut and I suppose borders on sterile, but those stations in the middle of the 210 are pretty nasty (and have a surprising number of homeless and panhandlers).
LA's transit system may not be super-expansive but it definitely feels like a big city transit system - (un-permitted) performers in the stations, solicitors on the train cars selling candy bars and gum, that kind of stuff.
Yeah, overall LA's transit system is far more impressive than people give it credit for. The Westside Subway along Wilshire will definitlely be a complete gamechanger once it's built.
I will say, though, that the first leg of the Expo Line definitely has some streetcar elements to it, waiting at lights downtown and through other parts of the route. It does not feel like a premier rail route by any stretch of the imagination. Obviously, demand is there as ridership is very high, but I feel like they should have done a better job making more of the route grade-separated, or at the very least giving it ROW when it's at grade. It's a shame because it's the first rail to go into the Westside - I just wish it was a little more quality.
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.
