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.
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about, as the claim was that Seattle was building a subway, which is false.
Whether or not you put a trolley line underground, aboveground, on the surface, etc. is irrelevant. If you're really interested in this irrelevant detail, most of the Seattle light rail runs on the surface.
The fact is that there's no heavy rail line planned for Seattle, which is the main point. This thread talks about "rapidly urbanizing", and a previous former claimed that Seattle was "rapidly urbanizing" because of "multiple subway lines" planned, when there is no such plan. Light rail is low capacity transit more analogous to bus service than heavy rail subway service.
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about, as the claim was that Seattle was building a subway, which is false.
Whether or not you put a trolley line underground, aboveground, on the surface, etc. is irrelevant. If you're really interested in this irrelevant detail, most of the Seattle light rail runs on the surface.
The fact is that there's no heavy rail line planned for Seattle, which is the main point. This thread talks about "rapidly urbanizing", and a previous former claimed that Seattle was "rapidly urbanizing" because of "multiple subway lines" planned, when there is no such plan. Light rail is low capacity transit more analogous to bus service than heavy rail subway service.
If it makes you happy the north link light rail line will be all underground not to be confused with a subway because people get angry lol it uses a different kind of train.
No there isn't. That's a light rail line, that goes underground in parts.
If you build a grade-separated light-rail route underground it's technically a subway. A subway doesn't specifically mean heavy-rail, it's just that most major heavy rail systems are often underground subways--as well as the fact that any city building a more extensive underground system is going to use heavy rail for the most part. Just as well though there's plenty of heavy rail lines that go above ground as well(BART is mostly above-ground for example but it's heavy rail rapid transit).
If you build a grade-separated light-rail route underground it's technically a subway. A subway doesn't specifically mean heavy-rail, it's just that most major heavy rail systems are often underground subways--as well as the fact that any city building a more extensive underground system is going to use heavy rail for the most part. Just as well though there's plenty of heavy rail lines that go above ground as well(BART is mostly above-ground for example but it's heavy rail rapid transit).
Yep the Regional Connector in DTLA is LRT and is known as downtown's 2nd subway. The only difference is LRT has lower capacity - it is extremely cost effective for Seattle to build grade separated LRT over HRT as the city doesn't have the widespread density to support a true heavy rail subway.
In Boston I always considered the Green Line to be a subway from Kenmore to Lechmere, it s just as fast as the other lines once underground.
If it makes you happy the north link light rail line will be all underground not to be confused with a subway because people get angry lol it uses a different kind of train.
Not that this is really important, but from a technical standpoint, I believe the confusion has to do with capacity. I know for D.C., the system is in the middle of updating the power supply so all train during rush hour can operate with 8 car's. Currently, D.C. uses a mix of 6-8 car trains during rush hour.
The orange/blue line already has put Rosslyn Station at capacity with trains coming every 2.5 minutes. The station can't sustain anymore trains and the silver line is about to start using the same tunnel. Because of this, some blue line trains have switched to the yellow line tunnel into D.C. to absorb the capacity till a separate blue line tunnel through D.C. is built around 2040. The current power supply won't allow all 8 car trains at rush hour, but the power system is being upgraded right now to allow all 8 car trains at rush hour every 2.5 minutes per station. Some cars in the system have 120-200 people per car right now which is over capacity so the upgrade is needed really bad.
A capacity example for an actual subway train in D.C. would be the following:
Individual Train Car Capacity: 120 people
Maximum Cars Per Train: 8 Car Trains
Total Capacity Per Train: 960 people
The Current Total Metro System can move 120,000 people per hour until the Silver Line open's in a few months when that total will go up.
I think the argument has more to do with the major capacity difference between light rail and heavy rail subway systems. Hope this helps.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 03-12-2014 at 09:26 AM..
Light rail lines basically have bus line capacity, so claiming that a light rail line is "a subway" is basically equivalent to claiming that a bus line is "a subway".
In the context of claiming "rapid urbanization", it's disingenuous to claim that a light rail line will do such a thing. You need heavy rail to really serve high density, transit oriented corridors.
If you build a grade-separated light-rail route underground it's technically a subway.
Technically, yes, but not in practical terms. Technically even a bus tunnel can be a subway.
When people talk about a "subway system", they're typically talking about heavy rail metro (NYC subway, London tube, Moscow Metro, etc.), not a trolley line that happens to run underground at some point (NJ light rail, Cleveland light rail, Portland light rail, Pittsburgh light rail, Buffalo light rail, basically every mid-sized city in Germany's light rail).
There are dramatic differences between heavy rail and light rail systems, especially in regards to capacity.
Boston does with the Silver Line in the Harbor area (though they do not share tunnels with LRT or Rapid Transit).
Not that anyone has said otherwise, but the transit lines in LA being built are mostly grade-separated too. The Regional Connector and Purple Line are 100 percent subway, and LRT lines like the Crenshaw Line, Gold Line Foothill Extension and Expo Phase 2 have substantial grade-separated portion (underground and elevated).
But yeah in a short while we will have 5 lines under construction (Purple, Expo 2, Gold FH, RC and Crenshaw). The Eastside Extension of the Gold Line and Green Line South Bay extension are next on tap.
Another big transit project in LA is the Wilshire Bus-Only Lanes. These will be bus-only (I believe with signal priority) along Wilshire during rush hour, with a portion of Westwood and Beverly Hills opting out.
Who is funding all of this subway development, whether it's LA, Seattle or DC? Subway lines are incredibly expensive nowadays (compared to when most legacy lines were built in this country's cities like NY and Chicago) and I have a hard time believing that the city's residents are willing to swallow ever-increasing tax hikes indefinitely to support these developments. I can see these systems eventually being built, but what I can't understand is how they're being built all at once -- that sounds prohibitively expensive, especially in some of these more difficult mountain terrains!!
There probably isn't a major U.S. city out there that doesn't WANT to build a subway or grade-separated line through town, but most/all cities have this thing called a "budget" and people called "taxpayers" which usually get in the way. I'm surprised and amazed by the success demonstrated by LA and Seattle in particular, and would love to know how this got approved and funded!
*Edit: I'm using the word "subway" here to mean a tunnel bored underground in which passenger vehicles can go from point A to point B in a fairly straight line without stopping for anything but passengers. Call it what you will, but in any city in the world that kind of transit is expensive.
Last edited by Min-Chi-Cbus; 03-12-2014 at 09:40 AM..
Who is funding all of this subway development, whether it's LA, Seattle or DC? Subway lines are incredibly expensive nowadays (compared to when most legacy lines were built in this country's cities like NY and Chicago)
Again, you aren't comparing like things. There is no "subway development" in Seattle, it's light rail.
You can't compare with the Chicago system, and you sure as hell can't compare with the NYC system. Running a trolley through a tunnel is a completely different proposition than running a 10- or 12-car metro line, with 700-foot long platforms, multiple mezzanines, deep cavern construction, multiple elevators/escalators, etc.
DC's Metro expansion is mostly on the surface, in outer suburbs.
LA's rail expansion is mostly surface-running light rail.
Again, you aren't comparing like things. There is no "subway development" in Seattle, it's light rail.
You can't compare with the Chicago system, and you sure as hell can't compare with the NYC system. Running a trolley through a tunnel is a completely different proposition than running a 10- or 12-car metro line, with 700-foot long platforms, multiple mezzanines, deep cavern construction, multiple elevators/escalators, etc.
DC's Metro expansion is mostly on the surface, in outer suburbs.
LA's rail expansion is mostly surface-running light rail.
Who is funding this underground light rail? It's still expensive to bypass the streets above, which is the primary reason for the tunnel, IMO.
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.
