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.
Not true about London. They call both the underground and above ground sections of the “Underground” either the tube or the underground. The “Overground” is a separate system. The only completely underground line is the Jubilee line. The rest of the underground lines are both above and below and they’re always the underground regardless. Same for NYC and “subway” as you correctly pointed out.
In the US because of the way that NYC uses “subway”, the word subway is used interchangeably with what much of the world calls “Metro” and that means rapid transit regardless of whether it’s above or below ground. And that’s what I’ve always known it to mean.
Some have suggested that new light rail lines like what’s planned in Seattle may be blurring that definition. Maybe, maybe not. If light rail starts behaving like a subway then I would call it that.
Seems you were not to Chicago? No one says subway there. The couple lines with subway parts are still the ( L. ) not el ..... whether expressway median, elevated or underground.....
NYC still uses the term ( el ) for its elevated lines. Only which a small elevated section remains in Manhattan. Plenty in the boroughs. You will not find it all called "subway" in Philly in parts that are other forms of rail. Even as it has trolley systems that act like part subway.
Miami's monorail never will be called the subway. NYC you like to point out ..... is in its own class in everything. Subways are no different and that is basically fully Manhattan's rail most visitors see. But plenty of el lines in the Boroughs.
Seems you were not to Chicago? No one says subway there. The couple lines with subway parts are still the ( L. ) not el ..... whether expressway median, elevated or underground.....
NYC still uses the term ( el ) for its elevated lines. Only which a small elevated section remains in Manhattan. Plenty in the boroughs. You will not find it all called "subway" in Philly in parts that are other forms of rail. Even as it has trolley systems that act like part subway.
Miami's monorail never will be called the subway. NYC you like to point out ..... is in its own class in everything. Subways are no different and that is basically fully Manhattan's rail most visitors see. But plenty of el lines in the Boroughs.
The topic we’re responding to is regarding what Americans consider to be a “subway”. So we know that not everyone calls their local train a “subway” (even in NYC the PATH train is called “the Path”) but when Americans are using the word “subway” for mass transit, what do they mean?
You will not find it all called "subway" in Philly. Even as it has trolley systems that act like part subway.
Miami's monorail never will be called the subway.
Unless it's changed since when I lived there in the 1980s and the 1990s, the Broad Street Line is typically called the subway (which makes sense, since all but the northernmost station are underground) and the Market-Frankford Line is called the El. (This one is a bit more "off" since all of the stations between 2nd Street and 40th Street, 9 in all, are underground.) The 5 streetcar lines that converge from West Philly into a tunnel heading into Center City are collectively known as the Subway-Surface Lines, which is about as accurate a description of any mixed-grade system I've ever known.
Miami does not have a monorail. It has an elevated heavy-rail line (called Metrorail) and an elevated automated-guideway line (called Metromover). There are no underground stations, and you're right, to my knowledge no one ever calls it the "subway."
The topic we’re responding to is regarding what Americans consider to be a “subway”. So we know that not everyone calls their local train a “subway” (even in NYC the PATH train is called “the Path”) but when Americans are using the word “subway” for mass transit, what do they mean?
They mean a rail line that is running underground. But if much or most are trolley, elevated or expressway median .... they won't be calling it the subway. That basically was my point. They might use just metro for it all in some cites or the CTA and L in Chicago for it all. NYC is the US city that has the most subway lines and it defines Manhattan .... even in song back in a day by Frank Sanitary in reference to riding underground.
I just thought I'd note other cities have mostly hybrid lines that their underground parts do not define it enough to be called the subway.
Which subways/metros have at least a few underground stops and routes that are not near the downtown of the major city?
The DC metro has underground stops such as Glenmont, Wheaton and Forest Glen. The Wheaton stop is actually 115 feet underground. These are in suburban Maryland.
They mean a rail line that is running underground. But if much or most are trolley, elevated or expressway median .... they won't be calling it the subway. That basically was my point. They might use just metro for it all in some cites or the CTA and L in Chicago for it all. NYC is the US city that has the most subway lines and it defines Manhattan .... even in song back in a day by Frank Sanitary in reference to riding underground.
I just thought I'd note other cities have mostly hybrid lines that ther underground parts do not define it enough to be called the subway.
Technically true, but I still say that most people in the US use subway/metro/rapid transit interchangeably in addition to local terminology. Chicago calls it the “L” but to me it qualifies as an example of a subway system even though it’s not called that and it’s mostly above ground.
Which subways/metros have at least a few underground stops and routes that are not near the downtown of the major city?
The DC metro has underground stops such as Glenmont, Wheaton and Forest Glen. The Wheaton stop is actually 115 feet underground. These are in suburban Maryland.
how far is not near?
DC has some crazy deep stops; long escalators I would guess some people get a little vertigo...
Which subways/metros have at least a few underground stops and routes that are not near the downtown of the major city?
The DC metro has underground stops such as Glenmont, Wheaton and Forest Glen. The Wheaton stop is actually 115 feet underground. These are in suburban Maryland.
Obviously NYC. Chicago? Is the O’Hare station underground? All of the LA red/purple lines are underground. North Hollywood would be the farthest and most suburban.
Obviously NYC. Chicago? Is the O’Hare station underground? All of the LA red/purple lines are underground. North Hollywood would be the farthest and most suburban.
The blue line has some underground stops out away from the city along the highway; not sure if ORD is technically underground but it sure feels like it
Other examples would be PATH (NYC in NJ), PATCO (Philly in NJ) and I guess you could say the Broad street line in Philly which is almost totally underground
DC def has many; it seems MARTA comes above ground mostly outside the DT, as does a lot of Boston subways
Not sure on BART in the east Bay but some of the stations heading toward SFO seem to be underground and not all that close to DT
Which subways/metros have at least a few underground stops and routes that are not near the downtown of the major city?
The single light-rail line in Buffalo operates on the surface in downtown but underground in the outer areas. Seems kind of backward to me, seeing as how the whole point of putting a rail line underground is to separate it from surface traffic.
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.