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.
But considering it "part of the system" is a bit different from referring to the Green Line specifically as an actual subway line. I've always called it a trolley. It runs straight down the middle of Commonwealth Avenue. How could it possibly be a subway?
As I mentioned earlier I was strictly talking about the portion from Kenmore to Lechmere.
The Green Line is very amorphous depending on what branch you are talking about. B Line - at-grade LRT line / trolly, C Line - at-grade LRT line, D-Line - grade separated LRT, E-line - trolly. However, once you get to Kenmore on the B, C and D lines and Prudential on the E line, it is 100 percent grade separated underground rail and is just as fast as the Red, Orange and Blue lines though with much more limited capacity (which is a tough pill to swallow trying to get back to Allston on a 90 degree June Friday afternoon which the Sawx are playing).
This is similar to how the LRT system in LA will be. The North/South Line and East/West Line will be a subway on shared tracks through the Financial District, Bunker Hill, Civic Center and Little Tokyo - for that portion I would consider those lines to be subways. However on the East-West Line once you get to South Park and Boyle Heights on either end, it ceases being a subway (similar to reaching Kenmore Square in Boston), and on the North-South Line once you leave Union Station and get to South Park the lines are no longer subways and just mixed-grade LRT.
I think the bigger question is "how are we defining what a subway line is"? Does a subway line have to be "heavy rail" in order to be considered a "real subway" line? I would say no because light rail should count as well. Those links I posted are legit subway lines.
I'm saying that most people don't think of any system that runs underground to be a subway. The fact that many transit sites draw distinctions among streetcar, LRT and subways shows this to be the case. I think most people have heavy rail in mind when they think of a "subway," not DART running through a series of underground tunnels.
This is all semantics anyway. If the federal government offered to build a city either LRT or HRT free of charge (and offered to subsidize O&M costs), it would likely choose HRT no matter what you referred to it as.
I went to LA for February and just came back from a week in DC.
Both cities seem to have a lot of ongoing construction going on. I might side with LA because it's change from fairly recent history seems to be more dramatic than that of DC where a lot of already urban parts were gentrified rather than urbanized--but then there are a lot of areas right outside of DC's borders doing transit-oriented development.
As I mentioned earlier I was strictly talking about the portion from Kenmore to Lechmere.
The Green Line is very amorphous depending on what branch you are talking about. B Line - at-grade LRT line / trolly, C Line - at-grade LRT line, D-Line - grade separated LRT, E-line - trolly. However, once you get to Kenmore on the B, C and D lines and Prudential on the E line, it is 100 percent grade separated underground rail and is just as fast as the Red, Orange and Blue lines though with much more limited capacity (which is a tough pill to swallow trying to get back to Allston on a 90 degree June Friday afternoon which the Sawx are playing).
This is similar to how the LRT system in LA will be. The North/South Line and East/West Line will be a subway on shared tracks through the Financial District, Bunker Hill, Civic Center and Little Tokyo - for that portion I would consider those lines to be subways. However on the East-West Line once you get to South Park and Boyle Heights on either end, it ceases being a subway (similar to reaching Kenmore Square in Boston), and on the North-South Line once you leave Union Station and get to South Park the lines are no longer subways and just mixed-grade LRT.
Additionally, HRT lines are often not subways - such as the El in Chicago and the elevated lines in NYC's outer boroughs.
I know all of this. Even when I used to take the Green Line to connect to the Blue Line to get to Logan (this was before the days of the Silver Line), I never thought of it as a "subway." Other people may think differently. But as I stated above, this is just a matter of semantics. It's the performance difference that people generally associate with "subways" that matters.
Would the Silver Line count as a "subway," btw? Or does it have to be on rails?
This is all semantics anyway. If the federal government offered to build a city either LRT or HRT free of charge (and offered to subsidize O&M costs), it would likely choose HRT no matter what you referred to it as.
Well of course - but I think a place like Atlanta or Miami probably would have been better suited to save some $$ and built underground / elevated LRT instead of HRT which get very poor ridership-per-mile numbers for heavy rail, but would be respectable for LRT.
However there are certain areas which LRT just won't get the job done - the Purple Line through LA's Westside is one example. I think the Sepulveda Pass line needs to be heavy rail (but I am not confident it will), as it will probably get 100k daily riders with no problem. I think the Expo Line will quickly be overcrowded as well, I can see it getting Blue Line-level ridership as it connects two job centers (Santa Monica and DTLA) to get the high-end riders, plus it goes through transit-dependent South LA to get the captive riders.
Oh one thing about building subways in mountainous terrain - I believe it is actually easier to build through LA's passes as they do not have tons of utilities that need to be relocated and less of the other issues that go with tunneling under dense urban areas. The Cahuenga Pass has a subway line and I don't think it was all that cost-prohibitive or difficult - the real issues with the Red Line construction where along Hollywood Blvd.
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.
I think most transit projects today are funded more locally than Federal if they receive any Federal money to begin with. Taxes and public/private partnerships are pretty much building everything right now. I know for D.C., the 8 lines for the 37 mile streetcar network is being funded 100% by local tax dollars through a city public/private partnership.
The silver line is received some Federal money, however, almost all of it is being funded by state/county contribution's and toll road revenue over the next 30 years. The purple line is received some Federal money and the rest is being funded by state/county contribution's and the largest public/private partnership for a transit line in U.S. history. I think this is the way all cities are going now.
I know all of this. Even when I used to take the Green Line to connect to the Blue Line to get to Logan (this was before the days of the Silver Line), I never thought of it as a "subway." Other people may think differently. But as I stated above, this is just a matter of semantics. It's the performance difference that people generally associate with "subways" that matters.
Would the Silver Line count as a "subway," btw? Or does it have to be on rails?
That is a tough one - I guess I would say yes but it is certainly debatable (but I guess if I am saying underground = subway then I have to say yes). But the capacity on those buses was terrible, I used to take the Silver Line from South Station across the Fort Point Channel to work when I was feeling lazy / it was too humid and sometimes in the afternoon I would wait for 3-4 buses to go by before I could even squeeze into one (I was the 2nd to last stop on the line).
That does not come close to the LRT capacity in LA - our lines run 3 car trains during rush hour. It's also certainly not HRT but I don't understand the LRT = bus argument. See my comments on the Orange Line in LA and Silver Line in Boston. Orange Line BRT with 30k riders is standing room only while Gold Line LRT with 35k riders feels spacious.
Man those 3 car buses are insane. Do they run on a private lane? I just couldn't imagine that thing going through LA traffic (or London traffic for that matter). The double articulated buses are bad enough!
lightrails are meant to supplement subways or serve as a beginning route of an area that doesn't have capacity for a heavy rail subway line.
Subway cars in NY are 600 feet long.
This reminds me of that old computer commercial except with transit lines... you could be getting a Mac Pro or custom built overclocked Gaming Rig.
Seattle: Dude, you're getting a Dell!
Well, it's sort of poor man's HRT. LRT is a compromise; you couldn't afford HRT or didn't have the density, so you went with LRT. It's the same way all-season tires are a compromise. They're the best bargain without a doubt, but no matter the season, you're always rolling on second best.
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.
