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.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,140 posts, read 7,608,312 times
Reputation: 5796
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
No - like all of the Second Subway Era* systems save LA's, Washington's is a hybrid: it combines city circulator and suburban commuter functions. It was designed from the get-go in the early 1960s to extend far into the city's suburbs and provide "remote vehicle storage" for suburbanites who otherwise would have driven into the city. Washington does better on the city-circulator side of the equation than its sibling systems, though.
^^^ Washington Metro's description of itself is not that of a "hybrid" system. That designation is typically left to subjective posters on either this site or others. Nothing on Metro's direct site, nor it's wikipedia page mentions it being a hybrid. It is considered a "mostly deep level subway".
^^^ Washington Metro's description of itself is not that of a "hybrid" system. That designation is typically left to subjective posters on either this site or others. Nothing on Metro's direct site, nor it's wikipedia page mentions it being a hybrid. It is considered a "mostly deep level subway".
Also DC has an above ground bus "circulator" in a addition to the regular bus system, as well as commuter rail of it's own.
The full sentence containing the phrase you quoted is:
Quote:
It operates mostly as a deep-level subway in more densely populated parts of the D.C. metropolitan area (including most of the District itself), while most of the suburban tracks are at surface level or elevated.
(emphasis added)
Of the 113 route-miles now in service, less than half (47 miles) are in subway (including one of the "suburban" legs, the Red Line beyond Silver Spring to Glenmont, which includes the deepest subway station in the US and the longest escalator in the country). And the outer ends of the lines, including the lines that extend beyond the Capital Beltway, have the longer distance between stations more characteristic of commuter/regional rail.
Hence my characterization of the system as a "hybrid." Compare it to all four of the legacy systems: even the ones that have stations outside the core city (all of them save NYC) lack route segments with long spacing between stations, with the lone exception of Chicago's Yellow Line (nee Skokie Swift). Or lacked until Boston added extensions with more "suburban" character to three of its four lines between 1957 and 1980, plus a more urban extension of one line that opened in 1984.
Last edited by MarketStEl; 10-29-2019 at 07:47 AM..
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,140 posts, read 7,608,312 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
The full sentence containing the phrase you quoted is:
(emphasis added)
Of the 113 route-miles now in service, less than half (47 miles) are in subway (including one of the "suburban" legs, the Red Line beyond Silver Spring to Glenmont, which includes the deepest subway station in the US and the longest escalator in the country). And the outer ends of the lines, including the lines that extend beyond the Capital Beltway, have the longer distance between stations more characteristic of commuter/regional rail.
Hence my characterization of the system as a "hybrid." Compare it to all four of the legacy systems: even the ones that have stations outside the core city (all of them save NYC) lack route segments with long spacing between stations, with the lone exception of Chicago's Yellow Line (nee Skokie Swift). Or lacked until Boston added extensions with more "suburban" character to three of its four lines between 1957 and 1980, plus a more urban extension of one line that opened in 1984.
It's mostly semantics regarding that term, but point being that DC's Metro covers the suburbs (Outside of the core) with headway frequencies of a full blown rapid transit system, not commuter rail. Now if you are specifically talking about the rail track coverage rather than just the service, then call it how you see it. The rail coverage is a bit different from Chicago, NYC, Philly, Boston as an individual system, but it is still considered to be the most urban subway rail South of the Mason-Dixon, and IMO provides the most comprehensive coverage suburbs or city, as an individual system after NYC and maybe tied with Chicago.
It's mostly semantics regarding that term, but point being that DC's Metro covers the suburbs (Outside of the core) with headway frequencies of a full blown rapid transit system, not commuter rail. Now if you are specifically talking about the rail track coverage rather than just the service, then call it how you see it. The rail coverage is a bit different from Chicago, NYC, Philly, Boston as an individual system, but it is still considered to be the most urban subway rail South of the Mason-Dixon, and IMO provides the most comprehensive coverage suburbs or city, as an individual system after NYC and maybe tied with Chicago.
What else does the word "hybrid" mean?
It means a cross-pollination of different strains of a plant. That sense is extended to cars, trucks and buses that run on two different sources of motive power, blending them as conditions permit...
...or, as I use it here, to rail transit systems that have characteristics of two usually distinct modes.
Granted, in all aspects save suburban station spacing, the Metro is rapid transit. It offers frequent service in both directions on all lines throughout the day, it has level boarding from high platforms, no fares are collected on board the vehicles, and the entire system is powered by electricity (a characteristic of only one US suburban rail network; I'll have more to say on this in a minute).
But those lines that travel far into the suburbs and have widely spaced stations out that way set it apart from all the legacy systems in the US, and even some of those in Europe (e.g., Paris). That's also something WMATA Metrorail has in common with every system opened in the period I referred to as the "Second Subway Era" save the one in LA, and to a lesser extent Atlanta.
The newer systems were designed with the aim of serving suburbanites as well as (or in many cases, ahead of) urban dwellers. Granted, when the legacy systems were being built, some of the urban territory they served had yet to be developed, and the rail lines developed them. But the lines did not have any characteristic that could be said to match the commuter systems, nor were they envisioned as ways for the suburbanites (and all four cities had suburbs by the times their systems were built) to get to the city center except to the extent that suburban bus or trolley routes fed some of their termini (again, every legacy city but New York).
Now for the other "hybrid": SEPTA Regional Rail. It's the main reason I use "regional rail" (or the term often used in Europe, "suburban rail") rather than "commuter rail" to describe these systems. It operates service at regular intervals in both directions throughout the service day, it's totally electrified and its stations are more closely spaced than are those on most commuter systems - in several cases, as close as outer stations on some rapid transit systems. With the advent of the SEPTA Key system, fares will be collected off-vehicle too. What it lacks is uniform level high-platform boarding and service at frequent intervals (most lines operate hourly off-peak). But many in this region, including me, have argued that we could reap real benefits by operating Regional Rail more like rapid transit - and the infrastructure could support it.
DC Metro is hands down the second best urban rail system in the country. Excellent coverage in-city and good connections to inner- and mid-suburbs with good TOD.
BART works decently in terms of connecting the urban centers of the East Bay and SF, but overall it just doesn't have enough urban stations and the coverage in SF especially is not good enough.
BART has a total of ~20 urban stations, if you include SF, Oakland, Berkeley, and Daly City. Rides between these stations account for the vast majority of the 430K daily ridership. But there are major gaps in San Francisco proper. Even if you include the underground portions of Muni Metro (which doesn't really work because those are connected to slow streetcar-style segments) there are still major gaps - a lot of dense neighborhoods are not served and the distance between the stops is too great.
Then you have the rest of the BART system - just under 30 suburban stations that go out way too far into the boonies. (Seriously - places like Antioch and Pleasanton should have classic CalTrain-style commuter rail, not rapid transit.) The costs just don't pan out and it's very inefficient. I guess when Downtown San Jose gets covered that will add 2-3 more potentially urban stations to BART, but they will be surrounded by suburbia.
Now both systems get marked down for doing a poor job of maintaining their systems. DC is even worse than SF in this regard. Investing in maintenance and preservation is critical and that somehow seems to have been forgotten.
Anyway - in summation, DC Metro wins this in a landslide. It's one of the few US cities (basically just NYC and DC) that can reasonably compare to European and Asian counterpart cities in terms of rail transit.
DC Metro is hands down the second best urban rail system in the country. Excellent coverage in-city and good connections to inner- and mid-suburbs with good TOD.
BART works decently in terms of connecting the urban centers of the East Bay and SF, but overall it just doesn't have enough urban stations and the coverage in SF especially is not good enough.
BART has a total of ~20 urban stations, if you include SF, Oakland, Berkeley, and Daly City. Rides between these stations account for the vast majority of the 430K daily ridership. But there are major gaps in San Francisco proper. Even if you include the underground portions of Muni Metro (which doesn't really work because those are connected to slow streetcar-style segments) there are still major gaps - a lot of dense neighborhoods are not served and the distance between the stops is too great.
Then you have the rest of the BART system - just under 30 suburban stations that go out way too far into the boonies. (Seriously - places like Antioch and Pleasanton should have classic CalTrain-style commuter rail, not rapid transit.) The costs just don't pan out and it's very inefficient. I guess when Downtown San Jose gets covered that will add 2-3 more potentially urban stations to BART, but they will be surrounded by suburbia.
Now both systems get marked down for doing a poor job of maintaining their systems. DC is even worse than SF in this regard. Investing in maintenance and preservation is critical and that somehow seems to have been forgotten.
Anyway - in summation, DC Metro wins this in a landslide. It's one of the few US cities (basically just NYC and DC) that can reasonably compare to European and Asian counterpart cities in terms of rail transit.
I don't think that is true, the average trip length on BART is almost 15 miles. The trains are usually standing room only by the time they get to the urban core of the Bay Area (SF-Oak-Berkeley).
Definitely DC Metro. WMATA runs arguably the third best transit system in the country behind NYC and Chicago. My experiences with BART haven't been too recent, but I wasn't impressed by the system the last time I was in the Bay Area a few years ago.
It means a cross-pollination of different strains of a plant. That sense is extended to cars, trucks and buses that run on two different sources of motive power, blending them as conditions permit...
...or, as I use it here, to rail transit systems that have characteristics of two usually distinct modes.
Granted, in all aspects save suburban station spacing, the Metro is rapid transit. It offers frequent service in both directions on all lines throughout the day, it has level boarding from high platforms, no fares are collected on board the vehicles, and the entire system is powered by electricity (a characteristic of only one US suburban rail network; I'll have more to say on this in a minute).
But those lines that travel far into the suburbs and have widely spaced stations out that way set it apart from all the legacy systems in the US, and even some of those in Europe (e.g., Paris). That's also something WMATA Metrorail has in common with every system opened in the period I referred to as the "Second Subway Era" save the one in LA, and to a lesser extent Atlanta.
The newer systems were designed with the aim of serving suburbanites as well as (or in many cases, ahead of) urban dwellers. Granted, when the legacy systems were being built, some of the urban territory they served had yet to be developed, and the rail lines developed them. But the lines did not have any characteristic that could be said to match the commuter systems, nor were they envisioned as ways for the suburbanites (and all four cities had suburbs by the times their systems were built) to get to the city center except to the extent that suburban bus or trolley routes fed some of their termini (again, every legacy city but New York).
Now for the other "hybrid": SEPTA Regional Rail. It's the main reason I use "regional rail" (or the term often used in Europe, "suburban rail") rather than "commuter rail" to describe these systems. It operates service at regular intervals in both directions throughout the service day, it's totally electrified and its stations are more closely spaced than are those on most commuter systems - in several cases, as close as outer stations on some rapid transit systems. With the advent of the SEPTA Key system, fares will be collected off-vehicle too. What it lacks is uniform level high-platform boarding and service at frequent intervals (most lines operate hourly off-peak). But many in this region, including me, have argued that we could reap real benefits by operating Regional Rail more like rapid transit - and the infrastructure could support it.
No one considers DC Metro a hybrid system. In fact, the El has a street grade crossing, runs for miles upon miles in the median of the highway and the Blue line in Boston has overhead wires away from the city core. DC has more subway miles than Chicago and Boston.
No one considers DC Metro a hybrid system. In fact, the El has a street grade crossing, runs for miles upon miles in the median of the highway and the Blue line in Boston has overhead wires away from the city core. DC has more subway miles than Chicago and Boston.
With one exception, none of those things were what I was trying to emphasize.
Actually, I wish more US cities had built rapid transit lines in freeway medians the way Chicago did. (Robert Moses actively worked against this happening in New York. A short segment of one of Philly's lines did get moved into a freeway median when the freeway was built across its path.)
In fact, I was focusing on one thing, and it's the one thing that I think distinguishes the newer ("Second Subway Era") systems from the legacy ("First Subway Era") ones:
The extent of their coverage.
The newer systems have lines that extend into suburban territory that in the legacy cities was the province of the commuter rail network. And where they run through that territory, their station spacing conforms more to that of a commuter rail line than that of urban rapid transit.
The newer systems were designed to carry those long-distance commuters to the city core along with the local riders and shorter-distance commuters from outlying neighborhoods the legacy systems carry.
Again, look at a map of the systems in Chicago, Philadelphia and New York. Note how little of their suburbs (if any) the rapid transit lines serve. Then consider how many of Washington's suburbs the Metro serves.
That's a functional difference, not an operational or physical one (save for the station spacing), but by the 1960s, that functional difference mattered.
I could say the same thing for what's technically the very first of the "newer" lines, the PATCO Lindenwold High-Speed Line here. That was a totally elevated (on embankment or viaduct, save for one station in a suburb whose residents paid to have it put in a trench), high speed (70 mph between stations) rapid transit line with wide station spacing that got grafted onto a city subway line in Camden built in 1936. And every one of its stations has a park-and-ride lot, which also indicates the kind of traffic its planners sought. You'll also find those at just about every WMATA station beyond the ten-mile square of the original District of Columbia (which includes Arlington County and part of the city of Alexandria in Virginia).
In the legacy cities, you won't find them on the rapid transit system except where the "suburban commuter" function was grafted onto it (Boston) or a terminal was retrofitted to accommodate it (Philadelphia).
I already said the Metro is rapid transit, operationally. But there was a change in thinking about what sort of rider the rapid transit line would carry. Since said riders use commuter rail in the legacy cities (and even in the newer ones where it's been added to the mix, as in DC, which got its commuter rail services around the same time WMATA Metrorail opened or later, I use the term "hybrid" to refer to the function, not the operation, of the system. Because WMATA Metrorail also performs the urban-circulator function the legacy systems carry, its ridership is more balanced between the two functions than BART's ridership is, or probably even the Baltimore Metro's. In fact, I suspect that urban riders make up a majority of WMATA users, also in contrast to BART. But the suburban commuters are still there in a way they aren't on the legacy systems (save Philadelphia, where there are three suburban LRT and light metro lines and about a dozen suburban bus lines that feed the busiest rapid-transit line at its western terminus, and Boston, which got a suburban rapid-transit system grafted onto the existing one).
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.
