Will Portland every build a subway system? (Eugene, Medford: home, earthquake)

[Nell Plotts]

I wouldn't call Seattle's tunnel a subway.

[sorupaa]

its pretty nice though

I've seen it in you tube videos

[EnricoV]

Seattle doesn't have a subway. It has a tunnel that their light rail, and some busses, runs through. Kind of like the one in Portland.

[wanderbygrace]

Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly

We have already been through this. Even "Minervah" brought in a Cleveland expert from another forum for extra clarification on the issue. All three of those cities do indeed have a subway system.

Cleveland Subway
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9RpkGDaJKY

Atlanta Subway
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBaerkmXjPM

Miami Subway
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l3A...=results_video

Okay, I haven't read most of this conversation, but I do need to clear up some confusion. I was born/raised not far from Cleveland, and now live in metro Portland. Therefore, I'm fairly familiar with both metro areas, including their rail systems.

I don't know what Minervah's expert said, but I will say this - Cleveland's system is hardly a subway. Between the three lines in Cleveland, the only places I remember it being truly subway are the short trip under Tower City (immediately under downtown) and a very short stretch at Hopkins (the video in your link is the Hopkins station). Otherwise, the rest of the system is pretty much at ground level (perhaps sunken at some points, but otherwise open to the sky). I do believe a few sections of the newer waterfront line (by the Browns Stadium) are considered a bit below ground grade, but I'm pretty certain they aren't anywhere near fully enclosed (e.g. subway) - don't know, haven't personally ridden that section. Regardless, those few tunnel stretches don't make Cleveland's Rapid Transit anything approaching a subway, and I'd be shocked to hear anyone in Cleveland call it that (I sure never heard it called that).

Heck, the three mile stretch of the MAX under the Western Hills in Portland is most likely longer than the entire underground section of the Cleveland Rapid. Or at least darned near close to it.

For the record, the longest line on the MAX (Blue) is slightly longer than the longest line on the Rapid Transit (Red), although as the crow flies, they are probably quite similar, considering all the twists/turns through downtown that the Blue Line makes in Portland, whereas the Red Line in Cleveland is fairly straight.

I can't comment on the populations or geographic land sizes of either city or metro area, because I'm not sure of them at this time, but it always seemed like metro Cleveland sprawled on for endless miles to both the east and west. Portland metro seems rather long, east to west, but it has never seemed as bad to me, although maybe that's because I'm still reasonably new here. I would be curious to know exactly how many towns/cities were in the Cleveland metro area compared to the number in the Portland metro area. I know that it took me decades to pin down exactly where every town was in the Cleveland metro area, but it only took me a year to figure out where every town was here in the Portland Metro area.

PS: I'm not terribly familiar with Miami, but I've been there probably 7-8 times in my life (mostly in the last 20 years). I wasn't aware that Miami's system was a subway (aka "underground") system. I don't think I've ever actually ridden it, but I do remember seeing it above ground in quite a few locations in the metro Miami area, including a number of elevated sections. Are you sure a good enough deal of it is underground to consider it a real subway? In Atlanta's case, I have no idea about that one - have only been through downtown Atlanta once or twice in my life and don't remember a rail line system at all.

[Minervah]

And as someone in the Cleveland forum pointed out, comparing the three cities is silly because Cleveland is Cleveland to which I might add Miami is Miami and Atlanta is Atlanta. So what if they do or do not have subways? That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Portland should have one.

I think the comparisons of these cities made by the OP was by population but there are many factors besides population that determine the need or desire for a subway system. IMHO, necessity is the primary factor and I just don't see the need for one here especially considering all the problems that would arise in regard to building and operating it.

[Deezus]

Originally Posted by wanderbygrace

PS: I'm not terribly familiar with Miami, but I've been there probably 7-8 times in my life (mostly in the last 20 years). I wasn't aware that Miami's system was a subway (aka "underground") system. I don't think I've ever actually ridden it, but I do remember seeing it above ground in quite a few locations in the metro Miami area, including a number of elevated sections. Are you sure a good enough deal of it is underground to consider it a real subway? In Atlanta's case, I have no idea about that one - have only been through downtown Atlanta once or twice in my life and don't remember a rail line system at all.

Miami actually has an elevated heavy-rail system not a subway. There's a few places it goes under the highway, but pretty much all of it runs along elevated tracks--but it's a heavy rail and not light rail so I suppose that where the poster was comparing it with a subway--but it's not actually a subway.

Just as much of BART is actually above ground and LA basically has two smaller subway lines underground and then a lot of light-rail or Boston which has sort of a combination of both--and even a lot of the New York or Chicago systems which run above ground.

As I said earlier, the only place that would really make sense to have any sort of underground transit in Portland would be downtown--but even then you'd imagine it'd be similar to the underground transit tunnel in Seattle and not a true subway system. Places like Tokyo or Mexico City or London or Paris or New York--basically need a subway system. Medium-sized cities with mostly low density development outside of the central core--don't really need one on the other hand... Portland would be better off just considering better bus systems or rapid bus transit down some of the priincipal arteries--basically Powell, MLK, Barbur, and 82nd could all be good candidates.

[Minervah]

Chicago has an El system on the north side of town that runs to downtown, loops around it and returns to East Rogers Park where it began. It never goes underground. At one point it shares the same tracks as the norh/south subway which goes above and below ground. They meet up there and then the two routes diverge and go their separate ways.

It also has a west side subway system that goes above and below ground. That's what I think of when I think of a subway or Elevated system. BART, New York subways and the London Underground all I think at some point also go above and below ground.

I have ridden SFO cable cars, BART, New York subways and the London Underground. All pretty great means of transportaion and they work well in their respective cities. I took the CTA in Chicago for many years. Each city should have that which suits it best.

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by Minervah

I have ridden SFO cable cars, BART, New York subways and the London Underground. All pretty great means of transportaion and they work well in their respective cities.

For instance The Duquesne Incline in Pittsburg is a prime example of being purpose built for it's City.

[EnricoV]

Funiculars are fun!

But yeah, they require a very specific situation, geographically.

[wanderbygrace]

Originally Posted by Deezus

Miami actually has an elevated heavy-rail system not a subway. There's a few places it goes under the highway, but pretty much all of it runs along elevated tracks--but it's a heavy rail and not light rail so I suppose that where the poster was comparing it with a subway--but it's not actually a subway.

Just as much of BART is actually above ground and LA basically has two smaller subway lines underground and then a lot of light-rail or Boston which has sort of a combination of both--and even a lot of the New York or Chicago systems which run above ground.

As I said earlier, the only place that would really make sense to have any sort of underground transit in Portland would be downtown--but even then you'd imagine it'd be similar to the underground transit tunnel in Seattle and not a true subway system. Places like Tokyo or Mexico City or London or Paris or New York--basically need a subway system. Medium-sized cities with mostly low density development outside of the central core--don't really need one on the other hand... Portland would be better off just considering better bus systems or rapid bus transit down some of the priincipal arteries--basically Powell, MLK, Barbur, and 82nd could all be good candidates.

Good info on the first paragraph and excellent point on the last one. We simply don't have a big enough size to warrant a substantial portion of a rail system being pushed underground. Yes, the rail service through downtown PDX truly sucks to ride on, time-wise when compared to distance, but burying it would seem an astronomical sum of money for not much of a return. And burying any other portion (other than the obvious West Hills section) would just seem a waste.