Subways -- underground or above-ground

[DanS]

The reports of Dulles Rail's death were greatly exaggerated, it seems. In fine Washington power play form, the FTA has been overruled...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/29/AR2008042902814.html?hpid=topnews

Dulles Rail Set to Get Federal Approval
In Letter Expected Today, FTA Makes Stark Reversal

By Amy Gardner and Lena H. Sun
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 30, 2008; Page A01

Federal transportation officials are planning to approve the proposed 23-mile extension of Metrorail to Dulles International Airport in a letter to Congress today, the officials told local and state authorities yesterday.

Several officials with knowledge of the decision said the $5 billion project had finally met the Federal Transit Administration's standards for cost efficiency, construction and expected ridership. The approval would reverse an opinion from the FTA issued in January that said rail to Dulles did not meet the criteria.

[Spiffor]

Re: Subways -- underground or above-ground

Originally posted by DanS
How do these things work in your neighborhood and who makes the decisions?

As most big projects in France, it's a multi-layered project with the influence of city-councils, districts, regions, and the state.
There is usually an attempt to have a consensus between these four layers, as they all contribute to the funding. If there is no consensus, then there's a political struggle.
For example, it is now obvious there will be a mass transit line circling Paris, in the close suburbs. However, there is a struggle on the details: the south-east suburbian district where I live, will be the first one to benefit. The district's council supports a project called Orbival, which differs slightly from the project backed by the region, called Metropherique.
As a result, on the brochures intended for the general audience, the line is drawn with a very broad pencil

http://psarcueil.net/dotclear2/images/orbival.jpg

The district's council is having people sign petitions to support its project, so that this one ends up being done. The two projects are too similar and costly for them both to be done.

Do you think underground is worth the extra construction costs?

Depends on the density. In Paris, our century-old metro both has underground and above ground lines. While the above ground lines allow to see a few sights, they really don't make sense anymore, and are overall much less convenient when you change lines.
OTOH, In a lower density area, subterranean lines are the ones that make no sense, unless the area is expected to densify significantly in the future.

[DanS]

That is definitely an issue in the Washington area. Basically, we could be as dense as we imagine -- the growth would support it. So you end up with competing visions more than anything.

The area along the new line, discussed above, could be a major city center -- complete with skyscrapers and everything.

[Spiffor]

Then above-ground rail is a complete aberration.

Unless you want the rail company to make a huge profit once they sell off their land, in a few decades, after finally having built underground.

[DanS]

Once it goes in above-ground, it's never going to be below-ground.

Or, put another way, I can't imagine the political compromise that would allow for reconstructing the line below ground.

[asleepathewheel]

Houston has a small above ground light rail now. Its barely used <50k/day. and it has frequent runins with cars. and it doesn't connect much.

Expansion has been pretty heated, but I believe they are on track to add more tracks. One will drop a station within walking distance of my apt, and would actually be useful to my wife and I, but I doubt we'll live here in 2012 by the time its finished.


via videosift.com

[Az]

this

Once it goes in above-ground, it's never going to be below-ground.

AND

this

The area along the new line, discussed above, could be a major city center -- complete with skyscrapers and everything.

make for an obvious answer: underground only.



I am so envious. In our parts, the cards on mass transit are with the guys in the dear old Ministry of Finance - they are specifically approving every infrastractural project of meaning, micromanaging the **** out of everything. They have no knowledge in transport economics, or urban planning, they are just looking for ways to cut costs. The city council and the mayor of Tel Aviv, for example, are the only ones who have some power to oppose them, because the city coffers are bursting with cash. Still, not enough to pay for a series of projects that would cover tens of municipalities and the biggest, most important metropolitan area in Israel.

So these brilliant men of honour and dignity in the MoF, are these great fans of at-grade, middle of the street, light rail, in a dense area that is similar to the center of Paris or London.

*Sigh*

[Asher]

Damn, Houston drivers are dumb.

[Verto]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Intercity rail makes sense all over the God blessed USA, if you omit the word "passenger" Anyway the good people of Texas are gonna build em a highspeed network for passengers AND intermodal freight, IIUC, and its gonna connect Dallas, Houston and Saint Antoine, which in a few years time are gonna positively DWARF the damned Yankee hellholes, and theyre gonna buy like HUGE amounts of right of way alongside these rail-highway corridors for all the new development which is inevitably coming down Texas way.

Yah gotta think big, and down in Texas, they DO.

to that ridiculous project.


My experience with mass transit (besides buses going into campus) is limited to a week in D.C. and a month in Germany. However, I've always favored underground. I think that we (Americans in general) always try to 'cut corners' when it comes to mass transit, thereby dooming it to a perpetual red-headed stepchild status. Of course, we've lately adopted this same attitude when it comes to most infrastructure, so..

The U-bahn stations/lines that I used had suffered from vandalism, but were overall clean and enjoyable. D.C's underground was a little too dark for me, but that's something easily fixed.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Underground

I don't think that cell/mobile phone reception should be a priority on a short ride. Can't people live without these bloody things for a few minutes?

No, we can't. But in defense of your actual point, one of the very, very few noteworthy accomplishments of the dudes working out Copenhagen public transport was making its customers able to use their phones below ground. So it's possible, even if it's presumably more complicated to do in cities with a larger and/or older metro system.

[Spiffor]

I can use my phone in the Paris subway without problem (well, I have trouble hearing what the other says, because of the train's noise).

Cell phone cannot be used as a real reason for going above-ground. Cost and safety are the only real reasons, and they're serious enough already.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher
Damn, Houston drivers are dumb.

[threadjack]

There is case law of a car driver running into the side of a train and being found not guilty of Careless Driving. Oh, and he was Canadian...

[/threadjack]