Subways -- underground or above-ground

[Patroklos]

This is good news

As for underground/aboveground, I prefer above ground in less dense areas because 1.) It is cheaper and 2.) it is much easier to replace repair when that decade old line becomes an eyesore.

[DanS]

In Silver Spring, it was about 500 feet. On balance, I considered above-ground metrorail to be a nice amenity.

[Wezil]

Pat - That would be nice if the repairs would actually get done. Instead they just end up looking like other examples of urban neglect.

Asher mentioned weather which is also a factor here. Snow and ice play havoc with schedules.

DanS - That's close enough to see it. This doesn't cause you concerns?

[GePap]

The NYC Subway system has significant sections in all boroughs that are above ground, for example most of the lines that serve the borough of Queens (largest in terms of area and second in population) are above ground, as are large sections of service in Brooklyn and the Bronx.

Tunnels are more expensive, though locals would most likely complain more about the aesthetics of elevated tracks.

[Jon Miller]

the DC metro is great!

JM

[MRT144]

Originally posted by GePap
The NYC Subway system has significant sections in all boroughs that are above ground, for example most of the lines that serve the borough of Queens (largest in terms of area and second in population) are above ground, as are large sections of service in Brooklyn and the Bronx.

Tunnels are more expensive, though locals would most likely complain more about the aesthetics of elevated tracks.

or embrace them like chicago

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil
Pat - That would be nice if the repairs would actually get done. Instead they just end up looking like other examples of urban neglect.

Asher mentioned weather which is also a factor here. Snow and ice play havoc with schedules.

DanS - That's close enough to see it. This doesn't cause you concerns?

There's some study that shows the skytrain in Vancouver drives crimerates up in neighboring communities.

[snoopy369]

In chicago, the above ground rail is generally much cleaner than the below ground rail, for whatever reason. I think it's because the homeless end up below ground in the warmth (in the winter) or out of the heat (in the summer)... and people don't notice dirtiness in the darkness quite so much. For whatever reason, the Red Line which is primarily underground (well, 50% or so, in the downtown area primarily) is considered the least safe and least clean line, whereas the above ground lines are more safe/clean in theory. It's also possible that it's the neighborhoods served that affects this, although the green line for example goes to much more questionable neighborhoods...

I'd personally far prefer below ground, in downtown areas. In suburbs i'd prefer above ground (cleaner, nicer looking stations, etc.)

[Patroklos]

I'd imagine the noise and crowds around stations can drive down property values. OTOH, in DC and its suburbs property values in areas with easy access to a metro station are ridiculous because of those stations.

Personally, as long as its not too loud, I like trains and would love to be able to watch them from my window. Freight lines are a little different, because while being interesting they are ugly, most NEW urban above ground lines are usually designed to be modern and interesting.

[GePap]

The Red line is the main conduit from the poor southside north. It certainly is an issue of the surrounding neighborhoods in that case. It also runs all day, unlike most of the EL system.

As for the green line, there has been some serious renovation of the stations further south, but the green line does not run as far south as the red.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I'd imagine the noise and crowds around stations can drive down property values. OTOH, in DC and its suburbs property values in areas with easy access to a metro station are ridiculous because of those stations.

Noise on streets right next to elevated tracks does affect the value of those properties, though closeness to mass transit is usually a big selling point, so the buildings right behind benefit in value.

[germanos]

In Rotterdam large portions are above ground. Only in the city centre and in some suburbs with historic centres portions are below. (Well, and the stretches under the Meuse).

Above ground stuff is ugly and noisy. Better keep it down. Combined with the ever increasing urban sprawl, construction on top or over the tube might well be worth it's money in the long run. Above ground lines waste a lot of good construction sites. Especially since the noise will leave a much larger space unoccupied then the actual track itself.

[lord of the mark]

Dan,

I live in the area, however for professional reasons I cant comment on the specifics in too much detail. I do think you are oversimplifying FTA's position, which addressed issues of cost, timing, and etc.

As for the substance - I would point to Chicago, where AFAIK the presence of the loop el, has not prevented hi rise development adjacent. I doubt its even substantially lowered property values more than a half block away (though thats admittedly hard to measure, vs the alternative of a belowground system) And thats a very old el, we should be able to build some more elegant, and quiet, today. And the roads in question (Rt 7, notably) are fairly wide, so even the property lines of adjacent properties wont be as close to the track as in Chicago.

One of the more interesting objections, is that an el would prevent the reconstruction of the Tysons street network into a more urban configuration, since it would lock in the routs of the streets the el would be above. Thats an interesting one, but Im not sure I see the likelihood of that kind of reconstruction of Tysons as all that great.


OTOH, another possibility would be to simply put the whole project on the back burner for another 5 to 10 years, by which point densities and traffic will have increased to where the cost effectiveness looks stronger. I dont think that would be too popular locally, though.

[DanS]

Washington's system hasn't really had any problems with homeless people, crime, and dirt -- neither aboveground nor belowground. Part of the reason is that the stations were designed to minimize that sort of stuff. DC's system has the fortune of being designed recently.

Partly because of this, people from all walks of life tend to ride the subway.

[GePap]

That is true of many systems. Both in Chicago and NYC you get janitors and financial analysts riding the trains. in fact I can't think of a major subway system I have ridden in which you could say that only the poor or the rich ride it. Maybe in LA, but not in densely packed cities.