Subways -- underground or above-ground

[Kontiki]

Las Vegas doesn't have anywhere near the density needed to support a subway system, and the people that come to visit the casinos aren't likely to use public transit unless it's some sort of novelty item like a monorail.

[Dis]

our population density is up there with Chicago from something I read one time.

The problem is the BLM only release small parcels of land to developers at a time, driving land prices up and forcing developers to cram as many houses into an acre as possible. We have no yards on most homes in my city. The rooftops are only like 4 feet apart on new homes. And our city is in a valley, and we are running out of space. Eventually the city will go over the hills into adjoining valley's, however. But those will essentually be separate towns.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Dis
our population density is up there with Chicago from something I read one time.

I don't know where you would have read that. According to wiki, Chicago has about three times the density of Las Vegas, 12,470/sq mile vs. 4,154/sq mile.

[Jonny]

It'd be better if the rails were underground, though, IMO, even at-grade or elevated rail is better than no rail. A rail link between Dulles and the city is definitely needed.

[Timexwatch]

One issue that hasn't been brought up is that. as far as I know, there will be just two tracks. If the new line is going to make it out to Dulles, they really, really need a third track to do an occasional express train to Falls Church. Stopping at every stop on the way would probably tack on an extra 10 to 15 minutes to the trip. I think that not adding a third bypass track was one of the major mistakes that WMATA made when they first built the system. Imagine how much better the system would function if there were rush hour direct trains skipping straight into the city from the outer burbs

[Patroklos]

A quick search shows Montreal and Glasgow as two cities with entirely underground subways.

Glasgow has plenty of above ground commuter rail in its suburbs. At least they did two years ago when I was there last.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Timexwatch
One issue that hasn't been brought up is that. as far as I know, there will be just two tracks. If the new line is going to make it out to Dulles, they really, really need a third track to do an occasional express train to Falls Church. Stopping at every stop on the way would probably tack on an extra 10 to 15 minutes to the trip. I think that not adding a third bypass track was one of the major mistakes that WMATA made when they first built the system. Imagine how much better the system would function if there were rush hour direct trains skipping straight into the city from the outer burbs

Like it isnt enough of an express system already? Compare this with DanS's belief that there should be subway stations EVERYWHERE, so that folks dont have to ride yucky buses. Theyve already had to build one back fill station (New York Avenue) where the existing stations were too far apart for urban development.

I realize a 3rd track wouldnt mean fewer stations, but it would be a lot of money to make an express system even more express. Its not like there are going to be THAT many stations between Dulles and EFC anyway (none at all between Reston and Tysons West, IIUC)

Also, I think there are space constraints on the highway median.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Timexwatch
One issue that hasn't been brought up is that. as far as I know, there will be just two tracks. If the new line is going to make it out to Dulles, they really, really need a third track to do an occasional express train to Falls Church. Stopping at every stop on the way would probably tack on an extra 10 to 15 minutes to the trip. I think that not adding a third bypass track was one of the major mistakes that WMATA made when they first built the system. Imagine how much better the system would function if there were rush hour direct trains skipping straight into the city from the outer burbs

How much better do you think it would be?

Remember that Washington is a less centered place than NYC, f.e. Tysons/Reston is now the engine of job growth, not downtown DC. Furthermore, downtown DC is almost entirely built-out as a job destination. Express trains would require a lot of train hopping.

By the way, this is also why Metrorail desperately needs a ring line. This is something that is in the suburbs' interest. Additional stations at the periphery are in the suburbs' interest. Additional lines in and into the city are in the city's interest. We've got to have enough backs being scratched to get anything done.

[DanS]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Compare this with DanS's belief that there should be subway stations EVERYWHERE, so that folks dont have to ride yucky buses. Theyve already had to build one back fill station (New York Avenue) where the existing stations were too far apart for urban development.

Yes, buses are yucky. Metrorail is style. I've ridden both enough to recognize this as irrefutabale fact. Why do you think Metrorail has so much public support?

Try to tell me that 16th Street and Georgia Avenue are not dense enough or have the potential to be dense enough to support Metrorail. I'm not asking for a bridge to nowhere. Nor am I inflexible on where and how many new lines to create. Note that I'm fairly happy with the station spacing already in place.

The feds may be well intentioned, but I see them as having bus-filled visions in their heads -- i.e., they are supporting a yucky vision.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by DanS
By the way, this is also why Metrorail desperately needs a ring line. This is something that is in the suburbs' interest. Additional stations at the periphery are in the suburbs' interest. Additional lines in and into the city are in the city's interest. We've got to have enough backs being scratched to get anything done.

This is actually the problem with most metrorail systems. They were built in an era when everyone worked downtown. DC, along with most other cities, needs to re-envision public transportation as a network system, and not a hub system.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DanS


Yes, buses are yucky. Metrorail is style.

One morning, come ride the Orange line at rush hour from Vienna, standing, packed in.

Next day take an express bus, from Annandale or Burke, with comfy seats (always available), cruising on the 395 HOV3 lane.

Comeback and tell us whats yucky then.

Its even worth the hassle of the Pentagon transfer.

Now if only we had HOV access ramps at more exits, so you didnt have to sit in traffic from Little River Turnpike to Seminary Road.

You cant compare that to local buses district. Youre going to need those anyway, for local movement, for folks who arent walking distance of a metro line, etc. Plenty of folks ride the bus up Conn Avenue, despite a parallel metro.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


? NY built a competing system underground beginning in 1904 - at the very same time the built new aboveground lines in the outer boroughs. They took the old lines down, cause of the street life impact (the 3rd avenue el marked the division beteen good manhattan and slum) and cause being VERY old, they couldnt accommodate the latest subway cars, and they couldnt reach high speeds.

I think Z is talking about the experience4s of the Great Blizzard of 1888, by which time New York already had a very extensive set of elevated traions which the Blizzard shut down, which would have spurred underground construction, which given how dense NY already was, made it an expensive change.

Anyways, here is a very nice site about the NYC system:

http://www.nycsubway.org/

Also, just in Buenos Aires, and their system is rather small, but appeared to be underground for the majority of it. I did not see any signs of any above ground lines.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I think Z is talking about the experience4s of the Great Blizzard of 1888, by which time New York already had a very extensive set of elevated traions which the Blizzard shut down, which would have spurred underground construction, which given how dense NY already was, made it an expensive change.

My understanding is that they built the IRT, cause the els werent fast enough to enable large scale commuting to the northern end of Manhattan and the Bronx, (and Brooklyn beyond the northern half of the not-yet borough, thought that was a lower priority) and it was considered urgent to develop those areas to reduce horrendous population densities in lower Manhattan. (I have a book that cites those discussions, but not handy, and I forget the name)

[DanS]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
One morning, come ride the Orange line at rush hour from Vienna, standing, packed in.

Are all of those 8 car trains? How many minutes are the trains apart?

I'm not convinced that management has managed the full capacity situation well. To be fair to them, I think they were surprised at how fast ridership has grown to warrant full capacity operations.

[Jon Miller]

I liked metro way better than bus. But than, maybe the buses in LOTM's part of town are nicer and closer to on time. Although I generally spent longer waiting for the bus than I did riding the bus, and if I had had a bike would have went the same distance in the same amount of time.

JM