This is a huge expansion. Being brave enough to build rings is great: most capital cities obsess with spokes to existing hubs, or like the Elizabeth line do a single slash across.
New York should read and weep.
This is a huge expansion. Being brave enough to build rings is great: most capital cities obsess with spokes to existing hubs, or like the Elizabeth line do a single slash across.
New York should read and weep.
Speaking about rings, Moscow metro now has three of these.
The other new ring is a fairly old preexisting train line that used to be cargo-only; it had the potential to be great, but unfortunately the ridiculously long connection times have made the real thing somewhat niche—if both your origin and your destination aren’t on it, the ten to fifteen minutes’ walk will likely make the result worse than just going through the center. And two connections are just never worth it.
(There’s a whole story behind how building stupid useless connections came to be viewed as a virtue in Moscow transport planning—look up “Vykhino effect”. Doesn’t make the result any less shit, though.)
I, too, dislike the new connections, and the lack thereof, but the speed with which the new lines sprung up is a marvel.
I don't think it is possible to be physically unable to enter the train in 2023 (unless football fans return from thei match). In 2003 it was expected.
That these are being “built” is once again a bit too strong a statement—the rail lines were already there and in use for cargo and the occasional suburban train. (The veeery slooow speeds at which the latter went between the big stations had relegated them to the sole use of urban arcanists and the occasional exhausted hiker disembarking from his long-distance train.) There’s some renewal of the aging rails, to be fair, and the stations are new.
Two problems with these:
First, the stations are too few and once again too far away from anything else. (Nobody’s fault—the rails are sometimes a century older than the metro and the outward creep of the city limits.)
Second, unlike on the ring, the trains on the chordal lines (I refuse to call them “diameters”) are operated according to the railway rules, meaning there are too few of them to be able to disregard the schedule, the schedule itself is at best a suggestion (and woe is you if you don’t keep track of train cancellations), and the stupid multi-hour midday “maintenance breaks” are still in place.
I’ve used these lines for weekly commutes, and if they fit your problem well, they can be very useful. But overall I’d say they are even more situational than the ring, and it’s frustrating compared to my utopian headcanon of how well they could work. Or hell, to the RER lines in Paris, even if those connections are no joke either—nevermind the Barcelona Rodalies, which are (or were, two decades ago) the platonic ideal of suburban/urban rail transport interconnection.
And Michelin must have a phenomenal lobbying team if they managed this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-tyred_metro#List_of_sys... (In particular, "didn't catch on outside France" is, well, just plain wrong.)
The list once you exclude that basically consists of
* France, which wanted a niche technology to export and maintain supply domination over
* China, Japan, and Korea, trying to replicate it
* Quebec, which often looks to France for planning inspiration
* Mexico and Chile, which were recipients of French development assistance that included using French suppliers
What a silly assumption. They are not.
Replicate the industrial strategy, not the technology.
I still don't understand what this sentence means. Can you provide an example?Railways are also part of this strategy. China, Japan and Korea all export railway products from high speed rail to subways to monorails, and so in this context rubber tired metros are another niche technology to get an edge in. Note that this strategy doesn't always work; no one outside of these countries is very interested in maglev trains, for example.
---
The other part of this is development finance. Countries that do not have know-how with big infrastructure projects often look to international institutions to build projects and secure financing. And part of the deal is that if you take French money you must spend it on French suppliers, and this is true for basically any country doing this kind of lending, so basically the lender is getting both interest payments and spending towards its economy. The Chinese and Japanese compete a lot for railway projects in particular; Japan built the Taiwanese HSR and the Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City metros, China is currently building high speed rail in Thailand and Laos, etc.
Even in the countries where they exist, rubber tired metros are niche.
You can't retrofit rubber wheels easily so of course compared to all metros as a new technology it will be rare
Rubber tired metros are also a niche in new metros.
Retrofitting actually has some advantages for old lines with short station distances, tight curves and steep gradients, whereas new lines can be planned with the limitations of rail technology in mind.
And generally speaking 5 % wouldn't be considered very steep at all by modern standards. Gradients up to 4 or even 5 % weren't uncommon even on older rapid transit systems dating from a century ago, and for modern multiple units I'd regard 4 to 6 % as about par for the course.
And in hilly terrain, a number of systems definitively go beyond that into the 8 – 10 % range, including some new built systems (e.g. the light rail systems in Stuttgart, Tenerife and Jerusalem).
Unless you go with a rack railroad, or maybe a cable way, you are only climbing hills with rubber.
BART is standard steel track and steel wheel, just different wheel and rail profiles - plenty of resources if you wanna read about it
https://www.railwayage.com/news/bart-revised-wheel-profile-q...
The article you linked to talks about all the money that BART's thrown at the noise problem without addressing the elephant(s) in the room: BART cars are aluminum tubes that are inherently noisy and BART wears its tracks aggressively. The first iterations had carpeted floors which absorbed some of the noise, but those got predictably gross.
Much of the track noise comes from corrugation because the wheels are dragged over the track. Other systems might grease their wheels so that there's more slip in turns, BART can't. Other systems sand the tracks in wet weather so you don't skid, BART can't. Modern systems have anti-skid systems so that you don't wear the wheels. Bombardier's anti-skid system is awful. So the new cars flat spot the wheels at a much higher rate than the old and you get noisy track (and noisy trains as they thump thump thump down the track). BART grind the rails and the noise goes away for a bit, but it eventually comes back with a vengeance because they're doing everything they can to avoid addressing the underlying problems.
They are useful if stations are very near each other because of greater braking power, so you can stay decently fast in-between stations.
Lines 1, 4 and 14 have rubber tyres and platform doors because they are fully automated (or in the case of line 4 in the process of being fully automated). So far Paris only fully automates rubber tyres lines.
Line 13 has classic metal tyres and is only semi-automated, but it has platform doors because it is very high traffic. Most Parisians avoid line 13 at rush hours because it is probably the most packed line in the city.
The equivalent in London would be the Overground which while largely cobbled together from existing tracks was a huge improvement. If you change you can even go in a ring. The projected ridership for these new lines in Paris looks to be about triple that of the Overground.
The Elizabeth line (along with Thameslink) is more like Paris' RER.
However if it is too close to the center the cost of extra transfer is likely too high.
Moscow inner ring has around the same number of stations than all the ones inside it (counting connections as one each)
By contrast look at the Yamanote line in Tokyo for a great ring that provides tons of connections and gets tons of ridership.
It really does suck. I lived between 3rd and 4th ring road in the eastern mid section (around san yuan qiao), and my work was on 4th ring in the northwest section in zhongguancun. So...around the loop I went, it makes the trip 20-30% longer. Line 10 (a loop line between 3rd and 4th ring, line 2 would be the inner loop around 2nd ring) theoretically takes me straight to work from near my house, but I almost never took it because it was just too long (and it was just easier to sit in a taxi on 4th ring if I timed my to work and from work time right).
I used to stay near Lincuiqiao (?) so line 8 down to 10/2 worked well for me.
Back in 2002...I had to bus it to xizhimen a lot to grab a subway to sanlitun (forget the name of the station) on line 2! That sucked, but line 2 is a pretty small loop (so lots of time on bus). In 1999, my first trip there, it was only line 1 and 2, and line 1 was broken at Xidan (4th ring was also still a ditch they were building out). Fun times!
Willing to give up art and deco for keeping the fares where they are - agree modern tech upgrades is necessary and is being made now with Biden's admin help. I hope they keep the low fares
an understatement
My point is the distances regularly covered in LA would be absolutely unthinkable in Manhattan and the more urban parts of the outer boroughs, let alone Paris which is a smaller city than San Francisco. So on the one hand we need better land use to reduce distance traveled and on the other improvements to overall speed.
By contrast New York has a built environment that is absolutely fantastic for transit but cannot build enough to fully capitalize on it. Their costs are astronomical and going up.
unless they have absolutely no better option
Traffic reached a tipping point where rail was a viable if not better option. The pandemic changed the calculus a bit but in general never underestimate LA traffic.One thing people don’t realize is that the LA Metro area actually has a greater population density than the New York Metro area. Yes, Manhattan and some of the boroughs have higher density than you’ll see anywhere in Los Angeles, but the low-density areas in L.A. are higher density than the low density areas in NY.
Small nitpick but it was Exposition Line. Also “Expo” line. LA Metro did a big system rename though, so now it’s just the E Line.