Advantages of Underground Rail

Well, if I'm going to talk about the advantages of elevated rail, it feels only fair to discuss some other advantages: like the advantages of the other main grade-separation option, underground rail.

Because if there weren't any, well, we'd all build the cheaper, elevated option, wouldn't we?

Note that when I say "we," of course, I don't mean the Quad Cities. Lord no! It would be nice, but let's get some basic bus frequency and maybe a rail link to Chicago first.

But "we" in the larger sense do keep building tunneled, or cut-and-cover, rail: so why? What is it bringing to (or rather, under) the table?

1. Land Use

Probably the most obvious advantage of underground rail, besides grade separation itself, is that it has limited demands on the surface: while it requires just as much space as anything else when you consider the space underground, we as a society tend to value the surface much more than the depths: we live there, after all.

That means that a form of transportation whose visible surface-level footprint is minimal has big advantages.

This space doesn't count: the platform, the tracks, the rest of it is all under the everyday life of the city.

Even a big suburban station like this one on the Toronto-York border is still just a single building at the street level.

When your footprint is small enough you need an actual sign for anyone to know it's there, that's small.

2. Unexpected Connections and Paths

The knock-on effect of putting all the actual train stuff down underneath everything is that you're not as constrained by the surface-level patterns in terms of where you put the tracks or stations. True, it's very expensive to tunnel under a river or through a mountain, and going through dense areas has its own problems (good luck avoiding all the other hidden underground systems on which modern cities depend, like sewers, electrical, etc.) but whereas elevated rail tends to mirror or mimic street grid patterns because otherwise you have to knock down the buildings in the way, underground rail...doesn't have to do that.

This could go anywhere! It's like a portal to Narnia, if Narnia had a metro sign instead of a lamppost.

That's how you can build something like Crossrail (now the Elizabeth Line) and connect a bunch of destinations that weren't previously connected: you have (assuming political will and budget) substantial freedom in how you zigzag beneath everything else.

3. Whether the Weather...

And of course, underground rail is out of the way of the biggest objection to elevated rail: the weather. Now, the London Underground may be constantly overheating itself, but by and large you have more control over the temperature and the (hopefully non-existent) precipitation underground than above.

Platform screen doors make this even more pronounced, as you can do more to the platforms as well as the actual cars themselves.

Pictured: a space that will only be rained on in an absolute disaster. 

Now, do these advantages counteract the advantages of elevated rail we looked at before? Of course not. Otherwise we'd build only one kind of rail. But they are significant, and they offset the generally greater cost of underground rail substantially. That's why both are viable options--and why, if we can afford it, a lot of cities opt for going underground.

Some Thoughts on the Montréal Metro

 In addition to the REM, of course, Montréal has an older mass transit system, the Metro. 

I love the logo (that down-pointing arrow is very clear that we're talking about an underground system, but also visually distinct and identifiable). But I have other thoughts, and they aren't necessarily quite as complimentary.

1. Needs Updating

Montréal is spending a massive amount to expand the Metro right now, and while I think the costs are way too high the need for the system to expand and develop is certainly there.

But before spending billions on expansion (or while doing so) there are some more basic updates that would help a lot.

As I recently mentioned, there are details in these Metro system maps that I love. But one glaring absence is the entire existence of the REM. 

I know they're different systems built by different companies, but they share fares (thank God for that) and more broadly they're both crucial parts of the overall transit and urbanist experience in Montréal. They should both be on the maps. I realize these maps are older than the REM, but that's just a sign that the stations really haven't been updated in too long.

These maps, while again helpful in some ways, are also just as or even more out of date.

And that's before I get to the Blue Line, which is running rolling stock that the other lines would be embarrassed to see on their tracks.

Boxy, old, and while I love the retro aesthetic the contrast is really harsh with even the other Metro lines, let alone the REM.

It's not like the Metro doesn't have nice trains! They just are highly segregated by line, and that makes parts of the system feel laggard. Now, the extension is coming on the Blue Line and I believe that will bring new rolling stock too, but for now it's pretty stark.

Updating the station displays and the Blue Line rolling stock would make the system feel a lot more modern.

2. Lovely Stations, If Kept Up

That said, I really like the incorporation of public art into the stations on the Metro, and I think that with touch ups and updates (see above) they could really still feel pretty darn nice.

Little things like this concrete inset take the stations from "just Brutalist" to "cool Brutalist" in my opinion.

And this, at Jean-Talon station, is again retro but cool instead of just retro-and-old like the trains themselves.

And I have always loved the giant cubes at Namur.

3. Suffering by Contrast

The real thought I have on the Montréal Metro is that it's an OK system, even good, that suffers mightily by contrast with its new partner, the REM.

The newer rolling stock has nice interiors, clear gangways, and good lighting. Perhaps it speaks to the low standards for urban transit in North America generally that I think the Metro would actually rank quite highly in my personal system ranking for the continent (or rather Canada-US, excluding México; I should really visit there so I can talk more coherently about that) if I ever got around to doing them. But REM's existence casts its difficulties and weaknesses into starker relief, since they serve the same city. No platform screen doors (unlike REM); more expensive to build and (obviously) less extensive recent expansion; the older rolling stock and station signage; no airport link (which REM is eventually supposed to deliver).

It has weird and distinctive bits (like the above doors, which half-pivot rather than either being rotating or simply opening). These can be cool and distinct, or they can feel dated and annoying. Metro would, I think, fall more on the former if they didn't have the REM as a contrast.

And I think that should be more of a call to action than a condemnation. REM was just built in Montréal. There's no reason Metro can't build in Montréal, or update its current status in Montréal. 

And if it can, Montréal could really elevate itself over Toronto, Vancouver, and the various US cities with metros--because it has great scaffolding for that with these two systems.

Comfort Underground

Sometimes on this blog I will treat metros as one thing: the existence or absence of one standing in for a certain kind of urban infrastructure and planning.

But of course we know that's not true. And while there are myriad distinctions, small and large, between the physical systems as a transit design, I want today to talk about a slightly different feature: the comfort for the riders on a system, both aesthetic and physical.

1. Platforms

A platform is a necessary function even for the most frequent subway system, since people need somewhere to walk in and out of the train and to wait for the train before it comes.

But these can vary widely in how pleasant they are to be on.

I love the NYC system, but the platforms are usually pretty unpleasant, for instance. I actually like an island platform, so that's not an issue here, but they're crowded, smelly, and rarely have any seating or other amenities.

Amsterdam's platforms are much less dirty and smelly, but that's a function of lack of use: they don't bring a lot (or anything) to the table in terms of actual benefits or positives.

The TTC in Toronto, in my experience, does a slightly better job, though more so outside the downtown core. There are some places to sit, and the smell and noise are not as extreme.

Overall, this is a hard thing to work on, because the more use a system gets the more crowded stations get, and the harder it is to find time, space, and general opportunity to clean them effectively--especially on a 24-hour system.

2. Decor

One way to make a station less unpleasant even if it is crowded, noisy, or smelly, is to appeal to other senses. Now,  I don't have pictures of the Stockholm metro, which is famously gorgeous. But I do have pictures of how other stations I have actually been to make this work. Start with the Toronto station above: those little geometric patterns aren't much, but they break up the monotony of the station.

This public art in Chicago's Midway station is a little further from the trains, so it does less to brighten the mood actually down at the platform level, but it's a nice flourish when you're hustling to the train.

The Montreal metro does, I think, an even better job of a similar approach, and I love the above piece very much.

And of course I'd be remiss if I didn't mention WMATA, where the DC Metro makes the overall station design its own aesthetic feature that makes waiting much more pleasant (also note all those seats!).

3. Trains

And of course, another major element of "comfort" and "ease" in and around a metro/subway/underground/El/etc. system is the actual trains themselves.

Open gangways, like Amsterdam's trains have, make a big difference to me: the feeling that you're able to move around the train if you need to (whether that's for efficiency reasons of getting off where you want at the next stop or comfort reasons like finding a seat or even finding a friend) creates a sense of comfort and relaxation that a more cramped traditional car can't equal.

The Elizabeth Line in London isn't technically a metro, but it was the picture that I had of the moquette on the seats: this kind of branding (different on different lines) combined with comfort (much better than hard plastic seats) can contribute significantly to a sense of place and a sense of ease.

I have fewer pictures of interiors because I tend to avoid taking pictures with recognizable people in them, so even though I don't actually mind the DC Metro's interiors this will have to do as a picture of a less pleasant interior. The lighting is less strong, the car feels less open, and the seats are less comfortable.

Sorry DC. As I said, I actually quite like the riding experience, but it's not Amsterdam or the Elizabeth Line (there are certainly London Underground lines that would also be lower on this kind of ranking though).

What makes you feel comfortable on a metro? How does a subway catch your eye? 

Why Build Metros?

 This article on how metros divert trips from cars struck a nerve with me. Of course, removing cars is not the point; the point is that removing cars is necessary to larger issues (like the green energy transition that the article is about, or like allowing for better, more walkable cities). But I think it's worth reminding ourselves of what it is that metros do so well.

1. Space Available

A metro frees up surface space in two different ways. The first is the most obvious: the metro itself is not on the surface. That means it produces transit capacity that does not demand surface space (well, besides station space, and even that can be largely off the surface). 

These people are in a station, but they are not on the surface either.

This goes even for things like the Chicago El or Vancouver SkyTrain that are not below the surface. 

Pictured: a highly efficient way to move people off the surface of the street.

The second way a metro produces space is the way that the article I linked to brings up: it takes cars off the road and thus reduces the need to use surface space for other modes, as well as for itself.

None of the people in this train are in a car, obviously.

Trains like the above are why the Boston metro area can give up street space to bicycle lanes (well, that and the fact that bike lanes are actually very efficient people-movers themselves, but it certainly makes the political argument easier).

2. Non-Linear Transportation Options

Of course I don't mean this literally: a metro does indeed run in a line. Rather, I mean that a metro is not restricted to the existing linear layout of the city in which it is built, and can connect areas that are not easily connected (or connected at all).

Metro maps, like this MBTA map, are often schematic precisely because they don't model onto the existing street network easily.

And it's a lot harder to walk or drive to the airport here than to take transit.

Metros thus allow for a more integrated and effective plan of city transportation than streets alone can.

3. Centralized Development

A metro also provides a very clear opportunity for transit-oriented development and clear spaces for where development is happening and where it will happen in the future.

This development in Somerville, MA is intimately connected to the Green Line expansion there; no expansion, likely no development.

Likewise, Canary Wharf and its surroundings were revitalized along with the deployment of the Docklands Light Railway.

If you're the sort of pedant who is pointing out in your head that both of those are technically light rail masquerading as and integrating in with proper metro, first of all welcome, this is a safe space, and second of all how about the very development of Central London itself, both a driver of and a result of the origination of metro systems in 1863 and following? Not to mention the towns of Metroland built up by service from the original metro, the Metropolitan Line. 

Metros unlock the potential of so many places. Not only do they help us get to where we need to be in terms of energy use and car dis-use, but they actively make cities better.

Maybe we could stand to build and expand a few more.

Getting Around: London

When I visited London this summer, I made an effort to take as many different types of public transit there as I could in the time I was there. I ended up missing out on one that I know of--the Uber Boats--but otherwise I hit up everything I intended to take. And today, I want to take a brief look at each of these types of public transit in London to think about what was good, what was bad, and what I wish I could see more of in the United States. Warning: this is a bit longer of a post, so I'm sticking everything after the Tube under a jump.

1. The Underground

The Tube, the Underground, for Americans the subway: this is probably the most iconic of London transportation. I took a couple of Underground lines while I was in London and I've taken many, many more when I've been there before, and frankly it always manages to simultaneously please me and disappoint me. 

On the one hand, it is crowded, often noisy, and increasingly warming up. Depending on the line, you may have some rather old rolling stock, and in some places it's not necessarily faster than walking. It's the part of London's transit mix that feels like it's changed the least since I first visited the city almost two decades ago, and that can all add up to, well, a little disappointment.

Pretty sure this exact train was here then

On the other, there's a reason RM Transit calls it the "quintessential rapid transit system," and it's not just that it dates from 1863. It's a pretty comprehensive network for a metro (especially when integrated with everything else London has to offer, as detailed below) and while in the absolute center of the city it can be slow, it's much faster than anything that would be on the surface--not to mention, it does a really good job of cutting across parts of the city that can be confusing or difficult to traverse on foot. There's a reason the Tube map isn't actually a map but a network diagram: it doesn't parallel the street network, it substitutes for it.

It has its flaws, but I miss the Tube when I'm not in London--I even miss it when I'm on the south bank of London, but that's a point for later here.

How could I stay mad at this?

Also, there are parts that are getting actual platform screen doors and other innovations, so that's nice to see finally making its way into the old system.