Local Rail (3/5): Subways, metros and RER

This series charts the specialities, differing best uses, and newer developments of different local rail systems. This part covers (heavy) metro -- that is mostly subways, and a new system pioneered by Paris's RER.

U-Bahn (subway) Munich, a C set at Karlsplatz station, an interchange with the S-Bahn rapid transit (see last episode), 2005. Photo by Jonas Frey from RailFanEurope.net

This series can also be viewed as a general guide as to what kind of projects local initiatives could aim for, and tries to give examples around the world that can be used as model for supporters and argument against opponents.

Some general points are valid throughout the series.

Don't think in lines, think in networks -- even if a first line won't grow into a full network in decades. Coordination between different modes of transport, rather than rivalry, is essential. Even just in rail, one shoe doesn't fit them all. Different public transport modes are for differing kinds of travel, and it's best to have them as different levels in a linked-up system, say:

1. high-speed rail,
2. express rail,
3. normal stopping trains,
4. rapid transit,
5. metro (subway/elevated),
6. light rail,
7. buses.

Of these, this series covers the four categories of local rail (nos. 3-6 on the list); as well as some ingenious ideas to mix these categories.

This series was inspired by BruceMcF's diary on various local transport modes as potential 'recruiters' for high-speed rail. Jerome a Paris was kind enough to guest-post Part 1 (on 'normal' stopping trains), I posted Part 2, while BruceMcF wrote a parallel diary emphasizing the connections to high-speed rail.

Heavy metro/subway/elevated

For traffic corridors within a major city, for acceptable speeds (and curve radii), you have to leave street level. There are two ways to go: up and down.

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, both were tried. But elevated railways, while somewhat cheaper to build, still take away building space, emit noise all around, block sunlight, and are exposed to weather. So, while New York's system has a lot of elevated sections, the even more subway sections gave it its name, and Chicago's 'L' is rather unique in still being dominated by elevated sections.

There are modern examples, though. There are a number of elevated light metros for example Vancouver's SkyTrain, but I deal with light metros in the last episode. In monsoon-frequented Delhi and a number of high-density East Asian cities, putting heavy rail on long concrete bridges became common practice. Though, the latter is typically in suburbs, and would really belong into the previous episode.

Since 2004, Binhai Mass Transit's 45.4 km (28.3 mi) JinBin line runs from a suburb of Tianjin to the Tianjin Economic Developing Area, mostly elevated, though the in-construction downtown extension is in tunnel. Here one of the automatic trains (made by Chanchun Railway Vehicles) turns at the temporary terminus Zhongshanmen, with the ramp to the subway extension visible. Tianjin also has a subway, China's second-oldest. Photo by Pierre2427 from 2427junction.com

Urban rail in major cities (say half a million or more) also means corridors with the heaviest traffic (say upwards from 100,000 trips a day, and into the millions). You need something even more high-capacity than a normal rapid transit. Two possibilities remained for that: running trains more frequently, and providing more space to standing passengers. The first demands dedicated lines, both demand purpose-built trains. The dedicated lines can, however, extend out from the densest part, and run on the surface, much like a normal rapid transit service. New York, San Francisco has such lines, and Washington D.C.'s was built so very purposefully.

In North America, heavy-load urban rail service is commonly not even separated from 'rapid transit'. Elsewhere however, using the name of the fifth subway system in the world, Paris's, 'metro' is the generic name, and is considered a separate category, especially as many cities have both systems overlaid.

Impressions from the busiest and most beautiful subway in the world: Moscow's Metro, with its rich 'Stalin-baroque' interieur. Video by Andron3

I stressed the importance of connection with other modes of public transport at stations. This doesn't just mean location. It's already good to have with normal rapid transit, but essential for metros to have common ticketing with buses and light rail, so that travellers don't have to buy a separate ticket or monthly card for each leg of their journey/commute. In an American context, also worth to point out: such tickets take away the stigma of a bus ride ("I'm just hopping on to the train station" will be the initial excuse).

France is also the pioneer of some new developments.

Lyon pioneered the recent trend to automated metros. Automation is easier on a completely grade-separated and dedicated line. This is not yet a cheap option, but may become one. An example is Paris Metro's new line 14, which also exhibits another new trend: glass platform doors that both prevent train-pushed winds and suicide jumps.

Although subways are the most expensive form of local rail, practically all metro systems in Europe and Asia are still growing. I give some examples of recent fast growth.

The subway system of South Korean capital Seoul started only in 1971, the system was more than doubled in the nineties, all the while the country also undertook the construction of the first phase of its KTX high-speed railway (opened three years ago), and this year it will grow to the world's third longest (after London & NYC) with around 320 km (200 mi) line length. The metro of Taiwanese capital Taipei is only 11 years old, but during the same time the expensive Taiwan High-Speed Rail was constructed (it opened in January this year), Taipei Metro expanded to a network of six lines totalling 74.4 km (46.2 mi), carrying over a million daily riders, and these numbers are to be tripled in another 11 years.

The Chinese boom didn't just brought an explosion of cars, but also massive rail construction, from light rail to high speed. From the nineties, a dozen major cities construct subway systems at breakneck speed. All but two are totally new, yet Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou aim for systems the size of New York's or Seoul's. For example, Guangzhou Metro's current four lines totalling 89.7 km (55.7 mi) were built in a mere ten years, and just counting in-construction lines, network length is to triple by 2010!

A subway train (made by Siemens & Zhuzhou Electrical Locomotive Works) arrives at its terminus under Guangzhou East Railway Station on the just 19-month-old line 3. All stations on the Guangzhou Metro have transparent platform doors. Photo by Pierre2427 from 2427junction.com

Metros are expanding in other parts of Asia, too. In India, the now three-line Delhi Metro started less than five years ago. Iran isn't only busy building a nuclear industry, but Tehran Metro, too. In the rich oil-producing Arab countries, the in-construction Dubai Metro will be the first urban rail system.

In Europe, Spain was most wise in using EU Structural Funds, and that with support from both political sides. Only Madrid and Barcelona had subways before the Civil War, not much happened under Franco's dictatorship. But today, half a dozen cities are busy boring tunnels, and Madrid's system quadrupled. For a developed Western country, Madrid should be the example to follow in how to build subways.

Urban rail system of Madrid (click for full-size version). Pink is Cercanías (suburban rapid transit), red-bordered yellow is in-construction light rail, the rest subway. Dashed: built in the 2003-7 period (note that the rapid transit central artery is doubled, too -- includes a 7.5 km tunnel). Map from The Subway Page

Metro Madrid added more than 40 km (25 mi) in a four-year period to 2003, and another 56 km (35 mi) heavy metro this year -- to a total of 283 km (176 mi) -- note that Madrid is a city of just 3.2 million. The showcase project of the previous four years was Line 12 (yellowish green on the map), nicknamed MetroSur. This ring line doesn't circle the city, but serves a couple of suburban towns by distributing traffic among radial subway and rapid transit lines.

Planning, tendering, boring, fitting out with concrete lining and tracks and electronics of this 40.5 km all-tunnel line; station construction; and purchase, testing and commissioning of subway trains was all done within four years and on a budget of only €1.1 billion! On time and budget in the extreme! Compare that to the time and cost earmarked for New York's 8.5-mile Second Avenue Subway project.

RER

Extreme capacity: two five-car bi-level EMUs (Z1547 and another type MI2N of Paris transport authority RATP) on RER A outer branch A3 near Achères, April 7th, 2007. The inner part of RER A is one of the busiest railways in the world. Photo by Patrick Meunier from RailFanEurope.net

Réseau Express Régional (=Regional Express Network) is essentially nothing but rapid transit resp. S-Bahn in another language, French. Indeed one system called so, that of the Belgian (and EU) capital Brussels, is indistinguishable. (As I mentioned in the series intro, local rail terminology is totally chaotic.)

But the reason for a separate treatment based on the first RER, that of Paris, has to do with long city tunnels.

As often is the case, the idea is not entirely new. There is the through line formed by the tunnels into New York's Penn Station (1910). There is the North-South central artery of Berlin's S-Bahn, which has six stations along a 5.9 km (3.7 mi) tunnel (1936/1939). The latter is an example of cities with (multiple) terminal stations pursuing underground connection of commuter lines. Younger examples are the rapid transit central arteries of Madrid, Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Also, Seoul's metro line 1 is co-used by suburban trains, while the downtown loop shared by most lines of Sydney's CityRail rapid transit system is mostly underground.

But, in the largest cities, there is room for multiple central arteries, which thus can form a whole inner-city network. So, while suburbanites 'see' commuter rails bundled together into five rapid transit line families, city-dwellers see a second, express subway network.

Lots of doors: Another MI2N bi-level EMU (this one owned by state railways SNCF as series Z 22500) at Haussmann-St-Lazare station, on the underground part of RER line E, January 1st, 2000. Photo by Jörg Kuntz from RailFanEurope.net

In Paris, the systematic connection of suburban lines going into the eight (now six) terminals was pursued from 1969. Today RER trains on the five line families (A to E) traverse four long tunnels (altogether 60 km/37 mi underground). With 273 million trips in 2004, only a couple of subway lines (most in Moscow) and Tokyo commuter rapid transit lines are busier than the inner-city part of RER line A.

Similar systems are planned in London (Crossrail), Guangzhou and Shanghai.

Outlook

A lot of subways, including Boston's Green Line and San Francisco's Muni Metro, weren't covered here: so-called light metros. They get their turn after their parental category: light rail.

In the light rail episode (to be posted on Sunday), you will also read more about the technology in newer rail vehicles. For a view on overall public transport development, wait for the concluding part (to be posted Tuesday, probably by Jerome a Paris).

•  Tip Jar

  On we go!

  by Daneel on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 09:40:00 AM PDT

  •  This and the remaining two

    diaries are significantly edited relative to the draft on European Tribune. But I swear to commenters of the previous two diaries that most of what seems to react to prior discussion was already there in my drafts for dK.

    by Daneel on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:13:38 PM PDT

  •  Wow Excellent

    All of the sudden I'm almost ashamed of my diaries!

    by OrdinaryGal on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 03:05:37 PM PDT

    •  I am surprised at you, OG, pay closer attention.

      Coordination between different modes of transport, rather than rivalry, is essential. Even just in rail, one shoe doesn't fit them all.

      Same thing for diaries ... we need a whole range of types for a healthy blogosphere.

      by BruceMcF on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 05:25:30 PM PDT

  •  Excellent Daneel

    You exceeded my expectations with excellent examples from all over the world.

    I've got to go outside today but will post some comments tonight.

    BTW, Binhai Metro was an excellent choice to represent the style of dual use roadway/elevated lines now becoming popular in secondary cities in China and illustrates this type of rail does not have to become an eyesore if simply and well executed.

    by koNko on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:43:14 PM PDT

    •  Thanks!

      I admit that while the Asia metros were there earlier, the section on elevateds was one I had to re-write a second time to a less sceptical-sounding version after our exchanges :-)

      by Daneel on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 02:25:19 PM PDT

•  Excellent Diary Daneel

  Thanks for doing this series.  Hopefully lots of folks are reading.

  by The Overhead Wire on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 09:51:53 AM PDT

  •  It will be easier to tell if they comment ...

    ... I think of the first two diaries, on regional stopping trains and rapid transit as the foundation for understanding high-capacity rail, and this diary providing a window into the new designs and new thinking that is going on around the world on tailoring high capacity rail to specific conditions, in large urban areas in particular.

    And in a broader sense, that goes to a key part of Energy Independence and Energy Efficiency to fight global warming. The one size fits all "All Auto Everywhere" public transport system is either a poor fit or no fit at all to a large number of transport tasks. In particular, it eats up so much space that in the process of bringing large numbers of people together into a densely built up area, it destroys the space actually available for people.

    By contrast, Energy Efficient design is quite often information intensive, and rather than aiming for one-size-fits-all, aims for doing something in particular very well indeed.

    And that is what this chapter in the series focuses on ... doing the task of bringing large number of people into high density areas very well, in a variety of specific settings, while leaving the large majority of the space for actual use by people once they get there.

    by BruceMcF on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:50:15 AM PDT

    •  I think a major issue

      about this that shouldn't be is that people think of places like New York and Washington DC as an anomaly. The rapid transit systems in these cities proves that people will use it if provided, but if never provided people think its not possible.  The biggest obstacle is justifying expense.  We're getting cheap here and not thinking about all the costs and many cities that could have rapid transit if they invested are forgoing it for bad BRT solutions that might work in some places, but don't provide enough capacity.  

      by The Overhead Wire on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:59:23 AM PDT

      •  'If never provided' is a problem ...

        ... and that is one of the strengths of this series ... we Americans tend to be a fairly parochial bunch in many ways, and have a number of old wives tales to fall back on to explain why people in the US are completely immune to the factors that drive transport choices everywhere else in the world.

        But there's no such American exceptionalism. We have the highest subsidy to car use, and the highest subsidy to sprawl development, so we get the most car use and the most sprawl development.

        My regional transport development strategy here is that getting people out of cars without forcing them to switch involves offering attractive alternatives. In many cases this involves looking for the transport tasks that cars do worst at, and offering an alternative there ... which then provides the experience with effective transport for more people who can expand the political coalition for expanding the system.

        In the context of this particular diary, getting large numbers of people rapidly across built up areas is one thing that road-motor transport really sucks at ... since it consumes from far more (with buses) to far, far, far more (with cars) space per passenger mile, there is not the space to provide the high speed clearways through the city that a rapid transit system can do ... whether conventional rapid transit or subway or elevated rail or any mix of the three, as with the system Daneel describes as RER.

        by BruceMcF on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 12:11:54 PM PDT

        •  I agree Bruce

          with the speed factor, and a BART/WMATA Metro type system is obviously needed in most large regions that don't have it.  As said in the diary, one mode is not the answer to all problems but all modes are expensive when looked at as a package.

          Lets take Houston for example.  They have freeway express buses, light rail, and a bus system.  The light rail takes 40 minutes to go 7 miles.  BART from my grandmothers house to 24th street in the Mission, about a 25 mile trip, takes 40 minutes.  So what Houston needs is rapid transit.  I love the light rail system there and I think it serves its purpose well but having a direct link with no stops between downtown Houston, the Med Center and the Astrodome is also needed. Redundancies.  

          Now I say that not because you all don't already know that, but because politics makes us choose modes not service.  Getting the political will and informing legislators about why funding is needed for a network is of utmost importance.  I'm hoping that what this series leads to after people can look at the facts is an action plan to tell senators etc using the infrastructure on Kos that these networks are needed at important times (such as the reauthorization of the transportation bill, or the farm bill, or the energy bill)  Each of these bills is important to rapid transit as well as national security.  And national security that includes systematic oil use reductions is what I believe we are driving towards.    

          by The Overhead Wire on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:02:48 PM PDT

          •  Precisely ... its lumping all public transit ...

            ... in one bucket, all the way from very local circulator buses to high speed regional rail, that turns complements into artificial rivals.

            Depending on the seven miles, there are many urban setting where you would be lucky to make it in an hour. Sitting in a LRV for that run is a great alternative, especially if it is a modern system and fares are integrated with connecting public transport systems.

            However, if you do not want to go somewhere on that seven mile stretch, but want to go end to end, and its a heavily used route, you should be on a high capacity rail service.

            And, of course, having the express service means that people can change to use exactly the section of light rail they need, which increases the effective capacity of the whole system.

            by BruceMcF on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:25:05 PM PDT

          •  Japan Rail East (JR East)

            Has an interesting soulution to the problem of integrating slow local trains (Local), intermediate express (Express) and high speed express (Rapid-Express) on one set of tracks.

            They mix these types of lines in different combinations depending on time of day, with a higher concentration of Rapid-Express during commuter hours when a high percentage of people are traveling to hub stations to make connections from/to outlying areas.

            Clever use of by-pass spur tracks enables an express starting after a local to pass it. Signage indicates the status of 2-4 incomming trains so you can select what's appropriate (express trains aren't fast if they pass by your station, but if it's close to an express station you can overshoot and back-track).

            Expert users (ie, any Japanese) will play the system to maximum advantage, but it can be confusing to the uninitiated who puzle why some people standing in line don't get on the train. I've watched the bewildered glances as they try to decide if they should get on-board.

            But a quick look at the line diagrams posted trackside would show them the stops for each type of train and the time between points, immediately indicating what decision to make.

            And ...JAPAN RUNS ON TIME.

            by koNko on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 10:10:04 AM PDT

•  This RER concept seems to be the direction ...

  ... that Sydney is going to have to think of to untangle their current system, which combines metropolitan regional plus inner suburban rapid transit plus a downtown subway system in one tangled system of lines:

  

  It has already been prominantly argued regarding transport infrastructure in Sydney that development of "city cores" outside the current dominant employment zone from Sydney City to North Sydney would be boosted tremendously by higher speed connections between Sydney City, Bankstown, Parramatta, Penrith, Liverpool, Sutherland, etc. ... but with locals mixed in with the current rapid transit system, there is only so fast that express services can go.

  I think that two-level trains with three doors, all seated sections above and subway style sections below make for a tremendous combination for such a system of "high speed metropolitan connector" ... plus elevated rail in the outlying areas and, of course, subways in heavily built up areas, including Sydney City and the most densely built of the new urban cores.

  by BruceMcF on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:17:51 AM PDT

•  Only you can make public transit interesting

  Thank you for all this work and the great pieces on European Tribune.

  The lack of interest here is really depressing, since this blog is supposed to be for an "aware" public, but I guess the current episode of the regime´s soap opera takes all the "energy".  (Maybe you need a picture of a car on top, to get attention.)

  by denmadrid on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:51:26 AM PDT

  •  There was a lot of comment on Tuesday ...

    ... and some people may think they said their piece on Tuesday and are content to read, learn more, and move on.

    And there is also the question of timing ... this diary might catch a second wind, if it is brought to people's attention in the after work time slot.

    by BruceMcF on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 12:26:27 PM PDT

  •  I think I just caught a too buy period

    and much that could be said was said in the prior two diaries. As Bruce said.

    by Daneel on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:09:50 PM PDT

•  Rescue This Diary Susan G!!!

  Please :)

  by The Overhead Wire on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:04:12 PM PDT

  •  I second your call for a rescue

    It would be great if more Kossacks could get a chance to see this.

    by sarahlane on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 02:41:11 PM PDT

    •  Me too n/t

      by niteskolar on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 02:49:27 PM PDT

      •  I'm Ticking Recommend on Everyones Comments

        And suggest others do so too. And don't forget to Recommend the Diary itself becuse it has a time limit.

        More Recs = More Readers.

        by koNko on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 10:16:36 AM PDT

•  This is an incredible diary

  I will definitely hotlist and go back for Parts 1 and 2. Highly recommended. Great scholarship, effort, everything.

  by niteskolar on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 02:51:09 PM PDT

•  Meanwhile, in Washington the other day....

   I don't know how much attention the news got, but Congress held hearings the other day at which Amtrak President Alex Kummant testified.

  Even if it spent $7 billion on track upgrades, Amtrak couldn't reduce the travel time between Washington and New York to less than 2 hours and 20 minutes, which is only 25 minutes less than the trip now takes, the company's president told Congress on Wednesday.

  The statement by Alex Kummant came during a presentation on the federally funded railroad's capital needs. During the hearing, members of the House transportation committee expressed frustration about the lack of truly high-speed rail service in the U.S.

  The closest thing Amtrak has to high-speed service is the Acela Express, the railroad's premier Washington-Boston train, which travels at an average speed of 82 miles per hour and reaches 150 mph in parts of Rhode Island and Connecticut. In other parts of the country, where Amtrak runs trains on congested tracks owned by the freight railroads, speeds can be far slower and delays are frequent.

  What's depressing is reading the article and realizing how no one seems to be aware of the range of rail services that could be provided; the mindset seems to be, if it's not TGV level, it's not worth thinking about - and TGV equivalent would just be impossible to fund.

  The Washington-New York segment currently takes 2 hours and 45 minutes on the Acela. Investing $625 million in upgrades would allow Amtrak to reduce that time to 2 ½ hours. A full overhaul, including several new tunnels and bridges, would cost $7 billion, but even that would only achieve a trip time of 2 hours and 20 minutes, with an average speed of 97 mph, Kummant said.

  Building a dedicated line for high-speed service like France's TGV would cost $10 billion, and that doesn't even include the amount that would have to be spent on real estate acquisition in some of the most urbanized parts of the country, Kummant said.

  Gosh! Ten Whole Billion Dollars? Why, that's almost as much as the cost of one month of the Iraq War! If you could give the American people a choice on where to put that ten billion, and gave them a realistic perspective on the costs/benefits, where do you think they'd want to go? It's a hard choice, right? Spend billions that would create jobs and infrastructure right in America, would help reduce the need for oil, and reduce carbon footprints - and we wouldn't have to kill anybody to do it!

  Obviously, we'll just have to keep pouring blood and treasure out on the sand, unless and until functional adults take power in Washington.

  by xaxnar on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:09:30 PM PDT

  •  Is Kummint a Bush admin govern-to-destroy-it

    appointment? He seems to argue based on facts, but with a negative spin like opponents of passenger rail. Coming from a freight railway and beig close to Dubya...

    by Daneel on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 09:40:06 PM PDT

  •  They're planning to spend

    a billion to add a SINGLE LANE through the westside of LA.  The carpool lane on one side of the freeway is mostly built, but it will cost that much for the lane on the other side.  And that's with nonstandard lanes and shoulders.

    They could tunnel through the mountains for not much more than that and get people from the valley to UCLA in fifteen minutes.

    And the whiny people across the freeway from me don't want their houses taken for ANY of it, even though pollution is dense from the cars and trucks sitting outside their doors 10 hours a day.  Not that it will do a lot, but it's the last gap in the carpool system on the 405.

    Other loudmouth rich people are trying their damnedest to block another rail line that goes through their neighborhood.  This one's actually planned.  The first phase is under construction from downtown LA to Culver City past USC.  The second part is planned and nearly funded.  Both parts use an old PE ROW to Santa Monica that has been dormant for 40 or more years, but it happens to go a half mile through a residential neighborhood.  

    Never mind the cars that fly down their streets and past their kids' school at 50 mph every 10 seconds.  It's those darn nearly silent electric trains that pass by every 10 minutes with (gasp) brown people on them.  Most of the people in the neighborhood are for it, but certain people worried about "property values" are yelling and screaming.  They want to divert it 5 miles down a major boulevard with street crossings every 500 feet instead of a half mile through their neighborhood where the streets and houses were designed around the ROW.  AND it will not terminate in Santa Monica if they do that, taking ridership way down, helping to kill it before it gets off the ground.  Bastards.

    by Slartibartfast on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:19:50 PM PDT

    •  No matter how out of date the current system ...

      ... is, there will be those who cannot or will not see that it is about to go under. They will sing a different tune when gas hits $10/gallon ... they will be demanding electric rail, and trying to find fare structures that will keep the wrong sort of people off that line.

      by BruceMcF on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 05:04:32 AM PDT

    •  Apperenty they haven't considered possibity of

      ... property value appreciation once the line is running.

      If we consider the incresing demand and premium for hybrid cars at this moment, it seems to indicate investing in green makes good economic sense.

      Have these people no pride to improve their city and take a leading position?

      by koNko on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 08:57:41 PM PDT