oxtailplanning

oxtailplanning t1_itxof3u wrote

Agreed. There are going to be a lot of trains running at half empty as they return from the Virginian exurbs back to the urban core.

Perhaps Loundon County will take the approach that Arlington did and develop those stations into some real TOD town centers. Or they will take the fairfax approach with the orange line and make them shitty parking lots surrounded by highways and SFH.

My money is on the later, but hey, a man can dream.

2

oxtailplanning t1_itxmkbu wrote

Zachary Schrag's book on Metro was really eye opening and made you appreciate so many of the decisions we live with today. Answers questions like: Why didn't the entrances have canopies, what station did locals get wiped off the map (not Georgetown), why didn't Tysons originally get a line, and so many more. Great book, fascinating read.

4

oxtailplanning t1_itxm2k0 wrote

Agreed, Metro is both a commuter rail and an intra-city metro.

It's definitely not as big and far reaching as RER (1/3 the milage and stations), so that comparison is also not perfect. Metro lines aren't covering as much ground as RER, and don't have the density of a real metro system, so I still think the point stands that "express" tracks don't really bring a lot to the table.

To briefly compare to NYC: The entire red line is 27 stations (31 miles), while the A train local in NYC is 40 stops (also 31 miles). The A train express is 18 stops, but it's also a bit shorter, roughly 20 miles. So by that measure, the redline is more or less an "express" train with that density of stations per mile.

edit: conciseness.

3

oxtailplanning t1_itv9g0b wrote

Maybe, but you really have to ask if that would be worth the extra money. And besides, for long distances, metro is already faster than almost any other form of transit, so is it really worth saving the 5 - 10 min? As demonstrated by OP, it wouldn't increase ridership, it would not greatly reduce the need for single tracking, and it would come at the expense of other improvements.

Frequency improvements would do more to reduce travel time way more than express lines. And as GGWASH points out, additional lines would do more to alleviate the pain of single tracking more than extra tracks.

I'm not saying that they wouldn't be good things, but with limited resources, is it the best bang for your buck?

8

oxtailplanning t1_ituvt5h wrote

Many places don't do 4 track systems. Also it wasn't worth the upfront cost for a system that was lucky to be built at all.

Not for nothing, DC doesn't really have the station density to warrant express tracks. For example here is Paris's metro over the DC area (note Paris is also entirely 2 tracks.)

Here is a more in-depth explanation of the 2 vs 4 track system

Edit: Grammar

31