Boston transit priorities in no particular order: - Stations, vehicles, etc must be CLEAN and in good repair - Lighter trains on Red, Orange, Blue lines - Infrastructure in good repair - Dedicated bus lanes + transit-favoring traffic lights - Commuter rail to subway standards
-
-
It's a bit different because you have much bigger tunnels, longer platforms and fewer and further between stations. And less frequent trains (RER C in Paris is particularly bad for that).
-
Differences in tunnel dimensions or platform length can easily exist *within* a subway network (Tokyo's has 3 different gauges and at least 3 different power sources!). Wider station spacing is the same from rider's perspective as skip-stop services on more dense lines...
-
...and low frequency is just a deficiency--nobody benefits from that. Differences between commuter rail and subways are generally arbitrary as they are both trying to accomplish the same goal: moving large numbers of people in constrained spaces. Same goal = convergent evolution
-
I think there's a continuum though. The further I'm going, the more I want a seat, a toilet, a table, a power socket, a drinks trolley etc.
-
Sure--and why shouldn't a train with all those features (assuming compatible infrastructure!) run through a subway tunnel?pic.twitter.com/a6nFTnOUwX
-
In theory, nothing. In practice they're usually too different to run without an unacceptable capacity loss.
-
Don't tell Tokyo Metro, they'll hate to hear they've caused unacceptable capacity loss!
-
Attempting to run typical 160 km/h, low acceleration, two-sets-of-doors UK commuter MUs in the core of the London Underground *would* cause unacceptable capacity loss! (Even if you do it on the subsurface lines where they'd fit.)
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.