Light Rail Systems And Routes In Other Cities

[kcmetro]

would it be possible to let the light rail go underground in the core, while it would be above ground when it gets farther from the core? This way we can avoid unneccesary demolition of buildings.

This wouldn't be a good idea. What buildings are you referring to that would have to be demolished? LTR would run in the street so I don't think many buildings in the core would be affected.

[GRID]

would it be possible to let the light rail go underground in the core, while it would be above ground when it gets farther from the core? This way we can avoid unnecessary demolition of buildings.

Would it be possible to raise another billion dollars? .

Seriously.  Not only is KC nowhere near dense enough to even consider going underground, KC actually "needs" above ground light rail IMO.  Subways can be intimidating and in a city like KC where people are afraid or ashamed to even step on a bus, that could be a problem.  I have ridden most of the light rails around the nation and although THIS IS AN OPINION of mine, not some scientific study, I have found far more "spin off" development around above ground light rail lines than subways.  I could be wrong though and generally speaking, subways are in already built up, dense areas, but that's the impression I get.  People don't really want to live near subway station.

Besides, I didn't know you had to tear down building structures to build light rail.

[ShowMeKC]

I just heard them talk about demolition, and even demolition of city buildings around highways that may be required and I thought they were referring to buildings as well as streets.

[enough]

putting transit underground adds significant and ongoing operating expenditures for escalators and elevators to reach the stations, plus security systems and personnel to make people feel safe.    

[Highlander]

would it be possible to let the light rail go underground in the core, while it would be above ground when it gets farther from the core? This way we can avoid unneccesary demolition of buildings.

The big advantage of underground transportation is not so much space and preservation of building stock but being able to operate unimpeded by other types of traffic that above-ground transportation has to deal with.  Plus a subway can offer a straight shot while light rail has to go around existing infrastructure.  To me, a subway is always going to be a better system but like others have said, you could probably double the construction cost pretty easily and operating costs would also be quite a bit higher also.  Having been on subway systems around the world, I do prefer them to light rail because they are really fast whereas light rail can be slow if forced to operate like a streetcar system.  But in KC, we are struggling enough with getting a light rail system...a subway would nearly be an insurmountable task at this point in time.

[DaveKCMO]

minneapolis expansion:

County approves study of three Southwest light-rail routes

A Hennepin County board has approved pursuing an intensive round of studies for three proposed Southwest light-rail routes.

All three routes will pass through Southwest as they connect Eden Prairie and other suburbs to downtown Minneapolis. One of the key questions is how the light-rail line should be routed through Southwest neighborhoods.

[GRID]

minneapolis expansion:

County approves study of three Southwest light-rail routes

I bet one of them is built before we open the Troost "BRT" .

[STLguy1]

would it be possible to let the light rail go underground in the core, while it would be above ground when it gets farther from the core? This way we can avoid unneccesary demolition of buildings.

You know I completely agree!  Yet, if they do this, the cost is out of the roof.  Here in St. Louis they spent somewhere in the 300-400 million dollar range to build the new Shrewsbury Line to put it into a subway tunnel from Forest Park through Clayton.  It is beautiful, but is it worth the cost?  St. Louis' system runs completely like heavy rail and on right-away which means no street level running.  But, most Light rail systems usually run on street level in urban cores.  It is much much cheaper. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ2lp_r-vX0

[DaveKCMO]

the problem of comparing the cross-county extension is the shortness of that route, which made the cost-per-mile seem very high. if KC chickens out and only builds a 5-mile spine first, the sub-surface element would put the cost way up in the "boondoggle" range. they'd have to build the entire system underground in KC anyway because the elevation changes so frequently between south KC and the river. an acquaintance of mine has studied this and to keep a level path in stable bedrock you'd be 200 feet below ground in penn valley park. imagine that escalator!

the obvious benefits of subway are: travel time (probably faster than a car), imperviousness to inclement weather, and safety (light rail vs. cars/peds).

[bbqboy]

http://www.light1998.com/U_S_Air-Force- ... eering.htm

[DaveKCMO]

http://www.light1998.com/U_S_Air-Force- ... eering.htm

interesting: "Generally tunnels are among the structures least affected by earthquakes..."

great link! thanks!

[bbqboy]

add:

www.trimet.org/pdfs/history/railfactsheet-westside.pdf

[DaveKCMO]

DC confronts the overhead wire issue. an interesting contrast to the arguments here against the "unproven" underground power supply in the KC ballot language.

Streetcar power — overhead or underneath?

But as part of its decision, the NCPC also “encouraged” the District Department of Transportation to investigate alternative power technology for streetcars, as federal law prohibits overhead wires in the historic downtown — generally bounded by Florida Avenue to the north, Georgetown to the west and the Anacostia River to the east. DDOT is expected to power its cars with single overhead lines.

i should note that streetcars are being discussed in this project, not light rail... the differences being speed and passenger capacity.

[DaveKCMO]

How Does NYC's Subway Stack Up Against the World?

The number 1 underground transit system is the oldest - the London Underground. After that, it's the Paris Metro. Then the Moscow Metro. Then Madrid, Tokyo, and Seoul, until you finally see New York City's subway coming in at number 7.

[Highlander]

the problem of comparing the cross-county extension is the shortness of that route, which made the cost-per-mile seem very high. if KC chickens out and only builds a 5-mile spine first, the sub-surface element would put the cost way up in the "boondoggle" range. they'd have to build the entire system underground in KC anyway because the elevation changes so frequently between south KC and the river. an acquaintance of mine has studied this and to keep a level path in stable bedrock you'd be 200 feet below ground in penn valley park. imagine that escalator!

the obvious benefits of subway are: travel time (probably faster than a car), imperviousness to inclement weather, and safety (light rail vs. cars/peds).

Forget it...I think I see what he means. 

[49r]

...an acquaintance of mine has studied this and to keep a level path in stable bedrock you'd be 200 feet below ground in penn valley park. imagine that escalator!...

That would be slightly deeper than Porter Sq. station on Boston's Red Line.  (It's one hell of a long escalator ride too, your ears can pop going up or down them.  Still kind of a fun station!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_%28MBTA_station%29

[bahua]

I have a friend that used to live within walking distance of the Porter Square stop. Yeah, it's a deep one. However, it's more than just and MBTA T station. It's also a commuter rail stop, so I'm guessing there was more funding for it than most stations.

[49r]

I used to live within walking distance of Porter Sq. too.  About equal distance to Porter and Davis squares, actually.

The Commuter Rail platform is basically stacked right on top of the subway...both are underground.

The escalators are adorned with little bronze gloves and mittens all down the space in between them...presumably to keep people from sliding down to the bottom.  If you tried, it'd be one hell of a bumpy ride!

[bahua]

Davis Square!

The Burren! Sacco's Bowl Haven! Redbones!

I haven't been to Somerville in a long time.

[49r]

Oh, what I wouldn't give to be able to move Davis Square to KC!

...and Kendall Sq, and maybe Coolidge Corner for good measure...