Why does New York City have express tracks for the subway?
February 9, 2016 1:17 PM Subscribe
New York has express tracks. It drives the tourists crazy. The only other system I can find that has express trains is Tokyo, which has two lines that were opened in 1969 and 1994. Why are express trains not more used? Is it simply cost or is there a design reason behind it?
Also, why were the express tracks constructed in New York in the first place? They don't appear to be a standard feature in the first half of the twentieth century, when the system was constructed. If they are that expensive to build, how did they end up proliferating in Manhattan, and to a lesser degree, Brooklyn and Queens?
Suggestions of books or articles would be great. Every article I can find in the history section of nycsubway.org just assumes the express tracks, unless I am missing something. Or was there simply no debate and everyone went "express tracks, sure, why not?"
Also, why were the express tracks constructed in New York in the first place? They don't appear to be a standard feature in the first half of the twentieth century, when the system was constructed. If they are that expensive to build, how did they end up proliferating in Manhattan, and to a lesser degree, Brooklyn and Queens?
Suggestions of books or articles would be great. Every article I can find in the history section of nycsubway.org just assumes the express tracks, unless I am missing something. Or was there simply no debate and everyone went "express tracks, sure, why not?"
CalTrain (which is commuter rail, but heavy rather than light) has express trains.
posted by mollymayhem at 1:31 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by mollymayhem at 1:31 PM on February 9, 2016
Best answer: For what it's worth, there are definitely express trains in other cities - Philadelphia's Broad Street Line has 4 tracks for most of its length, the Chicago El for some stretches of some lines, and a fair amount of European regional rails systems too.
Are you questioning the advantages of express tracking to run express trains? For the most part they're very desirable for far-off commuters, but their use on the systems that support them has been often cut back due to declines in transit use from historic highs (ie, fewer overall travellers means fewer who can benefit from express service.) As transit ridership is increasing over the last few years, express trains may become more common in those systems capable of supporting them.
posted by Tomorrowful at 1:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Are you questioning the advantages of express tracking to run express trains? For the most part they're very desirable for far-off commuters, but their use on the systems that support them has been often cut back due to declines in transit use from historic highs (ie, fewer overall travellers means fewer who can benefit from express service.) As transit ridership is increasing over the last few years, express trains may become more common in those systems capable of supporting them.
posted by Tomorrowful at 1:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Parts of California -- such as the San Francisco Bay Area and probably much of San Diego County -- has population density similar to Europe. So do parts of the Northeastern U.S., including New York.
I have found that there is generally good public transit in California. It has the population density to support it. Much of America simply doesn't have the population density to support good public transit.
posted by Michele in California at 1:35 PM on February 9, 2016
I have found that there is generally good public transit in California. It has the population density to support it. Much of America simply doesn't have the population density to support good public transit.
posted by Michele in California at 1:35 PM on February 9, 2016
Caltrain's express trains run on the same track as their regular trains, just skipping some stops. There's no second track (which is a big problem in itself).
posted by serelliya at 1:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by serelliya at 1:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
santiago metro has express trains, of a kind, but they're on the same tracks - at peak hours the trains are grouped into two kinds (red and green), and stop (roughly) at alternate stations (with some common stations). you can tell which colour from lights outside each carriage (above the door) and from in-train announcements. the line map has colour-coded stations. the idea, presumably, is to move people more rapidly by reducing time spent (per passenger mile) stopped at stations.
i imagine it also drives tourists crazy.
(i always assumed they must be copied from somewhere else, but don't know where else has this system. oh, on preview, caltrain by the sounds of it.)
posted by andrewcooke at 1:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
i imagine it also drives tourists crazy.
(i always assumed they must be copied from somewhere else, but don't know where else has this system. oh, on preview, caltrain by the sounds of it.)
posted by andrewcooke at 1:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Don't attribute NYC's possession of express tracks to some mystical master plan - the subways were largely built by a variety of independent entities without a whole lot of coordination (which is why, for example, the gauges of the tracks vary between lettered and numbered trains within the system). This is also the reason there are express tracks on the BMT Sea Beach Lines but no stations which support express service.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 1:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 1:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
also, andrewcooke, we would call the service you describe as "skip-stop" service as opposed to full express track operation.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 1:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 1:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Metra trains that serve Chicago's suburbs also offer express service, but that's just trains on the same tracks that skip many stops. See the Aurora to Chicago schedule, for example.
posted by jabes at 1:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by jabes at 1:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: A bit of clarification. I'm asking about intracity mass transit (metro, subway, el, etc.), not regional/commuter rails. I can see the benefit, but I'm curious as to why so few metro/etc. systems seem to have express tracks. (I'll admit, I only looked at the larger and older systems- Moscow, Paris, Tokyo, London and Beijing, which is not as old- when I was thinking about this.) I didn't look at any system in the US as I was only thinking of very large systems (an obvious mistake in retrospect, I know).
This could just be a bad sample that I chose, but if it is, I guess the question is why the older systems didn't build express lines when New York did. When did the Purple line in Chicago become express?
Ok, I'm going to stop thread sitting.
posted by Hactar at 1:54 PM on February 9, 2016
This could just be a bad sample that I chose, but if it is, I guess the question is why the older systems didn't build express lines when New York did. When did the Purple line in Chicago become express?
Ok, I'm going to stop thread sitting.
posted by Hactar at 1:54 PM on February 9, 2016
NYC probably has them because of the terrible overcrowding they endured before the city emptied out in the postwar period. When you are already running the local tracks full to the brim with trains that are themselves all packed full you have no choice but to install new track, and if you're doing that, express service is a no-brainer to move the people taking longer trips more quickly.
As a tourist, skip-stop service is much more confusing than dedicated express tracks and platforms.
posted by wierdo at 2:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
As a tourist, skip-stop service is much more confusing than dedicated express tracks and platforms.
posted by wierdo at 2:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
No No. Hactar, you are kinda asking the wrong question, and Exceptional_Hubris has your answer. The train and subway lines in NYC were all created by different companies, and there was no overall design to the system.
You could look into the histories of the different lines to see how/why lines developed with a second track.
posted by jbenben at 3:08 PM on February 9, 2016
You could look into the histories of the different lines to see how/why lines developed with a second track.
posted by jbenben at 3:08 PM on February 9, 2016
When did the Purple line in Chicago become express?
If I'm reading Wikipedia correctly, there's basically been an express portion since at least 1949, but the precise selection of stops has shifted.
The Metropolitan Line in London has some express trains.
I think the answer is that, in many circumstances, express trains require parallel tracks which aren't necessarily feasible to build if they weren't planned that way. Branching the lines accomplishes something similar and is extensible, especially if your less popular stops are out towards the end of the line.
posted by hoyland at 3:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
If I'm reading Wikipedia correctly, there's basically been an express portion since at least 1949, but the precise selection of stops has shifted.
The Metropolitan Line in London has some express trains.
I think the answer is that, in many circumstances, express trains require parallel tracks which aren't necessarily feasible to build if they weren't planned that way. Branching the lines accomplishes something similar and is extensible, especially if your less popular stops are out towards the end of the line.
posted by hoyland at 3:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Best answer: To use one of your examples, the Paris subway covers a far smaller area than the New York subway. They can stop at every stop and still keep a decent length of time to get where you're going. If MTA trains stopped at every single stop, imagine how freakin' long it would take to get anywhere. Public transport had to be faster than the alternative for people to choose it.
posted by Liesl at 3:47 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by Liesl at 3:47 PM on February 9, 2016
Best answer: It's also important to remember that the oldest parts of the NYC subway were built when no one really knew how to build subways, and important design challenges like platform length and station spacing were in their infancy. Part of the reason the IRT (the first subway built in New York) had express and local tracks was due to an overabundance of stations that are much more closely-spaced than anyone would build subway stations in the 21st Century.
For example, the first subway line built in NYC had stations at 14th Street, 18th Street, 23rd Street, 28th Street, and 33rd Street. That is crazy town. So in that sort of scenario the benefits of express trains running on separate tracks that would stop at 14th and 33rd and skip 3 stations seems obvious.
Compare that with the Second Avenue Subway that is now being finished: the first phase has stops at 72nd Street, 86th Street, and 96th Street, and is a two-track subway with no express service.
posted by Automocar at 3:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
For example, the first subway line built in NYC had stations at 14th Street, 18th Street, 23rd Street, 28th Street, and 33rd Street. That is crazy town. So in that sort of scenario the benefits of express trains running on separate tracks that would stop at 14th and 33rd and skip 3 stations seems obvious.
Compare that with the Second Avenue Subway that is now being finished: the first phase has stops at 72nd Street, 86th Street, and 96th Street, and is a two-track subway with no express service.
posted by Automocar at 3:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh, and forgot to mention: per my comment above, it is not true that "They [express tracks] don't appear to be a standard feature in the first half of the twentieth century, when the system was constructed."
The very first subway built in NYC had both local and express tracks.
posted by Automocar at 3:55 PM on February 9, 2016
The very first subway built in NYC had both local and express tracks.
posted by Automocar at 3:55 PM on February 9, 2016
People get really mad if you stop a full train that can accept no passengers at every stop. It wastes the time of people riding and gives the people unknowingly waiting for a train false hope. You can't really predict what the popular stops are going to be before you build the subway (not entirely, anyway) so I would build more than necessary and adapt the schedule to the flow of people.
I would assume that you'd design a redundant third track so that if one of the main tracks is busted, you can still run trains. You can also route trains with problems to the third track if they must be taken out of service. If that means you interrupt express service, that's a shame, but you still have regular service on the other tracks.
Since NYC is just kludged together from random independent subway and streetcar companies over the course of a hundred years (more than a hundred if you count local railways and water transport and horse-driven streetcars), I would assume the express tracks are a means those companies designed for their own efficiency, not as an overall city strategy. A lot of city transit agencies are kludged together from a variety of strategies that made sense at the time in light of budget and legal requirements (both what can we afford to build and what are we allowed to build) but which are behind on evolving to where they should be.
posted by blnkfrnk at 4:04 PM on February 9, 2016
I would assume that you'd design a redundant third track so that if one of the main tracks is busted, you can still run trains. You can also route trains with problems to the third track if they must be taken out of service. If that means you interrupt express service, that's a shame, but you still have regular service on the other tracks.
Since NYC is just kludged together from random independent subway and streetcar companies over the course of a hundred years (more than a hundred if you count local railways and water transport and horse-driven streetcars), I would assume the express tracks are a means those companies designed for their own efficiency, not as an overall city strategy. A lot of city transit agencies are kludged together from a variety of strategies that made sense at the time in light of budget and legal requirements (both what can we afford to build and what are we allowed to build) but which are behind on evolving to where they should be.
posted by blnkfrnk at 4:04 PM on February 9, 2016
The NYC subways were built and paid for by the City of New York with public bonds. The operation of the subways was contracted out to competing private companies, because the city believed that competition was good. Until the city changed its mind and decided to run the subways itself, and drove the private companies out of business, and took them over.
The primary reasons the subways were built were a) to encourage development way uptown and in the recently unified outer boroughs and b) to replace the existing elevated train lines, especially in Manhattan. (and later on, c) drive the IRT and the BMT out of business). The only way it makes sense to spend money to replace the el was if the subways were a lot faster than the el, and the only way to convince people to move out of their cramped LES tenement into a nice home in Flatbush was if you could give them a fast commute. Hence, express trains.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 4:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The primary reasons the subways were built were a) to encourage development way uptown and in the recently unified outer boroughs and b) to replace the existing elevated train lines, especially in Manhattan. (and later on, c) drive the IRT and the BMT out of business). The only way it makes sense to spend money to replace the el was if the subways were a lot faster than the el, and the only way to convince people to move out of their cramped LES tenement into a nice home in Flatbush was if you could give them a fast commute. Hence, express trains.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 4:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Best answer: The main reason most cities don't have express tracks is expense. That's why the DC Metro doesn't have them. It barely got built as is, and if they'd had to budget for express tracks the project would have gotten canceled.
There are also technical issues related to how and where the tunnels are dug. If you're doing cut and cover under a wide enough street, you can cut a bed wide enough for four tracks almost as easily as you can cut a narrower two-track bed. But if you're doing so-called "deep bore" tunneling a pair of tracks for express service means a second tunnel, which at least doubles the costs (and probably adds even more because of the engineering challenges of putting that much more stuff deep underneath other stuff). And add seismic surveys and core samples to find bedrock, and so on, and the technical challenge is immense.
posted by fedward at 5:35 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
There are also technical issues related to how and where the tunnels are dug. If you're doing cut and cover under a wide enough street, you can cut a bed wide enough for four tracks almost as easily as you can cut a narrower two-track bed. But if you're doing so-called "deep bore" tunneling a pair of tracks for express service means a second tunnel, which at least doubles the costs (and probably adds even more because of the engineering challenges of putting that much more stuff deep underneath other stuff). And add seismic surveys and core samples to find bedrock, and so on, and the technical challenge is immense.
posted by fedward at 5:35 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Philadelphia has separate express tracks on the Broad St subway which are in regular use.
posted by desuetude at 6:03 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by desuetude at 6:03 AM on February 10, 2016
Best answer: I think Liesl's got it, actually. New York has large distances to cover in a reasonable amount of time, and that had to be taken into account. Because America invented suburbs and commuting? From Rapid Transit In Cities (1892):
Averages are proverbially misleading. The real difference between the European and the American systems is that here a man can ride eight or ten miles, from the crowded part of the city where he earns his living to the open and rural districts, for five cents. In any European city it would cost him more than twice as much, actually, and if a working-man, more than that in relation to his yearly wages.
The effect there has been to crowd people into the middle of a city. The effect here is to enable them to live in the fresh air of the suburban districts, where they sometimes have room even for a small garden. Certainly this is a result to be approved both by economists and philanthropists.
The second effect of low single fares and quick transit is, as I have shown, to increase the population, and to increase the number of daily rides of each person, faster than capital has generally been able to supply the demand. Hence the complaints which seem to be universal in all large cities, where time is of value.
and then following on
The city of New York, as everybody knows, is surrounded by water and is long and narrow. This means a great concentration of traffic on parallel avenues and streets running north and south. From this peculiar shape, the walking distance was reached earlier than in other cities, and this led in New York to the earliest invention of horse-car lines. The same causes made New York the first city to build elevated railways, and these causes are now urging New York to undertake a still more costly system of rapid transit, either above or below ground.
(Fascinating read, that.)
posted by corvine at 6:50 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Averages are proverbially misleading. The real difference between the European and the American systems is that here a man can ride eight or ten miles, from the crowded part of the city where he earns his living to the open and rural districts, for five cents. In any European city it would cost him more than twice as much, actually, and if a working-man, more than that in relation to his yearly wages.
The effect there has been to crowd people into the middle of a city. The effect here is to enable them to live in the fresh air of the suburban districts, where they sometimes have room even for a small garden. Certainly this is a result to be approved both by economists and philanthropists.
The second effect of low single fares and quick transit is, as I have shown, to increase the population, and to increase the number of daily rides of each person, faster than capital has generally been able to supply the demand. Hence the complaints which seem to be universal in all large cities, where time is of value.
and then following on
The city of New York, as everybody knows, is surrounded by water and is long and narrow. This means a great concentration of traffic on parallel avenues and streets running north and south. From this peculiar shape, the walking distance was reached earlier than in other cities, and this led in New York to the earliest invention of horse-car lines. The same causes made New York the first city to build elevated railways, and these causes are now urging New York to undertake a still more costly system of rapid transit, either above or below ground.
(Fascinating read, that.)
posted by corvine at 6:50 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's lots of good points above, but a few crucial ones have been missed.
One is that express service implicitly halves your train frequency. Let's say there are 6 trains an hour; that's 10 minutes headway between each train. Now let's say half of them are express and half local; that's now 20 minutes headway between express and 20 between local. If you happen to want to go between two express stops, then yes the train travels faster between them, but you now have to wait twice as long. If you are going between two locals, then you have to wait twice as long but there's no increase in speed - guess how popular that is with riders (and voters). If you're going between an express and a local, you may want to just take the local in which case see above, or you may want to take the express part of the way, in which case you have the hassle of a transfer and the additional wait times. So express service only makes sense operationally once you are running a hell of a lot of trains per hour already - if you're running 30 trains an hour, increasing headways from 2 to 4 minutes to include express may be okay, but not if you're running fewer trains than that. And there's not a lot of rail networks at that frequency.
Another is the network geometry; in New York a lot of the lines parallel each other - Bronx or Queens to midtown Manhattan, then down to Lower Manhattan, then across to Brooklyn. In other cities, the central network is much more a mesh. Looking at the 1/2/3 in NY from 96th to Chambers, there are 18 stops, and only 3 with connections to other lines. Picking randomly the red lines in other systems, in the Central line in London, there are 19 stops in zones 1 and 2 - but 11 have connections to other lines. In Madrid, line 2 has 20 stops and 10 with connections. It doesn't make sense for an express train to skip a stop with a connection, because that is an important chance for people to change directions. So there's much less potential benefit in a system with so many connections. The network geometry in NYC is unusual for a few reasons; one is the specific clusters of dense development (I understand it's geology - the bedrock in downtown and midtown supports skyscrapers, and the gravel between does not); another reason is the historical nature of competing services leading to potential duplication - the A/C/E and 1/2/3 are parallel for almost their entire length; and a third is political geography - crossing the Hudson is limited to the Port Authority, so the potential for crosstown routes going from Brooklyn or Queens to northern New Jersey has been removed.
Another quick one is that NYC has very close stops compared to others; so instead of an express and then three local stops then the next express, other cities might just have three stops (skipping two of the local stops) so every train is in comparison to NYC a semi-express service.
My fourth point is that the benefit of the extra construction for express trains can be used elsewhere; for instance, in Toronto there's a north-south line on Yonge that is really busy and running at 20+ trains per hour, so they could consider building essentially a parallel structure to add capacity and then run local and express routes. But a lot of that traffic is coming from the east; there's an east-west subway on Bloor that is also pretty busy, and lots of people take the train east on Bloor then transfer to go south on Yonge to the downtown. For the same cost as building more express capacity on Yonge, the preferred proposal is to build another north-south line east of Yonge, then hooking around to the downtown. (This site has a map; Yonge is yellow, Bloor is green and the relief line is in red). Instead of marginally improving the travel time for the people on Yonge - who have good subways already - this would speed up travel time for the people coming from the east and also expand into new areas that are currently underserved. Similar proposals are in other cities that are reaching their capacities; a new Transbay tunnel in San Francisco would probably provide some alternative service - to Alameda, SoMa etc. The crossing of the Potomac at Reston in DC needs expansion, but the preferred alternative is to build a new line adding service into Georgetown, Logan Circle, etc.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 11:38 AM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
One is that express service implicitly halves your train frequency. Let's say there are 6 trains an hour; that's 10 minutes headway between each train. Now let's say half of them are express and half local; that's now 20 minutes headway between express and 20 between local. If you happen to want to go between two express stops, then yes the train travels faster between them, but you now have to wait twice as long. If you are going between two locals, then you have to wait twice as long but there's no increase in speed - guess how popular that is with riders (and voters). If you're going between an express and a local, you may want to just take the local in which case see above, or you may want to take the express part of the way, in which case you have the hassle of a transfer and the additional wait times. So express service only makes sense operationally once you are running a hell of a lot of trains per hour already - if you're running 30 trains an hour, increasing headways from 2 to 4 minutes to include express may be okay, but not if you're running fewer trains than that. And there's not a lot of rail networks at that frequency.
Another is the network geometry; in New York a lot of the lines parallel each other - Bronx or Queens to midtown Manhattan, then down to Lower Manhattan, then across to Brooklyn. In other cities, the central network is much more a mesh. Looking at the 1/2/3 in NY from 96th to Chambers, there are 18 stops, and only 3 with connections to other lines. Picking randomly the red lines in other systems, in the Central line in London, there are 19 stops in zones 1 and 2 - but 11 have connections to other lines. In Madrid, line 2 has 20 stops and 10 with connections. It doesn't make sense for an express train to skip a stop with a connection, because that is an important chance for people to change directions. So there's much less potential benefit in a system with so many connections. The network geometry in NYC is unusual for a few reasons; one is the specific clusters of dense development (I understand it's geology - the bedrock in downtown and midtown supports skyscrapers, and the gravel between does not); another reason is the historical nature of competing services leading to potential duplication - the A/C/E and 1/2/3 are parallel for almost their entire length; and a third is political geography - crossing the Hudson is limited to the Port Authority, so the potential for crosstown routes going from Brooklyn or Queens to northern New Jersey has been removed.
Another quick one is that NYC has very close stops compared to others; so instead of an express and then three local stops then the next express, other cities might just have three stops (skipping two of the local stops) so every train is in comparison to NYC a semi-express service.
My fourth point is that the benefit of the extra construction for express trains can be used elsewhere; for instance, in Toronto there's a north-south line on Yonge that is really busy and running at 20+ trains per hour, so they could consider building essentially a parallel structure to add capacity and then run local and express routes. But a lot of that traffic is coming from the east; there's an east-west subway on Bloor that is also pretty busy, and lots of people take the train east on Bloor then transfer to go south on Yonge to the downtown. For the same cost as building more express capacity on Yonge, the preferred proposal is to build another north-south line east of Yonge, then hooking around to the downtown. (This site has a map; Yonge is yellow, Bloor is green and the relief line is in red). Instead of marginally improving the travel time for the people on Yonge - who have good subways already - this would speed up travel time for the people coming from the east and also expand into new areas that are currently underserved. Similar proposals are in other cities that are reaching their capacities; a new Transbay tunnel in San Francisco would probably provide some alternative service - to Alameda, SoMa etc. The crossing of the Potomac at Reston in DC needs expansion, but the preferred alternative is to build a new line adding service into Georgetown, Logan Circle, etc.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 11:38 AM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Reston? I believe you mean Rosslyn. Unless there's a secret tunnel in Reston I never learned about in five years of working out there.
posted by fedward at 7:09 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by fedward at 7:09 PM on February 13, 2016
Oops; my mistake - I was typing quickly and had a R---n cities in Virginia brain fart.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 10:30 AM on February 14, 2016
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 10:30 AM on February 14, 2016
Damn. A secret tunnel would really open up job options for me. That commute was terrible.
posted by fedward at 11:59 AM on February 14, 2016
posted by fedward at 11:59 AM on February 14, 2016
This thread is closed to new comments.
Having talked to some traffic planners, I have been told that traffic planning has to account for peak traffic during rush hours and this is part of why some roads are so empty and seem to overbuilt most of the time. They are designed to handle peak normal flows (not peak crazy flows at big events -- peak rush hour flows).
New York would not even work at all without pedestrian and train traffic. If you tried to do everything via car for every single person there, it would cease to function. It would be permanent grid lock.
So, first you have to have the population density and traffic to justify it. That is likely to be a big factor here.
I don't know of express trains elsewhere, but I do know of express buses in some places. On the other hand, I haven't particularly researched this either.
posted by Michele in California at 1:29 PM on February 9, 2016