5 ms·

68 new stations in the Paris area and it took forty years to get a Metro stop at DC's biggest airport.

quasse 3y ago
Meanwhile Seattle is planning to maybe-kinda-sorta begrudgingly start building one single light rail line to the west side of the city in the next few decades. Maybe it'll be ready by the time I retire.
- wombat-man 3y ago
  As someone who visits Seattle regularly it is painful seeing this roll out gradually.
  - throwaheyy 3y ago
    As a Seattle resident I don’t mind it being gradual, but it is painful seeing its compromised again and again. For example, using slow light-rail vehicles on a regional length line, abandoning a centralised transfer hub, and monumental station designs that are either hundreds of feet underground or hundreds of feet in the air with escalator after escalator adding minutes to every trip.
- Rebelgecko 3y ago
  Until a few years ago there were some dumb limitations for federal infrastructure funding that connected trains to airports
- ClimaxGravely 3y ago
  In 1993 I remember thinking that the skytrain line to UBC in the Vancouver west side would be complete by the time I needed to go to university. They started building it a couple years ago, it's in progress now and last I checked due to people in the neighborhood complaining it won't make it all the way to the university. You have to complete the trip on a bus. I guess Seattle and Vancouver really do have a lot in common.
ytdytvhxgydvhh 3y ago
Or we still haven’t, depending on how you decide which is the biggest airport. BWI had slightly more passengers than Dulles last year; Dulles had slightly more flights than BWI.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  BWI doesn’t have subway, but it does have light rail service to Baltimore and Amtrak service to DC.
  - nerdbert 3y ago
    It has light rail service to Baltimore, but the Amtrak/MARC connection to DC is many miles away from the airport, connected via an awful shuttle bus that dawdles around the woods wasting 20 minutes of your day. Plus the trains are extremely infrequent. The option exists, but only in the most nominal way.
cpursley 3y ago
Just wait till you read how many (stunning) stations and lines of track in highly sanctioned (and supposedly beyond corrupt) Russia has laid in Moscow, it’s depressing. If they can do it on time and under budget, why can’t America?
- selectodude 3y ago
  Pretty sure a decent amount of the Moscow metro was built with convict labor under Stalin.
  - twelve40 3y ago
    Pretty sure the OP is referring to the more relevant fact that in the last decade they've built over 100 new stations and continue to do so at a rate of about 12 new stations every year, no slave labor involved.
    - acchow 3y ago
      Is this because politicians don’t need to be concerned with reelection?
      - yongjik 3y ago
        That's an odd take: where I grew up (Korea), everybody loves subway stations, and "I'll bring in more subway stations!" is a reliable way for politicians to buy more votes. Everywhere, including the most expensive districts. I'm afraid the American phenomenon of turning their nose up at public transportation projects is just that - a distinctly American phenomenon. They don't know what they are missing.
        aylmao 3y ago
        I'm sure it can be attributed to a lot of factors. Geographically, the USA has a lot of space, so it's relatively easy to sprawl. Some places have to be more space-efficient. Ideologically, the USA has always been about individual rights, private property and self-reliance. Car ownership fits that model of thinking better. Politically, private companies have always had a lot of influence over government. When the car became widespread, it was easy to influence governments to build highways, favour cars in roads, pass parking minimums, etc. Historically, the USA has a history of segregation. Public transit mixes people from around the city, and I'm sure at a certain point in time there were people in power interested on reducing that as much as possible. I mean, there's that whole event with Rosa Parks as an example [1]. Moreover, a lot of the USA is "new". With a shorter tradition of city-building and more of a blank canvas to start, I'm not surprised what people expect and how they try to build their cities is different. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Refusal_to_move https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Refusal_to_move
gwervc 3y ago
The airport line from and to the city (RER B) is literally the worst I ever took anywhere in the world. Two issues: there's no room or equipment at people's height for luggages which is infuriating. And it's shared with the local people going to and from the North suburbs, making it very crowded at times. I don't understand why there isn't a dedicated line, or at least a dedicated express train going on the line.
- uxp8u61q 3y ago
  If the RER B is "literally the worst [you] ever took anywhere in the world", then you mustn't have taken public transportation to the airport in many places. At least the RER B... exists! There are so many places where the airport can only be reached via car or taxi, it's insane. Many other places have just a bus. Usually a terrible bus.
  - jimmywetnips 3y ago
    Exactly. I was going to say the same exact thing. Anyone else ever experienced the public transportless hellscape of Cancun airport? Where a short ride into the city is a cool 75 usd, rideshare is chased off by the cartels, and the walk to the highway to take a collectivo bus with incomprehensible route numbers is 1.5 miles away in sweltering jungle heat? Or how about Tampa, Asheville, Austin or any other medium sized us airport, where train transport doesn't exist at all How about Boston Logan which is only connected to the main Metro lines by a crappy bus that will add a nice 30 minutes and luggage heaving to your journey I literally love the rer. It can be much shittier lol
    - mauvehaus 3y ago
      I have to defend Logan just a little here. The new Airport station is a lot less convenient than the old one, but the Blue Line isn't really that useful unless you live in East Boston anyway (or on the Orange Line with a transfer at State St). The Silver Line to South Station is at least as good as the bus to new Airport. Once you're there, you're on the Red Line and by extension a couple stops from the Orange or Green lines. I think it was a worthwhile trade off.

Meanwhile Seattle is planning to maybe-kinda-sorta begrudgingly start building one single light rail line to the west side of the city in the next few decades. Maybe it'll be ready by the time I retire.

wombat-man 3y ago
As someone who visits Seattle regularly it is painful seeing this roll out gradually.
- throwaheyy 3y ago
  As a Seattle resident I don’t mind it being gradual, but it is painful seeing its compromised again and again. For example, using slow light-rail vehicles on a regional length line, abandoning a centralised transfer hub, and monumental station designs that are either hundreds of feet underground or hundreds of feet in the air with escalator after escalator adding minutes to every trip.
Rebelgecko 3y ago
Until a few years ago there were some dumb limitations for federal infrastructure funding that connected trains to airports
ClimaxGravely 3y ago
In 1993 I remember thinking that the skytrain line to UBC in the Vancouver west side would be complete by the time I needed to go to university. They started building it a couple years ago, it's in progress now and last I checked due to people in the neighborhood complaining it won't make it all the way to the university. You have to complete the trip on a bus. I guess Seattle and Vancouver really do have a lot in common.

ytdytvhxgydvhh 3y ago

Or we still haven’t, depending on how you decide which is the biggest airport. BWI had slightly more passengers than Dulles last year; Dulles had slightly more flights than BWI.

alistairSH 3y ago
BWI doesn’t have subway, but it does have light rail service to Baltimore and Amtrak service to DC.
- nerdbert 3y ago
  It has light rail service to Baltimore, but the Amtrak/MARC connection to DC is many miles away from the airport, connected via an awful shuttle bus that dawdles around the woods wasting 20 minutes of your day. Plus the trains are extremely infrequent. The option exists, but only in the most nominal way.

cpursley 3y ago

Just wait till you read how many (stunning) stations and lines of track in highly sanctioned (and supposedly beyond corrupt) Russia has laid in Moscow, it’s depressing. If they can do it on time and under budget, why can’t America?

selectodude 3y ago
Pretty sure a decent amount of the Moscow metro was built with convict labor under Stalin.
- twelve40 3y ago
  Pretty sure the OP is referring to the more relevant fact that in the last decade they've built over 100 new stations and continue to do so at a rate of about 12 new stations every year, no slave labor involved.
  - acchow 3y ago
    Is this because politicians don’t need to be concerned with reelection?
    - yongjik 3y ago
      That's an odd take: where I grew up (Korea), everybody loves subway stations, and "I'll bring in more subway stations!" is a reliable way for politicians to buy more votes. Everywhere, including the most expensive districts. I'm afraid the American phenomenon of turning their nose up at public transportation projects is just that - a distinctly American phenomenon. They don't know what they are missing.
      - aylmao 3y ago
        I'm sure it can be attributed to a lot of factors. Geographically, the USA has a lot of space, so it's relatively easy to sprawl. Some places have to be more space-efficient. Ideologically, the USA has always been about individual rights, private property and self-reliance. Car ownership fits that model of thinking better. Politically, private companies have always had a lot of influence over government. When the car became widespread, it was easy to influence governments to build highways, favour cars in roads, pass parking minimums, etc. Historically, the USA has a history of segregation. Public transit mixes people from around the city, and I'm sure at a certain point in time there were people in power interested on reducing that as much as possible. I mean, there's that whole event with Rosa Parks as an example [1]. Moreover, a lot of the USA is "new". With a shorter tradition of city-building and more of a blank canvas to start, I'm not surprised what people expect and how they try to build their cities is different. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Refusal_to_move https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Refusal_to_move

gwervc 3y ago

The airport line from and to the city (RER B) is literally the worst I ever took anywhere in the world. Two issues: there's no room or equipment at people's height for luggages which is infuriating. And it's shared with the local people going to and from the North suburbs, making it very crowded at times. I don't understand why there isn't a dedicated line, or at least a dedicated express train going on the line.

uxp8u61q 3y ago
If the RER B is "literally the worst [you] ever took anywhere in the world", then you mustn't have taken public transportation to the airport in many places. At least the RER B... exists! There are so many places where the airport can only be reached via car or taxi, it's insane. Many other places have just a bus. Usually a terrible bus.
- jimmywetnips 3y ago
  Exactly. I was going to say the same exact thing. Anyone else ever experienced the public transportless hellscape of Cancun airport? Where a short ride into the city is a cool 75 usd, rideshare is chased off by the cartels, and the walk to the highway to take a collectivo bus with incomprehensible route numbers is 1.5 miles away in sweltering jungle heat? Or how about Tampa, Asheville, Austin or any other medium sized us airport, where train transport doesn't exist at all How about Boston Logan which is only connected to the main Metro lines by a crappy bus that will add a nice 30 minutes and luggage heaving to your journey I literally love the rer. It can be much shittier lol
  - mauvehaus 3y ago
    I have to defend Logan just a little here. The new Airport station is a lot less convenient than the old one, but the Blue Line isn't really that useful unless you live in East Boston anyway (or on the Orange Line with a transfer at State St). The Silver Line to South Station is at least as good as the bus to new Airport. Once you're there, you're on the Red Line and by extension a couple stops from the Orange or Green lines. I think it was a worthwhile trade off.