Why not drastically reduce the size of subway trains? Shrink them down so that they are basically enclosed rollercoaster cars. Passengers would shimmy into their seats just like boarding a rollercoaster or getting into a passenger car. No wasted space inside for doorways or aisles. Headroom would be low, the same as a big SUV.
Smaller subway cars mean smaller tunnels which are cheaper to build. Less digging, less interference with powerlines, pipes, etc.
Smaller subway cars also allow tighter turns- you could put a subway line under any street. If cars and trucks can make the turn up on the surface, the mini subway can make the equivalent turn underground.
Small tunnels, completely located under city-owned streets, mean that there is little impact on private property. This would massively reduce the regulatory and legal hurdles required to overcome to build a subway system.
Mini subways would be much cheaper and could be implemented much more quickly than regular subways.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
1. The existing mass transit systems are based on a particular size/scale, for legacy reasons, and people expect it.
2. Safety. A smaller train car is less safe than a larger one.
3. Economy of scale/passenger density. More people in fewer larger cars are cheaper to deal with and more profitable than fewer people in more smaller cars.
4. Management. Fewer trains are easier/cheaper to staff, maintain, and keep track of. Stations and tunnels for mini sized subway trains are likely marginally less expensive than for full sized trains anyway.
5. Accessibility. Current mass transit systems are rather accessible to the disabled. Smaller cars may not be so accessible to those that need it.
6. Easements and deep tunneling. Generally cities don't need to bother with where they build underground subways, deep tunneling will generally not bother surface buildings, easement rights could permit them to go under private property.
ride the 6 train in New York City (on the Lexington Avenue Line), or most rail transit systems during rush hour, and see if the aisle and door areas are "wasted space" - in Atlanta, they're full of people.
tighter turns aren't always a good thing in rail transit - tight turns require a drastic slowdown, lowering your overall average speed. this has been a problem in Chicago, where they're actively straightening many of the system's tight curves. and even at that, Chicago uses some of the nation's shortest/smallest subway cars.
second all of the above points. also, i am skeptical about any ability to reduce regulatory and legal hurdles - the result of an unavoidable, but well-intentioned bureaucracy.
I bet the size of traditional railcars is a throwback to the origins of the railroad- steam locomotives were big and railcars are correspondingly sized. Furthermore, the original passenger rail trips tended to be long- days and weeks long- so having room for passengers and crew to get up and move around made a lot of sense. Neither of these two factors is significant for a mini subway system. Of course mini subways are not what people expect, but the unexpected is what this website is all about!
There are obviously tradeoffs with a miniature subway. In many cases, a traditional subway will be a better transportation solution. But for other cases a miniaturized system might be a better fit. For example, a mini subway might not work for a major commuter line, but it could be useful along a smaller route. Major commuter lines are radial, running in and out of the city. Mini subways might be good for circumferential routes. Maybe collector lines outside the city, carrying people to the main subway line. Maybe a replacement for an airport shuttle bus system. Smaller cities might find minisubways useful where a full scale subway would be overkill. In the future, a maglev train in an air-evacuated tunnel could provide transport from NY to DC in minutes. A smaller tube with minisubway-sized cars could be essential for reducing the enormous cost of such a tunnel.