Wilshire/Western to Wilshire/Normandie stations in L.A. are atypically close to each other (for L.A.), at 0.4 miles, even if that’s not as close as some of the ones I’ve read about here. Still it seemed odd to me, the one time I happened to stand right behind the operator’s booth with a clear view of the tunnel ahead, with its typical dim lighting. Immediately on pulling out of Wilshire / Western, I could see the brightly lighted platform of Wilshire / Normandie directly ahead.
It seems like it was a waste to put in a station at Normandie, when that money might have gone for a Hollywood Bowl station on the North Hollywood line.
OP: Are you including any sort of mass transit system in your reckoning, or must the stations actually be underground? On the Docklands Light Railway in London (technically not part of the Underground network), West India Quay and Canary Wharf are only 0.124 miles apart (199m), which is the closest separation on the whole system. Both these stations are above ground, though.
South Ealing to Northfields is pretty damn close to that as well, although again they are overground. You can see how close the platforms are here. This site claims that “at less than 300 yards between platforms they are the two closest over-ground stations on the whole tube network”, but it has no reference for that information.
A quick bit of hunting and pecking on Google Maps indicates that the single most perverse pair of stops on the MBTA Green Line may actually be on the E branch, between Brigham Circle and Fernwood Road, a 1 block/361 foot walk. Of course, this is a streetcar, not a subway, so not strictly relevant to the question, but still…
I remember when the design decisions were being made, and there was a lot of controversy about whether to put a stop at the Hollywood Bowl. The basic points were: Yes, it would get a lot of traffic at Bowl events, but it would be almost empty all other times.
Well, not exactly – the Green Line is definitely a subway, going through tunnels underground when it’s in central Boston. Even when it’s in the suburbs, though, the green line has designated stations and stops, and doesn’t stop at intermediate points. It’s not like a streetcar or bus that you can request a stop at various points.
Don’t older subway systems have a lot of this? The placement of stations suggests that the designers wanted not only to serve the rider who wanted to go, for example, from Flushing to the Bronx, but also the one who merely wanted to ride four or five blocks–in the latter case I assume the goal was to eliminate as much surface traffic as possible. (And after that the streets of Mahattan would light of traffic and freely flowing, forevermore!. ). J
Not that I’m aware of. The direct walking connection between Downtown Crossing and Park Street is unique in my experience. Do you know of any others?
I’m not talking about connecting stations – there are lots of those in subway systems, necessarily, where you can go from one line to another. I don’t know of any other cases where I can walk underground from one station to another on the same line.
Dallas’ light-rail system has two stations Downtown that are but 1,500 feet apart–West End and Akard.
Yeah, yeah, I know it’s not a subway system. But, frankly, above-ground light-rail is about all you get in Texastan.
The tracks run at street level through Downtown, and the trains often do not get signal priority (!), so it’s possible to get off of a train at either station, then beat said train to the other.
As I mentioned upthread in Philly you can walk underground parallel to the tracks (but separated by a barrier) from 8th to 11th to 13th and, with a minor excursion still under cover, to 15th. So four consecutive stops you can walk along.
In Montreal, there is this entire underground city in which you can, without going outside, hit 4 stations (Lucien l’Allier, Bonaventure, Victoria Square, Champ de Mars) on one line and 3 stations (Place des Arts, McGill, Peel) on another. However you are not going parallel to the tracks and going from adjacent stations Place des Arts to McGill, a distance of about 1/4 mile, would require walking well over a mile. This underground city includes the hockey arena, an exhibit hall, the convention center, the concert halls, and literally hundreds of retail establishments.
As mentioned upthread, both Chicago’s downtown subways have continuous platforms several blocks long, at which trains made three (at one point, four) separate stops, each stop having a different name. The State Street subway was long known as the world’s second-longest railway platform. Because platform crowding was a concern, originally northbound trains berthed at different locations from southbound ones. Thus the distance from the southbound berthing position of the Monroe stop to the northbound berth of the Jackson stop might have been as little as 150 feet. A similar arrangement was found on some parts of the Loop L early in the 20th century.
In the mid 1980s, I used to use this continuous platform arrangement to go back and forth between office buildings a couple of blocks apart, without need of a coat or umbrella. I just went down and walked along the platform, never boarding a train. I carried a monthly pass in those days, so the fare to get through the turnstile wasn’t a problem.
I can tell you that in my area (Bergen County, New Jersey), on the Pascack Valley line, the Park Ridge station and the Montvale station are super close. Like less than a mile. They’re in the same strip mall/shopping center of town. I always thought it was kind of stupid and funny
Pittsburgh’s light rail system is underground within its small downtown, but above ground elsewhere. Fallowfield Station, above ground*, is 250 feet from the next outbound stop, Hampshire. When an outbound train is stopped at Hampshire, the back end of a typical train of two subway cars, each 90 feet long, is a good deal closer to Fallowfield. If they ever ran a three-car train, the last car would still be in the previous station when the first was stopped at the next.
An attempt was made a few years ago to eliminate the Hampshire stop, but residents insisted they needed both, and the decision was reversed.
Literally. One end of Fallowfield Station rests on the ground. The other end is perhaps 45 feet off the ground, as the station forms one end of a bridge that carries the tracks across a steep valley.
I apologize; I was being inadvertently vague here. I was referring to numerous stops and closely placed stations along a given subway line, without necessarily being able to walk from one to the next, all underground.
Yeah, it seems like it, a bit. For instance, the center of Paris is littered with Metro stops, all within a short distance from each other, but the system mostly covers just the inner parts of the city, and not the suburbs. You wouldn’t construct a system like that today, I think.
BTW, the older subway systems, like London, Paris and New York, generally just blow my mind. “We’ll dig up this whole city, and create a vast network of underground railroads!” And those systems are just gigantic. Today, even a single line or an extension seems to take a jillion years to build, cost a bazillion dollars, and always goes through an endless amount of planning and faffing around, before maybe your grandkids get to ride on it. See the Second Avenue Subway in Manhattan for an example of that. When something new does get built in a city these days, it’s seems that it’s more often light rail or at least something above ground. It seems like there was more of a “can do” attitude about it back then.
Although, come to think of it, aren’t pretty big systems being constructed in China? I know way too little about Chinese cities, unfortunately. I think I’ll look into what is going on over there.
). J