While Russian Metro stations are internationally reknowned for their beauty, the systems themselves are highly-efficient and cleverly-planned. A key theme is simplicity, proving that when it comes to metro systems, less is best. More Moscow and St. Petersburg photos.
Frequency and network operations
One noticeable feature of Russian metro maps are the lack of spur lines. Just two lines in Moscow shares tracks (Lines 8A and 11) and Line 4 splits into two spur lines. Every other line has their own tracks. This simple set-up provides several benefits. First, delays on one line do not cascade to other lines. Similarly, maintenance delays or closures also only impact one line at a time. Second, train frequencies can be much higher when trains on one line do not have to sync with other lines. For example, San Francisco’s BART has four lines feeding into one line and can run about 24 trains per hour. But Moscow Metro can run 30-40 trains per hour because trains can follow each other more closely. New York City Subway can run about 40 trains per hour but on four tracks rather than two and with lower on-time performance. While Moscow's set-up increases the chances of a transfer, the higher frequencies offset the transfer time penalty because waiting times are much shorter. Therefore, travel times are reduced. That reduction is especially important in Moscow which while densely populated, is a very large, spread out city. Not incidentally, Moscow Metro is the busiest system outside of Asia.
Station design and crowd control
Given Moscow’s busy status, triple vault stations separate waiting passengers from passengers transferring to other parts of the station, moving crowds much more smoothly than Washington Metro or New York City Subway. At most of the busier, older stations, there are three vaults separated by supporting columns. Two vaults hold tracks and side platforms. People wait for trains in these vaults. The third vault is between them and is used to transfer to other trains or egress/exit the station. Entrances are often at each end of the third vault. Other times, stairs descend into the third vault from an alternative entrance or another metro line. People’s movements are separated from people standing still, a genius idea that Moscow Metro planners figured out in the 1930’s.
Compared to older US subway systems such as Boston, New York City and Philadelphia, Russian Metro stations are relatively far apart. San Francisco’s BART is probably the closest match in the US, as it functions as a hybrid subway and commuter rail system. As a result, Russian systems have high average speeds (25mph in Moscow versus about 12mph in New York City). While this means that getting places takes less time, unless your destination is close to the station, the last mile may require a longer walk, tram or bus ride, or taxi. Since Moscow is an enormously spread out city, the wide station spacing works fairly well. In St. Petersburg, the green line has even longer station spacing because city officials never added the infill stations which means that some stops are 4-5 minutes apart.
Expansion
Unlike most US cities, Moscow, St. Petersburg and other Russian cities are still expanding their metro systems. Moscow is planning its largest and fastest expansion including a 70 km third circle line. Nine stations opened in 2018 and 13 will open in 2019, the most ever. Washington Metro will open six in 2020 (maybe) and Los Angeles will open three by 2023 and four by 2025-2026 (maybe). Our largest system, New York City, plans to open zero. Only China has more ambitious subway expansion plans.
Fares
Moscow had a single fare structure since its inception but recently introduced discounts for buying more trips at a time. Alas, Metro officials perceive their new structure as leading to lost revenue so some options may go away. Moscow Metro uses a paper/cardboard farecard with a smart chip called a Troika card while St. Petersburg still uses tokens!
Escalators
Stalin wanted Moscow’s stations to serve as bomb shelters and required tunnels built deep below the surface. St. Petersburg is built on islands and swamps so deep stations were the only option. Escalators are the essential link to the surface and have to be reliable because without them, the metro station is unusable. Russian escalators have operators typically seated in booths at the base of the escalator and are notorious for announcements asking people to stand on the left. Pure speculation but I think those attendants follow a set escalator operating plan to ensure they remain in working order. Outside of peak hours, 1-2 are typically shut down to save electricity and reduce wear and tear. In contrast, Washington Metro’s operating plan merely flips a switch until the escalator breaks again (again, pure speculation). In addition, the escalator design promotes reliability and longevity. For example, many escalators have plastic steps instead of metal ones to reduce weight which reduces wear and tear on the components. Going back to station depth, escalator speeds are 2-3 times faster than Washington Metro’s which discourages walking. When a horde of people step onto the escalator at once, people stand on both sides, which allows more people onto the escalator at a time, reducing the bottleneck at the base.
Accessibility problems
While Russian metro systems surpass the US in many areas, they utterly fail at handicapped accessibility. A few stations have been retrofitted with elevators. Many have stairs in addition to escalators. While many stairs have ramps bolted onto them, they are too steep for all but the most physically fit wheelchair user and I never saw anyone use one. Between Russia’s aging population and many military veterans, elevators and useable ramps are dearly needed. While there are serious physical barriers, one nice feature is the use of male annoucers for trains inbound to the city central and female ones outbound from the city, an instant orientation cue for visually impaired riders.
Overall, Russian metro systems are highly efficient, functional, and well-regarded by their citizens for more than just their beauty. Unfortunately, many of their best features and lessons are lost on US subway system operators and planners.t
Did the Moscow metro stations have full mezzanines above the central vaults? Or did each street entrance have independent access to the central vault?
ReplyDeleteI was recently in China, and the metro systems without fail had a full mezzanine connected to each station exit, which contained all ticketing and security systems. It was especially useful for interchange stations, since regardless of which street entrance to used, you could access all the platforms from the common mezzanine.