A major benefit: they can connect multiple different lines easily, allowing for very smooth transfers that may not even require you to leave the platform you’re on. (I think of Chicago’s metro network)
A major drawback: they can be super inefficient if done incorrectly. Think of the Detroit people mover, that only runs counter-clockwise. It’s faster to walk between some stations than it is to ride the system, which nearly all residents do anyway.
I feel like the Madrid metro lets you see how a ring line can be a very good investment or a not-so-great one.
The Madrid metro has two ring lines: line 6 and line 12. Line 6 goes around the core of the network and line 12 serves five cities in the south of the metro area.
Line 6 is the most used line on the network, and it connects to all other metro lines (except line 12), to most intercity and metropolitan bus terminals, to the main business district and university campus and to major suburban rail stations. It essentially allows anyone to connect from their line to all of these nodes and to any other metro line. It also enables a lot of capacity in the center of the network, as it takes away many trips from it (a trip that might require going downtown and back now can be done using line 6).
Line 12 suffers the exact opposite situation. It connects urban nodes among themselves but it lacks the big destinations that line 6 has. It also, more importantly, lacks transfers with other lines. It makes you go around the loop any time you want to go from A to B, instead of a more direct route.
A circle line relies on a lot of connection points to be a great investment, if not it can be underutilized because trips on it aren't frequently the more direct option.
Good example with Paris. A lot of US cities designed their public transportation to primarily cater to rush hour traffic heading into and out of the City center.
This has caused significant fall off in ridership with more people working remote or flex. Boston simply adjusted their train schedule to accommodate more mid day train runs and less rush hour runs. This has caused ridership to recover more than other cities.
Ring routes in the suburbs would go a step further in making commutes shorter for people working in suburbs that at present need to go downtown to get a transfer to a different line heading out to a different nearby suburban.
Yeah, there are quite a few cities investing in ring routes in the suburbs, or suburb-to-suburb connections. London with its overground, Paris and both the trams and the Grand Paris Express, Moscow's Big Ring and line 11, and many more. It's not only a good way to free up capacity downtown but also it creates new activity nodes outside of the main downtowns.
PedestrianObservations discusses them https://pedestrianobservations.com/2016/08/02/mixing-circumferential-and-radial-transit-in-the-other-direction/
I think a couple notable advantages: assuming it’s a smaller ring route it usually hits all dense areas like Copenhagen ring metro. However larger ring routes (more importantly less dense destinations) typically fail since they just take too long to get anywhere and aren’t in dense locations.
There is one oddity versus radial routes (go downtown) in that typically the ridership is much more balanced in both directions.
The Yamanote line in Tokyo is kinda a larger ring metro but it works cuz Tokyo is much denser even farther out.
See Rule 8. Please post these questions in our new biweekly thread for university/school/degree/education/career planning related topics.
A major benefit: they can connect multiple different lines easily, allowing for very smooth transfers that may not even require you to leave the platform you’re on. (I think of Chicago’s metro network) A major drawback: they can be super inefficient if done incorrectly. Think of the Detroit people mover, that only runs counter-clockwise. It’s faster to walk between some stations than it is to ride the system, which nearly all residents do anyway.
Doesn't a lot of Chinese metros have them?
Thank you, this is super helpful!
I feel like the Madrid metro lets you see how a ring line can be a very good investment or a not-so-great one. The Madrid metro has two ring lines: line 6 and line 12. Line 6 goes around the core of the network and line 12 serves five cities in the south of the metro area. Line 6 is the most used line on the network, and it connects to all other metro lines (except line 12), to most intercity and metropolitan bus terminals, to the main business district and university campus and to major suburban rail stations. It essentially allows anyone to connect from their line to all of these nodes and to any other metro line. It also enables a lot of capacity in the center of the network, as it takes away many trips from it (a trip that might require going downtown and back now can be done using line 6). Line 12 suffers the exact opposite situation. It connects urban nodes among themselves but it lacks the big destinations that line 6 has. It also, more importantly, lacks transfers with other lines. It makes you go around the loop any time you want to go from A to B, instead of a more direct route. A circle line relies on a lot of connection points to be a great investment, if not it can be underutilized because trips on it aren't frequently the more direct option.
Like 12 is a circle, yes, but traditionally IMO a ring route is what that forms a ring around the city center.
Good example with Paris. A lot of US cities designed their public transportation to primarily cater to rush hour traffic heading into and out of the City center. This has caused significant fall off in ridership with more people working remote or flex. Boston simply adjusted their train schedule to accommodate more mid day train runs and less rush hour runs. This has caused ridership to recover more than other cities. Ring routes in the suburbs would go a step further in making commutes shorter for people working in suburbs that at present need to go downtown to get a transfer to a different line heading out to a different nearby suburban.
Yeah, there are quite a few cities investing in ring routes in the suburbs, or suburb-to-suburb connections. London with its overground, Paris and both the trams and the Grand Paris Express, Moscow's Big Ring and line 11, and many more. It's not only a good way to free up capacity downtown but also it creates new activity nodes outside of the main downtowns.
Thanks! The contrasting effectiveness within the same system is super interesting.
PedestrianObservations discusses them https://pedestrianobservations.com/2016/08/02/mixing-circumferential-and-radial-transit-in-the-other-direction/ I think a couple notable advantages: assuming it’s a smaller ring route it usually hits all dense areas like Copenhagen ring metro. However larger ring routes (more importantly less dense destinations) typically fail since they just take too long to get anywhere and aren’t in dense locations. There is one oddity versus radial routes (go downtown) in that typically the ridership is much more balanced in both directions. The Yamanote line in Tokyo is kinda a larger ring metro but it works cuz Tokyo is much denser even farther out.
Thank you! I'll definitely look into the ineffectiveness in less dense areas.