Mexico City public transit

Two points [[since the name of Mexico City has been taken in vain so many times in the discussion of Detroit transit):

1. Detroit's streetcars have not been in operation in Mexico City for 25 years. They were put out of commission in an earthquake in the mid-1980s. Those cars that weren't destroyed were parted out.

2. Mexico City's extensive "subway" system is in fact a larger type of BRT - it runs on rubber wheels, not rails. I don't think it can steer [[at will), but it does run on a paved network.

I'll leave it to the rest of you to kill each other over the question of whether either of these is a reason to downgrade Mexico City from "real city" status. :)

HB

I don't know where you're getting your info, but some of it is inaccurate.

Mexico City has a very large Metro [[subway rail) system that is something like 5th in the world in ridership. Yes, it has rubber tires, but many subways have rubber tires, including Paris, Montreal, Buenos Aires, etc.

I think the only busier Metros are Tokyo, Moscow, NYC and Paris.

Mexico City also has a large and very successful Metrobus [[BRT) system that carries extremely high volumes. Anyone who thinks that BRT can't work needs to ride this system. It's probably faster and more comfortable than even the subway.

There's only one remaining trolley line, which is in the southern part of the city.

Bham, my point was simply that the typology of bus vs. "rail" is not as clean-cut as people would think. There is a gradient of technologies that begins with fully autonomous vehicles and ends with vehicles that rest on [[and derive their guidance from) rails. In between are rubber-tired Metros and things like the GLT.

As for the Mexico City BRT [[as in bus-like vehicles, not the Metro) I was pretty impressed with them when I was there. And I actually spent some time looking for the Detroit streetcars [[obviously in vain). I only learned of their fate when I was back... Guess I had heard too much of the urban legend that they were still running down there.

If there is a takeaway, it is that there are types of "rail" that doesn't require as massive an infrastructure investment as laying full tracks in the ground. I can see some scenarios in which BRT morphs with time into Mexico-City style Metro cars. If you have dedicated and segregated lanes, you're on your way.

The last time I was in Mexico City for any length of time was in 1978, and the old Detroit streetcars were still running then. Although many of them looked very old indeed by then, and were pretty clearly on their last legs, and sounded pretty awful when you rode them. Still, I snapped a bunch of pictures of them and brought them home to my father, who grew up riding those same cars here. I even spotted one that mysteriously still seemed to have a Detroit destination roll on it [[said "Woodward"). I was sad to see them all gone when I passed through the city again in 1989.

Back then the Mexico City subway system was still quite new and seemed like a miracle to a Detroit kid like me [[whose only previous experience with mass transit up until that were the then-dilapidated systems in NYC and Chicago). It was amazing to me that what appeared to be a third world city could have a modern, efficient, clean, and inexpensive transit system. It seemed then, and it still seems now, to be a very real mark of abject failure for our federal and local governments.

As for BRT, I would be very interested to see a system that seemed to be working well. My only previous experience with BRT is the ludicrous Silver Line in Boston, which takes forever to get nowhere, looks like the cheaped-out attempt to build a subway line that it is, and just generally reeks of transit failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

.......Back then the Mexico City subway system was still quite new and seemed like a miracle to a Detroit kid like me [[whose only previous experience with mass transit up until that were the then-dilapidated systems in NYC and Chicago). It was amazing to me that what appeared to be a third world city could have a modern, efficient, clean, and inexpensive transit system. It seemed then, and it still seems now, to be a very real mark of abject failure for our federal and local governments.....

---

Mexico City proper is in the Federal District of Mexico [[Spanish: Distrito Federal or D.F.), a federally-administered area [[that is, not part of any Mexican state) which acts as the capital of Mexico [source].

Perhaps you should limit comparisons of its mass transit to other capital cities such as Washington, D.C., Moscow, etc.

I tried once to track down the Detroit street cars in Mexico City, nothing doing, they have all been scraped. The subway system here is the 4th busiest in the world and the above ground "metro bus" would be a great example of what Detroit could do. I think the best bet would be to have that nice railed spinal cord up woodward [[rubber wheels or not) and compliment the rest with platform bus routes, which could be very fast to implement. The best of both worlds.

IMO, Mexico City isn't really a good comparison to any U.S. city because Mexico is still a relatively "poor" country, and the reason most folks take transit is because they can't afford a car.

Their ridership stats are pretty much irrelevent as a basis of comparison, because they're just a barometer of poverty, rather than whether the Metro is efficient or whatever. If there were no Mexico City Metro, you would probably have the exact same ridership, but now riding on buses.

Most of the Latin American cities have very low "choice" riders on their transit. So they have tons of overall ridership, but anyone who can afford a car buys one and chooses to drive. It's an important marker of social status.

Why was this posted as it's own thread? It sounds like a reply to some other thread. What's with the proliferatiton of pointless threads around here, lately? Posting Tourettes?

But, since we're on this pointless exercize [[is it even that?), Mexico City, being one of the largest urban areas in the world, has a very real subway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeg

Mexico City proper is in the Federal District of Mexico [[Spanish: Distrito Federal or D.F.), a federally-administered area [[that is, not part of any Mexican state) which acts as the capital of Mexico [source].

Perhaps you should limit comparisons of its mass transit to other capital cities such as Washington, D.C., Moscow, etc.

---

Ho Chi Minh City is a capital city, and has about the same population as New York proper. They don't have a subway. Does that make you feel better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexlin

Why was this posted as it's own thread? It sounds like a reply to some other thread. What's with the proliferatiton of pointless threads around here, lately? Posting Tourettes?

But, since we're on this pointless exercize [[is it even that?), Mexico City, being one of the largest urban areas in the world, has a very real subway.

---

Yes, as was pointed out earlier, MC's subway was designed like Montreal's subway by Paris metro engineers. The fact that they run on rubber wheels doesnt mean they are like buses. They also run on rails with steel wheels at an angle to the track. Montreal's subway is the third busiest in North America after NYC and Mexico, and it is totally underground unlike most metros. The cars are not as wide as the ones in Toronto and NYC but the trains are longer on most of the lines.

Don't forget, one complete former DSR Detroit PCC Streetcar was sent back from Mexico City to Detroit in the 1986. It is car number 268. It's owned by the Michigan Transit Museum and is in terrible need of restoration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocko

Don't forget, one complete former DSR Detroit PCC Streetcar was sent back from Mexico City to Detroit in the 1986. It is car number 268. It's owned by the Michigan Transit Museum and is terrible need or restoration.

---

I've seen it and been in it. It needs a lot of work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huggybear

Bham, my point was simply that the typology of bus vs. "rail" is not as clean-cut as people would think. There is a gradient of technologies that begins with fully autonomous vehicles and ends with vehicles that rest on [[and derive their guidance from) rails. In between are rubber-tired Metros and things like the GLT.
...
If there is a takeaway, it is that there are types of "rail" that doesn't require as massive an infrastructure investment as laying full tracks in the ground. I can see some scenarios in which BRT morphs with time into Mexico-City style Metro cars. If you have dedicated and segregated lanes, you're on your way.

---

Great post, that leads me along with few others to the issue of quality.

Often -- and I think here by many -- method is being used as a proxy for quality. If its Light Rail, it will be a great system, and if its BRT or anything else it will be 'crap'.

Its possible to build a really bad LR network and a really good BRT network. I don't really care about method. Light Rail's my preference by a mile. But I'll take quality or method anyday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Their ridership stats are pretty much irrelevent as a basis of comparison, because they're just a barometer of poverty, rather than whether the Metro is efficient or whatever. If there were no Mexico City Metro, you would probably have the exact same ridership, but now riding on buses.

Most of the Latin American cities have very low "choice" riders on their transit. So they have tons of overall ridership, but anyone who can afford a car buys one and chooses to drive. It's an important marker of social status.

---

People in Mexico City have access to a great, clean and efficient transport system, plus traditional buses, the new metro buses, peseros [[small buses) and thousands of taxis. It is a great example of how transport gives hope and mobility to millions of people. Mexico City resident Carlos Slim [[the richest man in the world) doesn't take the metro, I can assure you, but to discount ridership stats as "irrelevant" because the are poor are using it is a bit naive. Mexico City is a mega, alpha city working on amazingly mind bending levels. All cities can learn from Mexico City and find relevant comparaisons because it sits on the extremes of everything. There is a great diverse class of people taking El Metro and very similar to the same class taking the subway in New York or the tube in London, just on a vaster scale, covering many diverse neighborhoods just depending on the particular line and the neighborhood the metro is passing.

Bham, your racism and classism have really been getting on my nerves lately. That is one of the most ignorant statements ever. Transit use as barometer of poverty is, frankly, offensively shortsighted. If you think you can just drive a car anywhere in Mexico city, look at their smog levels and pictures of traffic jams. It's one of the biggest cities in the world. It's not comparable to "most latin american cities"

Telling one person they are comparing apples to oranges and then backing your argument by comparing apples to pears is not useful. Please stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mpow

There is a great diverse class of people taking El Metro and very similar to the same class taking the subway in New York or the tube in London, just on a vaster scale, covering many diverse neighborhoods just depending on the particular line and the neighborhood the metro is passing.

---

This isn't true, and this was the distinction I was getting at.

Latin American cities are much more class-oriented than, say, European or U.S./Canadian cities, and transit choice is indicative of these divisions.

Generally speaking, the middle and upper classes don't ride transit in Mexico City. Excepting one stop in one neighborhood close to downtown [[Polanco), there are no subway lines in any of the wealthier neighborhoods or major business centers. None whatsoever.

Also, none of the BRT lines go to wealthy neighborhoods or business centers.

So, yes, Mexico City has excellent transit, but the usage is very distinct from, say, London, Paris, or NYC. It's a system that serves the poor, and the system coverage prevents usage from others.

The most important and exclusive business and shopping destination is called Santa Fe. There is no Metro line or BRT line within 10 miles of Santa Fe.

BTW, I lived in Mexico City for a semester in college. I know the neighborhoods very well.

Quote:

---

There is a great diverse class of people taking El Metro and very similar to the same class taking the subway in New York or the tube in London, just on a vaster scale, covering many diverse neighborhoods just depending on the particular line and the neighborhood the metro is passing.

---

Funny thing is these days in cities like London, the underground rail has become so expensive that only the wealthy use it on a daily basis. Regular nigels and nigellas take the bus. But then London cost of living follows the insanity of the banking crowd pushing everything up.

This goes for car use too, you need to pay big bucks just to drive into the city center and of course the rich dont have to worry about pocket change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

This isn't true, and this was the distinction I was getting at.

Latin American cities are much more class-oriented than, say, European or U.S./Canadian cities, and transit choice is indicative of these divisions.

Generally speaking, the middle and upper classes don't ride transit in Mexico City. Excepting one stop in one neighborhood close to downtown [[Polanco), there are no subway lines in any of the wealthier neighborhoods or major business centers. None whatsoever.

Also, none of the BRT lines go to wealthy neighborhoods or business centers.

So, yes, Mexico City has excellent transit, but the usage is very distinct from, say, London, Paris, or NYC. It's a system that serves the poor, and the system coverage prevents usage from others.

The most important and exclusive business and shopping destination is called Santa Fe. There is no Metro line or BRT line within 10 miles of Santa Fe.

BTW, I lived in Mexico City for a semester in college. I know the neighborhoods very well.

---

Serving only the poor plus that student who once lived for a semester in Mexico City.

Besides Polanco, which features not one, but at least three stations, neighborhoods that El Metro passes with some very stable "affluent" neighborhoods: San Angel, Narvarte, La Condesa, La Colonia Roma, Coyoacan, the recently gentrified Centro Historico, Colonia Del Valle--plus a whole slew of middle, upper middle class neighborhoods too numerous to mention.

Actually, the very poor "slum" areas in Mexico City, most recently places like Ecatepec, don't even have El Metro. I think the public transportation that represents the poorest classes in Mexcio City would be pesero and combi rides. The subway in Latin American countries symbolizes progress and social mobility, not poverty. The very poor have nothing and very few options.

I think your confusion is your interpretation and not knowing what is "poor" in Mexico. Because people can be very poor here. There is a large mobile class that drive, take the metro, taxis and mix it up quite a bit. Making generalizations is not the answer.

For me El Metro means urbanity, mobility, "middle class" not the poor.