U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-14-2011, 10:33 PM
 
Location: Fairfax County, VA
3,257 posts, read 2,321,265 times
Reputation: 1107

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by west336 View Post
Minneapolis has heavy rail -- it's called the "Northstar" line and it goes from Minneapolis to Big Lake (15 miles south of St. Cloud).
That is not heavy rail. This thread will explain why: What consititues as heavy rail/rapid transit?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-14-2011, 11:05 PM
 
Location: Downtown Detroit
1,497 posts, read 2,010,612 times
Reputation: 893
Regarding Detroit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas View Post

Sadly, no. The city's population is but a shell of it's former self (along with it's density) and most suburban folks only come into town when there is a baseball game (instead of, you know, work or shopping). It would have definitely worked back in the day though, and perhaps had they built a subway Detroit might have not fallen so hard.
I must to disagree to a point. Detroit still has good density along its major urban corridors, i.e. Woodward, Michigan Ave, Jefferson, Gratiot, and Grand River. It gets patchy at points, but the city still has a lot of employment centers and major institutions that were once connected by street car. A rail-based transit system would create infill in thinned out areas and concentrate development around downtown. Believe it or not, Detroit's core saw some growth in the census despite the city losing population overall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2011, 11:27 PM
 
Location: In the heights
11,423 posts, read 10,231,548 times
Reputation: 4928
I think Detroit is actually a viable option along Woodward Avenue. While there's been a lot of abandonment, downtown Detroit is still a major business district, Woodward Avenue still has many cultural attractions, Amtrak still has some passengers (Detroit's intercity rail station is on Woodward), and Wayne State University and the College of Creative Studies still host a large number of students. This is basically being proposed right now as a light rail line, but maybe a fully grade-separate transit line might be better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 02:55 AM
 
Location: Fairfax County, VA
3,257 posts, read 2,321,265 times
Reputation: 1107
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
I think Detroit is actually a viable option along Woodward Avenue. While there's been a lot of abandonment, downtown Detroit is still a major business district, Woodward Avenue still has many cultural attractions, Amtrak still has some passengers (Detroit's intercity rail station is on Woodward), and Wayne State University and the College of Creative Studies still host a large number of students. This is basically being proposed right now as a light rail line, but maybe a fully grade-separate transit line might be better.
What about a Monorail line instead of Subway?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 03:25 AM
 
5,611 posts, read 6,606,743 times
Reputation: 4690
Quote:
Originally Posted by caphillsea77 View Post
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue: Seattle's light rail (Sea-Tac airport - downtown) more or less operates like a big city metro system as much of it is either elevated or tunnelled into subways. Downtown has subways stations. It's subway extension is being extended through Capital Hill to the University District which are both high density and walkable areas. Eventually another line will be extended over to Bellevue and the east side.
ll.
The plan was also to link Light Rail to Tacoma, but the Sound Transit said they've run out of money to build and so will stop 5 miles south of the airport. Right now, Federal Way (which is between Tacoma and the airport and was promised a LR link-up) is going to sue Sound Transit. So we'll see how that goes.


As it stands right now, there is a heavy rail commuter trains that runs south from Everett to DT Seattle, and North to DT Seattle from Tacoma.



We also have the monorail... which is useless, really. It's more for the tourists. And also the South Lake Union Trolley which will go from Westlake Center (Seattle) to South Lake Union... The locals are affectionately calling it S.L.U.T.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 07:28 AM
 
Location: New Mexico
7,549 posts, read 8,431,683 times
Reputation: 8274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkpoe View Post
The plan was also to link Light Rail to Tacoma, but the Sound Transit said they've run out of money to build and so will stop 5 miles south of the airport. Right now, Federal Way (which is between Tacoma and the airport and was promised a LR link-up) is going to sue Sound Transit. So we'll see how that goes.

As it stands right now, there is a heavy rail commuter trains that runs south from Everett to DT Seattle, and North to DT Seattle from Tacoma.
.
I think the commuter rail from Seatte to Tacoma through the valley is good enough for now. They should just run trains more frequently.

Light rail to Federal Way would certainly be well patronized. However I think getting light rail over to Bellevue and the Eastside should be a bigger priority. Then get the light rail up to Northgate and Lynnwood since the northern burbs have next to nothing. Also run commuter rail trains to Everett more frequently as well. I always found traffic on I-5 north of the city to be the worst.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkpoe View Post
We also have the monorail... which is useless, really. It's more for the tourists. And also the South Lake Union Trolley which will go from Westlake Center (Seattle) to South Lake Union... The locals are affectionately calling it S.L.U.T.
Yes the monorail is indeed useless for residents. I was living in Seattle when there was a big proposal to build a monorail from Ballard to West Seattle. After wasting tons of money on a study (approved by voters) the plan fell through. I couldn't imagine a monorail going through neighborhoods like Queen Anne or Ballard anyhow. However Ballard to West Seattle seems like a very logical mass transit route, but it hasn't had much discussion ever since they scrapped the monorail extension plans.

Back in the 1960's Seattle had an opportunity to get a fully developed mass transit system with subway/heavy rail, but the city turned down the federal funding (I'm sure the city still had a big small town chip on its shoulder and a lot less traffic). I wonder how much that would have changed the dynamic of the city. I like how Seattle's neighborhoods are urban/suburban hybrid mix, it's a nice balance. Anyway, those funds made there way over to Atlanta and their MARTA system was built.

Last edited by Desert_SW_77; 06-15-2011 at 07:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 07:55 AM
 
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,531 posts, read 6,078,629 times
Reputation: 2226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joke Insurance View Post
That is not heavy rail. This thread will explain why: What consititues as heavy rail/rapid transit?
I still don't really get the difference.,.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Fairfax County, VA
3,257 posts, read 2,321,265 times
Reputation: 1107
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336 View Post
I still don't really get the difference.,.
Try this:

Comparison of 'Rail' transit modes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2011, 02:34 AM
 
5,611 posts, read 6,606,743 times
Reputation: 4690
Quote:
Originally Posted by caphillsea77 View Post
I think the commuter rail from Seatte to Tacoma through the valley is good enough for now. They should just run trains more frequently.

...

Also run commuter rail trains to Everett more frequently as well. I always found traffic on I-5 north of the city to be the worst.
They can't. Those rails are also used by freight, and they only have a limited time in which they can carry their loads (they're not supposed to a whole lot overnight).

Also the other problem with the commuter rail b/w Seattle and Everett are the notorious mudslides in Fall/Winter. It's essentially unreliable then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by caphillsea77 View Post
Light rail to Federal Way would certainly be well patronized. However I think getting light rail over to Bellevue and the Eastside should be a bigger priority. Then get the light rail up to Northgate and Lynnwood since the northern burbs have next to nothing.
They were suppose to do the construction for both the Eastside and Federal Way right about the same time. I don't agree that Eastside need it more than Federal Way when i90 is the more flowing and easiest traffic to deal with during rush hour.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2011, 09:46 AM
 
Location: ITP - City of Atlanta Proper
6,558 posts, read 6,887,523 times
Reputation: 3717
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForStarters View Post
I must to disagree to a point. Detroit still has good density along its major urban corridors, i.e. Woodward, Michigan Ave, Jefferson, Gratiot, and Grand River. It gets patchy at points, but the city still has a lot of employment centers and major institutions that were once connected by street car. A rail-based transit system would create infill in thinned out areas and concentrate development around downtown. Believe it or not, Detroit's core saw some growth in the census despite the city losing population overall.
Structurally, there is nothing about the way Detroit is built that would keep a subway line(s) from being successful. Quite the contrary actually. Also, even their population loss to their current density levels wouldn't be a limiting factor to mass transit success. Just look at Atlanta which has central city of basically the same size as Detroit and has a very successful heavy rail rapid transit system.

The real problem comes in with this: Who is going to use it and where would they go.

For every city, that question has three major answers.

1. Getting people to and from work.
2. Getting people to and from school.
3. Provide a transportation method that wish or do not own a vehicle of their own to get around in.

Answers 2 and 3 would work for Detroit, but answer 1 is where the real failure point would occur.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:07 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top