Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Neither, I'm not comparing the costs at all really. Just noting that Monorail moves more passengers than the Streetcar. Monorail (no doubt aided by the Wold's Fair) recouped its capital costs in less than a year, it currently has about 1/4th the ridership it had in its first year of operation as a point of reference. The Streetcar will never recoup its capital costs. Monorail today operates at break-even. The Streetcar, unless something drastic changes, will never operate even close to break-even. They're both similar in that their really transit to nothing lines. They both run about a mile from Westlake Center in Downtown. The Monorail runs to the Seattle Center, the Streetcar runs through Amazon/biotech/condos of Vulcanville aka South Lake Union.
If the Monorail is just a "tourist attraction," then the Streetcar is purely political graft and a totally unjustifiable waste of tax payer money. Actually, that's a pretty accurate description of Seattle's Streetcar.
If the Monorail is just a "tourist attraction," then the Streetcar is purely political graft and a totally unjustifiable waste of tax payer money. Actually, that's a pretty accurate description of Seattle's Streetcar.
I see that you were not comparing dollars - my bad.
I don't know. Further development in downtown Seattle has to go somewhere, and I think the streetcar will be attractive to developers. How long will that single-story McDonalds and the porn shop there? Remember, there's been a recession ever since the **** has run its first mile. (hehe it blocked out the common name for the trolley)
20 years from now that area will look much different, and the streetcar will remain and become more viable. Just my prediction.
Or the Streetcar Network will fizzle out and turn into the next Monorail and go no where. One or the other. The are plans to expand the streetcar line. The 2.2 mile, $134 million First Hill line began construction last month. None of the other lines have funding to even begin the planning stage yet. Central was going to be on the omnibus Viaduct replacement, but it go kicked off the bill.
Or the Streetcar Network will fizzle out and turn into the next Monorail and go no where. One or the other. The are plans to expand the streetcar line. The 2.2 mile, $134 million First Hill line began construction last month. None of the other lines have funding to even begin the planning stage yet. Central was going to be on the omnibus Viaduct replacement, but it go kicked off the bill.
The first hill line will be used much more than the SLU T
It seems that a lot of cities do have an association of public transit use with low-income people or people who don't own a car not "out of choice".
There are a few cities though where public transit use seems like it's "mainstream" and "used by most, rich or poor". Examples include NYC obviously, San Francisco's area with the BART, and some Canadian cities like Toronto. Of course then there are the Old World cities, though I've never been.
On the other hand there are many cities where there seems more stigma associated with taking the bus (for example, in LA).
Which cities or areas associate public transit users with poverty/low income and in which areas, are they seen as "mainstream, used by both rich and poor"?
I think it's very interesting that in our culture, buses are for poor people and to be avoided but trains and light rail aren't for some strange psychological and/or cultural reason.
Here in Salt Lake anyway, it doesn't seem to matter how nice the bus is made; they never get as many riders as they could while the commuter train and light rail system is consistently packed.
Anyway, cities are supposed to be built for people, not vice-versa and we appeal to human quirkiness in many, many other ways in urban planning...
...So why do we continue to throw money at buses instead of ditching them entirely for mass transit on rails? There can't be much of a price difference between running half-empty buses and running a light rail/trolley system!
It depends on who you ask--plenty of people consider light rail, streetcars and buses to be equally horrible, while others are equally comfortable on each. People do tend to be more comfortable with fixed-rail transit, though, but not necessarily due to the social stigma.
I live outside Toronto and take the GO commuter train to work everyday, as well as anytime I am heading downtown Toronto for personal reasons. However, I would never use the TTC for any reason. It is inefficient, expensive and slow. IMO only people with no alternative would use such a crappy method of transportation.
For the record, I do own my own vehicle but it is a aggravating and expensive to bring it down to the city. Toronto's gridlock is TERRIBLE!
For the record, I do own my own vehicle but it is a aggravating and expensive to bring it down to the city. Toronto's gridlock is TERRIBLE!
So if you don't use TTC or your car, do you only go to places you can easily walk from the GO train's stations? Just curious.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
