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.
I'm from Philly, and I think that we need more subway infrastructure. First of all, the Broad Street Line needs to be extended to the Navy Yard or even to Gloucester City, NJ. The long proposed Northeast Subway should also be constructed, going as far as Woodhaven Road. PATCO needs to be extended eastward to 38th Street in University City. I also think that there should be subway spur to the airport. Here is my conceptual plan:
What's the matter with the R1 line to the airport? Doesnt run as often and the fare is too high. Actually I think it's high since its largely used by visitors.
What's the matter with the R1 line to the airport? Doesnt run as often and the fare is too high. Actually I think it's high since its largely used by visitors.
I think that's common for airport rail lines. Airports aren't the highest volume trip generators, probably not enough demand for a full commuter train. But with the frequency low, many won't opt to take the train...
The ratio of energy expenditure per passenger mile used to be favorable to subways over motorists in the early 70s. Now, according to the Department of Energy, it's roughly 1:1.
The last complete subway system to be built was DC's which started back in 1969 and finished in the early 2000s I believe. So why don't other cities build? Obviously they are expensive, but haven't the few cities that have subways proven that they are worth their price? What city will be next to build complete system?
Currently in China many cities are in the process of building subway train systems.
The last complete subway system to be built was DC's which started back in 1969 and finished in the early 2000s I believe. So why don't other cities build? Obviously they are expensive, but haven't the few cities that have subways proven that they are worth their price? What city will be next to build complete system?
There are several reasons why US cities don’t built subways. It is only following US cities which has a subway-system (Heavy rail); New York, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Miami, Los Angeles, Cleveland, Chicago, Boston, Baltimore and Atlanta. Only the subway-systems in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston are comparable in size and quality to systems in Europe and Asia. Currently, there are plenty of subways (heavy rail) built in Asia, Latin-America and Europe. Just in 2014 China opened three new systems.
The difference between US and Canadian cities and cities in Asia, Europe and in part South America is that cities in the North America are spread out on a larger area and connected with high-ways. Buying and owning a car in United States is cheap which cannot be said in the rest of the world. There are of course a lot of other reasons – partly culture. In United States people love owning their own house (instead of apartment as in other countries) and owning their own car but also because cities outside United States are built hundreds years or even a thousand year before any US city so they are designed for a society without cars and therefore much more dense.
United States seems to be keen on light-rails. For example has Portland, San Diego, Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake City, St. Louis, Sacramento, Phoenix, Houston, San, Francisco, San Jose, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Memphis and a few others gone with light rails. These are cheaper to construct and run but shuffle more people around than a bus-system.
Personally, I think San Francisco should go with a subway (mostly underground of course) system because of the very high density in the city. There are 8.5 million people living metropolitan SF (CSA) so well – it is kind of time for them to build a better system for mass transportation than light-rails but for cities like Houston or Dallas – there is no need for a subway.
There are several reasons why US cities don’t built subways. It is only following US cities which has a subway-system (Heavy rail); New York, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Miami, Los Angeles, Cleveland, Chicago, Boston, Baltimore and Atlanta. Only the subway-systems in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston are comparable in size and quality to systems in Europe and Asia. Currently, there are plenty of subways (heavy rail) built in Asia, Latin-America and Europe. Just in 2014 China opened three new systems.
The difference between US and Canadian cities and cities in Asia, Europe and in part South America is that cities in the North America are spread out on a larger area and connected with high-ways. Buying and owning a car in United States is cheap which cannot be said in the rest of the world. There are of course a lot of other reasons – partly culture. In United States people love owning their own house (instead of apartment as in other countries) and owning their own car but also because cities outside United States are built hundreds years or even a thousand year before any US city so they are designed for a society without cars and therefore much more dense.
United States seems to be keen on light-rails. For example has Portland, San Diego, Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake City, St. Louis, Sacramento, Phoenix, Houston, San, Francisco, San Jose, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Memphis and a few others gone with light rails. These are cheaper to construct and run but shuffle more people around than a bus-system.
Personally, I think San Francisco should go with a subway (mostly underground of course) system because of the very high density in the city. There are 8.5 million people living metropolitan SF (CSA) so well – it is kind of time for them to build a better system for mass transportation than light-rails but for cities like Houston or Dallas – there is no need for a subway.
San Francisco has two subway systems. BART and MUNI.
Look at Seattle extension. It's light rail rather than heavy, but mostly underground so it won't block the view of the people in Capitol Hill. Result is it's extraordinarily expensive, although much less than a heavy rail subway would be. In the poorer areas they just run it surface/elevated as it's cheaper.
To be fair, Seattle is doing light rail as a subway is mostly applicable to flat cities.
To be fair, Seattle is doing light rail as a subway is mostly applicable to flat cities.
Yeah, the problem with building a subway in Seattle is that the hills and drastic elevation changes makes designing a subway station expensive and difficult. You'd need subway tunnels that travel up or down with the hills. That's why the lightrail system being built right now is partly underground and partly elevated. Subways are easier to build in flatter locations.
Yeah, the problem with building a subway in Seattle is that the hills and drastic elevation changes makes designing a subway station expensive and difficult. You'd need subway tunnels that travel up or down with the hills. That's why the lightrail system being built right now is partly underground and partly elevated. Subways are easier to build in flatter locations.
This post doesn't make much sense, the University Line portion runs underground through Capital Hill and underground through the University District because it was easier to tunnel than it would be trying to run trains up and over a steep hill through dense neighborhoods.
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.
