U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-13-2014, 04:27 PM
 
3,961 posts, read 3,492,098 times
Reputation: 6361

Advertisements

Try living in a state where they are barely finishing freeway connectivity, or maintaining it. Let alone investing in new forms of transit!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-13-2014, 04:31 PM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,194,181 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
Why would you want a subway when you already have light rail? Subways require ultra-high population density to justify its astronomical cost, which Denver certainly does not have. Money would be better spent to expand the existing 47-miles of light rail - which is what they are doing, with the 23-mile airport extension from Union Station currently under construction.

Plus with the incredible views from many areas of Denver, who would want to be underground for their commute twice a day?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 04:54 PM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,265,973 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
Plus with the incredible views from many areas of Denver, who would want to be underground for their commute twice a day?

And light rail is better for merchants and businesses, and arguably better for the local economy. Your customers can't see you when they're underground. Denver is one of my favorite places to visit because of the natural scenery and huge amount of urban bike trails. They seem to do a lot to encourage you to get out of your car and house and enjoy the outdoors and sunshine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 05:33 PM
 
6,435 posts, read 9,955,147 times
Reputation: 7993
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
LA is is building one now and is newer than DC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_R...Angeles_County)
LA is stupid. What happens when the next major earthquake hits? Millions of people will probably die unnecessarily because they so desperately trying to make the wild west New York 2.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 06:29 PM
 
Location: bend oregon
929 posts, read 843,923 times
Reputation: 351
California is all about yolo. There's even a county called yolo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 08:52 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,858,676 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenk893 View Post
LA is stupid. What happens when the next major earthquake hits? Millions of people will probably die unnecessarily because they so desperately trying to make the wild west New York 2.
Subways can be built to handle earthquake. The tube is built to flex and move with the ground. The trains automatically stop to prevent damage. An earthquake will cause the system to go down, but so long as the tube holds and there are exits people should be fine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 08:55 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,988 posts, read 41,959,650 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Subways can be built to handle earthquake. The tube is built to flex and move with the ground. The trains automatically stop to prevent damage. An earthquake will cause the system to go down, but so long as the tube holds and there are exits people should be fine.
The Bay Area's BART did well in the 1989 quake. Elevated freeways did not, and the Bay Bridge was closed, leaving the subway the only open route into San Francisco from the east. Tokyo's system is probably well designed for an earthquake.

The Los Angeles subway system was already around for the 1994 Northridge quake. A list of a few other subways and quakes:

http://thesource.metro.net/2012/08/1...an-earthquake/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 09:01 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,858,676 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
That's not the point. The point was cost.

Highways are extremely expensive, yet no one complains about them. When alternative infrastructure is proposed it becomes a problem. We can pretend it has nothing to do with the oil nuts running the government.



Chicken and the egg. Subways are worthwhile in every city.

More subways. More bike infrastructure. Infrastructure is the backbone of economic growth. Infrastructure causes growth. Growth doesn't cause infrastructure. You have it backwards.
Subways are one the most expensive projects of them all. In terms of rail it is cheapest to run rail at ground level, more expensive to run it elevated on an bridge(like Chicago or New York's EL) and most expensive of all to run it Underground.

Some train systems like Chicago's EL take advantage of the highway so as to get an cheap right of way(Parts of the Blue and Red line). The highway provides an cheap right of way that wouldn't exist otherwise. This is also why light Rail Projects are often preferred. They are cheaper than the Rapid Transit/heavy rail of the EL because they can share the street with cars(The EL needs an dedicated right of way. It can cross the street at ground level, but it can't run in the street next to cars....it sometimes runs in an alley. Light rail on the other hand is built to work with traffic and either follows the lights or in some cases has an system that controls the lights giving the train and traffic in it's direction priority. ).

Subways are used pretty much when the value of the buildings that are in the way is greater than just tearing them down and there are no other options to put the train in. In Chicago the newest EL line was built in the 90ies but used an tiny part of the expressway and an old freight rail line right of way to get to Midway Airport. It was elevated.

The last subway built were two tiny bits of the blue line. One to take the blue line to the expressway and the other to take it under O'hare. The Kennedy Expressway carries the blue line to it's destination on one end and the Congress Expressway the other. There also was an tiny extension built to the State Street subway in the 80ies/90ies but it just allows the Red line to exit to the Dan Ryan expressway rather than the old south side mainline(which is now part of the Green line).

Last edited by chirack; 08-13-2014 at 09:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 09:07 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,988 posts, read 41,959,650 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
It can cross the street at ground level, but it can't run in the street next to cars....it sometimes runs in an alley.
I think that's unusual for rapid transit systems. I don't think Boston's or NYC's do. Nor Washington DC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 09:20 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,858,676 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I think that's unusual for rapid transit systems. I don't think Boston's or NYC's do. Nor Washington DC.
It is rare for the EL as well and NOT preferred as it messes with traffic, but parts of the Pink line and parts of Brown line do it. The Yellow line kinda does it but it has it's own right of way like an railroad and isn't in the street. The end of the Green line used to do that as well but it was elevated in the 1960ies. The reason why it does that is because back then(before the automobile) the areas were so desperate for rail service that they allowed it to run at ground level despite it not being ideal from an traffic stand point. The yellow line on the other hand was formerly the route of an failed commuter/interurban line that got turned into an EL line as an experiment in the 60ies and worked well.

Last edited by chirack; 08-13-2014 at 09:55 PM..
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 $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top