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.
Well in San Francisco, we're building a new subway all the way to North Beach, but the first segment is through Chinatown and its cost are astronomical. For a tiny segment. And yes, it's classified as a light-rail, but the vehicles they use (heavy-rail/light-rail Bredas) are practically heavy rails and operate like them for a long period of time underground. We also have the Bay Area Rapid Transit, the fastest subway in the country (Avg. 50 MPH, peak speed 80 MPH under the Bay and Berkeley Hills) with the least amount of stations, and it was built as a science project for future subways in the 70's with gracious loans from the Government. That, and tax supported counties. But those counties who didn't want the subway because it would be too expensive (ahem, San Mateo) dropped out. And we're just now building a subway underground extension to Silicon Valley.
These things are expensive, and you need to have an electorate hyped up about better public transit (like Los Angeles) to get any results. Look at the bullet train in California, they're just now getting to building the thing after a decade of bickering from disgruntled farm owners and anti-public transit politicians and frankly, naive idiots who think any form of public transportation is leaching or going to attract criminals.
I think that's unusual for rapid transit systems. I don't think Boston's or NYC's do. Nor Washington DC.
That's what three MUNI Metro lines do (N,L,J) once they leave the subway, since they're pretty much modern versions of the streetcars with heavy-rail machinery pretending to be a light-rail:
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.
Earthquake paranoia is so rampant among people who don't actually live in California. The small ones don't matter, and the big ones hit every few decades. LA is currently designed with upgraded technology since it's recent and BART has retrofitted most of their elevate tracks to better handle earthquakes.
Well in San Francisco, we're building a new subway all the way to North Beach, but the first segment is through Chinatown and its cost are astronomical.
Well yeah, but this is light rail.
I think the thread is about high capacity, heavy rail systems, usually thought of as "subway", "metro", etc. Most of MUNI rail runs in traffic and has more bus-like capacity.
And the MUNI extension just goes to Chinatown, not North Beach.
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 new 23-mile airport extension from Union Station currently under construction.
Are you from Denver or familiar with it?
You really can't run light rail down Colfax, Colorado Blvd. or Speer. This triangle would cover the urban core of Denver. And while these streets aren't as dense as Manhattan, they're close to, if not as dense as the neighborhoods surrounding the subway lines in L.A.
If you've ever driven down the three streets I've pointed out, you know how horrible traffic can be. And these streets are gaining density. With all the development going on in Cherry Creek North, the traffic is going to be horrendous. Colorado Blvd. is adding density as well, and everyone in Denver knows what a traffic nightmare it is. My suggestion of subway is becase there is nowhere to build LR along these streets without removing traffic lanes, which would defeat the purpose. Streetcars would be right there in the traffic.
Plus with the incredible views from many areas of Denver, who would want to be underground for their commute twice a day?
When you live here, you're not "oohing and ahing" at the views on your way to or from work. And the streets I suggested for subway service are urban areas where your view is of storefronts/buildings, not mountain vistas.
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.
Have millions of people died in Tokyo subways during earthquakes? Not that I've heard about. I'm sure they build them to handle earthquakes very well. I've been on the LA subways and had no earthquake fears. Probably safer than being under a freeway overpass in your car.
You really can't run light rail down Colfax, Colorado Blvd. or Speer. This triangle would cover the urban core of Denver. And while these streets aren't as dense as Manhattan, they're close to, if not as dense as the neighborhoods surrounding the subway lines in L.A.
If you've ever driven down the three streets I've pointed out, you know how horrible traffic can be. And these streets are gaining density. With all the development going on in Cherry Creek North, the traffic is going to be horrendous. Colorado Blvd. is adding density as well, and everyone in Denver knows what a traffic nightmare it is. My suggestion of subway is becase there is nowhere to build LR along these streets without removing traffic lanes, which would defeat the purpose. Streetcars would be right there in the traffic.
I'm not from Denver but ummm...that's how LRT is usually built anywhere. A traffic lane or two has to be removed. IIRC most of the streets you mentioned are three to four lane one-way arterials. Looks like there would be plenty of room to accommodate surface rail. And if its going to be running in mixed traffic then the lane isn't being taken away, it's just being shared. More people riding transit means less cars and congestion on the road. That's the goal isn't it?
Another problem is the waning influence of the working class. The only way to get anything done is to have enough money to bribe -erm i mean lobby the government
You really can't run light rail down Colfax, Colorado Blvd. or Speer. This triangle would cover the urban core of Denver. And while these streets aren't as dense as Manhattan, they're close to, if not as dense as the neighborhoods surrounding the subway lines in L.A.
If you've ever driven down the three streets I've pointed out, you know how horrible traffic can be. And these streets are gaining density. With all the development going on in Cherry Creek North, the traffic is going to be horrendous. Colorado Blvd. is adding density as well, and everyone in Denver knows what a traffic nightmare it is. My suggestion of subway is becase there is nowhere to build LR along these streets without removing traffic lanes, which would defeat the purpose. Streetcars would be right there in the traffic.
Very few spots in Denver are anywhere close to the density near Los Angeles subway lines. As for traffic problems, with limited road space and budget a choice must be made whether to accomodate transit that flows well (grade separation) or cars. Cars can also go to a parallel street, and if the transit is well used may carry more people in the same space as a traffic lane — Boston's green line definitely does.
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.
