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.
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?
Most of the cities that are large enough and dense enough already have subways. Smaller and/or less dense cities are building light rail which is like a higher capacity bus or a lower capacity subway depending on how much grade separation is has and your personal pov. LA is building it's "system" as a mix of heavy rail, light rail, and bus rapid transit.
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.
Too expensive. Replaced by cheaper alternatives like light rail, buses and commuter rail. The latter is a sort of hybrid that is underground when you're in the city but goes above the street as it travels past city limits into the suburbs. Buses are the cheapest way to go but cramped and overcrowded as they lack capacity to handle the demands of the big city. Light rail might be the ideal compromise between cost and capacity, but the networks we have are typically too limited to be of much practical use within city limits, though it has seen some growth and expansion in recent years so there might be somewhat of a comeback since the end of the streetcar era.
Too expensive. Replaced by cheaper alternatives like light rail, buses and commuter rail. The latter is a sort of hybrid that is underground when you're in the city but goes above the street as it travels past city limits into the suburbs. Buses are the cheapest way to go but cramped and overcrowded as they lack capacity to handle the demands of the big city. Light rail might be the ideal compromise between cost and capacity, but the networks we have are typically too limited to be of much practical use within city limits, though it has seen some growth and expansion in recent years so there might be somewhat of a comeback since the end of the streetcar era.
I think of commuter rail more as full out trains. When you look at DC's it is above ground in the suburbs and below ground in the city, but most still consider it a subway system. Light rail is cheaper, but not nearly as efficient and hasn't proven to have the same economic benefits
I think of commuter rail more as full out trains. When you look at DC's it is above ground in the suburbs and below ground in the city.
Yes DC is both commuter rail and subway.
But I think mostly meant to carry suburbanites into and out of the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyBrGr
Light rail is cheaper, but not nearly as efficient and hasn't proven to have the same economic benefits
I wouldn't say that. A well-designed system can be a real booster to the local economy. Portland, Seattle, Salt Lake City, SF, LA, even Atlanta and Tampa have seen major commercial development along their light rail lines. Something I think other transit modes aren't really known for. Even Tucson AZ, believe it or not, has seen an economic transformation of downtown since the streetcar was installed. Or rather reinstalled.
"Since 2006, when Tucson voters approved the $2.1 billion Regional Transportation Plan that included the modern streetcar, downtown has seen aggressive redevelopment that has brought dozens of new restaurants, night clubs, bars and shops which have transformed it into a vibrant entertainment district," the Daily Sun reported.
I think the main problem in the United States is that subway systems are viewed as a luxary for a city, while other countries view subway systems are a necessity for a city.
The American mentality nowadays for building mass transit is to look for the cheapest option possible, even though it may not be the best option as the cheapest option could possibly hurt them in the long term.
New York City, Chicago, and Washington DC are the only cities that have basically fulfilled their master plan when it comes to its subway system. Every other city has fallen quite short of that and is a testament to how mass transit isn't viewed as a high priority when it comes to cities with growing populations.
Many of you probably didn't know this but only 5 of the top 20 largest cities in the United States have subway systems(New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, and San Francisco).
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.
