Why Doesn't Chicago Have Light Rail? (Phoenix, Fisher: cost of, budget, cars)

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by nana053

LOL. I am currently in Houston which is expanding it's light rail, but has very little at all in the way of public transit except buses. No commuter rail, no elevated trains. It does have buses. Light rail is a joke. It gets in the way of automobile traffic and increases congestion instead of helping it.

There's a lot depending on it - in a city like Houston where the car is so heavily used, yeah. I've been in cities outside of the US where it's completely fine, but it's not the final answer to any given need for public transit IMO. Some cities/areas of a city it may work really well and others it might not work really well.

[nana053]

Originally Posted by marothisu

There's a lot depending on it - in a city like Houston where the car is so heavily used, yeah. I've been in cities outside of the US where it's completely fine, but it's not the final answer to any given need for public transit IMO. Some cities/areas of a city it may work really well and others it might not work really well.

Houston is extremely spread out. If they weren't car centric, they would have built commuter rail down I-10 and 288 from the beginning. In fact, when 288 was planned they intended to have a rail down the median. That has been scrapped in favor of new toll lanes.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by nana053

Houston is extremely spread out. If they weren't car centric, they would have built commuter rail down I-10 and 288 from the beginning. In fact, when 288 was planned they intended to have a rail down the median. That has been scrapped in favor of new toll lanes.

I have a feeling that almost all cities in Texas (except maybe Austin) would not really skew anytime, ever, towards public transit. Just my thoughts though.

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by JacksonPanther

I can't speak for the OP, but you guys are missing the point that trolleys and streetcars are "cooler" than buses. No hipster worth his/her salt would be caught dead riding some random stinking bus (which is why they crowd around El stations). But trolleys are retro and cool.

Think about that SF trolley line that takes old trolleys from across the country, gets them working, and uses them. Of course financially that doesn't make sense, but sometimes you have to do things just because. It gets people excited about things, it's unique, and makes your town a better place.

/s

Which is why you're arguing for costly full commuter (heavy) rail in Jackson, MS (a community which doesn't have a fraction of the population and concentration thereof, to support it), on another forum.. It's time to grow up and be realistic about what the system can, and can not support.

[mp775]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

So does Chicago, not in the city.

http://www.visitkenosha.com/attracti...car-circulator

Hudson and Bergen Counties and Newark aren't separated from New York by suburbs and exurbs like Kenosha is from Chicago.

[mp775]

The 'L' is somewhere between light rail and heavy rail. Some of the 6000 series cars that ran from 1950 to 1992 were built from components salvaged from CTA's PCC streetcars.

[KaaBoom]

Originally Posted by mp775

Hudson and Bergen Counties and Newark aren't separated from New York by suburbs and exurbs like Kenosha is from Chicago.

No but there are connected to the same rail systems. Now you are just arguing that NY has it closer in to the city, then Chicago does.

[tjasse]

I do think a light rail or tram would be useful for certain bus routes, like the 72.

[Mathguy]

Never in a million years did I expect to see someone call out Chicago for not having enough transit.

I mean, dear god! They also don't have a monorail! Better build one fast!

I've ridden most every form of public transit in Chicago over my 8 years of commuting there and it's a pretty substantial and effective system.

Their heavy rail metra system is A+ quality.

[glass_of_merlot]

Im glad we don't have street cars. I'm happy with the EL.