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 say Dallas, Houston, and Seattle. Maybe Phoenix, Minneapolis, and San Diego. But the first 3 have the density and population to support it. The last 3 have the population, but I'm not so sure about the density.
Phoenix is the most densely-populated metro of the bunch, followed by San Diego and Seattle (all over 3,000 people per square mile in the urbanized areas). Minneapolis, Detroit, Dallas and Houston are all below 3,000 people per sq. mile in their urbanized areas -- where heavy rail would likely run). Also, of the bunch, only San Diego, Seattle, Minneapolis and Detroit have CORE population densities that would even possibly be sufficient to support heavy rail (densities at or above 10,000 ppsm in large swaths). In Phoenix, Dallas and Houston, my understanding was that most of the urbanized area density stems from the suburban development, and the cores were RELATIVELY sparse in relation to the suburbs/periphery. This is NOT to say that those areas don't have dense parts of their urban cores, but rather that they aren't as prevalent as the former cities.
Again, this is largely my understanding of each city/metro and is certainly open to interpretation (I have not been to Dallas or Houston yet).
Funny because Denver has a higher population now (CSMA) than San Diego!
How about a source? San Diego has a higher urbanized area than Denver OR Minneapolis, even though its metro or CSA is smaller than Minneapolis. I would argue that urbanized areas matter more than CSA's for this subject, and even more important, core population density and workforce population density.
How about a source? San Diego has a higher urbanized area than Denver OR Minneapolis, even though its metro or CSA is smaller than Minneapolis.
No doubt that San Diego has higher density levels than (probably) any other city mentioned in the OP.
Part of the reason San Diego is smaller than Denver is that it is hemmed in by the US/Mexico border. Technically San Diego is really just a part of the Tijuana area, which has a huge population.
No doubt that San Diego has higher density levels than (probably) any other city mentioned in the OP.
Part of the reason San Diego is smaller than Denver is that it is hemmed in by the US/Mexico border. Technically San Diego is really just a part of the Tijuana area, which has a huge population.
I'm saying SD is NOT smaller than Denver. The ONLY measure in which it MIGHT be is CSA, but I'm not even sure about that, especially if Tijuanna is considered part of its CSA.
Well, by 2040. That's a pretty long period of time. Maybe they'll get that done much sooner, but it's not coming anytime soon. But it'd be nice for us as geezers who can tell the young'uns about how damn long that trip used to take.
I see Minneapolis, Denver, Seattle, Dallas, and Houston having 1 subway line. Dallas & Denver have the best/most expansive light rail, so maybe they could just extend those systems more.
One day they could, but not yet. I will say though that if one of these cities made it priority to build a heavy rail system (or at least a well thought out public transit system) now in preparation for a larger population in the future, then they will be well served.
In theory they could due to the built environment of the city, but aside from the former failed attempt, the population isn't big enough to support a proper system.
LOL, no. The only heavy rail in Riverside should be a commuter line straight to Los Angeles.
Sadly, no. The city's population is but a shell of it's former self (along with it's density) and most suburban folks only come into town when there is a baseball game (instead of, you know, work or shopping). It would have definitely worked back in the day though, and perhaps had they built a subway Detroit might have not fallen so hard.
Its not about population at all tacoma has a rail system and the city is very small, cincinnati can definatley support one first the traffic is terrible here one of the worst in the midwest and instead of expanding the freeways their making a rail anyway it already got approved so they started construction.
Well, since you said not to go into costs and such... My answer is all of them to an extent. Practical matters may make other forms of rail/mass transit more logical, but they all could and it would greatly benefit their urban cores. I'm always amused/frustrated to see cities over here in Europe that have only like 100,000 people yet they have tramways, light rail lines, subways, etc. yet back home in the US we have metro areas of a couple million with nada... and it keeps getting rejected! Yes btw, I know the city layout differences etc, but this is also a bit of a straw man...
Its not about population at all tacoma has a rail system and the city is very small, cincinnati can definatley support one first the traffic is terrible here one of the worst in the midwest and instead of expanding the freeways their making a rail anyway it already got approved so they started construction.
Tacoma is a bit different in the sense that while its residents did approve and got the light-rail and uses the heavy rail (to Seattle) extensively... the transit system is managed and financially supported by a Multi-County Transit Authority-- not the city. You're right, its not necessarily about the population-- but with the right thought process and a huge financial area-base to draw from, its easier to get started down that path.
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.
