Which of these metropolitan regions could support a heavy rail/rapid transit system or just a single line? (cost, rates)

[Joke Insurance]

Which of these metropolitan regions could support a heavy rail/rapid transit system or just a single line?

Here is the list:

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown
Detroit-Warren-Livonia
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
St. Louis
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater
Denver-Aurora-Broomfield
Pittsburgh
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro
Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville
San Antonio-New Braunfels
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford
Cincinnati-Middletown (I know about their former attempt to do but please don't bring it up because were are talking about today, not back then)
Kansas City

If you can, please try to refrain from mentioned costs and politics. Anything to do with population numbers, density and the like, obviously bring those up. Thanks.

[annie_himself]

I immediately thought of DFW. Houston to Baytown would be a waste, in my eyes. Is Baytown populated enough? I don't think it'd be given much use either.

The Florida HSR would have been nice.

Baton Rouge-New Orleans-Biloxi would be nice, hot tourist spot plus the beaches in MS.

[FarRocks]

Detroit needs one badly. IT has no rail whatsoever

[sav858]

Probably Seattle since it seems to be the most centralized out of the group and has the densest core with a high employment in the downtown area. Plus the development seems very linear running parallel to I-5.

Riverside-San Bernardino might work ONLY if it went to LA and/or Orange County job centers. But they already have Metrolink for that.

[Joke Insurance]

Originally Posted by birdsing

Detroit needs one badly. IT has no rail whatsoever

They definitely could have used a metrorail/subway back when there was a population to support it and it had a dense center core.

Originally Posted by sav858

Probably Seattle since it seems to be the most centralized out of the group and has the densest core with a high employment in the downtown area. Plus the development seems very linear running parallel to I-5.

Could you see a metrorail running between the median of I-5 similar to how DC's Metrorail runs through the median of I-66?

[Champ le monstre du lac]

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue: Seattle's light rail (Sea-Tac airport - downtown) more or less operates like a big city metro system as much of it is either elevated or tunnelled into subways. Downtown has subways stations. It's subway extension is being extended through Capital Hill to the University District which are both high density and walkable areas. Eventually another line will be extended over to Bellevue and the east side.

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington - Pockets of density exist, heavy rail could work, but light rail is already in place from MSP airport/Bloomington-Mall of America and another light rail line being constructed to St. Paul

Denver-Aurora-Broomfield - I'd like to see subway/heavy rail in Denver. Light rail mainly serves suburban commutes and the downtown rail is at grade. Denver needs more rail within the city, particularly down Colfax and Broadway.

Pittsburgh - a subway to Oakland and the eastern reaches of the city and the universities would work well.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by Joke Insurance

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
St. Louis

Certainly could.

Originally Posted by Joke Insurance

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater
Denver-Aurora-Broomfield
Pittsburgh
Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville
San Antonio-New Braunfels
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford
Kansas City

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.

Originally Posted by Joke Insurance

Cincinnati-Middletown (I know about their former attempt to do but please don't bring it up because were are talking about today, not back then)

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.

Originally Posted by Joke Insurance

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario

LOL, no. The only heavy rail in Riverside should be a commuter line straight to Los Angeles.

Originally Posted by Joke Insurance

Detroit-Warren-Livonia

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.

[Joke Insurance]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
St. Louis

Certainly could.

A single subway line or multiple?

[eek]

all of the above could. if europe and asia can do it then so can we.

[west336]

Minneapolis has heavy rail -- it's called the "Northstar" line and it goes from Minneapolis to Big Lake (15 miles south of St. Cloud).