Next city/metro to gain commuter rail system? (comparison, bigger, people)
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 generally don't understand the point you are making nor do I agree with most of your assertions. It seems like you are trying to BS your way through discussing transportation systems. You seem very opinionated for someone not very familiar with transit around the U.S. or world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoHyping
It is called .... choosing the cheaper option even though it ain't cheap. We do not do migrant labor to build things like a Dubai and Asian cities paying much less to foreign laborers etc.
I think you are confused...or maybe just not aware? Outside of the Arabian peninsula, there are no countries/cities/systems that are relying on cheap foreign labor. That's a pretty big miss there. Many Asian systems rely on cheaper domestic migrant labor and some don't at all. If anything the only foreign labor they use is the expensive kind--like Bangkok using Japanese expertise & technology to design its system.
Immigrants represent a disproportionate number of trades, including construction, in western countries that are more comparable to the U.S. in there immigrant/demographic profiles and government systems. Just because we don't enslave people, doesn't mean we can't accomplish good transportation projects, which really is what you are suggesting.
There's also this suggestion that we can't do what Dubai has done....as if we want to. The Dubai Metro is pretty mediocre in my opinion...especially from an access and practicality standpoint.
Quote:
We talk subways and even more heavy rail ..... yet the price has it knocked back to light rail and so called commuter rail as if different.
Your point?
Quote:
Not many cities are actually doing a full-steam ahead new subway SYSTEM. Even some with older elevated systems have less subways aspects vs a NYC. We see the city-wide mix in European cities and ongoing expansions and Grand new heavy rail of Asian cities from Dubai to Bangcok and ... no fast-growing American city is gonna do it. Cost skyrockets over light rail and commuter lines to some new bus types.
You're not incorrect, but what does this have to do with commuter rail or this thread? <nothing>
Quote:
We still have legacy cities with rail transit in use on 100+ year old infrastructure that merely gets upgrades to add more decades use over planning and FINANCING any new ones. We get what we get in a liberal grand desire vs a conservative limiting that we end up with.
The majority of heavy rail systems in the U.S. continue to upgrade and expand their, both legacy and 2nd generation systems. For instance, Boston, New York, and Chicago have all opened new lines, are constructing new lines, or are planning new lines. Same goes for BART, LA Metro, and WMATA.
While I agree, it could also be considered naive to expect federal and local policies to change enough to build western European level of transit access within our lifetimes. Not even New York has an adequate system compared to some others.
I'm not sure what this means, but I do agree that at the regional level, our cities will continue to be auto-centric past our lifetimes. The majority of people drive and will continue to drive. Our land use patterns simply do not support the types of transit systems available in major European cities.
Managing expectations of what is achievable and worth pursuing in the U.S. means no more incentivizing and inducing traffic by continuing to build out intra-city freeways/highways. We've tried it for nearly 70 years and expanding highways has still not solved traffic in our cities---they literally create the traffic. We need to work towards no net increase in vehicle trips and a reasonable goal of a 10-20% mode shift from single occupancy vehicles to transit, bike/walk, carpool, etc. or additional strategies like telework.
I'm not sure what this means, but I do agree that at the regional level, our cities will continue to be auto-centric past our lifetimes. The majority of people drive and will continue to drive. Our land use patterns simply do not support the types of transit systems available in major European cities.
Managing expectations of what is achievable and worth pursuing in the U.S. means no more incentivizing and inducing traffic by continuing to build out intra-city freeways/highways. We've tried it for nearly 70 years and expanding highways has still not solved traffic in our cities---they literally create the traffic. We need to work towards no net increase in vehicle trips and a reasonable goal of a 10-20% mode shift from single occupancy vehicles to transit, bike/walk, carpool, etc. or additional strategies like telework.
I was referring to your comment about "we could have done nothing." Assuming consensus that western/northern Europe have the best transit systems in the world, I then assumed you were talking about Austin immediately implementing a system on par with those, and while I agree, I think it's naive to suggest in a country where people equate transit with poverty.
I generally don't understand the point you are making nor do I agree with most of your assertions. It seems like you are trying to BS your way through discussing transportation systems. You seem very opinionated for someone not very familiar with transit around the U.S. or world.
I think you are confused...or maybe just not aware? Outside of the Arabian peninsula, there are no countries/cities/systems that are relying on cheap foreign labor. That's a pretty big miss there. Many Asian systems rely on cheaper domestic migrant labor and some don't at all. If anything the only foreign labor they use is the expensive kind--like Bangkok using Japanese expertise & technology to design its system.
Immigrants represent a disproportionate number of trades, including construction, in western countries that are more comparable to the U.S. in there immigrant/demographic profiles and government systems. Just because we don't enslave people, doesn't mean we can't accomplish good transportation projects, which really is what you are suggesting.
There's also this suggestion that we can't do what Dubai has done....as if we want to. The Dubai Metro is pretty mediocre in my opinion...especially from an access and practicality standpoint.
Your point?
You're not incorrect, but what does this have to do with commuter rail or this thread? <nothing>
The majority of heavy rail systems in the U.S. continue to upgrade and expand their, both legacy and 2nd generation systems. For instance, Boston, New York, and Chicago have all opened new lines, are constructing new lines, or are planning new lines. Same goes for BART, LA Metro, and WMATA.
Clearly, I understand what you are saying and you not me. There is clearly a reason we do not get the heavy rail much much more and so-called commuter rail and light-rail, trams and trolley-types are settled for. They clearly improve transit and add to it. Many cities of the world they were older systems maintained and not new systems added that are chosen.
Even for Bangkok using Japanese tech makes little difference if it truly is HEAVY RAIL with driverless trains and ultra-modern stations that our era can build. Little in the way of settling for a lessor choice as my point also.
Point in Migrant labor for Dubai is HUGE cost differences to build and whether China's or Singapore's own cheap labor.... it is the same difference. Basically semantics. I once posted in a thread about the price to build of Dubai's Borj Khalifa tallest in the world by a Chicago Architectural design of SOM.
A tower as that... if built here like in NYC land in a major city + Labor would mean 3-4 times the price of just a minimum supertall. I posted a link that also noted how the Borj Khalifa did not make a profit on its own. Other smaller towers around it did. It is a Glory Tower in full. Something built for profit and purpose alone is not. How cost skyrocket after 40-stories especially in every part of the building has added aspects to carry it.
Clearly, the US can build whatever it puts its mind to and $$$. We do not compared to others in state-of-the-art new systems overall. We also revere a more suburban existence and see transit to suburbia from the major city can bring unwelcomed elements.....
Just proof in what we are building. We at least are doing some new transit in our fast-growing cities especially and I surely know and keep up on some legacy cities upgrades to their century+systems with adding new infrastructure to the old and planning of extensions that are harder and harder to get though. Most must keep it on maintaining the original system for more decades use vs any thought of replacing them with some ultra-modern system.
I am certainly not saying we build nothing.... just far less then we could or should for some obvious reasons I did mention. Price, views on who uses it I am not paying for something I will not be using attitudes and just a car culture also that shows no signs of decreasing .... just going more EV etc.
I was referring to your comment about "we could have done nothing." Assuming consensus that western/northern Europe have the best transit systems in the world, I then assumed you were talking about Austin immediately implementing a system on par with those, and while I agree, I think it's naive to suggest in a country where people equate transit with poverty.
It didn't really have anything to do with international references. Also, Japan has superior transit systems to western/northern Europe in just about every aspect except maybe late night service.
The reality is that Austin is simply following in the footsteps of other cities that have initiated transformational investments in urban rail systems. it's not an outlier, it's actually more common that not for a region of 2+ million people.
Portland, Salt Lake City, San Diego, and others were further ahead than Austin was at similar points in their histories. Generally, I'd agree that Austin is in the top quartile in terms of timing, but again, the hype with Austin is without context as always to make it seem a lot more impressive than it is.
The real outlier is Salt Lake City, which has built a pretty extensive rail network for a region of its size.
Clearly, I understand what you are saying and you not me. There is clearly a reason we do not get the heavy rail much much more and so-called commuter rail and light-rail, trams and trolley-types are settled for. They clearly improve transit and add to it. Many cities of the world they were older systems maintained and not new systems added that are chosen.
To be clear, I understand each of your individual assertions. What I do not understand is how these assertions tie together into a coherent argument or relate to the thread. It's just a lot of ranting. Heavy rail is more expensive, so what? The U.S. has less capacity (i.e. political support, demand) to build heavy rail, so what?
This is a discussion of which cities are most likely to build a new commuter rail system. It's an interesting topic because of the unique role and service characteristics that commuter rail system have, as well as the relative infrequency of entirely new commuter rail systems. If you want to hype up Austin's impressive transit proposal, then why not create a new thread on rail system expansions instead of hijack this one?
To be clear, I understand each of your individual assertions. What I do not understand is how these assertions tie together into a coherent argument or relate to the thread. It's just a lot of ranting. Heavy rail is more expensive, so what? The U.S. has less capacity (i.e. political support, demand) to build heavy rail, so what?
This is a discussion of which cities are most likely to build a new commuter rail system. It's an interesting topic because of the unique role and service characteristics that commuter rail system have, as well as the relative infrequency of entirely new commuter rail systems. If you want to hype up Austin's impressive transit proposal, then why not create a new thread on rail system expansions instead of hijack this one?
I merely gave Austin's a mention cause ..... wait for it. It has APPROVED the 9-billion plan over a decade. So that is that. Sorry I replied and caused any argument as if I was hyping Austin. I do NOT know that city enough to do so. If Houston is doing better as I noted it in this poll and more worthy? You can say so. If you believe this thread does not highly sway toward Atlanta? You can say so. I think it does and that LA and Austin and perhaps others could have been used either also or with ongoing plans in effect and $$$ allocated for it other then planning stages.
I certainly will not argue over my post understood. If it adds little so be it. I move on. Agreeing to disagree a bit.
It didn't really have anything to do with international references. Also, Japan has superior transit systems to western/northern Europe in just about every aspect except maybe late night service.
The reality is that Austin is simply following in the footsteps of other cities that have initiated transformational investments in urban rail systems. it's not an outlier, it's actually more common that not for a region of 2+ million people.
Portland, Salt Lake City, San Diego, and others were further ahead than Austin was at similar points in their histories. Generally, I'd agree that Austin is in the top quartile in terms of timing, but again, the hype with Austin is without context as always to make it seem a lot more impressive than it is.
The real outlier is Salt Lake City, which has built a pretty extensive rail network for a region of its size.
I definitely disagree that it's common for American cities to implement a plan like this. Do cities like St. Louis, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Tampa, Orlando, San Antonio, Nashville, Charlotte, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Virginia Beach have plans as extensive? Especially considering smaller cities around the 1m mark, who can still sustain rail transit but usually have a useless 1 mile trolley or nothing. Part of my point was that we have metro areas around 1 million that aren't even planning regional rail but by your take, this plan for Austin just run of the mill.
Portland, Salt Lake City, and San Diego are the outliers here.
I definitely disagree that it's common for American cities to implement a plan like this. Do cities like St. Louis, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Tampa, Orlando, San Antonio, Nashville, Charlotte, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Virginia Beach have plans as extensive? Especially considering smaller cities around the 1m mark, who can still sustain rail transit but usually have a useless 1 mile trolley or nothing. Part of my point was that we have metro areas around 1 million that aren't even planning regional rail but by your take, this plan for Austin just run of the mill.
Portland, Salt Lake City, and San Diego are the outliers here.
Nashville's plan was about the same 9 billion estimate and more extensive, but voters rejected it. Nashville has had a commuter rail line since 2006.
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.
