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.
How fast can light rail go and realistically how many cars can be in a train. It seems this is morte the wave of the future and seems scale the current development pattern better.
Light rail can work with capacity - the green lines in Boston have higher ridership per mile than many subways as an example
I have a idea - sort of useless but anyway to convert some of the RR lines in Philly to light rail build off the already existing tunnels that exist adding more stations closer in
Overhead lines seem to add more flexibility to serve more areas including with traffic, plus believe require less spacing between trains
It depends on the light rail system, but the average seems to be 3 cars per train. Though that varies from city to city. I could imagine a region could do 3-6 car length light rail trains if the system and stations can handle that.
I don't think we will ever see another new subway system. They are too expensive and we can't afford it as a nation. We will see trains returning to traditional routes overland.
I don't think we will ever see another new subway system. They are too expensive and we can't afford it as a nation. We will see trains returning to traditional routes overland.
Completely false.
The government prints its own made up money via the Central Bank. It can fund ANYTHING it wants to. The question is always if the politicians have the willingness to invest in large-scale projects with benefits seen in the future far beyond their terms. The answer is almost always "no" unless the community specifically pushes for it.
The government prints its own made up money via the Central Bank. It can fund ANYTHING it wants to. The question is always if the politicians have the willingness to invest in large-scale projects with benefits seen in the future far beyond their terms. The answer is almost always "no" unless the community specifically pushes for it.
Any US city that doesn't currently have a rail system in place today isn't going to take that kind of risk on a subway system, they will go for the lighter risk with surface light rail.
Any US city that doesn't currently have a rail system in place today isn't going to take that kind of risk on a subway system, they will go for the lighter risk with surface light rail.
That part is true; I was making a note about the financial situation. We don't invest in big infrastructure projects because we don't feel we deserve big infrastructure projects. Governments are an extension of the country's values. The U.S. government is basically limitless in its ability to spend money. The problem is willingness, not ability.
A subway system could be built in every major city in this country that lacks one. We have convinced ourselves that we are fine with big business coercing the government to exchange our grandchildren's future for their own short term profits. That is the unfortunate truth about the situation.
Then I think your answer might be no city because a city in the US that doesn't already have a rapid transit subway system in place probably isn't ever going to build one. Light rail has proven to be the cheaper alternative to rapid transit systems like you would find in NYC, Boston, Chicago, and Philly.
What about Honolulu? Or does that not count because it's not underground.
It's not just that light rail is cheaper, it's that the American cities where rapid transit has an advantage already has rapid transit. It wouldn't make sense for DC to have built light rail in the 70s: light rail wouldn't have enough capacity and there's little surface right of way space anywhere near the city center: necessitating either underground or surface running rail. Surface running rail would be too slow downtown, especially with the high number of trains needed, and underground light rail isn't that much cheaper than underground rapid transit, removing the cost benefits of light rail.
It would be much more aesthetically pleasing if so many business weren't boarded up, and the storefronts were painted or renovated to look better. As a matter of fact, it wouldn't be bad at all.
Not really, I just wasn't sure whether if it was what the OP was looking for. Elevated rail is annoying in some setting. Felt like I'm driving through a tunnel:
Also a racket if you have an apartment on or near that street. As far I can tell, only Philadelphia has that elevated set up in the US. It's relatively rare in western Europe, too, though I think Paris has a couple of examples. It's a style not built anymore. Chicago has that in downtown, but outside of downtown the elevateds mostly don't run over a street but in their right of way. Boston had that, but they demolished their above street Els.
In both New York and Baltimore, the subway becomes an el in the outlying, less congested, areas.
That part is true; I was making a note about the financial situation. We don't invest in big infrastructure projects because we don't feel we deserve big infrastructure projects. Governments are an extension of the country's values. The U.S. government is basically limitless in its ability to spend money. The problem is willingness, not ability.
A subway system could be built in every major city in this country that lacks one. We have convinced ourselves that we are fine with big business coercing the government to exchange our grandchildren's future for their own short term profits. That is the unfortunate truth about the situation.
You are right. We could print money even faster than we are and build subway systems in every city. The real question is: In which cities would there be enough riders so that the cost would justify building a new subway system? I don't think there are any. The big problem is that along with our industrial decline, our big cities have been depopulated. Compare the population figures for the city alone (not the metro area) for Detroit, Cleveland, St Louis, and Baltimore for the years 1950 and 1960 with today. Even Philly has suffered a huge decline in population, but fortunately it already had a good subway system before the population decline began.
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.
