Which is better?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2723/4332368049_43544b4566.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Mk_Berlin_U-Bahn_TypG.jpg

Efficiency comes with a mix of both underground and above ground public transport. I definitely like a choice.

below ground is more exciting, particularly if it old like in London, Paris and NYC etc. All sorts of freaky tunnels and closed stations!

it can be boring riding in a tunnel. Elevated trains are the most fascinating because they are such a visible part of the cityscape and you get a view out of the windows when you are on board.

another thing is that, on many below grade trains you dont get any wireless signal

while above ground you can operate mobile devices

I the tunnels of Hamburg's U-Bahn you can use your mobile phone. It is just a matter of putting transmitters into the tunnels.

In the Viennese U-Bahn I have never experienced any problems either so far. I guess you get a signal in the entire network.

I have to agree with Dimethyltryptamine, it is the mix of above and underground services. Both are suitable for different purposes and in different situations and locations.

I think it depends on the city. If you have rather low density then at ground is the best. If you have a dense city, underground, but if there are broad streets aswell, then you can build elevated rail.

METRO MANILA, PHILIPPINES
:runaway:
it varies... sometimes, it feels and looks like a roller-coaster ride.. :lol:
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/2599/dsc03213d.jpg
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/416/img0027y.jpg
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m303/kaelthas18/04132010224.jpg
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/5346/img0025m.jpg
http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/1268/img0041e.jpg
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/2043/img0043pw.jpg
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m303/kaelthas18/04232010258.jpg
^^ some pics are in u/c status... :)

below ground is more efficient I think, but a lil bit boring

another thing is that, on many below grade trains you dont get any wireless signal

while above ground you can operate mobile devices



Ah, one of the VERY BEST reasons to go underground.

prefer underground when it is rain season

Above makes for a more bustling street scene, but below is more efficient.

Ah, one of the VERY BEST reasons to go underground.

+1. I HATE when people are on the phone in trains during rush hour!

I'm biased because I'm in Chicago, but I MUCH prefer above ground. There is so much more to look at...you can literally take a tour of a city via above ground rail. I get bored and claustrophobic when in a subway too long.

Below ground. It's a more efficient use of land, climate controlled, and doesn't add to congestion at street level.

For large cities, both have their necessary purpose.

Below ground, definitively. Every major city already has traffic congestion problems, the more subways, trains, trams are bored underground, the easier it is to drive a car above ground on streets that belong first and foremost to cars and not mammoth-sized trams.

Below ground, definitively. Every major city already has traffic congestion problems, the more subways, trains, trams are bored underground, the easier it is to drive a car above ground on streets that belong first and foremost to cars and not mammoth-sized trams.

So above ground is not for pedestrians or bikes either? Suburbanist you're a really interesting addition to this community y'know.

just as a user, i'm quite happy with what Kuala Lumpur has done with our Light Rail Transportation
in terms of the route variation of underground, ground and overground mix.
needless to mention that route systems desperately calls for expansion, the
locations where rail tracks were placed gives commuters varied views of their city.

Below ground, definitively. Every major city already has traffic congestion problems, the more subways, trains, trams are bored underground, the easier it is to drive a car above ground on streets that belong first and foremost to cars and not mammoth-sized trams.

The cars should be put underground in tunnels. leaving the inner city streets for pedestrians, cyclists and trams.
A lot of cars in the inner city streets ruins citylife. I much prefer trams in the streets than lots of noisy polluting cars.
And i like riding above ground instead of boring tunnels.

^^ riding bicycle is for short distance

So above ground is not for pedestrians or bikes either? Suburbanist you're a really interesting addition to this community y'know.

Don't even bother. This guy thinks that inanimate objects (cars in particular) should have more rights than human beings.:bash: Of course he mentions 'mammoth sized trams' but completely ignores mammoth sized SUVs that contribute far more to traffic congestion. And my question is how does someone who so shamelessly advocates a car-dependent lifestyle have the nerve to complain about traffic congestion in the first place???:lol::nuts:

Neither. It really depends on many factors.

I prefer mostly at or above ground for light rail; and mostly underground for heavier rail, if terrain and climate aren't a problem.

Today's average human (as opposed to tomorrow's) would letcha know their preference at not being interred. For instance, folks here in this city are ready to say they love their all-underground metro but you'd never know it from their evidently daunting prospects of discomfort as they squirm about, fidgeting in their seats, hopelessly restless at not having anything readily available to look at to be distracting themselves all the while.



I the tunnels of Hamburg's U-Bahn you can use your mobile phone. It is just a matter of putting transmitters into the tunnels.

In the Viennese U-Bahn I have never experienced any problems either so far. I guess you get a signal in the entire network.

I have to agree with Dimethyltryptamine, it is the mix of above and underground services. Both are suitable for different purposes and in different situations and locations.
^^ Two further reasons why no critter ougtta prefer under- vs overground.....there's nowhere for yer pointless signals to escape toward, your underground 'enhancements' are nothin' to be proud of, y'all! :ohno:

The cars should be put underground in tunnels. leaving the inner city streets for pedestrians, cyclists and trams.
A lot of cars in the inner city streets ruins citylife. I much prefer trams in the streets than lots of noisy polluting cars.
And i like riding above ground instead of boring tunnels.

City life is pretty much a myth, though a popular one here on SSC. Life = going from point A to point B. A city, IMO, is good or bad depending on its economic dynamism, job offers, restaurants, clubs, parks etc.

Streets are mere paths connecting places where people want to go.

So, the streets (strict sense) and rods belong to cars, the sidewalk to pedestrians, the bike paths for cyclists.

I don't really car whether there are people circulating or not. Contrary to a faulty consensus in most architecture departments in many universities, I don't believe in the great social engineering possibilities of "vibrant" street life, "character full" downtown whatsoever. Indeed, cities could be pretty much abolished as a concept as long as other forms to connect people to the places they want to go were available.

While I don't push my vision everywhere, I respect those who found it "interesting" to walk on streets stalking other people and finding it "vibrant". I prefer to choose the places I go, and to determine where I want to interact to strangers or not, and my car provides unbeatable defense against unwarranted approaches by strangers when I just want do damn go from point A to point B.

So above ground is not for pedestrians or bikes either? Suburbanist you're a really interesting addition to this community y'know.

As I told, each one has its space:

roads = cars
tracks = trams, light rail
bike paths = bikes
sidewalks = pedestrians

In my ideal urban settings, there ought to be as much segregation as possible between those different uses of above-ground communication space. I'd gladly approve a setting in which, for instance, commercial buildings and stores faced a pedestrian boulevard, with a central low-fenced 2 way bike path, while cars would drive on the back of the buildings, with the fewest possible interferences on the road.

Don't even bother. This guy thinks that inanimate objects (cars in particular) should have more rights than human beings.:bash: Of course he mentions 'mammoth sized trams' but completely ignores mammoth sized SUVs that contribute far more to traffic congestion. And my question is how does someone who so shamelessly advocates a car-dependent lifestyle have the nerve to complain about traffic congestion in the first place???:lol::nuts:

The right is not cars', is drivers'. The car is just a modern extension of the driver likewise in prehistorical times clothes were and "add-on" to the Neanderthal and so. A tram is just a vehicle you step in, step out. A car can be your extension: you 'furnish' it, you decorate it, you personalize it, you buy one that fits your lifestyle (actual or pretended) and so. Cars can be advertised, designed and bought for beauty, performance, public image AND for efficiency and transportation needs. Subway cars, buses (the worst, they are the degradation of the car like a slum is a degradation of real estate), trams are built and procured most for their efficiency.

When was the last time you've seen a VIP tram network with tickets costing 10X the regular price (not a vintage or tourist thing I mean) so you who worked your *** out your whole life and amassed some money can have an above-average experience while riding from point A to point B, instead of sharing with in a communist way with everyone else (some of them subsidized by your taxes btw).

City life is pretty much a myth, though a popular one here on SSC. Life = going from point A to point B. A city, IMO, is good or bad depending on its economic dynamism, job offers, restaurants, clubs, parks etc.

Streets are mere paths connecting places where people want to go.

So, the streets (strict sense) and rods belong to cars, the sidewalk to pedestrians, the bike paths for cyclists.

I don't really car whether there are people circulating or not. Contrary to a faulty consensus in most architecture departments in many universities, I don't believe in the great social engineering possibilities of "vibrant" street life, "character full" downtown whatsoever. Indeed, cities could be pretty much abolished as a concept as long as other forms to connect people to the places they want to go were available.

While I don't push my vision everywhere, I respect those who found it "interesting" to walk on streets stalking other people and finding it "vibrant". I prefer to choose the places I go, and to determine where I want to interact to strangers or not, and my car provides unbeatable defense against unwarranted approaches by strangers when I just want do damn go from point A to point B.



As I told, each one has its space:

roads = cars
tracks = trams, light rail
bike paths = bikes
sidewalks = pedestrians

In my ideal urban settings, there ought to be as much segregation as possible between those different uses of above-ground communication space. I'd gladly approve a setting in which, for instance, commercial buildings and stores faced a pedestrian boulevard, with a central low-fenced 2 way bike path, while cars would drive on the back of the buildings, with the fewest possible interferences on the road.



The right is not cars', is drivers'. The car is just a modern extension of the driver likewise in prehistorical times clothes were and "add-on" to the Neanderthal and so. A tram is just a vehicle you step in, step out. A car can be your extension: you 'furnish' it, you decorate it, you personalize it, you buy one that fits your lifestyle (actual or pretended) and so. Cars can be advertised, designed and bought for beauty, performance, public image AND for efficiency and transportation needs. Subway cars, buses (the worst, they are the degradation of the car like a slum is a degradation of real estate), trams are built and procured most for their efficiency.

When was the last time you've seen a VIP tram network with tickets costing 10X the regular price (not a vintage or tourist thing I mean) so you who worked your *** out your whole life and amassed some money can have an above-average experience while riding from point A to point B, instead of sharing with in a communist way with everyone else (some of them subsidized by your taxes btw).

There's a name for your condition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy

He is so in love with cars that he can't even spell 'care' right, he spells it 'car'. Scary :3

City life is pretty much a myth, though a popular one here on SSC. Life = going from point A to point B. A city, IMO, is good or bad depending on its economic dynamism, job offers, restaurants, clubs, parks etc.

Streets are mere paths connecting places where people want to go.

So, the streets (strict sense) and rods belong to cars, the sidewalk to pedestrians, the bike paths for cyclists.

I don't really car whether there are people circulating or not. Contrary to a faulty consensus in most architecture departments in many universities, I don't believe in the great social engineering possibilities of "vibrant" street life, "character full" downtown whatsoever. Indeed, cities could be pretty much abolished as a concept as long as other forms to connect people to the places they want to go were available.

While I don't push my vision everywhere, I respect those who found it "interesting" to walk on streets stalking other people and finding it "vibrant". I prefer to choose the places I go, and to determine where I want to interact to strangers or not, and my car provides unbeatable defense against unwarranted approaches by strangers when I just want do damn go from point A to point B.



As I told, each one has its space:

roads = cars
tracks = trams, light rail
bike paths = bikes
sidewalks = pedestrians

In my ideal urban settings, there ought to be as much segregation as possible between those different uses of above-ground communication space. I'd gladly approve a setting in which, for instance, commercial buildings and stores faced a pedestrian boulevard, with a central low-fenced 2 way bike path, while cars would drive on the back of the buildings, with the fewest possible interferences on the road.



The right is not cars', is drivers'. The car is just a modern extension of the driver likewise in prehistorical times clothes were and "add-on" to the Neanderthal and so. A tram is just a vehicle you step in, step out. A car can be your extension: you 'furnish' it, you decorate it, you personalize it, you buy one that fits your lifestyle (actual or pretended) and so. Cars can be advertised, designed and bought for beauty, performance, public image AND for efficiency and transportation needs. Subway cars, buses (the worst, they are the degradation of the car like a slum is a degradation of real estate), trams are built and procured most for their efficiency.

When was the last time you've seen a VIP tram network with tickets costing 10X the regular price (not a vintage or tourist thing I mean) so you who worked your *** out your whole life and amassed some money can have an above-average experience while riding from point A to point B, instead of sharing with in a communist way with everyone else (some of them subsidized by your taxes btw).

If below ground works so well , then why is NYC , NJ , Baltimore , DC , Boston and a few other cramped NE cities building / reinstalling Light Rail /Trams? Obviously its for a reason , below ground is very expensive and is only used on higher predicted usage lines. Above ground is used on lower Predicted usage lines , but it all depends on the density. NYC has plans for 3 lines , 2 of them to street run and 1 more to run on a separated type guide way. Since i don't recongise Staten Island as a part of NYC , they have plans for 3 lines , to lines will hook into our system that NJ will build over the next 2 decades. As you my argue with me the fate of the Car in the Northeast as the dominate form of Transport is dying and picking up speed. All these Light Rail / Metro projects are killing that faster.......people hate taking cars around here and are begging form alt forms of transport. Hench why many cities are also making bikeways in the streets or paths.......+ here in the NE we have some of the most ignorant and road raging drivers in North America....Doesn't the city your currently in show you that? You need a balance in each city , no matter how spaced out it is , a dab will do. Light Rail is also gaining popularity around the US , so i don't see that ending anytime soon. + Light Rail is very moldable , like it can act like a Commuter Rail with stops every few miles , once in denser areas can behave like a normal light rail with stops every 2000 ft , & in the Densit of areas can act like a Metro ,with below ground stops every 2000ft. Whats a VIP Tram? Never heard of that , don't you mean a VIP bus?

I think it depends on the city. If you have rather low density then at ground is the best. If you have a dense city, underground, but if there are broad streets aswell, then you can build elevated rail.

I completely agree but unfortunately underground is much more difficult to implement, especially in areas of denser development. Much of the underground rail in dense areas was there before the area was so dense (at least in cities with old subway systems in NA and Europe)

Overall, I like a mix of both. As others have said underground can be exciting but above-ground is nice because you get a view of the city. Here in Boston, we have a nice mix of both.

In my ideal urban settings, there ought to be as much segregation as possible between those different uses of above-ground communication space. I'd gladly approve a setting in which, for instance, commercial buildings and stores faced a pedestrian boulevard, with a central low-fenced 2 way bike path, while cars would drive on the back of the buildings, with the fewest possible interferences on the road.


Even better than driving past the back of buildings (in most cases impossible without demolishing and redesigning whole cities) is to build road tunnels that link specific areas and thereby bypassing town centres.

In my city (Marseille) there are several such tunnels and we are currently building another one, thereby increasingly freeing above-surface street space for pedestrians and the new tramway system, and reducing congestion.

It's a win-win situation: the city centre is freer of cars, and road tunnels free automobile drivers of traffic lights and other delays as they cross a large part of the city centre within minutes as opposed to almost an hour (during rush hour).

Even better than driving past the back of buildings (in most cases impossible without demolishing and redesigning whole cities)

Not so illogical.

Close half the streets for cars and leave them for pedestrians only (or maybe bicycles as well. Tram line is also much narrower than car lanes). This way, each building is between a pedestrian street and a car street. Designate the side towards the car street as back and the side towards the pedestrian street as facade.

How can you designate one side of a building to be a façade? In most cases, the façade is the side already facing the street (and often on all sides of the building, so there is no "back").

City life is pretty much a myth...

...While I don't push my vision everywhere, I respect those who found it "interesting" to walk on streets stalking other people and finding it "vibrant". I prefer to choose the places I go, and to determine where I want to interact to strangers or not, and my car provides unbeatable defense against unwarranted approaches by strangers when I just want do damn go from point A to point B.





Here is a counter argument to your point that vibrant streets are a myth. This scene looks interesting, no?

(Istikial Istanbul)

http://www.sscs2010.com/images/gallery/01_02_istiklal_street.jpg




this conception seems good:






In my ideal urban settings, there ought to be as much segregation as possible between those different uses of above-ground communication space. I'd gladly approve a setting in which, for instance, commercial buildings and stores faced a pedestrian boulevard, with a central low-fenced 2 way bike path, while cars would drive on the back of the buildings, with the fewest possible interferences on the road.

Below ground, definitively. Every major city already has traffic congestion problems, the more subways, trains, trams are bored underground, the easier it is to drive a car above ground on streets that belong first and foremost to cars and not mammoth-sized trams.

Because of your rare definition of the city, your well respected opinions give me no other choice than wishing the sooner arrival of the day, in which cars could fly and submerge into the broad space.

City life is pretty much a myth, though a popular one here on SSC.

Then what do you call this scene from Tokyo I filmed today?

5Up9oJvfZ6s

Notice the above ground train at the end of the video.

This is a sunday night, not people walking to work/home but shopping, dining etc etc.

5Up9oJvfZ6s
the vid makes me wonder over the long-term effect of both living among and seeing nothing but zillions of neon faces....heck, even at the short-term possibilities....cheesh, this must affect a quarter of the planet :eek:

instead of sharing with in a communist way with everyone else

You also share the road the communist way with other drivers. And you also share the planet, the solar system, and the universe with others the communist way. Maybe the communist way is the natural, the normal?

Suburbanist, his argument sounds more in favour of Isolationism.

City life is pretty much a myth

While I don't push my vision everywhere, I respect those who found it "interesting" to walk on streets stalking other people and finding it "vibrant". I prefer to choose the places I go, and to determine where I want to interact to strangers or not, and my car provides unbeatable defense against unwarranted approaches by strangers when I just want do damn go from point A to point B.

can have an above-average experience while riding from point A to point B, instead of sharing with in a communist way with everyone else (some of them subsidized by your taxes btw).

Man you are a confused :lol:

You gotta admit: There must be something not all that right with a place if you find yourself having to turf yourself just to get somewhere, no?

Then what do you call this scene from Tokyo I filmed today?

5Up9oJvfZ6s

Notice the above ground train at the end of the video.

This is a sunday night, not people walking to work/home but shopping, dining etc etc.

Ahhh, Hachikō crossing! I loved being there and just sitting back watching people milling around. It was ALWAYS busy whenever I went there, I don't think I ever saw it quiet!

Lol it was actually alot busier during the day time. It just looks nicer at night :)

I love shibuya, I am sort of a gyaru (but not really) :P

BTW svartmetall since you've been to Tokyo and I am sure you've been to London (another wonderful city) what is your take on city life being a myth? ;)

Lol it was actually alot busier during the day time. It just looks nicer at night :)

I love shibuya, I am sort of a gyaru (but not really) :P

BTW svartmetall since you've been to Tokyo and I am sure you've been to London (another wonderful city) what is your take on city life being a myth? ;)

Haha, I lived most of my life an hours train ride just north of London so I spent a lot of time there indeed. ;) I've also recently been to your home town too and again found it very busy and full of pedestrian life - heck even Kyoto was very, very busy! I also bet I saw lots of "your type" of people when I had a quick browse around places like 109 when I was there. :P

I pretty much disagree with every single statement that comes from the keyboard of Suburbanist. I've never seen such mindless drivel in my entire life. I love the buzz and the vibrancy attached to being in a throng of people. When a city lacks street activity you don't see unique things like the Harajuku girls, the buskers, the street performers or indeed have a chance to just people-watch, which, when in a city, is a surprisingly fun way to pass time. Holing people up in metal boxes on a highway is the quickest way to make people selfish, insular, less community minded and, quite frankly, dull.

I think suburbanist really needs to spend time in Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Seoul, Singapore, London, NYC, Paris etc. If city life doesnt exist then what are these cities doing??!?!?

BTW my "type" is the sexiest and doesn't exist in the suburbs ;)
(before someone replies to this seriously it's a joke..)

I think suburbanist really needs to spend time in Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Seoul, Singapore, London, NYC, Paris etc. If city life doesnt exist then what are these cities doing??!?!?

Do you really think that would change his mind? He prefers a car based society, and his posts are always based on this opinion.

Well, the irony of that is that every suburb, or groups of suburbs in America has a mall as a meeting place, which is a bustling imitation of a city. Matter of fact, if any pattern of development is forcing you to meet somewhere in a common area, its a mall, whereas cities have crossings and plazas that grow naturally.

Well, the irony of that is that every suburb, or groups of suburbs in America has a mall as a meeting place, which is a bustling imitation of a city. Matter of fact, if any pattern of development is forcing you to meet somewhere in a common area, its a mall, whereas cities have crossings and plazas that grow naturally.

Even if that could be the case, a mall is a far more sterile and safe environment than a curbside. You don't have random people begging you for money, if some artist is performing, it is likely that safety regulations and proper assessment of family-fitness of the performance have been assessed by the mall admin. The most annoying it can get is teens roaming around and speaking loudly. But you don't have junkies, homeless beggars, depressive people trying to squeeze money playing an instrument, and so on.

A mall is a social space, but a sort of reduced-nuisances one. If you want more edge interaction, you can go to a pub or a club. If you want leisure, you go to a resort. If you want a glimpse of glamour, you go to a green play golf. In any of these cases, you can pretty much avoid encountering, interacting and facing situations, people-types and interactions you don't want. You have more control over your own life, and you can far more easily avoid what you want to avoid than if you had all this activities concentrated in public spaces where people mix with each other just because they are crossing each other's path.

What could be more invasive of your personal space than, while going from your workplace to your girlfriend's home, having to share a cramped subway with people you don't care, maybe you don't want around, and that keep invading your personal space because of the design of mass transit, for instance?

It's the same parallel I make between the advantages of rural or quasi-rural university campuses over ones that are spread in a city without any specific and distinct identity from the jurisdiction (city) where they happen to be placed.

^You're more likely to encounter negative things in street scenes but you're also more like to see new and interesting things aswell.

The elements of surprise, spontaneity and variety usually appeal to most humans.

I also like experiencing the raw unfiltered nature of the street as opposed to the calculated facade of mall.

If I ever felt usafe somewhere at a certain time of day, then yes, I wouldn't enjoy it.

In short, the street can present unsavoury situations but the good outweighs the bad..that's how my brain is wired anyway.

I believe you are on the wrong website. First of all what is stopping you, even in the world's largest city (Tokyo) from driving your car from your workplace to your girlfriends place? What is forcing you, even in Tokyo to walk on the street with thousands of people instead of going to a mall? Even Tokyo has malls, cars, parks etc. The entire point about city living is options and convenience. If you don't like cities so much then stay in the suburbs, no one is forcing you to live in a city.
Even if that could be the case, a mall is a far more sterile and safe environment than a curbside. You don't have random people begging you for money, if some artist is performing, it is likely that safety regulations and proper assessment of family-fitness of the performance have been assessed by the mall admin. The most annoying it can get is teens roaming around and speaking loudly. But you don't have junkies, homeless beggars, depressive people trying to squeeze money playing an instrument, and so on.

A mall is a social space, but a sort of reduced-nuisances one. If you want more edge interaction, you can go to a pub or a club. If you want leisure, you go to a resort. If you want a glimpse of glamour, you go to a green play golf. In any of these cases, you can pretty much avoid encountering, interacting and facing situations, people-types and interactions you don't want. You have more control over your own life, and you can far more easily avoid what you want to avoid than if you had all this activities concentrated in public spaces where people mix with each other just because they are crossing each other's path.

What could be more invasive of your personal space than, while going from your workplace to your girlfriend's home, having to share a cramped subway with people you don't care, maybe you don't want around, and that keep invading your personal space because of the design of mass transit, for instance?

It's the same parallel I make between the advantages of rural or quasi-rural university campuses over ones that are spread in a city without any specific and distinct identity from the jurisdiction (city) where they happen to be placed.

If you don't like cities so much then stay in the suburbs, no one is forcing you to live in a city.

I don't like that much this dichotomy. Car-based suburbs are just the evolution of city design like electricity-based road lights are an evolution of gas-based and whale-oil based lamplighters, and just as optic fibers are an evolution of analogical copper-cable based voice transmission on landlines, just as LCDs are an evolution from cathodic-based tube television sets :)

Dinosaurs were more advanced than single-cell micro-organisms,yet its mammals that rule the planet.

heh..and we have the technology to create solar-powered flashlights too, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. :D

I don't like that much this dichotomy. Car-based suburbs are just the evolution of city design [...] :)

I see more car-based suburbs as the implantation of an economical model. Either wrong or correct, this model is just setting you a range of option for consuption, the goods/the services, on the sterile environment created for its own. The evolutionary state of a lab rat circuit but trapped in cars.

And this pattern of life is what you call, "city life".

another thing is that, on many below grade trains you dont get any wireless signal

while above ground you can operate mobile devices

Well that's not always true. You can access cell phone signal while riding a subway in Bangkok, Thailand.

^^Technology is around to set up wireless signal in tunnels of any kind/depth/length.

Snowmane goes onRS Gold (http://www.gobuycheaprsgold.com) to give me Buy WOW Gold (http://www.zyy.com)the prices for herbs and consumables made from those herbs, and if I do the math, it appears that nothing is profitable. Here's the thing, Snow: It appears that you're onlyRuneScape Gold (http://www.storeingame.com) looking at a few of the ways an alchemist can make money. Potions and flasks may sell quickly, but you're right that they have an extremely low margin. If you want to make money that way, you need to get better at buying low and get better at selling high. The average price of materials is going to include times when someone dumps an entire week's worth of farming RuneScape Gold (http://www.rsfarming.com)on the AH for a low price, and that low point is the only time you should be accumulating mats.