Wich is more important to have; a good highway network or a good railway network? Wich one do you prefer for your country?

railway.

Both is important but for my country I would prefer the railway.
First because it is far more environment-friendly and because I am a railway freak....

Railway. Size shouldn't matter: if China and Russia do fine with rail, any country should be able to. US dependence on highways is due to irresponsible development patterns. Highways are terribly inefficient for how much effort goes into their construction. One metro line, either taking up no land or a narrow ROW, can easily carry more passengers than an 10-lane highway filled with single-occupancy vehicles, which is a 150m wide concrete scar including frontage roads. When a metro line reaches capacity, all the city needs to do is add more trains: increase train length, and then shorten intervals. Expanding highways is like rebuilding the Great Wall.

Again, I will repeat that highways have surprisingly low capacity. On a 10-lane highway, 5 lanes travel in each direction. A Shanghai Metro train has a passenger capacity of 2480 people. Assuming all 5 lanes are filled, with 20m intervals between cars, 2480 cars would stretch out over 9.9 KILOMETRES OF HIGHWAY. Frightening, eh? ;)

I say Highway.

Again, I will repeat that highways have surprisingly low capacity. On a 10-lane highway, 5 lanes travel in each direction. A Shanghai Metro train has a passenger capacity of 2480 people. Assuming all 5 lanes are filled, with 20m intervals between cars, 2480 cars would stretch out over 9.9 KILOMETRES OF HIGHWAY. Frightening, eh? ;)

Unfortunately, that metro train doesnt stop at my front door, doesnt go anywhere near my office, nor is it helpful if I am shopping or if I have two kids with me (in a stroller). However, I cannot think of a faster way to get to our central railway station.

Ultimately, you have both, with heavy traffic on neither....

Highways

Both, but to make one choice it depends on the size and density.
(no vote)

Highways. Nobody can ever predict future growth and consumer preferences, least of all governments. The nice thing about roads is that "close" *is* generally OK. A rail line that doesn't go *exactly* where it needs to go is -- at best -- only slightly better than "useless". A road that doesn't quite go where it needs to go causes traffic jams, but eventually the people will still get to where they want to go.

The truth is, there shouldn't be any need to choose. Cities should have BOTH kick-ass freeway networks AND useful rail lines (preferably driverless, like Miami's Metromover, and maybe Montreal's, so service can be frequent ALL DAY, EVERY DAY, even when the cars are mostly empty).

It should be possible to go from one big city to another that's 100-300 miles away by rail, cheaply (but with luxury first-class service available), with frequent service. Ultimately, the decision between driving and taking a train between a pair of cities like Miami and Orlando should come down to, "would I rather surf the net, hit the buffet car, and play videogames for 2 hours, with another hour or so before and after the trip to get to the station and get to my destination... or would I rather spend 4 hours driving there directly?"

If you HAVE to choose one or the other, roads win, hands down. But ideally, a spectacular road network should be backed up by an equally impressive rail network.

I think a highway network is more important.

both needed

Unfortunately, that metro train doesnt stop at my front door, doesnt go anywhere near my office, nor is it helpful if I am shopping or if I have two kids with me (in a stroller). However, I cannot think of a faster way to get to our central railway station.

Ultimately, you have both, with heavy traffic on neither....
Yes - highways are effective during off-peak times, or if you commute in the right direction. But boy, are they terrible during rush hour. With enough density, rail reaches a critical mass of effectiveness, a cycle of convenience. People are always close enough to the metro (i.e., via one bus ride) to take advantage of it.

Perhaps I am just biased. The way cities like Hong Kong, Tokyo, Shanghai are built, rail plays a more important role than highways.

Oh, and just for fun:

http://www.thespoof.com/picstore/people/traffic_jam_houston.jpg

I'd rather be stuck in this......

http://www.thespoof.com/picstore/people/traffic_jam_houston.jpg


Then this.....

http://www.godweb.org/subwayr.jpg
Dont need some stranger breathing down my neck at 7 am on my way to work.... but to each his own.

same here

Railway, no doubt!
;)
And high speed railway, if possible!!
:wink2:

Railways.

Both... Rail for inner city and highways for suburbs/rural

I'd rather be stuck in this......

http://www.thespoof.com/picstore/people/traffic_jam_houston.jpg


Then this.....

http://www.godweb.org/subwayr.jpg
Dont need some stranger breathing down my neck at 7 am on my way to work.... but to each his own.

I agree, good point. It's funny because I've been on that highway before, U.S. 59 in Houston.

http://www.godweb.org/subwayr.jpg


Rush Hour in Yamanote line are amazing.

I wouldnt mind being stuck up against the girl to the right tho hehehe. Id love to have a good railway. In my 19 years as an american the only passenger train ive been on was a path train from philly to jersey city. And ive rode the nyc subway several times.

I personally prefer a crowded train over a crowded highway, as at least I would still be punctual. One never knows the pace of highway traffic.