daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old September 6th, 2007, 10:13 PM   #281
sequoias
Registered User
 
sequoias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Midwest US
Posts: 1,612
Likes (Received): 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by uwhuskies View Post
.....The majority of rail transit popped up in many metro areas in the US starting in 1980's and beyond. I didn't list all of them. There is many more that opened after 1980's so we're seeing a huge trend of rail transit opened up or under construction. We will continue to see even more in the future. There is a good list of rail transit being proposed.

Here's a list of US cities have gotten it or is under construction after 1980's
....

Seattle, WA (2009) LRT
Tacoma, WA (2003) Streetcar
....

just a quick update to the list for the Seattle area:
Seattle, WA (2000) Commuter Rail
Seattle, WA (2008) Streetcar
Seattle, WA (1962) Monorail

Yeah, I know. I was only listing one of the few. I can add more but Its time consuming.
sequoias no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 6th, 2007, 10:14 PM   #282
sequoias
Registered User
 
sequoias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Midwest US
Posts: 1,612
Likes (Received): 14

Yea, he made it seem like Dallas was on the forefront of transit because it recently had *some* success with it's LRT, but really it's lagging big time.

Yeah, I don't think Dalla's transit is very successful but has "some" success so far. I hope that changes in the future, though. It is pretty low ridership for a metro area bigger than Seattle's metro area.
sequoias no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 6th, 2007, 10:26 PM   #283
floridian-will
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,802
Likes (Received): 344

I was very impressed with Minneapolis' Mass Transit System. Brand new, clean, and goes to alot of good places, including the Mall of America.
__________________
Check out my Stock Photo Portfolio:
http://www.dreamstime.com/Floridianw...st-adition_pg1
floridian-will no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 6th, 2007, 10:56 PM   #284
soup or man
Avant Garde
 
soup or man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 3,759
Likes (Received): 867

Los Angeles is rapidly changing. TOD's are popping up everywhere. However, it's biggest hurdle will be extending the Purple Line further west.



(The Expo and Gold Line Eastside connection are under construction.)

None of that was there in 1990.

__________________
Far from basic.
soup or man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 6th, 2007, 11:11 PM   #285
Northsider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,522
Likes (Received): 121

LA's come a long way baby. From the city with the most extensive trolley system, to a city with the most extensive highway network, back to light rail.
Northsider no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 01:45 AM   #286
jchernin
Registered User
 
jchernin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Santa Rosa/North Bay
Posts: 508
Likes (Received): 536

^ correcting past mistakes
jchernin no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 03:28 AM   #287
Sexas
Whole Other Country
 
Sexas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 735
Likes (Received): 2

Here in Austin we getting one too! the website is here http://allsystemsgo.capmetro.org/all-systems-go.shtml
__________________
Communication is Inevitable, Irreversible & Unrepeatable. Be Warn!
Sexas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 03:33 AM   #288
Songoten2554
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Miami Florida
Posts: 1,063
Likes (Received): 87

go austin you guys are lucky and so is phoenix aroziona as well
Songoten2554 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 03:42 AM   #289
OMH
Registered User
 
OMH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Munich (currently living in Toronto)
Posts: 569
Likes (Received): 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by Songoten2554 View Post
yes finally as i notice in alot of cities its starting to take advantage of public tranpsortation and big time they are

Portland is getting better now with public transport and that

alanita is growing with expansions of their rail system and purpose a muiltimodel facilty

Charollete is getting a light rail system and will expand on it

miami has a metrorail system and it will expanded big in the future and its planned

as i notice too alot of cities are driving towards mass transit which is good and well i am hoping that the united states gets a nation wide high speed rail and fixes its rail and road infrustruce

anyways i know that its going to this and well its a good thing any opinions
lol wat is alanita:lol!
OMH no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 04:25 AM   #290
Songoten2554
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Miami Florida
Posts: 1,063
Likes (Received): 87

sorry i miss spelled that name i mean to say Atlanta
Songoten2554 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 05:43 AM   #291
Northsider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,522
Likes (Received): 121

Quote:
Originally Posted by Songoten2554 View Post
sorry i miss spelled that name i mean to say Atlanta
Oops...
Northsider no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 05:46 AM   #292
Peepers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 7
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by northsider1983 View Post
We'll see, I am not convinced though. Just because they build it doesn't mean people will use it. Denver and Dallas come to mind with success stories of their light rail projects. 60,400 and 58,200 weekday riders respectively for each. How many people does the Dallas region have? 1.5 million? That means under 4% of weekday work trips are made by their light rail. This is hardly the direction Europe is taking, or Asian cities. Sure light rail is coming back, but how successful can they be when cities have already sprawled out beyond the means of effective transit?
Saying that a rail line isn't worthy because it carries only 58,000 weekdays riders in an entire city of millions makes as much sense as saying that a single road which carries only 50,000 cars per day isn't worthy either. Is that one rail line or that one road supposed to carry everyone in the entire city? Should we not start building a rail system or a road network one route at a time because the one route won't carry a majority of the city's population?

Of course not.

And, if you'll recall, before World War II, General Motors, Studebaker, Ford and other auto industry execs were calling for the redesign of America's cities. Why? In the words of Studebaker's president in 1939 (the same year of GM's City of Tomorrow unveiled at the World's Fair) said "If we are to have the full use of cars, then cities have to be remade."

U.S. cities were designed around transit and walking. Clearly, the auto execs "succeeded" in the U.S., creating mobility for the middle- and upper-class, but effectively immobilizing low-income and working-class citizens. Since development patterns are shaped by significant transportation investments (albeit in different ways, low-density around cars, high-density around transit/walking), we are seeing the changes in land use as a result of the increased investment in transit in the U.S. Though it still pales to the $2 trillion all levels of government (local, state, federal) in the U.S. have spent on roads since 1970, according to a recent analysis by the Los Angeles Times.
Peepers no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 05:47 AM   #293
Xusein
 
Xusein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 26,176
Likes (Received): 10413

The main problem with LA's transport system is the lack of centralization...other than that, LA has the fastest growing PT system over the years, and still has potential. At least they are building new lines unlike some others (New York).

As for Dallas, it is a good start. It's ridership figures were better than expected, and remember that it's in Texas, possibly the most car-dependent large state in the US (yes, even more than California).
Xusein no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 06:15 AM   #294
Northsider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,522
Likes (Received): 121

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peepers View Post
Saying that a rail line isn't worthy because it carries only 58,000 weekdays riders in an entire city of millions makes as much sense as saying that a single road which carries only 50,000 cars per day isn't worthy either. Is that one rail line or that one road supposed to carry everyone in the entire city? Should we not start building a rail system or a road network one route at a time because the one route won't carry a majority of the city's population?

Of course not.

And, if you'll recall, before World War II, General Motors, Studebaker, Ford and other auto industry execs were calling for the redesign of America's cities. Why? In the words of Studebaker's president in 1939 (the same year of GM's City of Tomorrow unveiled at the World's Fair) said "If we are to have the full use of cars, then cities have to be remade."

U.S. cities were designed around transit and walking. Clearly, the auto execs "succeeded" in the U.S., creating mobility for the middle- and upper-class, but effectively immobilizing low-income and working-class citizens. Since development patterns are shaped by significant transportation investments (albeit in different ways, low-density around cars, high-density around transit/walking), we are seeing the changes in land use as a result of the increased investment in transit in the U.S. Though it still pales to the $2 trillion all levels of government (local, state, federal) in the U.S. have spent on roads since 1970, according to a recent analysis by the Los Angeles Times.
Of course it's in the good faith and well being of the region to have these systems, whether they carry 60,000 or 1 million. But we have to look at it financially. The ridership doesn't cover the cost of construction and operations. That has been transit's battle ever since the 1800's and still has not been resolved...only made worse by increasingly auto-centric cities and suburbs. I say to you that we need better land use planning or transit fails...it has and always will. The few shining examples of good land use planning try to hide the fact that suburban fringe areas are growing at increasingly alarming rates. Let's take Atlanta (sprawl capital of the US). Some counties are seeing 150%+ population increase! What does that mean? 1. increase distance in which one has to travel and 2. increase in auto ownership and VMT
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/met...rowthmaps.html
This is outdated, but I don't feel like searching for current research to prove to you that VMT is still climbing with suburban expansion.

I am not saying that providing a rail line to carry 60,000 people isn't needed in a large city, I am saying that it's not cost effective. The agency certainly can't pay for it, the farebox recovery doesn't pay for it, auto-users don't pay for it (well sort of, but not enough: gas tax, title transfers, etc). Transit relies almost entirely on fed and state subsidies, the rest it passed to the user. Auto users don't feel the effects of road usage (roads aren't tolled, etc), so auto will always win out. Where is this rant going?...ohh yes. So I am saying that it's needed, but pathetic to have a service providing only, what was my calculation...1.1%! of the region's mode share.

This thread is about the "success" of transit in the US. I argue that there is no success when compared to other countries with land use patterns more conducive to transit. Our nation is more conducive to auto-use and it will be really hard to change our land use to benefit transit. Unless we tax the freaking hell out of anything to do with automobiles to fund transit, I don't see it going anywhere.
Northsider no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 07:32 AM   #295
LosAngelesMetroBoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Baghdad/Miami/Los Angeles
Posts: 317
Likes (Received): 26

if you look at the red line in Los Angeles, the North Hollywood station has had a huge amount of construction of new appartments and condos around the station for people working along the line.

I think that is the future, get the lines to go to current built up areas and along the lines will explode, just dont make the canada line mistake and build the lines at too low a capacity.
LosAngelesMetroBoy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 08:24 AM   #296
Electrify
Registered User
 
Electrify's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Markham (Thornhill), Ontario
Posts: 1,684
Likes (Received): 5

After WWII, a lot of US cities invested in interstates through and around inner cities over mass transit. While not the most socially responsible choice of living, if you have a car you can fly through most metropolitan areas.

However, these highways can only hold so much and you can only build so many before you really start to hurt the city with air pollution and acres of parking lots. And let's not forget the cost of a car, plus gas, insurance, and maintenance is becoming too much for even the upper/middle classes. It is because of this that cities are now focusing on transit over highways. In fact, in many cities rapid transit is being used as an alternative to expanding an expressway, or even building a new one.

Knowing Americans, I think most would take transit if it were fast, faster than driving specifically. If they build mass/rapid transit around the cities, and then build densely around them (TOD that was mentioned above), I'm sure transit usage would explode in the US since most downtowns (where a lot of transit goes) are dying down there.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by OEincorparated View Post
You are genius too Electrify, never would have thought of this if not for your thread.
Electrify no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 11:34 AM   #297
Tom 958
Registered User
 
Tom 958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: near Atlanta
Posts: 786
Likes (Received): 163

Re Atlanta, further expansion of MARTA's heavy rail system is dead. The last extension that was opened, in 2000, forced a fare increase that drove away more riders than the new stations attracted. New lines are being discussed, but they won't happen because the operations funding isn't there.
Tom 958 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 07:11 PM   #298
cpddavis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 20
Likes (Received): 0

I'm interested to know how most Asian/European cities financed their massive subway systems - it seems to be the major issue with building them. They're ridiculously expensive.
cpddavis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 07:53 PM   #299
Gaeus
500-Internal Server Error
 
Gaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,498
Likes (Received): 87

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpddavis View Post
I'm interested to know how most Asian/European cities financed their massive subway systems - it seems to be the major issue with building them. They're ridiculously expensive.
They are expensive but they get more passengers (in terms of percentage) than the average American cities except New York City. That means they are making profits. Another advantage is building metro or subway in Asia and some European countries is cheaper than in United States.
__________________
GO REDSKINS!!!!!
Gaeus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 08:24 PM   #300
RawLee
Registered User
 
RawLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Budapest
Posts: 9,447
Likes (Received): 1085

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpddavis View Post
I'm interested to know how most Asian/European cities financed their massive subway systems - it seems to be the major issue with building them. They're ridiculously expensive.
National gov finances it,or EU funds Public transport here(HU) doesnt generate profit. drivers were to go on strike this tuesday if they didnt get payment rise(they got). IMO the cities in Europe would simply die without them,and this means that the even the gov will help sustaining it. Metros also raise land value,and city councils and govs encourage urbanization this way.
RawLee no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium