Have you ever flown on a 737?
That's what's wrong with it. Short haul airlines really suck. Trust me, high speed trains are more comfortable.Unbuilt Urban Projects That You Wish Had Been Built
- Thread starter kernals12
- Start date
Have you ever flown on a 737?
That's what's wrong with it. Short haul airlines really suck. Trust me, high speed trains are more comfortable.The population of San Francisco also stayed pretty flat until the tech boom, and ride sharing has also been going against public transit usage pretty much everywhere. If they'd gone to buses instead of light rail odds are that number would have dropped considerably, not stayed flat.
Thanks for that, some interesting potential ideas there.Now, some of my country Brazil.
First, the Rio de Janeiro "Plano Agache/Agache Plan", create in 1930, would be rebuilding mostly of city focus on a new urban redevelopment, massive subway system and even a monorail on downtown and transform the Rio de Janeiro in a mix of Paris and New York, use Art Deco and the same style of streets of Paris.
Vision of Downton of Rio.
Plaza Monumental Brazil, Rio de Janeiro Harbour
Vision of Rapid Transit and entire new freight and long distance passenger and yards rebuilt for entire city.
- Blue is the Subway
- Red is mainline railroad
University City
Vision to creation of inumerous "Satellites Cities" around great Rio, always around great avenues and subways lines built
Esplanada do Castelo and Calabounço Point.
New architecture buildings to be built on High-Density areas
Project for one of inumerous Art Deco Skyscraper to be built on downtown
Terminal for Hydro-Planes and Rapid Transit.
More details here (in portuguese): https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1501939
kernals12
Banned
If they'd gone for Bus Rapid Transit, Fares would be lower and they could service a wider area.
I highly doubt that. You have to remember that BRT requires it's own lanes and cannot run underground (unless you use dual-mode buses as Seattle did), so you either need to expand the roads for the BRT lanes (impossible in many areas of San Francisco for terrain and historical reasons) or run them in traffic. Cheaper up front than light rail, maybe, but you many more buses to have the same level of service, which increases maintenance costs on both the bigger bus fleet and the roadways themselves, not to mention San Francisco has cheap electric power for its transit system (courtesy of a city-owned power plant) against more expensive diesel fuel for the buses and (the BIG one) you need to pay that many more bus drivers than train operators.
Beyond that, in the United States riding a bus somewhere has a negative stigma, still does to some extent.
You do need to factor all of these things into account.
You think 737s are bad? Have you ever flown in a CRJ-200 AKA, the "Canadian torture tube"?Have you ever flown on a 737?
But no matter what you're flying on, if the seats do not line up right with all of the windows, chances are they've packed too many seats onto the thing.
Last edited:
kernals12
Banned
And more expensive and even compared to a 737, more dangerous.Have you ever flown on a 737?
kernals12
Banned
Personally, I think San Francisco should get a full blown subway system. Alas, an attempt to do so, called Muni Rapid, was shot down in 1966 by voters.
I can see a purpose for it, but building a subway system in a very seismically active area that is very hilly (and thus cut-and-cover tunnels aren't a good option for much of the system) is a very expensive proposition.
Much flatter, MUCH bigger population, six times the economic strength and much bigger mass transit ridership. The seismically-active portion isn't the biggest problem in San Francisco - it can be dealt with, and BART wasn't too badly effected by the Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989 - but digging under the city at such depths as a subway system would demand in San Francisco would be a HUGE undertaking, not to mention some stations would require long elevators just to get passengers to the trains.
Considering Texas Central is using Shinkansen tech and the entire Shinkansen system has yet to have one notable fatal accident during it's long service life that claim is very dubious. Yes trains are more dangerous than planes but when you compare specific systems, it's not even close. The only two accidents that actually occurred on the Shinkansen were derailments: one during an earthquake, another during a blizzard. It'd be hard-pressed for either to happen in Texas. The most they'll have to worry about is a tornado knocking out the overhead lines. Even then, automatic systems would kick in and stop the train before anything can happen.
kernals12
Banned
They said the Golden Bridge couldn't be done, too.
San Francisco is the 2nd densest city in America, behind only New York, many less dense cities have built subway systems.
They're all good, now. Thx.
Some pretty nice stuff, too. (Geez, how wide was Hood's bridge proposal, 20 lanes?
With a second deck for MTA trains & parking? )Lost the game
Banned
You have a very bad habit of sidestepping people's arguments and cherrypicking the parts you actually address.
The original planned Baltimore Metro Subway: https://transitporn.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/stnw-baltimore/
Only the northwest line (realigned from Randallstown to Owings Mills) was built as a subway; later the North/South lines were built as light rail (albeit again, using a different route for much of the North line for cost-cutting reasons). The "Red Line" light rail proposal loosely follows the proposed West and Southeast lines, at least in parts.
Only the northwest line (realigned from Randallstown to Owings Mills) was built as a subway; later the North/South lines were built as light rail (albeit again, using a different route for much of the North line for cost-cutting reasons). The "Red Line" light rail proposal loosely follows the proposed West and Southeast lines, at least in parts.
Not impossible, though: Chongqing has even rougher issues to deal with and has a pretty good-sized metro network (with the highest metro-only bridge in the world and one of the deepest metro stations in the world). This could even allow that favorite "new technology" of transit to make a reasonable appearance: monorails! They can apparently negotiate steeper grades than conventional rail, so they could help alleviate the depth issue somewhat.
On the other hand, Chongqing also has plenty of conventional lines, so that could probably work too.
I never said it couldn't be done, I said it would be difficult and costly, which is never to be underestimated with construction projects.
The red line is dead, the light rail doesn't connect well with the Metro line and the Beltway was completed with the Scott Key bridge outside the outer harbor (I don't think there was any thought in its design for adding mass transit to it Because of the political infighting between the Baltimore and Washington focused groups Mass transit in Baltimore is pretty much a basket case.The original planned Baltimore Metro Subway: https://transitporn.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/stnw-baltimore/
Only the northwest line (realigned from Randallstown to Owings Mills) was built as a subway; later the North/South lines were built as light rail (albeit again, using a different route for much of the North line for cost-cutting reasons). The "Red Line" light rail proposal loosely follows the proposed West and Southeast lines, at least in parts.
The Baltimore and DC Metro systems were designed to different standards so even if they built the Baltimore Metro out as planned the two could not be integrated into a single system.