Change my mind: Subways are the ultimate public transit solution. There is no need for anything else unless you want to serve grandmas who can't walk the final mile, or have some extremely niche geological situation.Your city isn't too poor to build a proper subway system, right anon?
>>1815363Water table is 9ft here.So no can do fren.
>>1815363yeah I live in Florida
>>1815368>>1815369I would say most subways are below the water table, NYC's is and requires the constant use of hundreds of pumps to keep it dewatered.
>>1815368>>1815369Amsterdam has a metro system. No excuse
>>1815363>costs gorillions to build and takes many years>city likely to grow faster than you can build subways>limited density (unless you build a shitload of lines, which, again, costs gorillions)>slower on short trips than surface transport because of time lost entering/exiting stationsSubways are overrated. They're only good for high-demand trunk lines in very big cities. You're always going to need complementary surface transportation.
decades old complex underground utlitity systems which would be prohibitily expensive to try and build around without disrupting and damaging those ancient utlities.yes, my big city is too poor for that. we have a rail that connects some of our entire metro. it was built 50years ago and is reaching capcitybartfunny thing is we probbly have way more money then other cities >way more red tape
>>1815363>ultimate public transit solutionMetro is the most overrated. Mainline train + tram + bus is the golden combo for every city, taking care of needs from town to village. >extremely niche geological situationOr you can actually learn geology to see how many classification for rocks alone out there. >too poor to build a proper subway systemCauses over-investment in metro, and under-investment in other systems. Almost broke some municipalities and remain a burden from low ridership, even in Japan. That being said, not building metro when it is needed for reasons of cost cutting or enjoying at-grade transit is more retarded.
>>1815461Just dig deeper
>>1815486In Moscow you lose easily up to 2-3 minutes just to access the stations, because they are so deep. That's 5 minutes for one trip (entering+exiting).
>>1815363Technically yes, the bigger problem is whether or not digging expensive tunnels would be worth it for most cities compared to a drastically cheaper overground lines, except for a few lines.Here in West Germany for example many medium large cities (>300k but <1,000k people) decided to transform their tram systems into hybrid "Stadtbahnen" serving the downtown areas as tiny underground metros for a few stations, and even most full-size metro systems like Berlin and Hamburg operate a fair amount of their tracks overground.
>>1815363ultimate public transit is Tokyo
>>1815449>city likely to grow faster than you can build subwayslimit its growththe best cities are ones that don't constantly expandmoscow for example is limited by the big ring road, beyond it there's orc land with uncontacted civilisations that don't deserve the metro
In Toronto everyone agrees we should build subways but the light rail autists are fucking everything up so we get monstrosities like tunnel light rail instead.
>>1815672Why is there a push for light rail?Is it seen as the more "modern" and cheaper alternative to a subway?
>>1815369This nigga wrecked us>>1815440
>>1815672>light rail autistsIt's mostly a municipal & provincial government who doesn't want to spend the money to build a proper subway line. Eglinton West would've been built years ago if it wasn't for Harris' cuts in 1996. Dalton McGuinty & David Miller wanted LRTs because they're cheaper than building proper subway lines. It's a stupid argument, because trains on Eglinton need to be underground due to space. It would've been better if we built a subway or a light metro line instead.
>>18157791. They are higher capacity than busses2. They are zero emission3. The quality of the ride is much better than a bus4. They are cheaper than subways as long as they are built mostly above ground5. They create the opportunity to create transit malls and denser walkable/bikable neighbourhoods around themOverall they are "good" as long as it's the right type of light rail. You don't want it to be stuck in traffic like a streetcar or trolleybus, so ideally it has dedicated lanes and isn't stuck in traffic with cars. You don't want it to be heavily tunneled because then you are spending a similar amount of money to what it would cost to build a proper subway/metro line but without being as fast or as high capacity - by making it too premium you are losing significant value for money.The 510 Spadina Line is an example of it being done correctly. It connects with the main arterial metro lines allowing for a seemless transfer between types of trains and services a long medium density corridor that needs more than a bus but doesn't need it's own metro line. The car traffic has been reduced so the corridor is much more pedestrian and bike friendly.The Eglington Crosstown is an example of it being done incorrectly. 1. It's a light rail service on a corridor that could easily support a metro line (especially if/when it goes to the airport and links up to new GO RER stations)2. It's mostly tunneled except to come above ground for a bit and and wait at an intersection with car traffic before continuing on its own traffic-independent line again.3. The tunneling that was done is not wide enough to support a metro so if/when it needs to be upgraded to a proper metro line it will cost a fortune.4. It's taken forever to build because of all the political football around it (except the actual people who live in Toronto and that area have always just wanted it to be a new subway line)>>1815800Yeah we have retards in charge all across the spectrum
>>1815449stop being poor
>>1815489the average trip is probably 30-45 minutes, so not a huge deal. also you can walk down the escalator so it will only take you ~1 minute.>>1815467>>Mainline train + tram + bus is the golden combo for every city>just build train lines to the center of the city bro>needing to transfer>have to go from one end of the city to another? get fucked lmao
>>1815363Elevated lines are superior>cheaper to build>easier to expand>easier to access in case of emergency>beautiful views of the cityOnly problem is whiny NIMBYs, but in an ideal society they would be thrown into camps and their properties would be confiscated.
>>1816012>doood lmaooo just block off all street-level views of the city lmaoo bro just create massive shaded overpass areas full of homeless bro
>>1816014The less mentally ill homeless can be housed in dense mixed use developments on former NIMBY properties, and the rest can be in the camps along with them.
>>1815363I don't know why it has to be only one solutions fits all. I live in a major city with a very extensive subway system. I like the subway (except for the homeless who reek to high hell and the literally insane people who for whatever reason like to push people off of the platforms and on to the tracks), the subway is great. It is very useful at times, but never I have been such a stupid small minded asshole to think to myself that there is only one solution that is needed.There is a wide variety of means for personal transportation, thank goodness! Why do you hate people so much that they all have to do only one means of transport? Out demons of stupidity, out!
>>1815363>Your city isn't too poor to build a proper subway system, right anon?It is
>>1816012No fuck off they're grim
>>1816014>just create massive shaded overpassOk that sounds like a good idea>homeless peopleThe first and fundemental tip for every 'design a perfect country/city' endeavors is: Don't be ametica
>>1816017as someone who's actually interacted with a lot of homeless people, the majority of those who aren't batshit insane, are homeless by choice. they don't want your fucking housing, they don't want your fucking camps, they don't want your fucking food and gifts, they want you to give them some money then go away
>>1815363I have no idea about my city’s finances but neither me nor anyone I’ve talked to here has ever expressed any desire for a subway, so we don’t have one, and I’ve never wanted one for any reason. Maybe before Uber was a thing, but not now.
>>1815595>bartSan Francisco or one of its suburbs
>>1816128This is why laws against "camping" in cities need to be actually enforced. If people are choosing to be a nuisance they should go somewhere less bothersome to people trying to actually produce economic and cultural value.
>>1815461>san francisco>too poor for thatLMAO
>>1816017yea maybe if we give them even more shit maybe theyll stop choosing to be homeless!
>>1816348The alternative is elevated railways. And some in NYC are, but nothing like that would ever be built today
>>1816348well if you're putting it that way, the concept of transit itself is inherently wasteful. because (bong rip) why go ANYWHERE, right
>>1816348>wastefuljust like your life yet you're still here, making utterly shitty posts
>>1816012This>>1815363Elevated and surface rail is superior, subways should be an ultimate last resort for areas too dense for either of these to work.
>>1816472>>1816012>yes, let's make the city even MORE noisy and annoy the shit out of everyone currently in itgenius
>>1815449Sheltered /n/tards will never understand this. They think life is like simcity with cheats turned on.>>1816008You don't own a house, you don't get to call others poor.
>>1816497Having lived by both a freeway exit and a notoriously noisy, dirty and dangerous elevated rail line, the former was much noisier, dirtier, more dangerous, and worse to live next to. In general, the resident/pedestrian experience around heavily used car infrastructure is always going to be much worse than even the worst examples of public transit, simply due to the number of vehicles and general incompetence/assholery of most drivers.
>>1816010>>just build train lines to the center of the city broYou miss the tram + bus, if it's not at the exact center. >needing to transfer>have to go from one end of the city to another? get fucked lmaoLmao bay platform dead-end terminus is even more overrated. Build through stations, run some or all trains through depending on passenger origin-destination distribution.
>>1816528maybe the new stuff is quiet but i lived near the L in Chicago and it was fucking terrible
>>1816834>>1816497>endless vroom vroom honk vroom honk honk vroom 24 hours a dayvs>train gliding across rails every 5 minutes or so during peak hours, clanking a bit at worstI've lived around both, and the former gave me a nervous breakdown and the latter was pleasant.
>>1816840The L is notoriously loudMost trains are just loud that's how they are
>>1815440>just build 100 nuclear reactors to power all those pumps
>>1816840>>1816528do cars just live rent free in your minds 24/7? who mentioned freeways? This thread is about subways you mouthbreathers.
>>1817263The default alternative to transit is car infrastructure. If you can't build subways, and you can't build elevated rail, then you're left with car infrastructure, perhaps retrofitted with buses or light rail.
>>1816010>just build train lines to the center of the city bro>have to go from one end of the city to another? get fucked lmaomuttu plz
>>1816912AFAIK they just froze the soil and then built the tunnel. The Netherlands doesn't have 100 nuclear reactors.
>>1815363Is it really? How is public transit supposed to take me across town to pickup a free stove?>InB4 you will own nothing
>>1818304> wtf is van rental
>>18183042/10 bait, made me reply
>>1818304>i must CONSOOOOOOOOOM
>>1815363Trams are better, subways are underground to give more space for cars.
>>1818304That's what professional movers, van rentals, etc are for. Transit should be designed around the average person in the area's usual transit needs, unless a majority of your city is moving stoves around every day it really doesn't make sense to defund public transit in favor of roads just to make things slightly easier for people transporting large appliances.