107 replies to this topic

[mikemfer]

Why build light rail to limited areas? Is it cheaper than a subway would be? Because it sure seems expensive. A subway would be cool. In DC and New York everybody rides the subway, there's no stigma.

[aaronburke]

it is much cheaper than subway, especially
in this late period of phx's development.

[chadk]

subways would be mean huge reconstrustion,

although they would be really cool

how about a light subway

only 4 grams of fat

[woodman]

I'm pretty sure houston doesn't have a rail system, and it's pretty much as large as phx. maybe i'm wrong?

[chadk]

I'm pretty sure houston 

ok so we have one

[aaronburke]

i think if we're in the same predicament as
houston of all places, then we REALLY need
a light rail

[mikemfer]

The funny thing is, Houston already has light rail up and running.


EDIT: I should have linked this page instead.

[mothrock]

Seattle's monorail is a joke. The buses run frequently, but the traffic here is the worst I have ever seen. it takes me 1/2 hour to make it from the freeway exit to my apartment. (we are talking less than 2 miles) , so I don't think phoenix really has a "problem" yet.

they just need to start building "up" instead of "out" , many people there I think would be happy with a large apartment in a big building. They just really don't have reasonably priced high rise apartments there.

I don't get what the big deal is. God forbid that you can't see camelback mountain from any point in the city.

[chadk]

damn beat ,me to it

they have a whopping 7.5 miles

[Colin]

With regard to subway vs light rail, there are plenty of cities that have a subway-like system that doesn't go underground. Just from personal experience, I've been on the following systems:

-A lot of the Boston subway system is above ground. By a lot, I mean portions of all 4 subway lines. The entire (far-reaching) commuter rail system is above ground. There are also streetcars in some areas.
-Toronto has streetcars in the downtown area that are effective and highly utilized.
-Chicago's mass transit system is almost all elevated above street level and very popular.
-Atlanta's MARTA is above ground.
-London has the above ground DLR that goes to Greenwich and beyond. (not to mention "Mudchute" )

[chadk]

BEEP BEEP

denvers light rail killed like seven people the first few months it was in operation

[aaronburke]

i was only referring to subway as being more
expensive than light rail if a true 'subway' is
built, i.e. underground only

[Colin]

Yeah Aaron, I know what you meant. I made that list to reply to Mike's comment about a subway being more effective. Just because digging costs a lot doesn't mean that you can't acheive subway-like results above the good old earth. I should have used a quote in my post.

[chadk]

oh yea and alot of people park and ride, so if you live to far from a stop they park in the stops lot and get on, thus saving energy and creating less polution and less traffic, and they don't have to worry about finding a parking space downtown.

[SomethingElse]

opponents of the light rail claim that only 4% of the population will be benefited by the new system. what's so infuriating about this is that the majority of this 4% are the people that can't afford cars and/or insurance to drive around the freeways! this segment of the population is doing us the real service by keeping our air clean and streets safer, yet we should disregard them because they only represent 4%. these people need to be represented, too.