London £5 "Congestion Fee"

[CerberusIV]

It looks like they will be needing the money for London Underground.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2756151.stm

[Buck Birdseed]

I believe Copenhagen is building one now, and certainly most cities have changed their system in some way since it was originally built. It's a reasonably cheap (and durable!) way to create large-scale mass transport that people actually use...

Stockholm's underground system was started with two lines in 1950-57, the last major expansion was in 1975, the last minor one in 1994.

My favourite subway layout is still Moscow's- big, chunky lines going out in tight radial spokes (this map is, er, squeezed) with a proper bloody circle around it.

[TheStinger]

Monorail is the way forward.

[Solly]

The way foward is for people to realise there are many alternatives to the car.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Guided buses are crap

You mean trams? They are kinda neat

[TheStinger]

I mean guided buses. They have special lanes where only buses can go. They are not normal bus lanes. They are narrow lanes and the driver does not have to steer because little wheels on the bus follow the lane. The bus then leaves the lane and rejoins normal traffic.

Thats probably claer as mud so ill try and find a link

[TheStinger]

Link for guided buses

http://www.firstleeds.co.uk/superbus/index.html

[Adam Smith]

Charging for congestion is a great idea.
Just a parking fee wont do the job, since commercial vehicles operate but dont necessarily park (legally) in the downtown area.
Gotta put the money back into mass transit.
Mass transit capacity improvements can be fairly inexpensive. Here in DC they are going to add two cars to every train. (Or at least they keep saying they will do this soon.) In NYC they increased capacity on some lines into lower Manhattan by upgrading train signals to reduce headways between trains.
I would think its not that hard to charge for downtown road use. The article mentions Singapore doing so electronically. IIRC, HK also has an electronic charging system to get into Victoria. but in that case access is controlled by two or three tunnels.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sten Sture
this shows the horrible complexity of the SF subway system. Impossible to administer.

Was that sarcasm? Looks like a breeze to me.

[Buck Birdseed]

And in another position on the tram-to-bus continuum are Trolley Buses, normal buses that are powered by overhead, tram-style wires suspended over normal traffic lanes. Works reasonably well but only in purely urban routes.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MikeH
I think London is unlike a lot of US cities, although Ming's New York comparison is spot in, it's just like paying to get to Manhattan.

As I said, there are several bridges into Manhattan that are still toll-free.

[MikeH]

Missed that, sorry.

[Spiffor]

Stuttgart built 10 kilometres of high intenity subway during the 70's.
Paris built its regional network (partly undergound) in the 70's as well, and two lines have been built in the last 5 years.
It's not always the cost which hinders cities to build underground mass transit systems, but rather the kind of ground. Strasbourg and Bordeaux have very wet / semi swampish grounds, and hence they have a tramway rather than a subway.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Boddington's
The way foward is for people to realise there are many alternatives to the car.

Exactly.

[Sten Sture]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Was that sarcasm? Looks like a breeze to me.

Yeah, it should be a breeze. They even have GPS on all the trains now so they can see where they are on the route, and they still have 45 minute gaps (scheduled for 5) followed by 8 consecutive trains for the same line. Infuriating. The only thing worse are the buses, as LofA referenced.

For a rich city with huge tax revenue full of leftwingers we have some f-ed up social services for the working class. The school system makes the trains look efficient.