California to ban internet hunting?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Az

And by the way, LA does have subways.

entirely inadequate for a metropolitan area with 14 mil people in the met area, and 4 mil people in the core.

(Thanks UrbanRail.net )

Only one of those line is subway.

Holy crap! That's about the same as Boston's, and we have roughly 2 million people, not 14 million! (so similar, Chinatown is on the Orange Line on both - except you call yours the "Gold Line"...pansies)

[Dis]

with threadjacks

[Az]

You don't like mass transite unless it is a subway?

Oh, I do like all sorts of mass transit. But I think that cities with 2 million and higher populations in the metro should base their public transport on a strong subway/other separated rapid rail, core, with trams, LRTs and buses riding shotgun.

If we're talking cities with ~1 million in metro area, usually LRTs are enough ( unless we have special terrain conditions, where subways are needed )

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
. . . except you call yours the "Gold Line"...pansies)

pssst: We're the Golden State.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Az
tram apologetics.

trams have plenty of trouble. yours also seem rather slow.

I guess money grows on trees.

[Az]

No it doesn't and that's precisely why one should invest more in urban transport, since in the case of urban transport, underinvestment means the loss of billions.

[Ted Striker]

You keep preaching to the choir, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.


In any case, constructing the amount of subway needed to cover the entire city would total over a trillion dollars. It's just not feasible or realistic.

[Az]

A)You don't have to cover it all via subway.

Subway for the city center, and cancel small streets for the outskirts, and let the trains run there at fast speeds.

B) did it hurt to pull that figure out?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Az
A)You don't have to cover it all via subway.

Subway for the city center, and cancel small streets for the outskirts, and let the trains run there at fast speeds.

Uhhh, I just told you that, and that's what we do here. The city center already has subways. The outlying areas have elevated trains that join the subway.

B) did it hurt to pull that figure out?

Give me a better one, then we'll talk.

Why you so concerned with us anyway? Are you doing a study of the glorious Tel-Aviv subway system???

[DanS]

I don't know why cities in the US hesitate to build heavy rail. Heavy rail raises property values around stations by about 20% in the Washington area (including single-family homes). And taxes are collected at the local level mostly through property taxes...

Washington could use at least 3 more lines to our current 5.

[Az]

Uhhh, I just told you that, and that's what we do here. The city center already has subways. The outlying areas have elevated trains that join the subway.

Erm, no, I've seen your system, and it's NOT what I am talking about:
a) subway should cover more of the city center- you have like a single line there. This will promote growth and *gasp* inner city revival ( coupled with other projects, of course)
b) your trams aren't rapid enough. They should be rapid, and completely separated from traffic, just like subway is.

Give me a better one, then we'll talk.

17 Miles of subway with stations cost 4.5$ Bill USD, IIRC - and it was criticized as very inefficient construction. ~250 Mil per mile.

Baltimore metro line 15.5 miles cost ~1.4 Bill USD. ( it's elevated, not ground level ) ~100Mil per mile ( 80s dollars)

Assuming costs of ~ 150M per mile and that LA metro needs 12 lines of metro costing 20 miles long each, for example - 240 miles. ( or a different set up, with longer lines, for example).

That's 60 Billion dollars. That's not an exorbitant sum of money fo a 15-20 year long project that will be supported by federal and state money, and will have also the financial support not only of the city of LA, but also neighbouring local authorities - a project that will build new arteries to help the clogged freeways of yours ( That I really like, btw)

Why you so concerned with us anyway? Are you doing a study of the glorious Tel-Aviv subway system???

Actually, no. I am concerned with you because our moronic halfwits monkey-brain government worships yours. That's why Tel-Aviv doesn't have a normal subway, yet, and the one that's planned will be teh suxor, with major streets having two lanes taken from them.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
This is our subway

How do you play Mornington Crescent?

[Az]

Originally posted by DanS
I don't know why cities in the US hesitate to build heavy rail. Heavy rail raises property values around stations by about 20% in the Washington area (including single-family homes). And taxes are collected at the local level mostly through property taxes...

Washington could use at least 3 more lines to our current 5.

DanS.... you commie....

[DanS]

The 23-mile orange line extension to Dulles Airport is expected to cost $4 billion, or about $175 million per mile. That's mostly above-ground.

$250 million per below-ground mile seems like a bargain in comparison.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Az



DanS.... you commie....

Always remember that almost every single US city is at heart a land speculation. Trying to sell a subway on any other grounds besides land values is foolish.