Personal rapid transit

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Subways, as they are, are still the best solution, as they transport millions of commuters each year and take them away from the surface. At the moment, subway lines are still not widely enough used, as a single line is enough to cover the needs of 500,000 inhabitants. How many 500,000 cities are there that don't have any subway line yet?

Subways don't really make sense in 500k cities. It starts being the best option when it can expect about 1 million travels a day. And many people in the general pop aren't going to use a subway no matter what (children going to nearby schools, housewives, old people, people who live in low-density areas). As such, a 500k city will be better off with a tramway. It's not nearly as expansive, and can do the trick just as well for such a size.

[Aeson]

Cost may not have much to do with LA's minimal subway system. IIRC there was an explosion due to methane pockets while expanding the subway system some years back, and since then they haven't been able to get permissions to continue.

The other (and main) reason is because we love our cars too much. You can't really look down on (or envy) your neighbor as much if you take the same subway.

[DanS]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Personal rapid transit

Originally posted by Spiffor
Traffic jams occur when you have too many vehicles on an infrastructure.

This is not true per se. Most traffic jams occur because human beings drive at suboptimal speeds and distances from other cars. Computers driving would fill the infrastructure to a much greater degree.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
The picture is fine as it is.

No it's not.

Would everyone please refrain from posting huge pictures. General rule of thumb - if it doesn't fit on a normal sized screen (say 1280x960 or somesuch) then it's too big. If it doesn't fit on my screen (1680x1050) then it's clearly too big.

Have edited the picture above for size, and included the link if you want the full size version, so you can read the names and such.

Originally posted by General Ludd

Good choice. Very similar to the one I'm getting delivered on Wednesday

[axi]

There is a solution for mass transit in low density areas and it is suburban railway, such as the RER around Paris. Surface or underground lines (depending on cost and land use) with stations further set apart and faster trains (130km/h vs 80km/h for subway) connect a chain of local hubs from where bus lines fan out to the burbs. Such stations are usually placed in places with ample parking space rather than right in a city square, but it depends on your philosophy. European passengers would be more in the mood for a double switch (car/bike/foot to bus to rail) than Americans who would go for the single switch (car/bus to rail)

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by axi
European passengers would be more in the mood for a double switch (car/bike/foot to bus to rail) than Americans who would go for the single switch (car/bus to rail)

Double switch is a pain in the arse and doesn't work well. Besides, the more switches there are, the more consequences any mishap has.

[self biased]

only two hundred fifty miles to a charge? you're kidding me. god forbid you want to take a road trip.

[DanS]

Originally posted by axi
There is a solution for mass transit in low density areas and it is suburban railway

Not even close, I'm afraid.

It's funny to see people who live in high density areas discuss what makes sense for low density areas. Public transportation doesn't make sense at all in most low density areas. Not even public buses.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
It's funny to see people who live in high density areas discuss what makes sense for low density areas. Public transportation doesn't make sense at all in most low density areas.

"Low density" has a different meaning in Europe and in the US.

In Europe, you can perfectly have a tightknit village of a few thousands surrounded by fields, not too far from the centre, which justifies a station because the villagers can go to the station by foot or bike. That's very different from the US suburbia.

[DanS]

That's very different from even most US urban areas.

The fact is that for about 80 years, the US has taken the enlightened approach and embraced the automobile.

[DanS]

Originally posted by self biased
only two hundred fifty miles to a charge? you're kidding me. god forbid you want to take a road trip.

Most cars don't get much more than that to the tank. I'm not sure whether there is a fast-charging option for the roadster.

But in any event, we're getting to the point where electric cars make sense. In the meantime, we'll do the gasoline/ethanol thing.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
That's the problem of the US. It's unacceptable that large metropolises like LA have just 5 or 6 subway lines, with any major european or asian city already planning line 15 and the second circular line.

Hmmm, Amsterdam doesn't have 15 lines....



Nor Brussels..



Nor Copenhagen...



Helsinki...

http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/hel/helsinki.htm

Lyon...

http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/lyo/lyon.htm

If only all Europe was as enlightened as American cities such as Chicago:



Or Philadelphia


(not to mention DC or New York or others)

[LordShiva]

None of those cities are anywhere close to LA's size.

DC and New York have excellent subway systems. Phillie's is crap, though.

[Datajack Franit]

I was talking about METROPOLISES with a population between 2 and 4 millions


Milan Subway (3 lines under construction)



and Suburban



Frankfurt

[DanS]

DC's Metrorail is a special case. It was constructed mainly through federal funding because DC is a capital city. Strictly on economic grounds, it probably would not have made sense to build it, as evidenced by the fact that very few other US cities have extensive subways.

Basically, New York City's subway stands alone. But I note that even the NYC subway has not grown in the last 50 years.