Quote:
Originally Posted by mwadswor
That's precisely the reason a lot of cities choose LRT over HRT, even though ridership could probably justify subways or elevevated rail in some of the cities building LRT. There is no question that subways are extremely expensive. Cities are not building LRT because its some shiny new toy, they're building LRT because something has to be done to avoid gridlock, and LRT is all they can afford. Waiting to "do it right" will result in waiting literally forever in a lot of cases. No, LRT is not the ideal solution in a lot of places, but it's a whole hell of a lot better than nothing, and that's the realistic alternative outside of a select few cities.
|
But most these systems in American cities are not helping remove cars from the roads, etc. And if they are, it is a very very small amount.
The reason is a lot of these LRT systems are so slow, due to not being fully grade seperated, that people are not going to ride in large numbers.
We have to look at ask the question of how many people are we not attracting by not spending the money now to build proper rapid transit.
The excuse we have no money is an excuse. There is always money for highways. And if the USA and Canada wanted they could fund subways.
I know in Vancouver, they actually looked into the different modes and found that LRT would attract less than half the amount of riders the Skytrain attracts. Reason? The Skytrain operates at faster speeds and can compete with the car.
There are some really good LRTs like St. Louis. But when you get into building an LRT like St. Louis, you basically have a subway. Only difference is, it is mostly above ground and the power comes from above.