^^That ridership still seems very low for a city "doing it right".
Quote:
Originally Posted by miketoronto
But today's planners are stuck on the light rail ideal and deride all other options.
The fact of the matter is that we have to think about the future and not just now. Places like Atlanta did a great in building subway from the start. But if they were building today, it would almost for sure be an LRT. And it would not be carrying half as many people as the MARTA subway carries. That is just one example.
When light rail is done right as in Edmonton, you are approaching the level of building a heavy rail system. Only difference is they use old railway right of ways, etc, which helps lower costs.
Light rail really is the "downtown mall" of the 2000's. Every city needed a downtown mall in the 90's. Now it is light rail that everyone wants.
It is a fad. It makes sense in some places. But it for sure does not make sense in all the cities building it. And in some of the larger cities like Toronto, it really does not make sense. But it is being built because that is what everyone else is doing.
|
Well thanks for complimenting my city, but outside the underground "subway-lite" downtown/University portion our LRT isn't awfully different from many other systems. We also have the problem right now that Edmonton's stations can't support a higher amount of LRV's because of the smaller platforms compared to those of HRT systems you think Edmonton is close to. This wouldn't be a problem but during rush hour 4-car trains are now jam packed since our SLRT opened, and it's expected to get much worse once University starts back up in full swing.
I'm surprised at what such a tiny extension in the grand scheme (especially when you look at the massive expansions planned over the next 5-10 years) has brought in enormous usage. Also, only the NE leg of our LRT actually uses old railway ROW's. Once you hit Churchill Station underground, it's all brand new track (even once you go above ground again at Health Sciences/Jubilee).