Quote:
Originally Posted by blacktrojan3921
LRT's can be a big financial blackhole just as much as Subways if they are mishandled or nobody actually bothers using them. DART is a great example of that.
And LRT's being cheap compared to subways is just a myth, if that were the case then Toronto's transit city wouldn't be dead and rotting in the ground. You have to figure in the costs of modifying roads, as modern day LRT's have to be seperated from vehicular traffic. And LRT construction costs have a much wider range compared to Subway construction as required tunneling and elevated structures varies, and it can rise even more when you factor in that some cities do extensive tunneling but are still using Light Rail trains and tracks, like the most expensive LRT project in America, Seattle's Light Link Rail which comes in at $175 million dollars. And if there are not enough daily riderships like Calgary's, the project can end up being a bust.
|
The issues of LRTs going bust is when municipalities or regions:
A) Plan the route where people don't actually go versus where they want them to go
B) Funding setbacks which scale down the project
The American duds such as DART can be lumped into this category. It goes everywhere where ridership isn't. You see more robust ridership levels when Cities have short circulatory that hit main points or systems which chase actual ridership, which means yes more funding for lower income neighborhoods which is generally scoffed upon.
LRT vs Subway is a silly argument, both are two different systems that serve two different purposes. Everybody wants Subways but they are insanely expensive to build, very few Cities in North America have the density levels to make it worth while. LRTs are a good choices for the middle ground, and IMO would work well in still somewhat compact cities such as Regina, Winnipeg, or Saskatoon.
Prev
Linear Mode
