Each metropolitan area benefits from mass a transit in one way or another. Subway, underground not taking up precious ground, not making noise or visual pollution, was the rage of the 20th Century but may not be as necessary today. NYC's subway system is probably close to 60% above ground but the name subway is a habit. Also, today with Light Rail systems surface running and stations add to the economy and efficiency of running to say nothing about the construction costs. The comprehensiveness depends on the proposed usage: commuting or for shopping along with the size of the market or urban area to be served.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
blue streak 1 to celebrate Giant's world series victory BART carried many passengers http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20121031.aspx?source=hp so do many cities need a comprehensive subway system ?
to celebrate Giant's world series victory BART carried many passengers
http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20121031.aspx?source=hp
so do many cities need a comprehensive subway system ?
I go to San Francisco five or six times a year. Whilst there I use BART as well as the F line streetcars and the Nos. 47 and 49 buses. It a reasonably good system, although it is not a good idea to use it late at night.
Calling BART a subway may be a stretch; most of it runs at or above ground level. Only the portion of the system that runs under Market Street could be considered a subway.
Public transport is an important. However, it does not need to be rail. In many instances Rapid Bus Technology or just plain buses would be a better fit. A key consideration is affordability.
We can thank Andy Jackson for giving us the philosophy that opposes government sponsorship of "internal improvements." He argued that all of the people should not be taxed for projects that directly benefit only a few. Of course the flaw in his argument is that indirect benefits are so wide spread that everyone winds up better of because of the internal improvement. It is true that some benefit more than others. But John Kennedy observed that "a rising tide lifts all boats."
So plenty of places that would benefit from new or improved public transit systems won't get them despite the fact that all would be better off because of them.
However, we still fight wars over the petroleum products we need to feed our dependency on automobiles.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.