Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JHB

(38,265 posts)
3. Agreed. Note that several of those shown are not entirely underground...
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 07:58 AM
Apr 2013

...and, in fact, are above-ground for a large portion or even most of the system. Large parts of the NYC system are elevated or on-ground; only in Manhattan have Els been eliminated. In Washington the lines dip underground within the central city, but are overland outside of that. I haven't been to Chicago, but its Els are well-known.

Also, large stretches of BART are more like a commuter rail than a subway, so we should include the LIRR, Metro North, NJ Transit, SEPTA, and numerous other commuter rail systems. And then, we should add numerous light rail/trolley systems.

We could use more, but more of what makes sense for particular areas. One type does not fit all, especially when you also have to account for the existing car-centered low-density development. People have to be able to use it.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Mass transit fans, this w...»Reply #3