Mass transit must scale. An underground metro rail system is the most valuable intracity transit system, but it does not offer full value. A high-value comprehensive transit system also offers transit systems for getting users to the underground metro rail system from their local sources and destinations. This is usually done by trams, buses, or treating trams as the intermediary value transit system between buses and underground metro rail systems. If you rely exclusively on a high cost, high-value system like an underground metro rail system, your system will not be comprehensive enough as it will not reach all of your city’s citizens, leaving many to rely on car infrastructure to get to and from the metro rail system stops.
Here in Greece, only one city (the capital) has an underground metro rail system and the second largest city has its metro system being built for the last ~20-30 YEARS. That city used to have a tram decades ago, but they removed it and now it only has buses/taxis…
You may ask why didn’t they make a new tram… Well, money/bribery (~most likely). That city may not be ideal for a tram, but still they could work it out and have it fixed much much sooner and cheaper and in the meantime the could be building the metro… It said the main part will be finished by the end of the year (though this was said multiple times in the past)…
YUP. Don’t refuse to create ad-hoc lower value transit systems because, hypothetically, you could have a monorail or underground metrorail. Some mass transit is better than no mass transit, and higher values of mass transit now are better than superior mass transit in the future.
The metro rail system in the city I moved away from recently had an expansion fail to open for 3 years because the contract selection process involved cronyist intervention by a former president and the result was the buildings not being built with safe concrete for building
Wait wait wait. I’m confused. Madrid has a multimodal mass transit system with multiple tiers of value. It’s one of the cities that uses a tram system to connect its bus system to its metro rail. Am I misunderstanding what you’re trying to say?
Helsinki has had trams from the beginning, and many new residential developments are being built with them in mind. Two examples are Jätkäsaari and Kalasatama.
Both use the tram lines to connect residents to the adjacent, already existing, metro line.
Extending the metro line with just one or two stations, 90 degrees off its existing tracks, would be STUPID levels of expensive in comparison.
Put them underground
Mass transit must scale. An underground metro rail system is the most valuable intracity transit system, but it does not offer full value. A high-value comprehensive transit system also offers transit systems for getting users to the underground metro rail system from their local sources and destinations. This is usually done by trams, buses, or treating trams as the intermediary value transit system between buses and underground metro rail systems. If you rely exclusively on a high cost, high-value system like an underground metro rail system, your system will not be comprehensive enough as it will not reach all of your city’s citizens, leaving many to rely on car infrastructure to get to and from the metro rail system stops.
Here in Greece, only one city (the capital) has an underground metro rail system and the second largest city has its metro system being built for the last ~20-30 YEARS. That city used to have a tram decades ago, but they removed it and now it only has buses/taxis…
You may ask why didn’t they make a new tram… Well, money/bribery (~most likely). That city may not be ideal for a tram, but still they could work it out and have it fixed much much sooner and cheaper and in the meantime the could be building the metro… It said the main part will be finished by the end of the year (though this was said multiple times in the past)…
YUP. Don’t refuse to create ad-hoc lower value transit systems because, hypothetically, you could have a monorail or underground metrorail. Some mass transit is better than no mass transit, and higher values of mass transit now are better than superior mass transit in the future.
And also hyperloop is never the answer.
Yeah, something ~is better than nothing, but they could do so much better if they weren’t greedy…
The metro rail system in the city I moved away from recently had an expansion fail to open for 3 years because the contract selection process involved cronyist intervention by a former president and the result was the buildings not being built with safe concrete for building
Thats waay more expensive
It’s the only logic way to proceed, my hometown Madrid would be complete madness otherwise
Wait wait wait. I’m confused. Madrid has a multimodal mass transit system with multiple tiers of value. It’s one of the cities that uses a tram system to connect its bus system to its metro rail. Am I misunderstanding what you’re trying to say?
Helsinki has had trams from the beginning, and many new residential developments are being built with them in mind. Two examples are Jätkäsaari and Kalasatama.
Both use the tram lines to connect residents to the adjacent, already existing, metro line.
Extending the metro line with just one or two stations, 90 degrees off its existing tracks, would be STUPID levels of expensive in comparison.
I mean, Helsinki has those, too. The metro line is extremely good here.
But the same goes for these tram lines, they tend to cover connecting lines into residential areas, as they are slower, but a lot cheaper to build.
The metro meanwhile is an extreme capacity line that runs literally less than every five linutes, between the varius transit hubs of Helsinki.
But then i have to walk downstairs