Display:
Real subway? I read average is up to 25,000+ riders a day, good for a tram, but to my knowledge a subway needs upwards of 100,000 a day. I looked up some figures for Budapest -- there are several tram lines with 50,000+ daily ridership, while the presently in construction line 4 subway was projected for 475,000/day but is criticised for massaging numbers to appear cost-neutral, with 300,000/day (and losses) seen more likely. (And mentioned should-be-subway tram lines 4/6 transport 200,000.)

On the other hand, with Google I find Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area has 3 million inhabitants (though less than a million downtown), big enough for a well-designed subway system. But certainly, it would be good to have more than one line.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Dec 12th, 2006 at 05:34:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
More Budapest subway line traffic numbers:
  • line 1 (from 1896, could as well be called light metro): 105,000/workday
  • line 2 (Russian-style heavy metro): 425,000/workday
  • line 3 (ditto, longer): 610,000/workday


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Dec 12th, 2006 at 06:29:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The three million people are spread out over a very large area, see the area counted here (graphic in upper right). Much of it is rural. A full scale subway system could serve about 1 million people. I think a commuter rail system is needed as much as anything, and in fact they are going ahead with one, the Northstar Corridor.

There is an interesting tidbit in there that you wouldn't expect to hear very often in the US:

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and the Northstar Corridor Development Authority (NCDA) studied options for development of the corridor to handle the increasing commuter load, and felt that a commuter rail line was the best option. It is expected to cost about US$265 million in 2008 dollars, estimated to be approximately 1/3 the cost of upgrading existing highways.

Granted it's that much cheaper because the rail is already in place, but that kind of thinking hasn't been common in the past, and would be referred to as "social engineering" by the usual suspects. I think American politicians have come around to the reality that our highways simply cannot scale further (without even taking into account the potential nightmares of declining future energy and resource availability and the implications for our road system).

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Dec 12th, 2006 at 07:30:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series