Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman
yikes all those cities with 10 million +
that means 10X more money quite possibly
with a construction cost that should roughly be the same or equivalent. Assuming those cities would be looking at the same type of project today.
Sorry Calgary isnt in that class.
Also most of those cities transit systems are run by public benefit corporations, whereas Calgary Transit is run by the city. Not sure if that makes a difference...
|
Meh, the concept is the same. I'm just using those examples of how efficient subway systems work. Calgary should have made grassroot movements for this investment a long time ago, and they didn't.
Granted, Calgary has the space for at-grade train systems, but I'm just a huge proponent of putting things underground - especially in our climate. It would encourage greater public transportation usage.
I pulled this off of Wikipedia, but it is sourced:
"A lot of cities, faced with congestion problems, are investing large amounts of money in public transport to decrease car use, and are faced with problems encouraging increased use of rapid transit without large capital investment or operating costs. By using relatively small amounts on grand architecture, art, cleanliness, accessibility, lighting and a feeling of safety, metros can get larger amounts of passengers; usually the extra investments in aesthetics are profitable for the metros.[27] An example of this is in Los Angeles where 0.5% of investments were used on art while in Stockholm the authorities publish a guide to the art in the stations.[26]"
Seems to me that if you can make the investment, it will pay itself off ten-fold, especially if it's done right (ie. not Edmonton?). And on a similar note, elevated tracks don't have to be an eyesore - again, if done right, they can look very beautiful.
Public transportation is always a feasible option if done right. The key is, well... doing it right.