18 ms·
> One thing I would like to add is that public transport is too very difficult to scale A quick check show the Piccadilly line is doing 21 trains per hour and
by slyall 9y ago
> One thing I would like to add is that public transport is too very difficult to scale
A quick check show the Piccadilly line is doing 21 trains per hour and they have a capacity of 684 people. Around 14,000 people per hour.
That is roughly a 7 lanes of highway traffic under optimal conditions. Not even thinking about the other direction.
I think you find that it is easer to build a new underground line though central London than a 10+ lane highway.
- Doctor_Fegg 9y agoLondon was recently faced with exactly that question: how to transport more people across the city efficiently without paying the astronomical sums required for either another Crossrail or an unthinkably damaging motorway. The solution is in place now and is working. It’s the North-South and East-West Cycle Superhighways.
- watchdogtimer 9y agoAny estimate of how many people these can move at peak volume? I'm curious how it compares to the Underground.
- madeofpalk 9y agoSo I think the insight here is that, as with everything, it can only scale so far. Here's a question though: is it easier to build a new underground tunnel now compared to 100(?) years ago? While previously there was a lot less existing infrastructure to have to worry about disturbing, these days we have a lot more advanced technology to make the process easier.
- namelost 9y agoChinese cities have grown tremendously large metro systems in a very short amount of time. China has 5 of the 10 longest metro systems, and 4 of them were started operating in the 90s or later. The Nanjing metro is the 6th longest in the world and was started running in 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems#List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems#List So the answer is a resounding yes, it is much easier to build metro systems than it was in the past. As long as you do so in China.