4 ms·
Very fair for longterm, I'm thinking for immediate turnaround. I think with an aggressive enough plan (which isn't going to happen in reality) you could do this
by adjkant 7y ago
Very fair for longterm, I'm thinking for immediate turnaround. I think with an aggressive enough plan (which isn't going to happen in reality) you could do this without any notable spending increases in 2-3 years by just stopping cars and maybe buying a few more busses as the main cost.
After that if it continues to work out, streetcars absolutely make sense. Basically just doubling the subway lines at that point. Probably ideal to cover crosstown first across places like 14th, through Central Park, 34th, 116th, 125th, Canal, and Houston, and then you can sure up the avenues with streetcars, probably starting with Harlem through the upper east side. What a fun project to imagine honestly wow.
- Wowfunhappy 7y agoLong term, I would rather we build more subway lines than powered rails (or similar) for streetcars, even though subways are more expensive. Even without cars, we want that above ground space for pedestrians and cyclists.
- adjkant 7y agoI'd be in agreement generally but the subway coverage is pretty dense with maybe exception to the far east/west ends. More trains per line is probably money and effort better spent at that point. You still need roads for emergency vehicles and those that need to drive, so I don't think lack of streetcars will actually save a ton of pedestrian space. In an ideal world for sure though.