3 ms·
Abandoning subway lines is virtually unheard of, which is why this article exists in the first place.
by howlgarnish 6y ago
Abandoning subway lines is virtually unheard of, which is why this article exists in the first place.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kube-system 6y agoMany light rail systems discontinue or change portions of their system. It doesn't happen often in underground sections because those are usually built only in the densest portions of a city which would tend to have high ridership. I think it's more the tunnel that makes these lines less likely to be discontinued, rather than the train. Tunnels are just expensive to move whether they're for trains or for busses. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_New_York_City_Subway_lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_New_York_City...
- eropple 6y agoMost subways are heavy rail, not light rail. And, as you note, underground subways rarely go away--particularly after the age of multiple competing lines, often redundant. All save one of the defunct lines in NYC went defunct because they were demolished for other stuff--because they were elevated or at-grade lines. (The one underground line that went defunct was split into three lines in active use today.) Putting it underground definitely increases political and budget survivability.