3 ms·
A circle would have made more sense, I think, but having it in a line still makes a little sense: a long, narrow city usually works well with public transit bec
by midoridensha 4y ago
A circle would have made more sense, I think, but having it in a line still makes a little sense: a long, narrow city usually works well with public transit because trains do well in moving along corridors. Still, a circle would have been better because you could have trains going both directions and the average time to get to any destination would be shorter. Anyway, your criticism of it being a line instead of a circle holds for Manhattan, for instance.
The location doesn't seem to make much sense though. And what exactly will be the industry that supports this place economically? Most cities have some kind of local industry.
- CommitSyn 4y ago> Still, a circle would have been better because you could have trains going both directions In this case couldn't you just walk across the street and take the opposite direction train? I may be misinterpreting the idea in my mind, but it seems like it could be treated as an extremely long, skinny ellipses (this sentence begs for a math nerd to comment with the correct terms.) You could even have multiple (or 60 each way, oil tycoon style) trains if utilizing tunnels and overhangs for people to 'walk through' the lines of running trains.
- Jyaif 4y agoWith a line, in the worst case you have to travel 170km. With a circle, in the worst case you have to travel 85km. That's it.