3 ms·
> On the benefit side, few places can saturate a subway line that carries 30,000 passengers per hour. It should be noted, that this is actually pretty good; th
by bobthepanda 4y ago
> On the benefit side, few places can saturate a subway line that carries 30,000 passengers per hour.
It should be noted, that this is actually pretty good; this is an investment that will last decades, because it will take that long to fill it up, whereas a highway investment will easily need to be repeated over, and over, and over again. (There's a joke that in some states there are two seasons: winter and road construction.)
- rayiner 4y agoNo, filling up is a good thing. Both the rail and the highway will last for decades. But the highway will be delivering its maximum benefit immediately. (When the highway is expanded, it will be delivering new benefit to additional commuters.) While with the rail, you have paid a bunch of money up front for capacity that’s unused for years if not decades. (Parts of the suburban Metro network on the Maryland side are 40+ years old and nowhere near capacity.) It’s like building a skyscraper. It’s not a good thing if it’s only 25% leased for years and years.
- TheCoelacanth 4y agoThe under utilization mostly comes down to poor urban planning by the jurisdictions that it runs through. They should be allowing construction of unlimited density within a quarter-mile of stations. Instead, many of the stations are surrounded by basically nothing.