...there's an awful lot that U.S. cities should learn as soon as possible about the way the French design their transit networks. Whereas American light rail systems have had modest success and modern streetcar lines have questionable transit value, France operates 57 tram lines in 33 cities that together carry some 3 million passengers a day and create a fantastic balance of mobility options for urban and suburban residents alike—all built in the last 30 years. — CityLab
8 Comments
Having never been to France I can only speak from an outsiders perspective. However as an American I can say for the most part we don't have the density to support effective light rail and tram lines that work for the majority of any metro's populace. We can want more light rail, but the economics generally don't work out.
In California, the trend is toward denser cities and Transit Oriented Development where there is increased emphasis on light rail esp. in the Bay area - a new system, Smart(Sonoma Marin Area Rapid Transit) will run from Sonoma county down to the Larkspur Ferry terminal in Central Marin - even a station at Autodesk in North San Rafael.
China wants to build our High Speed rail
Mr-Wiggin, that's certainly true for the majority of (north) America's cities. But even larger, denser centres, like say Philadelphia, the Twin Cities, Seattle, Vancouver, etc. are quite under-serviced when one compares them to the small and mid-sized cities in France or Germany.
What can we learn from the French about transit? Everything.
The best thing to learn from the French regarding rail, is to piggyback on existing highway right-of-ways. This is something we could learn in california, for the LA - SF high speed route, instead of routing it through the sierras.
We can want more light rail, but the economics generally don't work out.
The economics are artificial and manipulated, from Ford buying up streetcar companies and closing them to $3.xx/gal. gas, about half (or less) than the price in most of Europe.
We need, as a mater of national security, to protect farmland from sprawl and development. A national moratorium on freeway expansion and improvements should be seriously considered. Sprawl is a major driver of a multitude of economic and environmental problems in the US.
Transit in Chicago and perhaps other cities has for the most part had a direct correlation to real-estate development and localized economic prosperity. Perhaps property located withing 5 blocks of light rail should pay a surcharge tax to maintain the rail service and to pay back the bonds used to build it, similar financing that is used to pay for toll bridges.
Communities that are well connected to the rest of the metropolitan area have more jobs and better economic conditions than areas in "Transit Deserts".
If we as a country want to end poverty without cutting folks a check every year we would have to engage a whole tool box of programs with transit being a huge part of any effort to bring people out of poverty. This means moving folks closer to transit or building more transit closer to the poor or economically challenged so they can get to work without owning an expensive car or taking 6 buses and 3 trains over 4-5 hours one way to a job.
Peter Normand +1. The environmental degerdation from sprawl is a slow moving catastrophe. The more land we leave undisturbed the better, not only for our ecology but as future farming space. The shipping every product from low wage countries to rich ones is comletely unsustainable. Looking for the economy to rebound back to some boom time is also a fools errand. We'll all have to do with less so more can have a better standard of living.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.