>Knowing there is an environment spoiled with cars, and
>an underground city filled with life (Montreal Underground Network), I
>prefer the subway way over the
>bus, because you can ride it and walk through the underground city for hours
>(or repetedly for days), without knowing cars even exist.
>However, in a city with no car, or where car drivers yield to human-powered
>traffic both in theory and 100% in practice, then streetcars or buses become
>much more attractive, because you don't have the stress of walking through
>car traffic when you ride them and walk in the city.
I'm with you up to this point.
>The ideal is a monorail:
>- it runs in the air (over street level) NONONONONONO!!!!!
>- it frees the street for human uses true
>- when you ride it, you see outdoors, true, but not at eye-level
>but I think it's more vulnerable to the weather than a metro. probably so
We've had more than enough experience with elevated transport systems to
decide right now never to build another one of the damn things. It's
true that newer technology is better in this respect than older stuff,
but it will never be acceptable. (Well, ok, some breakthrough in materials
that allowed the construction of spider-web thin supports for the tracks
(or whatever) might change the picture somewhat, but it still is not
the right way to do it. If you need above-ground transport, trams are
the way to go. If there's too much traffic from the trams to be acceptable,
then you HAVE to build a metro, no matter what the cost. If there's that
much traffic, the cost is not unreasonable (per rider).)
-- ### --
J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities