The author doesn't aim high enough. That's how I feel.

Usual arguments against high-speed rail in the United States aside, there's a much greater case to be made for electric rail for both freight and passenger service instead of just passengers only. There's also a case for dual-mode transportation, electric overhead lines on the highways, and so forth. Our passenger rail system is horribly antiquated, and I can personally attest to just how much Amtrak sucks, but we don't really need high speed service in the States so much as we need an alternative to expensive transportation that eats way too much oil. High speed trains don't compete with cars like most people seem to believe, they compete with fucking airplanes.

Something that could be driven onto a controlled lane (or a rail, which to the credit of modern rail design implies much lower maintenance than a paved road) and powered overhead during a cross-country trip, and then drive off of a ramp and proceed under its own power to its last-mile destination, would obviate the need for an entirely new transportation network while giving us the best of both worlds. Buses and trucks could use it. Proofs of concept abound. 'Rugged individualists' and people with a man-crush on the F40PH both suffer from a crippling lack of imagination that fails to address uniquely American problems in transportation.

>>328447
My god. You're one intelligent, well-spoken motherfucker.
Congrats sir/m'am

>>328445

funny enough, russia and china obviously both use the same train as germany, it should be an ICE-T model that's displayed, produced by Siemens. Didn't know they went so well.

I can fly from Boston to New York round trip for $130.00 tax incld.

Why would I take a train?

>US train looks like a train
>Japanese train looks like some sort of tentacle
>Everyone else's looks like a high-speed dildo

Last weekend I took a heritage steam train ride. The loco pulling it was built in the late 30s.
It was quicker and about 1/3rd cheaper than the usual modern service, and the seats were better. And there was a proper buffet car with a bar. I arrived quicker, for less money, and I was drunk when I reached the final stop.
We've got mountains of coal and biomass, you don't need to build overhead lines or lay an electrified third rail, don't need to spend billions building super straight and level HSR lines, and can go up and down grades no problem.
Steam still shits all over everything else, only faggots disagree.

>>328447
>>328465
They don't even use those AMD-103s, they are now P40s and P42s fucking ... they should post the Acella or at least the AEM-7DC fuck.


>>328447
NEw Jersey is working on this, the ALP-45 is pretty much a dual mode (electric via cantanery in electric territory, diesel in final territory) system.

also you have no idea how dumb this idea is. railbusses are a pain in the ass and only work in major cities, (lol Pennsylvania) because they can't accelerate past 50MPH due to frame and FRA restrictions.

>>328468
Uh, ever since the basic F series diesels, and for freight the GTELS of UP's super routes, steam hasn't been competive, and you can always turn coal into fuel oil, and then into diesel fuel, which makes steam (you have no idea how much of a pain steam is, its a pain to make it make electrical power for modern HEP, which means no laptops or computer machines) and steam machines require highly skilled technicians with skills that don't exist outside the Navy or Power Plant communities.

>>328462

You can get a train from London to Paris round trip for about $100.

Why would you take a plane?

>>328462
Really? What fare is that? I see 134 fares if I book a month in advance, and Acela (High Speed Train) is 138, or the local Northeast Regional is 69 bucks.

>>328450

The ICE-T (DB classes 411 and 415) is, despite the similar design, not related with the Siemens Velaro running in Spain, China and Russia and as the future DB class 407.
Those are based on the ICE 3 (DB classes 403 and 406)
The ICE-T was built by a group of various companies, including Siemens and Bombardier.

>>328468
It is my understanding that the reason for the decline of steam locomotives was not primarily that diesel-electrics were more fuel-efficient, but that the maintenance on steam engines was way more expensive and difficult.
.......
Also, I do not feel that any form of mass transportation is considered an overall advancement over individual transportation. There is a utility factor involved, that represents the convenience of the mass transit in question. Typically the places where mass transit has 'succeeded' is the places where other transportation options have been legislatively restricted or eliminated, and if you have to force people to use it, then the mass transit isn't efficient--it is not really doing what passengers wanted.

Individual transportation can go directly from a trip origin to the destination, and doesn't cause traffic jams or expend energy when its not in use. No mass transit can match that.

>>328507
>doesn't cause traffic jams or expend energy when its not in use.No mass transit can match that.

Because when trains aren't in use, they just leave them parked on a main line with all the systems running, right?

>>328507
>Individual transportation can go directly from a trip origin to the destination, and doesn't cause traffic jams or expend energy when its not in use.

correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't individual transport (cars) the main cause of all traffic jams?

>>328539
No, you're thinking of idiot drivers.

We would need to spend about 1 trillion dollars,to bring up our entire train network to the 21st century.

That does not include the money required for the ride after, your train ride. Such as buses,and what not...

Folks forget that almost all European countries could fit in the land mass that's Alaska.

>>328538
>Because when trains aren't in use, they just leave them parked on a main line with all the systems running, right?
No, they run them in circles with no passengers on them.

>>328539
>correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't individual transport (cars) the main cause of all traffic jams?
Yes, but I did not say that cars (as they exist now) were the answer.

I like the idea of mostly-faired motorcycles.... Motorcycles for can easily ride 2-abreast in any car lane, so right away that would double any road's carrying capacity.
And its possible to park at least 4 motorcycles in a typical car parking spot, so now there is instantly 4X as much parking space.

Many people don't want to ride motorcycles, often due to inclement weather--but that has an easy solution that doesn't require anything exotic or expensive-
http://ecomodder.com/blog/diy-aero-fairings-honda-125cc-motorcycle-214-mpg/

>>328551
Uh, no, they are kept in gigantic storage yards, while minimal services run at overnight periods bro.

>>328485
Speed.

>>328447
This is no argument
There is only ignorance and strawmen
>americas too big
Who said anything about the entire continental united states from coast to coast?
What is proposed are the major regions
Which are the same area as countries that have successfully implemented this
The lines would be of the same length and with the same good times
North East, Mid-West, California, Texas, maybe one or two others
That is what is put forward

>electric freight
I hope you dont mean on high speed railways, no one else does this so there is no business model you can point to. Rail freight is about volume and distance, not speed. Now with that said thanks to most of their railways being electrified in Europe they are able to haul freight with electric locomotives, but these are on conventional lines with conventional speeds (although they will be able to do 250km/h in the Gottard Base Tunnel).
Another thing they do is Rolling Highway to reduce trucks on the road.
>>328462
A high speed train would be faster and cheaper and you would arrive in the heart of the city not middle of nowhere airport
From which you could walk outside and be at your destination, or catch another train to continue your journey
And also you happen to not live in an isolated bubble, you live in a community with many other people.

>>328547

If the small size of a country is what permits(or drives) it to have any advanced infrastructure anywhere in it at all: what's up with Russia(1.8 times the size of the US), and China(pretty much the same size as the US)?

>>328507
Nope
Mass transit is better
Places where it hasn't succeeded are places where they consciously tore it up or never developed it and focused exclusively on road development
There is not a free market choice here, you cant wish for an alternative and hey presto there it is*
It requires years to develop and build, and costs money, and legislative pressure, and there is the automotive industry fighting every step of the way and warping public and government opinion in their favour
Look at L.A.
Had the Red Cars and the Yellow Cars
Torn up in the 1950s, along with a lot of others around the country around the same time and also some prior to WWII
Focused on cars ever since
And its shit
And its not an accident, its not the consumers choice, it was a deliberate act to force people out of public transportation and into cars

*inb4libertarianssquealjapanorhongkong: the governments there first developed the railway networks, and the high speed train technology, for years and decades as a public utility before handing it over to private concerns. Its easy to turn a profit if you get the public to pay for the risks and wait for it to return.

before you build high speed trains linking cities
you need to first do something about transportation inside the cities
plenty of places have little or nothing
and a couple, or just one, dinky little lightrail a few miles long in the gentrified downtown do not cut it gentlemen

Suppose I want to get the train from Houston to Dallas
Well there is no suburban commuter or city metro network in Houston so I cant just catch a train to the station and then interchange
Then I arrive in Dallas, it also has no metro or commuter so I am stuck or have to get a taxi or bus or hire a car

>>328571
I can't agree with this post more. HS Rail is the flagship of rail transport, but you need a whole host of lesser transit systems operating to support it. HS Rail stations are going to be limited so you need other slower inter- and intra-city lines to support it or you'll lose all the time you gained or money you saved (compared with air transit) moving to your destination.

I was in Japan for 7 weeks and extensively used their rail system to get about. Sure, they have the bullet trains, but they also have one of the most extensive and reliable local and express train systems I've seen. During my entire trip not one train was late, and I never waited more than 1/2 hour to transfer between trains. Getting even to a small town which would have no rail service in North America was easy.

>>328447
>Something that could be driven onto a controlled lane (or a rail, which to the credit of modern rail design implies much lower maintenance than a paved road) and powered overhead during a cross-country trip, and then drive off of a ramp and proceed under its own power to its last-mile destination, would obviate the need for an entirely new transportation network while giving us the best of both worlds.

For long journeys (and there are a lot of routes in the US that qualify) having a train you can take your car on is a good solution.

>>328604
Forgot the picture.

>>328571
>before you build high speed trains linking cities
>you need to first do something about transportation inside the cities

The reasons that people near light rail still own cars is the very standard by which trains fail as efficient transportation. That being, a car is a form of transportation with perfect utilization: it goes from wherever you are, directly to wherever you want, whenever you want.

The question of transportation efficiency is not merely "how much energy per mile" a given form takes--but "why aren't people using the most efficient-per-mile form there is?" A light-rail train IS the most efficient per-mile for local transportation,,,,,,, but for most people, a train starts somewhere they aren't, and only goes places they don't really want to go.

You could build a local train and charge nothing to use it--and a lot of people (who own cars) still won't ever use it. And if you legislate car ownership away, that doesn't make the train more efficient--it just makes it the only choice more and more people have.

Mass-transit is not futuristic at all. If it cannot replace some other form of transportation currently in use, then it is not advancing anything--and it's already known that light-rail can't do that.

>>328447
>we dont have railways, we're too stupid or lazy to build them, but lets not do this which works everywhere else in there, LETS TRY AND REINVENT THE WHEEL AND MAKE SOMETHING TOTALLY UNTESTED AND VERY COMPLICATED
I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter
>>328604
>For long journeys (and there are a lot of routes in the US that qualify) having a train you can take your car on is a good solution.
this already exists
rolling highways for moving freight, a picture has already been posted
motorail for cars, pic related
but not necessarily needed if the locations you depart from and arrive at have transportation within them

>>328609
>The reasons that people near light rail still own cars is the very standard by which trains fail as efficient transportation.
>light rail
>trains
LIGHT RAIL IS NOT TRAINS
LIGHT RAIL IS LIGHT RAIL VEHICLES
LIGHT RAIL VEHICLES ARE JUST MODERN STREETCARS/TRAMS
Fucking stupid Americans, even when you try you still fail
A train runs on a railway
Be it a commuter railway network mostly on the surface to and through suburbia from a city centre terminal
Or a metro, subway or elevated or mixed, inside a city
And these two networks often merge into one seamless system
They will operate Electric Multiple Unit carriages of a fair size in any number of train set combinations, and a 6-carriage EMU can carry 1,000 people

Streetcars/Trams/Lightrail Vehicles are a single unit, these days often low floored and articulated segments, that can carry 50-200 people, they operate on the road, perhaps some grade separated segments but you shouldn't push this too far as their too low capacity makes it impracticable and a waste and this is the problem Americans keep running into, and their best place is in the urban area with optional stops every 500m-2km.
To see how they best function look at European cities and Melbourne that never shut them down.

I wont address the rest of your post since it is all founded on this ignorant premise, except for one thing: no cars. Oh yes people do opt out of them where trams are used to their best. Whole sprawling commercial and business districts, High Streets, build up along the routes, as thats where people are and where they are going.

>>328613
oh and those trams will be complemented by, _not_ compete with or operate in isolation from, metro or/and commuter networks

>>328609
Though cars do get you directly from point A to point B, the efficiency of cars begins to fail when they get caught up in traffic jams and when gas begins to become more expensive than the passes on local and inter-city public transit systems.

Roads do not have infinite capacity, and as more and more people have access to cars and use this infrastructure the number of slowdowns due to jams and traffic management (traffic lights, etc) increases significantly. Public transit has a far higher carrying capacity before it becomes subject to capacity related slowdowns.

Also, the US has been subject to lower gas prices and a horridly inefficient and expensive mass-transit system which prevents the financial and convenience incentives for people to use the system. This is in turn leads to a chicken-and-egg problem since no company is willing to invest in a system with such low ridership.

However, increasing population density, access to transportation, technology for higher speed trains, and cost of gas are all working against the car which is why mass transit and rail is seen as the future.

>>328628
Trams can replace high capacity grade separated systems. The performance is the same. Street running trams are fundamentally slower, but the comparison is meaningful between grade separation and street running.

Trams can be operated in a grade separated environment with exactly as long vehicle configurations as you would a metro or commuter train. The difference in capacity favors high floor trains, but only slightly.

The sheer synergy of using a single compatible vehicle type for all rail passenger transport cannot be beat. Legacy passenger rail can and should be expanded, but a new local passenger operation shouldn't use any anything but standard low floor trams for everything.

The low turning radius and ability to effortlessly switch modes from grade separation to the street allows for innovative and high service level solutions. Transfers should be as easy and infrequent as possible: zealous grade separation forces the majority of passengers to transfer across grades.

>>328613

You obviously know next to nothing about trains. Light rail is just a very small, underpowered EMU. EMU very-lite, if you will. But it's still in essence a train. That's like arguing that an ultralight isn't an aircraft because it doesn't need a real runway to take off/land.

>A train runs on a railway

So does light rail dumbass. Just because the tracks are embedded in the road doesn't mean it's not a railways.

>Be it a commuter railway network mostly on the surface to and through suburbia from a city centre terminal
>Or a metro, subway or elevated or mixed, inside a city
>And these two networks often merge into one seamless system

So? How exactly does not having that make something not a train? Are the movers in freight yards not trains? Are test tracks not railways?

>They will operate Electric Multiple Unit carriages of a fair size in any number of train set combinations, and a 6-carriage EMU can carry 1,000 people

1. What? So if I don't operate electric trains now I'm not a railway?
2.
>Implying all train sets can be coupled

>Streetcars/Trams/Lightrail Vehicles are a single unit, these days often low floored and articulated segments, that can carry 50-200 people,

Explain the difference between that and a three carriage, single deck EMU.

>they operate on the road,

Once again, the fact that tracks are embedded in the road doesn't make them not tracks.

I'm not American either and your whole post reeks of autistic retard.

>>328631
>Trams can replace high capacity grade separated systems.
Do you mean lightrail or trains? Cause if you mean trains then lolwut
>Street running trams are fundamentally slower
OBEY THE YELLOW
BEWARE THE RHINO
Dont drive on the tracks dumbasses
>Trams can be operated in a grade separated environment with exactly as long vehicle configurations as you would a metro or commuter train.
Waste
It can not carry as much as a train
Building subway tunnels or elevated causeways for something carries only a few hundred people is a waste, and if you should see high demand you cannot expand to meet it, see the dockland light rail and l.a. blue line
>The sheer synergy of using a single compatible vehicle type for all rail passenger transport cannot be beat.
>synergy
Go back to business school
The right tool for the right job
The tram/streetcar/lightrail vehicle doesn't have the capacity or range of a multi-carriage train set, trying to string them together doesn't cut it
What you're doing is building it to have a highly limited capacity
>but a new local passenger operation shouldn't use any anything but standard low floor trams for everything.
You're gonna use it for a 3 hour regional service too?
No, you'd use a locomotive or DMU
rest is shit
>>328633
Most of your post repeats the previous idiot but there is this I couldn't resist
>Light rail is just a very small, underpowered EMU. EMU very-lite, if you will.
Thank you for acknowleding this fact
Except they're not ordinarily coupled
But either way it does not have the capacity or the range
>That's like arguing that an ultralight isn't an aircraft because it doesn't need a real runway to take off/land.
Not at all, a proper analogy would be for your argument: that its perfectly reasonable to replace a 747 with a couple hundred ultralights
rest is shit

>>328547
>EU Area Total 4,324,782 km^2
>Alaska Area Total 1,717,854 km^2
Clearly babby doesn't understand the Mercator Projection.

>>328613
>Fucking stupid Americans, even when you try you still fail
well, nope. you are making assumptions that everywhere is like you live.

In the US, a streetcar line is trolleys run at street level, and light-rail is usually short passenger-only trains that are run on reclaimed freight lines (within or around a city). Some cities still have trolleys, but not most. The US cities that do have them mostly put them in 75+ years ago.

the matter of urban congestion can be addressed two very different ways. One is by attempting all sorts of mass-transit schemes to try to account for the fact that the city was poorly planned, with not enough room for sufficient roads and parking spaces (even though the planners at the time knew that people would not be LIVING where they worked,,,). ....The other (much less expensive) way is to just make the city spread out more. Either as the city develops initially, or as individual buildings are demolished and rebuilt.

>>328609
>perfect utilisation
Where do you live that has private cars consistently full?

cars are awesome

planes are awesome

trains take you to death camps

>>328468

dat acid rain.

>>328445

Americans drive cars because we are more wealthy, more free, and less taxed (for now).

I prefer my big comfy SUV to those commie trains any day. And so do most Americans.

Bragging that you have awesome trains is bragging that your government has decided to give you a nice train, at a particular time, using a particular budget. They can just as easily not have decided to do it. Or, they can let the train get old and shitty. To most real Americans this is nothing to brag about because we make our own way as citizens. If I want to travel in comfort I can easily make it happen on my own.

When I go from San Francisco to Las Vegas I love driving my big leather-appointed grand cherokee on our wide, smooth, open, trouble-free almost-checkpoint-less highway system.

Meanwhile you queers are all sharing a commie queer train smelling each others armpits.

That's my reaction to that pic.

>>328652

>more free

>>328471

I meant dual-mode with regard to the type of rolling stock, not propulsion. (Which, hilariously, it still would be dual-mode in terms of propulsion unless you slapped a gigantic battery on the thing.) Powered guideways for roadable vehicles, things of that nature. Pic vaguely related.

>>328565

I did mean conventional speed freight, and with vehicles closer in size to the tractor trailers we already have. The goal of the proposed system is to first electrify shipping and then reduce road maintenance and improve logistics through the use of automated track.

I always felt the geography argument was a red herring too, but putting lines intended for lighter, truck-and-bus sized vehicles on the land already held by the highways would go a long way toward extending service into remote areas anyhow.

>>328468

I dunno man, the GG1 was pretty classy, and the Broadway Limited had a buffet car.

I would rather have the train do all the navigating work while sat on my 4G mobile network and played fckoff until I got to where I was going.
cap: vowel, trustem

>>328612

>LETS TRY AND REINVENT THE WHEEL AND MAKE SOMETHING TOTALLY UNTESTED AND VERY COMPLICATED

Hey, that's the American way. Plus, practically everything about our present day transportation infrastructure is already extremely complicated and was at one time untested. This is essentially an attempt to create an electrified, guided lane on the existing highway for large, heavy vehicles. (Track isn't even necessarily a requirement, though track is less costly to keep up and lends itself better to vehicle guidance.) It is less reinventing the wheel, and more improving the wheel we've already got.

There's prior art everywhere, including actual vehicles that have been tested such as: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/05/half-bus-half-t/

I sadly lack a newsletter. If I had one it would be terrible.

>>328659
...all while drinking a beer. Sometimes, letting someone else do the driving is a good idea.
>>328638
Here we go again with the arguments about what is and isn't light rail.
Its like squares and rectangles. A tram is just light rail that happens to run on a street.

>>328652
>I'm wealthy so I prefer to take my car instead of sitting in first class on a train cruising smoothly at 220mph

it's like saying you're wealthy so you eat shit instead of caviar

>>328652

>Almost-checkpoint-less

Oh yea, U forgot you 'Murikans still have toll booths. Enjoying sitting in traffic every few miles?

Oh, hai guise!

>>328652

>Bragging that you have awesome trains is bragging that your government has decided to give you a nice train, at a particular time, using a particular budget.

Railways need not be public. In Japan many railways are private and recently the decision to construct a 500km/h maglev line was made without government funding support. It's not a matter of having a generous government, but a population that understands the benefits of these services and provides a demand for these services.

>When I go from San Francisco to Las Vegas I love driving my big leather-appointed grand cherokee on our wide, smooth, open, trouble-free almost-checkpoint-less highway system.

It's nice that you enjoy driving. Unfortunately it is not always so trouble-free. Especially when commuting during rush-hour through toll roads.

>Meanwhile you queers are all sharing a commie queer train smelling each others armpits.

I bet you've been on a plane at least once. It's the same idea. Plus, at least I'm not stuck on a highway smelling all that exhaust while I wait to move the next inch.

>>328612
We sort of have this in the States, the Autotrain. Its the most profitable long distance Amtrack route.
>>328655
our high efficiency diesel electric trains already kick the ass of any electric system. They get equivalent of 450 MPG for long term cross country shipping, and can go up to 80MPH in high speed trans-country corridors for mixed freight, though slow coal and heavy minerals usually travels at 30-50MPH.

>>328636
The problem is, trains are huge compared to light rail, and hell, the scaling from a Subway car, to a Commuter car is diffrence. Your average modern EMU (this is an older EMU, but it works), can hold about 110 people sitting in one car, and total around 200 people crammed in during rush hour. Most modern light rail cars can do the same, so capacity isn't much of an argument bro. The big deal is that heavier EMUS can go much faster (this guy can break 80MPH, joke about how this M4 isn't just for show goes here), and have higher crash resistances. Though I prefer unpowered cars driven by a high horsepower engine myself due to simple cost issues.

>>328612
Autotrain is very big, gigantic even.

total of 42 coaches, including 15 passenger coaches and 27 auto carriers.

TurboTrain, the fastest American train ever, and look how Amtrak maintained it!

>>329032
>>329032
Turbotrain was a technological dead end.
We have High Speed, Faster overall times, and super fast Electrical trains now. ITS NAME IS... ITS NAME IS.. ACELA MK 1

>>328636
You keep saying you can't combine tram vehicles. Protip, you can. All trams, even those not designed for multiple unit operation, have couplers for emergency reasons. Many are designed for multiple unit operation.

Metro trains where I live are 120m combinations of six 20m carriages. You'd have roughly the same capacity in a 150m combination of four 37m trams. The platforms are indeed longer but also cheaper to build due to low floor. Majority of stations you can do away with entirely by running a street with 75m vehicles, the maximum according to the German tram legislation BOStrab.

Trams are low floor and low floor loses out some interior flexibility to bogie casing. Trams are articulated and articulation points are slightly narrower than the rest of the vehicle. That space is perfectly usable as seating and standing room, respectively.

Oh, you wouldn't use a commuter train or a metro for three hour regional service either. Besides you do need that local service before you even think of that. The local service I explicitly stated tram combinations are ideal for.

But by the time the minute difference in capacity per meter of vehicle becomes relevant, that's a good problem to have. You probably also have that separate regional and intercity system already.

>>329075
>>329075
Uh, we sort of Do in America bro.

Port Jervis Line. Runs from New York's countryside, down through into New Jersey, and once various new electric/diesel motive power and a flyover is completed, will run into New York City. Total runtime is a bit less than 3 hours.

You have to realize, in America, our commuter lines ARE regional lines. (joke about how Amtrak serves as a regional and commuter railroad goes here)

>>329075
Oddly enough, what trams do in Europe/Australia, we have .. very few in the States besides some light rails and the odd electric buses in Pennsylvania/Massachusetts/California/Ohio/Seattle. They have been mainly been replaced by faster subway services/elevated railways.

>>329075
its not a physical impossibility
its just impractical and a waste
running something like that on the road is dopey
building massive infrastructure, platforms and subways and causeways, for something that only carries a small amount is a waste and better suited to proper trains

>>329100
a proper train (IE, what is in my picture) requires its own huge ROW broski. SubwayMetro style trains require the same things, while light rail requires minimal infrastructure.

>>329100
I am starting to think you're either trolling, dense or just not reading. Sorry.

1. Please elaborate on how a tram is
>something that only carries a small amount
compared to a heavy rail vehicle of the *same length*. It's smaller due to articulation and bogie casing, but that's at least 70% capacity which is still in the same ballpark.

2.
>running something like that on the road is dopey
Street running involves shorter vehicles and slower speeds. You can turn metro trains into street trams by splitting the consist into at most 75m parts, smaller is OK too depending on spoke demand.

3.
>building massive infrastructure, platforms and subways and causeways
Are you describing a 100% grade separated heavy rail system? Because with trams you're making massive savings by not building frivolous grade separation infrastructure outside downtown, instead building at grade and signaling intersections. Downtown may justify a grade separated section (along with a surface section), but how long can that be?

Furthermore: In the top 25 urban areas in the world, some don't even have any local train transit, e.g. Lagos in Nigeria. How big are you insisting cities to become within a few decades? A well maintained tram system will not run out of capacity and will provide high service to a large section of the city with minimal infrastructure requirements.

>>329103
>>329103
Is this a tram to you, I'm not sure what you Australians/Europeans think a tram IS.

This light rail unit can run both on streets and former freight/trolley/dedicated line, and holds 200 people in one unit, with the ability to have multiple additional center units added to double capacity. It travels at a decent 60MPH across South Jersey. I think this is what you mean when you say Tram.

>>329106
related electric LRV from Japan rather than Switzerland.

>>329106
Yes, I think I specified vehicle lengths and performance. That kind of vehicles are used (as "tram" or "metro") commonly in European systems and are not specialty in any way or fashion.

Light rail is another word but has unfortunate connotions in American systems, crippled by American rail legislation and practices.

>>328551
That's cool and all. Until you get hit by something.

Really we need to break down the problem into chunks:

Local area:
local (5 minute walk)
intermediate (10 minute walk)
far (15 minute walk)

Surrounding areas:
local (5 minute drive)
intermediate (10 minute drive)
far (15 minute drive)

Interstate
local: 1 hour drive
intermediate: 3 hour drive
far: 6 hour drive

Interregional
local: 8 hour drive
intermediate: 16 hour drive
far: 24 hour drive

We can address the local with walking and bicycles supplemented as needed by light rail.

We can address surrounding areas with bicycles, light rail and buses.

We can't address anything above that with efficiency though. Unless you're going from hub to hub there is simply too much area to cover with a mass transportation system.