>>1017168>Never seen one that bigYou being a dumbass doesn't mean they don't exist. 60m is a standard measure for 2nd gen trams.
>What you advocate is called pre-metros, they built them in europe in the 1960s, putting big glorified trams/lightrail in subwaysThat's not at all what I'm advocating, first of all because I never said that LRT should be put in a tunnel. That's retarded, and that's why modern LRTs don't do that anymore.
>It ensures that nothing will ever happen because of the cost and time required to build it and the foreplanning that should go into building public transit BEFORE you reach capacity, not building it years after the fact>Oh so first build lightrail, then when thats jam packed build trains on topThat's retarded. I don't know about cities in burgerland, but around here once it's built up it will change very little, and density will certainly not change. So if you're building transit into a built-up area there's little point in planning for a huge increase in demand over the next 50 years.
>>obsession with rapid transit>wutI meant here on /n/
>No they weren't, stop making shit up. They were arguing you dont need trams/streetcars because you can use buses instead.You illiterate piece of shit, I said
>large enough citiesNew York has been planning subway lines for ages that aren't getting built. So is Chicago. So is San Francisco. So is Boston. And outside of america the trend was generally to replace trams with a combination of subways and buses, not buses alone, see Paris, London, West Berlin, etc.
>Less capacity but the same expensive infrastructure.>ROW on the surface costs the same as a tunnelDumbass.
>Useless in the road if they're large enough to carry 400 people.>what is ROW>>1017188>posts PDF in moonrunes>generalizing what happens in one particular country on the whole worldno.
