>>1017079>Uhm it's more like 200-400 people (30-60m long units), that's almost half of what a standard 6-carriage EMU can carry. Never seen one that big, and it would be useless because as you say half the capacity.
So whats the point?
One size does not fit all, the right tool for the right job.
Lightrail as the new streetcar/tram in and around the city centre on the road, maybe in the median strip if its wide enough so its not too costly.
Trains in metro and commuter service.
What you advocate is called pre-metros, they built them in europe in the 1960s, putting big glorified trams/lightrail in subways
it doesn't work.
the infrastructure is too expensive for the capacity the vehicles have.
>Rapid transit only makes sense where demand is so high along one specific corridor >muh densityThis is the standard argument used to delay and defer
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
>that lrv cant handle itOh so first build lightrail, then when thats jam packed build trains on top
>obsession with rapid transitwut
merika refuses
they're obsessed with lightrail
>At the same time, large enough cities were arguing that you don't need trams because you're gonna have subwaysNo they weren't, stop making shit up. They were arguing you dont need trams/streetcars because you can use buses instead.
>I'm sick and tired of people talking as if a metro were somehow miles ahead of a tram/LRV, when it absolutely isn't.People thinking LRV is better are worse.
Less capacity but the same expensive infrastructure.
Useless in the road if they're large enough to carry 400 people.
>time getting in and outdat autism
>THOSE are the exception, not cities with minimally decent transit planning.Those aren't buying your LRV koolaid
You're simply arguing a more complex version of the mess being perpetuated
