10 ms·
If Google is right they live in Jacksonville, which aside from being a terrible place to live in general, can't physically or geographically support subways or
by pc86 15d ago
If Google is right they live in Jacksonville, which aside from being a terrible place to live in general, can't physically or geographically support subways or light rail. So you're basically limited to busses if you want to implement public transportation.
I've only been to Jacksonville a handful of times but I'd rather walk along the side of road in August than ride a bus there. And they don't actually help congestion that much.
- usrnm 15d ago> can't physically or geographically support subways or light rail Why? Genuinely curious, I don't know much about US geography
- qgin 15d agoIt's the 2nd least dense large city in America. It has a population of San Francisco but across like 15x more land.
- pc86 15d agoThere are a couple reasons (not the least of which is political will but that's a separate discussion). Jacksonville sits on a coastal plain and is almost entirely fine sand. You simply can't build a subway in that without astronomical cost. As for rail I'm pretty sure Jacksonville already has elevated rail in some places but ground rail would be difficult for the same reasons.
- pchristensen 15d agoJacksonville (and most of Florida) is extremely low lying with a high water table, so sub-surface construction (basements) and subways are basically impossible. Structurally, it's a low density, car-based city so light rail (as opposed to busses) requires a lot of up front investment without the land use to justify it. At this point, like many US cities, adding effective transit is a chicken and egg problem with land use.
- maxerickson 15d agoI'll bet you a dollar that it is Austin. I guess there are made up reasons not to use public transport there too.
- pc86 15d agoAustin is the 12th most populous city so it's possible they're just wrong but probably not.