> I'm no city planner, but I would definitely connect the Amrtak station with the University of Arizona and on the other end make it reach the edge of downtown.
I went to U. of A. and have absolutely never even heard of any student ever needing to go to the Amtrak station, for any reason. Not trying to be rude, but that smells like unthinkingly-applied urbanist ideology — thinking “trains are cool” and working backwards from there.
But sure, people do go to that area for nightlife, so let’s assume you said something like “Hotel Congress” instead of “the Amtrak station”. Still, that’s less than 3km from campus — even if there were no transit options, you could bike, walk, take a rental scooter or an uber.
But if none of those options work, fear not, there is already a streetcar that basically covers exactly your proposed route: https://www.suntran.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Sun-Link-... . So why would it make sense to spend a giant sum on a subway to replicate the streetcar over this tiny area?
> The rest of the city is really spread out with all those detached houses, so I'm out of ideas
That’s my point. Your claim that any 500k city could benefit from a subway is wildly over-general. It entirely depends on the type of city.
I get where you're coming from as I have a lot of words to say to those urbanist ideologues and none of them are pleasant.
Main reason why I think subway is superior to anything, including trains riding on the surface, is that it doesn't get in the way of anything.
My current city is subject to a double whammy of a train and river system. The result is of course gridlock, as bridges have limited capacity and not all train crossings could be made into viaducts. Having a single subway line would greatly improve things, but alas - the city is in debt due to having built a football stadium which went way over budget.
That being said to me American cities stretch the definition of cities. If there's no functional difference between a district within city limits and a suburb, why bother with having a distinction? I mean, we have districts of detached houses in my corner of the world, but they're former villages absorbed by cities and are gradually being densified.
I get where you’re coming from, but I can’t think of a definition of “city” that would exclude Tucson. It’s a large, connected settlement of humans who don’t primarily live from the land.
For what it’s worth, Tucson does have suburbs, which are even less dense than Tucson (e.g. Oro Valley).
In the evolution of English language usage the term "subway" is almost always associated with passenger transport by train.
A "train underground" my or may not have passengers .. the majority tonnage of trains in mine systems is ore transport, many such systems never carry passengers although, of course, some do at shift changes.
I went to U. of A. and have absolutely never even heard of any student ever needing to go to the Amtrak station, for any reason. Not trying to be rude, but that smells like unthinkingly-applied urbanist ideology — thinking “trains are cool” and working backwards from there.
But sure, people do go to that area for nightlife, so let’s assume you said something like “Hotel Congress” instead of “the Amtrak station”. Still, that’s less than 3km from campus — even if there were no transit options, you could bike, walk, take a rental scooter or an uber.
But if none of those options work, fear not, there is already a streetcar that basically covers exactly your proposed route: https://www.suntran.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Sun-Link-... . So why would it make sense to spend a giant sum on a subway to replicate the streetcar over this tiny area?
> The rest of the city is really spread out with all those detached houses, so I'm out of ideas
That’s my point. Your claim that any 500k city could benefit from a subway is wildly over-general. It entirely depends on the type of city.