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.
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.