Comments on: Is Elevated Acceptable? http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/19/is-elevated-acceptable/ Thu, 09 Sep 2010 07:02:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Richard http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/19/is-elevated-acceptable/#comment-1309 Richard Thu, 21 May 2009 07:12:24 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2265#comment-1309 Of course elevated lines can be made to fit in an urban environment it is just that most planners are too lazy or unimaginative to work. It just takes some creativity and a willingness to give it a try. It is not like an elevated transit line has anywhere near the impact of an elevated freeway. Underneath the guideway is a perfect place for walkways or patios as it is protected from the sun and rain. One of the best public spaces in Vancouver is Granville Island which is underneath a huge bridge and its approaches. There are popular greenways under the SkyTrain guideways as well. London has built some really funky restaurants and shops under their elevated railway. Of course elevated lines can be made to fit in an urban environment it is just that most planners are too lazy or unimaginative to work. It just takes some creativity and a willingness to give it a try. It is not like an elevated transit line has anywhere near the impact of an elevated freeway.

Underneath the guideway is a perfect place for walkways or patios as it is protected from the sun and rain. One of the best public spaces in Vancouver is Granville Island which is underneath a huge bridge and its approaches. There are popular greenways under the SkyTrain guideways as well. London has built some really funky restaurants and shops under their elevated railway.

]]> By: TheDude http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/19/is-elevated-acceptable/#comment-1308 TheDude Thu, 21 May 2009 01:51:16 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2265#comment-1308 Most of the line runs down highway medians - so that is why they can't put commercial space under it - there are already cars there. A lot of it runs through commercial areas too. Best Buy on one side and a 1960's strip mall on the other. Funny, the guideway kind of fits in. I think the comment on pristine environment is a good one to think about - there has been a lot of development pressure on Oahu (slowwed down right now). Having decent reliable fast transit in about the best tool left to try and keep that development within the UGB. You don't build this and a lot more of the overall land is going to be covered in suburban-style development. Most of the line runs down highway medians – so that is why they can’t put commercial space under it – there are already cars there. A lot of it runs through commercial areas too. Best Buy on one side and a 1960′s strip mall on the other. Funny, the guideway kind of fits in.

I think the comment on pristine environment is a good one to think about – there has been a lot of development pressure on Oahu (slowwed down right now). Having decent reliable fast transit in about the best tool left to try and keep that development within the UGB. You don’t build this and a lot more of the overall land is going to be covered in suburban-style development.

]]> By: Patrick M http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/19/is-elevated-acceptable/#comment-1307 Patrick M Wed, 20 May 2009 18:38:33 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2265#comment-1307 C'mon- Honolulu is nice, but Kauai it ain't. There's nothing significant visually there that highrises and massive cruise ship terminals have not already taken away visually. C’mon- Honolulu is nice, but Kauai it ain’t. There’s nothing significant visually there that highrises and massive cruise ship terminals have not already taken away visually.

]]> By: Rockfish http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/19/is-elevated-acceptable/#comment-1306 Rockfish Wed, 20 May 2009 17:45:30 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2265#comment-1306 This is not a wash in any way. There is no good way to incorporate an elevated track into an attractive, vibrant city environment. These tracks destroy neighborhoods, which is why you cities all over America removing them. Solving these problems is going to be a lot harder and more complex than people let on. You can't just myopically say "build more rail" and then start obsessing over minutia like automated operation, average trip speeds, etc. This is the same internal engineering obsession that has lead highway planners over the decades to destroy America in the name of "efficiency." You don't create good cities just because the blunt instrument you wield is a rail line and not a highway. I'm glad somebody, somewhere is trying to raise awareness of these issues. This is not a wash in any way. There is no good way to incorporate an elevated track into an attractive, vibrant city environment. These tracks destroy neighborhoods, which is why you cities all over America removing them.
Solving these problems is going to be a lot harder and more complex than people let on. You can’t just myopically say “build more rail” and then start obsessing over minutia like automated operation, average trip speeds, etc. This is the same internal engineering obsession that has lead highway planners over the decades to destroy America in the name of “efficiency.” You don’t create good cities just because the blunt instrument you wield is a rail line and not a highway.
I’m glad somebody, somewhere is trying to raise awareness of these issues.

]]> By: t joey http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/19/is-elevated-acceptable/#comment-1305 t joey Wed, 20 May 2009 14:34:29 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2265#comment-1305 I don't mind elevated systems. If Honolulu looked back into some of the station design alternatives for Seattle's monorail they might get some interesting ideas. I liked how one of the alternatives was an offset double stack (the only picture I could find without to0 much investigation was here: http://www.boosman.com/blog/images/2003-08-08-02.jpg and here: http://www.seattleweekly.com/2004-03-03/news/monoreality/). The difference of course is that Seattle was proposing a monorail system. I don’t mind elevated systems. If Honolulu looked back into some of the station design alternatives for Seattle’s monorail they might get some interesting ideas. I liked how one of the alternatives was an offset double stack (the only picture I could find without to0 much investigation was here: http://www.boosman.com/blog/images/2003-08-08-02.jpg and here: http://www.seattleweekly.com/2004-03-03/news/monoreality/). The difference of course is that Seattle was proposing a monorail system.

]]> By: jon http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/19/is-elevated-acceptable/#comment-1304 jon Wed, 20 May 2009 06:52:19 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2265#comment-1304 i bet the operating costs and farebox recovery ratio would be better as elevated i dont recall the honolulu cityscape being very attractive to begin with... lots of 1960s highrises with repetitive balconies i bet the operating costs and farebox recovery ratio would be better as elevated

i dont recall the honolulu cityscape being very attractive to begin with… lots of 1960s highrises with repetitive balconies

]]> By: BruceMcF http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/19/is-elevated-acceptable/#comment-1303 BruceMcF Wed, 20 May 2009 06:39:53 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2265#comment-1303 Why can't most of the area beneath the line be <i>built structures</i>? EG, commercial space, professional space, shaded arcades next to open plazas, etc. Or treated with a colonnade to make it seem less like an ongoing freeway entrance ramp running through the downtown. Why can’t most of the area beneath the line be built structures? EG, commercial space, professional space, shaded arcades next to open plazas, etc.

Or treated with a colonnade to make it seem less like an ongoing freeway entrance ramp running through the downtown.

]]> By: Nathanael http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/19/is-elevated-acceptable/#comment-1302 Nathanael Wed, 20 May 2009 06:30:34 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2265#comment-1302 Why not put the trains at ground level and build road and pedestrian overoasses/underpasses? Why not put the trains at ground level and build road and pedestrian overoasses/underpasses?

]]> By: TrainsinTokyo http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/19/is-elevated-acceptable/#comment-1301 TrainsinTokyo Wed, 20 May 2009 01:12:35 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2265#comment-1301 <i>That Honolulu elevated is far uglier and bulkier than what would have been built even thirty years ago. (A hundred years ago it would have been a slim steel structure and not concrete at all.) Why?</i> <a href="http://tux.wr.usgs.gov/" rel="nofollow">Earthquakes?</a> That Honolulu elevated is far uglier and bulkier than what would have been built even thirty years ago. (A hundred years ago it would have been a slim steel structure and not concrete at all.) Why?

Earthquakes?

]]> By: Jarrett at HumanTransit.org http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/19/is-elevated-acceptable/#comment-1300 Jarrett at HumanTransit.org Wed, 20 May 2009 00:35:06 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2265#comment-1300 Good post. See my comments on the topic here, greatly influenced by my experience living in Vancouver, and commuting on a driverless system, as well as my experience as a transit planner: http://www.humantransit.org/2009/05/is-elevated-acceptable.html Good post. See my comments on the topic here, greatly influenced by my experience living in Vancouver, and commuting on a driverless system, as well as my experience as a transit planner:

http://www.humantransit.org/2009/05/is-elevated-acceptable.html

]]>