Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree that Phillys system is somewhat lacking but it's still easily one of the best in The US. In context of the thread, the bar is set extremely low so it kind of is something special. For American standards.
Somebody mentioned Vancouver though and that got me thinking of where do you guys think the Canadian cities would rank in this? I've only been to Toronto so I can't speak for all of them, but I think Torontos subway was also somewhat lacking, but compared to these cities I would rank it near the top. Above Philly but just below Boston.
Idk about Vancouver or Montreal, but I love the name "Skytrain" btw. I'm guessing it's mostly all elevated like Chicago.
I'm just surprised. Surprised US cities don't do more NEW Elevated systems? Cheaper then subways. But yes, more then light-rail ground-level.
Some world cites that chose ELEVATED Systems and combos are :
- Dubai
- Bangkok
- Chicago (quintessential majority Elevated and in its Core reminding for over 100 years)
Dubai Elevated RED-LINE Train 8X speed.
(Ironically, Only Chicago, Dubai and Boston, name their lines BY A COLOR)
- opened in 2009
- hit 10-million riders its first year
- was a instant SUCESS costing for all the lines. Well over 7 Billion.
Chicago's RED-LINE high-speed video
- middle of expressway Southside, (not really elevated there)
- becomes a subway through its downtown,
- then true 100+year old L ELEVATED through the North-side.
Notice fog rolls in from the Lake by the mid-North-side stretch.
Boston Philadelphia and NYC, besides Chicago (to name a few) have Elevated Rail lines in our cities. Just only Chicago has it left intact in its Core Downtown. Other cities have it in its neighborhoods. Chicago therefore is seen a the Quintessential Elevated transit city and visitors/tourist clearly see it.
*** Why isn't Rail ADDED to Expressways, Freeways, Pikes to Drives into City Cores?? SEEN AS A UNTAPPED RESOURCE, WITH LESS OBSTACLES than building though neighborhoods might have?
- How about abandoned Train right-of-ways. Still available?
I CLEARLY WANT TO SEE MORE ELEVATED FOR US CITIES. NOT JUST LIGHT-RAIL TRAMS AND TROLLEY'S. It is till Cheaper then a Subway and is successful in cities that did it right in the world.
-- Why do New Trams, Trolley lines in the US have LOW SUCESS stories un the US?
In a nutshell, because America has largely forgotten about transportation investment other than roadways and looks upon any new planned development as a profit center (which never pans out) versus infrastructure as it should be.
The advantages of much lower collision rates and possibly higher speed are apparently voted down by laziness: riders don't want to climb stairs or wait for elevators. Of course, the automation factor: on a totally isolated system it is possible to have driverless operation. This may be a plus or minus factor politically. Everyone knows automation quickly becomes obsolete.
There aren't many (any that I'm aware of) new heavy rail systems being built. The newest is Los Angeles. Red line (Los Angeles lines are named after colors) was originally proposed to be partially elevated but NIMBYs.
BART is partially elevated, including the San Jose extensions currently under construction. No freeways to really run along but BART does run along freeways, particularly Pittsburg Baypoint and Dublin lines.
Most tram/streetcar-style systems have no demand. Those are things like S.L.U.T. in Seattle, Atlanta Streetcar. The most successful is by far Portland's. Originally proposed as a toy amenity to attract urbanistas rather than to serve any actual function, it has managed to grow into something that actually provides transit. Sure, I poke fun at it and it cherry picks by replacing buses on the busiest routes to achieve a reasonable cost per boarding but at the end of day it does. Things are looking up a bit for Portland's TriMet in a way they haven't for many years. Increased taxes (and a surge in jobs) means they've been able to restore some of the cuts they had to make in previous years. Other streetcar-style lines tend to be more lines to nowhere so it's not surprising they don't get used much.
Light rail is more mixed. Several systems have been successful, included many that you might no expect to necessarily be. San Diego Trolley (although really it's a light rail system, not a streetcar) is quite successful. It's the "grandfathers" of the new wave and it's success inspired a bunch of light rail projects. Some have done well, others have flopped miserably.
A NYC Subway line in Astoria, Queens was proposed to be extended to LaGuardia Airport in the late 90s via an elevated track. Would have passed through built-up areas. Elevated trains are loud and block light on commercial street. Existing elevated line that would have been extended:
I think one challenge is many times in the ROW doesn't always well connect to residential or job centers, while close they can be a little separated, though obviously can flow in and out of the highway ROW to better connect
I often wonder why medians were not better used and in some ways might promote more rail or PT usage having to sit in traffic day after day watching trains roll by
I love els. I live directly next to one so I guess I don't really have a choice though. I actually prefer elevated to underground because of uninterrupted cell phone service and views. NYC els get some amazing views.
They can be very loud though, especially the older ones, and they do block sunlight on the street and inside the lower-level buildings as someone else already mentioned. Another thing is that during inclement weather elevated trains are affected while underground ones are not. For example, during major snowstorms and blizzards, sometimes NYC shuts down all above-ground lines while keeping the underground open. So those are some advantages of underground compared to elevated.
But I don't think the lack of els in The US has much to do with a preference of underground trains. I think it's more of just a lack of transit in general. How many heavy rail/subway systems do we even have under construction in America right now? Are there even any others besides LA and 2nd Ave in NYC?
You also have to consider the disruption of the street and nearby businesses. Even repaving a street will causes affected businesses to send off claims that the city damaged their profits, even for a temporary period of time. I'm a fan of elevated rail, but we live in such a litigious world where any major public projects are always plagued with opposition. This is unlike past decades, where the government basically just bulldozed entire neighborhoods in the name of the "greater good".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
