U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 07-04-2012, 01:17 PM
930 posts, read 853,506 times
Reputation: 665


Originally Posted by bhcompy View Post
Well, like I said, elevated. Not really taking up real estate, just building over currently utilized real estate
The problem with a fully elevated line of any kind is that it raises privacy concerns. If you've been living in a house for ten years, you don't want a train passing right over your back yard, allowing passengers to look right into your personal space, as it were. I've ridden the El in Chicago, which passes within inches of people's apartment windows and I have to admit I sure as hell wouldn't want to put up with that. On the other hand you do have to elevate the line in places to allow above-grade overpasses of major intersections. In commercial areas where overpasses are needed, and where stations tend to be located, privacy isn't so much of an issue.

I think Metro does a pretty good job in balancing these conflicting concerns with respect to its LRT lines. For instance, west of Western Ave., the Expo Line runs in its own right-of-way, which is at-grade except where they elevate the line for statons. The at-grade sections have walls along the route, in places where they pass close to people's houses, to reduce noise and foster privacy. The Green Line is a special case; as it runs almost entirely along the 105 or over commercial districts, it's almost entirely elevated
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 07-04-2012, 03:35 PM
Location: London, NYC, DC
1,118 posts, read 2,025,051 times
Reputation: 650
Originally Posted by bhcompy View Post
I don't know anything about this, but I do wonder why we insist on building underground when elevated is much cheaper.. I hope it's simply not NIMBYs, since the NIMBYs in LA are of the kind that are wont to clamor for public transit if the first place. It makes me wonder about the freeways as well. They're talking about ripping out a bunch of homes and businesses in OC to expand the 405 through HB to add two lanes, yet they don't speak of doing anything like what they did along the 110 in to downtown with the elevated freeway lanes.
Elevated transport is more susceptible to weather, but that's not really much of an issue in Los Angeles (a major blizzard, however, was the impetus behind creating the New York City Subway, something few people know). It's more that elevated lines depress property values and reduce perceived walkable space. I'm by no means a NIMBY, but fervently believe underground is better. Monorails, like the one in this proposal, however, are just a waste of money and a showpiece. Heavy rail does just as good a job and is easier to procure rolling stock, automated signalling et al.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top