Elevated rail has a bad name; urban rapid transit requires full grade separation. These two facts are inconveniently opposed to one another. Is there a future for elevated rail in urban and suburban areas? Cheaper elevated construction opens the door for more rapid transit expansion in our regions, but only if the real negatives of elevated structures can be overcome.
In addition to mitigating the negatives from elevated structures, there’s also the matter of emphasizing the positives of transit. Considering that a great deal of the public opposition to elevated structures is likely now framed by thinking of freeway overpasses and flyovers rather than Chicago-style Els, it’s worth considering the relative capacities of each. Market Urbanism writes about benefits vs costs, citing Robert Fogelson’s Downtown:
Elevated rail lines are far smaller in footprint than elevated highways, and although highways may have been quieter than rail lines a century ago (though I’m not sure if this is even true), the technology has surely shifted in rail’s favor with regards to noise. And even if the technologies were equally obtrusive on a per-mile basis, you much fewer less elevated rail miles to transport the same amount of people as with an elevated highway – perhaps even almost an order of magnitude less.
Love this article!