6 ms·

The El was built along with the city's expansion (often by developers who wanted to make new tracts of land accessible). That doesn't work for infill, where the

The El was built along with the city's expansion (often by developers who wanted to make new tracts of land accessible). That doesn't work for infill, where the intrusion and space the elevated tracks require aren't accounted for in current prices and expectations, and where right of way isn't established. If we had a Robert Moses of transit, then it could happen, just like the highways happened. There are no Robert Moseses of transit. Now the best we can do for new lines is shadow the highways. Elevated lines like in Chicago also seem very uncommon now, I suspect they aren't actually that great? They certainly take a lot of maintenance and don't have great trip times. I think putting an incredibly large and heavy vehicle on metal stilts isn't a good approach. There have been people who want to instead put relatively light vehicles on stilts [1], with many benefits, but that's been met with almost no interest from people who can make these things happen. (Personally I think it's a missed opportunity.) Though in a sense what's being built here is along those lines, but underground. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit

djsumdog 7y ago
Personal rapid transit is just a waste. You can transport A LOT of people by rail ... orders of magnitudes of people more than cars, even if you had a highway full of self driving cars all moving at 120kph. There's not even a comparison. Self driving and even personal transport does not compare to the capacity of standard rail stock: https://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-solve-the-transportation-problem/ https://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-so... Public transport also forces you to see people every day. Even this very bare minimum interaction is vitally important. It changes the way we see and treat people. There was an executive at Lehman Brothers who had a private elevator he used from his condo to take him to a car with a private driver, which took him to another elevator that took him to his office. Most days he could go from home to work without interacting with a single person. That changes the way you see and treat people, and we need less of that.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Capacity comparisons are no good in isolation. Here in DC Metro is close to capacity for what it does (taking people into the downtown core). But 95% of people in the metro area don’t take the Metro, because it doesn’t go anywhere they want to go. These people are commuting from Loudon to Reston or DC to Bowie. Almost 90% of jobs in the metro area are outside DC proper as is the bulk of housing. In isolation, none of these commuting paths warrant a heavy rail line. The capacity advantage of standard rail stock is completely irrelevant to almost everybody’s commute. It’s not about being anti-social. Here in the Annapolis area (which has 200,000 people, with 40,000 in Annapolis itself), people commute from the Annapolis suburbs to jobs in the southern Baltimore suburbs or in Baltimore. They’d take a train if there was one, instead of sitting in I97 traffic But the volume of commuters comes nowhere near justifying building one. (Many Metro lines, though at capacity in the downtown core, are desolate in even the relatively urbanized suburbs of MD). A cheap, fast, point-to-point transit solution, that you could string up along an existing highway median or below one, would revolutionize transit because it would actually address peoples’ needs outside the tiny minority.
- ianbicking 7y ago
  "Personal rapid transit is just a waste. You can transport A LOT of people by rail ... orders of magnitudes of people more than cars" You're answering a question no one is asking. Cars and taxis (and imagined self-driving cars) get people from where they are to where they want to go. Roads are capable of serving any trip, and with a reasonable travel time. If transit could serve most trips then transit could be successful. Start from there, and see if you can work backwards to traditional rail mass transit. I don't see it happening, but maybe I'm missing something.
britch 7y ago
How would elevation affect trip times? Is there a reason a subway would be faster than a raised platform? I am not an expert but I don't see how digging tunnels is cheaper than building a raised platform, they both seem pretty expensive.
- rayiner 7y ago
  This is purely anecdotal, but getting from the street to the platform is a lot faster on the L than say the DC Metro.
- ianbicking 7y ago
  I should have been clearer, I meant general speed. The trains on traditional elevated tracks in Chicago are all pretty slow, and I think the solidity of the tracks is part of that. In comparison, the same trains on solid ground (e.g., the Blue line) run much faster.

djsumdog 7y ago

Personal rapid transit is just a waste. You can transport A LOT of people by rail ... orders of magnitudes of people more than cars, even if you had a highway full of self driving cars all moving at 120kph. There's not even a comparison. Self driving and even personal transport does not compare to the capacity of standard rail stock: https://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-solve-the-transportation-problem/ https://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-so... Public transport also forces you to see people every day. Even this very bare minimum interaction is vitally important. It changes the way we see and treat people. There was an executive at Lehman Brothers who had a private elevator he used from his condo to take him to a car with a private driver, which took him to another elevator that took him to his office. Most days he could go from home to work without interacting with a single person. That changes the way you see and treat people, and we need less of that.

rayiner 7y ago
Capacity comparisons are no good in isolation. Here in DC Metro is close to capacity for what it does (taking people into the downtown core). But 95% of people in the metro area don’t take the Metro, because it doesn’t go anywhere they want to go. These people are commuting from Loudon to Reston or DC to Bowie. Almost 90% of jobs in the metro area are outside DC proper as is the bulk of housing. In isolation, none of these commuting paths warrant a heavy rail line. The capacity advantage of standard rail stock is completely irrelevant to almost everybody’s commute. It’s not about being anti-social. Here in the Annapolis area (which has 200,000 people, with 40,000 in Annapolis itself), people commute from the Annapolis suburbs to jobs in the southern Baltimore suburbs or in Baltimore. They’d take a train if there was one, instead of sitting in I97 traffic But the volume of commuters comes nowhere near justifying building one. (Many Metro lines, though at capacity in the downtown core, are desolate in even the relatively urbanized suburbs of MD). A cheap, fast, point-to-point transit solution, that you could string up along an existing highway median or below one, would revolutionize transit because it would actually address peoples’ needs outside the tiny minority.
ianbicking 7y ago
"Personal rapid transit is just a waste. You can transport A LOT of people by rail ... orders of magnitudes of people more than cars" You're answering a question no one is asking. Cars and taxis (and imagined self-driving cars) get people from where they are to where they want to go. Roads are capable of serving any trip, and with a reasonable travel time. If transit could serve most trips then transit could be successful. Start from there, and see if you can work backwards to traditional rail mass transit. I don't see it happening, but maybe I'm missing something.

britch 7y ago

How would elevation affect trip times? Is there a reason a subway would be faster than a raised platform? I am not an expert but I don't see how digging tunnels is cheaper than building a raised platform, they both seem pretty expensive.

rayiner 7y ago
This is purely anecdotal, but getting from the street to the platform is a lot faster on the L than say the DC Metro.
ianbicking 7y ago
I should have been clearer, I meant general speed. The trains on traditional elevated tracks in Chicago are all pretty slow, and I think the solidity of the tracks is part of that. In comparison, the same trains on solid ground (e.g., the Blue line) run much faster.