Do elevated rails inhibit sustainable, walkable urban places?

Transit

Do elevated rails inhibit sustainable, walkable urban places?

by Cavan Wilk • March 11, 2010 10:38 am

During the design process for the Silver Line, now under construction, a group of citizen activists advocated putting the Tysons Corner portion in a tunnel rather than mostly elevated, as ultimately planned.

An elevated subway line in Queens, NY. Photo by Doug Craig.

There was a vigorous debate about the merits of elevated rail as a planning tool for TOD versus a tunnel. Our existing walkable urban places with elevated Metro stations provide some clues to the intricacies and challenges related to retrofitting a suburban place.

In our region, we have no pure suburban-to-urban retrofits like in Rosslyn-Ballston centered on an elevated Metro station. We do have some walkable urban places that have elevated stations, but they are all legacy places. Regardless, during the 2000's, the elevated Metro stations helped breathe new life into those legacy places.

The King Street and Silver Spring elevated Metro stations provide us with valuable ideas about the challenges related to an elevated rail station in a walkable urban place. Additionally, elevated heavy rail stations in other regions were the primary catalysts in developing new vibrant walkable urban places.

King Street

The King Street Metro station lies at the western edge of the Old Town Alexandria's legacy street grid. There has been a lot of new construction there. It is at the western edge of Old Town because it shares the same legacy right-of-way as the CSX/Amtrak tracks. There hasn't been as much new construction closer into the core of Old Town because of strong historical preservation mechanisms (a good idea, in this instance).

Old Town Alexandria didn't suffer the same magnitude of decline as Silver Spring and downtown Rockville did during the second half of the 20th century. It was still a desirable place with a good social reputation. During the bubble years, it was hard to disentangle how much of the rapid appreciation of properties in Old Town were due to its desirability as a vibrant, safe, walkable urban place or Metro proximity.

View Larger Map

King Street is a different case from the other two examples I'll look at because it wasn't built in a place that desperately needed a new infusion of vibrancy. There is little opportunity for TOD in walking distance to the west of the King Street Metro Station due to a lack of strip malls and difficult existing infrastructure. Perhaps the greatest potential for King Street Metro as a catalyst for dramatic TOD is as an end of a VA-7 rail line, as described by Steve Offutt.

Silver Spring

Silver Spring is a legacy streetcar suburb whose early 20th century urban form is largely intact. It was the end of the Georgia Avenue Streetcar that was dismantled in early 1961.

The right-of-way that the Red Line shares between Silver Spring and Union Station predates Silver Spring. Silver Spring did not have a station on the Metropolitan Branch when it was growing up.

The old Georgia Avenue streetcar had stations near Eastern Avenue and at its terminus at Colesville Road. Consequently, Silver Spring had two separate development centers in its infancy, one on each side of the railroad. Over time, they grew together as a coherent whole, despite the railroad acting as a barrier.

View Larger Map

The Metropolitan Branch in Silver Spring

When the suburbanization era hit, Silver Spring declined fairly uniformly. During the 2000's, Silver Spring revitalized very quickly and dramatically. The Ellsworth Avenue development worked as a Bright Shiny Object to bring people to Silver Spring to check it out. The Metro station in Silver Spring was the key as many new shoppers and restaurant-goers took transit to the legacy transit-oriented place.

However, the revitalization has not been as uniform on both sides of the railroad (now shared with the Red Line) as the decline was. Unlike in future Tysons, the Red Line right of way is at grade in Silver Spring, except for the elevated tracks that include the station itself.

While the residences and businesses to the west of the Metro station and along East-West Highway have obtained a higher profile in recent years, the businesses south of the railroad on Georgia Avenue have not. Quite simply, they are on the wrong side of the tracks and also up to a 15 minute walk from the Metro. For visitors from outside of Silver Spring, the walk feels longer than it actually is.

Regardless, the Metro was the unquestionably the key to Silver Spring's dramatic revitalization. The southern part would be best addressed by replacing the infrastructure that it grew up around: a streetcar. Hopefully Montgomery County/Maryland will be able to extend the District's Georgia Avenue streetcar in the future.

While Silver Spring clearly shows that an elevated rail station can used as a catalyst for revitalizing a legacy walkable urban place that didn't grow up around the rail station, it doesn't really answer the question about new development or redevelopment. For examples of elevated rail and new development, we need to look outside of our region since all of our elevated Metro stations are in legacy railroad rights of way.

Queens, NY

When we think of the New York City Subway, we often think of claustrophobic, low-ceilinged stations beneath the streets of Manhattan. However, the Subway is often elevated above a major boulevard in the boroughs. (The boroughs can be thought of as comparable to the neighborhoods that are north of Florida Avenue that were in Washington County before 1871; they were the earliest "suburbs," though not to be confused with the car-dependent post-war suburbs.) The map below is of Queens Boulevard, a major urban boulevard in Queens, NY.

View Larger Map

The number 7 line of the New York City Subway operates on this elevated line. Since the Silver Line is planned to run above VA-7 throughout much of Tysons, the arrangement is Queens would have much in common with the future Silver Line.

New York City, outside of Lower Manhattan, grew up around its subway, as we can see from this 1915 New York Times article. That was decades before we started building car-dependent places and calling them "suburbs." However, good traditional, walkable urban planning principles are timeless.

While we have planning tools like zoning and parking minimums to hammer out, the fundamental condition where many people are enthusiastic about paying good money for proximate fixed rail transit access that's connected to their work and play still holds true.

Conclusion

There was much vigorous debate about whether the Silver Line in Tysons Corner should be underground or elevated. In the end, Virginia was absolutely correct to plan for an elevated Silver Line in exchange for FTA funding. While a Tysons Tunnel would be ideal, our experience in Silver Spring and the boroughs of New York City show that vibrant, sustainable, transit-oriented walkable urbanism is very possible with an elevated rail line. I am a firm believer in not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

While it is obvious that an underground Orange Line was excellent for the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor, it wouldn't have been impossible to achieve similar results with an elevated line. The key was timing. When Rosslyn-Ballston was being planned and built, traditional walkable urban development was very much out of fashion and viewed as extremely risky by both banks and developers.

While we can't know for sure, I believe the level of walkable urban vibrance we see today would have taken decades linger with an elevated line, However, the perceptions of the real estate market in the late 20th century would have caused the delay, not the infrastructure itself.

Our attitudes about building traditional, sustainable, walkable urban towns have come a long way since the 1970's and '80s when Rosslyn-Ballston was in its infancy. Walkable urban places no longer have the stigma they once did in the later 20th century. Today, the money is the more important motivator, as would make sense in our regulated capitalist economic system. There are plenty of honest business opportunities that coincide with doing the right thing for both municipal budgets and the environment with TOD related to elevated rails.

It is very possible that our current period of austerity will last a number of years. Even so, we will still need new infrastructure that is appropriate for building and sustaining human-scale walkable urban places. Our environmental and fiscal challenges related to car-dependence will not change because of a sluggish economy.

As we look towards more fixed rail infrastructure, we should be very open to elevated rail. It will be much better than nothing. While a tunnel is clearly ideal, it is not the only solution that addresses our challenges. Sometimes the cost-effectiveness of elevated rails makes it the better choice in aggregate, especially when it's that or nothing.

34 comments Share	— tags: Alexandria, Fairfax, Maryland, Montgomery, New York, Silver Line, Silver Spring, transit, Tysons Corner, Virginia

The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 1: The problem (Mar 3, 2010)
2010 wish list for transit (Dec 23, 2009)
New Post columnist suggests circumferential Metro (Jun 24, 2009)
The other Purple Line fight: Wayne Avenue (Jun 8, 2009)
2009 wish list for transit (Dec 29, 2008)

Comments

And what about Paris? Granted, they don't share our level of security paranoia, but some of their elevated rail segments have enclosed shops beneath them and open-air markets. I think we should look at the hand we've been dealt and make the best plays we can with it, with an eye toward ensuring that elevated rail doesn't pose the kind of barrier that a highway does.

by Sue Mosher on Mar 11, 2010 10:56 am

From purely a design perspective, none of WMATA's "elevated" stations are at all like those in New York, Philadephia, or Chicago. Those older Els straddle the street with complex ironwork - while both King Street and Silver Spring only actually travel above the street to cross it.

This is not a trivial difference.

As far as Tysons goes, the differences will be stark, as well. First, the Tysons elevated structure will be concrete, not steel - support posts will be spaced much more widely, the tracks themselves elevated far higher above Routes 7 and 123. Most importantly, the right of way for those roads (Routes 7 and 123) is much wider than the streets in New York or Chicago, for example. From access road to access road, Route 7 is almost 200 feet wide. Wabash Ave in Chicago (underneath the Loop) is less than half that wide. It will be a completely different condition than either the legacy Elevated systems or the current WMATA "elevated" stations.

I agree with the general conclusion that elevated rails really aren't a problem - they can be an asset, too. Vancouver is an interesting case study, with lots of elevated track as part of the SkyTrain network - track with a design that is far more likely to match what the Tysons Metro will look like than 100+ year old elevated tracks in Chicago or New York.

by Alex B. on Mar 11, 2010 11:00 am

You talk about King St, but not about the truly elevated part of the yellow line to Huntington? That is still a road jungle, despite Carlyle supposedly being a walkable urban neighborhood. Too bad of that massive (closed) parking lot around the Eisenhower Station, the fence around AMC parking, the many jersey barriers and the other safety ~~nonsense~~ measures around the courthouse.

Furthermore, no mention of the El in Chicago?

IMHO the whole deal with elevated tracks vs tunnels is just a matter how you weigh the extra cost of the tunnel vs the eyesore of an elevated track. The tunnel costs money now. The elevated tracks cost true obstruction of the view forever. Politicians never care about forever, they only care about money now.

by Jasper on Mar 11, 2010 11:03 am

I don't think elevated rails necessarily inhibit sustainable, walkable urban places. I was in favor of accepting elevated rail if it meant the Silver Line get built sooner, maybe much sooner.

I grew up just off the 7 train in Queens so elevated tracks don't bother me. The downsides to elevated rail are mostly aesthetic and w/ noise. Weather shouldn't be a big factor. Planning is important and has to be nimble no matter what path is taken. With Tysons, if the zoning allows for the rails to be hugged by dense, walkable, human-scaled mixed-use development, I have no doubt that it'll be a success. And, it can be a rather unique experience in the DC area as far as urban environments are concerned.

by Vik on Mar 11, 2010 11:03 am

Jasper, I've never been to Chicago so I didn't feel qualified to use it as an example. I've been to Queens. I've seen photos and it looks like it would be a good legacy example like Queens.

by Cavan on Mar 11, 2010 11:07 am

I don't think elevated tracks take away from a pedestrian friendly environment, but it'll never be a high rent district. In brighton Beach, Brooklyn, they are very atmospheric, but because of the old timey erector set construction techniques. As mentioned here, this construction will probably be solid concrete prohibiting the dappled light effect that animates the Brighton Beach elevated line. I guess it's all in the design, but I picture a concrete off ramp.

by Thayer-D on Mar 11, 2010 11:10 am

So, elevated RAIL is OK and doesn't harm TOD, but elevated ROADS (cough, whitehurst) are bad.

It comes down to noise. I don't think rail would have worked in Rosslyn-Ballston. Wilson is too narrow, you couldn't build bigger buildings close in.

It might work for Tyson, but let's be honest, the problems facing Tysons are a different magnitude. A success there is going to look very different than any other suburb we know of.

by charlie on Mar 11, 2010 11:11 am

Full disclosure: I worked on the TysonsTunnel campaign three years ago.

The respected and objective American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) released in July 2006 a report by its Tunnel Review Panel (TPR) on the two options at a time when those pushing for above-ground had effectively painted it as the only option that would gain approval by the FTA. Make no mistake: There was more power and money behind the above-ground option.

The report by the controversy-averse ASCE concluded, "With more attractive development in place, and with greater development density allowed by the tunnel alternative, the TRP noted that it would be reasonable to assume that the tunnel option would provide a greater long-term economic and business impact than the aerial option."

More from the news release on the report: "the intangible benefits almost entirely favor the tunnel, it is reasonable to conclude that our findings suggest strong consideration of the tunnel alternative."

"They also noted several cost saving features of the tunnel's lesser surface impacts, including a reduction in cost by at least $30 million for less permanent utility and temporary construction easements; and a savings of as much as $40 million due to lesser utility relocation and support costs. Other cost saving features of the tunnel option included: the large bore tunnel alternative allows for significant savings in operation and maintenance costs, an estimated $5 million per year (in current dollars); and, while they have not been calculated, life cycle cost savings would favor the tunnel."

"The aerial alternative, which the TRP noted would have half the expected life span of the tunnel (60 and 120 years, respectively), would also generate serious negative traffic and business access impacts during construction..."

by Dennis Jaffe on Mar 11, 2010 11:11 am

The release from the ASCE is at:
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=2769

The full report is at:
http://www.asce.org/files/pdf/TunnelReviewPanelReport.pdf

by Dennis Jaffe on Mar 11, 2010 11:13 am

@Dennis,

That's all well and good, but it doesn't change a thing in the minds of the FTA - you know, the ones actually writing the check for the project.

The larger point is that yes, you can build vibrant places around elevated rail stations. Metro, in particular, is pretty damn quiet as far as heavy rail goes.

Furthermore, a tunnel does not guarantee more attractive development for Tysons. The issues with urbanizing Tysons are going to be the same if the Metro is above ground or under - you need a wholesale re-ordering of the street grids and a complete re-prioritization of public space, with private development to match. The Metro will help enable this, but given the current constraints, an elevated line is the least of Tysons' worries.

by Alex B. on Mar 11, 2010 11:18 am

I agree that this isn't among the biggest issues for Tysons-elevated vs. underground. Rt. 7 is an obstacle that will stay, but I think a lot can be done with the rest.

by Vik on Mar 11, 2010 11:22 am

@ Charlie -- I don't understand the distinction either. I realize both have drawbacks (and benefits), but don't understand how elevated rail harms "walkability" less than elevated roads.

by ah on Mar 11, 2010 11:26 am

@Charlie

The distinction isn't one of design, it's one of use - elevated freeways end up dumping tons of cars into the city - they have lots of negative externalities. Elevated transit brings benefits.

It's also worth noting that elevated transit can carry much more capacity with much less visual impact.

And, for what it's worth, I don't mind the Whitehurst at all. The worst part about it is the spaghetti of flyovers and interchanges between Georgetown and Foggy Bottom. The actual elevated portion isn't bad - I find the condition it creates on K street to be quite interesting, actually.

by Alex B. on Mar 11, 2010 11:32 am

First "Silver Spring did not have a station on the Metropolitan Branch when it was growing up."

The B&O station was there for a long, long time. The current building is in fact the second station building.

As for Chicago, on the north side, in many places the elevated tracks run above a mid block alley, which works very well.

by KenF on Mar 11, 2010 11:34 am

Re; the EL on the northside over the alley: you see everyone's backyard. Its fun.

by Bianchi on Mar 11, 2010 11:40 am

@Cavan,
The Streetcar that ran to Silver Spring only went north of the B&O tracks until 1924. After that, trains terminated at the District line. While Silver Spring was still walkable from the terminus, it didn't really start to develop until the mid-1930s, after the streetcar stopped running there. Commuter trains on the B&O probably were more of a boon than streetcars.

That said, I don't disagree with you. Elevated train lines might be inferior to underground ones, but they're still far superior to a line not getting built at all.

The biggest barrier to redevelopment in Tysons is NOT going to be the elevated Silver Line, it's all those micro-freeways constructed for the convenience of motorists.

by Matt Johnson on Mar 11, 2010 11:49 am

How long do the cost-benefit calculations for elevated vs. tunnel go out?

You replace railcars and tracks on a 40-year timeframe, but the right-of-way you create by digging a tunnel or a viaduct can last for centuries, even if the tunnel is rehabilitated or the elevated way is rebuilt. We're still using tunnels dug a century ago in the London, Boston, Budapest subways, and the Chicago elevated sections have been around for more than a century.

Urban form is extremely sticky. Once you build a major thoroughfare, it's there for a hundred years at least. I wouldn't be surprised if low-density single family home zoning will last that long too.

by Michael Perkins on Mar 11, 2010 11:49 am

What about the NY Ave Metro? Seems like a fairly *recent* case study for urban revitalization in the context of Metro development.

As much as I'd love for the tracks to go away, they do create a very substantial physical barrier...and maybe that's a good thing? There's been tons of development west of the tracks, while the areas to the east have maintained their residential character.

by andrew on Mar 11, 2010 12:13 pm

Regarding "all of our elevated Metro stations are in legacy railroad rights of way", does the West Hyattsville Metro station fall under elevated rail? I don't believe this is in a railroad right of way, but I could be mistaken. I assumed this was elevated due to it's location in a former wetland. This station has certainly not spurred any development (http://goodspeedupdate.com/2007/2143) surrounding the station, although there are plans that may someday be implemented.

by Scott on Mar 11, 2010 12:16 pm

@Scott:
The West Hyattsville Station is not in a former or current transportation right-of-way (other than Metro, of course).

The lack of development there is mainly because of issues with land use planning and a desire for developers to develop there. Very few of the PG County Metro stations (elevated or underground) have spurred much development. Exceptions include Prince George's Plaza, New Carrollton, and to some degree, College Park.

by Matt Johnson on Mar 11, 2010 12:24 pm

@AlexB; sure, I was being snarky. But from what I can get of this post, pedestrian accessibility and greater density isn't stopped by having giant posts holding up a railroad. Those same arguments apply to roads as well.

Roads might cause more pollution, trains actually cause more noise.

I think the biggest problem in both cases is the perception that elevated is for poor people, and people don't like to see them. that's just a perception which can be changed.

by chARlie on Mar 11, 2010 12:46 pm

Sorry, but I don't get it. To me, this article talks about the benefits that transit stations bring to neighborhoods, nothing more. The fact that the King Street Station is elevated has nothing to do with the benefits it brought to Alexandria. The fact that there was a station there at all versus not having a station is what brought the benefits. Perhaps the article is trying to point out that transit is better than not having transit so if you have a choice between nothing and an elevated track, the elevated track would be better? I'd agree with that, but if that's the point of the article, it isn't very clearly developed.

As for elevated rail, I bring up the Vancouver SkyTrain yet again, but also the elevated rail/bus in Miami, or even some of Shanghai's subway lines. I've been on all three and all of them seem to have stations in areas with lots of life and activies. In the case of Shanghai and Miami, I am not sure if the stations came first or if they were placed there after a community was already established (I feel like it's the latter), but I know for a fact that Vancouver's explosive growth has been partially influenced by the growth of the SkyTrain system.

As some have pointed out, the pylons supporting the track don't interfere with the street scene very much since they are in fact pylons, not walls. The Queens example is misleading because the supports for that system are closer to a wall due to the dense spacing of pylons and the "heavy" look of the overhead tracks. The three examples I gave, along with most of Metro's elevated section are much more airy in design as they use less pylons and have a cleaner design overall.

by Teo on Mar 11, 2010 12:58 pm

@Alex B. What was the basis for the FTA's willingness to write a check for the above-ground option vs. the below-ground? A slightly slower price tag? Anything more persuasive than the political and financial power of Bechtel and its allies who used the following disingenuous argument? "FTA will approve above-ground, but not below-ground, so it's either above or not at all." Would the FTA have had some basis for having opposed below-ground that the ASCE hadn't understood?

by Dennis Jaffe on Mar 11, 2010 1:09 pm

@Dennis,

They were cutting every cost they could think of to just get this thing under the FTA's cost threshold - cutting tile from the stations, for example.

Your argument essentially boils down to the extra costs of tunneling are worth it. Correct? My point is that the FTA's formulas weren't set up that way. I don't particularly like them, or their over-emphasis on the Cost Effectiveness Index - but a tunnel was simply not an option under those criteria.

It's all a rather moot point anyway. It's getting built, and it's going to be elevated.

by Alex B. on Mar 11, 2010 1:17 pm

I'm very concerned about Cavan's conclusions regarding Tysons Corner. First a comment on the tunnel fight and then on the current design issues. Dennis Jaffe gives a lot of good background on the tunnel fight. VDOT/VDRPT and Fairfax completely failed to evaluate a tunnel and transit-oriented development during the Environmental Impact Statement. The back-story on the failure of the tunnel alternative later in the process merits real investigative journalism. For one thing, the design-build approach created a conflict of interest for the design-build contractor who doesn't do European technology tunnels. For another, turning the project over to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) meant that their focus was getting the rail to the airport and they wanted no delay from that goal. Various Dulles area development boosters actually see Tysons Corner as a competitor. Behind-the-scenes power-lobbying from these interest groups doomed the tunnel option which the ASCE folks clearly showed was the better way to go. Turning to the current urban design problem and what makes the Tysons stations very different from King Street or Silver Spring...VDOT is proposing 8 lanes with double left hand turn lanes for Route 7 with the two rail stations in the middle. This creates a real barrier through the middle of the TOD station areas. Route 123 today (location for the Tysons East station) shows how bad this will be. While most of the street cross-sections in the draft Tysons plan are good, the 8 lane cross-sections for 7, 123 and International Drive will undermine a walkable Tysons. The illustration in the transportation chapter is also incorrect in that it shows a 30 foot median when the rail project is still calling for a 60 foot median. We have to make the elevated stations work, but to do so, we need a better design for 7, 123 and International Drive.

by Stewart Schwartz on Mar 11, 2010 2:05 pm

You aren't taking into account the presence of FREIGHT rail tracks at King Street and Silver Spring, which not only create a wider barrier between the two sides but also carry louder and more polluting trains than Metrorail.

Look, I did a study in my class comparing the impacts of facilitating TOD between underground/overground station pairs in the DC area, with Tysons Corner and the upcoming Silver Line clearly in mind. I tried to keep jurisdiction constant where possible, so I compared Bethesda to Silver Spring, Tenleytown to Takoma, and Ballston to Eisenhower Ave for example. I noticed a very notable class divide created by the presence of tracks (look at Rockville and King Street for example). I thought that tracks had the potential of creating barriers to walkable places while also segregating residents/uses, and that very well may be the case. The problem is that this can't be fully attributed to Metro, since the freight rail tracks have been located there for over a century and a half which means this isn't a recent phenomenon.

Anyway, I thought up of a dozen or so indicators to measure population and job densities around these stations and most of them were not statistically significant. A couple that were was the percentage of respondents of the 2007 WMATA Ridership survey who solely walk to their station in the morning (higher underground vs. overground)and the percentage of those who took transit to work if a Metrorail station was near their workplace (higher underground vs. overground; from Census Transportation Planning Package). It's important to note that my sample size was very low, with only 6 station pairs being tested.

by Reza on Mar 11, 2010 2:28 pm

This is what I think of when I think of elevated rail going through "urban" places. Ick.

by Michael on Mar 11, 2010 5:14 pm

The L was not an impediment to revitalization of Wabash Ave in downtown Chicago (while once grand State Street was withering) during the 80s and early 90s. There used to be a deli that had outdoor seating near the L tracks--it was successful for many years. The residential and commercial areas along the Ravenswood L seemed to gentrify at about the same rate as places a few blocks away---proximity to the Lake was more of a draw than the L would have been a drawback--that's why gentrification followed the lake. There is a corridor that resisted gentrification in the far North side near the L, but it also had been a dumping ground for deinstitutionalized people. I used to teach a block away from L tracks--it was never more than a minor intrusion. The old Milwaukee Ave, L (the line to O'Hare) hasn't impeded gentrification. Of course, the L is an iconic part of Chicago and Tyson's is suburbia at its worst. OTOH, lots of people with no Chicago roots have somehow learned to live with the L. The delicate sensitivities of Tysons folks should only matter if they're willing to pay to bury the tracks.

by Rich on Mar 11, 2010 8:12 pm

Micahel,

Better than a double decker freeway that once was there....

by rj on Mar 11, 2010 8:55 pm

This is what I think of when I think of elevated rail in urban places. It can be done.

We don't leave the space over a metro tunnel unused, why should we do so with the space under a metro viaduct?

by Erik W on Mar 11, 2010 10:18 pm

@Erik W

Nice photos. Somewhere along the line we stopped making elevated structures attractive. Can you imagine anyone building these today?

View Larger Map

by Matthias on Mar 12, 2010 10:05 am

Having lived in the city for several years without a car, I have to say that shelter from the weather is a HUGE benefit of an underground metro stop. Especially in the winter. Washington winters aren't obscenely cold, but they are windy, and they are cold enough, and sometimes 38 and rainy is even worse than 20 and dry. I'm surprised that more people don't think so. Maybe it's because they're used to one form or the other.

Think about it. I'm walking to the Columbia Heights metro. It's freezing. I'm really booking it, steeling myself against the wind...walking, walking, walking, man I wish snowpants were socially acceptable, if I'm feeling vain and I don't want to mess up my hair then I'm even colder, and then...aaahhh, I can relax, even if I have to wait fifteen minutes for the train. And I'm shielded from seeing all the people drive by in the their temperature-controlled cars.

But if I'm in Silver Spring, I have to wait outside for another very unpleasant fifteen minutes, and it's even worse, because I'm not concentrating on a destination and I'm not creating body heat by walking.

It may seem trivial, or I may be a whimp (and actually, I love public transportation, so this would not faze me) but these repeated inconveniences really affect people's behavior, especially if they're using public transportation because of its relative benefit at the time, and not because they believe in public transportation as a principle.

I wonder if there's some way to make platforms covered à la covered walkways over the freeway in Vienna, maybe with those strong fans you see in grocery store entry-ways that block wind from entering. I'm sure crazier things have been done.

by Thomas on Mar 12, 2010 2:22 pm

One thing I would add, because I didn't see mentioned, is that elevated rails over streets do not HAVE to be big iron latticework monstrosities like the example this blog showed in Queens. Philadelphia just recently went through a humongous reconstruction of the Market Street El in West Philly. They completely tore down the old Queens-like iron monstrosity and replaced with a modern concrete guideway. I put a Google Maps link at the end of this post.

The most important difference is that the old iron monstrosity had supports on both sides of the road. The new system has a single row of supports down the middle of the road. This makes a huge difference because the old thing kept the road and made it very dark and foreboding. The new street is visibly much more airier and less in shadow. That's not a trivial difference when you see it. Presumably a new elevated Silver Line would look much more like the new Philly El than the old.

I would also add - during construction Market Street looked like a war zone and a lot of businesses closed due to lack of foot and car traffic. However, I don't know that Tysons Corner would have the same issue, since building a new El from scratch is much, much easier, than gradually tearing down an old El and THEN building a new structure. Plus, West Philly is like NYC, with many buildings just 10-20 feet from the train.

It's too early to say for sure, but now that El construction is done the neighborhood does seem to be slowly on the rebound.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=philadelphia,+pa&sll=37.544413,-77.469897&sspn=0.009051,0.013797&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Philadelphia,+Pennsylvania&ll=39.958701,-75.215149&spn=0,359.912109&z=14&layer=c&cbll=39.958813,-75.215796&panoid=5RVK8STlRrOzXwnJKwM8YA&cbp=12,284.69,,0,9.54

by Marc on Mar 12, 2010 6:55 pm

On the topic of EI in urban place, you could be interested by http://voony.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/viaducts-in-the-urban-fabric/

by vonny on Mar 17, 2010 3:45 am