View Single Post
  #5713  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2022, 12:35 AM
DirectionNorth's Avatar
DirectionNorth DirectionNorth is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
^ In this case, an elevated viaduct would actually improve aesthetics on Vermont. But like everything, it boils down to politics and social equity. I really don't see how they can justify making any portion of the South Corridor subway, but have trains run at-grade south of Gage along the North Corridor.

More generally, I think elevated rail provides some scenery in addition to cost savings, but subway configuration are superior in quality. Excessive heat waves force trains to run at slower speeds to prevent damage to tracks and/or overhead lines, which obviously cause delays and make service less reliable. I also think subways psychologically project an image of greater speeds and feel more "big city."
It's always about politics.

If the road is wide enough and/or the area is low density, it should be fine for elevated.

I wonder how cut-and-cover construction would do?

Elevated rail could theoretically be covered, and I've proposed this solution on other forums. However, that would be very vulnerable to NIMBYs, and is probably not the best look aesthetically.

I don't think that LA really needs a big city feel - it's not like it's a middle-of-nowhere, you're literally the cultural center of the US. Decisions should be made on transit-quality, and while underground does probably provide for somewhat higher transit quality, the costs might be excessive.
Reply With Quote