{"id":3699,"date":"2014-02-24T07:31:24","date_gmt":"2014-02-24T12:31:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.alexblock.net\/?p=3699"},"modified":"2014-02-23T17:46:07","modified_gmt":"2014-02-23T22:46:07","slug":"dont-rule-out-elevated-rail-in-cities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.alexblock.net\/blog\/2014\/02\/24\/dont-rule-out-elevated-rail-in-cities\/","title":{"rendered":"Don’t rule out elevated rail in cities"},"content":{"rendered":"

Toronto is looking to Honolulu for transit inspiration – looking to tap into the potential for elevated rapid transit to improve the city’s transit expansion plans. However, key city officials are extremely concerned about the impacts of elevated transit to the city<\/a>. Skepticism is good, any may be required to ensure that elevated rail is successfully integrated into an urban environment, but it shouldn’t be an automatic disqualifier for the kinds of improvements that make rapid transit possible. From the Toronto Star:<\/p>\n

Toronto chief planner Jennifer Keesmaat cites the shadow that a structure like the [elevated Gardiner expressway<\/a>] casts on the street below. She also brandishes one of the chief arguments for building Toronto\u2019s LRTs in the first place.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cFrom a land use planning perspective, if our objective in integrating higher order transit into our city is to create great places for walking, for commerce, living,\u2026 elevated infrastructure doesn\u2019t work so well for any of those objectives,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It’s true that making elevated rail work in urban areas is a challenge, but it shouldn’t be so easily dismissed<\/a>. Of particular concern is the willingness to equate the visual impact of the six-lane Gardiner Expressway<\/a> with a potential two-track elevated rail structure. The other key concern is the equivocation of grade-separated transit with at-grade light rail.<\/p>\n

Toronto seems full of transit terminology confusion these days. Embattled Mayor Rob Ford<\/a>\u00a0has been pushing for subways as the only kind of transit that matters (SUBWAYS SUBWAYS SUBWAYS!<\/a>) regardless of context or cost. Meanwhile, the transit agency is looking to implement a ‘light rail’ project that features full grade separation and an exclusive right of way<\/a> – in other words, a subway. Ford opposes the light rail plan<\/a> in favor of an actual, tunneled line with fewer stations and higher cost. Much of the rhetoric seems focused on equating light rail with Toronto’s legacy mixed-traffic streetcar network.<\/p>\n

However, just as Ford’s dogmatic insistence of subways at any cost is irresponsible, Keesmaat’s suggestion that at-grade LRT can accomplish the same transit outcomes as grade-separated LRT can is equally misleading. Remember the differences between Class\/Category A, B, and C right of way (from Vukan Vuchic<\/a>, summarized here by Jarrett Walker<\/a>), paraphrased here:<\/p>\n