Quote:
Originally Posted by hughfb3
Angelenos dont want Light Rail. What we want is a fast grade separated easily connected rail system. Metro; up until the the Sepulveda pass, has only given us the choice of "Light" & "Heavy" rail.
Here's hoping we finally get Skytrain technology which is designed to be grade separated at a cheaper cost that the heavy rail systems we've been building and faster than the light rail systems we've been pushing underground when we want a little more speed to make up for the stopping at traffic lights.
|
Yes.
LA’s in a tough spot. We have the population, congestion, and sprawling geography to necessitate grade-separated rail, but the medium- to medium-high density, wide streets, and longer blocks make at-grade light rail low-hanging fruit.
Elevated and even at-grade alignments can be found along many of the world’s best/busiest rapid transit systems’ lines.
There should be elevated lines along portions of Venice, Santa Monica, and Vermont. Because the streets are so wide, the viaducts would actually improve aesthetics IMO, with Ivy covering the pylons to soften the structure (and prevent graffiti).
These are the only drawbacks to elevated rail that I can think of:
1) Inevitable NIMBYism right off the bat
2) Like at-grade rail, you have much less flexibility with alignments — meaning they run along streets. A direct route from the heart of Century City to the heart of Westwood (i.e. phase 2 of the D Line extension) is only possible with subway.
3) On excessively hot days, trains would have to operate at slower speeds.
4) No matter the speed, there will be some level of noise… but the same is true for at-grade as well.