Comment by crazygringo
7 days ago
> I also agree with the author in that I'm not sure what elevated trains did to hurt people.
They're horrifically ugly for pedestrians and city life generally. If you've been around the elevated subway tracks in Brooklyn, for example, they're not pleasant to be around. They block out the sun, they're incredibly noisy, they make the street claustrophobic, they definitely become streets to avoid unless necessary.
Yes, they have a nice view if you're a passenger. But they make the city much, much worse for everyone below them.
Oh yes. In Manhattan there were plenty of elevated lines that were dismantled because the people thought that they were too noisy and should be replaced with subways. The Second Avenue had an elevated train that was supposed to be replaced by a Second Avenue Subway, but the latter is only partially complete.
The elevated steel structures of the NYC subway and Chicago El have nothing in common with modern elevated rail. Modern concrete guideways are small and quiet.
Melbourne is eliminating grade crossings with new guideways and creating linear park space underneath as they go.
And yet you don't hear the same complaints about the elevated metros in Paris. Why is that and what can we learn from it?
The "noise" thing, possibly; that sounds more like a problem with the Brooklyn ones than elevated systems generally.
(I feel like Americans are okay with, or at least tolerate, noisier vehicles than would be tolerated elsewhere, though. Particularly with the common use of air brakes, but also the BART is, internally, probably the noisiest ground transport of any kind that I've ever been in.)