Tag Archives: visual survey

A visual survey of selected elevated rail viaducts: Part 6 – Hong Kong

Another iteration of the series on elevated rail – for more, read the prologuepart 1part 2part 3part 4 and part 5

Hong Kong: Hong Kong’s Mass Transit Railway sets the gold standard for efficient rail operations. The system operates at a profit, the governing corporation makes money not just on transportation, but on the associated real estate development. Developing areas around stations both ensures a critical mass of riders to support the line, but also provides MTR with the long-term financial benefit of owning the assets that benefit from the rail system they operate.

All of these factors make Hong Kong an interesting subject for study. Many of the newer additions to the transit system are largely elevated; and many of those lines run through urban environments with street geometries and traffic volumes not dissimilar to suburban arterial streets elsewhere.

Large portions of Hong Kong violate many of the principles for great pedestrian streets, yet still manage to serve large volumes of city dwellers. Many MTR stations include pedestrian bridges and full grade separation for adjacent roads, rails, and pedestrians:

hongkong4

View near Ma On Shan MTR station in Hong Kong. Image from Google Maps.

Or, consider the massive pedestrian overpasses that traverse this large roundabout at the intersection of two highway-like arterial streets near the Tai Wai station:

Aerial of pedestrian overpasses near the Tai Wai station (top of image). Image from Google Maps.

Aerial of pedestrian overpasses near the Tai Wai station (top of image). Image from Google Maps.

The physical viaduct structures themselves make little effort to shrink into the landscape. The combination of large pre-cast concrete viaducts with high sound walls make for a fairly bulky aerial structure. This example is part of the Ma On Shan line near the Sha Tin Wai station in the Sha Tin district of Hong Kong’s New Territories.

hongkong1

Elevated MTR rail near Sha Tin Wai Station, Hong Kong. Image from Google Maps.

The rail line runs alongside the roadway. The roadways themselves are hemmed in by numerous fences and barriers; in this case, a median fence prevents jaywalking while fences along the road edge protect bike parking, with a bike trail and sidewalk beyond.

Pedestrian access to Sha Tin Wai station. Image from Google Maps.

Pedestrian access to Sha Tin Wai station. Image from Google Maps.

Not all stations are surrounded with the wide roadways, but even on lower volume streets, fencing restricts ped movements to the crosswalks. In the distance, you can see a pedestrian bridge to provide ped access away from the intersection in the foreground. The pedestrian bridge ties directly into the station’s mezzanine level.

Street-facing retail spaces beneath the station mezzanine. Image from Google Maps.

Street-facing retail spaces beneath the station mezzanine. Image from Google Maps.

Towards the other end of the station, you find street-facing retail within the station building, tucked beneath the station’s mezzanine. The concept is similar to the re-use of such spaces in older systems, showing that you can make it work without the charming brick and stone viaducts. Also worth noting: the global reach of 7-Eleven knows no bounds.

This kind of in-station retail not only breaks up the facade of the station (compare it to the blank walls of a similarly designed station without the retail), but the retail revenue helps fund the system operations. Retail is not limited to street-level exterior storefronts, but also includes in-station retail.

Mezzanine level retail spaces in MTR's Kowloon Bay station. CC image from Wiki.

Mezzanine level retail spaces in MTR’s Kowloon Bay station. CC image from Wiki.

WMATA’s Silver Line stations in Tysons Corner might have similar opportunities. “Sand Box John” Cambron’s photos from the Silver Line construction shows the size of the Tyson’s Corner stations. In particular, the two stations aligned to the side of the roadway (McLean and Tysons Corner) feature massive station structures with lots of potential space for these kinds of retail uses; however, such uses will now be retrofits rather than actively planned opportunities.

The curb lanes adjacent to the station are devoted to bus operations. Bus shelters on the near side of the street (just out of the image) provide riders with a quick transfer to the rail system by ascending to the overpass and walking directly into the station mezzanine.

Stations aren’t the only opportunities for multiple uses of infrastructure; Hong Kong features several examples of development in the air rights above rail yards, such as this development above the rail yard near the Kowloon Bay station.

Air rights development above rail yard adjacent to Kowloon Bay MTR station. Image from Google Maps.

Air rights development above rail yard adjacent to Kowloon Bay MTR station. Image from Google Maps.

Air rights development over Kowloon Bay depot. CC image from Wiki.

Air rights development over Kowloon Bay depot. CC image from Wiki.

Scarcity of land and open space forces some creative uses for available space. The Chai Wan station, terminus for the MTR’s Island line, includes rooftop recreational space with a park and tennis courts:

Tennis courts built on the roof of the Chai Wan MTR station. Image from Google Maps.

Tennis courts built on the roof of the Chai Wan MTR station. Image from Google Maps.

The station includes ground level entrances and street-fronting retail (level 0), a mezzanine level with retail and ticketing (+1), the platform (+2) and rooftop recreational space (+3).

View towards Chai Wan station. Image from Google Maps.

View towards Chai Wan station. Image from Google Maps.

Chai Wan station. Image from Google Maps.

Chai Wan station. Image from Google Maps.

The station’s tail tracks weave under and through buildings and over narrow streets:

Chai Wan station tail tracks. Image from Google Maps.

Chai Wan station tail tracks. Image from Google Maps.

Table of contents:

A visual survey of selected elevated rail viaducts: part 5 – Vancouver and Tysons Corner

Pulling together some suggestions from the comments of the series prologue, part 1part 2, part 3, and part 4

Vancouver: Alon Levy reminds us to look at Skytrain’s viaducts in Greater Vancouver. Skytrain represents the kind of future for rapid transit this series means to investigate, baked right into the system’s name: expansion of transit aboveground, rather than under.

Skytrain’s fully automated, fully grade-separated network includes underground transit in dense areas and along narrow streets, but makes extensive use of elevated rail along wide streets and freight rail rights of way (active and dormant). Jarrett Walker discusses the virtues of the Skytrain system, above and beyond that of regular rapid transit – with the automated trains allowing for increased frequencies without increasing the associated operating costs:

Light rail is wonderfully flexible, able to run onstreet with signalized intersections, and across pedestrian zones, as well as in conventional elevated or underground  profiles.  Driverless metro must be totally grade-separated, which in practice usually means elevated or underground.  SkyTrain got its name because the original lines were mostly elevated, though the newest, the Canada Line, has a long underground segment.

The system’s most recent addition, the Canada line, features elevated sections for the two southern branches – one that goes to the airport, and one to redevelopment areas in Richmond.

Vancouver 1

Skytrain Canada Line viaduct over a sidewalk in Richmond, BC. Image from Google Maps.

By placing the line alongside the roadway when next to surface parking, they’ve managed to expand the sidewalk without imposing too much on the pedestrian environment. The benches and trellises around the columns are a nice touch. The single guideway for both tracks helps minimize the bulk of the guideway. When those parking lots are redeveloped, they can front on the sidewalk without overshadowing it.

Aerial view of Skytrain in Richmond, BC - showing redevelopment of suburban land uses. Image from Google Maps.

Aerial view of Skytrain in Richmond, BC – showing redevelopment of suburban land uses. Image from Google Maps.

Older elevated guideways in the system include center running sections through suburban land uses:

Center running elevated Skytrain line. Image from Google Maps.

Center running elevated Skytrain line. Image from Google Maps.

Some sections run along alleyways.

Aerial of alley-running aerial alignment. Image from Google Maps.

Aerial of alley-running aerial alignment. Image from Google Maps.

Other sections combine separate and adjacent right of way with berms and greenery:

Elevated rail shielded by trees. Image from Google Maps.

Elevated rail shielded by trees. Image from Google Maps.

Center-aligned side-platform station. Image from Google Maps.

Center-aligned side-platform station. Image from Google Maps.

Vancouver provides lessons for rapid transit expansion in that it uses elevated rail through suburban-style rights of way.

Tysons Corner:

The Silver Line extension of Washington’s Metro system to Tysons Corner follows some of same principles as Skytrain, but without the same quality of execution. Part of the challenge is the landscape (Tysons features some wider roads than Richmond), and part is in the transit infrastructure.

View of Tysons guideway along Route 7 in Tysons Corner. Image from the author.

View of Tysons guideway along Route 7 in Tysons Corner. Image from the author.

Tysons tunnel proponents claimed that a Spanish-style large-bore TBM could tunnel through Tysons at lower cost than elevated rail. The authorities rejected this argument after some study, and with good reason. It may be true that the Spanish can build transit tunnels extremely cheaply (they can!), but it makes little sense to compare American elevated costs with Spanish tunneling costs.

Instead, it’s illustrative to look at relative costs of construction types. If the contractors could’ve built tunnels at the same cost as the Spaniards, they could’ve built elevated rail for less money, as well.

View of Silver Line Metro, looking back towards Greensboro Station. Image from the author.

View of Silver Line Metro, looking back towards Greensboro Station. Image from the author.

Along Route 7, they’re starting to install sidewalks, but the pedestrian environment is still lacking.

View of new sidewalk along Route 7, leading to Greensboro Station. Image from the author.

View of new sidewalk along Route 7, leading to Greensboro Station. Image from the author.

There are opportunities for infill development along these new sidewalks, but sidewalks adjacent to a high-speed stroads isn’t the most compelling environment. Other new transit-oriented development in Tysons isn’t attempting to turn the existing main stroads (routes 7 and 123) into nice streets, but rather add a pedestrian layer on top of the current auto-centric network.

Image from the author.

Image from the author.

Image from the author.

Image from the author.

Table of contents:

A visual survey of selected elevated rail viaducts: part 4 – monorails, active uses under viaducts, and precast concrete in Puerto Rico

Pulling together some suggestions from the comments of the series prologue, part 1part 2, and part 3

Monorails: Always popular as a technology that can reduce the visual bulk of elevated rail, Alon Levy collected some comparisons showing that purported monorail cost benefits to be mostly illusory. But what about visual bulk? Alon makes a note of the smaller required structure:

It includes a diagram of monorail structures, which can be seen to be quite light and thin. The width of the structure from guideway to guideway is 4.5 meters including both guideway widths, and including the outside appears to raise it to 5.5. Two-track elevated conventional rail structures typically range from 7 to 10.5 meters wide.

Mumbai has monorail under construction:

Mumbai monorail, under construction. CC image from Wiki.

Mumbai monorail, under construction. CC image from Wiki.

One long-standing example is Seattle’s monorail:

Seattle Monorail, as seen from a neighboring downtown building. CC image from Bala Mainymaran

Seattle Monorail, as seen from a neighboring downtown building. CC image from Bala Mainymaran

Seattle Monorail from street level. CC image from The West End.

Seattle Monorail from street level. CC image from The West End.

New York: Commenter Matthew (of Walking Bostonianoffered two photos from New York of mainline rail infrastructure. The approach for the Hell Gate bridge towers over parts of Queens:

Hell Gate bridge approach. CC image from  Matthew in Boston.

Hell Gate bridge approach. CC image from Matthew in Boston.

Another example is from the Long Island Railroad, with retail spaces crammed underneath a viaduct in Flushing, Queens:

LIRR viaduct, Flushing. CC image from Matthew in Boston.

LIRR viaduct, Flushing. CC image from Matthew in Boston.

The LIRR shows an example of re-using the space beneath a vaiduct with retail; perhaps without the architectural glamor of the archways in Berlin or Vienna. Nevertheless, it shows the potential for re-using some of the space beneath elevated rail.

Vienna: Neil Flannagan (after looking at Berlin examples) suggested Vienna:

The Queens Boulevard and Berlin examples really seem like missed opportunities we could have had in Tysons: cheap infill retail using the bridge structure as a roof. It would reduce the barrier effect of the median, focus activity near the stations, and set an example of urban form.

This was the solution nobody was looking for because we were so set on fighting out the tunnel-versus- overground plan and trying to keep the project afloat. I certainly was guilty of believing that no viaduct could be attractive, and kept arguing for a tunnel. I was looking at the types without considering design. It’s the same trap that NIMBYs do, wanting to minimize the impact by making a building smaller, rather than better. Damn. Looking outside of the box is why Jarrett Walker is so great.

I would really take a look at Otto Wagner’s Wiener Stadtbahn. The infrastructure is pretty street-friendly. It’s also very well designed, particularly the bridge over the Wienzeile.

Some images from Vienna:

Vienna viaduct and bridge structures, with retail spaces beneath. CC image from Wiki.

Vienna viaduct and bridge structures, with retail spaces beneath. CC image from Wiki.

Retail beneath a viaduct in Vienna. CC image from Wiki.

Retail beneath a viaduct in Vienna. CC image from Wiki.

San Juan, Puerto Rico: San Juan’s Tren Urbano was also mentioned in the comments. Google does not have streetview images in San Juan, but a brief Flickr search for CC images turns up the following examples of the system’s elevated structures:

Tren Urbano. CC image from I Am Rob.

Tren Urbano. CC image from I Am Rob.

Panorama of the Torrimar Tren Urbano station. CC image from davsot.

Panorama of the Torrimar Tren Urbano station. CC image from davsot.

 

Tren Urbano. CC image from Paul Sableman.

Tren Urbano. CC image from Paul Sableman.

Table of contents:

A visual survey of selected elevated rail viaducts: part 3 – Els that gave Els a bad name

For more, see the series prologue, part 1, and part 2

A look at some of the Els that gave Els a bad name:

Chicago: The city’s rapid transit system’s elevated lines are ubiquitous; the system is named for them. In the Loop, the Els run above city streets. In other parts, some Els run above alleyways or private rights of way, away from streets:

Chicago El over an alley. Photo by author.

Chicago El over an alley. Photo by author.

Under the Chicago El. Photo by the author.

Under the Chicago El. Photo by the author.

Chicago El 1

Intersection of Wells and Lake in Chicago. Image from Google Streetview.

Owing to both the size of the structure, the relatively narrow streets, and the enclosure provided by the buildings, the Els loom over Chicago’s streets.

Adams/Wabash Station. Image from Google Streetview.

Adams/Wabash Station. Image from Google Streetview.

To be fair, most of these Streetview images are from directly under the structures, while many of the others are views from the side. Part of this is due to the street width, and part due to the buildings fronting the street. If you were looking for examples of suitable elevated viaducts for retrofitting suburbia, or for less dense urban neighborhoods, this isn’t a great example. Nonetheless, as noisy and obstructive as the Els can be, you can still find light and air above the sidewalks:

Intersection of Monroe and Wabash, Chicago IL. Image from Google Streetview.

Intersection of Monroe and Wabash, Chicago IL. Image from Google Streetview.

Philadelphia: The number of American cities with legacy heavy rail transit systems (meaning pre-war) is fairly limited (Boston, New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia). Over the last decade, Philadelphia reconstructed most of the Market St elevated, replacing Chicago-style structures with a single pier supporting a steel structure:

Market St El, prior to reconstruction, CC image from connery.cepeda

Market St El, prior to reconstruction, CC image from connery.cepeda

Market El, reconstructed:

Finishing work on the reconstructed El. Image from Google Streetview.

Finishing work on the reconstructed El. Image from Google Streetview.

On the other side of Center City, the El above Front Street almost reaches from building face to building face along Philadelphia’s narrow streets:

Elevated rail above Front St. Image from Google Streetview.

Elevated rail above Front St. Image from Google Streetview.

Boston: Much of the post-war transit investment in Boston focused on re-arranging infrastructure, tearing down Els and replacing those lines with subways. Few elevated sections remain, such as this portion of the Green line near Lechmere Station:

Green Line El near Lechmere Station. Image from Google Streetview.

Green Line El near Lechmere Station. Image from Google Streetview.

Perhaps the only reason this portion survives is because it’s directly attached to a river crossing:

Aerial view of Boston from Google Maps.

Aerial view of Boston from Google Maps.

Table of contents:

A visual survey of selected elevated rail viaducts: part 2 – best practices of integrating viaducts into urban designs

Continued from the prologue and part 1… A look at legacy examples of older elevated construction precedents. Some examples drawn from this post and this thread on the archBoston forums.

Berlin: As a part of his writing about elevated rail, Jarrett Walker takes note of Berlin’s elevated rail, and the use of space beneath them:

But the Stadtbahn is something else.  Completed in 1882, it runs east-west right through the middle of the city, with all kinds of urban land uses right next to it.  It’s a major visual presence in many of Berlin’s iconic sites, from affluent Charlottenberg to the Frederichstrasse shopping core to the “downtown of East Berlin,” Alexanderplatz.  It even skirts Berlin’s great central park, the Tiergarten, and looks down into the zoo.  If you were proposing to build it today, virtually every urbanist I’ve ever met would instinctively hate the idea, and if the idea somehow got past them, the NIMBYs would devour it.

Yet much of it is beautiful. Most of the viaduct is built as a series of brick arches.  Each arch is large enough to contain rooms, and today many of these are retail space, most commonly restaurants.  These restaurants put their tables outside, sometimes facing a park but still, unavoidably, right next to the viaduct, and they’re very pleasant places to be.  A train clatters overhead every minute or two, but it’s not dramatically louder than the other sounds of urban life, so it’s a comfortable part of the urban experience, devoid of menace.  I could sit in such a place for hours.

Indeed, the  four-track Stadtbahn cuts through Berlin on its own right of way, not in adjacent to or in the median of another street. Many streets run tangent to the elevated railway for segments, but much of the city directly abuts the railway.

Berlin Stadtbahn aerial image from Bing Maps.

Berlin Stadtbahn aerial image from Bing Maps.

By cutting through the city on a separate level and without directly mirroring the street grid, the transit network adds another layer to the cityscape. The city, both old and new (and yet to be built), has grown around the elevated rail:

Berlin Stadtbahn aerial from Bing Maps.

Berlin Stadtbahn aerial from Bing Maps.

At the street, many of the viaduct’s archways have been turned over to retail uses, activating what would otherwise be a barrier of dead space:

View of the same viaduct from street level. Image from Google Streetview.

View of the same viaduct from street level. Image from Google Streetview.

Jarrett’s post features a number of other images from Berlin, showing the various types of spaces the Stadtbahn creates. He closes asking if we might learn from these legacy examples in building new transit infrastructure:

Europe has some really beautiful transit viaducts, including some in the dense centres of cities.  Most of them are a century old, so the city has partly grown around them.  But the effect is sometimes so successful that I wonder if we shouldn’t be looking more closely at them, asking why they work, and whether they still have something to teach us about how to build great transit infrastructure.

Paris: Metro Line 6:

Paris Metro Line 6. Image from Google Streetview.

Paris Metro Line 6. Image from Google Streetview.

Line 6 runs down the middle of several wide streets, providing enough room for bike and pedestrian pathways beneath the viaduct, while also leaving enough space alongside for trees and landscaping. The aesthetic elements of the rail infrastructure (stone piers, steel spans) echo the architecture of the city as a whole.

Paris also has examples of old, now un-used vaiducts re-purposed as part of a vibrant cityscape:

Paris 2

Viaduc des Arts, Paris. Image from Google Streetview.

Above the viaduct is now an elevated linear park.

New York: In the comments of Part 1, Charlie asked about New York’s High Line. I did not initially include it, but I do think it offers an intersting example. The High Line (or what remains of it), like Berlin’s Stadtbahn, does not run directly above many streets. Also, the city grew around the infrastructure – in the High Line’s case of delivering freight to adjacent factories, that direct interaction was the very point of building the line.

Aerial view of the High Line weaving between and through buildings. Image from Google Maps.

Aerial view of the High Line weaving between and through buildings. Image from Google Maps.

Southern end ot the High Line, running adjacent to Washington St. Image from Google Streetview.

Southern end ot the High Line, running adjacent to Washington St. Image from Google Streetview.

One particular example of elevated rail in New York both looks to the past (we don’t build ’em like we used to) but could also learn from the repurposing of the spaces created under viaducts for uses other than storage. The Queens Boulevard elevated rail line runs down the middle of a wide street, with large archways beneath the tracks – currently used for parking.

New York - Queens Blvd 1

Queens Boulevard elevated rail. Image from Google Streetview.

Consider that when the line was built, the surrounding area was completely undeveloped. The city (and the roadway) emerged around the rail line, rather than cutting the rail line through an existing urban evironment (I don’t know that any single image better conveys the links between transportation, land use, and development). Meshing transit expansion into low-density areas is not just about transportation, but about re-shaping the city. Under the right conditions, it can work well.

New York has other examples of repurposing space beneath viaducts. While not specifically a transit example, the re-use of space under the Queensboro Bridge approaches in Manhattan is an example of what’s possible with some of these rail viaducts:

Queensboro bridge approach, New York. Image from Google Streetview.

Queensboro bridge approach, New York. Image from Google Streetview.

Short of re-purposing the space beneath the tracks, the Queens Boulevard elevated rail allows for a perfectly acceptable kind of rail, without shadowing the streets or sidewalks below, making use of the street’s wide right of way. Alon Levy takes note:

But when there is an el about Queens Boulevard, everything works out: the street is broken into two narrower halves, with the el acting as a street wall and helping produce human scale; the el is also farther from the buildings and uses an arched concrete structure, both of which mitigate its impact.

Any other examples of older elevated infrastructure we can learn from?

Table of contents:

 

A visual survey of selected elevated rail viaducts: part 1 – the universe of post-tensioned pre-cast concrete

For background, see the prologue for this series.

With phase I of WMATA’s Silver Line through Tysons Corner nearing completion, we now have a better sense of the visual impact of the elevated guideways on the cityscape of Tysons Corner. Elevated rail in Tysons, given the widths of the roads it runs over/along, makes perfect sense. However, there are other examples of urban rail viaducts with more visual appeal and urban design sense than the Silver Line guideways.

Tunnels, all else being equal, would be preferable. Given the costs of tunneling (even with the promise of large diameter TBMs, Spanish-level construction costs, and other tunneling practices that could get American subway costs under control) and the reality of costs and land values means that most potential Metro expansions outside of the core will need to consider elevated rail.

Like the roads in Tysons, many potential rights of way feature plenty of room for elevated rail – if it is done well. While elevated rail in Tysons makes sense, the execution of the guideways could’ve featured better design with less visual obstruction. Jarrett Walker discusses the pro/con of elevated rail here, noting that rapid transit requires full grade separation.

For comprehensive visual documentation of the Phase I construction, I recommend Sand Box John Cambron’s blog.

Through Tysons, the elevated guideway is aligned in the center of the Route 7 roadway and alongside the Route 123 roadway. The guideways use segmented pre-cast post-tensioned box girder spans, with one box girder for each track supported by a variety of piers. Large portions of the guideway use a single pier with a large hammerhead cap to support both tracks.

Metro guideway in Tysons Corner, VA. Image from John Cambron.

Metro guideway in Tysons Corner, VA. Image from John Cambron.

SBJ 2

Center-running guideway with hammerhead pier caps in Tysons Corner. Image from John Cambron.

SBJ 3

Center-running guideway showing single pier supporting both tracks. Image from John Cambron.

SBJ 4

Center-running elevated rail guideway in Tysons Corner. Image from John Cambron.

Using hammerhead pier caps increases the visual bulk of the elevated structure. A few columns integrate the pier into the guideway’s structure, providing a slimmer profile for the guideway:

Support piers integrated into guideway, reducing bulk in Tysons Corner, intersection of Route 7 and Westpark Dr. Image from John Cambron

Support piers integrated into guideway, reducing bulk in Tysons Corner, intersection of Route 7 and Westpark Dr. Image from John Cambron

Other aerial examples: This isn’t meant to be an exhaustive survey, but a look at a few illustrative examples of what aesthetic alternatives are available for elevated rail.

These examples are primarly from light rail and rapid transit systems relatively recently constructed; they do not represent the legacy elevated systems of Chicago, New York, and so on.

WMATA examples: Green Line, southern extension to Branch Ave. This extension of the Green line makes use of several segmented pre-cast concrete elevated structures, similar to the kind of guideway used through Tysons Corner. While the majority of the guideway crosses the green environment of Suitland Parkway, this concrete guideway has the advantage of carrying both tracks in a single structure, both minimizing the bulk of the guideway and the support piers.

WMATA Green Line guideway over Suitland Parkway. Image from Google Streetview.

WMATA Green Line guideway over Suitland Parkway. Image from Google Streetview.

Near the Branch Avenue station, as the tracks separate for the station’s island platform, each track with its own structure. North of the Branch Ave station, the two guideways are able to share a common pier without a large hammerhead cap.

WMATA guideways near Branch Ave station. Image from Google Streetview.

WMATA guideways near Branch Ave station. Image from Google Streetview.

South of the Branch Ave station, each of the guideways feature their own piers.

WMATA Branch Ave station, looking towards Southern Ave station. Image from Google Streetview.

WMATA Branch Ave station, looking towards Southern Ave station. Image from Google Streetview.

Seattle Link light rail: Sound Transit’s Link light rail could be called a pre-metro, thanks to extensive grade separation combined with the repurposing of Seattle’s downtown bus tunnel. It features a large amount of elevated rail (with the requisite views along the way) also making use of pre-cast concrete segmental bridges used in Tysons.

Sound Transit elevated rail. Image from Google Streetview.

Sound Transit elevated rail. Image from Google Streetview.

Support piers feature more detailing than in other examples, with the shape of the pier caps matching the profile of the pre-cast box girder segments. Longer spans introduce subtle arches to the guideway, adding a bit of elegance to the concrete structures. The guideway also makes use of metal railings rather than soundwalls next to the track, reducing the visual bulk of the structure.

Sound Transit elevated rail over Duwamish Waterway. Image from Google Streetview.

Sound Transit elevated rail over Duwamish Waterway. Image from Google Streetview.

View of elevated guideway along arterial street. Image from Google Streetview.

View of elevated guideway along arterial street. Image from Google Streetview.

Seattle's light rail pier in roadway. Image from Google Streetview.

Seattle’s light rail pier in roadway. Image from Google Streetview.

On lower traffic roads, Seattle’s light rail includes several examples of dropping a pier in the middle of a roadway, rather than using a bigger straddle bent.

Bay Area: BART’s elevated guideways don’t appear to use the same construction methods as WMATA, but have the same concrete aesthetic. In this case, the guideway runs adjacent to a residential street, while the area under the guideway is used for greenspace and a biking/walking trail.

BART viaduct, with greenway underneath

BART viaduct, with greenway underneath. Image from Google Streetview.

San Jose: VTA light rail features several grade separations. VTA isn’t exactly the kind of agency you’d want to emulate (good discussion here from Cap’n Transit). However, the basic geometry of their elevated track segments shows what kind of visual impact you can have with center-running elevated rail along wide roads. In this example, center-running light rail turns into an elevated alignment down the center of a wide arterial street:

VTA San Jose 1

VTA light rail elevated track above the center of an arterial street. Image from Google Streetview.

VTA San Jose 2

VTA light rail aerial station in the center of the roadway, with pedestrian access via normal sidewalk and crosswalk. Image from Google Streetview.

Since VTA uses proof of payment, faregates aren’t necessary and allows for a minimal ‘mezzanine’ area for fare control. Contrast that to the visual bulk of the rather large mezzanines in the Tysons Corner WMATA stations.

VTA San Jose 3

Aerial view of the same VTA station. Image from Google Maps.

Any other examples to consider?

Table of contents:

 

A visual survey of selected elevated rail viaducts: prologue and index

Under the Chicago El. Photo by the author.

Under the Chicago El. Photo by the author.

Elevated rail has a bad name; urban rapid transit requires full grade separation. These two facts are inconveniently opposed to one another. Is there a future for elevated rail in urban and suburban areas? Cheaper elevated construction opens the door for more rapid transit expansion in our regions, but only if the real negatives of elevated structures can be overcome.

Some background reading:

In addition to mitigating the negatives from elevated structures, there’s also the matter of emphasizing the positives of transit. Considering that a great deal of the public opposition to elevated structures is likely now framed by thinking of freeway overpasses and flyovers rather than Chicago-style Els, it’s worth considering the relative capacities of each. Market Urbanism writes about benefits vs costs, citing Robert Fogelson’s Downtown

Elevated rail lines are far smaller in footprint than elevated highways, and although highways may have been quieter than rail lines a century ago (though I’m not sure if this is even true), the technology has surely shifted in rail’s favor with regards to noise. And even if the technologies were equally obtrusive on a per-mile basis, you much fewer less elevated rail miles to transport the same amount of people as with an elevated highway – perhaps even almost an order of magnitude less.

From Downtown:

John A. Miller was one of the few Americans who was puzzled by the construction of elevated highways. “Elevated railways with a capacity of 40,000 persons per hour in one direction are [being] torn down,” he wrote in amazement in 1935, “while elevated highways with a capacity of 6,000 persons per hour are being erected.”

Thankfully, we appear to no longer be considering urban highway expansion. Urban rail expansion shouldn’t be off the table, however, thanks to the ill-advised highway expansions of the past.

In a brief series of posts, I wanted to take a visual survey of elevated rail precedents around the world. My work here is by no means exhaustive; I welcome any feedback you might have.

Index of posts in the series:

  • Prologue
  • Part 1 – The universe of post-tensioned pre-cast concrete
  • Part 2 – Best practices of integrating viaducts into urban designs
  • Part 3 – Els that gave Els a bad name
  • Part 4 – Monorails, active uses under viaducts, and precast concrete in Puerto Rico
  • Part 5 – Vancouver and Tysons Corner
  • Part 6 – Hong Kong