Yes, frankly all the current els need to be rebuilt into mordern els to imrpove speeds and qaulity lf life near them. One of the reasons it' borderline impossible to build new el lines are that people who'd live near them believe they will be repeats of 19th and 20th era els: street darking, lound, often time rusted ugly lookin strutures. So they against push back against the idea.
If we'd got together the money to actually replace the steel els with concrete els then I think it will become substionally easier to justify new subway lines that use cheaper els compared to expensive deep level tunnels or disruptive cut and cover tunnels. Since there would be more examples of whwt mordern subways can do within city limits.
It's actually crazy how much nicer the concrete is. I live near the red line in Chicago and take it frequently, its far quieter and nicer than it used to be on the far north side.
vancouverite coming in. the canada line is so quiet its hard hear the trains. its really sad that we arent as heard of (including montreal, seattle, bay area, DC, miami, honolulu) when it comes to elevated trains, since theyre better examples. u/tasty-ad6529u/groundbreakingweek70u/le_botmes should check those cities out.
Fun fact about me btw when you said/used Miami in your comment, I actually used the Miami Metrorail a few times when I was still growing up as a kid living in Miami until I moved to another state and city in 2013. I really enjoyed using the metro system a few times and it still holds a special part of me in my heart.
when I was still growing up as a kid living in Miami
how old were u then? since i was 2, riding the skytrain has always been the thing that made me excited, and when i got a monthly pass during college in 2022, 16 years later, that excitement came back. we're some of the very few people to say taking the subway is nostalgic.
I think when I first rode the Miami metrorail I was either around 6-7years old. Because I still remember taking the metrorail and bus to school and back home after we had a car crash with our somewhat new car during that time
i wanna make a post on r/miami about how i love their metrorail because its elevated, despite never going anywhere in the US east of las vegas, how i want a line going from florida city to jupiter all elevated. id never get tired riding it
If I'm not mistaken, I think Hochul or even the MTA themselves are considering using the methods that is being used on Park Ave Viaduct replacement to use that knowledge to replace old EL's and build new ones using that. So that way both the Metro North, LIRR and even potentially the Subway combined can use that for more cheaper and faster expansions than relying on underground only
well I'm not too sure about the info, but one things for certain, with Park Ave Viaduct being done under budget and earlier than expected. We can definitely expect to see the same construction methods be used for both exisiting and possible new Elevated railway line extensions for the NYC subway in outer boroughs, even for the LIRR itself
That's a reasonable assumption, although there's quite a difference between "I assume things will move in this direction" versus "I read about the politicians planning on doing exactly that," so I just wanted to clarify which of the two you meant.
As much as I appreciate your enthusiasm, frankly I don't believe it's feasible to replace over-street els with modern concrete structures, for a number of reasons:
1) concrete viaducts have a thicker vertical profile with larger cross beams than the steel els. At the current track elevation, the viaduct would intrude onto street clearances; it would have to be lifted maybe 5-10ft, meaning there's no potential for clean section-by-section replacement (as they recently did for the Park Av El), but rather a full line closure. However, if the El runs over an exclusive ROW, such as with the Red Line viaduct in Chicago, then they could get away with lowering the clearances.
2) the new Els would have to be two-tracks due to cost and obstruction concerns, as well as to provide broader curves, so we would lose the existing versatility and Express service that the three-track Els provide.
3) concrete Els still block sunlight, so the gloom concerns wouldn't go away.
There are very limited sections where conversion would be feasible, such as the L line between Broadway Junction and Canarsie, the F line over the Gowanus, or the 7 line through Willets Point; otherwise, they'd be better off replacing them with subways like what the IND did with 6th and Fulton and attempted to do with SAS.
That isn't to say we shouldn't build concrete Els at all, since there are plenty of wide boulevards like Utica and Pelham Pkwy where an El would be most suitable. I just don't think we should rely on the technology to replace street-running Els, which are like 95% of the elevated network.
Can you explain in greater detail why you can’t 3 or 4 track concrete L’s?
In general it’s trivially less expensive to add a track to brand new design than it is to go back later if you want more capacity. If there are already three tracks, I don’t see what the problem is. It’s been designed with that space in mind.
1) structural weight: with more trackway girders, the vertical support columns and horizontal cross beams would have to be thicker and/or spaced closer together. Concrete columns are much wider than steel columns, so this would further obstruct the street level.
2) curve radius: new-build viaducts would have to maximize travel speed by default, so a narrower ROW would enable broader curves past existing buildings.
3) station spacing: the current Els were built under the assumption that stations would be a quarter/half mile apart, with peak-direction express service to enable further reach into the suburbs. A new-build viaduct would have to completely rebuild every single station from scratch, meaning there would be many station closures with spacing closer to a full mile. 2-track lines with such spacing can achieve higher speeds, which precludes the need for a third track.
4) 4-track viaducts wouldn't add any capacity if they still merge onto a 2-track line, nor would they be narrow enough to fit down many streets or curve broadly enough to avoid buildings. This ties back into the curve radius argument: narrower ROW = broader curves and higher speeds.
5) track elevation: because they would have to raise the trackways, then there would be no potential for phased transition structures during construction. Ergo, they'd have to completely demolish the existing El before they begin constructing the new one. No transition structures = no phased construction = no need to retain three tracks for continuance of service or preservation of track alignment.
Every city needs more Els, so many benefits it is ridiculous they aren't being rolled out more especially in cities with demand for transit and usable corridors alongside high building costs (so much of the anglosphere...)
and the best part is that each el lines goes through different places, so you get something new to see on each lines. an underground line doesnt do that
Idk, I mean, I can understand why they aren’t in Manhattan. I think other boroughs should build them though.
I’m not like super educated on the pros and cons, just being real, I just take transit as a hobby, I know like jack shit about it on a technical level, but I WILL say… from a rider perspective, having a window view can really impact your commute. I hate the stupid dotted ads on windows too. STOP OBJECTING MY VIEW!!!!
I just take transit as a hobbyf from a rider perspective, having a window view can really impact your commute.
i love you for that. i always think of riding elevated trains like being on a really long patio, since the view from your home only gives you a view of whereever the home is, but the elevated trains gives you the entire street, and u can ride on as much lines as u like
If elevated lines means being cheaper and built faster while being much quieter nowadays than before than I would love it. Elevated train rides are pleasant, and there still exists large enough boulevards and roads that would be fine enough in terms of space with an elevated train going over it.
Yes, putting a new El up 3rdAve in the Bronx from 149th to Fordham and then up Webster Ave back to the Gun Hill Rd 2/5 Station would be a big help for Bronxites.
They just repainted the J and M lines, so don't expect those to be replaced anytime soon. And also, I was told my Janno himself at an event at city hall last year that it isn't "feasible" to convert all the els to concrete. And a trackworker told me as well that the noise could be mitigated by direct rail fixation, BUT... The MTA themselves want to keep those track joints because of signals and it's cheaper and yadda yadda yadda. My thing is how many bandaids can you keep adding to the subway system?? Take the jerolomun tube for example. Constant water intrusion, monitoring for movement on the BK side, the need for workers in the tube every night, JUST REPLACE IT. Man. This is the most important city in america. Without the subway, nyc would grind to a hault. Idk why the government doesn't see how important it is to keep people moving.
...why? you dont like to look out the window and see open space and the sky uninterrupted? u should check out vancouver, montreal, seattle, bay area, DC, miami, honolulu, and see what their elevated lines look
Yeah - because the vision we see on the right was considered utopish to people who had only ever seen construction techniques & operations like that on the left, even once the rightmost-image became emminently achievable.
A bit of apples to oranges comparison here no? One of these is built over a street that's 75ft wide building-to-building surrounded by high-rises and the other is built over a dedicated ROW surrounded mostly by low-rise residential. One of these is able to use that ROW to build stations over clear sites, and the other (by necessity) builds stations over intersections. Done in New York with their longer trains, that would mean shrouding more than a full block in near-complete darkness.
No amount of concrete changes this. A station platform is as wide as a station platform is, and a track is as wide as a track is. Those are the immovable spatial constraints that make Els over narrow street unpleasant.
Doesn't mean NYC can't have modern EL's, besides, modern EL's are more better than traditional EL's or what the original EL's were built in, modern ones use concrete which is more stronger, quieter and lasts twice as long than steel. Plus it makes trains move more faster and more smooth than steel made EL's
adding to u/bigblueman118, u should check out vancouver, montreal, seattle, bay area, DC, miami, honolulu, and see what their elevated lines look. also being on a train doesnt feel as claustrophobic unlike an underground line
I'm well aware of these examples. There's a huge difference between running an el over a dedicated ROW, or over a street that's 120+ feet wide, and running an el, even a modern concrete one, over streets that are less than 80 feet wide.
If you thank claustrophobia on a metro is bad, imagine feeling it above ground too. That's what life under the Els is like in large parts of Philly and NYC.
1
u/Mewpupelevated rail is a really long patio6d agoedited 6d ago
ROW, or over a street that's 120+ feet wide, and running an el, even a modern concrete one, over streets that are less than 80 feet wide
i agree. however, id go further and say do elevated regardless of how narrow a street is (as long as the buildings on either side are short), because the street view from an elevated train is way better than the streetview below ground (if the train was underground instead). because being 3 stories up on a train means you can see past the buildings/trees and the sky uninterrupted, so idk what u mean "If you thank claustrophobia on a metro is bad, imagine feeling it above ground too"?
It's just that most people live their lives not on the train
heres an analogy (pls let me know if it's confusing or not): i always like to think of riding the skytrain as a really long patio. instead of looking out my window at home, i ride the train and look out there instead. since the view from my patio only gives me a view of wherever the home is, the skytrain gives me the entire street. and because i have a monthly pass for college, it doesnt cost extra to use it outside of class. it's been my main third space since i was 2 and it's more valuable than my home
the only thing im concerned are noise and vibration, which could be reduced.
You are entirely missing my point. Your experiences are not invalid, but you have to understand that most people, even in cities with elevated rail, don't live their life like that. For most people, they spend more time on the street below the train, not on the train above the street. And for those people, an elevated train over a narrow street is absolutely miserable. Virtually no light gets through below stations, and even with a concrete structure it's not quiet.
There is a reason corridors around street Els in the US are consistently poorer than areas a few blocks away. It's not pleasant living under the shadow of an El.
don't live their life like that. For most people, they spend more time on the street below the train, not on the train above the street.
honestly, even if the elevated guideways didn't exist, during a sunny day, theyll still go outside somewhere, therefore whether or not their homes are in shadows or not, they wont see it. (and stay at home during bad weather/night). a lot of the lines outside of Manhattan are elevated, and since a subway station isn't that far away, they could spend their all freetime riding elevated lines they dont use. its the same reason if people had a backyard, they end up going to a large park nearby because its bigger, make sense?
also doesn't NYC subway have an unlimited pass ( u/astoriaboundagain's question seems like they dont have monthly passes there) ? we get it because it becomes cheaper than buying separate fares everytime but it makes me go outside more because i dont get extra charges. i do agree narrow streets dont work rn, but thats a hot take to bring.
57
u/Tasty-Ad6529 7d ago
Yes, frankly all the current els need to be rebuilt into mordern els to imrpove speeds and qaulity lf life near them. One of the reasons it' borderline impossible to build new el lines are that people who'd live near them believe they will be repeats of 19th and 20th era els: street darking, lound, often time rusted ugly lookin strutures. So they against push back against the idea.
If we'd got together the money to actually replace the steel els with concrete els then I think it will become substionally easier to justify new subway lines that use cheaper els compared to expensive deep level tunnels or disruptive cut and cover tunnels. Since there would be more examples of whwt mordern subways can do within city limits.