A post to RFV’s blog moaned that; “you always show ugly pictures of elevated transit rather than the wonderful job Richmond did on #3 Road or sections of the Central Valley Greenway…………...”, well let’s compare elevated transit with at-grade/on-street light rail.
It seems that the vast majority of transit planners would rather be associate with:
Rather than this:
The over one hundred year old Wuppertal Schwebebahn monorail is one of the oldest public transit systems in the world, even though the route is 100% grade separated it wasn’t copied in other cities where tramway’s flourished instead. Could it be that even one hundred years ago transit planners found the a transit system being fully grade separated, wasn’t a viable transit solution except in the most unusual circumstances?
Elevated guideways are more expensive to build and maintain than at grade transit lines and though transit using elevated guideways may provide faster commercial speeds, the faster commercial speeds comes more from sacrificing stations, rather than being elevated. Sacrificing stations, sacrifices customer convenience. Cities using expensive grade separated transit systems, tend to have smaller, more expensive to use transit systems than cities opting for at-grade/on-street light rail. Extremely few cities in Europe or North America have copied Vancouver’s penchant for light-metro; evidence enough that our transit planning maybe on the wrong track.