![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by
Urban Pioneer
I understand your point of view, but don't agree with it. When I went to Seattle for the rail conference, there were people there from all over the world. Every one of them was say couplets, couplets, couplets...
I don't believe that couplets should be everywhere. There may be "double tracking" that needs to occur on some streets. But Robinson is undeniably a great system "spine" as it goes all the way through from Edgemere to Capitol Hill. Then there are all the people who insist that it go down Automobile Alley. I agree that it needs to go down Broadway. Auto Alley brings a great deal of potential ridership to the system. But keep in mind when you talk about people walking blocks, Broadway is bordered by a freight rail line a block away, and a highway, two blocks away. From an urbanity standpoint, the transit mall is "centered" on a great "axis."
There are three other big fundamental reasons that we are talking about this.
1. We want straight lines without "jogs" for long distances. Easier to interpret on a map or give people directions.
2. It costs us a great deal less on utility relocation as we are "shifting" utilities from one side of the street to the other, rather than trying to bury everything 6' deep.
3. Aesthetically, if we do an overhead wire, a couplet allows for a single overhead wire with guide arms on one side of the street. Guidelines in such a configuration would only be necessary at major turns. A double track configuration also creates a great deal more "visual pollution" as there are wires spanning the entire width of the street to keep the lines secure.
For the people at the conference, the utility savings were the biggest reason, spreading developmental impact was second, creating a situation where people might find a rail line easier by making it possible for the to "run into it" sooner was another, and minimizing visual pollution was something else that became obvious in studying the systems..
Bookmarks