HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted: Jul 25, 2012, 2:02 AM
PeterAlt PeterAlt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1
Smart transportation planning

Hello, everyone! This is my first post! I have a lot on my mind, so please forgive the rambling nature of this post, as I will try to cover many topics on my mind in condensed form...

I've been thinking about transit systems lately and would love to see a city planned with the pedestrian in mind (i.e. making it possible to go anywhere without having to own a car). I think fixed right-of-way automated transit should be implemented more (i.e. people movers and PRT). If cities could be planned with this in mind, development foundations could share the cost of constructing routes through properties. Also, other infrastructure could share construction costs.

For example, pylons for an elevated system could double as wind mill towers, electric power grid lines, and cell phone or radio towers. In an urban environment with skyscrapers, the buildings themselves could be used instead of pylons for an elevated line.

An other idea I have is 3-dimensional planning for high density city centers with skyscrapers. Instead of using traditional grid planning, a city masterplan could include planning for spaces under and above ground. For example, vertical stations placed at strategic locations throughout the city that would basically function as common public elevators, with standardized public-private elavation points. For example, the next level up from ground would be a standardized 50-storie point, which would include elevated sidewalks and transit systems and other infrastructure above the ground-level city streets. Buildings that reach that high would have entranceways from this level as they would at ground level.

On another subject, I live near Miami. Miami has four separate people mover systems. There's Metromover that loops downtown twice, with extension going north and south of downtown. Then, there's the MIA Mover that was recently constructed, going from a new Metrorail station to the airport. Within the airport, there are two other systems: one called Sky Train that rides on the roof of interconnecting concourses, and a smaller one that rides through an other concourse.

The three airport peoplemovers could be linked together without having to build much track and converted to a PRT system. The Metrorail track could be upgraded to allow PRT cars to ride on it. Metromover could be converted also into a PRT system as well. In other words, all the people mover systems could be interconnected as PRT.

Two extensions to the current Metromover system would complete the PRT makeover. One goes east of the American Airlines arena, along the freight track right of way (which are not used and sit in ruin) to the Port of Miami. The other one begins at the eastmost point of the Omni loop, then follows the I-395, sharing its bridge infrastucture to and through Watson Island, continues along the MacArthur Causeway to 5th Street on Miami Beach, and ends at a station on the beach, where it would loop back along 5th Street.

Let me know if you want me to post a graphic illustrating where the current systems are and where I'm proposing new track.

This shouldn't be difficult to get backing, as the Port of Miami has already spehnt nearly a million dollars in 2009 to study a Port of Miami Metromover, and a huge new development in the Omni area is interested in extending Metromover to South Beach.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted: Jul 25, 2012, 4:40 AM
mhays mhays is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 11,531
Fun to think about but not the tiniest chance.

This has been hashed over many times on these boards. But I'll pick one point: double-use support poles. Why would anyone want to do this? The poles would have to be much stronger, meaning more expensive. For power poles there would be unacceptable safety concerns. For any kind of pole the litany of no-go reasons would include "what if you have to replace the pole" particularly with one with moving parts.

Ok, one more point. Developers build on their own schedules, when they're allowed to. They won't build anything for a system that might or might not take off. A transit system that relies on them simply won't get built, or will have holes that make it a very piecemeal system.

Ok a third. The benefit of PRT would be comprehensiveness. But until counless billions are spent per city, it won't be. So it'll be a duplicate system.

PRT is for closed campuses and other limited uses only.
Reply With Quote
     
     
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:20 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.