Highways and Rapid Transit: Should They Go Together?

Today on the Streetsblog Network, we’ve got a something of a debate going on the subject of putting new transit routes alongside highways in American cities.

Last Friday, Yonah Freemark at The Transport Politic
noted the opening of Portland’s Green Line with a post titled
"Portland’s New Rail Line Is Welcome News, but It’s Not Routed as It
Should Be." The line’s location on the highway right-of-way, argues
Freemark, will discourage transit-oriented development:

The highway makes an ideal right-of-way for the purpose of increasing
speeds and reducing interference with surrounding neighborhoods, but it
is the worst when it comes to spurring transit-oriented development.
TOD, after all, should be the primary land use goal of any new public
transportation investment, and Portland is likely to get very little of
it along the Green Line. That’s because the mere presence of I-205,
with its traffic, noise, and pollution, will make development adjacent
to it unappealing. Worse, because the transit corridor will be located
on one the side of the freeway, people will have to cross the very wide
road to get to the other side.

6a00d83454714d69e20120a56823e7970b_320wi.jpgTransit and freeways side by side in the upscale Charlottenberg neighborhood of Berlin.

But that’s not how Jarrett Walker over at Human Transit
sees it. Walker pulls out some pictures from a recent trip to Berlin to
make his point. There, he notes, thriving upscale neighborhoods like
Charlottenberg can be found on precisely this type of transit/freeway

When a New World city builds a rail line alongside a freeway, or
even in its median, nobody expects the result to look like Berlin any
time soon.  But it’s not obvious that these can’t be dense
transit-oriented districts in their own style a few decades from now,
if that’s what local government wants.  Yes, it’s always better to have
the transit stop right inside the dense commercial core of a
neighborhood.  But if we make that an absolute requirement in our
thinking, we end up having to choose between either

  1. underground lines in places where we can’t afford undergrounding, or
  2. elevated lines in places where community impacts just won’t allow it or
  3. lines at grade on arterial streets, even if in exclusive lanes,
    that can’t deliver a reasonable travel time given the long regional
    trips the line is intended to serve. 

on most of the American rapid transit projects that I’ve been close to
over the last two decades, any of those outcomes would have killed the

The Overhead Wire takes up the topic in a post called "When Road Engineers Do LRT":

I don’t disagree with folks like Jarrett

when they say that rapid transit has its best opportunities to run fast
in the freeway. But at the same time, there are similar opportunities
to leave the freeway ROW when it comes time to have a station and
connect the places that people ultimately want to go, and the parcels
that should be redeveloped into walkable districts.

I believe a
perfect example of this is the Denver Tech Center. When they designed
the T Rex project, why didn’t they go forward with the option that
would have allowed direct access to the center of the employment
district? I imagine it was perceived cost compared to running time. It
didn’t matter that its where people wanted to go, when the train was
moving it was running fast, so stopping on the other side of the
freeway was a better option for the ridership modelers and the
engineers designing the road.

And one more post on transit routing from the blog Say Yes to the Honolulu Rail System, which is written by a communications consultant to the City of Honolulu on their proposed rail line. He objects to a new proposal
that would not be fully elevated and — it seems to me on first
inspection — would run closer to some downtown destinations by
diverging from the freeway right-of-way. Anyone know more about the
relative merits of these proposals?


Mayor’s Transpo Chief: “Let’s Be San Francisco and Take Down the Freeway”

The idea of removing the northern section of Highway 280 near Mission Bay is gaining more traction as planners look for ideal ways to usher in high-speed rail and transit-oriented development in downtown San Francisco. At a SPUR forum yesterday, Mayor Ed Lee’s transportation policy director, Gillian Gillett, sketched out a proposal to follow in the […]

Transit-Oriented America, Part 1: Eight Thousand Miles

My wife and I were married last month in Brooklyn. For our honeymoon, we wanted to see as many great American cities as we could. In 19 days of travel, we visited Chicago, Seattle, Portland (Ore.), San Francisco, Los Angeles and New Orleans (and also stopped briefly in Cleveland, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Houston, Atlanta, Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia). How could two people as obsessed as […]

eBART Extension Nears Bid, Rep Garamendi Tours Station Sites

Images: BART With bids for the eBART extension project expected in early February, newly elected Congressman John Garamendi from California’s 10th District conducted a tour of the planned station sites of BART’s 10-mile extension from Pittsburg Bay Point to Antioch. Garamendi joined BART Director Joel Keller, Brentwood Mayor Robert Taylor, and representatives from the Contra […]

SFCTA to Test Variable Road Pricing on Treasure Island

Treasure Island will serve as San Francisco’s proving grounds for road pricing that adjusts in response to traffic conditions, as the city looks to minimize Bay Bridge car congestion generated by residents expected to move to the development site. When the first housing units on the artificial mid-bay island, formerly owned by the Navy, are occupied in 2019, the SF County Transportation […]

Brisbane Baylands Mega Development Plans for Mega Car Traffic

As the City of Brisbane agonizes over how little housing to include in a new mixed-use mega development to be built around a relocated Bayshore Caltrain Station, proposals to sink over $300 million into a new 12-lane Highway 101 interchange and an eight-lane extension of Geneva Avenue remain uncontroversial. If approved, 7 million square feet of new office and retail space will be […]