Could Heavy Rail Work On Detroit Freeways

[royce]

While driving along the Chrysler, Reuther, and Jeffries/Fisher Freeways, I have always wondered if a Chicago-style EL-Train set up could be the answer to mass transit in Metro Detroit. Could a system be built rather inexpensively if rail tracks were placed along the inner-shoulder and fast lanes? Would Metro Detroiters ride them?

With the Chrysler Freeway I could envision a transit train going from Oakland Mall to Downtown Detroit, ending near Gratiot. A park and ride set-up would exist at Oakland Mall, where riders would take a pedestian bridge to get to boarding platform along the median of the freeway.

Along the Jeffries Freeway the transit train would go as far west as Middlebelt Road and travel downtown, curving east to travel along the Fisher Freeway and stopping at Woodward or Eastern Market. Park and ride lots could be established along the many parking lots south of the freeway along Middlebelt.

Along the Reuther Freeway, the transit train would start near I-94 and travel west to the Telegraph/Northwestern Highway interchange. It could also continue along Northwestern Highway to Orchard Lake Road.

With disputes with rail companies continuing with right-of-way rights [[think Amtrak and CSX?), this could be the solution to getting some form of mass transit in the region, relatively inexpensively. What are you thoughts?

[Hermod]

It would not be "relatively inexpensive".

[canuck]

I have to agree with Hermod on this. We have one line in construction that is said to imitate Chicago's median line suburban rail on an eastbound line in Montreal. It is way over budget.

[iheartthed]

Seems like it would be a ton of money to spend to build something that would produce zero transit oriented development.

[mwilbert]

Detroit isn't congested enough for people to want to switch from cars to trains at some point of their trip, nor are the likely destinations sufficiently concentrated.

Maybe someday, but I'd guess we'll have automated electric cars before Detroit would ever be able to justify commuter rail, and in metro Detroit, automated cars will work a lot better than commuter rail.

[Wheels]

You lost me with the loss of the fast lanes!

[Danny]

That proposal will never happen. It would be a lot of bureaucratic talks and passing paperwork from one office to another for a heavy freeway rail to happen. The last time heavy rail transit proposed was in 1958 When USDOT granted MDOT and the City of Detroit some federal dollars to build Edsel Ford FWY as a crosstown route from Western Michigan to Port Huron to Canada. The City of Detroit wants to install a heavy rail transit system through Detroit but that proposal failed. So we just have I-94 FWY instead.

[Hermod]

Further complicating and making more expensive any proposed elevated railway is the provision [[and maintenance) of elevators at every stop to comply with ADA handicapped access. You just can't use stairs as the access to the tracks anymore.

[Detroitnerd]

I just think any kind of rail mixed with freeway is a poor use of both.

Now if you wanted to put serious heavy rail down in the freeway bed and cover it over to make a subway, I'd be down with that.

[Hermod]

I just think any kind of rail mixed with freeway is a poor use of both.

Now if you wanted to put serious heavy rail down in the freeway bed and cover it over to make a subway, I'd be down with that.

Part of the Washington Metro system runs down the center of a divided freeway on its way to Vienna. It doesn't cause any problems for either the autos or the train.

[Detroitnerd]

Part of the Washington Metro system runs down the center of a divided freeway on its way to Vienna. It doesn't cause any problems for either the autos or the train.

It's not that the train or freeway inhibit each other. It's that they attract completely different kinds of development. Freeways tend to create the sort of sprawling, trucking warehouse, big-box store, drive-through restaurant, motor hotel landscape. Heavy rail tends to create density along stations. So, development-wise, mixing both would tend to attract development that would work at cross purposes, which I imagine would be an inefficient use of resources.

[DetroitPlanner]

"Tending to" is different than "will". There are lots of examples of these in Chicago where the neighborhoods are still neighborhoods not low density development.

Land use dictates transportation more than transportation mode dictates land use. Mixing two modes in the same ROW will appeal to higher density land uses. AKA TOD.

That being said, this is a very expensive solution that will most likely not have many users. Its better to build a system along Arterial Roads, not freeways. If you can find areas of existing track that are underused by current traffic, that would be the most cost effective, but may run though many areas of industrial land uses, which are typically low density.

[Detroitnerd]

"Tending to" is different than "will". There are lots of examples of these in Chicago where the neighborhoods are still neighborhoods not low density development.

I'm aware of that, that's why I worded it cautiously. But, really, I think we could use dense TOD, and anything that would hamstring that I'd tend to view with extreme skepticism. In these parts, mass transit tends to be a history of half-measures as it is. To my mind, I figure, why aggravate that?

[Patrick]

Part of the Washington Metro system runs down the center of a divided freeway on its way to Vienna. It doesn't cause any problems for either the autos or the train.

Take a look at what they are doing with the Silver Line. It's a perfect example.

[wolverine]

I'm not fond of the freeway portions here on the CTA, though the only two stations I've really used are Jefferson Park and Sox-35th. Both require 20' platforms so they can get elevator towers and stairs in. Still, it's a very tight squeeze.

I don't think you could build something like that in Detroit without knocking out the shoulders and the inner lanes.

Why does it have to be on the ground? A 40' high aerial track would be cheaper and the stations span the overpass [[kind of triple decked) It would take substantially less time with aerial structures since you limit excavation and disruption to traffic. Though this is a dream plan, tearing up the freeway and rebuilding all the overpasses is just a bad idea to suggest when a totally elevated system is more practical and less costly.

Still your best bet is running lines along streets. I mean some of the major avenues are really wide. Plenty of space to build and your stations are more desirable to access....making the real estate nearby attractive for growth. I'd dread having to wait for a train in the middle of the median in the winter every day. I've done it a few times, it sucks.

[Detroitnerd]

I'm not fond of the freeway portions here on the CTA, though the only two stations I've really used are Jefferson Park and Sox-35th. Both require 20' platforms so they can get elevator towers and stairs in. Still, it's a very tight squeeze.

I don't think you could build something like that in Detroit without knocking out the shoulders and the inner lanes.

Why does it have to be on the ground? A 40' high aerial track would be cheaper and the stations span the overpass [[kind of triple decked) It would take substantially less time with aerial structures since you limit excavation and disruption to traffic. Though this is a dream plan, tearing up the freeway and rebuilding all the overpasses is just a bad idea to suggest when a totally elevated system is more practical and less costly.

Still your best bet is running lines along streets. I mean some of the major avenues are really wide. Plenty of space to build and your stations are more desirable to access....making the real estate nearby attractive for growth. I'd dread having to wait for a train in the middle of the median in the winter every day. I've done it a few times, it sucks.

Are we still talking about heavy rail? I can't think of any heavy rail that runs down streets ... underground, perhaps.

[casscorridor]

Are we still talking about heavy rail? I can't think of any heavy rail that runs down streets ... underground, perhaps.

It could work grade seperated. Although recent light-rail in Seattle seems to mimick heavy-rail in some parts and streetcar in others. A hybrid approach could work well in Detroit, perhaps even using existing rail track.

[Bham1982]

Are we still talking about heavy rail? I can't think of any heavy rail that runs down streets ... underground, perhaps.

A number of Chicago EL lines run down the middle of streets near their end-points. I forgot which ones, but they even stop at traffic lights at some points, kinda like trolleys.

Maybe the Brown Line on the North Side, the Blue Line [[Forest Park branch) in the Western suburbs? I think there's at least one more.

[Detroitnerd]

I think this thread would benefit from a clarification of what heavy rail, light rail and commuter rail are.

[p69rrh51]

Figure a million dollars a mile for standard railroad construction, probably more a mile with the freeway reconfiguration. I cannot remember how many miles of expressway we have here but you can do the math.

[Bham1982]

I think this thread would benefit from a clarification of what heavy rail, light rail and commuter rail are.

The problem is that there aren't clear dividing lines. What is the BART in the Bay Area? I would say more commuter rail, but I believe the Feds classify it as heavy rail. Functionally, it's clearly commuter rail.

Obviously some systems are clearer. I don't think anyone would call the NYC subway a light rail line, or the San Diego trolley a subway, but there are many grey areas. In Europe, a "Metro" can be heavy rail or light rail. Most of the German U-Bahn systems are actually light rail, though they run underground in parts, or some, like Frankfurt are hybrid systems.

Similarly, most of the Metros they're building in China are actually hybrid heavy/light rail networks.

[wolverine]

Are we still talking about heavy rail? I can't think of any heavy rail that runs down streets ... underground, perhaps.

Why does it matter?

[Detroitnerd]

Why does it matter?

Because I associate heavy rail with high speeds and grade separation and few stops. [[As in a New York City subway hurtling through a tunnel at 55 mph, with express service pulling in straphangers from many miles away.)

Because I associate street-level railway with lower speeds and light rail, more frequent stops.

[j to the jeremy]

I just think any kind of rail mixed with freeway is a poor use of both.

Now if you wanted to put serious heavy rail down in the freeway bed and cover it over to make a subway, I'd be down with that.

WTF? So many cities have a shared route between freeways and rail it's hilarious. There's no reason to oppose that. And a subway wouldn't be "serious heavy rail"

[Detroitnerd]

WTF? So many cities have a shared route between freeways and rail it's hilarious. There's no reason to oppose that. And a subway wouldn't be "serious heavy rail"

Wait a second. I'm not talking about sharing freeway and rail at this point. [[Although I do think it's not a terrific idea, and posted as much earlier.)

I'm talking about the idea somebody proposed of heavy rail running along a street.

And, yes, generally subways are heavy rail, although there's a distinction between heavy rail subway and commuter heavy rail.