Could Heavy Rail Work On Detroit Freeways

[oladub]

A light rail might eventually be a good idea out to Pontiac along Woodward where population is heavier. Detroit Expressways though cut through residential neighborhoods which have become less populated. I do like the idea of using expressways for mass transit though. Articulated buses could be run in express lanes. it would be easier and cheaper to set up landings for them similar to Chicago El landings either along side or in the middle of the expressways like the El or at intersections at ground level. Articulated buses haul up to 120 people or 180 if in three sections. Standard buses could be used on the same routes for less busy times of the day.

[Lowell]

I think as long as the elevate they train it should be okay.



[The title of this thread brought to mind this scene in the move Inception.]

[Bham1982]

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.

This is generally true, though there are exceptions.

As I wrote, the Chicago EL has some street-running portions at the end of certain lines [[I don't mean only grade-level, which isn't that rare, but these trains actually run directly down the middle of street, in traffic, and with lights, though only for a relatively short distance).

[Detroitnerd]

A four-car light rail vehicle I can imagine. When you start to get into the longer eight- to 12-car trains of cars, I just think that's so unwieldy for surface grade transit.

[iheartthed]

I do like the idea of using expressways for mass transit though.

Why? Who is going to walk out into the middle of the freeway to catch a bus or a train?

[Detroitnerd]

As for the argument about heavy rail running in a freeway ... my thinking goes like this: It isn’t the best configuration for rail. The glut of space required by the roadway and frontage roads, and the environmental factors, will naturally diminish the impact on fostering dense development.

Let’s say that a heavy rail train stop in the middle of the urban fabric, with all things being equal, produces a development score of 100, signifying a dense area of tall buildings full of prosperous, tax-paying city residents at work and play.

Now, take a freeway like I-75, which is 250 feet wide from service drive to service drive. Bear in mind, you can’t tamper with that right-of-way.

For the sake of argument, let’s say people are willing to walk a quarter-mile [[1,320 feet) to the train station.

Normally, if you place an urban train station smack in the middle of an area, it would give you 5,473,911 square feet — or 125 acres — of land around the stop ripe for dense development, the kind of development we like to see in cities.

Now, let’s say you have placed the train station smack in the middle of the right-of-way, with a platform that leads up to a bridge crossing the road.

Now people have to walk at least 125 feet in either direction to get to developed area. Let’s subtract that from our original 1,320 feet. We still have 1,195 feet to work with. Now we have two arcs on either side of the road, comprising 4,486,272 square feet — or 102 acres — of land that within a quarter-mile walk of the station.

So, from the get-go, you’ve already sacrificed about 18 percent of the potential development, just from the standpoint of being unable to build on right-of-way.

So let’s adjust our score from 100 down to 82.

And that is considering that there are no exit or entrance ramps requiring wide thoroughfares to accommodate traffic turning off the freeway.

Now let’s consider a few other factors.

These buildings will have a view of the freeway. These buildings will be within earshot of the freeway. Pollution from the freeway will drive up asthma rates among children. It will drive down real estate values.

Now, unless a real estate developer can make a guaranteed return on his investment, he is going to build modest. If he has a transit stop where lots of people want to live, and they are people of means, he will build high. If not, not so high.

The proximity of the freeway will dampen the value of the land and the sought-after density — that precious product of transit-oriented development — will be diminished.

Let’s be conservatively hopeful, though, and say that this experiment is 75 percent successful, thereby adjusting our score of 82 down to 61.5.

There are other factors. If the people living in the neighborhood aren’t as prosperous, there will be fewer businesses to support them. Also, the areas furthest away from transit are also those with the least noise and air pollution. Also, a walk across an icy, snow-covered bridge is much more forbidding than, say, walking one block and stepping downstairs onto a heated subway platform. And, since we’re building our heavy rail system along a freeway, we can expect that development at every single station along the way will be frustrated by the same difficulties.

Now, I ask you: If you were to propose spending billions of dollars to produce transit-oriented development that was supposed to fill gleaming new residential and office towers with highly paid city residents, would you enact a plan where you’re likely to be 61.5 percent successful? Or would you rather enact a plan that was as close as possible to 100 percent successful?

I know which plan I'd choose...

[Detroitnerd]

I think as long as they elevate the train it should be okay.



[The title of this thread brought to mind this scene in the move Inception.]

Haha. I was thinking about that too. *giggle*

[tetsua]

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.

The brown line at Kedzie is what you're thinking of I think.

[wolverine]

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.

I'm asking does it really matter what system Detroit employs. You can still run light rail at high speeds through subways then decrease speeds and increase stop frequency at grade [[like the Muni system). Or it could be like the CTA with rapid transit elevated tracks that transition to slower street level transit crossing streets and running between alleys behind houses.

People seem to always think heavy rail equates subways and el trains whereas light rail is always street level trams. A sophomoric understanding when it comes to these discussions.

[Detroitnerd]

I'm asking does it really matter what system Detroit employs. You can still run light rail at high speeds through subways then decrease speeds and increase stop frequency at grade [[like the Muni system). Or it could be like the CTA with rapid transit elevated tracks that transition to slower street level transit crossing streets and running between alleys behind houses.

Um ... we were talking about heavy rail on a street grade. I understand that your comprehension of mass transit systems is sophisticated. [puts finger up and twirls around] Good for you. I was questioning the suitability of a big, honking, 12-car heavy rail train of cars running right down the middle of, say, Gratiot Avenue with no grade separation. If you think that's not a fair question, you run the class, professor.

People seem to always think heavy rail equates subways and el trains whereas light rail is always street level trams. A sophomoric understanding when it comes to these discussions.

If people think that way it's because that's often how it breaks down. Yes, I'm aware the LRVs in Boston and Philly go underground. And that the CTA touches down at points.

But when you talk about heavy rail on a surface street, I'm skeptical. I question the appropriateness of running a heavy rail line of, say, 12-car trains down the middle of Gratiot from Eight Mile Road to downtown. You'd block two intersections when you stopped, right? And, frankly, heavy rail isn't as nimble when it comes to stopping and starting, so you're putting a hell of a lot of energy into using a form of transit that's arguably better suited to commuter service with fewer stops and grade separation.

Does it matter which system Detroit employs? No. It doesn't matter. Let's build a fuckin' monorail again...

pffffttt...

[wolverine]

It's only you talking about 12 car trains and questioning the forum's understanding of the nuances between rail transit. We get it, but why does it matter? The topic pertains to the location of trackage, not vehicles or speeds.

You're the only one asserting control of the discussion. Everyone else has been open minded.

[Detroitnerd]

It's only you talking about 12 car trains and questioning the forum's understanding of the nuances between rail transit. We get it, but why does it matter? The topic pertains to the location of trackage, not vehicles or speeds.

Well, I do think it's important that we're all talking about the same thing. Or else it's kind of pointless if we're just talking about some vague system.

You're the only one asserting control of the discussion. Everyone else has been open minded.

That's funny. I thought I was asking questions about what we were talking about and saying what I thought would work and what made me skeptical.

If being open-minded means thinking none of that matters, then I may not be "open-minded."

[royce]

My thinking in writing this thread is that the trains would be able to go at fast speeds since they're on the freeways. Also, they would be geared towards getting large amounts of workers to work or sports fans to the stadiums more so than stopping every other mile. This would mean that many businesses, particularly corporate offices, would need to relocate to downtown Detroit and downtown parking would have to cost more to encourage more passenger travel on the trains.

BTW, the fast lanes and the inner shoulders would be taken up. Only two lanes would be open for car traffic. The added congestion and longer waits in traffic and fewer lanes would be the motivation to take the trains instead of driving.

[Detroitnerd]

My thinking in writing this thread is that the trains would be able to go at fast speeds since they're on the freeways.

That's true. But any train with a dedicated right-of-way can attain high speeds. It doesn't have to be in this 250-foot-wide right-of-way.

As for the train not stopping every other mile, that reminds me of the commuter rail systems in New York, like Metro-North or LIRR. The subway would transport people in the city, but then the commuter train would pick up commuters and visitors in the suburbs, rush through the outskirts of the city, and then drop them at one or two central stations.

To me, that's a valid difference between mere heavy rail and commuter rail.

While we're at it, are Detroit's freeways level enough, with gentle enough curves, to even accommodate high-speed trains? Southfield goes up and down, for instance. And I-75 has some wicked curves.

[wolverine]

Well, I do think it's important that we're all talking about the same thing. Or else it's kind of pointless if we're just talking about some vague system.

Yes, you want the discussion to be the same thing you are talking about. No other suggestions allowed. Is it okay to present alternatives to your 12 car, high speed trains?

[Hermod]

A four-car light rail vehicle I can imagine. When you start to get into the longer eight- to 12-car trains of cars, I just think that's so unwieldy for surface grade transit.

Believe it or not, their are several town and small cities where AMTRAK and major freight rail runs just alongside or in the middle of a major thoroughfare in that town or city.

[Detroitnerd]

Yes, you want the discussion to be the same thing you are talking about. No other suggestions allowed. Is it okay to present alternatives to your 12 car, high speed trains?

Hahaha. I'm just trying to understand. I can't help but picture the heavy rail I'm familiar with, although I know there are many variables. Back to the point:

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.

Please explain this vision so I can understand what you mean. Sorry if I'm a little pissy today.

[wolverine]

Hahaha. I'm just trying to understand. I can't help but picture the heavy rail I'm familiar with, although I know there are many variables. Back to the point:



Please explain this vision so I can understand what you mean. Sorry if I'm a little pissy today.

Understood. But maybe I should ask what exactly the type of heavy rail you are thinking about is?

1. I would assume accommodated vehicles would be nothing like Chicago, NYC, or Philadelphia's rolling stock which is designed to navigate extremely tight turns. With Detroit's wide avenues and with the exception a few places...gentle freeway curves you can use longer rail cars.

2. I would also assume that systems like San Francisco's BART or the DC Metro are a bit too much for Detroit. Yes they are long, and yes they would be absolutely ridiculous going down the center of the street.

3. My suggestion would be a middle ground solution for Detroit. Heavy rail trackage with light-rail type of vehicles. In other words, a premetro system is probably the most appropriate for Detroit if you want it to behave like a subway or elevated rail along most parts but transition to a streetcar system in other parts. Something like LA Expo line. I've ridden it twice since its June opening and it went just above 50 mph at its fastest spot. However, these vehicles are designed to travel faster depending on trackage. They could probably get close to freeway speed limits by design and yet would be surpassing speed limits of heavy rail systems.

This is why I said "Why does it matter?" I don't think the type of system needs to be all that rigid. New rail transit is increasingly becoming flexible, reacting to building and population densities along dynamic routes as well as supplying speed and express service when necessary...all of this balance operational and construction costs. I think of the CTA blazing down the Dan Ryan Expressway median at some points and then you got the brown line puttering along crossing streets through quiet neighborhoods. Yes, cars have gotten in the way and the trains do come to a quick stop. It's that contrast that blurs the line between what a certain system as classified as and how it really behaves.

Going back to the premetro system. It's flexible in any way you want it to be. Steep inclines and tight curves aren't much of a problem since the rail cars can be articulated. I still think elevated trackage is the most appropriate if you were to follow the freeways. The benefit is you wouldn't have to encroach on the existing roadway, all existing overpasses can be left in place without retrofitting, and you increase your flexibility with station design. For areas with high-level interchanges, trackage would divert from the median overtop of traffic lanes and transition to tunnel along one of the side embankments. It would require steep approaches and tighter turns that rail vehicles could still navigate...just at slightly lower speeds.

The other benefit is cost of construction. Most aerial structures would be precast delivered and assembled on site. Excavation would only occur near support columns, at stations for utility penetrations, or tunnels near complex interchanges and intersections. You'd also have much more control over track maintenance. No worries about complex drainage or ground subsidence.

[oladub]

Why? Who is going to walk out into the middle of the freeway to catch a bus or a train?

This is how it's done in Chicago:



This arrangement would allow an express bus to make a brief stop without getting off the expressway and then get back into the express lane without delay. A platform could eliminate steps into the bus.

[wolverine]

This is how it's done in Chicago:



This arrangement would allow an express bus to make a brief stop without getting off the expressway and then get back into the express lane without delay. A platform could eliminate steps into the bus.

So as long as there was no possible way a passenger vehicle could get close to the platform it might work. But it's unlikely the FHWA would permit such a design.** Even with high floor buses, passengers still would not be sufficiently elevated above freeway lanes posing a danger if a motorist loses control. Currently the only risk posed to CTA passengers at median station is flying debris, but taller fences have helped to prevent that.

Notice the above station is not to code. It could never be constructed like that in present day unless you had a much wider median.


**If the inner most lane was barrier separated busway, a freeway median BRT station is absolutely possible

[oladub]

Wolverine, Thanks for the insight. Bus stops would probably need some sort of structural protection. Beyond such practical considerations, this is what I had in mind as found in Curitiba, Brazil. Picture stations something like this along an expressway or some hybrid of this and how the El is served. Articulated express busses would be much cheaper than light rail and a better fit for moderately populated urban areas.

[jtf1972]

This actually was in the initial design for the Jefferies.

I don't think this would be a good use of funds going toward mass transit. Concentrate on building a system that would serve multiple points in an area within a specific distance of downtown. Build a good, though not huge system, work to revitalize the areas it serves, then look to expand when showing it is a success.

[Hermod]

This is how it's done in Chicago:



This arrangement would allow an express bus to make a brief stop without getting off the expressway and then get back into the express lane without delay. A platform could eliminate steps into the bus.

How do they get away with no wheelchair access to that station?

[iheartthed]

This is how it's done in Chicago:



This arrangement would allow an express bus to make a brief stop without getting off the expressway and then get back into the express lane without delay. A platform could eliminate steps into the bus.

Yeah, I have taken the Blue line to/from O'Hare many times, so I know that parts of the Chicago system run in the freeway medians. Though, in the case of the Blue line, the intent was to connect the city's train system to the airport and the freeway was the easiest way to do it. It should be noted that the train line actually terminates under the airport terminals, so passengers walk right out of the security gate and get onto the train.

I have also taken the Red line from the Hyde Park area on the South Side to the Loop. I forgot which stop it is but you have to take a bus from Hyde Park and it drops you off at a bus stop midway across a freeway overpass. From the pedestrian's viewpoint, this seems like the most impractical way to ever build a rapid transit system. If not for buses shuttling passengers to the stop, hardly anyone would enter the system at those center-of-freeway platforms because they are inaccessible to pedestrians.

[wolverine]

How do they get away with no wheelchair access to that station?

Grandfathered. Pretty awful isn't it? Sox-35th had an elevator added about a decade ago, but it was very complicated to accommodate it. There wasn't much space.