Why Not?

 

-Most medians have the space for rail lines (will need barrier protection and the space is lost for lane additions)

-I think rail lines could be squeezed between the center piers of overpasses (I would assume that lateral and vertical clearances are less for passenger rail than freight rail?)

-The freeways really define our development patterns, and desire lines (development and edge cities follow the freeways)

- Lower speed rail lines could up and over interchange ramps to stations in the ramp infields

- Some stations could be in the middle and connected to the overpass - like CTA's red line (Chicago)

- High speed rail lines could not do that, but stations are fewer.

- R/W needs would be minimal

- Dedicated rail and separated rail lines would compete with the auto since they can be fast(er)

- closer to the urban core the lines would be elevated, piers being in the median.

 

 

Thoughts? (lets keep it limited to the discussion of incorporating rail transit with our current auto infrastructure)

Not an impossible task, but very difficult since the clearance and load-bearing factors for rail structures are very different than those required for highways.  It's too bad no one thought about this when the Interstates were being built.

I-90, west side of Cleveland, was design for rail. Everytime I drive through that area (everyday... sometime multiple times), I imagine rail and a passenger train whizzing past the traffic - jut like in Chicago.

I t could still be done there, too.

It could be done on most other freeways too. It does not have to be in the center.

For example, a waterfront line extension could loop around downtown via the innerbelt curve and travel south on the western edge of the freeway. Of course, I am referring to post innerbelt reconstruction - not now>

The rail lines would be on new structures in the median designed for rail loading, adjacent the roadway bridges. Now, about the rail going under existing side road overpasses of the interstate? Are side and vertical clearances less than required for freight rail?

(Freight rail req's 23'-0" vertical clearance track to low beam of overpass, and a 18'-0" side clearance from CL of track)

 

My train of thought revolved around rural and suburban interstates...getting into the urban core will be a tricky matter. But, there are tons of trips that are suburb to suburb.

But, there are tons of trips that are suburb to suburb.

 

yes, but they really require a car.  even if you had suburban stations, they would need to be park and rides.  so going from a park and ride to another park and ride would leave you in the middle of a parking lot when you go off, and then you would have to walk around an auto dependent landscape where parking would be free.  I don't see anyone doing that.  Maybe malls might work if you could get the station close enough, but a lot of suburbs don't even have sidewalks so once you get off the train, then what?  i just dont' see people walking around a suburb.

I seem to recall reading several years ago that the legislation that created the interstate highway system specifically provided for future inclusion of rail in the medians in some cases.

 

Although I'm often shouted down on this issue by advocates of both highways and passenger rail, I still think it's a viable concept for passenger rail. The curves and gradients are often relatively mild and could be handled by lightweight equipment on a dedicated passenger right-of-way.

 

The interstate medians are already grade-separated from cross traffic, and the layout of the system both follows the existing pattern of point-to-point travel and influences ongoing and future development; it goes where the people are.

 

Modifications to grades and curves and reconstruction of bridges and overpasses where needed are not major obstacles, considering what it would cost in both money and time to acquire and prepare new dedicated, grade-separated, protected high-speed rail right of way spanning the considerable distances involved in U.S. travel. Providing access to intercity rail from the urban core certainly should not pose greater difficulty than that now posed by providing access to airports that are often quite far away.

^Not shouting down, but there are engineering hurdles to overcome with the concept.  Not altogether impossible to deal with, but it requires careful considerationg.  Noozer already raised some, a couple of others are:

 

1.  curves can be too tight and and grades too steep for trains. 

 

2.  There's the issue of maintaining emergency cross-overs for the highways without having at-grade crossings.

 

 

^Not shouting down, but there are engineering hurdles to overcome with the concept.  Not altogether impossible to deal with, but it requires careful consideration.  Noozer already raised some, a couple of others are:

 

1.  curves can be too tight and and grades too steep for trains. 

 

2.  There's the issue of maintaining emergency crossovers for the highways without having at-grade crossings.

 

I think 1. can be managed. Rolling stock is lighter for passenger trains. Given I-71 between Columbus and Cincy, the curves are no sharp and its flat, for the most part.

 

2. The OSHP would boo hoo the idea, obviously -- but they would find a new place to hide. Otherwise only a few 'official" vehicles are supposed to use them, and they can be protected -- I doubt its a fatal flaw tho

My two cents: While it may be possible to use interstate highway medians, they are usually too narrow, too curvy and too hilly for passenger trains, especially intercity trains. Likewise, nearly every overpass would have to be rebuilt to accomodate the trains, and bridges would have to be rebuilt to carry the trains over streams and other roads.

 

Others have called for the use of utility companies' roights of way, but here too, there are problems. These ROW's tend to veer at sharp angles and go straight up hillsides.

 

Then what do you do when you get into crowded urban areas where the roads and untilities have been sandwiched in? No way is a rail line going to fit there.

 

I still think we have plenty of rail rights of way available, either parallel to active tracks or on abandoned/little used lines. The Midwest is loaded with these. There are/were duplicate lines between many cities. Chicago-St. Louis had four routes between them!

 

As far as the Chicago RTA Red Line goes, I was just there and it is very unappealing. Why? Because any riders from nearby neighborhoods have to walk over a long bridge (the freeway must be 10-12 lanes wide)  just to get to the train station. That must be fun in those Chicago winters.

 

The Red Line sits in a carbon monoxide choked trench, cut off from the very neighborhoods it is supposed to serve. Not very inviting. If I had my way, I'd cap the overpasses that have stations and put buildings and park space so the stations at least appear to be a part of the urban fabric of the area.

I can reply to the previous comment about Chicago's Red Line since I live right near it and use it rather frequently.

 

I-90/94 in Chicago is 2x as wide as I-90 in Cleveland, making a median rail line in Cleveland less intimidating than than in Chicago.  From what I remember back home in Cleveland, the neighborhoods adjacent to I-90 are in much better shape than neighborhoods along the Dan Ryan--it's ghetto galore for most of it.  The scale of Cleveland may be more conducive in attracting passengers from nearby neighborhoods and integrating itself into the community instead of appearing as a huge gouge in the fabric as it does in Chicago.  I've also thought it'd be a good idea whenever I'm home to add a rail line.  Orange Line sounds good huh?  I know KJP has a very good plan for a westside commuter rail which I think is wonderful but maybe this can be a more local line?  Anways, wishful thinking...

Those overpasses could be our Ponto Rialto with Subways, McDonalds, DunkinDonuts, Cingulars, Starbucks, etc!!!!!    :lol: