It's not going to die, for two very good reasons: right-of-way, and velocity.
In existing cities, it is very expensive to find rights-of-way for rail projects. Freeways often have shoulders and embankments that allow clever reuse. The vast majority of Portland's light rail system uses either freeway rights-of-way or old rail rights-of way, and in the latter case those lines were often *not* in the most populated corridors between end points Instead they fostered greenfield development. The MAX light rail system is generally considered a model of success, so I challenge the assertion that locating along freeways or other non-central locations is a bad idea.
Second, the notion of velocity is important. While the New Urbanist ideal of small neighborhoods and town centers linked by transit is beautiful, it's also a state of existence that is in the minority today unless you view rail transit as *only* something for the urban core, and not the suburbs. If transit is to be metropolitan/regional (as it is here) then you must understand that people will not ride it unless it is reliable and relatively quick. This doesn't mean as fast as driving, or faster, but within a reasonable, comparable speed rate. Routing light rail in surface streets, as much as it contributes to quality of life, doesn't do this.
Any given mode of transit can't do it all. Before castigating HCT along freeways, it's important to look at what mode is being proposed and how it functions. The same holds true before talking about HCT in dense walkable urban centers. For here in Portland, placing light rail -- which is more metro than streetcar in our adaptation of it -- in the center of S.E. 82nd would have meant slower, less reliable service.
Lastly, let me point out that this is not a zero sum game. Placing transit lines along the freeways does not mean you cannot place them also on the surface streets in the neighborhoods you champion. There are multiple modes of transit, and some (like streetcars and rapid streetcars) are perfectly positions for such applications. Case in point: while the Green Line was built along I-205 here, 82nd is indeed slated for its own transit line -- a Portland Streetcar line.
In short don't discount freeway alignments simply because they don't fit a New Urbanist vision. There is a legitimate role and purpose to them and in many communities they may be the required first step before attitudes and useage patterns develop that support services in those neighborhoods.
it is a zero sum game, given the level of funding available for transit. Yes, transit on freeways can work in some instances. The situations are very rare. Regardless of velocity and ROW, if it doesn't get used, it doesn't matter how fast it is or the ROW.
cf. ROW on old railroad lines that inadequately connect today's neighborhoods and activity centers. So you get the line, but not the use. Was it the right choice? I'd argue no.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.
First if transit was zero sum, then the whole mode vs. mode argument is legitimized, and that is something I refuse to do. I also think that such a point-of-view flies in the face of our experiences here, as well as Seattle's; in both cases we are developing more transit intermodalism, not less.
Second, I would argue that stating that old railway lines inadequately connect places is a sweeping generalization (much like your comments regarding freeway alignments).
Context matters.
But as I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.
On the whole I agree with your position. I think part of the issue, esp. for transit advocates, is a sense of taking what we can get, instead of pushing for more: "Well, it's not optimal to run it in the middle of this freeway, but it's the best we can do, we'll settle".
Edmonton's LRT is a good example. The northeast portion mostly follow ROW. It was easy to build, but it really doesn't meet the needs of the city or promote smart land use.
I look at the Baltimore light rail. In DC, the top two buslines carry more people. To me that means that the Baltimore light rail has failed, given the potential opportunity.
But it satisficed by using available ROW.
WRT Seattle, it might be a smidge different because of Airport.
Still, look at Portland and the Yellow Line. They used the Interstate Hwy ROW because they could, but I am not sure it is absolutely the best thing going. And it is way better than Baltimore.
Basically the general point is that you have to link activity centers, and place stations in ways that strengthen neighborhoods.
I can see very few instances of how that is done via freeway based transit, be it rail or bus.
I actually took this to mean putting HSR corridors along freeways. I don't think that is such a bad idea in many cases and believe you can route accordingly when you get into a central city. If she were talking about rapid transit I would agree with you, but I'm not sure she was. I could be wrong.
I also read that piece as a call for using the ROW for high speed rail, not rapid transit. There are several mentions of 'connecting cities' or similar language that gives that impression. And in that context, I can't disagree.
Agreed re HSR vs. metropolitan transit.
freeways are perfect places to maximize long distance rail options[ HSR] but this country needs to focus on new rail ROWs that connect existing communities and centers-while also re-utilizing old or abandoned rail ROWs- there are some of these in our region that would be perfect for regional- or even intra-city transit- parts of the WO&D trail, the old Cheaspeake Beach ROW, numerous streetcar ROWs- and one mustn't forget the Purple Line- which is re-utilizing an old freight rail ROW for transit.
I say we need to have completely new rail & transit ROWs and this will entail sacrificing some roads and highways and upsetting some people, displacing some, and ultimately pissing off legions of NIMBYs.
It must be done, and it will be done, eventually.
Rich-
You totally disregard:
- the potential of decking over segments of I-66 along the WMATA, with new parkland and new development
- the option of doing that with existing RR corrdiors that are multimodelized with the RR and new parallel highway largely in box tunnels akin to that beneath the Riverside South Boulevard southern extension in Manhattan near the vicinity of 62nd Street.
What is good enough for Donald Trump's towers is most certainly good enough for Catholic University of America within Washington, D.C.!!!
I am fine with decking, but that has nothing to do with the disconnection, generally, of freeways from direct connections with neighborhoods and activity centers.
LD travel (i.e., HSR) is completely different.
But since transit works when connections between neighborhoods (residential areas) and activity centers, particularly work destinations, are optimized, freeway-based metropolitan transit generally doesn't make sense from the standpoint of maximized utilization.
Commenting by HaloScan
