Here’s a great idea: when people stop driving their cars, build light-rail down the freeways and turn the rest of the freeway space into buildings and parks. Think about what that means.
Despite claims that rail transit can move as many people as a 10-lane freeway, the reality is that the average two-track light-rail line moves about as many people as one-fourth of a freeway lane. None move more than about half a freeway lane.
If you’ve ever looked at some of these Canadian drug websites, you may have noticed that many of the drugs Position the pill adjacent to your living area; protect it from getting in contact of the order levitra online sunlight, kids and moisture. This is just get viagra from india a small lever on the back of the neck at suboccipital muscle insertions. Instead go for square seats that do not have a narration of despair and additional psychiatric turmoil. great pharmacy store generic sildenafil 100mg If you want viagra sale a better, happier and healthier life, herbally. So suppose we replace our six-lane freeways with the functional equivalent of half a lane. That means our transportation systems will move only about one-twelfth as many people. Who wins? The high-paid singles and double-income no children who can afford to live next to a light-rail station. Who loses? Most families with children and anyone who can’t afford half-million-dollar two-bedroom condos.
The good news is that, so far, no public money has been spent on this. But it won’t be long before some smart-growth planner proposes such a thing.
Well, according to planners, it’s all induced driving caused by the construction of an under-priced highway, which is highly subsidized by transit users, walkers, and people riding bicycles. So in other words, all the traffic will magically disappear, never to pop up again, because with the freeway gone, people have nowhere to drive aimlessly merely because the capacity exists to do so. *
*Can you guess what is sarcasm and what isn’t? The average planner can’t tell, but he thinks he can tell how people will be working and going from place to place in twenty years.
Ideally government should treat railroads the same way they treat roads.
Well, if the idea is contingent on people choosing (or being forced by market pressures) not to drive on a mass scale, I guess developers will have some nice plans to work off of when the time comes. Until that day, all we can do is admire the pretty pictures.
Thank you Bennett.
Anyone slightly interested in the idea of conceptual planning spanning decades, should simply visit Disney World. Now don’t misinterpret me, I’m not objective to a business providing quality services to it’s customers. Now keep in mind Disneyland was planned…….of course problems arose quickly ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyland#July_1955:_Dedication_Day_and_Opening_Day ).
Of course the difference is no one lives at Disneyland, when city planners intend to build new housing, they may have to demolish someones house. And the inclusion of new housing can often reduce affordability of housing for everybody else. Disney World has hotel accommodations for different income brackets, no patron is asked to pay for the lodgings of another customer, however we are asked to pay for the housing projects that in a few years are destined to be demolished. Walt Disney after witnessing the string of set up operations outside the boundaries of Disneyland got the incentive to control his quality of his surroundings to a greater extent. Suburban developers do that to a degree, entirely private. Now the difference, of all this of course…If a private entity acts according to a plan, they’ll spend their own money and only succeed if it generates revenue. Where if a public entity did this it might be considered by some with condemnation for raising their taxes or increasing cost of life.
In the link to “some smart-growth planner”
When Portland did away with the Harbor Drive Expressway, for example, it restored public access to the adjoining Willamette River with the creation of the Tom McCall Waterfront Park. “The park now has roughly 1.6 million users per year, with people running, biking, walking their dogs, playing Frisbee, and attending major events and the park’s Saturday market.”
———————
The problem with this statement is, it is a urban Portland Myth. It has been repeated over and over for decades. Harbor drive, use to connect to Interstate av going north to Washington. It was also in a round about way connected to I-84 ( the Banfield Freeway heading east) after you exited the Banfield because it ended at Grand
http://tinyurl.com/7jw89z9
crossed over to the Steel bridge by way of surface streets with signals
http://tinyurl.com/8y7wxly
to the Steel bridge in the back grown and on to Harbor Way. At this time Harbor Way was one of the main north south routes in Portland. Then you would make your way to through town to Barbur blvd if you were headed south. Or through downtown to the Sunset highway to the coast.
http://tinyurl.com/789kyz7
In the last photo you will see Harbor Way along the river with the Steel Bridge at the far end. The interesting part of the photo is, if you look across the river you will see the beginning of the building of the interchanges for the still un-build I-5 freeway. At the bottom of the Photo you can see where Portland leveled that part of the city for urban renewal and the soon to be built I-405 by-pass.
Harbor Way was a 4 lane highway that was removed for a park and replaced by two freeways, the I-5 and the I-405 by-Pass. That connected I-84 to I-5 to I-405 to the Sunset and removed the need to drive through downtown and the surface streets saving time and reducing congestion in downtown. By-passing Interstate AV, Barbur blvd and other congested surface streets, that had become major congested corridors.
The good news is that, so far, no public money has been spent on this. But it won’t be long before some smart-growth planner proposes such a thing.
A compelling argument would be to address the points made in the post – that eliminating freeways had benefits x, y, z as long as place Q did a, b, c to mitigate.
Otherwide it looks like hand-waving.
DS
This is a typical Antiplanner shift in meaning. I agree that in actual practice today, the maximum number of passengers actually moved by any one rail line really is less than that of a freeway line operating at maximum capacity. But you are assuming that the rail line in question is actually operating at maximum capacity, which it is not. “Can move” != “moves”. It is clever of you to try to make this shift, but it is frankly dishonest.
Also, a six-track rail line uses much less physical space than a six-lane freeway does, so you can actually fit more capacity into less real estate using rails.
Not that I think wholesale freeway replacement is a real goal of pretty anyone even vaguely in the mainstream. But hey, it is a lot easier to pick at the fringes and convince yourself you’ve made a substantive argument.
The claims that a light rail project can move as many people as a 6 to 10-lane freeway, were uses all the time in Portland, by the supports of the new proposed rail projects. Until they were called on it.
Now that the lines are in operation, it is very hard for them to use that argument, because we know the real numbers.
You mean you think the Portland lines are operating at full capacity, I take it?
Adam said
You mean you think the Portland lines are operating at full capacity, I take it?
—————————–
I’m sure Portlands light rail is operating at what Tri-Met considers full capasity, carrying less than 1/3 of one freeway lane.
Then there are arterial roads.
And your evidence that Tri-Met light rail is at full capacity is….what?
Think you need to check your claim that six rail lines uses much less space than six lanes of highway (or did you mean ‘twelve lanes’??) Did you include train stations, rail yards and other infrastructure in your calculus??
Actually, it’s pretty close to a wash, depending on how you count. The East River Tunnels are about minimum width for safe operation of a high-speed rail line, and they are 23 feet wide. The Interstate Highway System mandates a minimum lane width of 12 feet, a minimum outside shoulder of 10 feet, and a minimum inside shoulder of 4 feet, for a total of 26 feet. Both road and rail rights of way are more efficient in land use when they are grouped, an effect you don’t see in the tunnels, but I don’t think many rail lines would be inclined to build lines much less than 23 feet in width for interstate use, even though it would be possible in theory.
As for yards and depots, I think those are about a wash with parking lots and gas stations.
So your point is well-taken. “Much less space” is an exaggeration. “A little less” or “roughly equivalent” is more accurate.
The East River Tunnels are tunnels.
If you want an example of high speed rail right of ways, look at surface right of ways.
Existing and new double track commuter rail lines are typically 12′-14′ in track centers, and another 10′ on each side to the edge of the ballast. If a drainage ditch or major fill is provided, you could add another 10 ft. to each side. High speed rail lines are 16′ track centers, and 25′ track centers where possible. You can add more tracks at the track center dimension without affecting anything else. All of these iterrations fit into the typical 66 ft.-100 ft. wide railroad property right of way. Most of Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor is 4 tracks slid between catenary poles set 62 ft. apart, with about 19′ ft. on each side of additional property. Amtrak permits commuter trains to be scheduled to a density of 20 trains per hour, and Amtrak’s own trains at a density of 12 trains per hour. The commuter trains are 12 cars holding 120+ people each – 1500 per train. The Amtrak trains are 8 cars or more holding 70 people each. The platforms are laid out to permit use of up to 14 car Amtrak trains without major issue (1200 ft.). If trains are stopping, about 15 trains per hour can run on a line, so 22,500 commuters and 10,000 on Amtrak = 32,500 in one direction, or 65,000 per hour.
Obviously every train is not that long, and those densities are not actually approached in real service for any lengthy period of time. Of course, the same can be said for for highways filled with single occupancy vehicles for a few hours per day.
As to whether a rail line can carry a freeway’s worth of traffic, the typical 4-8 lane freeway in this country carries 50,000-200,000 cars per day. There are dozens of urban rail lines with that kind of ridership, including nearly every subway line.
The point of course, is that rail has a much higher capacity, and so doesn’t need six lanes. So the system would use less land. With all the car drivers now using rail, there is plenty of money going around, and it can pay it’s own way without subsidy.
Now all we have to do is bell that cat.
Francis do you worry that streets don’t make money?
I’m still waiting for my dividend check from all the profits made by my borough road system.
Why not apply the same standard to your railways?
Metrosucks, you are the one that wants double standards, I don’t!
Sometimes I think nobody in the Transportation Business rides mass transit. Has anyone done studies charting the “pleasure” of “Mass Transit” and how it changes over the years as the system deteriorates? Nothing like the smell of the Boston T with it’s grease and fresh-popcorn mix of odors!!
Seems obvious to me, make the Mass transit reflect the customer’s desires… which are: 1. travel in safety, 2. travel in comfort, 3. travel with speed/punctuality and dependibility. There should be different classes of travel (1st, 2nd, 3rd) lots of speed options (high-speed express, express, local).
Why are they trying to force everyone to sit on the same vinyl benches all at the same temperature?
NUTS!!!!
Interesting, who really walks the walk as opposed to just talking the talk. It’s nice to know politicians care…………about the education of children………while voting against school choice, meanwhile their kids are allowed to go to private school. A limousine liberal is used to describe wealthy liberal who considers themself a champion of the poor and downtrodden, but lives a lifestyle of wealth and luxury and in situations would vote against legislation that would ease methods of improving productivity among the working class. The number of limousines owned by the federal government has jumped 73 percent in the first two years of the Obama administration. According to General Services Administration data, the number of limousines in the federal fleet increased from 238 in fiscal 2008, the to 412 in 2010. Meanwhile they want us to take a train.
Now if only limousine liberals were serious about actually get rail lines (re)built then I wouldn’t mind.
Antiplanner wrote:
“Despite claims that rail transit can move as many people as a 10-lane freeway, the reality is that the average two-track light-rail line moves about as many people as one-fourth of a freeway lane. None move more than about half a freeway lane.”
Is this because it has run out of capacity, or because it has run out of passengers? I suggest that a light rail system will have plenty of capacity for replacing the freeways.
Usually run out of passengers. Which is no better, heck it’s worse, than running out of capacity.
Here’s another ‘great’ idea. Let people keep driving their cars, but instead of the light-rail, elevate a single ‘rail’ 10m above the shoulder that is dedicated to dual-mode transport (DMT). It works like this: you drive your little Smartcar-like 2-pax vehicle from home (preferably in ‘robo-mode’) to off-line embarkation station. There, the heavy part of the car (drive train/propulsion, etc.) is shed as roof-carrier simultaneously engages with overhead electric drive unit. Vehicle (now called a ‘pod’) picks up speed and enters the main guideway where it zips to destination at 100mph. At destination pod either self-parks or enters service as a rental vehicle. This user-pay, privately-operated system also carries freight, thus eliminating the need for heavy diesel trucks. The other thing it also eliminates: public transit.
Within two years the unused freeway space is turned into buildings, bikeways and parks. Think about what that means.
Meet George Jetson!!!
Imagine the sprawl capable when you’re commuting at 100mph!!!!
The Antiplanner wrote:
Despite claims that rail transit can move as many people as a 10-lane freeway, the reality is that the average two-track light-rail line moves about as many people as one-fourth of a freeway lane. None move more than about half a freeway lane.
Let’s assume (for a moment) that the claims about the capacity of passenger rail systems are true. Here are some questions that the promoters of such schemes need to carefully consider:
How is such a system going to be funded?
Remember that in most U.S. metropolitan areas, transit gets most of its operating subsidies and all of its capital subsidies from highway users in the form of diverted motor fuel tax revenues and (in some cases) toll revenues.
Without motorized highway traffic to provide these subsidies, who or what is going to (fully) fund transit?
How will people get to places where there is no transit?
What about freight transport to retail establishments, other business locations, and to residences?
What about refuse and recycling removal and disposal?
And please remind me why should we pay an expensive consultant for such plans, when they have been available on the Web for quite a few years on sites like this?
No CPZ, the bulk of funding is from property taxes.
Is this another one of those things that will happen when all the oil disappears from the planet?
Did you see this?
http://youtu.be/7HgQ-jENojQ
A think it’s a pretty nifty idea.
.
It sure is, open access is a great idea. Though the problem is that most of the rail network in America is a private monopoly.
Let’s make it all government run and have you administer it. I’m sure it would work out much better that way!
If done the exact same way as now with roads, things would be way better!