Only people in Ontario call it that. It’s just an abbreviation of Ontario Hydro electric. The name hydro electric comes from the fact that most energy in Ontario is generated via dams. No one outside of Ontario will refer to electricity as ‘hydro’.
Nuance on the internet? Impossible. Great video, and I agree that there are situations where they can possibly work better than the examples that i used.
@@RMTransit in his defense, any form of urbanism will work in Amsterdam, but in the case of NA city, the government will find any excuse to cut corner, thus, only designing and copying the best example is the better choice but I really love your point here 6:07 highway RT > no transit
Fun thing. Along a large part of the Ringbahn (In the former West-Berlin Part) goes alongside the Autobahn (Stadtautobahn), but the Ringbahn was build first (in the 19th century) and the Autobahn was build after WW2. ;)
There’s quite of lot of this in Amsterdam. Usually the station has a central hall/corridor that connects to pedestrian and bike friendly squares at ground level and both the highway and the rail infrastructure itself is elevated. At Amsterdam Zuid they’re working now on putting the highway right of ways underground.
Another thing about highway median stations is that it’s very easy to build. People just see the highway and think oh we can put that line in super quickly!
I really don't get the groaning by some people when it comes to putting tracks in the median of a highway. While you certainly don't want the entire rail line to be there, it's an effective means to take advantage of existing right of ways and put down track that's uninhibited by traffic and can make for higher speed intercity transit/commuter transit that can better link up lower density areas of a greater metro area to the hub and can make commute times far less aggravating. It can also bring future development that lowers the cost of housing in cities because it makes the demand for said housing that much cheaper. The US Interstate system could also be best used to make high speed rail lines, as seen with what's going on with Brightline West's project as they try and link up Greater LA with Las Vegas. This could open doors for a bunch of new rail corridors that weren't available before.
yeah like here in la we have multiple lines that run in the middle of massive traffic congested freeways, which is better than no lines, but the stations are open, so you hear, smell, and breath in the car noise and fumes. its horrible, and thats when its not 100⁰F outside. they should at least have protection from the sound, as traffic noise that close can cause long term damage
@@Matty002 they should all be built like the REM stations imo, with the "platform screen doors" basically becoming walls for a little indoor station. Keeps the heat in in Canada, would keep the cool in in southern USA. Keeps the noise out in any case. Keeps the air quality cleaner.
If the right of way has been established, it is a good idea to use it. Nothing wrong with a Metro running next to a highway so long as the metro stations are done right, and are placed at the destinations people want to go.
It's also more likely to get drivers out of their cars. "I'm stuck in traffic, barely moved, but three trains going my way passed. Next time, I'll see if the train works for me." I see this as an excellent placement for suburban stations ... along with car parking for the "last 5 miles", a bike garage for "last 2 miles" and an easy walk for those living close to the station.
@@lizcademy4809 the one problem with that is induced demand, even if you take a car off the road with public transit, someone farther out will be motivated to drive. Public transit is a tool to increase mobility not reduce traffic. Increasing street network connectivity and adding convenience stores to neighborhoods would do more to fight traffic than doubling of public transit will.
@@linuxman7777 Not necessarily ... the number of people who need to go "downtown" during morning rush hour is not quite fixed, but not completely induced. If I don't need to commute, I won't drive or take the train during rush hour. [I might drive in later in the day, but I'd rather ride a nice clean, fast train for $5 than pay $20 for downtown parking and risk dealing with afternoon rush hour.] Improving suburban neighborhoods is an excellent goal, but the desire and funding come from a very different place. The local transit authority is not going to open convenience stores :) The whole issue of fixing North American cities is gigantic and complex, and we need to work on as many pieces of the problem as possible all at once.
@@lizcademy4809 very good point nothing that at least for the work commute, demand is not neccessary induced or fixed, whereas most other traffic is in fact induced like for shopping or travel. This is why I think that making life worse for car drivers wont make things better for anyone, if the people live in places where they must drive, no matter how terrible you make their drives, they will still have to drive. And you really didn't fix anything. However if you brought some commerical activity to said neighborhood, and connected the street network, you not only made a place more walkable, you also improved the situation for drivers by giving them more options, and also reduced traffic by allowing it to be distributed better and not requiring a car for every shopping trip.
Highway regional rail definitely seems like it makes sense, since you can be pickier with your fewer stations, and the benefit ratio on cost of the alignment is higher.
Even higway long distance rail makes sense, as Highways are generally going to places people want to go, and use corridors sutable for high speed travel,not to mention use tend to be on already goverment-owned land. Large portion of French TGV network is built along highways.
For "regional rail" it really depends on how far the highway is from settlements. In many parts of Europe for example the motorways don't go anywhere near the important parts of cities, towns, or villages, so it often doesn't make sense. For urban rail like s-bahns it can make more sense because they often are in cities that are big and dense enough to have notable destinations that can be served from stations at the highway. (See for example Amsterdam Zuid as an example)
One interesting point on Chicago's Forest Park blue line is that there are proposals to cap parts of the highway and build residential developments on the cap near the blue line stations. This is expensive but would reconnect the community and make for a far better station.
Between all our highway stations, the cold, and thoroughly standardized rolling stock (that tends to stop in pretty much the same place, Chicago seems like a really good use case for platform screen doors.@@thatpersonsmusic
Because cars get so much of the transportation funding that transit is stuck with the bare minimum needed to maintain service (and sometimes not even that). Improvements are right out.
Chicago did it horribly. Israel did it great. Chicago had very narrow stations (about 5 feet!) and Israel had very wide stations. And Israel managed the noise pollution so that is wasn’t noticeable. Chicago had the noise pollution so miserable !
Exactly, a median station on its own is poorly designed, but if you have the density to back it up AND have it enclosed in a way that you're protected from all that noise pollution like having platform screen doors, then it can be great design! Even better if there's a bus hub. On the LIRR, the Babylon Branch aren't median stations, but it runs along NY State Route 27 or Sunrise Highway. However, the Babylon Branch came way before the highway as it originally opened in the 1860s while the highway first opened in the mid-1920s, so the highway follows the trains, not the other way around. And the Babylon Branch is completely grade separated, but it wasn't always this way. When it got its start in the 1860s as part of South Side Railroad of Long Island, it was all ground-level crossings, and this became a problem as more people moved to the south shore of Long Island. So a mega project was launched in the 1950s to build the stations on elevated viaducts, with the last station along the branch to be elevated was Massapequa Park in 1980. To supplement Route 27, there is parking to lure people off the highway and different NICE and Suffolk Transit buses serve the stations as well, with the addition of Jones Beach bus service from Freeport making it possible to go to Jones Beach concerts by transit.
The best part of metros in highway medians is racing past cars clogged in congestion. And stuck car drivers would think: "If only they got rid of it (or bury the line) there would be enough room for 'One More Lane' to get traffic moving again. Or convert the space to a 'Premium Toll Express Lane' that also hosts transit buses or streetcars."
I think the Silver Line in DC, which connects Dulles Airport, has been done fairly well. The line is mainly in the highway median after Tysons, but there is a lot of transit oriented development occurring around the stations
Thanks for the shout out to Perth 😊. When I saw the notification for this video I was going see if you would mention my city (you having previously posted a video on its rail system). Most highway median stations here incorporate bus interchanges, have cycle way access, and reasonable parking.
@@thegreentimtam I just saw cycleway access, but missed the interchange bit, oops. Stirling station aside, the other ones don't really have any improvements in the pipeline. Though the only stations missing a bus interchange are Edgewater, Currambine and Greenwood.
Glad you brought up the REM. It shares the Champlain bridge with the highway, so it's a necessity for Montreal transit, and connecting the suburbs. The more suburban drivers who choose rail over their car to get to work, errands, or see a show, the better! Du Quartier is next to a highway but it was built to have access to the Dix30 shopping mall and there's nice housing too. Generally speaking, I'm okay with new service to suburbs being built through the highway. It's different when you're in the city. And the Blue Line in Chicago is just...egregious. Highway stations don't have to be bad, and utilizing highways is a good tool to make good transit in a lot of cases. Another highway median-line is Metro's C Line/Green Line in Los Angeles. UCLA says that the traffic noise there exceeds 90 decibels, exceeding the OSHA limit for noise exposure longer than a few minutes. The line was a provision for the construction of the fiercely opposed I-105 to help impacted communities. And there is a benefit to it: It's fast. The freeway by definition is grade separated, so you're essentially getting a fully grade-separated (thus fast) transit line for little additional cost. I think the C Line gets its ridership from the fact that it is basically a high-speed cross-town rocket ship that connects with other rail and bus lines, as well as serving LAX, with a connection to the People Mover starting in 2024.
As both a transit guy and theme park nerd, I've always wondered how you could build a transit system for a sprawling city like Orlando, and I feel like you could actually do it cost effectively with freeway medians. You could stick an REM-style rail service in the highway medians to cover the large distances cost effectively and with high speeds, then go off to have stations at the activity centers like downtown, the airports, the hotel/convention areas, and the theme park resorts. It would be much better than the stupid gadgetbahns and slow buses the city seems to be infatuated with, and they could use it to fix their sprawl problem, get more housing built to accommodate the many jobs there and prevent cost of living from soaring, and get the tourists off their roads and into trains.
I think Orlando is probably unique in its development pattern, with a lot of land devoted to theme parks and tourism. Unfortunately, this creates a situation where you have different parks who find it difficult to play together. Look at all the contention between Disney, Universal, Sunrail, and Brightline, and it is quite a complex situation.
With Florida you also have to contend with its combative politics. DeSantis will do NOTHING to benefit the Orlando area because he wants to punish that area for political points. The Orlando extension of Brightline was done in spite of DeSantis, not because of him and mostly with no assistance from the state of Florida. But a commuter train from MCO straight to Disney World would make perfect sense
Disney will *never* consent to be part of any transit system that links to Universal, and vice versa. They will absorb any and all amount of inefficiencies, inconveniences, and cost (which are mostly externalities to them, anyway) before they would do that. Yay for the efficiencies of corporations !
I personally don't think there is anything wrong with using a highway to build a metro as long as that highway is in a denser area, and the station can be fairly accessible. Most transit is built under or above existing roads, because it's simple. Planners rarely have the luxury of free space. A highway is just another road that is convenient to build on. Like you said, this is so common it would be difficult to find systems that don't extensively use roads or highways to conveniently build transit.
Highways are fundamentally just a noisy transportation corridor ideal for higher speeds. This makes them a great place to put other transportation infrastructure with minimal risk of NIMBYs or other complaints because their is no way a railroad is going to make that corridor any worse. And from just a metro quality perspective, it may not be as ideal as other stations but if well placed the cost/benefit ratio should be worth it. Edit: Typos/autocorrect
They're also good for extending transit out into less dense suburbs that are all over North American metro areas. The often maligned "park & ride" station makes sense for suburban extensions of transit systems where most people in those areas own cars anyway. Even MTA in NY uses this to an extent for LIRR and Metro North, though they have the advantage of their ROW being built 100 years ago, the suburban stations out on Long Island and up in the Hudson Valley and SW Connecticut are designed to keep car traffic out of NYC so their stations are typically the park & ride style station outside of NYC proper. They also have numerous connections to the NYC Subway system as well once the commuter lines cross into the city.
Do you think you'll do a video on the (very short sighted) decision to cut back on HS2 in the UK? Both the Northern leg and the stretch to Euston look to be being scrapped, making journey times not much faster than currently from Central London, and because of that there will be huge stress on the Elizabeth line, and likely still need to have fast trains on the existing main line, neutralising the main point of the whole project, which was removing fast trains from the main line to allow a huge increase in local and freight capacity
its worth waiting until the government makes up its mind on what its doing before making that sort of video (and its worth bearing in mind that a future non-Conservative government may have reasons to reinstate cancelled parts of the project)
Hopeful the Office for Budget Responsibility and all the other public bodies that are meant to stop the government from wasting money will step up and shame the government into rolling back its decision to cancel the Euston link and Phase 2a and Phase 2b east ( Phase 2b west has a costly tunnel that no real work has begun on yet and there are not any points that it would make sense to cut it back to as without the previously axed Wythenshawe Loop Metrolink tramway being built Manchester Airport High-Speed station is poorly located to serve the airport and the city centre, and the Mid-Cheshire line is not really suited for high-speed trains.) given how money has already been dumped into these sections.
The Metro line out to Fairfax from Washington DC is a good example of what you are talking about. Only 2 highway lanes each direction most of the way. Even the big station in Fairfax where the highway is wider has walkable neighborhoods on both sides of the station, and the covered bridge to get to the tracks is quite pleasant and convenient
to be honest we should just convert one right of way of all these beltways and urban freeways into railways. you can fit one rail line on one lane of traffic, so a four way road is a huge rail capacity. way bigger than most cities even need. the other right of way can just be used for both directions of traffic as there is going to be so much less car traffic. the last step is making suburban neighborhoods safe to bike in
bikes are the first step, not the last. bikes solve the chicken and egg problem because they work in low density suburbs and have the effect of driving up density.
Hydro corridors in cities are a strange concept to me. If i wasn't married to a Canadian I wouldn't even know what one was. For one thing calling it Hydro is a weird Canadianism that no one else understands, but the other thing is that in the UK and Europe, pretty much all our power lines are buried underground in cities. The Toronto one seems like a massive waste of land....unless you use it as a park or a transit corridor. Does it actually get used as a park at the moment or is it just dead land?
Yes, they are. Hydro Corridors are used to build bike trails and parks. Burying said corridor is just way too costly, and very risky, given the density around the GTA. The Mississauga Transitway uses a hydro corridor on a lot of its sections.
@@mdhazeldine Because most Hydro Corridors in the GTA are next to houses, natgas pipes, and other pieces of infrastructure that complicate the burial process, and would cost billions of dollars. It's not like the corridors take up much space. However, there's no need to bury them. Ontario doesn't have the space issues that Europe has. No need to bury cables.
Here in NYC the planned Interboro tram line was supposed to continue into the Bronx over the Hell Gate Bridge. But past a certain point the right of way switches ownership to CSX. So the current plan is to stop the line at Roosevelt Avenue. Quite far from the Bronx. However, right next to the line is the Grand Central Parkway. If they were able to shift it up and over the highway (much like the JFK Airtrain) it could continue north. Unfortunately I do not think Robert Moses designed the Triborough Bridge for rail, so a bridge or causeway up to the Bronx would be needed. OR have the tram line be the connect to LaGuardia AirPort. 🤷♂️
I've been thinking the GTA is so far gone and lost, the only evolution of east-west regional transit will have to be a regional rail along Highway 401, from Pickering GO in the east (since that's where Hwy 401 meets the Lakeshore East line) and Hurontario in the west. In my mind such an alignment would go much further in improving east-west travelling in the GTA than the transitway 'planned' for Highway 407. Most regional travel in the GTA is east-west and unless you're going downtown Toronto, the transit options are very limited and constrained.
Rail lines in highways is just the one way to guarantee no one can walk up to your station. No matter how cheap it can be I don’t think that’s a worthwhile sacrifice.
Median metros are the only type of metro lines you see in Manila. Manila has three metro lines (excluding the PNR) that all follow major roads in the city, often with 4 or 5 lanes either side of the median metro for miles. I always found that extremely inconvinent because stations are almost always far from where you want them.
I think the MRT-3 in the middle EDSA is the only one that qualifies as a median metro. The rest are actually all elevated above the road or in the case of PNR, next to the expressway.
@@trainsandmore2319 It's the same principle, they follow the major roads no matter what in order to reduce costs in buying land. If the only space these metro lines take is within the road, pretty sure they are still counted as median metros even if they are elevated. Pillars and other types of infastructure needed, take up space from the road the line is built on.
The fundamental issue is having a highway in an urban area. It shouldn't be there. But in the imperfect world we live in we have to deal with facts such as highways being there. And at that moment you gotta deal with imperfect solutions - station gotta go somewhere. Either you cut off one side, or the other, or you compromise in the middle. And then do your best to mitigate whatever disadvantage your chosen placement has.
An example I always use is the C(Green) Line in Los Angeles. Despite being almost all freeway stations, it does have a healthy amount of ridership; most likely from the fact that it's fully grade-separated BECAUSE of the freeway and can easily hit the 65 mph maximum speed between stations. Its speed makes it a good cross-town connection through the middle of LA County. Meanwhile, the new K-Line is suffering from poor ridership despite not having any freeway stations by contrast. (Yes, it did open incomplete, but even with the new LAX connection it will probably still be a relatively underperforming line)
Thanks@panzer- I was wondering when someone was going to mention LA especially since they talked about the light rail line in Montreal. You're right The green line aka the C-line runs like a metro from Norwalk to its terminus in Redondo Beach. You can also add to your list the A line that goes out the 210 freeway that also runs at max speed from Pasadena all the way out to Duarte where it leaves the freeway but still is on its own right away all the way to Azusa. I live in San Diego and the green line here that runs elevated parallel to the I-8 freeway an sort of snakes its way through mission Valley but as it leaves Mission Valley going toward SDSU it's on a hillside above the freeway and then enters a subway tunnel to the underground college campus before coming back out and running parallel to the 8 again to LA Mesa. Although I feel the line could run much faster if it was if it didn't snake its way through Mission Valley and went on a straight line but one thing I have noticed that traffic isn't as bad since building the Green line as it was prior to the Green line being built and I think that's because visually people can see there's an alternative especially on game days when Qualcomm stadium was in full force and traffic was super heavy. Now's the SDSU college stadium that in college game days acts like a student shuttle takes a lot of cars off the road! So freeway Metro's be it light or heav can be a visible alternative that people can opt to use while driving on the freeway. JMO
Seattle is building Link mostly next to I-5. Many station pull away from the highway ROW to serve transit centers or TOD or other centers (college, mall...). That might be the best of both worlds (fast/cheap ROW and reasonable access). Station access is key. Some stations in Seattle use pedestrian/bike bridges. Singapore is using APMs to bring riders to a station. I could even imagine a gondola extending to urban centers in both directions. Their frequent service help to make the transfer seamless, automatic operation makes it affordable even with long operating hours.
I used the Chicago Addison Station that is in the middle of I90/94. It was loud an some redesign might make that better, but honestly it worked well. Busses in front ran frequently East/West. My wife has mobility issues and the station was easy to get to using the bu, easy to get down to platform and back. We were quickly in the heart of the city. Not ideal from a noise perspective, but it was central to a LOT of medium density housing. Also Amsterdam South has trains and metro running between the highway. I remember when the Metro come there for the first time in the early 1980's. There was almost nothing between "old South" and Amstelveel to the south. South Station was turned into a major transit hubs as it connects trains, metro, trams, and busses going East / West and North / South. In the past two decades the area has seen an explosion of growth and next to the corporate office towers there is now lots of high density housing as well. It's the station that is closest to the author of "Not Just Bikes" so it gets show off regularly. There was also quite an impressive upgrade a few years back where they have to move in a whole section of a station in a few hours. As you said, it should not be the first choice, but in some areas, it can work quite well.
I went on a trip to Chicago this spring and on the way back from the Loop, we took the blue line to get to the hotel on the edge of the city. Which I think is the line Addison Station is on, and some guy and a few CTA officers got on the train. The guy started screaming at the officers saying that he was going to kill one of them, after the second station we stopped at they all got off the train. It was inspiring
small amendment, when you sighted examples from around the world you showed berlin, where the Ringbahn was build before the Urban Highway. and also the A100 (Urban Highway) fucking sucks and makes the ring and surronding development actively worse (soure: live near one and wikipedia
Hydro Canadianish for Electricity. From the original electricity generating being water powered and the electric companies being call "the Hydro electric company" shortened to Hydro
Fun fact: The Berlin highway you showed was built 50 years after the Ringbahn. Often highways were built next to existing rail lines, not the other way around.
I thought Alan was kinda being unreasonable, glad i wasnt crazy. I would rather have bad Metro than no metro, and NIMBY's are often very powerful, and complaining about them alone wont change anything, for now these will do, i get they aren't ideal but compromise is better than pouting like he did. Frankly in hindsight he pouts alot and offers solutions that will not be even close to being able to happen with the political landscape in the US, occasionally he will offer a middle ground, but more often than not its hell or high water, and I dont want to have hell
Same reason the California High-speed rail project should have been down the median of I-5 through as much of the Central Valley as possible. The land is already acquired, it is already completely grade separated, it is in the middle of what is already considered to be an area with high noise pollution if the corridor is in the center of something like an interstate that has already passed environmental review then it is much more likely to pass itself, and there are not what seems like an infinite amount of residents to protest, sue, and generally try to hold up the process as much as possible. All of this would result in a far cheaper, more quickly constructed line that would be far more competitive with short-haul flights from LA to SF which was the entire point to begin with.
Hello from the Orange/Silver line on WMATA, the two. most highway-running lines in the DC metro. Our metro here in DC is kind of an odd system, in that it combines aspects of a suburban train system with some aspects of an urban metro. The western edges of the Orange and Silver lines (beyond Ballston) run in highway medians. The outlying stations of the Orange Line are a lot further apart and act more as suburban rail stations, and the trains run as fast (or faster) than the highway traffic. This offers suburban users pretty quick access into the core. On the Silver line, the highway-running segments connect previously transit-inaccessible centers to the broader network and enable ultimate connection to Dulles Airport. There's a tendency on urbanist/transit TH-cam to pile on about stuff like this without acknowledging that these represent genuinely useful transit links and meaningfully reduce auto trips along the corridor. The main problem we have here is terrible suburban bus service that limits the reach of the suburban metro stations--but that can be fixed.
Reese Reese I'm surprised you didn't include any footage of the LA light rail median freeway stations since you once referred to it as a *regional light rail* type metro due to the long distances it travels.😢
Over here in malaysia, many of the metro lines tend to find their rail corridors running on viaducts running alongside highways, and our high tension corridors (the 'hydro' corridors). And often times, it's because it's the only straight line left with everything already built out.
Yes, in the case of Kajang line made me think: Why is ridership in Kajang line way higher than Sri Petaling with Puchong extension despite it is not build on a highway at all? While everyone criticized on Kajang Line build on highway. I would ask: What else do you want? Demolish 1000 2 storey link houses in Cheras that now worth RM 1 million per unit? Just for Taman Connaught station? You have that kind of money for houses compensation how about that money use for better station amenities?
Tårnby station (Copenhagen) is a decent example of how to build next to a highway (not a median though). Simply cover the highway with a lid, use it as a park and have a station next to it.
Using existing highway ROW is how Brightline was able to build Florida's HSR faster than in California - which specifically chose NOT to use Interstate 5 ROW in the Central Valley. Huge mistake that required costly (and controversial) land purchases and creates environmental impacts. Texas is also going to use highway ROW for the Dallas-Houston Brightline line. Many don't seem to understand how much land acquisition costs and how long it takes to purchase.
The thing about highway 5 is that highway 5 goes through the middle of nowhere. Where would it stop on the way? Santa Nella? Coalinga? Avenal? The only big-ish towns/cities that are kinda close to the 5 are still decently far from it (Los Banos, maybe Bakersfield but that'd be even more of a stretch) Meanwhile if you do what they did and paralleling the 99 corridor for most of it, you get to go through Fresno and Bakersfield, which are each sizeable cities of ~500k people. And even the smaller cities along that corridor (of which there are many (like hanford, madera, tulare, etc.)), many have 50-60-thousand people each. And I presume that folks from there might also want to go to SF or LA every so often Routing down the 5 could get folks from the SF bay area to the LA metro quicker and probably might be cheaper to make, but it would just affect these places instead the spots in between, except like Avenal or someplace idk
@@shreychaudhary4477 Some points in response... 1) No one said it has to stay in the highway ROW the entire distance. The alignment could certainly deviate where it made sense. 2) HSR always faces the issue of intermediate stops. Too few and you lose local political support from the places skipped. Too many stops and the service is no longer high-speed and competitive with air travel. 3) Land you already own is always cheaper than land you have to buy. 4) The environmental approval process for new greenfield infrastructure is much more difficult than that for existing infrastructure corridors. And, time is money.
@@shreychaudhary4477 Does the HSR line or station have to run thru/be in the middle of Fresno? Many European HSR lines are located outside a city's downtown... or even near the edge of the city they serve.
You should make a video about how crime rates affect public transport use, and what cities can do to deal with this. People from places like some regions of Brazil or Colombia prefer using Uber, even though it's three to four times the price, rather than taking buses, BRT or metro and risking being robbed.
Same in Paris... the subway is disgusting, and some RER lines goes through slums of such bad reputation that they have nicknames. RER D is the 'rape line'. Crimes are so frequent on night buses that using them is playing russian roulette. We also have a bed bug invasion in transit systems right now in France. Even in high speed trains.... Some TGV (out trademark high speed trains) consists are infested with cockroaches. Most recent metro stations and infrastructures (the "grand paris express" lines) are not finished, but already vandalized...
We too have a very short highway median section. But they build it rather smart. Instead of an island platform it has two side platforms with full length canopy build entirety out of concrete. So besides shelter it also acts as a, sound barrier. It's not the most pleasant station, lots of graffiti, but catchment is rather good with medium density all around
I see no problem with Median Transit as long as the stations are well connected to the buildings next to the highway and those buildings are well set up as transit nodes.
It's probably not ideal in a lot of cases, but especially in the US where people are often leery of spending money on non-car transit infrastructure, even non-ideal transit is better than none at all
Hi, Chilean here. In Santiago de Chile, 3 lines have sections running along highways, and the stations are great. In my opinion it's not about the highway median station itself, it's about the people it can serve at the start and how many it will serve in the future.
I think the best approach is actually to just completely remove urban highways. They take away huge amounts of space (which is terrible especially during a housing crisis!) for a mediocre capacity. They act like loud urban scars and barriers for the locals, we don’t want this. So let’s just emulate Paris and its T1 East extension project, they’re replacing an highway by a modern 2x1 urban boulevard with large pedestrian and green spaces, wide and separated cycle infrastructures, traffic lights to slow down traffic and a modern European tramway extension (with green tracks of course)
There's definitely a risk among some transport departments to justify keeping the motorways as-is when other uses are mixed-in. But if the planning is aware of this, and has a roadmap (funny how car-centric our language has already become... roadmap, off-ramp, etc when discussing abstract plans) to convert into the style you mention rather than allowing the trains/trams to disrupt the plan it should be alright.
That may work in compact European cities, not in sprawling North American cities. Running transit alongside urban highways actually makes sense for car centric North American cities. It's not realistically feasible to convert a car centric North American city into something else, but that doesn't mean you can't implement good transit in those cities using their highway corridors as easy ROW for trains which if ridership is good should reduce highway congestion. you also have to contend with the fickle nature of US partisan politics. Start removing highways and making it harder to drive and own a car and your city government will be taken over by Republicans in the next election who will cancel all your transit projects and work towards eliminating your transit systems entirely if they can't privatize them to their donors.
Some good points here. I've been thinking that at some point they should run a new skytrain line between vancouver (via first avenue into downtown) and surrey (along KG Boulevard) using the Highway 1 row through Burnaby and Coquitlam. It wouldn't be the most efficient route in terms of catchment areas in Burnaby, but it would be cheaper than other options, would provide pretty good service to BCIT, and would be a huge improvement to transit connections between surrey and vancouver, the two largest cities in the region.
Here in the DC area, the Metro runs along highways, but does link up with some population/business areas. I'd ague that the Orange Line should be extended along Route 66 to Centreville with a few stops at business centers along the way (Fair Oaks & Fair Lakes for example). Its pretty much what they did with the Silver Line expansion out to Dulles. Sadly, they recently cut down all the trees at the Vienna station so they could put in four more lanes of highway, making it crazy noisy and unpleasant (it was only very noisy and unpleasant before). I really wish A) that they hadn't done that, as 66 definitely didn't need MORE lanes, and B) that they'd at least put up some kind of sound buffer for folks at the station. But the VDOT seems generally hostile to public transit, pedestrians & cyclists (see also: the 66 Adjacent Trail for a big middle finger directed at the people it is supposed to serve).
In my experience working as a transport planner, context trumps rules presented in a contextless vacuum. I'm less favourable of high-frequency stop dense metros in highway medians compared to longer distance rails. The median railways in Perth are a good example, being set up with long distances between stations, which allows the trains to use those highway corridors to accelerate to top speed more often, having a strong emphasis on integrated bus networks around the otherwise less accessible stations, with significant transfer promoting infsdtructure, and services running 70km south and 40km north (with plan extensions) emphasising that these are longer distance suburban services rather then urban metros. If you have good regional highway corridors with room to lay track down (either in the median or along the side) it can provide a very efficient route for passengers looking for a longer distance service option.
Station density is actually a good thing especially in downtowns...it's one of the reasons why the NY Subway is one of the most success transit networks in the world. Without station density you have to transfer more with a bus or street car...and travelers hate transfers.
@AaronSmith-sx4ez yeah it is important on a subway, intended to service a dense metro area. It's not so important on a commuter line meant to move people from one town to another town 30+ miles away through one or more urban breaks. Different services have different needs and idealy, are set up accordingly to optimise for those needs. My point is that median running can be pretty good for a service that doesn't need to have tightly packed stops for short distance metro travel and prioritises being able to get from one centre to another centre a greater distance away quickly and efficiently. There is no one size fits all service. If resources allow it you should be setting up specific services to cater to specific transport needs.
Boston Orange Line to Forest Hills is interesting. They overbuilt an entire blocks over the station in the highway at each station. Interestingly many are parks but that would be a great way to put in TOD if a similar tactic is employed elsewhere in the future.
Hello Reece, first time for me to contribute in the comments. I would say that building on the "Hydro corridor" isn't that straighforward. First you have EMC issues: on my project in UK, we are using existing disused Network Rail track for a new tram-train but the proximity of the track along a short stretch of existing power line creates headaches when it was time to electrify the corridor with OHLE (obvisously it was not before). It also creates major issues when it comes to the construction as excavator, cranes ... are not best fitted below high voltage and special protection, way of building will be required (increase the cost). Depending on countries, it could even required to shut the line which of course is not possible with such major power line. Finally, again depending on the countries you cannot work at proximity without certification which reduce your pool of worker. After sounding so hard with you (I didn't want) I totally agree that we need to use every existing corridor available to bring more transit at a better cost.
I think they would be better if the metro tracks and stations are elevated over the highway rather than smack in the middle of them at the same level, with access bridges at stations to either side of the highway that can be used without entering the paid area of the station (for systems that use a controlled access system). Indeed, here in Singapore we do have (almost) such an example: Gul Circle MRT station is basically located right over a major arterial road that connects directly to an expressway at one end nearby, and the entire station is basically elevated on “stilts” over the roadways below (the arterial road itself as well as the filter roads on the side). Access to the station is via a pedestrian bridge that descends onto either side of the roadway, and it is possible to walk from one side of the station to the other without entering the paid area, allowing the station to function as a overhead bridge over the roadway too. With the station basically elevated over the road, vehicular noise from the roadway below becomes a non-issue, and it also makes more efficient use of the land space too. Smacking the station at-grade in the roadway’s median would not only had exposed commuters at the station platform to the noise from the roadways, it would also had required the roadway to be much wider to accommodate the tracks and station platforms in-between. Perhaps highway median stations around the world might be more bearable if they were built similarly? Heck, even just putting the tracks and the platforms on a higher/lower level above/below the roadway (with the roads running only beside, and not entirely underneath/over the tracks/platforms) would definitely help alleviate the noise issue for commuters on the platform.
I'm glad to see this *video* (EDIT: not email, that's what I get for commenting pre-coffee) because it's a little annoying to see any sort of transit rejected wholesale when the state of things means we can't really be choosing beggars. When transit is so expensive, ridership comfort unfortunately comes second to things like speed, cost, location, and safety. And highway stations don't have to be bad. The DC metro has a few stations, along the Orange and Silver Lines which aren't that bad because they're partially enclosed, and if built right with a full enclosure a highway station can be useful. We need to remember that inside city cores highways are often close to residents and destinations (or areas that can be upzoned), and outside city cores many people live and work within a mile of the highway because that's how those areas grew and became developed in the first place. When ROW is such a big issue for surface or elevated rail, it's never worth dismissing wholesale.
I think that should be good, cut out a lane or 2 on freeways for something like this for many highways.... One of the dubai metro is kinda like that (on that zayad highway) and its pretty good. Perth is one of the most excellent example and done right and comfortable even with mandurah which is like 70km. Sydney is an ass with freeway system and probs won't work too well. Maybe M4 variant could work but even then the T1 looks after that corridor.
Reece. it is obvious that the use of the term 'hydro corridors' has caused considerable confusion. That is a pity, as the rest of the video made very good sense! There is also a problem with your use of -shed and 'watershed' I really do think you should remake this video avoiding this very confusing language. (Edit). In the light of other comments, the British English meaning of the word 'watershed' (derived from the German "Wasserscheide") is almost the total opposite of the North American meaning of 'watershed'!
Tallinn (the Estonian capital) has had a median tram line planned since Soviet times but it was never implemented, which is a shame because it would serve the most populated area of the city, which is notoriously neglected by local and national govts. alike.
My closest CTA L station is in the highway right of way. If I ran the CTA with an unlimited money hack? I'd love to elevate those lines and make a weather-protected bike and walking path underneath with regular opportunities for transfers between the two so people can ride some or all of the way, and can switch back and forth as they need or as conditions change between them. Would that be louder for residents? Maybe, but not by much, and there is another elevated line about a mile north that doesn't suck to live near. The highway is the loud part.
In the case of the US, and in particular the old, Robert Moses era highways of New York and other such similar highways in cities, those are highways that were ran through historically dense communities, which, although reduced in density and quality of life by the highway, can be rebuilt into better communities with higher density. There’s even been proposals on the books to convert a bit the grand central expressway into an extension of the Astoria line, and other proposals for provisions that were personally blocked by Moses because he’s a dick. Countless other cities can benefit from retooling their highways to build public demand and support for further metro or regional rail expansions by giving them a taste of low construction cost, no demolition systems.
I don't know. I think running the rail's along a protected ROW in a highway median is probably a better use of the space, I would think that it would only take one car sliding off in winter and being hit by a train to end any future use of the median. That said, you can put an elevated rail guideway down a median and absolutely nothing is lost, you even retain the ability for EMT vehicles to U-turn down them. However don't put the station in the middle of the highway. If you're going to do it this way, build the station crossing the highway so it also acts as a pedestrian bridge for the highway, and as a waiting area for the train. When people have to cross a highway to get to a transit stop (even bus stops) it puts them in danger, and out in Victoria, there are quite a few of these kinds of bus stops, where the bus comes once an hour, and you're just sitting there in a 2-person wide bus shelter with nothing around, no stores, no houses, just highway.
I feel like the US station design (with no sound protection whatsoever) shows how they think transit should be just some minimum quality service for poor people that they themselves wouldn't use.
Highway metros are perfectly fine if we think of the metro as a form of shorter distance intercity transport, between city-sized neighborhoods. In any 15 minute city, you should not need to take a metro for basic errands because you could be spending 5 minutes just walking through the metro station. The metro is there to provide a commute to specialized jobs, or to allow you to visit specialists who provide uncommon services. Getting in the highway metro station is no different from getting to the amtrak or regional flight, the longer walk to the station is fine because it will ultimately save you hours of walking. If you want true neighborhood transit, then you should look at buses and trams - but they are a poor use of funding as bike lanes provide much better utility for neighborhood scale travel and should be built first. Transit funding should be spent on intercity and intercity-lite transit systems
I made a transit map for Miami-Dade that has elevated rail lines along the expressways. This is necessary as ground level lines would obstruct the already congested expressways we have. That, and the infrastructure requires that the lines be elevated.
Highways with median metros are excellent systems for urban transportation, if anything you are significantly underselling their value. One of the major problems with urban highways is that highway access should be at least a mile apart, at a minimum, and really should be farther apart for traffic flow. The only reason highway authorities set that design standard is because of the high need for access in high density areas, and the tradeoff in capacity is deemed acceptable, and then that limit is repeatedly ignored. The more access is limited, the fewer lanes you need. Increasing the width of highways doesn't increase the total number of people on or off a highway, which is usually the limit you're hitting in urban environments, adding rail lines does. Removing service interchanges becomes a lot more locally acceptable when you are talking about replacing it with a local metro station. A combined metro/vehicle locates stations not at service interchanges, but between them, therefore doubling the amount of access points to the traffic corridor. Inherently the stations are going to be distant from where surface street vehicular traffic concentrates, and exactly where you'd want to provide grade separated crossings for pedestrians anyway. And they are located at the points along the corridor that actually have the least ability to connect to the highway. And very conveniently, the distance you should be keeping service interchanges apart is the same as how far you should separate actual serious commuter rail. And you can connect the entire area for pedestrians and bikes because that whole area has no streets to cross. Where you provide metro access is where you will want to allow higher densities, and yes, higher densities are going to entail higher vehicular traffic, which you quickly want to move off surface streets and onto grade separated highways as soon for an area to be commercially viable, and walkable. Trying to use metro systems to reduce total vehicular traffic in a city is setting up metro systems to fail. Instead, they are for when you are looking to serve a higher density than what is possible with only vehicular infrastructures. And without access to highways, an area will not be viable. What cities should really be thinking of, is grade separated corridors, with about two lanes for vehicles in each direction and high floor rail located in the median, with alternating urban interchanges and metro stations. And what that should be replacing is those large streets, strodes or avenues, that have more than three lanes of surface streets in each direction. Those things are horrible for motorists trying to actually commute. And they are dangerous for both motorists and pedestrians. Surface streets divide neighborhoods because they just aren't safe enough for children, at all. It's expensive, and it means dealing with get limited access through, but it's the solution to traffic. And it makes a great neighborhood. I used to cross 7 lanes of interstate highway traffic, and two metro of rail every single day to go to the local park as a kid, and my dad did the same to go to the local metro station. It was unbelievably safe and nice place to walk around. Grade separation is great. If you're looking a great quiet place to be able to walk or bike and live, get a house next to a proper highway, one with a bikepath and a couple lines of rail too.
Even cyclists and public transport heaven Amsterdam has extended the metro up north as a median metro alongside one of the busiest roads/highways of the city. and it is totally fine. mostly because there are enough destinations and the density is quite high on both sides of the road/highway, but also because the road was already there and transforming it to a road with a metro in between it was an easy and cheap option
In Istanbul, there is a 52 km (32 miles) long BRT system in the middle of the oldest highway and it has a ridership of almost 1 million people everyday. So, median transport can be a good thing
Building in the highway median can be useful, but it depends on how you do your stations. If you just create minimalist platforms stuck out in the middle of traffic, that's no good. But if you make big broad linear park bridges across the highway so that it serves as both the transit stop and a comfortable way for people to cross an urban freeway by foot, bike or wheelchair, then it's good. People would say that costs too much, but you're using some of the money you saved by not tunneling the trains. They would effectively be separated little sections of freeway capping and over time you would be inclined to cap the rest.
Noise screens! The la metro and Chicago el's median stations would be far less hostile if they got noise barriers as seen on the DC metro or enclosing like Montréal's rem
the metro lines here in la that run through the freeways are all open stations. its horrible. youre stuck hearing and smelling the cars, and in the summer, the horrible heat
They can be good for adding transit capacity to car centric cities like you see all over North America. A prime spot where this would be good is in Denver's RTD rail system, they already have 2 highway track corridors for the light rail system on the south end of the city but a highway median ROW would be their best option for extending the B-line commuter train to Boulder via the US 36 highway corridor. The US 36 corridor is already heavily developed and the current transit plan is to piggyback on BNSF ROW with diesel trains with a completion date of 2040, a terrible option that few people will use. Better to build track in the median or side of US 36 along the main artery between Denver and Boulder and extend the existing electric B-line train to Boulder (Denver's heavy commuter rail is actually pretty nice, modern Hyundai-Rotem silverliner 5s that run a lot faster than the light rail trains and with double the frequency)
This is exactly why I have little issue with the Orange and Silver Lines of the Washington Metro utilizing highways in their western segments (west of Ballston-MU). By the time you reach areas like Whiele-Reston East on the Silver Line or Dunn Loring on the Orange Line, the density is low enough that it makes more sense to save some cost and prioritize speed so you can get to the big TOD stations like the aforementioned Ballston-MU or the downtown DC stations like Farragut West. I also find it funny that most of the other benefits that Reece mentions here are things WMATA takes full advantage of: - Diverting to serve denser developments? Check, the Silver Line deviates from VA-267 to serve McLean, Tysons, Greensboro, and Spring Hill - Huge bus loops for easy transfers? Check, for literally all the stations, but if you want a great example, look at Herndon (an interesting case of the bus loop existing for decades before the station). - Mitigating the obnoxiously loud noise? Well, half check. The platform barriers between the tracks and highway do a fantastic job of filtering out a decent amount of noise but on some of the Silver Line stations, WMATA chose to use sturdy fences instead of glass for the walkways over the lanes of traffic and that just doesn't work sadly. However, one Silver Line station is also a cautionary tale about not building your station in an area where development is next to impossible. Loudoun Gateway is the least used Metro station because it is purely a Park & Ride station with little else close by, few bus connections, and building anything that close to Dulles International Airport is...difficult. Don't build Loudoun Gateway-alike stations, folks.
The stops in Tyson’s by the mall are especially nice and lots of new development going up near there. Though, it can be a ghost town once you walk a block or two, since a lot of the stuff there are existing office towers, but if they are allowed to make adjustments and add more density/ residential, I think the area could be truly great.
@@commercialcritic4676 I think the county or local authorities have been angling to get rid of parking minimums to upzone the area cheaper/faster. But that area was, from the start, targeted with denser stop spacing to develop it similar to the Rosslyn to Ballson corridor which is probably some of the best late 20th century TOD in the US.
Fair point about Loudoun Gateway station, but I think it does have some unlockable potential for TOD in the future. If the Dulles North transit center/parking lot is redeveloped (because now with the station it’s essentially redundant/obsolete), and Lockridge Road and Shellhorn Road are reconfigured to be more walkable, then all the land East of Lockridge (between Moran Road and Shellhorn Road) and all the land south of Shellhorn (between the station, Lockridge, and Shellhorn) can be redeveloped into a TOD node radiating out from the station. It’ll take longer than the development at Ashburn Station itself, as Ashburn was planned to be built up around the station once the concept was first floated of the Silver line; but it is definitely possible to transform this area while still maintaining some of its purpose as a catch all park and ride.
@@richterpswag2729The issue is because the entire area is right at the end of the Dulles runway, it's not allowed to be zoned for residential or commercial, only industrial, since there's too much plane noise.
Actually, Chicago red line 's Dan Ryan branch has higher ridership than the green line's South Side Elevated through the city which it runs parallel to.
LA would benefit from this if it was planned more! We already have a few freeway alignments but I think there is definitely some that are very dense and important freeways!
Yes, Canadians call power transmission corridors “hydro corridors” I am Canadian, sorry! 😂
I was so confused
I think it would be a good name for canals
For the time being i thought it was a canal
Only people in Ontario call it that. It’s just an abbreviation of Ontario Hydro electric. The name hydro electric comes from the fact that most energy in Ontario is generated via dams. No one outside of Ontario will refer to electricity as ‘hydro’.
@@Ometochtli Hydro Quebec?
Nuance on the internet? Impossible.
Great video, and I agree that there are situations where they can possibly work better than the examples that i used.
Haha, I should have used more Amsterdam examples :)
I wish you two would come to Dallas and help them building the High Speed rail in the I-30 right of way between Fort Worth and Dallas.😊
Love this comment, especially as I was already anticipating this video from Reece while watching your video (due to the REM launch).
@@RMTransit Amsterdam Zuid would certainly like a word 😁
@@RMTransit in his defense, any form of urbanism will work in Amsterdam, but in the case of NA city, the government will find any excuse to cut corner, thus, only designing and copying the best example is the better choice
but I really love your point here 6:07 highway RT > no transit
Fun thing. Along a large part of the Ringbahn (In the former West-Berlin Part) goes alongside the Autobahn (Stadtautobahn), but the Ringbahn was build first (in the 19th century) and the Autobahn was build after WW2. ;)
Yep! But they still show colocation is often an acceptable solution
There’s quite of lot of this in Amsterdam. Usually the station has a central hall/corridor that connects to pedestrian and bike friendly squares at ground level and both the highway and the rail infrastructure itself is elevated. At Amsterdam Zuid they’re working now on putting the highway right of ways underground.
Another thing about highway median stations is that it’s very easy to build. People just see the highway and think oh we can put that line in super quickly!
I really don't get the groaning by some people when it comes to putting tracks in the median of a highway. While you certainly don't want the entire rail line to be there, it's an effective means to take advantage of existing right of ways and put down track that's uninhibited by traffic and can make for higher speed intercity transit/commuter transit that can better link up lower density areas of a greater metro area to the hub and can make commute times far less aggravating. It can also bring future development that lowers the cost of housing in cities because it makes the demand for said housing that much cheaper. The US Interstate system could also be best used to make high speed rail lines, as seen with what's going on with Brightline West's project as they try and link up Greater LA with Las Vegas. This could open doors for a bunch of new rail corridors that weren't available before.
My very rough general rule of thumb has been “freeway stations aren’t great, but freeway tracks are mostly fine”
Yes! Phoenix is using the i 10 to exspand the light rail through industrial areas to low income areas
yeah like here in la we have multiple lines that run in the middle of massive traffic congested freeways, which is better than no lines, but the stations are open, so you hear, smell, and breath in the car noise and fumes. its horrible, and thats when its not 100⁰F outside. they should at least have protection from the sound, as traffic noise that close can cause long term damage
@@Matty002 they should all be built like the REM stations imo, with the "platform screen doors" basically becoming walls for a little indoor station. Keeps the heat in in Canada, would keep the cool in in southern USA. Keeps the noise out in any case. Keeps the air quality cleaner.
The main thing is to make it accessible to bikers and walkers. Otherwise, what's the point?
If the right of way has been established, it is a good idea to use it. Nothing wrong with a Metro running next to a highway so long as the metro stations are done right, and are placed at the destinations people want to go.
Exactly my thinking
It's also more likely to get drivers out of their cars. "I'm stuck in traffic, barely moved, but three trains going my way passed. Next time, I'll see if the train works for me."
I see this as an excellent placement for suburban stations ... along with car parking for the "last 5 miles", a bike garage for "last 2 miles" and an easy walk for those living close to the station.
@@lizcademy4809 the one problem with that is induced demand, even if you take a car off the road with public transit, someone farther out will be motivated to drive. Public transit is a tool to increase mobility not reduce traffic. Increasing street network connectivity and adding convenience stores to neighborhoods would do more to fight traffic than doubling of public transit will.
@@linuxman7777 Not necessarily ... the number of people who need to go "downtown" during morning rush hour is not quite fixed, but not completely induced. If I don't need to commute, I won't drive or take the train during rush hour. [I might drive in later in the day, but I'd rather ride a nice clean, fast train for $5 than pay $20 for downtown parking and risk dealing with afternoon rush hour.]
Improving suburban neighborhoods is an excellent goal, but the desire and funding come from a very different place. The local transit authority is not going to open convenience stores :)
The whole issue of fixing North American cities is gigantic and complex, and we need to work on as many pieces of the problem as possible all at once.
@@lizcademy4809 very good point nothing that at least for the work commute, demand is not neccessary induced or fixed, whereas most other traffic is in fact induced like for shopping or travel.
This is why I think that making life worse for car drivers wont make things better for anyone, if the people live in places where they must drive, no matter how terrible you make their drives, they will still have to drive. And you really didn't fix anything. However if you brought some commerical activity to said neighborhood, and connected the street network, you not only made a place more walkable, you also improved the situation for drivers by giving them more options, and also reduced traffic by allowing it to be distributed better and not requiring a car for every shopping trip.
Highway regional rail definitely seems like it makes sense, since you can be pickier with your fewer stations, and the benefit ratio on cost of the alignment is higher.
Yeah exactly, it makes a lot of sense for something like the REM especially if the line diverts back out of the highway
Even higway long distance rail makes sense, as Highways are generally going to places people want to go, and use corridors sutable for high speed travel,not to mention use tend to be on already goverment-owned land. Large portion of French TGV network is built along highways.
@@mancubwwaand there'll be less people talking about the rail line destroying the nature, because it's already destroyed by the highway
For "regional rail" it really depends on how far the highway is from settlements. In many parts of Europe for example the motorways don't go anywhere near the important parts of cities, towns, or villages, so it often doesn't make sense. For urban rail like s-bahns it can make more sense because they often are in cities that are big and dense enough to have notable destinations that can be served from stations at the highway. (See for example Amsterdam Zuid as an example)
@@wewillrockyou1986 Mhm, though I would guess Europe generally has more of an existing rail base already. North American cities need new rail, though.
One interesting point on Chicago's Forest Park blue line is that there are proposals to cap parts of the highway and build residential developments on the cap near the blue line stations. This is expensive but would reconnect the community and make for a far better station.
They just need to isolate the stations from traffic!
@@RMTransitsound barriers don’t cost too much, and will make the station so much more pleasant. Don’t understand why this isn’t done more
Between all our highway stations, the cold, and thoroughly standardized rolling stock (that tends to stop in pretty much the same place, Chicago seems like a really good use case for platform screen doors.@@thatpersonsmusic
Because cars get so much of the transportation funding that transit is stuck with the bare minimum needed to maintain service (and sometimes not even that). Improvements are right out.
Chicago did it horribly. Israel did it great. Chicago had very narrow stations (about 5 feet!) and Israel had very wide stations. And Israel managed the noise pollution so that is wasn’t noticeable. Chicago had the noise pollution so miserable !
Chicago rail line is in a already big superhighway. They really need to lose a couple of highway lanes to widen the rail lines and stations
Exactly, a median station on its own is poorly designed, but if you have the density to back it up AND have it enclosed in a way that you're protected from all that noise pollution like having platform screen doors, then it can be great design! Even better if there's a bus hub. On the LIRR, the Babylon Branch aren't median stations, but it runs along NY State Route 27 or Sunrise Highway. However, the Babylon Branch came way before the highway as it originally opened in the 1860s while the highway first opened in the mid-1920s, so the highway follows the trains, not the other way around. And the Babylon Branch is completely grade separated, but it wasn't always this way.
When it got its start in the 1860s as part of South Side Railroad of Long Island, it was all ground-level crossings, and this became a problem as more people moved to the south shore of Long Island. So a mega project was launched in the 1950s to build the stations on elevated viaducts, with the last station along the branch to be elevated was Massapequa Park in 1980. To supplement Route 27, there is parking to lure people off the highway and different NICE and Suffolk Transit buses serve the stations as well, with the addition of Jones Beach bus service from Freeport making it possible to go to Jones Beach concerts by transit.
The best part of metros in highway medians is racing past cars clogged in congestion. And stuck car drivers would think: "If only they got rid of it (or bury the line) there would be enough room for 'One More Lane' to get traffic moving again. Or convert the space to a 'Premium Toll Express Lane' that also hosts transit buses or streetcars."
I think the Silver Line in DC, which connects Dulles Airport, has been done fairly well. The line is mainly in the highway median after Tysons, but there is a lot of transit oriented development occurring around the stations
Thanks for the shout out to Perth 😊. When I saw the notification for this video I was going see if you would mention my city (you having previously posted a video on its rail system). Most highway median stations here incorporate bus interchanges, have cycle way access, and reasonable parking.
Some of the bus interchanges are really amazing
And the ones that don't are currently being upgraded to include them
@@illiiilli24601Are they? I'm in Perth and am not aware of any projects to add bus interchanges to freeway stations in Perth.
@@thegreentimtam the Stirling station is getting a major busport expansion, don't know any specifically getting a new busport though.
@@thegreentimtam I just saw cycleway access, but missed the interchange bit, oops.
Stirling station aside, the other ones don't really have any improvements in the pipeline. Though the only stations missing a bus interchange are Edgewater, Currambine and Greenwood.
Glad you brought up the REM. It shares the Champlain bridge with the highway, so it's a necessity for Montreal transit, and connecting the suburbs. The more suburban drivers who choose rail over their car to get to work, errands, or see a show, the better! Du Quartier is next to a highway but it was built to have access to the Dix30 shopping mall and there's nice housing too. Generally speaking, I'm okay with new service to suburbs being built through the highway. It's different when you're in the city. And the Blue Line in Chicago is just...egregious. Highway stations don't have to be bad, and utilizing highways is a good tool to make good transit in a lot of cases.
Another highway median-line is Metro's C Line/Green Line in Los Angeles. UCLA says that the traffic noise there exceeds 90 decibels, exceeding the OSHA limit for noise exposure longer than a few minutes. The line was a provision for the construction of the fiercely opposed I-105 to help impacted communities. And there is a benefit to it: It's fast. The freeway by definition is grade separated, so you're essentially getting a fully grade-separated (thus fast) transit line for little additional cost. I think the C Line gets its ridership from the fact that it is basically a high-speed cross-town rocket ship that connects with other rail and bus lines, as well as serving LAX, with a connection to the People Mover starting in 2024.
As both a transit guy and theme park nerd, I've always wondered how you could build a transit system for a sprawling city like Orlando, and I feel like you could actually do it cost effectively with freeway medians. You could stick an REM-style rail service in the highway medians to cover the large distances cost effectively and with high speeds, then go off to have stations at the activity centers like downtown, the airports, the hotel/convention areas, and the theme park resorts. It would be much better than the stupid gadgetbahns and slow buses the city seems to be infatuated with, and they could use it to fix their sprawl problem, get more housing built to accommodate the many jobs there and prevent cost of living from soaring, and get the tourists off their roads and into trains.
I think Orlando is probably unique in its development pattern, with a lot of land devoted to theme parks and tourism. Unfortunately, this creates a situation where you have different parks who find it difficult to play together. Look at all the contention between Disney, Universal, Sunrail, and Brightline, and it is quite a complex situation.
With Florida you also have to contend with its combative politics. DeSantis will do NOTHING to benefit the Orlando area because he wants to punish that area for political points. The Orlando extension of Brightline was done in spite of DeSantis, not because of him and mostly with no assistance from the state of Florida. But a commuter train from MCO straight to Disney World would make perfect sense
Disney will *never* consent to be part of any transit system that links to Universal, and vice versa. They will absorb any and all amount of inefficiencies, inconveniences, and cost (which are mostly externalities to them, anyway) before they would do that. Yay for the efficiencies of corporations !
I personally don't think there is anything wrong with using a highway to build a metro as long as that highway is in a denser area, and the station can be fairly accessible. Most transit is built under or above existing roads, because it's simple. Planners rarely have the luxury of free space. A highway is just another road that is convenient to build on. Like you said, this is so common it would be difficult to find systems that don't extensively use roads or highways to conveniently build transit.
Highways are fundamentally just a noisy transportation corridor ideal for higher speeds.
This makes them a great place to put other transportation infrastructure with minimal risk of NIMBYs or other complaints because their is no way a railroad is going to make that corridor any worse.
And from just a metro quality perspective, it may not be as ideal as other stations but if well placed the cost/benefit ratio should be worth it.
Edit: Typos/autocorrect
I don’t think systems should exclusively use highways, like anything there is a time and place
They're also good for extending transit out into less dense suburbs that are all over North American metro areas. The often maligned "park & ride" station makes sense for suburban extensions of transit systems where most people in those areas own cars anyway. Even MTA in NY uses this to an extent for LIRR and Metro North, though they have the advantage of their ROW being built 100 years ago, the suburban stations out on Long Island and up in the Hudson Valley and SW Connecticut are designed to keep car traffic out of NYC so their stations are typically the park & ride style station outside of NYC proper. They also have numerous connections to the NYC Subway system as well once the commuter lines cross into the city.
Do you think you'll do a video on the (very short sighted) decision to cut back on HS2 in the UK?
Both the Northern leg and the stretch to Euston look to be being scrapped, making journey times not much faster than currently from Central London, and because of that there will be huge stress on the Elizabeth line, and likely still need to have fast trains on the existing main line, neutralising the main point of the whole project, which was removing fast trains from the main line to allow a huge increase in local and freight capacity
its worth waiting until the government makes up its mind on what its doing before making that sort of video (and its worth bearing in mind that a future non-Conservative government may have reasons to reinstate cancelled parts of the project)
ITV did great when they broke that news...while the entire upper echelon of the Tories were attending a party conference in Manchester.
@ianhomerpura8937 i can't imagine living in the UK, your parties and there times as worse
I’ll probably do something at some point, HS2 being cut back sadly doesn’t surprise me given how high the cost is
Hopeful the Office for Budget Responsibility and all the other public bodies that are meant to stop the government from wasting money will step up and shame the government into rolling back its decision to cancel the Euston link and Phase 2a and Phase 2b east ( Phase 2b west has a costly tunnel that no real work has begun on yet and there are not any points that it would make sense to cut it back to as without the previously axed Wythenshawe Loop Metrolink tramway being built Manchester Airport High-Speed station is poorly located to serve the airport and the city centre, and the Mid-Cheshire line is not really suited for high-speed trains.) given how money has already been dumped into these sections.
The Metro line out to Fairfax from Washington DC is a good example of what you are talking about. Only 2 highway lanes each direction most of the way. Even the big station in Fairfax where the highway is wider has walkable neighborhoods on both sides of the station, and the covered bridge to get to the tracks is quite pleasant and convenient
Orange Line is great and I’m kind of annoyed he didn’t mention it
to be honest we should just convert one right of way of all these beltways and urban freeways into railways. you can fit one rail line on one lane of traffic, so a four way road is a huge rail capacity. way bigger than most cities even need. the other right of way can just be used for both directions of traffic as there is going to be so much less car traffic. the last step is making suburban neighborhoods safe to bike in
and then one side of the train station is going to be immediately accessible to the public
The benefit of median is it gives your the grade separation for free
Next to a highway is possible but it usually comes with a relative increase in land use, particularly around junctions.
Wait, you just got married and the videos are still appearing?😊
bikes are the first step, not the last. bikes solve the chicken and egg problem because they work in low density suburbs and have the effect of driving up density.
Hydro corridors in cities are a strange concept to me. If i wasn't married to a Canadian I wouldn't even know what one was. For one thing calling it Hydro is a weird Canadianism that no one else understands, but the other thing is that in the UK and Europe, pretty much all our power lines are buried underground in cities. The Toronto one seems like a massive waste of land....unless you use it as a park or a transit corridor. Does it actually get used as a park at the moment or is it just dead land?
There are many corridors and they are typically used as park space
Yes, they are. Hydro Corridors are used to build bike trails and parks. Burying said corridor is just way too costly, and very risky, given the density around the GTA.
The Mississauga Transitway uses a hydro corridor on a lot of its sections.
In Toronto we use it for things like parks, bike trails, parking lots, and even a highway (Highway 407 was built along a hydro corridor)
@@moho472 How is it risky? We do it in Europe all the time. If it was too risky, we wouldn't have done it.
@@mdhazeldine Because most Hydro Corridors in the GTA are next to houses, natgas pipes, and other pieces of infrastructure that complicate the burial process, and would cost billions of dollars.
It's not like the corridors take up much space. However, there's no need to bury them. Ontario doesn't have the space issues that Europe has. No need to bury cables.
Here in NYC the planned Interboro tram line was supposed to continue into the Bronx over the Hell Gate Bridge. But past a certain point the right of way switches ownership to CSX. So the current plan is to stop the line at Roosevelt Avenue. Quite far from the Bronx. However, right next to the line is the Grand Central Parkway. If they were able to shift it up and over the highway (much like the JFK Airtrain) it could continue north. Unfortunately I do not think Robert Moses designed the Triborough Bridge for rail, so a bridge or causeway up to the Bronx would be needed. OR have the tram line be the connect to LaGuardia AirPort. 🤷♂️
I've been thinking the GTA is so far gone and lost, the only evolution of east-west regional transit will have to be a regional rail along Highway 401, from Pickering GO in the east (since that's where Hwy 401 meets the Lakeshore East line) and Hurontario in the west. In my mind such an alignment would go much further in improving east-west travelling in the GTA than the transitway 'planned' for Highway 407. Most regional travel in the GTA is east-west and unless you're going downtown Toronto, the transit options are very limited and constrained.
Rail lines in highways is just the one way to guarantee no one can walk up to your station. No matter how cheap it can be I don’t think that’s a worthwhile sacrifice.
I had never heard the Term 'Hydro Corridor' before today.
Probably because calling the power system “Hydro” is a uniquely Ontario/Eastern Canadian thing.
You learn something new every day
Well, you do always say, “It depends.”
Median metros are the only type of metro lines you see in Manila. Manila has three metro lines (excluding the PNR) that all follow major roads in the city, often with 4 or 5 lanes either side of the median metro for miles. I always found that extremely inconvinent because stations are almost always far from where you want them.
I think the MRT-3 in the middle EDSA is the only one that qualifies as a median metro. The rest are actually all elevated above the road or in the case of PNR, next to the expressway.
@@trainsandmore2319 It's the same principle, they follow the major roads no matter what in order to reduce costs in buying land. If the only space these metro lines take is within the road, pretty sure they are still counted as median metros even if they are elevated. Pillars and other types of infastructure needed, take up space from the road the line is built on.
The fundamental issue is having a highway in an urban area. It shouldn't be there.
But in the imperfect world we live in we have to deal with facts such as highways being there. And at that moment you gotta deal with imperfect solutions - station gotta go somewhere. Either you cut off one side, or the other, or you compromise in the middle. And then do your best to mitigate whatever disadvantage your chosen placement has.
An example I always use is the C(Green) Line in Los Angeles. Despite being almost all freeway stations, it does have a healthy amount of ridership; most likely from the fact that it's fully grade-separated BECAUSE of the freeway and can easily hit the 65 mph maximum speed between stations. Its speed makes it a good cross-town connection through the middle of LA County. Meanwhile, the new K-Line is suffering from poor ridership despite not having any freeway stations by contrast. (Yes, it did open incomplete, but even with the new LAX connection it will probably still be a relatively underperforming line)
Thanks@panzer- I was wondering when someone was going to mention LA especially since they talked about the light rail line in Montreal. You're right The green line aka the C-line runs like a metro from Norwalk to its terminus in Redondo Beach. You can also add to your list the A line that goes out the 210 freeway that also runs at max speed from Pasadena all the way out to Duarte where it leaves the freeway but still is on its own right away all the way to Azusa. I live in San Diego and the green line here that runs elevated parallel to the I-8 freeway an sort of snakes its way through mission Valley but as it leaves Mission Valley going toward SDSU it's on a hillside above the freeway and then enters a subway tunnel to the underground college campus before coming back out and running parallel to the 8 again to LA Mesa. Although I feel the line could run much faster if it was if it didn't snake its way through Mission Valley and went on a straight line but one thing I have noticed that traffic isn't as bad since building the Green line as it was prior to the Green line being built and I think that's because visually people can see there's an alternative especially on game days when Qualcomm stadium was in full force and traffic was super heavy. Now's the SDSU college stadium that in college game days acts like a student shuttle takes a lot of cars off the road! So freeway Metro's be it light or heav can be a visible alternative that people can opt to use while driving on the freeway. JMO
Seattle is building Link mostly next to I-5. Many station pull away from the highway ROW to serve transit centers or TOD or other centers (college, mall...). That might be the best of both worlds (fast/cheap ROW and reasonable access).
Station access is key. Some stations in Seattle use pedestrian/bike bridges. Singapore is using APMs to bring riders to a station. I could even imagine a gondola extending to urban centers in both directions. Their frequent service help to make the transfer seamless, automatic operation makes it affordable even with long operating hours.
I used the Chicago Addison Station that is in the middle of I90/94. It was loud an some redesign might make that better, but honestly it worked well. Busses in front ran frequently East/West. My wife has mobility issues and the station was easy to get to using the bu, easy to get down to platform and back. We were quickly in the heart of the city. Not ideal from a noise perspective, but it was central to a LOT of medium density housing. Also Amsterdam South has trains and metro running between the highway. I remember when the Metro come there for the first time in the early 1980's. There was almost nothing between "old South" and Amstelveel to the south. South Station was turned into a major transit hubs as it connects trains, metro, trams, and busses going East / West and North / South. In the past two decades the area has seen an explosion of growth and next to the corporate office towers there is now lots of high density housing as well. It's the station that is closest to the author of "Not Just Bikes" so it gets show off regularly. There was also quite an impressive upgrade a few years back where they have to move in a whole section of a station in a few hours. As you said, it should not be the first choice, but in some areas, it can work quite well.
I went on a trip to Chicago this spring and on the way back from the Loop, we took the blue line to get to the hotel on the edge of the city. Which I think is the line Addison Station is on, and some guy and a few CTA officers got on the train. The guy started screaming at the officers saying that he was going to kill one of them, after the second station we stopped at they all got off the train. It was inspiring
small amendment, when you sighted examples from around the world you showed berlin, where the Ringbahn was build before the Urban Highway. and also the A100 (Urban Highway) fucking sucks and makes the ring and surronding development actively worse (soure: live near one and wikipedia
Hydro Canadianish for Electricity. From the original electricity generating being water powered and the electric companies being call "the Hydro electric company" shortened to Hydro
Indeed
Fun fact: The Berlin highway you showed was built 50 years after the Ringbahn. Often highways were built next to existing rail lines, not the other way around.
I thought Alan was kinda being unreasonable, glad i wasnt crazy. I would rather have bad Metro than no metro, and NIMBY's are often very powerful, and complaining about them alone wont change anything, for now these will do, i get they aren't ideal but compromise is better than pouting like he did. Frankly in hindsight he pouts alot and offers solutions that will not be even close to being able to happen with the political landscape in the US, occasionally he will offer a middle ground, but more often than not its hell or high water, and I dont want to have hell
Speaking of old rail corridors, New York should reactivate the bay ridge line in Brooklyn
Same reason the California High-speed rail project should have been down the median of I-5 through as much of the Central Valley as possible. The land is already acquired, it is already completely grade separated, it is in the middle of what is already considered to be an area with high noise pollution if the corridor is in the center of something like an interstate that has already passed environmental review then it is much more likely to pass itself, and there are not what seems like an infinite amount of residents to protest, sue, and generally try to hold up the process as much as possible. All of this would result in a far cheaper, more quickly constructed line that would be far more competitive with short-haul flights from LA to SF which was the entire point to begin with.
I think WMATA in DC does these highway median metros the best (by US standards, of course).
Hello from the Orange/Silver line on WMATA, the two. most highway-running lines in the DC metro. Our metro here in DC is kind of an odd system, in that it combines aspects of a suburban train system with some aspects of an urban metro. The western edges of the Orange and Silver lines (beyond Ballston) run in highway medians. The outlying stations of the Orange Line are a lot further apart and act more as suburban rail stations, and the trains run as fast (or faster) than the highway traffic. This offers suburban users pretty quick access into the core. On the Silver line, the highway-running segments connect previously transit-inaccessible centers to the broader network and enable ultimate connection to Dulles Airport.
There's a tendency on urbanist/transit TH-cam to pile on about stuff like this without acknowledging that these represent genuinely useful transit links and meaningfully reduce auto trips along the corridor. The main problem we have here is terrible suburban bus service that limits the reach of the suburban metro stations--but that can be fixed.
I quite like the Silver Line alignment, I agree it would be way better with improved bus connections!
Reese Reese I'm surprised you didn't include any footage of the LA light rail median freeway stations since you once referred to it as a *regional light rail* type metro due to the long distances it travels.😢
Over here in malaysia, many of the metro lines tend to find their rail corridors running on viaducts running alongside highways, and our high tension corridors (the 'hydro' corridors). And often times, it's because it's the only straight line left with everything already built out.
Indeed, I’ll be talking about this in a video soon
Yes, in the case of Kajang line made me think:
Why is ridership in Kajang line way higher than Sri Petaling with Puchong extension despite it is not build on a highway at all?
While everyone criticized on Kajang Line build on highway. I would ask:
What else do you want? Demolish 1000 2 storey link houses in Cheras that now worth RM 1 million per unit? Just for Taman Connaught station? You have that kind of money for houses compensation how about that money use for better station amenities?
@@RMTransit Looking forward to it!
DC Metro’s Silver line and Orange line are great examples of how to create excellent highway median stations, both in distinctly different styles.
Hope you do a video on Nigerias first operational metro system. It’s almost entirely in the median of a busy freeway and opened last month in Lagos
I might if I can find some footage
would be great, I'm glad it finally opened!
I hate Scott Walker.
Highways could be express or commuter transit that local services can connect to. They would have fewer stops and could extend to the suburbs.
Tårnby station (Copenhagen) is a decent example of how to build next to a highway (not a median though). Simply cover the highway with a lid, use it as a park and have a station next to it.
Using existing highway ROW is how Brightline was able to build Florida's HSR faster than in California - which specifically chose NOT to use Interstate 5 ROW in the Central Valley. Huge mistake that required costly (and controversial) land purchases and creates environmental impacts. Texas is also going to use highway ROW for the Dallas-Houston Brightline line. Many don't seem to understand how much land acquisition costs and how long it takes to purchase.
I always wondered why they didn't just use the freeway right-of-way for Cali HSR.
The thing about highway 5 is that highway 5 goes through the middle of nowhere. Where would it stop on the way? Santa Nella? Coalinga? Avenal? The only big-ish towns/cities that are kinda close to the 5 are still decently far from it (Los Banos, maybe Bakersfield but that'd be even more of a stretch)
Meanwhile if you do what they did and paralleling the 99 corridor for most of it, you get to go through Fresno and Bakersfield, which are each sizeable cities of ~500k people. And even the smaller cities along that corridor (of which there are many (like hanford, madera, tulare, etc.)), many have 50-60-thousand people each. And I presume that folks from there might also want to go to SF or LA every so often
Routing down the 5 could get folks from the SF bay area to the LA metro quicker and probably might be cheaper to make, but it would just affect these places instead the spots in between, except like Avenal or someplace idk
@@shreychaudhary4477 Some points in response...
1) No one said it has to stay in the highway ROW the entire distance. The alignment could certainly deviate where it made sense.
2) HSR always faces the issue of intermediate stops. Too few and you lose local political support from the places skipped. Too many stops and the service is no longer high-speed and competitive with air travel.
3) Land you already own is always cheaper than land you have to buy.
4) The environmental approval process for new greenfield infrastructure is much more difficult than that for existing infrastructure corridors. And, time is money.
@@plangineer1375 If you had to deviate to Fresno wouldn't it be really far to deviate?
@@shreychaudhary4477 Does the HSR line or station have to run thru/be in the middle of Fresno? Many European HSR lines are located outside a city's downtown... or even near the edge of the city they serve.
Highway transit also makes sense for the suburbs too. It also stands as a living ad while cars sit in traffic and watch trains whiz by
Most go to places are right next to the highway where we can use those suburban rail lines to get to those places instead of relying on our cars.
indonesian video when?
Maybe the Highway is the problem and not the station.😀
You should make a video about how crime rates affect public transport use, and what cities can do to deal with this. People from places like some regions of Brazil or Colombia prefer using Uber, even though it's three to four times the price, rather than taking buses, BRT or metro and risking being robbed.
Same in Paris... the subway is disgusting, and some RER lines goes through slums of such bad reputation that they have nicknames. RER D is the 'rape line'. Crimes are so frequent on night buses that using them is playing russian roulette. We also have a bed bug invasion in transit systems right now in France. Even in high speed trains.... Some TGV (out trademark high speed trains) consists are infested with cockroaches. Most recent metro stations and infrastructures (the "grand paris express" lines) are not finished, but already vandalized...
Crime and the fear of such definitely reduces transit use in greater Los Angeles.
We too have a very short highway median section. But they build it rather smart. Instead of an island platform it has two side platforms with full length canopy build entirety out of concrete. So besides shelter it also acts as a, sound barrier. It's not the most pleasant station, lots of graffiti, but catchment is rather good with medium density all around
Koo koo, kachoo!
Where can I get those San Diego blue and green line signs?😳😳
I honestly hope they do it for the Roosevelt Boulevard metro since that would most likely be the cheapest option and allow for completion under budget
Practicality first. and you're right, better highway transit than no transit
I see no problem with Median Transit as long as the stations are well connected to the buildings next to the highway and those buildings are well set up as transit nodes.
It's probably not ideal in a lot of cases, but especially in the US where people are often leery of spending money on non-car transit infrastructure, even non-ideal transit is better than none at all
Does he have the ring on in this video? ;)
I prefilmed a ton of videos so I could take time with my wife :)
Hi, Chilean here. In Santiago de Chile, 3 lines have sections running along highways, and the stations are great.
In my opinion it's not about the highway median station itself, it's about the people it can serve at the start and how many it will serve in the future.
I think the best approach is actually to just completely remove urban highways. They take away huge amounts of space (which is terrible especially during a housing crisis!) for a mediocre capacity. They act like loud urban scars and barriers for the locals, we don’t want this. So let’s just emulate Paris and its T1 East extension project, they’re replacing an highway by a modern 2x1 urban boulevard with large pedestrian and green spaces, wide and separated cycle infrastructures, traffic lights to slow down traffic and a modern European tramway extension (with green tracks of course)
Obviously over time we should be phasing highways out, but we can still use them for transit in the meantime!
There's definitely a risk among some transport departments to justify keeping the motorways as-is when other uses are mixed-in.
But if the planning is aware of this, and has a roadmap (funny how car-centric our language has already become... roadmap, off-ramp, etc when discussing abstract plans) to convert into the style you mention rather than allowing the trains/trams to disrupt the plan it should be alright.
That may work in compact European cities, not in sprawling North American cities. Running transit alongside urban highways actually makes sense for car centric North American cities. It's not realistically feasible to convert a car centric North American city into something else, but that doesn't mean you can't implement good transit in those cities using their highway corridors as easy ROW for trains which if ridership is good should reduce highway congestion. you also have to contend with the fickle nature of US partisan politics. Start removing highways and making it harder to drive and own a car and your city government will be taken over by Republicans in the next election who will cancel all your transit projects and work towards eliminating your transit systems entirely if they can't privatize them to their donors.
what about the millions of people who already rely on them?
Google highways to boulevards
Some good points here. I've been thinking that at some point they should run a new skytrain line between vancouver (via first avenue into downtown) and surrey (along KG Boulevard) using the Highway 1 row through Burnaby and Coquitlam. It wouldn't be the most efficient route in terms of catchment areas in Burnaby, but it would be cheaper than other options, would provide pretty good service to BCIT, and would be a huge improvement to transit connections between surrey and vancouver, the two largest cities in the region.
Here in the DC area, the Metro runs along highways, but does link up with some population/business areas. I'd ague that the Orange Line should be extended along Route 66 to Centreville with a few stops at business centers along the way (Fair Oaks & Fair Lakes for example). Its pretty much what they did with the Silver Line expansion out to Dulles.
Sadly, they recently cut down all the trees at the Vienna station so they could put in four more lanes of highway, making it crazy noisy and unpleasant (it was only very noisy and unpleasant before). I really wish A) that they hadn't done that, as 66 definitely didn't need MORE lanes, and B) that they'd at least put up some kind of sound buffer for folks at the station. But the VDOT seems generally hostile to public transit, pedestrians & cyclists (see also: the 66 Adjacent Trail for a big middle finger directed at the people it is supposed to serve).
In my experience working as a transport planner, context trumps rules presented in a contextless vacuum.
I'm less favourable of high-frequency stop dense metros in highway medians compared to longer distance rails.
The median railways in Perth are a good example, being set up with long distances between stations, which allows the trains to use those highway corridors to accelerate to top speed more often, having a strong emphasis on integrated bus networks around the otherwise less accessible stations, with significant transfer promoting infsdtructure, and services running 70km south and 40km north (with plan extensions) emphasising that these are longer distance suburban services rather then urban metros.
If you have good regional highway corridors with room to lay track down (either in the median or along the side) it can provide a very efficient route for passengers looking for a longer distance service option.
Station density is actually a good thing especially in downtowns...it's one of the reasons why the NY Subway is one of the most success transit networks in the world. Without station density you have to transfer more with a bus or street car...and travelers hate transfers.
@AaronSmith-sx4ez yeah it is important on a subway, intended to service a dense metro area. It's not so important on a commuter line meant to move people from one town to another town 30+ miles away through one or more urban breaks.
Different services have different needs and idealy, are set up accordingly to optimise for those needs. My point is that median running can be pretty good for a service that doesn't need to have tightly packed stops for short distance metro travel and prioritises being able to get from one centre to another centre a greater distance away quickly and efficiently.
There is no one size fits all service. If resources allow it you should be setting up specific services to cater to specific transport needs.
Hey Reece, can you compare different bike sharing schemes around the world? I think a lot of countries could learn from Taiwan's youbike scheme
Boston Orange Line to Forest Hills is interesting. They overbuilt an entire blocks over the station in the highway at each station. Interestingly many are parks but that would be a great way to put in TOD if a similar tactic is employed elsewhere in the future.
Hello Reece, first time for me to contribute in the comments.
I would say that building on the "Hydro corridor" isn't that straighforward.
First you have EMC issues: on my project in UK, we are using existing disused Network Rail track for a new tram-train but the proximity of the track along a short stretch of existing power line creates headaches when it was time to electrify the corridor with OHLE (obvisously it was not before).
It also creates major issues when it comes to the construction as excavator, cranes ... are not best fitted below high voltage and special protection, way of building will be required (increase the cost). Depending on countries, it could even required to shut the line which of course is not possible with such major power line.
Finally, again depending on the countries you cannot work at proximity without certification which reduce your pool of worker.
After sounding so hard with you (I didn't want) I totally agree that we need to use every existing corridor available to bring more transit at a better cost.
I think they would be better if the metro tracks and stations are elevated over the highway rather than smack in the middle of them at the same level, with access bridges at stations to either side of the highway that can be used without entering the paid area of the station (for systems that use a controlled access system).
Indeed, here in Singapore we do have (almost) such an example: Gul Circle MRT station is basically located right over a major arterial road that connects directly to an expressway at one end nearby, and the entire station is basically elevated on “stilts” over the roadways below (the arterial road itself as well as the filter roads on the side). Access to the station is via a pedestrian bridge that descends onto either side of the roadway, and it is possible to walk from one side of the station to the other without entering the paid area, allowing the station to function as a overhead bridge over the roadway too.
With the station basically elevated over the road, vehicular noise from the roadway below becomes a non-issue, and it also makes more efficient use of the land space too. Smacking the station at-grade in the roadway’s median would not only had exposed commuters at the station platform to the noise from the roadways, it would also had required the roadway to be much wider to accommodate the tracks and station platforms in-between.
Perhaps highway median stations around the world might be more bearable if they were built similarly? Heck, even just putting the tracks and the platforms on a higher/lower level above/below the roadway (with the roads running only beside, and not entirely underneath/over the tracks/platforms) would definitely help alleviate the noise issue for commuters on the platform.
I'm glad to see this *video* (EDIT: not email, that's what I get for commenting pre-coffee) because it's a little annoying to see any sort of transit rejected wholesale when the state of things means we can't really be choosing beggars. When transit is so expensive, ridership comfort unfortunately comes second to things like speed, cost, location, and safety. And highway stations don't have to be bad. The DC metro has a few stations, along the Orange and Silver Lines which aren't that bad because they're partially enclosed, and if built right with a full enclosure a highway station can be useful. We need to remember that inside city cores highways are often close to residents and destinations (or areas that can be upzoned), and outside city cores many people live and work within a mile of the highway because that's how those areas grew and became developed in the first place.
When ROW is such a big issue for surface or elevated rail, it's never worth dismissing wholesale.
Pretty much agree with all you said here (although I think in central areas tunnelling makes plenty of sense)
@@RMTransit Agreed, tunneling is still the absolute best option.
I think that should be good, cut out a lane or 2 on freeways for something like this for many highways....
One of the dubai metro is kinda like that (on that zayad highway) and its pretty good. Perth is one of the most excellent example and done right and comfortable even with mandurah which is like 70km.
Sydney is an ass with freeway system and probs won't work too well. Maybe M4 variant could work but even then the T1 looks after that corridor.
Reece. it is obvious that the use of the term 'hydro corridors' has caused considerable confusion. That is a pity, as the rest of the video made very good sense! There is also a problem with your use of -shed and 'watershed' I really do think you should remake this video avoiding this very confusing language. (Edit). In the light of other comments, the British English meaning of the word 'watershed' (derived from the German "Wasserscheide") is almost the total opposite of the North American meaning of 'watershed'!
Tallinn (the Estonian capital) has had a median tram line planned since Soviet times but it was never implemented, which is a shame because it would serve the most populated area of the city, which is notoriously neglected by local and national govts. alike.
My closest CTA L station is in the highway right of way. If I ran the CTA with an unlimited money hack? I'd love to elevate those lines and make a weather-protected bike and walking path underneath with regular opportunities for transfers between the two so people can ride some or all of the way, and can switch back and forth as they need or as conditions change between them. Would that be louder for residents? Maybe, but not by much, and there is another elevated line about a mile north that doesn't suck to live near. The highway is the loud part.
Honestly should retrofit the stations to better isolate passengers from noise, it wouldn’t be all that expensive
In the case of the US, and in particular the old, Robert Moses era highways of New York and other such similar highways in cities, those are highways that were ran through historically dense communities, which, although reduced in density and quality of life by the highway, can be rebuilt into better communities with higher density. There’s even been proposals on the books to convert a bit the grand central expressway into an extension of the Astoria line, and other proposals for provisions that were personally blocked by Moses because he’s a dick. Countless other cities can benefit from retooling their highways to build public demand and support for further metro or regional rail expansions by giving them a taste of low construction cost, no demolition systems.
I don't know. I think running the rail's along a protected ROW in a highway median is probably a better use of the space, I would think that it would only take one car sliding off in winter and being hit by a train to end any future use of the median. That said, you can put an elevated rail guideway down a median and absolutely nothing is lost, you even retain the ability for EMT vehicles to U-turn down them. However don't put the station in the middle of the highway. If you're going to do it this way, build the station crossing the highway so it also acts as a pedestrian bridge for the highway, and as a waiting area for the train.
When people have to cross a highway to get to a transit stop (even bus stops) it puts them in danger, and out in Victoria, there are quite a few of these kinds of bus stops, where the bus comes once an hour, and you're just sitting there in a 2-person wide bus shelter with nothing around, no stores, no houses, just highway.
I can't believe I'm saying this, Edison NJ and Metro Park NJ actually do the high way with tr as trainstop thing very well
I feel like the US station design (with no sound protection whatsoever) shows how they think transit should be just some minimum quality service for poor people that they themselves wouldn't use.
Hydro lines can be buried. Think the cost is $5 to $10 million per km. Much less than the surface land is worth.
Highway metros are perfectly fine if we think of the metro as a form of shorter distance intercity transport, between city-sized neighborhoods.
In any 15 minute city, you should not need to take a metro for basic errands because you could be spending 5 minutes just walking through the metro station. The metro is there to provide a commute to specialized jobs, or to allow you to visit specialists who provide uncommon services.
Getting in the highway metro station is no different from getting to the amtrak or regional flight, the longer walk to the station is fine because it will ultimately save you hours of walking.
If you want true neighborhood transit, then you should look at buses and trams - but they are a poor use of funding as bike lanes provide much better utility for neighborhood scale travel and should be built first. Transit funding should be spent on intercity and intercity-lite transit systems
I made a transit map for Miami-Dade that has elevated rail lines along the expressways. This is necessary as ground level lines would obstruct the already congested expressways we have. That, and the infrastructure requires that the lines be elevated.
Highways with median metros are excellent systems for urban transportation, if anything you are significantly underselling their value. One of the major problems with urban highways is that highway access should be at least a mile apart, at a minimum, and really should be farther apart for traffic flow. The only reason highway authorities set that design standard is because of the high need for access in high density areas, and the tradeoff in capacity is deemed acceptable, and then that limit is repeatedly ignored. The more access is limited, the fewer lanes you need.
Increasing the width of highways doesn't increase the total number of people on or off a highway, which is usually the limit you're hitting in urban environments, adding rail lines does. Removing service interchanges becomes a lot more locally acceptable when you are talking about replacing it with a local metro station.
A combined metro/vehicle locates stations not at service interchanges, but between them, therefore doubling the amount of access points to the traffic corridor. Inherently the stations are going to be distant from where surface street vehicular traffic concentrates, and exactly where you'd want to provide grade separated crossings for pedestrians anyway. And they are located at the points along the corridor that actually have the least ability to connect to the highway. And very conveniently, the distance you should be keeping service interchanges apart is the same as how far you should separate actual serious commuter rail. And you can connect the entire area for pedestrians and bikes because that whole area has no streets to cross.
Where you provide metro access is where you will want to allow higher densities, and yes, higher densities are going to entail higher vehicular traffic, which you quickly want to move off surface streets and onto grade separated highways as soon for an area to be commercially viable, and walkable. Trying to use metro systems to reduce total vehicular traffic in a city is setting up metro systems to fail. Instead, they are for when you are looking to serve a higher density than what is possible with only vehicular infrastructures. And without access to highways, an area will not be viable.
What cities should really be thinking of, is grade separated corridors, with about two lanes for vehicles in each direction and high floor rail located in the median, with alternating urban interchanges and metro stations. And what that should be replacing is those large streets, strodes or avenues, that have more than three lanes of surface streets in each direction. Those things are horrible for motorists trying to actually commute. And they are dangerous for both motorists and pedestrians. Surface streets divide neighborhoods because they just aren't safe enough for children, at all. It's expensive, and it means dealing with get limited access through, but it's the solution to traffic. And it makes a great neighborhood.
I used to cross 7 lanes of interstate highway traffic, and two metro of rail every single day to go to the local park as a kid, and my dad did the same to go to the local metro station. It was unbelievably safe and nice place to walk around. Grade separation is great. If you're looking a great quiet place to be able to walk or bike and live, get a house next to a proper highway, one with a bikepath and a couple lines of rail too.
Eyyy i like the san Diego trolley signs!
This is way off topic but I can't help noticing. Your teeth look different. Are you on invisalign?
Why are you talking about a hydro corridor? Hydro means water. That’s an electrical power line in the video.
Even cyclists and public transport heaven Amsterdam has extended the metro up north as a median metro alongside one of the busiest roads/highways of the city. and it is totally fine. mostly because there are enough destinations and the density is quite high on both sides of the road/highway, but also because the road was already there and transforming it to a road with a metro in between it was an easy and cheap option
In Istanbul, there is a 52 km (32 miles) long BRT system in the middle of the oldest highway and it has a ridership of almost 1 million people everyday. So, median transport can be a good thing
Wow
Yes you understand
Building in the highway median can be useful, but it depends on how you do your stations. If you just create minimalist platforms stuck out in the middle of traffic, that's no good. But if you make big broad linear park bridges across the highway so that it serves as both the transit stop and a comfortable way for people to cross an urban freeway by foot, bike or wheelchair, then it's good. People would say that costs too much, but you're using some of the money you saved by not tunneling the trains. They would effectively be separated little sections of freeway capping and over time you would be inclined to cap the rest.
Noise screens! The
la metro and Chicago el's median stations would be far less hostile if they got noise barriers as seen on the DC metro or enclosing like Montréal's rem
RM please do a video about flying scotsman derailure on friday the 29th september 2023 in scotland
4:21 ok, this footage just gave me the classic optical illusion "what the hell is going on here!" for a few seconds
the metro lines here in la that run through the freeways are all open stations. its horrible. youre stuck hearing and smelling the cars, and in the summer, the horrible heat
They can be good for adding transit capacity to car centric cities like you see all over North America. A prime spot where this would be good is in Denver's RTD rail system, they already have 2 highway track corridors for the light rail system on the south end of the city but a highway median ROW would be their best option for extending the B-line commuter train to Boulder via the US 36 highway corridor. The US 36 corridor is already heavily developed and the current transit plan is to piggyback on BNSF ROW with diesel trains with a completion date of 2040, a terrible option that few people will use. Better to build track in the median or side of US 36 along the main artery between Denver and Boulder and extend the existing electric B-line train to Boulder (Denver's heavy commuter rail is actually pretty nice, modern Hyundai-Rotem silverliner 5s that run a lot faster than the light rail trains and with double the frequency)
0:09 Sox 35th street cta station...had a dude try to sell me weed at that platform about 15 years ago lol
This is exactly why I have little issue with the Orange and Silver Lines of the Washington Metro utilizing highways in their western segments (west of Ballston-MU). By the time you reach areas like Whiele-Reston East on the Silver Line or Dunn Loring on the Orange Line, the density is low enough that it makes more sense to save some cost and prioritize speed so you can get to the big TOD stations like the aforementioned Ballston-MU or the downtown DC stations like Farragut West. I also find it funny that most of the other benefits that Reece mentions here are things WMATA takes full advantage of:
- Diverting to serve denser developments? Check, the Silver Line deviates from VA-267 to serve McLean, Tysons, Greensboro, and Spring Hill
- Huge bus loops for easy transfers? Check, for literally all the stations, but if you want a great example, look at Herndon (an interesting case of the bus loop existing for decades before the station).
- Mitigating the obnoxiously loud noise? Well, half check. The platform barriers between the tracks and highway do a fantastic job of filtering out a decent amount of noise but on some of the Silver Line stations, WMATA chose to use sturdy fences instead of glass for the walkways over the lanes of traffic and that just doesn't work sadly.
However, one Silver Line station is also a cautionary tale about not building your station in an area where development is next to impossible. Loudoun Gateway is the least used Metro station because it is purely a Park & Ride station with little else close by, few bus connections, and building anything that close to Dulles International Airport is...difficult. Don't build Loudoun Gateway-alike stations, folks.
Yeah the Silver Line does a lot of stuff right in my opinion!
The stops in Tyson’s by the mall are especially nice and lots of new development going up near there. Though, it can be a ghost town once you walk a block or two, since a lot of the stuff there are existing office towers, but if they are allowed to make adjustments and add more density/ residential, I think the area could be truly great.
@@commercialcritic4676 I think the county or local authorities have been angling to get rid of parking minimums to upzone the area cheaper/faster. But that area was, from the start, targeted with denser stop spacing to develop it similar to the Rosslyn to Ballson corridor which is probably some of the best late 20th century TOD in the US.
Fair point about Loudoun Gateway station, but I think it does have some unlockable potential for TOD in the future. If the Dulles North transit center/parking lot is redeveloped (because now with the station it’s essentially redundant/obsolete), and Lockridge Road and Shellhorn Road are reconfigured to be more walkable, then all the land East of Lockridge (between Moran Road and Shellhorn Road) and all the land south of Shellhorn (between the station, Lockridge, and Shellhorn) can be redeveloped into a TOD node radiating out from the station. It’ll take longer than the development at Ashburn Station itself, as Ashburn was planned to be built up around the station once the concept was first floated of the Silver line; but it is definitely possible to transform this area while still maintaining some of its purpose as a catch all park and ride.
@@richterpswag2729The issue is because the entire area is right at the end of the Dulles runway, it's not allowed to be zoned for residential or commercial, only industrial, since there's too much plane noise.
Not erecting sound barriers just shows contempt for your passengers.
Actually, Chicago red line 's Dan Ryan branch has higher ridership than the green line's South Side Elevated through the city which it runs parallel to.
It's not ideal, but better than nothing. In the US and Canada I think it's the preferred option for everyone, although it's not the best
LA would benefit from this if it was planned more! We already have a few freeway alignments but I think there is definitely some that are very dense and important freeways!
It feels sometimes that we live in an age of "Perfect solution or nothing at all". Even partial solutions are better than nothing at all.