Discussion of building rail and roads through populated areas

[railiner]

Funny how a rail line through a city is "an ugly scar that would tear apart neighborhoods" but that was never a problem when interstate highways were built through the city

Actually, the latter was considered that in some cities. I recall some activist in the sixties calling them "the white man's highway through the black man's bedroom". And in some cities, like Boston, New York, San Francisco, and perhaps other's; they tore down some urban freeways...

 

[cirdan]

Actually, the latter was considered that in some cities. I recall some activist in the sixties calling them "the white man's highway through the black man's bedroom".

I understand (or have read on blogs and such) that there are activists leveraging this argument still today.

It would seem to me that it's a bit of a catch 22 really, because if you have a choice of building through a costly neighborhood vs a cheaper one, all other things being equal, and you go for the more costly option, you get accused of wasting funds. Yet if you go for the cheaper one you get accused of building your infrastructure on the back of poorer people.

 

[Literalman]

The cheaper real estate is why freeways were built through minority neighborhoods. And sometimes the middle class rebelled too, which is how an urban freeway inside Washington, DC, got stopped, and Metro got started instead.

 

[BlackDiamond]

Actually, the latter was considered that in some cities. I recall some activist in the sixties calling them "the white man's highway through the black man's bedroom". And in some cities, like Boston, New York, San Francisco, and perhaps other's; they tore down some urban freeways...

In Boston there were plans for a Southwest Expressway and Inner Belt that would have devastated neighborhoods in the city, many of them minority. With much local opposition, Governor Sargent canceled these projects, instead part of the right of way that had already been acquired was used to relocate Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (then located on an embankment that divided the neighborhoods) and the elevated MBTA Orange Line into a depressed right of way. The rest of the land was used for a linear park.

This article provides a good summary of this event that changed transportation planning in metro Boston forever.

 

[MARC Rider]

In Boston there were plans for a Southwest Expressway and Inner Belt that would have devastated neighborhoods in the city, many of them minority. With much local opposition, Governor Sargent canceled these projects, instead part of the right of way that had already been acquired was used to relocate Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (then located on an embankment that divided the neighborhoods) and the elevated MBTA Orange Line into a depressed right of way. The rest of the land was used for a linear park.

This article provides a good summary of this event that changed transportation planning in metro Boston forever.

In Baltimore, I-83 was supposed to continue from downtown though the neighborhoods of Fell's Point and Canton to connect to I-95. That was stopped, and then the neighborhoods gentrified, now pumping millions of dollars of property tax revenue into the city. On the west side, I-70 was supposed to continue east from the Beltway into downtown connecting to I-83. This involved trashing a very large park in addition to the neighborhoods. One short section was built, trashing residential neighborhoods in West Baltimore. It doesn't connect to any other freeways, and you can see one end of it from the NEC as you pass by the West Baltimore MARC station.

In the case of Dallas, the obvious solution to me would be to just run the HSR into the existing station, which is what the French do with the TGV in large old cities like Paris. No additional land needed, good access to downtown, and good connectivity to the extensive light rail system.

 

[Jdub]

in Orlando I-4 was proposed to take either a route through the middle of the Orlando or a route that skirted the City on the west side. The local newspaper endlessly flogged the mid-town route that eventually was built. The route divided several neighborhoods and disrupted urban fabric. It broke a good urban grid. Ironically the most useful element was that local traffic could skip across town. Later data showed that approximately 70% (maybe more, sometimes) of all traffic on I-4 was local traffic. SunRail now parallels I-4. One of its selling points was relieving some of the local traffic pressure (congestion) on I-4. Today, using the old grid can be the fastest way to get around urban Orlando..You just have to know the way.

 

[George Harris]

The cheaper real estate is why freeways were built through minority neighborhoods. And sometimes the middle class rebelled too, which is how an urban freeway inside Washington, DC, got stopped, and Metro got started instead.

Metro did not get started because the freeway got stopped. Metro was already in the plan.
There was also major opposition to the metro from the beginning. Generally it could be summed up with three points, and I have heard these with almost every rapid transit project in which I have been involved.
1. It costs too much
2. It takes too long to build.
3. No one is ever going to ride it.
However usually not long after completion of the first significant components, people begin to wonder how they ever got along without it.

 

[Qapla]

However usually not long after completion of the first significant components, people begin to wonder how they ever got along without it.

And ... many of them need expanding rather early on because they can't handle the amount of use something that no one would ever use has gotten.

 

[Willbridge]

1964 - Portland's fight to keep I-5 from cutting off access to the Willamette River. Activist architect Lew Crutcher explains concept of a promenade on the East Bank to City Commissioner Frank Ivancie.



1966 - the construction went ahead. With eye-rolling sighs of professional skepticism, a sidewalk was provided next to the river, but access to it required ignoring signs. Years later this was all redone and the well-used bicycle and pedestrian route can be seen from Amtrak trains on the Steel Bridge.

 

[Literalman]

"Metro did not get started because the freeway got stopped. Metro was already in the plan."

I got that information from "The Great Society Subway: A History of the Washington Metro" by Zachary M. Schrag (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004): "The 1959 Metropolitan Transportation Study Plan 'awoke the wrath of District residents,' notably 'the revolution of 1960,' led especially by Cleveland Park residents (through whose neighborhood the Northwest Freeway would have been constructed, leading to the proposed Three Sisters Bridge) and abetted by the new Kennedy administration," Schrag wrote. "The city’s response was to fight the highway construction and push for rapid transit instead." Yes, there was much opposition to Metro even after it was being built. But it was not really moving forward until about 1966, though, well after the revolution of 1960. "Washington, DC, was able to pay for much of its share by transferring funds from the unbuilt Interstates within its boundaries." Maybe Schrag was wrong, or maybe I misunderstood what he wrote.

 

[JamesWhitcombRiley]

"Metro did not get started because the freeway got stopped. Metro was already in the plan."

I got that information from "The Great Society Subway: A History of the Washington Metro" by Zachary M. Schrag (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004): "The 1959 Metropolitan Transportation Study Plan 'awoke the wrath of District residents,' notably 'the revolution of 1960,' led especially by Cleveland Park residents (through whose neighborhood the Northwest Freeway would have been constructed, leading to the proposed Three Sisters Bridge) and abetted by the new Kennedy administration," Schrag wrote. "The city’s response was to fight the highway construction and push for rapid transit instead." Yes, there was much opposition to Metro even after it was being built. But it was not really moving forward until about 1966, though, well after the revolution of 1960. "Washington, DC, was able to pay for much of its share by transferring funds from the unbuilt Interstates within its boundaries." Maybe Schrag was wrong, or maybe I misunderstood what he wrote.

I don't know where I heard or read that neighborhood opposition in Georgetown stopped Metro in that part of NW, back when Metro was built. The article https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/...e-nonexistent-georgetown-metro-stop-is-wrong/ agrees it is a widespread story, but says it is wrong, referencing the Schrag book you mention. Planners did not see Georgetown as part of a commuting corridor.

The Metro rail expansion plans from last summer all include a Georgetown station (except the no-build and bus-only alternatives). That includes the famous Alternative 4, the Blue Loop, or "Bloop," with a new Potomac crossing far downriver. https://www.wmata.com/about/board/m...range-Silver-Capacity-Reliability-Study-2.pdf

The trend now seems to be covering over freeways, as in Boston and Rochester and Syracuse. Or maybe some of the NY ones are just removals? https://www.politico.com/news/2024/...oost-inner-cities-risks-an-epic-fail-00176926

Chicago has a lower level in the Loop, like ancient cities discovered in archeology. I think even small cities could do this. In some towns, the railroad preferred a topography that bypassed the old courthouse, and so the courthouse moved. Often it went from a hilltop to a plain. In many cases there is a transportation corridor of some sort that could be decked over. It might be a good idea to use stone rather than concrete, though.

 

[Literalman]

From what I recall (I don't have a source to cite for this) the Blue Line was supposed to go through Georgetown, but Georgetown didn't want it and didn't get it.

 

[George Harris]

"Metro did not get started because the freeway got stopped. Metro was already in the plan."

I got that information from "The Great Society Subway: A History of the Washington Metro" by Zachary M. Schrag (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004): "The 1959 Metropolitan Transportation Study Plan 'awoke the wrath of District residents,' notably 'the revolution of 1960,' led especially by Cleveland Park residents (through whose neighborhood the Northwest Freeway would have been constructed, leading to the proposed Three Sisters Bridge) and abetted by the new Kennedy administration," Schrag wrote. "The city’s response was to fight the highway construction and push for rapid transit instead." Yes, there was much opposition to Metro even after it was being built. But it was not really moving forward until about 1966, though, well after the revolution of 1960. "Washington, DC, was able to pay for much of its share by transferring funds from the unbuilt Interstates within its boundaries." Maybe Schrag was wrong, or maybe I misunderstood what he wrote.

I could have been wrong on my timeline. However, getting anything from concept to construction in the DC area in 10 years would be light speed. Construction on the "East Coach Yard" for Washington Union Station was well under way in early 1972 which is when I went to work for their contractor. That had to be in part, at least, usable before construction on WMATA's Major Repair Shop and yard could commence. When work started, I don't exactly know because I spent 1971 in the Southeast Asian vacationland.