Median Metros are Fine (If You Do Them Right)

1:00 love the wow & flutter in the music. reminds me of an old numbes station called swedish rhapsody

Calgary’s Bridgeland/Memorial and Zoo stations on the CTrain Blue Line are examples of a median station done right. They’re put in the median to provide a convenient corridor for the line, but they both connect to places for people to go (The Bridges in the case of B/M, the Calgary Zoo in the case of Zoo).

Yes, Chicago is the prototype, first siting the Congress Line, now the Blue Line, mostly in the median of the Congress (now Eisenhower) Expressway, It was an attempt to right a wrong but in the process created more wrongs.

Like many cities during the post WWII auto age, Chicago decided to bulldoze existing neighborhoods to make way for highways. Some of the route choices were expedient, some were racist, and most paid little heed to lower socio-economic communities. Such was the case of the west side of Chicago. The path was also home to the Garfield Line, the major E-W segment of the city's rapid transit system that dated to the 1890s. During construction of the expressway a tempory adjacent transit line was built and shortly after the roadway opened the median transit line was created.

The Garfield line had served dozens of nearby communities with most riders walking to the stations plus a smaller share transferring from streetcar or bus lines. But now the neighborhoods were wiped away and the new median line would be served almost entirely by transfers from buses (the streetcars were gone by then). In many cases people who had previously made their entire trip either by L (* see below) or entirely by surface, now had to change modes. Yes, bot the overhead bus stops and the train stations were noisy and not well protected against the city's brutal winters.

But the biggest problem was the actual placement of the stations. The old Garfield line had cloely spaced stations. In an attempt to make the new line more closely mimic suburban commuter lines and speed transit time the number of stations was nearly halved. Instead of placing the new station at the busier of two formerly adjacent stops it was located intermediate betwen them. With it being in the meidan this meant that access was only at roadway overpasses and of course those overpasses were located at the street pertaining to the old Garfield stop. So to locate intermediately and to serve both streets required building a very long sloping ramp at either end of the station, creating further inconvenience. I went to University at one of those stations and got most of my exercise running the ramp ttrying to catch a train or a bus at the other end.

* cultural note, in Chicago perople refer to the rapid transit as the "L" whether or not it is elevated or underground. In New York it is the subway whether underground or elevated.

While an American I am a complete Canuck-o-Phile having worked, traveled, and written two graduate thesis on that wonderful country, so I am very familiar with the many subtle differences north and south of 49. "Hydro" makes sense since probably +90% of electricity in Canada is produced by water.

One set of terms that cross borders is that of higways. On the west coast from San Diego to Vancouver they are Freeways. In the Great Lakes area from Minneapolis to Chicago to Toronto they are Expressways and on the Atlantic Coast they are Thruways. (there aren't any in Atlantic Canada but if Halifax builds one it shall be a Thruway)

u should look at israel national rail its planned to be in the middle of highway but also do note its meant mainly for freight

My biggest issue is that if a road is near the center of a city, it shouldn’t be a highway in the first place.

Now doing something similar to connect different interstate exits, I’m all for that, that would be the last piece needed to make the entire country connected without any need for a car.

It would just need to be kept a safe distance from the interstate, obviously. Lastly, I am mostly a car guy, but fewer cars on the road means I can enjoy driving more easily.

Plus, trains are fun.

Still unbelievable how cost effective the perth system was to build. Not 100% sure on this figure but from my rough maths it seems the perth system cost ~1/3 of what the REM cost. And the REM wasn't even that costly of a solution considering what it achieves. That figure takes into account the perth cost adjusted to inflation now also, and the perth cost takes into account the fleet of trains, couldn't find a source to say whether the rem cost i got (7.95bil cad/8.9bil aud) includes the fleet. Really shows just how cost effective building in a median is! Also do note that the rem has twice the number of stations just 1 more underground and slightly more underground track, they do however have very similar total lengths. But even with that added on its still a very hefty cost saving of ~6 billion aud!

Great points. Additionally, I would say that going forward there is nothing stopping high density or medium density mixed development popping up all along the median making the mostly at grade railway corridor even more cost effective and enticing. Imagine someone not being able to afford a place in the city center but they probably can 40km away in a medium density apartment and with fast running trains taking them to the city on a reliable and daily basis, what's not to like?

As the saying goes, don't let perfect get in the way of good

I cannot imagine the head-exploding anger and resistance from residents living next to a hydro corridor to a plan for a train to go through their backyard.

In order to optimize the station the station should connect perpendicular streets at both ends of the platform!