They're flat and have low turning gradients. Why don't we just turn the two middle lanes into a double railway? The infrastructure cost would be minimal
i dont know anything about trains but we have railways in the middle of the freeways in my city. very cool
>let's grind traffic to a standstill!
>>1358823There are a few places where this would actually make sense though, also there is often a median in the middle where you could theoretically run a service as well
>>1358823Adding or reducing the number of lanes available to automobile traffic has no long term impact on the length of time the commute takes. People will adjust to the increased or diminished capacity.
>>1358823>replacing lanes with rail which has a lot higher capacity in the same space will increase traffic
>>1358819This has to be the most retarded proposal ive seen, are you from hidalgo's cabinet by any chance? for any non-french, this is one of the country key highway that is used by absolutely every parisian going southward, them and the whole benelux.
Not flat enough.
>>1358837I think he was talking generically about highways, not that one specifically.
>>1358843German Autobahns have much steeper gradients than others, because the initial planning was done with lots of input from Hitler himself, and he wasn't very good at it.
>>1358843you could flatten the middle section though>>1358845indeed, although Parisians shouldn't be using cars anyway so the Île-de-France section of the A6 shouldn't even be a thing>>1358823Yes, and if you don't like it, take the train which conveniently goes through the exact same route.
>>1358819Because then this happens. It's actually not that practical except in inner city areas, places that freeways have no place being in the first place.
>>1358867The only time where pic related makes sense is when there's no other option but where grades are also low and flat. Being generous, this would be limited to CAHSR's central valley run between Sacramento and Bakersfield. However even there they didn't do it because I-5 is a giant bypass route and doesn't go through urban areas like US-99 does, and even then the latter freeway is not usable because the train tracks have to diverge inside the cities for stations, since Caltrans isn't going to build stations in the middle of a freeway that nobody would use.
>>1358868Also the most damning thing that can be said about it is that adjacent non-freeway median lines get more traffic especially on weekends. Only exception are the downtown SF and downtown Oakland stations but, guess what, those run in a subway and not in the middle of a freeway median.
>>1358871Additionally, not only do stations in the middle of junctions are phemonally unpopular due to noise/walk distance to anything useful but also because one of the adjacent freeways (980) has a dubious existence since it was built for a second bay bridge which never happened.
>>1358872Also pic related never happened despite it being useful since the Central Expressway goes through the middle of SF, the city decided against a useful bayshore route because they didn't want to give up J-Church or fight SP over their right-of-way.
>>1358867>>1358868>>1358869>>1358871>>1358872>>1358873>urban freeways that go through the citMy proposal was for larger distances, urban freeways should be destroyed anyway.
>>1358819It's not a bad idea. The one thing it has going against it, is that highways generally tend to avoid city centers.Which wouldn't be a problem as a bypass line for express services.There's two bypass lines around Barcelona that could be conveniently built into a highway: First off, a faster entrance for the meter-gauge suburban lines, avoiding the long roundabout by going down to Sant Boi before turning towards Barcelona. A stretch that also has a lot of stations. A bypass running mostly through the highway would shave off 15 minutes from the 25 minute journey between Sant Vicenç dels Horts (where the new line would branch off) and Barcelona, arriving at Zona Universitaria where it would meet the subway. The subway line between there and Sants train station could then be used for this line instead of the subway, losing at least the Palau Reial station which is covered by the tram and has very little demand anyway.
>>1358883Another place where this would be a good solution is between Barcelona and Mataró. This is one of the most used commuter train lines, but only has two tracks and due to its position it can't be four-tracked. The current line is right at the seaside and has a lot of stations as the area is densely populated. An express bypass could be built along the freeweay further inwards between Barcelona and Mataró, possibly with a few stations for the few major urban areas around the freeway. An interior rail bypass has been planned for ages but it would be very expensive as the area is very hilly. But using the highway would make costs much more affordable.
>>1358855It's not quite as simple as that. He was trying to make "art" out of the Autobahns, and made them take circuitous or difficult routes where it would yield interesting vistas, sudden views of landmarks, etc., and tried to minimize the number of trees that would have to be cut down. The idea was that German people using the Autobahns - in their new KdF-Wagens (the later-Volkswagen) - would be awed by an orchestrated show of its natural splendour, and develop a proper Blood-and-Soil connection to the land.
>>1358898Apply this philosophy to railways and I'm all for it
>>1358883>The one thing it has going against it, is that highways generally tend to avoid city centers.That's not a problem. The idea is to reuse as much highway as possible, as soon as it becomes inconvenient you just take the rails out of the median and into the city.
>>1358898This has the bonus of making them safer because you have to remain engaged as the road changes.
Putting rail in a highway median:- Immediately limits the route to wherever highways are- Highway medians in metro areas are usually nonexistent or inadequate already (just a shoulder lane + barrier)- Highway curves and grades often won't allow for optimum operations, if they allow operation at all- Stations have to be narrow enough to fit in the median- Require oblique angle viaducts or tunnels to get in/out of the median, adding some expense- Extant overpasses will probably require significant alteration or a total rebuild to fit a rail line- Will necessarily skip the actual places having transit would be beneficial and convenient like town centers and other places people would actually like to go to- Precludes easily constructed park & ride facilities- Adding capacity with additional mains would be very expensive or impossible as well as disruptive and destructive because the traffic lanes would need to be moved outwardYes, you get a free right-of-way, but at a cost that outweighs that "benefit" in many cases
>>1358930>Immediately limits the route to wherever highways areIt doesn't.>Highway medians in metro areas are usually nonexistent or inadequate already (just a shoulder lane + barrier)That's why you take the two inner lanes as well>Stations have to be narrow enough to fit in the medianYou can make the cars run below the outside of the station.>Require oblique angle viaducts or tunnels to get in/out of the median, adding some expenseOffset by the money saved on not acquiring new urban land + terracing works>Extant overpasses will probably require significant alteration or a total rebuild to fit a rail lineI checked for France only, and the minimum bridge height is 4,3 meters, if you wanted to have any train running all you would need would be to place the rails some 40 cm below the highway level at most>Will necessarily skip the actual places having transit would be beneficial and convenient like town centersExcept you make the rails leave the highway when you need it>the traffic lanes would need to be moved outwardThe entire fucking point is you don't move the lanes, you just remove the two middle lanes, period.
>>1358932>It doesn't.Yes it does>That's why you take the two inner lanes as wellNot realistic>You can make the cars run below the outside of the station.Adds add enormous costs and time to reprofile>Offset by the money saved on not acquiring new urban land + terracing worksMaybe, but all the other problems are still there>minimum bridge heightBridge height is only one factor. The lateral clearance is the bigger problem since many overpasses have pylons right where the ROW needs to go.>Except you make the rails leave the highway when you need itThen why even run it in a median at all>The entire fucking point is you don't move the lanes, you just remove the two middle lanes, period.Not realistic
>>1358942>Yes it doesIt doesn't you dumbass there's no fucking reason it would, you mention yourself that it can leave the highway at any moment>many overpasses have pylons right where the ROW needs to goliterally just go around themGod you're such a fucking dumbass moron, there's HUNDREDS of examples of trains running in the middle of highways
>>1358953>there's no fucking reason it wouldYes it would, it's in the median of a highway. If you want to go places not in the median of a highway, don't build it in the median of a highway>literally just go around themThen you have to shift traffic lanes outward, which means more expense, land clearing, maybe using eminent domain or you have to rebuild the structure>God you're such a fucking dumbass moron,I'm not>there's HUNDREDS of examples of trains running in the middle of highwaysList them. Also make sure to note whether the rail line was designed into the highway from the start or whether it was added in later
>>1358930>>1358932>>1358942>>1358953>>1358957jfc you people are fucking retarded. A railway in a highway median is limited to following the highway, yes, but only so long as one wants to build a cheap railway onto the highway. It can leave the highway almost any time, it just needs a viaduct or tunnel to do so, and a new ROW outside the highway which may or may not be as cheap to build as the line in the highway median. Not fucking rocket science.
>>1358819We don't need more silly trains, we don't even use the ones we have now. Besides which no one uses them for anything important, other than freight, and what we have is more than adequate for that.
>>1359024>but only so long as one wants to build a cheap railway onto the highway.It's still not cheap and presents a number of drawbacks that might not be worth the cost savings you think it does.
>>1359034This post was typed by American fingers.
>>1358957>I'm notYou are
>Why don't we just turn the two middle lanes into a double railway?Needing to cross a road by bridge to get to a train station is inconvenient.
>>1359171It's literally 15 meters max
>>1358898Unironically based and ahead of his time with this.
>>1358898He also maximized the use of state-owned land to reduce the amount he had to buy or seize from private citizens, which would have taken longer. State-owned land was mostly forests, and forests are mostly on hills, so that's where the Autobahn was built. IMO the thing about making it scenic was probably in part propaganda to cover that up.
>>1359040It's very cheap, compared to building a completely new railway from scratch in an area that we can assume to be moderately to highly urbanized.No need to get terrain for ROW and no need for new tunnels or viaducts.I have mentioned the drawbacks myself, and it obviously isn't some sort of universal solution, rather it's a very specialized solution that's only useful for specific cases. For example see >>1358883 and >>1358886, specific cases which would benefit hugely from this concept, but only because it so happens to be convenient. Not always the case. Still, the line built onto the freeway is not in itself the problem, nor the expense.
>>1359432>It's very cheapOnly the land is cheap because the state already owns it, and most (if not all) urbanized US freeways have no usable median or shoulder space anyway so you either have to remove lanes (not going to happen in the US) or use eminent domain to shift the traffic lanes outward to make room for tracks. What's the point then? You're still going to spend a lot of money to build the line itself, plus essentially rebuilding part of the highway. Even then, the finished product in the middle of a freeway--people don't live there and it's less then desirable for pedestrians. It's cut off from the population by default.In the long run it seems preferable to spend the additional money for a good route that goes where people live and work (not where they drive) and will want to use it instead of building a slightly less expensive bad route that is hamstrung by other factors. If you're dead set upon using a ROW already owned by the state, an alternative might be to build it along a surface road where there are already places people want to go. It would still have some limitations (and likely face some opposition) but with a marked difference from freeways: people want to go to places along roads. Businesses, restaurants, apartments, and homes. People don't go anywhere along a freeway. It's just a conduit for automobiles.There is one way that using a median for rail would be practical, and is if the highway and rail line are planned (or even rebuilt) and constructed concurrently. An example was Atlanta's MARTA north line expansion in the early 1990s where it runs in Georgia 400's median--both were planned and constructed together which avoided many of the potential problems mentioned in this thread. However, most of the world (even the US) isn't building many new urban freeways these days, so the chances of that happening seem low.
>>1359469>Only the land is cheap because the state already owns itLand acquisition is one of the most expensive parts about building a new railway line in an urbanized area, that and leveling the terrain. Both of these things are unnecessary in the highway median scenario. So it indeed does make construction significantly cheaper.>>1359469>most (if not all) urbanized US freeways have no usable median or shoulder space anyway so you either have to remove lanes (not going to happen in the US) or use eminent domain to shift the traffic lanes outward to make room for tracks.first off, there's more countries than muttland so idk why you limit your argument to it. I never said anything about my point being specifically about the US.Second, the whole idea is to eat up two lanes for the railway track, you completely missed the point on this. Whether or not it's going to happen in burgerland is not of the issue when we're debating the hypothetical cost and technical viability. We're not talking politics here.>the rest of your wall of texttl;dr, nothing to do with my point so idgaf
>>1359485>So it indeed does make construction significantly cheaper.No. Since urban freeways typically don't have room for rail in their medians, you have to shift lanes outward, which means buying up privately owned land anyway PLUS essentially rebuilding part of the highway since you're destroying the inner portion to clear up room. Road gradients often exceed the gradients trains can use, so earthmoving will likely be involved anyway.>first off, there's more countries than muttlandI don't care. I'm talking about the US.>Second, the whole idea is to eat up two lanes for the railway trackNot realistic in the US, which I already said>We're not talking politics here.Public transportation is inseparable from public policy
>>1359495>you have to shift lanes outwardYOU DON'T HOLY FUCK HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO TELL YOU THE POINT IS TO REMOVE CAPACITY FROM THE HIGHWAYGo kill yourself
>>1359554I've said this multiple times: I'm only talking about the US and that's unrealistic here.
>>1358819Because there already are too few lanes.
>>1359554Because trains in America aren't desired enough for anyone to pay for it. Why spend literal billions to move interstates over just so some nigger can go across the state for 100 bucks?
>>1363066We have those, they're called greyhounds. Commie faggots don't like them because they are actually viable and not retarded.
>>1358871That's a lot of real estate taken up for only two tracks.
>>1358855>because the initial planning was done with lots of input from Hitler himself, and he wasn't very good at it.I love how mass murder and wars of aggression isn't enough, Hitler MUST be bad in absolutely every way. Every year a new myth is made.To save you a response; the autobahn is actually a very well-designed road system, despite the fact that it was built with military traffic in mind.