The planning for the Washington subway in the 1960s followed the exact philosophy espoused in the Human Transit blog entry. They planned to pair freeway construction with rapid rail construction. I have some great planning reports from the early 1960s that I have found in antique stores and bookstores over the years that sadly lack drawings, but discuss the planning. (Of course, it’s also discussed in _Great Society Subway_.)

Now some of the freeways weren’t built (I-70 into DC to Union Station, paralleling the red line; I-95 into the city from Greenbelt to Fort Totten station) and some were (I-66 in Northern Virginia).

The lessons are pretty clear though. And this is the flaw in Jared’s argument and understanding. Transit, to spur use and compact land use development, needs to be integrated into communities and neighborhoods, and link activity centers relatively efficiently. Freeways are designed to support polycentric land development, which by its very nature, is anti-transit.

Building a transit line on a freeway doesn’t change the underlying conditions or land use and transportation-mobility paradigm of polycentrism. Hence a failure of transit on a freeway to have much positive use and impact–and use–which then others use to justify not investing further in transit.

The aforementioned corridors in the Washington region…. well, I-66+transit vs. transit in Arlington County (the County said rather than put the subway in the freeway, put it under Wilson Blvd.) demonstrates the ability to integrate transit and land use planning in positive ways. Arlington is thriving while the Orange Line stations in Fairfax County have had extremely limited positive impact in the way that we expect.

Similarly, the red line and green line stations planned to be in areas with freeways show the impact of having transit stations placed in compact development vs. suburban development settings. For the most part, closer in red line stations do much better, and for the most part, the green line stations from Fort Totten to Greenbelt are underutilized–even though the PG Plaza site is being massively intensified, but in a more suburban less urban “style” even if at urban densities, and with the College Park station, serving the UMD campus, albeit indirectly by long walk or bus.

You´re not alone; the North American transit blogosphere is full of people saying “x is a bad idea because cities that have done that weren´t really trying to make it work, or were really serving some other agenda.” I hear that all the time about BRT. Should we really not do X solely because our parents´ generation did X badly or disingenuously? I think that argument gives our parents too much power.

Twenty or even ten years from now, nobody but transit wonks will care about the politics that led to how something got built. They´ll care whether it works for their own lives and for the city they´re building then, and their sense of possibility will almost certainly be broader than ours can be now.

That´s why I illustrated my post with an example from Berlin, where high value and high density real estate does happen on freeway+transit corridors. Not because that´s how it will happen in an American city, but to show some sense of the range of what´s possible if we have the courage to look beyond our history, which to me is an essential part of any planner´s task.

In St. Paul, the Central Corridor LRT was considered to be used in the Interstate-94 median. It would have been a terrible idea because it would have induced little development and would not have been planned with any freeway expansion. All the overpasses, which were built in the late 60′s and designed to last at least 60 years.

University Avenue, while problematic, is quite wide and urbane.

Yes, the side that contains almost all of Manhattan…

There’s a right side to the West Side Highway? I imagine it would be pretty inaccessible if it’s up on the elevated. 12th Ave generally leaves a lot to be desired. which is the wrong side or the right side of 12th to put the bike lanes would depend a lot on what you want to use the bike lane for.

The old brick-arch Victorian viaducts in England were particularly good for tucking businesses inside (perhaps their thickness insulated the businesses from overhead traffic vibration better than other designs).