From M II A II R II K’s excellent presentation on TOD, 3/22/1, post 203
Quoting from the link:
Read More:
http://newurbannetwork.com/article/l...erywhere-14344
Rails to Real Estate suggests why some rail-served locations appealed to developers and residents, while others didn’t. The answers vary from one metro area to another.
In Denver’s southeast suburbs, the 19-mile Southeast Corridor line — the second of what will eventually be a regional network of light-rail lines — was built in the right-of-way of Interstate 25. That turns out to have been a bad decision, at least from a real estate and community-building perspective.
While freeway adjacency provides increased accessibility to the area, it also poses major barriers to TOD. The exhaust and noise of the freeway limit the building forms and land uses of parcels that abut I-25 and the stations. New projects are often built in a way intended to mitigate these effects, forming visual and physical barriers between the freeway and nearby areas; unfortunately, because the stations are also next to the freeway, these also form barriers to transit.
Pedestrian bridges have been constructed to enhance access to the stations from both sides of the freeway, but the presence of the highway limits the amount of land that is truly transit-accessible. Finally, the excellent automobile access provided by the highway encourages driving and necessitates the provision of a large amount of parking, which limits both development density and the potential for a vibrant pedestrian-scaled environment.
IMO, part of the problem in getting a light rail (heavy rail or street car) system to work in TOD is the result of how getting finance affects the system's build out design.
The I-25 FasTracks Project in Denver was a curious hybrid in the sense that Federal highway funds, state highway funds, and, RTD area sales tax funds were lumped together in a combined project. From the I-25 perspective, the project involved widening a 20 kilometer section of 6 and 8 laned interstate into 8 and 10 lanes and improving entry and exit ramps. From the light rail perspective, RTD gained a ROW at the expense of ‘best possible ROW', at a reduced cost. Consequently, grade and curvature targets were compromised by freeway design.
This produced a system in which most access to stations is gained from the ‘other’ side of I-25, whether via tunnel or overhead walkway. The one tunnel goes under 8 lanes of traffic and can be intimidating when used late at night, or anytime when one is alone. The overhead passes vary from a moderate hindrance in their length to 300 or more meters of walking across 10 lanes of I-25, frontage roads etc.
This type of light rail development, where the light rail either goes down the median or along side a freeway results in stations which must be extremely noisy due to 60-70 mph car and truck traffic very close by. People who use such stations have no desire to ‘get there early’ or to ‘wait for someone.’ Instead, users minimize station time to avoid using ear plugs.
IMO TOD development around stations works best when station platforms are fairly quiet and close to parking, retail, housing etc. I think the ultimate desigm criteria would be housing where people could lounge on their balconies without ear plugs and be between 150 and 350 walking meters of a light rail station.
IMO this is central to TOD development, and is why great TODs occur off interstates and in quieter neighborhoods.
Prev
I was just about to say wtf, what kind of moron would say this...but I know you and I know you are joking, it definitely made me laugh.
Thats because people in Vancouver have become spoiled with trains arriving every 90 seconds on the Expo Line during peak hours. But I agree, frequent service is a major component in mass transit, but what you are missing out is that the Canada Line and indeed all of Vancouver's skytrain system has 2 huge advantages over all these new LRTs in the US, 100% GRADE SEPARATION and automated rolling stock. 
Linear Mode
