What does this station serve? The point of public transport is to get you into a populated public area or a commuter station, right next to where houses and people are. You build them where they can/are used I.e. in the middle of suburbia where you can walk to them, not next to a highway.
Do US designers understand passenger rail?
Edit:
Nobody has responded in this thread about why the way this is built is good (admittedly this particular station does serve a nearby uni, but I was meaning generally and even so, this station location does not seem the best option), offered solutions or agreed that it’s just stupid and shouldn’t be this way. And some seem to think that suburbs aren’t part of cities. It’s baffling.
This is also not the first time a US passenger rail conversation I’ve had on Lemmy has gone like this. Are you all happy with the way your rail works and your commuter traffic? Do you not see how other places work and compare? Do you understand the point of mass transport or is this something that just isnt experienced/taught in schools. I don’t get it. The apathy to fix anything is terrible. It does explain a few things about why you get walked over by your governments though. Truly, it’s just a bit sad. It’s like you don’t even realise it doesn’t have to be this way. You never used to be like this.
Public transpiration in the US is woefully inadequate, so you won’t see me defending it’s current state too much. But there is a logic to a line following a highway; clearly this thoroughfare has the demand of people to get from point A to point B; that’s why there’s a highway there.
Nobody has responded in this thread about why the way this is built is good ([…]), offered solutions or agreed that it’s just stupid and shouldn’t be this way.
Isn’t that refreshing? The video is only 22 seconds long. It’s just enough context to show that the highway noise is indeed noisy there.
Most of us don’t know what the requirements were when planning and designing this station. Most of us probably never had to plan/design these things. Too many people on the Internet speak with an authoritative tone despite being ignorant of the subject matter. I see no harm in letting a conversation be free of armchair experts.
Yes, and no. If we rely on only experts commenting, there will be little conversation even happening which would be worse as nobody learns or thinks about things closer. That’s why there’s no such thing as a stupid question - something can be learnt from every idea, even if it’s inward and you learn more about the way YOU see the world.
Seems like it serves at least an entire university and has a dedicated pedestrian bridge.
Dunking on US public transport is easy and fun, so I sympathize, but if we do attempt public transportation it’s generally not needlessly stupid. Sometimes it ends up stupid anyway, but I try not to hate unnecessarily. It seems pretty close to the university, and I’m sure there are reasons why it’s in the middle of a highway.
Rail sometimes end up in the middle of a highway because the government already owns the land in that median, and it’s a lot easier and cheaper to build there than buying and clearing other routes.
The seeds of urban sprawl with shitty transportation were planted decades ago. Fixing it isn’t cheap, but some bandaids are easier than others.
Not sure about this station specifically, just speaking broadly
If the priority was on mass transport and not roads (which they quite happily destroy the entire neighbourhood to build), then this would solve the issue. And takes up far less land then a 8+ lane highway.
Better than nothing but a cynical approach to it, and I wonder if that is part of the plan.
“We built this rail line, in a bad location, and few are using it. I wonder why. Guess nobody likes rail, we should build more roads now instead.”
Also being general, not about this station in particular
Typically it’s the other order, in the us. We want to build a train line but it’s ungodly expensive and legally fraught to get that right of way. However there’s a convenient highway where we already have a right of way, and there’s room for rail in the median.
I’m not convinced it’s a good idea since no one would want to use it, but it’s well-meaning people trying to get a thing done
it should also be noted that the station has bus connections that jump onto (and come off from,) the highway, serving as a connection between busses coming from places trains don’t run to the train.
That is fair. We have a new train station next to one of our universities too and it replaced a bus line. It doesn’t have a highway right next to it as our higher education establishments tend to be in areas of quiet for obvious reasons (but still fairly close tbh), but that’s a different problem.
You realise that suburbia is PART of cities. You don’t have one without the other. That’s how cities work. If you lived and worked in suburbia, you’re not needing to catch a train. Trains are for the fast movement of a mass of people from one place to another. Inner city trains are usually trams or metro/subway/underground. That is how it works.
Edit: just re-read what I originally wrote and it’s pretty clear that I was saying most rail goes from suburbia into cities which would obviously include stops on the way - it’s not point-to-point, so the central city fringe between the city and suburbia would be covered. I thought that went without saying.
Okay… But Chicago’s subway is famously above ground for a large portion of it. It’s colloquially called “The L” or “The El” which is short for the elevated track. And it’s fine you didn’t know this, but also assuming makes an ass of u and me. I would encourage you to foster an inquisitive and curious mind, not one that assumes (of which I am also very guilty, though working on through meditation and mindfulness.)
Train lines generally run through and stop at suburban stations into the city. It’s a hub and spoke with stops on the way. I think you don’t understand how rail works in all other cities. Or you’re trolling. Or you’re USian and this explains both the lack of knowledge at how most city rail works and the lack of public transport.
I read through this conversation and nah, you’re pretty much only responding to the most minor part of each comment and ignoring the important parts
The point is that the highway, and therefore the train, run through the city. No one’s arguing that this is an incredible setup but you’re acting like the stations are in the middle of nowhere.
The important part is that nobody seems to care. I’m more pissed from the general apathy.
Look, I’m a government employee, if nobody complains, it’s fantastic but THIS is something that should have been complained about in the planning stage. I’m frustrated that nobody wants to make their lives better and then they complain after the fact. Make a damn ruckus BEFORE. The government do not mind buying land for infrastructure projects.
And that nobody seems to realise that cities comprise of the CBD, outer city, suburbia and peri-urban areas and a train should cover all those areas. It does seem odd that nobody seems to know how suburban rail generally works everywhere in the world.
The other side of the station probably has a destination. There’a also one like this in Boston; right against I-93 South on one side, stores and neighborhood on the other. They’ve just crammed all the transit into the smallest corridor possible.
However, this isn’t how you should build public transit, along a corridor. It a) restricts the other mode of transport for evermore b) it encourages growth near the station (which isn’t what you would want) c) discourages walking cities d) it’s loud af e) it’s not in the centre of an area but the outskirts which means it’s less usable for the majority of the area and more for only the people hemmed around the highway.
It’s like nobody looks at city maps from around the world and how passenger suburban and city rail is a new/difficult concept.
No, it’s in the median of the Dan Ryan Expressway / Interstate 94. The other side is the other direction of traffic. I’ve seen it in person. It is among the shittiest of shitty American transit stations.
What does this station serve? The point of public transport is to get you into a populated public area or a commuter station, right next to where houses and people are. You build them where they can/are used I.e. in the middle of suburbia where you can walk to them, not next to a highway.
Do US designers understand passenger rail?
Edit: Nobody has responded in this thread about why the way this is built is good (admittedly this particular station does serve a nearby uni, but I was meaning generally and even so, this station location does not seem the best option), offered solutions or agreed that it’s just stupid and shouldn’t be this way. And some seem to think that suburbs aren’t part of cities. It’s baffling.
This is also not the first time a US passenger rail conversation I’ve had on Lemmy has gone like this. Are you all happy with the way your rail works and your commuter traffic? Do you not see how other places work and compare? Do you understand the point of mass transport or is this something that just isnt experienced/taught in schools. I don’t get it. The apathy to fix anything is terrible. It does explain a few things about why you get walked over by your governments though. Truly, it’s just a bit sad. It’s like you don’t even realise it doesn’t have to be this way. You never used to be like this.
Public transpiration in the US is woefully inadequate, so you won’t see me defending it’s current state too much. But there is a logic to a line following a highway; clearly this thoroughfare has the demand of people to get from point A to point B; that’s why there’s a highway there.
Isn’t that refreshing? The video is only 22 seconds long. It’s just enough context to show that the highway noise is indeed noisy there.
Most of us don’t know what the requirements were when planning and designing this station. Most of us probably never had to plan/design these things. Too many people on the Internet speak with an authoritative tone despite being ignorant of the subject matter. I see no harm in letting a conversation be free of armchair experts.
Yes, and no. If we rely on only experts commenting, there will be little conversation even happening which would be worse as nobody learns or thinks about things closer. That’s why there’s no such thing as a stupid question - something can be learnt from every idea, even if it’s inward and you learn more about the way YOU see the world.
Its a subway stop, the line only serves the city. Like the London underground. This station happens to be right next to the interstate.
Seems like it serves at least an entire university and has a dedicated pedestrian bridge.
Dunking on US public transport is easy and fun, so I sympathize, but if we do attempt public transportation it’s generally not needlessly stupid. Sometimes it ends up stupid anyway, but I try not to hate unnecessarily. It seems pretty close to the university, and I’m sure there are reasons why it’s in the middle of a highway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garfield_station_(CTA_Red_Line)
Rail sometimes end up in the middle of a highway because the government already owns the land in that median, and it’s a lot easier and cheaper to build there than buying and clearing other routes.
The seeds of urban sprawl with shitty transportation were planted decades ago. Fixing it isn’t cheap, but some bandaids are easier than others.
Not sure about this station specifically, just speaking broadly
If the priority was on mass transport and not roads (which they quite happily destroy the entire neighbourhood to build), then this would solve the issue. And takes up far less land then a 8+ lane highway.
Better than nothing but a cynical approach to it, and I wonder if that is part of the plan.
“We built this rail line, in a bad location, and few are using it. I wonder why. Guess nobody likes rail, we should build more roads now instead.”
Also being general, not about this station in particular
Typically it’s the other order, in the us. We want to build a train line but it’s ungodly expensive and legally fraught to get that right of way. However there’s a convenient highway where we already have a right of way, and there’s room for rail in the median.
I’m not convinced it’s a good idea since no one would want to use it, but it’s well-meaning people trying to get a thing done
it should also be noted that the station has bus connections that jump onto (and come off from,) the highway, serving as a connection between busses coming from places trains don’t run to the train.
That is fair. We have a new train station next to one of our universities too and it replaced a bus line. It doesn’t have a highway right next to it as our higher education establishments tend to be in areas of quiet for obvious reasons (but still fairly close tbh), but that’s a different problem.
You realize that people live in cities and not just in suburbia right? They also work and go to school in cities. What the hell are you smoking?
You realise that suburbia is PART of cities. You don’t have one without the other. That’s how cities work. If you lived and worked in suburbia, you’re not needing to catch a train. Trains are for the fast movement of a mass of people from one place to another. Inner city trains are usually trams or metro/subway/underground. That is how it works.
Edit: just re-read what I originally wrote and it’s pretty clear that I was saying most rail goes from suburbia into cities which would obviously include stops on the way - it’s not point-to-point, so the central city fringe between the city and suburbia would be covered. I thought that went without saying.
Okay… But Chicago’s subway is famously above ground for a large portion of it. It’s colloquially called “The L” or “The El” which is short for the elevated track. And it’s fine you didn’t know this, but also assuming makes an ass of u and me. I would encourage you to foster an inquisitive and curious mind, not one that assumes (of which I am also very guilty, though working on through meditation and mindfulness.)
Got it. The trains take the people into the city, but there can’t be a station in the city to drop them off at. That would be bonkers!
Train lines generally run through and stop at suburban stations into the city. It’s a hub and spoke with stops on the way. I think you don’t understand how rail works in all other cities. Or you’re trolling. Or you’re USian and this explains both the lack of knowledge at how most city rail works and the lack of public transport.
Mate you’re being intentionally obtuse and it’s fucking tiring. Take that shit to Reddit or have a real convo.
I’m really not - it appears many don’t know how city rail works - just ask any other person from any other city, european or asian
I read through this conversation and nah, you’re pretty much only responding to the most minor part of each comment and ignoring the important parts
The point is that the highway, and therefore the train, run through the city. No one’s arguing that this is an incredible setup but you’re acting like the stations are in the middle of nowhere.
The important part is that nobody seems to care. I’m more pissed from the general apathy.
Look, I’m a government employee, if nobody complains, it’s fantastic but THIS is something that should have been complained about in the planning stage. I’m frustrated that nobody wants to make their lives better and then they complain after the fact. Make a damn ruckus BEFORE. The government do not mind buying land for infrastructure projects.
And that nobody seems to realise that cities comprise of the CBD, outer city, suburbia and peri-urban areas and a train should cover all those areas. It does seem odd that nobody seems to know how suburban rail generally works everywhere in the world.
What are you clowns fighting about. Trains take people places and cities have suburbs. Now just kiss and get it over with.
The other side of the station probably has a destination. There’a also one like this in Boston; right against I-93 South on one side, stores and neighborhood on the other. They’ve just crammed all the transit into the smallest corridor possible.
As others have said, it’s near a university.
However, this isn’t how you should build public transit, along a corridor. It a) restricts the other mode of transport for evermore b) it encourages growth near the station (which isn’t what you would want) c) discourages walking cities d) it’s loud af e) it’s not in the centre of an area but the outskirts which means it’s less usable for the majority of the area and more for only the people hemmed around the highway.
It’s like nobody looks at city maps from around the world and how passenger suburban and city rail is a new/difficult concept.
No, it’s in the median of the Dan Ryan Expressway / Interstate 94. The other side is the other direction of traffic. I’ve seen it in person. It is among the shittiest of shitty American transit stations.
Why the fuck would they put it in the median? What the hell?
You’re not gonna believe the demographics in the south side of chicago