External Locations of Modern Railway Stations – a Departure from Sustainable Mobility?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Systemy transportowe Jacek Wesołowski External locations of modern railway stations – a departure from sustainable mobility? Will people come to the railway regardless of station location or in 1894. Rotterdam was a rare example of a long cross-city line should rather the railway come to where people are? The pursue for built on iron viaduct (1877; line relocated underground in 1993). central locations for stations was probably the most characteristic The long lasting ‘battle’ of railways with authorities of Paris, won feature of Victorian railways urging them to cover huge costs of in- by the latter, is particularly emblematic. Mainline railways have ner city lots and approaches. It has been often stressed the station to wait till the 1970s to gain access directly to the heart of the has changed it character becoming far more than the pure trans- city which materialised in a limited form as a big suburban hub at port node. The evolution towards a retail and service centre was Châtelet-les-Halles. In the last decades of the 19th century even possible thanks to its inner city location [1]. Recent developments a reverse tendency was born, to whom good excuse were the in some countries with most advanced railway systems show that need for large areas for central stations and the need to free the modern stations are often neither central nor even easily accessible. cities from any physical constraints for expansion. Truncation of The time gained on quick train travel and lack of check in times is inner parts of railways approaching Frankfurt am Main in order then lost by most customers on long access travels. Also the overall to consolidate all lines in the huge Hauptbahnhof can be a good comfort of train travel is thus reduced even if the long journey to the early example (1883-88). The new station complex was accom- station can be made by metro. Are these good circumstances to turn panied by several blocks designed for urban development, with the railway into most favourite form of travel? an axial boulevard, laid out on the former premises of the station yards and approaches of four separate railway companies. The distance of stations from Römer grew from 0.7 km to 1.3 km. The A brief look on the evolution of station locations1 list of similar changes to railway patterns in cities in Europe and As station location in the vicinity of the built-up urban perimeters America is long, marked by milestone interventions in Strassburg did not pose much problems for railways, such a practice was (1883, distance from the heart of the city as the crow flies grew by far most common in the pioneering epoque of railways. This from 0.7 km to 1.1 km), Darmstadt (1912; 0.7 km to 1.5 km), came in different time according to country: in Lodz the Kalishskiy Kansas City (1914, 1.3 km to 2.0 km), Milan (1912-31, 1.8 km vokzal was an example dating back to not earlier than the dawn to 2.5 km), Stuttgart (1922; 0.4 km to 0.8 km), Ghent (1928; of the 20th century. At that time peripheries were not closer to service moved to 1912-built station, distance grew from 0.7 km central area of the town than 2 km. In better developed bigger cit- to 1.7 km), Königsberg (1929; 1.2 km to 2.0 km), Buffalo (1933; ies, particularly in Britain, the competing railway companies were 0.8 km to 3.8 km), Cincinnati (1933; 0.3 km to 2.3 km), Bruges soon ready to carry great expenses in order to reach more central (1939; 0.6 km to 1.3 km), Barcelona (1975; 1.3 km to 2.5 km). It locations, more convenient for lucrative business traffic. Such attempts were occassionally com- bined with a desire of connecting one railway sys- tem with another of the same or allied company. It involved inner city tunnelling or construction of via- ducts – both usually combined with expropriations and wide scale demolition of on-ground structures. There are early examples of such development – Edinburgh, 1847, Birmingham 1852 and 1854 (all three below street level), Leeds 1869 (on viaduct). In London particularly many termini were built at second stage as endings of inner city extension lines (e.g. Waterloo 1848, Charing Cross 1864, Cannon Street 1866, Liverpool Street 1874). The urban and social aspects of these developments have been widely discussed elsewhere, usually with negative conclusions. On the Continent, where Berlin’s Stadtbahn, with its numerous arched stations, became an emblematic cross-city railway (1882), the govern- ments were generally more reluctant, if not hostile, to railways’ desire of deep-reaching the central ar- eas. Cologne’s station of 1859, situated directly Fig. 1. Birmingham – city plan with two sub-surface cross-city lines and their centrally at the Cathedral, soon required enlargement and located stations; GWR – Great Western Railway, LNWR – London & North Western Railway. reconstruction of the approaches, accomplished Source: A & C Black, 1884, Wiki Commons 4 /2017 27 Systemy transportowe directly at one of the square’s corners. This process adds up to overall car-oriented way of life, whatever absurd it may seem for the Europeans in case of railway travel. Not always the distances grew in conjunction with major rail- way restructuring. Every here and there we come across cases of rebuilding the termini, which involved demolition of original struc- tures and creation of vast vehicle approach ‘vacuums’ in front of new buildings. Rome (1950) and Naples (1960) may serve as typi- cal examples, regardless of what merits their modern structures may have. Warsaw is somewhat similar as regards its 1848-built terminus, but the change involved construction of a through sta- tion (1974). The walkway to the city became longer and tedious, while the continuum of pedestrian-oriented urban space was bro- ken or at least hindered. These changes can hardly be compared to the notion of the ‘parkway station’, a discovery of motor age (the name being typi- cally British). Such a structure was solely designed with eye on motorised railway customers (or on those who can bother their relatives to be delivered to and from the station by car), who could benefit from vast car parks surrounding the complex. There was also a tendency to furnish the preexisting inner city stations with such facilities as well and to replace redundant and time-worn old station buildings and structures with simple and basic shel- ters. Clearly, they all reflect the influence of heavily ‘suburban- ised’ urban structures on railways and their somewhat desperate efforts to regain customers as well as to make the operations more cost-efficient. This, combined with ‘erosion’ of urban tissue in central ‘collar zones’, contributed to the relative isolation of railway stations. The rediscovery of railway travel The inefficiency of road system and the dubious comfort of air travel brought the potential attractiveness of railways back to the agenda of the last decades of the 20th century in many European and Asiatic countries. This was accompanied by the growing en- vironmental awareness and the typically European care for spa- Fig. 2. Darmstadt – basic map showing the new railway layout opened in tial consistency of cities threatened by unlimited car usage. The 1912. Old railway courses are visible closer to the city key advantage of railways was perceived in their centrally located Source: coll. of Institut für Geographie und Geologie, Universität Greifswald, Wiki stations. They helped to serve major destinations directly, make Commons. better use of existing urban transport infrastructure, and contrib- uted to regenerate city centres by creating flourishing nodes of is relatively rarely that positioning of the new, consolidated station economic activities in the vicinity. could match the convenience of former stations, as it happened in However, new high-speed railway networks immediately turned Washington (1906), a development which also freed the streets of into a challenge. On one hand they had crucial effect on the re- the US capital from railroad traffic, as it did much later in Syracuse naissance of rail travel, on the other their technological specifica- (1936, 0.2 km to 1.0 km) and Los Angeles (1939). tions required space difficult to obtain in inner cities while noise Inner city railway construction did not cease entirely, but was pollution additionally threatened the urban environment. Through no longer in the mainstream of development. Tokyo (1914, 1932) stations were biggest problems, especially when many trains were and Warsaw (1933, 1968) tried to follow the Berlin Stadtbahn pat- to pass them without stopping or even slowing down. In many tern, but Brussels is probably the closest and best known example cases in introducing high-speed network the railways faced simi- (1935-52) which involved much demolition of historic tissue for lar tasks as these from the pioneering times. This resulted in the viaducts and cut-and-cover tunnelling. On the contrary, relegation variety of solutions, from construction of approaches to existing of stations and their approaches, usually on street level, from in- stations in new corridors or along existing lines, to construction ner cities coincided with overall decline of mainline rail services, of high speed stations in suburban zone without entering the in- particularly in America. In Detroit original termini were originally ner city. The latter case practically excluded or severely limited just over half a kilometre from the central square, the 1913-built the level of integration with other types of railway services. Op- and never finished station was 2.5 km away, while its replace- tions were selected after considering the size and role of cities ment, a small pavilion built in 1994, is no closer than 4.5 km.