U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-16-2013, 09:10 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,830,658 times
Reputation: 9769

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post
People like you scream "induced demand" have this perception that congestion will always be the same no matter what sort of roads we have.
_Most_ of the "induced demand" proponents don't go so far as to say that closing roads will reduce congestion, though that actually follows from their theories.

Also remember that a highway cutting a neighborhood in half is a bad thing, but an elevated doing the same thing is a good thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2013, 03:27 AM
 
2,366 posts, read 2,128,255 times
Reputation: 1752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post
People like you scream "induced demand" have this perception that congestion will always be the same no matter what sort of roads we have. Yeah, right. I've driven in medium-sized cities that shunt all their traffic onto two-lane roads and I've driven in other cities with similar traffic volumes that shunted their traffic onto four-lane roads and freeways. I suppose the much better, faster, and less congested driving experience I had in the latter was just in my mind . Sure, people will make adjustments - it's great having to adjust to even more congestion, even slower speeds, and even longer trip times. I've done it myself, and strangling traffic is a small price to pay for the knowledge that the rotted buildings I pass by haven't been blighted by upgraded infrastructure A infrastructure that does nothing for that particular area. It just for you to drive right on by.

No offense intended, but a slum like this doesn't strike me as being a vibrant community. Providing good transportation infrastructure is seen by you as some sort of a blight, and at the same time you ignore the blight that existed before the infrastructure was there, and you ignore the other kind of blight that congestion brings to a city. It should also be noted that mile-wide neighborhoods and communities cannot disappear when they are bissected by a freeway that at most would be 300 feet wide. The neighborhoods are often divided, yes, but they are not destroyed. That would be as like saying that the country of Czechoslovakia was destroyed when it split into two - it wasn't destroyed, it was divided.
They are infrastructure that does nothing for that community. It is just for people to drive right on by. They community disappear as if people are forced to relocate elsewhere and the area is to be avoided. Why should a community be divided just so someone can save ten minutes?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post
Freeways serve to revitalize transportation, and do not directly revitalize neighborhoods or buildings. That isn't their function. Your last sentence demonstrates my point - you cannot destroy a vibrant community if no vibrancy existed there to begin with. Sterile concrete is far more pleasant than rotted buildings.

My broader point is that we don't have to choose between an eyesore freeway and an eyesore slum, and if we ever had to make such a choice it would be a grim day indeed. Urban renewal and improving infrastructure to eliminate gridlock are goals that should be pursued with equal vigor. Freeways can be buried, or they can be made more attractive than a green-colored eyesore, or other methods can be used to lessen their impact upon neighborhoods, or they could pursue an alternative route that would minimize the impact upon the city, and at the same time deliver maximum benefit to the people who live in the city and use these roads.
Whether you want to admit it or not, there were people that live there and there was a store nearby. That link does not mean that the place wasn't a community. It could of been some random junkyard with a nearby corner store down the block. Something had to clear out to make room for freeways. Most people in cities are likely not to use the freeways unless they are leaving. It serves no purpose to them. They would use public transportation if available and convenient to them. Urban renewal projects failed to prove that the city was much better off than what they had.

When San Francisco got rid of its two freeways, property values went up and the city reopened its Ferry Building which was difficult to access since the Embarcedero Freeway literally stood in front of it. In place of the Central Freeway is boulevard with green space with benches for people to relax at the end. This attracted businesses to that neighborhood and people to live there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2013, 12:27 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,102,417 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Also remember that a highway cutting a neighborhood in half is a bad thing, but an elevated doing the same thing is a good thing.
Not for property values and crime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2013, 07:48 PM
 
1,547 posts, read 2,351,905 times
Reputation: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
Yes, I was mistaken - the Embarcadero Freeway did get demolished.

Seattle's earthquake-damaged highway 99 will be replaced by a tunnel under the Puget Sound. Interstate 5 still runs very much through downtown, though, and it isn't going anywhere.

I'm quite surprised anyone believes these measures are sealing the fate of these cities. Both have quite strong economies. Demolishing a freeway allows for more land to be developed, creating more jobs, more tax revenue, more housing, etc.

Vancouver has no downtown freeway and yeah, it's doing pretty damn well.
Seattle does have I5 also but its got freeway park built over the top connecting downtown with First Hill. Seattle is doing well also.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2013, 01:34 AM
 
630 posts, read 840,910 times
Reputation: 224
No freeway = a cool and vibrant downtown sprouting up like Vancouver and Toronto.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2013, 12:10 PM
 
1,547 posts, read 2,351,905 times
Reputation: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by foo cities View Post
No freeway = a cool and vibrant downtown sprouting up like Vancouver and Toronto.
I think Toronto does have an express way through downtown but its far from having freeways split the city up. The bay freeway was to ring Seattle and cut through downtown and was funded . In a 1972 special election Seattle voters endorsed a cancellation of the project. Im happy it was never built it would have cut downtown of from Seattle Center and South Lake Union. The only freeway in downtown above ground is I5 and it has alot of cut and cover in the downtown part and highway 99 and its going underground soon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 07:36 PM
 
Location: Michigan
4,571 posts, read 7,034,245 times
Reputation: 3599
I was going to post this in the Why you love American cities thread, but I figured it'd be more appropriate in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jm31828 View Post
Freeways through cities is not just an American thing, and is not a bad thing. Freeways are more than entertainment- they are necessary, whether we like them or not. Contrary to what people here may believe that American cities are the only ones with freeways cutting through them, even places like China have them. They are building more of them because even though they have great mass transit that a lot of people use, there are still a lot of people who drive, and besides cars, buses and even delivery trucks and other types of vehicles need these to get through or around the cities quickly. These are far more than just entertainment for spoiled drivers!
Though there's a very clear difference in how Asian freeways are built compared to American ones.
  • Most of their freeways are built over existing artery roads rather than though already built neighborhoods.
  • Their freeways are very compact within urban areas and are only ever wide in low density areas.
  • Almost all of them are elevated (some with seemingly multiple levels) except for hilly terrain and certain parklands.

Freeways aren't uniquely American, but America's are uniquely destructive in how they were built. Even if some areas near downtowns were already decaying and becoming vacant with the lack of mass transit to the outer suburbs, it pretty much sealed the neighborhood's fate once freeways were built through them in such a destructive manner. Not many people want to live under a wall of concrete and noise.



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 08:40 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,081,530 times
Reputation: 12641
Your second picture seems to disprove that notion.. looks like quite a few people want to live there to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 10:09 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,932,349 times
Reputation: 18050
I think like the road system in many cities declining that it would just mean companies moving outward to where their workers have moved. Its thr reason cities want light rail to bring worker in from outside and stop the movement outward. People never really moved into city inmass because they wanted to.Its was jobs that brought them.As material transportion;power and acess improved after WWII people started moving backout of the cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 10:35 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,715,489 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
_Most_ of the "induced demand" proponents don't go so far as to say that closing roads will reduce congestion, though that actually follows from their theories.

Also remember that a highway cutting a neighborhood in half is a bad thing, but an elevated doing the same thing is a good thing.
Nonsensical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top