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.
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.
I find this to be complete nonsense, I know PLENTY of people in my hometown of New York City who use freeways/highways/parkways all the time to get around the city, myself included. Even *WITH* convenient public transportation provided, arguably some of the most comprehensive and convenient public transit in the country, and yet thousands of people every day simply prefer to drive to their destinations. My previous job would have allowed me to take mass transit...grade separated, decently fast, heavy rail transit...for FREE to get to work (source? sure, lol). However, it was a 15 minute walk to the station, 15 minute train ride and 15 minute walk to work from the other station, with nothing along the road. Driving my car, I used to take the highway and get from my driveway to the parking lot in 11 minutes, usually 15 minutes with a stop at Dunkin Donuts... Plus, I get it that some people apparently enjoy walking all over the place, but having to bundle up in the winter every morning and afternoon, sweat having to walk every day in the summer and then deal with all of the elements....all to save a few bucks in gas? Not worth it. I love to walk....when I'm not trying to get to or from work. I'll walk for hours on boardwalks, or in parks...ride my bike and I try to get outdoors as much as possible on a nice day. But for commuting? No thanks....I'll take the quickest and most convenient way. And it's obvious that a lot of people EVEN in cities simply prefer this, despite the inconveniences and costs that come along with it. Now if I lived in Brooklyn immediately adjacent to a subway station, and my office was a block from another subway station where the trains come frequently, the parking is inconvenient and expensive and driving takes more time and effort than riding the train, I'd probably take the train....most of the time. That being said, I'll never live in such a dense place such as Brooklyn, let alone anywhere near a subway station...so looks like I'll keep driving.
I find this to be complete nonsense, I know PLENTY of people in my hometown of New York City who use freeways/highways/parkways all the time to get around the city, myself included. Even *WITH* convenient public transportation provided, arguably some of the most comprehensive and convenient public transit in the country, and yet thousands of people every day simply prefer to drive to their destinations. My previous job would have allowed me to take mass transit...grade separated, decently fast, heavy rail transit...for FREE to get to work (source? sure, lol). However, it was a 15 minute walk to the station, 15 minute train ride and 15 minute walk to work from the other station, with nothing along the road. Driving my car, I used to take the highway and get from my driveway to the parking lot in 11 minutes, usually 15 minutes with a stop at Dunkin Donuts...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phyxius
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.
As long as a grid pattern is in place along with major street arteries, I think surface streets could easily replace freeways. The same argument about removing freeways will cause madness was used in Portland and San Francisco and nothing happened. Everyone has this perception that if you remove a freeway, traffic will get worst on surface street. The reality is people will make adjustments and the traffic will go away. Freeways do little to ease congestion, it just switch places with surface streets. When those freeways are congested, people can't get off. They are stuck on them until the next exit.
I prefer rebuilding buildings rather than replacing them with a sterile concrete that will outlive its purpose in about 20 years and carry more volume than it was designed to. You forget that these places were also vibrant communities and when you plow a freeway through them, that community disappears go away. Those sterile concrete do nothing to revitalize a community, it just destroys them and land values are decreased. Businesses will pack up and shut down for good. The area will remain in urban decay whether a freeway is built in it or not because the problem was never addressed to begin with.
How can you say freeways do not ease congestion?? have you ever played with a traffic simulation?
I find this to be complete nonsense, I know PLENTY of people in my hometown of New York City who use freeways/highways/parkways all the time to get around the city, myself included.
Agreed; sometimes the most direct/convenient/easy route between point A and point B is to hop on the freeway for a mile or two.
Quote:
Driving my car, I used to take the highway and get from my driveway to the parking lot in 11 minutes, usually 15 minutes with a stop at Dunkin Donuts...
They'd frown on you eating that donut on the bus/train, too ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFi
How can you say freeways do not ease congestion?? have you ever played with a traffic simulation?
I wonder the same thing. All those cars have to go somewhere.
I wonder the same thing. All those cars have to go somewhere.
That's not entirely true. People react to changes. They move, learn alternative routes, change jobs, change hours, etc. New residents pick and choose where they live based on the situation they're faced with. Some of those cars, near as makes no difference, disappear as a result.
There's a certain amount of demand induced by an easy route. Widen a freeway, traffic may increase faster than the population; remove a freeway, traffic may decline by the same percentage change in throughput.
New Orleans skyline was saved from a freeway, thanks to SF
Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedmartian
Didn't SF demo its downtown riverfront freeway? It looked pretty ugly if I remember it correctly. And I think Seattle has plans to do something with its riverfront freeway as well.
San Francisco Central Expressway suffered structural damage due to the 1989 Loma Prieto earthquake it was torn down, and replaced with Octavia Boulevard. Immediately, 25% of total traffic disappeared. 50% of traffic re-routed to different highways. Traffic congestion drastically improved despite traffic planners dire warnings of mass congestion.
And I still disagree that most city dwellers in the average American city do not use freeways to get around. Even in a place like New York City, outside of manhattan and rush hour commutes to manhattan, a huge majority of the city uses cars to get around...and we HAVE excellent and convenient transit. People still pick the car for a lot of trips, for convenience, personal preference, speed, comfort, privacy, cargo capacity, flexibility and whatever else they feel like.
And I still disagree that most city dwellers in the average American city do not use freeways to get around. Even in a place like New York City, outside of manhattan and rush hour commutes to manhattan, a huge majority of the city uses cars to get around...and we HAVE excellent and convenient transit. People still pick the car for a lot of trips, for convenience, personal preference, speed, comfort, privacy, cargo capacity, flexibility and whatever else they feel like.
But using cars to get around is not the same as using freeways for local trips. Unless you live close enough to the freeway and your destination is near one, it may not be worth to use one.
It's not really a huge majority, either, though I can't dig up stats right now (and, overall a majority of households in NYC don't own cars) .
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.
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.
Plus, I get it that some people apparently enjoy walking all over the place, but having to bundle up in the winter every morning and afternoon, sweat having to walk every day in the summer and then deal with all of the elements....all to save a few bucks in gas? Not worth it. I love to walk....when I'm not trying to get to or from work. I'll walk for hours on boardwalks, or in parks...ride my bike and I try to get outdoors as much as possible on a nice day. But for commuting? No thanks....I'll take the quickest and most convenient way. And it's obvious that a lot of people EVEN in cities simply prefer this, despite the inconveniences and costs that come along with it. Now if I lived in Brooklyn immediately adjacent to a subway station, and my office was a block from another subway station where the trains come frequently, the parking is inconvenient and expensive and driving takes more time and effort than riding the train, I'd probably take the train....most of the time. That being said, I'll never live in such a dense place such as Brooklyn, let alone anywhere near a subway station...so looks like I'll keep driving. 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bruce_berman/5505619761
http://www.bienaimefitness.com/commuting-conundrums/
New Orleans skyline was saved from a freeway, thanks to SF
