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 05-12-2013, 07:52 PM
 
Location: Laurentia
5,593 posts, read 6,390,625 times
Reputation: 2388

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
I'm sorry. We're talking about downtown Detroit.

Have you been there?
This topic is not about Downtown Detroit, and frankly, Detroit is an outlier among American cities. How about discussing all the other cities where you would implement the traffic-strangling model?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepRightPassLeft View Post
And taking a freeway down and replacing it with a street level boulevard because "I don't care about those damn suburban drivers (completely ignoring city residents who drive cars), their trips can take longer for all I care!" is just as ridiculous of an attitude as the claim that planners said "********** urban neighborhood, lets build a freeway through the middle of it".
I agree with that. Also, if out-of-towners have easier access to the CBD wouldn't that be a help to businesses that are located there? With less people coming into the city, businesses in the city, and by extension the city itself, will suffer. If access and mobility to the CBD are lessened, locating your business out in the suburbs might suddenly appear more attractive.

As for the Manhattan Expressway, it wouldn't be worth carving up the CBD. The bulk of Manhattan's traffic is trying to move in and out, not straight through the island, so feeder routes would be a sounder approach. This is the system we ended up with, at least to an extent. If a new through route is needed through a CBD it should be a tunnel, not an elevated section. As for the old through routes, the negatives associated with construction have receded into the history books and we're still reaping the positives in terms of traffic flow, so the best approach is to keep the old sections until they need to be replaced, then replace them with a tunnel.

I've already explained that an ideal freeway system features main through routes bypassing urban areas, coupled with feeder routes that go right to the downtown's doorstep - if a through route that passes straight through the CBD, it should be a Big Dig-style tunnel. That maximizes traffic flow and minimizes disruption .

Phyxius is using a straw man argument here. Now, imagine if NYC built something like the Underways plan that was proposed for London. That would be fantastic, but I have a feeling that the anti-road types would be against that too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-12-2013, 07:57 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,070,148 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post

I agree with that. Also, if out-of-towners have easier access to the CBD wouldn't that be a help to businesses that are located there? With less people coming into the city, businesses in the city, and by extension the city itself, will suffer. If access and mobility to the CBD are lessened, locating your business out in the suburbs might suddenly appear more attractive.
It wouldn't make much of a difference, as most (3/4, maybe a bit more) of those who enter the CBD enter by transit anyway. The lack of convenient car access is an incentive for a business that really cares about it to move elsewhere (and probably has some, for example those that might need constant deliveries), but realistically, Manhattan will always be the worst place to drive into.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2013, 07:59 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,070,148 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepRightPassLeft View Post
And taking a freeway down and replacing it with a street level boulevard because "I don't care about those damn suburban drivers (completely ignoring city residents who drive cars), their trips can take longer for all I care!" is just as ridiculous of an attitude as the claim that planners said "********** urban neighborhood, lets build a freeway through the middle of it".
And many suburban residents have little interest in a Manhattan expressway, for example Long Islanders, will typically take the LIRR anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2013, 11:12 PM
 
Location: Monmouth County, NJ & Staten Island, NY
407 posts, read 408,345 times
Reputation: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phyxius View Post
Imagine if the Lower and Mid Manhattan Expressway was built.


Unbuilt Robert Moses Highway Maps | vanshnookenraggen

Traffic would of been so much better and people would have better mobility just like the Cross Bronx and Brooklyn Queens Expressway
Yes, I can imagine if they were built and I think that they both should have been built (much more so the cross midtown) completely underground to connect the entryways into Manhattan. Instead, we have a huge amount of traffic that's completely clogging up the surface streets of the CBD of Manhattan, mainly Canal St, Broome St, Grand St, Delancey St, 34th St, 36th St and 37th st...all which roughly function as through traffic thoroughfares connecting the Holland Tunnel and the Manhattan/Williamsburg Bridges (the first four) and the Lincoln Tunnel and the Queens-Midtown Tunnel (the latter three). These roadways carry through traffic that is going to happen no matter what, they're not always long haul through trips, they can be local deliveries, deliveries out to Long Island, Queens or Brooklyn that are already overburdening the Staten Island Expressway/Verrazano Bridge/Gowanus/Linden Blvd corridor, or the I-95/Cross Bronx/RFK Bridge/BQE corridor...they are trips between intermediate points in North Jersey, Central Jersey, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, Nassau and Suffolk Counties and beyond that are going to happen anyway, that are not always easily (or sometimes not at all) served by any kind of mass transit, and already overburden the current incomplete road network. The fact is, whether you think these people should be driving or not, or whether you think they should be able to easily drive into or through Manhattan, they're going to do it anyway...whether it be commuting or whatever other trip they feel like taking. Even if they're built, yes they probably would still have their backups like any other major urban roadway, but they would take an immense strain off the current routes and they would also get traffic off of pedestrian heavy, narrow urban streets in the most dense city core in the whole country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post
The bulk of Manhattan's traffic is trying to move in and out, not straight through the island, so feeder routes would be a sounder approach. This is the system we ended up with, at least to an extent. If a new through route is needed through a CBD it should be a tunnel, not an elevated section. As for the old through routes, the negatives associated with construction have receded into the history books and we're still reaping the positives in terms of traffic flow, so the best approach is to keep the old sections until they need to be replaced, then replace them with a tunnel.

I've already explained that an ideal freeway system features main through routes bypassing urban areas, coupled with feeder routes that go right to the downtown's doorstep - if a through route that passes straight through the CBD, it should be a Big Dig-style tunnel. That maximizes traffic flow and minimizes disruption .

Phyxius is using a straw man argument here. Now, imagine if NYC built something like the Underways plan that was proposed for London. That would be fantastic, but I have a feeling that the anti-road types would be against that too.
To hell with the anti-road types, I think we need to be building new roadway tunnels in addition to greater expanded mass transit, simply because some trips (even in a huge urban area like the NY metro) are just better served by cars and some are just better served by mass transit. This whole idea that it's some kind of competition is ridiculous, just because the tide went away from mass transit development for a while that now we need to disregard highways altogether and "coerce" everybody onto transit instead....completely ridiculous, and against what a lot of my fellow city residents as well feel (people from all five boroughs, mind you).

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
And many suburban residents have little interest in a Manhattan expressway, for example Long Islanders, will typically take the LIRR anyway.
For daily commuting from Long Island (and other suburbs and city neighborhoods outside of Manhattan) the bulk of people do enter Manhattan via public transportation like LIRR, which completely makes sense. However, I completely disagree that suburban residents or even city residents (outer borough AND Manhattan) have an interest in a better highway system within the city. Building an underground connection between the Lincoln and Queens Midtown Tunnels would be expensive, however it would benefit a large number of people from a variety of areas within the region. Now what's also important, in my opinion, to mention is that when I mention "through traffic thru Manhattan" does not really mean the guy driving from Pittsburgh to Boston, as unless he has a reason to stop in/around NYC, he's likely better off taking the Penna Tpk --> I-99 --> I-80 --> I-81 --> I-84 and finally I-90 rather than sit in gridlock traffic halfway through his journey on 36th St lol. What I'm referring to is the folks driving from Jamaica, Queens to Parsippanny, NJ, the folks driving from Greenpoint, Brooklyn to Newark, NJ. The delivery trucks driving from Kearny, NJ to Mineola, NY, the family visiting grandma driving from Ronkonkoma, NY to Scotch Plains, NJ. These are real trips that are happening by the thousands, every day...that cannot all be easily (or even possibly) replaced effectively by mass transit and cannot always just "take a route around Manhattan" easily or effectively because those routes are either so completely jam packed at a standstill or simply don't exist. And when folks take these trips, they're spilling out onto the streets of Manhattan, the pedestrian filled, vibrant urban streets of Manhattan... unfortunately having to do this to get to their destinations...they have no business clogging up Canal Street, making it unfriendly and impossible to use as an urban street when it's being treated as a pseudo thruway when they can instead be underground. This would benefit outer borough (city) residents, "through traffic thru Manhattan" motorists that are going to drive anyway because it just makes more sense, people who have to use their cars for work and drive around the metro area and even the car-less urbanophile Manhattanites who just want to walk/cycle/ride transit around the busiest and densest CBD in America without dealing with John and his family from Maspeth battling through gridlock on 34th St to get to his parents house in Montclair...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2013, 11:36 AM
 
2,366 posts, read 2,132,439 times
Reputation: 1752
Would the pedestrians and vibrant urban streets exist if those expressways were built?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2013, 02:31 PM
 
Location: Monmouth County, NJ & Staten Island, NY
407 posts, read 408,345 times
Reputation: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phyxius View Post
Would the pedestrians and vibrant urban streets exist if those expressways were built?
If they were built underground, I don't really see why not.

Although I think if the Mid-Manhattan Expressway had been built as planned, midtown would have still developed to be just as vibrant and urban as it is today, since the planned route pretty much bypasses the strongest areas (Times Square, MSG/Penn Station area, Herald Square, Rockefeller Center, Grand Central area, etc). I think if they had actually built it in between 29th and 30th streets the portion between 3rd and 9th avenues would have surely been "decked over" and developed in their own ways similarly to the Trans-Manhattan Expressway, perhaps a linear park or even new mixed-use development. I think it'd have been much better, because the huge throngs of cross-island traffic that clog up various Manhattan cross streets from 29th to 42nd streets would be confined to one route rather than spilling out into the busiest part of the city. The issue would then be the effects of the highway around it's immediately surrounding blocks in Midtown, however this is why I would support a "decked" or tunnelled expressway where it's effects can be mitigated and dispersed elsewhere (similar to how vehicular tunnels have exhaust towers).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2013, 06:18 AM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,116,674 times
Reputation: 3118
Who would pay for these massively expensive underground highways ... and who would benefit?

The 2nd avenue subway costs an absurd amount of money, but has a much higher capacity, and is of better use to the people who actually live where the project is being constructed. Most Manhattanties don't even own cars. Something like 80% commute by transit.

Additionally, the cars have to go somewhere when they emerge from the tunnels. Since this new transportation option will induce demand, more people will drive to Manhattan, increasing congestion on the surface streets (once they emerge to park). Parking costs will go up as demand increases.

What's the benefit again, besides the pleasure of the motorist? I think most Manhattanites would have a few choice words for this idea.

Last edited by HandsUpThumbsDown; 05-14-2013 at 06:26 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2013, 05:42 AM
 
Location: Laurentia
5,593 posts, read 6,390,625 times
Reputation: 2388
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
Who would pay for these massively expensive underground highways...
The government, I would assume, just like most other infrastructure projects .

Quote:
and who would benefit?
For underground highways in general, the people would benefit by having a nice highway and a nicer, quieter area in the city above it.

Quote:
Additionally, the cars have to go somewhere when they emerge from the tunnels. Since this new transportation option will induce demand, more people will drive to Manhattan, increasing congestion on the surface streets (once they emerge to park). Parking costs will go up as demand increases.
Hmm...and people chafe when I rant about people using "induced demand" as a justification for letting congestion fester, and here's a prime example of exactly what I'm talking about. Anyway, to have traffic emerging from onramps creates much less congestion than having all the traffic routed onto surface streets, because the surface-street traffic is dispersed. After all, every freeway trip has to end up on a surface street, so using your logic why build freeways at all? Heck, why build anything other than driveways and parking lots? If you take the traffic that uses the Big Dig tunnels and route it onto surface streets, congestion would massively increase by virtue of sheer numbers, so underground freeways would reduce congestion where they are built, assuming the proposal makes sense; a Big Dig in Alliance, Nebraska wouldn't help much.

As for the induced demand, that would cause some increased congestion on surface streets, but that would be more than made up for by people not using the surface streets for 90% of their trip into the city; less time on surface streets means less cars on them at any one point in time. Anyway, what I'm talking about is underground highways in general, not this specific proposal. I'm not a supporter of blazing a new highway tunnel under Manhattan because I don't believe a new through route in the middle of Manhattan is needed enough to justify the cost. The same amount of money can be better spent on other projects.

My point is that if a new through route was needed, tunneling underground would be by far the best approach, much more so than razing buildings to create a route on the ground, which is the purported reason freeways are loathed in some quarters. Yet when any solution to this problem is presented that doesn't regress the quality and efficiency of the transportation system, it's shot down .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 09:18 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,070,148 times
Reputation: 14811
Not sure if this the best place to put this, since this is about adding highways (or highway lanes) rather than removing them, but many highway proponents forget that once the traffic from the highway leaves, it has to be enter local roads, which may not have the capacity to handle the increased highway traffic. Widening local streets in already built up areas takes up space and turns more of a city into asphalt, and may increase noise and decrease pedestrian safety besides costing extra money. The highway spending helps distant travel but may snarl short distance travel, particularly in already congested areas.

Better Institutions: Freeway expansion doesn't improve freeway traffic, but it does make local traffic worse

you live 20 miles outside the city and want to get downtown, so you take the freeway there. The highway part of your trip used to take 30 minutes, but thanks to the new lanes it now only takes you 20 minutes. The last mile of your trip has slowed since there's a bit more local traffic, but it only increases from three minutes to five. All told, your trip time has decreased from 33 minutes to 25--great!

Now imagine you live in the city, five miles from the city center. It used to take your bus 20 minutes to get downtown, but unfortunately as a city resident you don't reap many benefits from the additional highway capacity. Instead, your trip is entirely on local roads, so all those extra cars coming into the city only slow you down. The trip that used to take you twenty minutes now takes thirty. The suburban visitor/commuter saved about ten minutes, and the city resident lost about ten
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 12:20 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 84,044,795 times
Reputation: 18051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prytania View Post
Same for New Orleans. The i-10 runs over what was Claiborne Ave.
The overpass is outdated and needs to be demolished or replaced, it will likely come to pass that I-10 no longer passes through downtown and i-610 will become i-10.
it actually made no sense to run I-10 thru new Orleans except it was heavily promoted by the city to bring traffic like so many others. Thank god for I12 now by passing the city for travel .
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
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