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.
It wasn't always that way. Often the rivers were dirty and smelled bad. Rumor has it a river in Cleveland caught fire once.
Rumor? It's documented fact. And it happened more than once.
Nowadays people actually think it's desirable to live next to nasty polluted bodies of water like the Gowanus Canal... I don't know what they're thinking.
While Boston's highways do seemingly back directly up to expressways for the most part (as you provided a link to), as soon as 278 dives inland, it creates a pretty significant gap:
That link is in Brooklyn, if that's not clear. I mixed up links and put a I-278 view with Boston
I don't find the gap particularly bothersome, especially since it is a residential neighborhood rather than say a downtown area where one would expect lots of buildings on every block. The bigger negative IMO is filling the local area with a rumble of traffic; faster traffic is loud. Also adds to local air pollution. Some people mind car traffic less than I do, though. At least the expressway is somewhat underground as a noise block. But why must there be a frontage road to add more asphalt an noise? How about a narrow road and a sound/visual barrier (lots of trees might be enough?) Note that that expressway demolished a large number homes and it was not in a poorer neighborhood, as someone had generalized earlier. Only route was through a middle-class neighborhood, so that's what it went through.
Rumor? It's documented fact. And it happened more than once.
Nowadays people actually think it's desirable to live next to nasty polluted bodies of water like the Gowanus Canal... I don't know what they're thinking.
There's not any housing facing the Gowanus Canal from what I can tell. There's someone a block or two away, but it's not affecting the drinking water, so it doesn't matter much. Filthy storm surge? Is it possible to live next to beautiful Newton Creek? Great views of the skyline!
That link is in Brooklyn, if that's not clear. I mixed up links and put a I-278 view with Brooklyn
I don't find the gap particularly bothersome, especially since it is a residential neighborhood rather than say a downtown area where one would expect lots of buildings on every block. The bigger negative IMO is filling the local area with a rumble of traffic; faster traffic is loud. Also adds to local air pollution. Some people mind car traffic less than I do, though. At least the expressway is somewhat underground as a noise block. But why must there be a frontage road to add more asphalt an noise? How about a narrow road and a sound/visual barrier (lots of trees might be enough?) Note that that expressway demolished a large number homes and it was not in a poorer neighborhood, as someone had generalized earlier. Only route was through a middle-class neighborhood, so that's what it went through.
Completely my fault...haha. That's what happens when you try to do too many things at once. In any event, my point is that it does separate the neighborhoods to some extent. When commuting on bike, it's particularly bothersome because it requires that you ride to one of the arteries that cross the highway, which typically have fast moving traffic entering/exiting.
I do agree that it's not a huge problem for pedestrians, but it does impact cohesiveness of neighborhoods and can discourage foot traffic, depending on the scenario. Also, to your point, the noise can be quite of an issue, which can carry for a surprising number of blocks.
And many do like these threads. You can comment your opinion on any thread you like, saying "I don't like the thread" isn't much of an opinion on the topic itself.
I've read the article several times, the last one just now, first thing in the morning. Basically the author accuses the people who built the interstate highways system of not having a good enough crystal ball to predict the future.
This: "A key lesson from the U.S. experience, writes Boarnet, is that building a national road system should not mean overriding a local metropolitan one:"
Quote:
The development of the U.S. Interstate Highway System essentially took transportation planning away from the nation's cities, and during the construction of the Interstate Highways the planning for the metropolitan portion of the network was too distant from cities and too centralized at the national level.
is pure poppycock. (How's that for literary criticism?)
I've read the article several times, the last one just now, first thing in the morning. Basically the author accuses the people who built the interstate highways system of not having a good enough crystal ball to predict the future.
This: "A key lesson from the U.S. experience, writes Boarnet, is that building a national road system should not mean overriding a local metropolitan one:"
is pure poppycock. (How's that for literary criticism?)
The American highway system, in the developed world cuts through the centers of urban area more so than ones elsewhere. Why did this happen? Alternate ways the country could be (and can be) are an urban planning topic and can lead to some other creative ideas and comparison on "what are other ways places can be built" — isn't that one of the main purposes of the forum. Personally, I think the above quote is rather stupid.
That has little to do with the thread topic, which is building a highway system that goes through cities rather than just being an intercity system, which is what your links describe.
In any case, if you find the thread topic a waste of time and of no interest, don't post rather than complain. I try to ignore threads that I don't care for.
The American highway system, in the developed world cuts through the centers of urban area more so than ones elsewhere. Why did this happen? Alternate ways the country could be (and can be) are an urban planning topic and can lead to some other creative ideas and comparison on "what are other ways places can be built" — isn't that one of the main purposes of the forum. Personally, I think the above quote is rather stupid.
That has little to do with the thread topic, which is building a highway system that goes through cities rather than just being an intercity system, which is what your links describe.
In any case, if you find the thread topic a waste of time and of no interest, don't post rather than complain. I try to ignore threads that I don't care for.
Oh, it's OK to tell someone something they post is stupid, now? Geez, I've gotten infractions for less! Point is, it's foolish to obsess about "what might have been". It is what it is. We have to go from there.
My critique jof the article has everything to do with this mindset that somehow the interstate highway system was some new idea with no connection to the past. One wonders how old that joker who wrote the article is. I seem to recall learning about the national highway system back in elementary school, when the interstate system was just getting underway.
Why shouldn't the highway system connect the cities? Cities are totally non-sustainable. They have to have food, clothing, materials for building shelter all brought in from somewhere. Not to mention they need a way to deliver their manufactured products elsewhere.
Oh, it's OK to tell someone something they post is stupid, now? Geez, I've gotten infractions for less! Point is, it's foolish to obsess about "what might have been". It is what it is. We have to go from there.
People criticize ideas in posts all the time. I (and other posters) wish to discuss what other ways highway systems can (and could) have been built.
Quote:
My critique jof the article has everything to do with this mindset that somehow the interstate highway system was some new idea with no connection to the past. One wonders how old that joker who wrote the article is. I seem to recall learning about the national highway system back in elementary school, when the interstate system was just getting underway.
Why shouldn't the highway system connect the cities? Cities are totally non-sustainable. They have to have food, clothing, materials for building shelter all brought in from somewhere. Not to mention they need a way to deliver their manufactured products elsewhere.
The author isn't criticizing the idea of a national highway system, nor calling it new. The alternate idea mentioned is a national raod system:
By far the most compelling is his suggestion that the Interstate Highway System should have been two distinct systems: one running between cities, and another running within them.
I not sure if you're following the idea, highway systems in many places go to the edges of cities, they don't go through the center of cities. Prior to the interstate system, downtowns and inner cities were not demolished for large roads. For example, the autobahn system does not go through cities but it connects them:
And before the comment "European cities are older than American ones", Philadelphia was one of the ten largest cities in the world in 1900 so its core was large. Philadelphia is probably no less dense than Hamburg as well. DC is relatively light in interstate highways through the center, perhaps closer to the first. In any case, not building highways through downtown was something that could have been but wasn't. The effects of the other possibility, I suppose, is the topic for a thread.
People criticize ideas in posts all the time. I (and other posters) wish to discuss what other ways highway systems can (and could) have been built.
The author isn't criticizing the idea of a national highway system, nor calling it new. The alternate idea mentioned is a national raod system:
By far the most compelling is his suggestion that the Interstate Highway System should have been two distinct systems: one running between cities, and another running within them.
I not sure if you're following the idea, highway systems in many places go to the edges of cities, they don't go through the center of cities. Prior to the interstate system, downtowns and inner cities were not demolished for large roads. For example, the autobahn system does not go through cities but it connects them:
And before the comment "European cities are older than American ones", Philadelphia was one of the ten largest cities in the world in 1900 so its core was large. Philadelphia is probably no less dense than Hamburg as well. DC is relatively light in interstate highways through the center, perhaps closer to the first. In any case, not building highways through downtown was something that could have been but wasn't. The effects of the other possibility, I suppose, is the topic for a thread.
Vancouver BC is a rather young city and it has managed to find other ways to get people around without having to run a highway through the city center. So the idea that it is only age is nothing but an excuse. Most of the highways that run through city centers could have been handled much differently without having to destroy much of the urban fabric that they destroyed.
I've read the article several times, the last one just now, first thing in the morning. Basically the author accuses the people who built the interstate highways system of not having a good enough crystal ball to predict the future.
This: "A key lesson from the U.S. experience, writes Boarnet, is that building a national road system should not mean overriding a local metropolitan one:"
is pure poppycock. (How's that for literary criticism?)
It's not pure poppycock for that reason, however. It's pure poppycock because it was the local metropolitan jurisdictions that wanted the freeway systems they way they were built. In no case was a local metropolitan transportation system overriden. The freeways through cities were built by the city jurisdiction. Yes, with federal funding, but they planned the routes through their jurisdictions.
In hindsight, you could argue that that was bad policy on their part. I'd say it was. It's of course more exciting to pretend it's a national conspiracy rather than just what it is.
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.
Personally, I think the above quote is rather stupid.
