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 03-11-2014, 11:39 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,163 posts, read 29,645,043 times
Reputation: 26646

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
That intersection looks like it could be improved by a diagonal signal: a walk signal that's walk in all directions and a red light for all car traffic. The intersection is complicated as it is, so it would save a lot of crosses. As long as there's enough pedestrians, it'd be worth it.
I hope they add one. The thing is, one of the streets has very little traffic. I jaywalk it constantly. I have probably seen a car like 10 times in my 10 years lol! (It leads to overflow parking for wheel works and other car repair stuff, so not exactly huge trip generators.)

Right now it isn't a super busy pedestrian intersection, there isn't really anything to generate a huge volume of foot traffic, but changing the signal timing wouldn't impact people much either.

That area is undergoing some lane reconfiguration, since it is a couple blocks from the Lake, and the bike lane disconnects there. They are going to take out a lane, make it a bike lane, and add some more green space. The south bound side is completely over engineered for the amount of traffic, and the number of cars traveling has decreased by about 25% in the past couple of years.

These are the traffic projections and actual for 2 blocks away:


And the new plan: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/gr.../oak028455.pdf

I do not think there is any local opposition to losing a lane. It actually increases to 4 lanes right after the intersection I showed. No need at all, most times of day you can cut across 3 lanes in the block. I ride my bike in the short section (4 blocks) with no bike lane, and do not remotely feel bad about taking up a whole lane. The cars have 3 other lanes to go around me.

I found out, that in the 50s they actually planned a mini elevated expressway for the section above! Good thing that didn't happen, it would have blocked access to the lake, everyone's favorite Oakland amenity!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-11-2014, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,057 posts, read 16,063,174 times
Reputation: 12630
Yeah. One advantage of having the freeways is most people aren't trying drive through on surface streets. Now, traffic gets stopped a lot so ~2,000 vehicles per hour on four lanes is higher than it sound, but even at rush hour I doubt it would make much difference in terms of traffic flow. Contrast that with San Francisco where the freeways weren't built so there's much more surface traffic, limited access for cars to get on the freeways causing gridlock.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 03:12 PM
 
Location: Philaburbia
32,364 posts, read 59,787,282 times
Reputation: 54006
I like the idea of all-red signal timing, too. It gives pedestrians time to cross, and doesn't tick off the drivers too much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 03:14 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,554,265 times
Reputation: 4048
(sarcasm) And everybody knows San Francisco property values are totally depressed because they don't have enough freeways, and no businesses want to open there? (/sarcasm)

San Francisco is one of the cities where highways were removed, resulting in regeneration of urban fabric along the Embarcadero, and traffic didn't get appreciably worse afterward--but the city saw a net economic benefit. So I suppose there is a way for neighborhoods to reconnect once a highway has bisected it--get rid of the highway!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,057 posts, read 16,063,174 times
Reputation: 12630
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sa...501367f076adff

If you haven't been to San Francisco, here's a google map of it. As you can see, it has highways. It also has higher property values. Kind of like the property values in pretty much all of Bay Area west of the Bay. Contrary to popular urbanista falacies, highways are actually good for property values. For the immediate area (1 block), they lower property value appreciation. Farther out than one block they increase it. Maybe. No clear consensus, to many variables to control for.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol4/downl...s_21102011.pdf

The property values specifically in San Francisco may actually be higher because there aren't enough freeways. With more freeways (or other infrastructure such as transit) it would arguably be less NIMBY about development. That could potentially mean more residents and more businesses. You're probably the only person in the world worried that San Francisco property values aren't high enough.

Problem with transit is who's going to pay for it? San Francisco has a eyepopping $7+ billion budget, $8,500+ per person. San Jose? Less than $3 billion, or $3,000 per person. Something like 80% of San Francisco's transportation budget goes to keeping its antiquated transit system rolling as it is and nobody wants to pay any more. Fleecing the drivers with another 10% in parking taxes (always a good go-to source in San Francisco) was rejected.

Last edited by Malloric; 03-11-2014 at 05:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 05:23 PM
 
1,110 posts, read 907,693 times
Reputation: 1201
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
(sarcasm) And everybody knows San Francisco property values are totally depressed because they don't have enough freeways, and no businesses want to open there? (/sarcasm)

San Francisco is one of the cities where highways were removed, resulting in regeneration of urban fabric along the Embarcadero, and traffic didn't get appreciably worse afterward--but the city saw a net economic benefit. So I suppose there is a way for neighborhoods to reconnect once a highway has bisected it--get rid of the highway!
Personally, I would like to see some proposals on getting rid of "unnecessary" freeways. Like maps and studies showing where the traffic would go, how the area would be impacted positively/negatively, if the cost of tearing it down is worth the benefits of the potential improvement, etc. Often, I see "Tear down the highway!" and in some cases, it is a good thing to do (Portland and SF), but I think in many cities ripping down a highway would be an overall negative decision. Perhaps covering or burying the highway would be a better choice. I've seen proposals (Hollywood Frwy in LA) and actual projects (Woodall Rodgers Frwy in Dallas, Big Dig in Boston) that probably made better sense than simply ripping up the highway. And in most cases, this would be mutually beneficial to drivers who still can travel to their final destination and the local residents who would live with less noise and less pollution while also partially reconnecting their neighborhood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 08:15 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,981 posts, read 102,527,356 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
The OP asked how interstate construction harmed communities. Some posters were skeptical that they harmed communities at all, so this particular neighborhood was used as an example.

Sure the neighborhood adapted. The people of Europe adapted to the destruction of WWII, too. It's hard to say what Europe would be like if the damage from WWII never happened, but "it is what it is."

Finally, I think the greater point of this thread is that those who don't learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.
Are you comparing the demolition of 30 houses in that area with the destruction of Europe in WW II? That's a little drastic, isn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 08:26 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
45,983 posts, read 41,921,149 times
Reputation: 14804
I've heard the destruction of the south Bronx compared to ww 2 bomb damage.

But not 30 houses
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 08:32 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 1,673,134 times
Reputation: 1838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Are you comparing the demolition of 30 houses in that area with the destruction of Europe in WW II? That's a little drastic, isn't it?
In local cases, it's actually a pretty apt comparison. There are a lot of areas in the rust belt (like in neighborhoods that have been cut off by highways) that look like they've been bombed out. Many homes are collapsing, abandoned, burnt, or simply gone. Of course, it's hard to compare the two situations (WWII vs bad urban planning) on the whole based on not only physical but economic destruction and destruction of human life itself. But looking at the neighborhoods alone, US ones that were affected can probably be compared to multiple neighborhoods that suffered in WWII in Europe. Of course, the US neighborhoods weren't blitzed-they suffered slow deaths. But either way, the results (once-thriving neighborhoods now abandoned and filled with ruins and, frequently, crime) are very similar.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 08:34 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,981 posts, read 102,527,356 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs View Post
In local cases, it's actually a pretty apt comparison. There are a lot of areas in the rust belt (like in neighborhoods that have been cut off by highways) that look like they've been bombed out. Many homes are collapsing, abandoned, burnt, or simply gone. Of course, it's hard to compare the two situations (WWII vs bad urban planning) on the whole based on not only physical but economic destruction and destruction of human life itself. But looking at the neighborhoods alone, US ones that were affected can probably be compared to multiple neighborhoods that suffered in WWII in Europe. Of course, the US neighborhoods weren't blitzed-they suffered slow deaths. But either way, the results (once-thriving neighborhoods now abandoned and filled with ruins and, frequently, crime) are very similar.
Have you ever been to the neighborhood in question? I have. You're not describing it, not to mention, Denver is not the rust belt.
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