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 12-19-2014, 12:13 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,856,857 times
Reputation: 1439

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
But a big wide boulevarde might not be much better than a freeway in terms of cutting off the city and the people from the waterfront. I would just pull down the double decker and build a waterfront park in its place, and scrap the tunnel idea. Why build any roads at all? Maybe a narrow road for a trolley and service vehicles but that's about it, no cars allowed. Anyone know what they're planning to do with the space occupied by the old freeway after it's torn it down?
The reason why they built the thing is the same reason why Lake Shore Drive exists in Chicago. Roads and freeways are an important part of an City and not just unsightly things used by suburbanites to get to and from work.

Public transit trains don't carry goods, are inflexible compare to the car, and don't carry incapacitated people quickly to the hospital. They only relieve a bit of traffic and provide transportation to those who can't drive and they are slow as molasses compared to zipping around in your own personal car from place to place.

An double decker freeway should not have been built, but back then the water front was an unsightly industrial place so there would have been fewer objections to hiding the ugly behind a freeway. As the town became less industrial people wanted to see the waterway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2014, 12:41 PM
 
172 posts, read 216,548 times
Reputation: 130
Meanwhile, Seattle's new subway tunnels are under-budget and scheduled to be finished early (knock on wood - don't want to jinx anything).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,327,543 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
But a big wide boulevarde might not be much better than a freeway in terms of cutting off the city and the people from the waterfront. I would just pull down the double decker and build a waterfront park in its place, and scrap the tunnel idea. Why build any roads at all? Maybe a narrow road for a trolley and service vehicles but that's about it, no cars allowed. Anyone know what they're planning to do with the space occupied by the old freeway after it's torn it down?
I can't speak specifically, but sometimes roads are needed. There are ways to build high capacity roads and make them pedestrian friendly. A BLVD can serve that purpose. With adequate pedestrian crossings (and bump-outs), a pedestrian island, a dedicated/protected bike lane, and sidewalks.

But they can be terrible too if designed 100% for the automobile.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 01:49 PM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,264,546 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
The reason why they built the thing is the same reason why Lake Shore Drive exists in Chicago. Roads and freeways are an important part of an City and not just unsightly things used by suburbanites to get to and from work.

Public transit trains don't carry goods, are inflexible compare to the car, and don't carry incapacitated people quickly to the hospital. They only relieve a bit of traffic and provide transportation to those who can't drive and they are slow as molasses compared to zipping around in your own personal car from place to place.

An double decker freeway should not have been built, but back then the water front was an unsightly industrial place so there would have been fewer objections to hiding the ugly behind a freeway. As the town became less industrial people wanted to see the waterway.


The importance of roads and freeways is frequently overestimated. The old elevated Central Artery 6 lane elevated freeway in Boston did nothing to solve the city's traffic congestion problems. After it was replaced by the new 13 lane Big Dig Tunnel (which might be described the greatest transportation boondoggle of all time) traffic congestion and waiting times actually got worse due to induced demand, according to a Boston Globe report.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 02:18 PM
 
12,289 posts, read 15,184,803 times
Reputation: 8100
Sports stadia are some of the biggest ever. Paying all that money to benefit billionaire owners and millionaire athletes who don't spend much time there, and the permanent jobs don't pay much. They sit empty most days. The main saving grace is they create good jobs during construction.

Presently an ancient ballpark on the north side of Chicago, home to a team that hasn't won a championship in a century, is being modernized in the hope it will break that curse. That would really get my goat except that the owners have decided to use their own money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 02:19 PM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,264,546 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
I can't speak specifically, but sometimes roads are needed. There are ways to build high capacity roads and make them pedestrian friendly. A BLVD can serve that purpose. With adequate pedestrian crossings (and bump-outs), a pedestrian island, a dedicated/protected bike lane, and sidewalks.

But they can be terrible too if designed 100% for the automobile.
That might be true, but its not a good idea to start with the premise that the road IS needed. But that's what usually happens. Planners start with the assumption a road is needed, and they build it, after conducting some biased studies that usually don't play out as predicted. And the big road project just ends up making things even worse after it is built.

Start with the premise that the road is not needed. Cars can use alternative routes. If it is discovered that a road really is needed, build just one lane or two, and add on incrementally from there, if truly needed. But of course, the sensible thing isn't the most profitable for the contractors and politicians who receive their campaign contributions. They gotta build the biggest megaproject they can think of right off the bat, because that's what makes them the most money. And the more cost overruns and delays, the better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 02:31 PM
 
5,076 posts, read 8,501,505 times
Reputation: 4632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
Not for nothing, but the real urbanists in Seattle said to just get rid of the damn highway and put an at grade boulevard there.

Urban freeways are fairly idiotic ideas and a 100 years from now most of them will be gone from the urban cores.
The only alternate route is already very congested. The west side of the city has no transit plan in place either. So if they did remove the freeway it would likely be 15 years before a rail line is built, if ever. Not good. Even of the rail line on the northeast side off the city takes some pressure off i5 that won't be for another 6 years. That is a long time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
Sinking street discovered near Bertha tunneling project in Seattle | Q13 FOX News

City and state transportation officials are investigating a street adjacent to the Alaskan Way Viaduct
Replacement Project in Seattle because a portion of the road is cracked and sinking.

Wow, it just gets better and better. :






At $3.50 toll each way, I wonder who would be using this tunnel. I'm sure the Seattle city council members
could easily afford it after lining their pockets with those juicy kickbacks while enjoying their very own
personal toll road (if it ever gets finished).
Think of it as $3.50 to save an hour of time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,504,059 times
Reputation: 7830
Replacing the viaduct with a tunnel actually made sense for the city, I don't know having the machine hit some steel underground is what I would consider a "boondoggle." This seems more like an issue of a big project coming across big issues during the construction process.

As someone else pointed out, the new subway tunnel has been going good for the city. Something I would love to see more of in Seattle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 02:44 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,856,857 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
The importance of roads and freeways is frequently overestimated. The old elevated Central Artery 6 lane elevated freeway in Boston did nothing to solve the city's traffic congestion problems. After it was replaced by the new 13 lane Big Dig Tunnel (which might be described the greatest transportation boondoggle of all time) traffic congestion and waiting times actually got worse due to induced demand, according to a Boston Globe report.
You don't just build roads to solve congestion. You build roads so that you can get around and through town quickly and efficiently. The city is congested because there is economic activity there and people want to go and travel there in cars. If you want lack of congestion head some place rural. And waiting times when? Most places only have really bad traffic in rush hour(unless something else is going on like an tunnel or an bridge. )

Also with induced demand waiting time on the whole might increase, but trip time for short trips decrease because the new route is faster. i.e. If you removed the exit, you will reduce demand on the freeway itself at the expense of higher trip times elsewhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 04:12 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,713,490 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
But a big wide boulevarde might not be much better than a freeway in terms of cutting off the city and the people from the waterfront. I would just pull down the double decker and build a waterfront park in its place, and scrap the tunnel idea. Why build any roads at all? Maybe a narrow road for a trolley and service vehicles but that's about it, no cars allowed. Anyone know what they're planning to do with the space occupied by the old freeway after it's torn it down?
Of course an at grade boulevard would be much better than a freeway. Some of the most fantastic places in the world are Boulevards:




[img]http://onebigphoto.com/paris-champs-elysees/[img]



Wonderful waterfront roads such as:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/La...82c0cb7f4bf243

Contrast with monstrosity in place:



How can you possibly conclude that it wouldn't be much better than a freeway? Bizarre.

Y'all really have to stop thinking as streets as mere thoroughfares - streets are the lifeblood of a city and destinations unto themselves.
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