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, 11:57 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,523,816 times
Reputation: 7830

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
Here's the problem. The road in question was the original freeway going through the Seattle area. "things" have built up around it for close to 100 years. Getting rid of it and, perhaps, putting in a rail line 10-15 years later is going to make the NW section of the city very difficult to get out of for... quite a while.
And that doesn't include dealing with the topography, even the current viaduct has a portion of it that is tunneled for that reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-20-2014, 10:10 AM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,715,489 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
How well do you know Seattle? How exactly would they build a "beautiful boulevard" to connect the two ends of Highway 99?

I never said a freeway increases property values, I said the removal of the current elevated viaduct will increase property values, and building a tunnel to connect the two ends makes sense. Also there will be a new boulevard running along the bay, so there is that.
I know Seattle well enough - and it doesn't take a whole lot of time to understand that the Alaska Viaduct is a massive mistake that should have never happened.

You said "the reason for burying it will to increase the property value" They don't need to bury it it increase the property value -it just needs to go away, replaced by an at-grade boulevard. A 4 Billion dollar project (and rising fast) is not needed to increase property values. How much sense does the tunnel make sense right now - with all the horrific cost over runs. At what price?

This idea that these urban freeways are necessary or desirable starts with a set of assumptions that I categorically reject.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 11:27 AM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,859,209 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
I know Seattle well enough - and it doesn't take a whole lot of time to understand that the Alaska Viaduct is a massive mistake that should have never happened.

You said "the reason for burying it will to increase the property value" They don't need to bury it it increase the property value -it just needs to go away, replaced by an at-grade boulevard. A 4 Billion dollar project (and rising fast) is not needed to increase property values. How much sense does the tunnel make sense right now - with all the horrific cost over runs. At what price?

This idea that these urban freeways are necessary or desirable starts with a set of assumptions that I categorically reject.
Cities are more than just play things. The reason why urban freeways exist is because people and goods need to be able to move around and through an city quickly and trains are inflexible. Trucks are much more efficient for many things. Cars likewise. Without freeways surface traffic would be so heavy at all times that economic activity would be hurt.

Imagine how long it would take to get cargo from O'hare to Midway, to various factories around town to cargo rail terminals, to the south side commercial harbor without an expressway. Or to even get to an hospital quickly. Or even get from one side of town where you live to another side of town where you work without urban freeways. It would literally take an 1 hour and thirty mins or so to do an trip that could be done in 40 mins on the Dan Ryan.

I once worked in an plant that got lots of trucking daily..and it arrived by freeway and the longer it took for said truck to arrive the more issues there were.The truck was carrying an food product with an limited lifespan. Tanker trucks are not refrigerated(they are insulated) and the longer it takes to get to the plant the greater the change the product would be too high an temperature to accept. Not to mention the fact that the amount of finished product we could produce was tied to the amount coming in and going out. The longer it took for that truck to arrive the less we could produce and the longer it took for the shipping trucks to leave/return the more it would cost to ship.


Freeways relive surface streets of long distance through traffic. They don't need to be double decker(that was probably over built) but they do need to exist in urban cores. They also help people move long distances quickly and that is why freeways were built in cities.

Also boulevards are not that fast nor are they all the much easier for an pedestrian to cross and they jam surface traffic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 11:30 AM
 
3,492 posts, read 4,956,433 times
Reputation: 5383
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?
Would you still expect people that don't live near the park to pay taxes to support it after you tell them they aren't allowed to use their cars to access it?

#Educationfailed
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 11:52 AM
 
Location: bend oregon
929 posts, read 844,064 times
Reputation: 351
roads and train tracks should be above ground. trains because you got to add more tracks when the city grows. roads same thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,523,816 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
I know Seattle well enough - and it doesn't take a whole lot of time to understand that the Alaska Viaduct is a massive mistake that should have never happened.

You said "the reason for burying it will to increase the property value" They don't need to bury it it increase the property value -it just needs to go away, replaced by an at-grade boulevard. A 4 Billion dollar project (and rising fast) is not needed to increase property values. How much sense does the tunnel make sense right now - with all the horrific cost over runs. At what price?

This idea that these urban freeways are necessary or desirable starts with a set of assumptions that I categorically reject.
I disagree, I think having a viaduct through the city has actually been a useful highway to have. Also when it was built, it was the only highway in the city.

Removing it without a solution for the traffic use that is on it would have been a mistake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 12:27 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,715,489 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Cities are more than just play things. The reason why urban freeways exist is because people and goods need to be able to move around and through an city quickly and trains are inflexible. Trucks are much more efficient for many things. Cars likewise. Without freeways surface traffic would be so heavy at all times that economic activity would be hurt.

Imagine how long it would take to get cargo from O'hare to Midway, to various factories around town to cargo rail terminals, to the south side commercial harbor without an expressway. Or to even get to an hospital quickly. Or even get from one side of town where you live to another side of town where you work without urban freeways. It would literally take an 1 hour and thirty mins or so to do an trip that could be done in 40 mins on the Dan Ryan.

I once worked in an plant that got lots of trucking daily..and it arrived by freeway and the longer it took for said truck to arrive the more issues there were.The truck was carrying an food product with an limited lifespan. Tanker trucks are not refrigerated(they are insulated) and the longer it takes to get to the plant the greater the change the product would be too high an temperature to accept. Not to mention the fact that the amount of finished product we could produce was tied to the amount coming in and going out. The longer it took for that truck to arrive the less we could produce and the longer it took for the shipping trucks to leave/return the more it would cost to ship.


Freeways relive surface streets of long distance through traffic. They don't need to be double decker(that was probably over built) but they do need to exist in urban cores. They also help people move long distances quickly and that is why freeways were built in cities.

Also boulevards are not that fast nor are they all the much easier for an pedestrian to cross and they jam surface traffic.
Cities ARE more than playthings. 100% can't imagine you think I would think otherwise. They're the most productive places on earth. They're the centers of commerce and creativity. They're the economic engines that drive everything in the modern era.

People and goods need to move around cities. Absolutely. The idea that a highway for the exclusive use of cars is the way to do this is ludicrous.

Cities have existed for millennium without urban freeways. Of the thousands of years cities have been thriving all over the world, only in the last 50 or 60 years have we resorted to urban freeways. So, historically it's nonsenses.

But what about now?

Explain Vancouver - no urban freeway - they made a conscious decisions to not do this and guess what - , people and goods get along just fine. In case you haven't noticed, the economy in Vancouver isn't exactly suffering.

Now lets compare Vancouver to a place like Detroit. Detroit built every freeway that ever was pitched to them. In the process they exported their population to the suburbs and took a city of ~2 million to a city of ~600,000K.

So I've established that urban freeways are neither a necessary, nor sufficient condition for prosperity.

Do freeways relieve congestion? They do not. In fact it's more accurate to say that they funnel and create congestion out of thin air where none existed before.

Do freeways move people long distances? Absolutely - That's what they're excellent for - moving people and goods BETWEEN places, not THROUGH places. Connecting communities to each other is great. But once those freeways move through places they do much more harm than good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 01:01 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,932,349 times
Reputation: 18050
Quote:
Originally Posted by bolehboleh View Post
As a native of the Boston Metropolitan area, I'd like to thank Seattle for screwing up their Big Dig more than we did with our own.

On a side note, I do like the idea of putting downtown highways underground. As you can see from Boston's Big Dig, the city is much more beautiful now that 93 has disappeared. However, there's got to be a way they can do it better.
The big dig's contract was open ended like many. You markup it at lower cost ;get low bids so as to get it thru congress. Its a game taxpayers pay for all the time. If it had been pure local then doubtful it would have been approved but it was only Federal dollars; happens all the time. One of problems with big government; it become such that the representative who sponsor such things get rewarded rather than punished. many projects not even needed done for just the work provided and facility as long as its heavily federally funded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,063 posts, read 16,081,530 times
Reputation: 12641
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I disagree, I think having a viaduct through the city has actually been a useful highway to have. Also when it was built, it was the only highway in the city.

Removing it without a solution for the traffic use that is on it would have been a mistake.
Bingo.

"Induced demand" is the blogosphere's latest fad. Here's a short discussion on induced demand.
http://www.worldbank.org/transport/r...s/apbinduc.pdf

As typical, when you can someone who no understanding of what they're talking about, they make a fool of themselves.

What's Up With That: Building Bigger Roads Actually Makes Traffic Worse | WIRED

Yes, if you're anti-car and your goal is to reduce driving, less roads is always a good thing. City planners, however, tend not to be idealogues. They're interested in something that works. San Francisco's removal of a stretch of the central freeway, however, worked on some levels but not on others. Anyone trying to leave San Francisco sitting through 45 minutes of gridlock to get to the freeway can attest to. The Durante and Turner paper the Wired article quotes without understanding concludes that adding freeways in San Francisco would have a net positive effect.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w15376.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Southern California
15,087 posts, read 17,565,220 times
Reputation: 10299
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
This is not an urban planning fiasco. This is a construction fiasco. I agree with others that Seattle should have just replaced the Alaskan Viaduct with an at-grade street similar to the replacement for the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco.

[it's a nice open, public space]
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