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 12-24-2014, 05:14 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
45,985 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804

Advertisements

Trains often make more sense for radial or commutes to the urban core than freeways. Core-bound commutes tend to get congest since all vehicles are going to one place while high volume is ideal for rail. Freeways are better for non-radial commutes. With a decent rail system, the core of say Boston doesn't really need freeways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-24-2014, 05:22 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 2,001,520 times
Reputation: 1579
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam View Post
Fortunately, or unfortunately, its a fact of life that the freeways are needed to get workers from their homes in the suburbs to their jobs in the urban core.

It would be an economic catastrophe to tear out the freeways.
Or in many cases, they are needed to get people from closer in out to new employment centers. The solution for most places isn't to tear them out, but to stop building more of them first, which even then isn't politically expedient.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2014, 07:00 PM
 
Location: Oceania
8,623 posts, read 6,247,719 times
Reputation: 8318
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz View Post
At least DC has an adequate rapid transit system.
That depends on what your definition of 'adequate' is. DC's Metro system is, for the most part, funded by the federal government. Metro is always crying poor mouth as it is not a profitable venture. The strange aspect about that is it serves the wealthiest counties of MD and VA as well as DC. The cars are very dated but modern by NYC standards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2014, 07:14 PM
 
Location: Oceania
8,623 posts, read 6,247,719 times
Reputation: 8318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
Your grand kids and great grand kids will be the beneficiaries of these efforts. Best to get started on them right away.
The case for tearing down urban freeways - Vox
Highways to Boulevards | Congress for the New Urbanism

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is today.

The urban freeways build 60 years ago are reaching the end of their design life. As the crumbling infrastructure has to be dealt with, its now time to get rid of these monstrosities and get back to building cities
.
I would rather think freeways are dug up rather than 'torn down'. Covered over might work but it's all gentrification in the sense of Agenda 21.

It's funny how everyone marveled at the once new interstate highway system when driving on the roads. I still appreciate the network. Airplanes have become the new car, rendering highways useless to do gooders. Airports are eyesores to some.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2014, 08:17 PM
 
2,702 posts, read 3,738,719 times
Reputation: 4520
Please tell em what freeways you will eliminate in the Los Angeles area???? Also what alternate form of roads ro transportation will the masses use when you do this????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2014, 12:11 AM
 
Location: the Permian Basin
4,196 posts, read 3,081,647 times
Reputation: 5892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
cutting and capping I-35 would be an excellent start to connecting east and west Austin. You can do this without reducing any lane miles in Austin.

If you can't see a benefit to healing a physical, economic, racial, social and psychological barrier in the city then I can't really help you.
I can't see a benefit to causing even worse traffic.

So again, please explain HOW you propose to connect East & West Austin. Gridlock ain't gonna make all Austinites feel like neighbors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2014, 12:25 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX View Post
I can't see a benefit to causing even worse traffic.

So again, please explain HOW you propose to connect East & West Austin. Gridlock ain't gonna make all Austinites feel like neighbors.
How would burying I-35 through downtown cause traffic to get worse?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2014, 05:38 AM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,348,447 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
How would burying I-35 through downtown cause traffic to get worse?
How would burying I-35 "solve" any feigned "problem"? Pretty expensive and very hard on travelers and commerce. It would be less expensive to provide medical treatment for the inexplicable angst of anonymous posters. Providing moving expenses would cost even less. There is no sense to be made of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2014, 07:10 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
How would burying I-35 "solve" any feigned "problem"? Pretty expensive and very hard on travelers and commerce. It would be less expensive to provide medical treatment for the inexplicable angst of anonymous posters. Providing moving expenses would cost even less. There is no sense to be made of it.
Oh burying an elevated highway wouldn't solve any commuter problems and would definitely be very expensive. In the case of Austin, it might with development connecting the two sides and causing more development to happen on the eastern side.

But that is an if, and I don't know Austin at all, but I do know burying that freeway would be very costly for nothing guaranteed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2014, 08:21 AM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,714,031 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX View Post
I can't see a benefit to causing even worse traffic.

So again, please explain HOW you propose to connect East & West Austin. Gridlock ain't gonna make all Austinites feel like neighbors.
The proposal to cut and cap I-35 would have the same capacity, which BTW, is the expanded capacity (1 additional lane in each direction) that TxDOT is proposing. So your premise is nonsense.
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