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 12-23-2014, 08:51 AM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,713,490 times
Reputation: 2538

Advertisements

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-23-2014, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,057 posts, read 16,066,811 times
Reputation: 12635
I don't disagree. Jobs have largely shifted to the suburbs and will continue to do so. If cities want to shift policy and adopt plans for a balanced workforce/population ratio, I don't see any problem with it. Unfortunately, they haven't really faced reality yet. The reality is that cities like San Francisco, Boston, DC, Seattle, or Portland are completely dependent on imported labor to fill their offices. DC is the worst with a whopping 70% increase in daytime population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2014, 02:44 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,347,681 times
Reputation: 3030
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.
So what 60 year old "urban freeways" do you promote eliminating in the Austin area?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2014, 02:52 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,958 posts, read 3,816,840 times
Reputation: 3281
^ At least DC has an adequate rapid transit system. In the next 15 years, Seattle will have underground/elevated light rail lines that will connect Seattle's main urban nodes together. While this will be a huge step forward for mass transit, this light rail line will still only benefit a small portion of our metro area since the majority of our population lives outside of these urban nodes in neighborhoods of detached single family homes. Unfortunately, poor urban planning has resulted in a sprawling metro region that makes it impossible to design a mass transit system that will effectively solve our traffic problem.

Ultimately, the majority of the Seattle region is auto-dependent given the suburban structure of our region. Therefore, tearing down our freeways is simply not feasible. The only places where people can live off of mass transit alone are the urban nodes that will surround the future light rail stations, and those nodes make up a small portion of the Seattle region.

Sorry to be the cynic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2014, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,504,059 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz View Post
^ At least DC has an adequate rapid transit system. In the next 15 years, Seattle will have underground/elevated light rail lines that will connect Seattle's main urban nodes together. While this will be a huge step forward for mass transit, this light rail line will still only benefit a small portion of our metro area since the majority of our population lives outside of these urban nodes in neighborhoods of detached single family homes. Unfortunately, poor urban planning has resulted in a sprawling metro region that makes it impossible to design a mass transit system that will effectively solve our traffic problem.

Ultimately, the majority of the Seattle region is auto-dependent given the suburban structure of our region. Therefore, tearing down our freeways is simply not feasible. The only places where people can live off of mass transit alone are the urban nodes that will surround the future light rail stations, and those nodes make up a small portion of the Seattle region.

Sorry to be the cynic.
That is definitely the great divide between the city of Seattle and the Puget Sound. The city has a high bus commuter rate, and a growing rail system that will hopefully be an amazing system in the next 10 years or so, but the metro was built in a sprawling suburban fashion that will be a very hard challenge to ever overcome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2014, 03:03 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,713,490 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
So what 60 year old "urban freeways" do you promote eliminating in the Austin area?
I fully endorse the efforts to cut and cap I-35 through Central Austin. For a modest price there would be an amazing return to the connectivity of our downtown and between east and west Austin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2014, 09:32 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,347,681 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
I fully endorse the efforts to cut and cap I-35 through Central Austin. For a modest price there would be an amazing return to the connectivity of our downtown and between east and west Austin.
Well I-35 doesn't belong to the city of Austin and that sure is a lot of money for an iffy-whiffy socialist experiment. Seems to be a rather quixotic vision that would cost tremendous amounts of money with very little return. Promoting "connectivity" while opposing roads seems somewhat inconsistent.

The connecting "east and west Austin" is a strawman argument. That's like arguing Lamar, 15th, MoPac, 183, or any other street should be "cut and capped" to "return to the connectivity" of east & west Lamar, north & south 15th, east & west MoPac, north & south 183, etc. There are ~270 square miles of territory the city is responsible for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2014, 10:11 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,713,490 times
Reputation: 2538
"Well I-35 doesn't belong to the city of Austin"

Correct - TxDOT inflicted I-35 on Austin. Austin is a major stakeholder in I-35 and has a lot of influence over what happens to it (as it should).

"and that sure is a lot of money for an iffy-whiffy socialist experiment."

Not an experiment and where do you get socialism from? Infrastructure is almost always built by government entities - that's the way major projects get done, whether roads (which you seem to love) or rail or bike path or any other kind of transportation.

"Seems to be a rather quixotic vision that would cost tremendous amounts of money with very little return."

100+ acres of central Austin and healing the divide between east and west austin isn't very little.

"Promoting "connectivity" while opposing roads seems somewhat inconsistent."

I-35 in present form is a major barrier between east and west Austin. Depressing and capping it isn't at all inconsistent with connectivity -it's the precisely connectivity.

"The connecting "east and west Austin" is a strawman argument."

I have no idea what you mean by that.

"That's like arguing Lamar, 15th, MoPac, 183, or any other street should be "cut and capped" to "return to the connectivity" of east & west Lamar, north & south 15th, east & west MoPac, north & south 183, etc. There are ~270 square miles of territory the city is responsible for."

Lamar and 15th are surface streets at-grade - neither of them serve as a barrier (have you actually been in Austin recently - some of this information is really whacked out). Mopac is a bit of one but isn't in the core. 183 is well outside the core.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2014, 10:43 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,347,681 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
"Well I-35 doesn't belong to the city of Austin"

Correct - TxDOT inflicted I-35 on Austin. Austin is a major stakeholder in I-35 and has a lot of influence over what happens to it (as it should).
Stakeholder schmakeholder. There's too much talk of "stakeholders" instead of voters. You could include large area engineering firms and road construction firms as "stakeholders" but that hardly means "stakeholders" should have a vote. Should the mortician lobby have a say in what healthcare you can have?
The City of Austin doesn't have near the influence you would like.
Perhaps even more importantly the city council is no longer representative of only the downtown contingent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
"and that sure is a lot of money for an iffy-whiffy socialist experiment."

Not an experiment and where do you get socialism from? Infrastructure is almost always built by government entities - that's the way major projects get done, whether roads (which you seem to love) or rail or bike path or any other kind of transportation.
The concern about "connectedness" of east and west and the cap - for what "community space" ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
"Seems to be a rather quixotic vision that would cost tremendous amounts of money with very little return."

100+ acres of central Austin and healing the divide between east and west austin isn't very little.
Ha. The "divide" you refer to is a racial and economic divide and it isn't an "east/west" divide. Certainly you can tell that from the gentrification (i.e., wiping out the residents that historically lived there). If you want to "heal" the problems you should probably start with the Austin police department and not the interstate freeway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
"Promoting "connectivity" while opposing roads seems somewhat inconsistent."

I-35 in present form is a major barrier between east and west Austin. Depressing and capping it isn't at all inconsistent with connectivity -it's the precisely connectivity.
No more than any street is a "barrier" to cross. I-35 is north and south and there are numerous roads which cross it. Of course you aren't interested in "connecting" anywhere other than "downtown" despite this "divide".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
"The connecting "east and west Austin" is a strawman argument."

I have no idea what you mean by that.
The "connecting" argument starts off with the presumption of a division. There isn't a division.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
"That's like arguing Lamar, 15th, MoPac, 183, or any other street should be "cut and capped" to "return to the connectivity" of east & west Lamar, north & south 15th, east & west MoPac, north & south 183, etc. There are ~270 square miles of territory the city is responsible for."

Lamar and 15th are surface streets at-grade - neither of them serve as a barrier (have you actually been in Austin recently - some of this information is really whacked out). Mopac is a bit of one but isn't in the core. 183 is well outside the core.
The "core" argument is silly and discriminatory. The "core" doesn't deserve any special treatment.

Anyone driving downtown can see what an absurd nightmare the [former] city council set up. Unusual and inconsistent street markings and colors does nothing but create more distractions on the road and less certainty about whether a driver is where they are supposed to be. Add the never-ending construction and elimination or "temporary off limits" of a large number of parking meters and lack of parking and you have a disaster of a downtown. Promoting more of the same isn't an improvement. Downtown Austin is nothing to be proud of.

You did not exactly define what you deemed to be a barrier. If you don't like the examples, it isn't difficult to find others.

If by "barrier" you mean there is some impediment to traversing then there are plenty of roads which might meet that definition whether they are "at grade" or "above grade". In fact, the "above-grade" roads often have "at grade" underpasses so that you don't actually have to cross the "barrier". I-35 has lots of those.

Hwy 71/Ben White is not "at grade". I suppose you want to eliminate Hwy 71 because it "divides" north southeast Austin from south southeast Austin? Or would you prefer recognizing a division of south south Austin from north south Austin?

Last edited by IC_deLight; 12-23-2014 at 11:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2014, 11:13 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,713,490 times
Reputation: 2538
As an aside - it's really tiresome having to correct everything you say:

"Stakeholder schmakeholder.
Austin doesn't have near the influence you would like."

Austin does have influence because TxDOT needs funding and Austin will bring money to the table.

"Perhaps even more importantly the city council is no longer representative of only the downtown contingent."

This is true- but doesn't mean Austin shouldn't be fighting for what is right.

"The connectedness of east and west and the cap - for what "community space" ?

I can't parse this out - try again.

"Ha. The "divide" you refer to is a racial and economic divide and it isn't an "east/west" divide."

I-35 is a cultural, economic, social, racial and physical barrier. It is a divide in every sense of the word.

"Certainly you can tell that from the gentrification (i.e., wiping out the residents that historically lived there). If you want to "heal" the problems you should first start with the Austin police department, not the interstate freeway."

I never claimed I-35 was the only cause of division in Austin - just one of the most significant.

"No more than any street is a "barrier" to cross."

That's just nonsense - not sure how you can't see a grade separated freeway as being the same a street: This is 5th and I-35.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2650...lUdIVDfi5g!2e0

Now 5th at Lamar:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2703...WaBNFcpzyA!2e0

See how one's a barrier and the other an intersection?

" I-35 is north and south and there are numerous roads which cross it. Of course you aren't interested in "connecting" anywhere other than "downtown" despite this "divide"."

See above.

"It isn't divided and your "connecting" argument starts off with the presumption of a division."

See above.

"Your "core" argument is silly and discriminatory. The "core" doesn't deserve any special treatment."

The core functions very differently from the auto dependent suburbs.

"Anyone driving downtown can see what an absurd nightmare the [former] city council set up. Unusual and inconsistent street markings and colors does nothing but create more distractions on the road and less certainty about whether a driver is where they are supposed to be. Add the never-ending construction and elimination or "temporary off limits" of a large number of parking meters and lack of parking and you have a disaster of a downtown. Promoting more of the same isn't an improvement. Downtown Austin is nothing to be proud of."

Please stay away - we like it the way it is.

"If you don't like the examples, it isn't difficult to find others. You did not exactly define what you deemed to be a barrier."

See above.

"Hwy 71/Ben White is not "at grade"."

No kidding - I never said it was.

"I suppose you want to eliminate Hwy 71 because it "divides" north southeast Austin from south southeast Austin?"

Highway 71 goes through a an already auto dependent area of the city. Not much can be done there to fix it.

"Or would you prefer recognizing a division of south south Austin from north south Austin?"

It is a barrier between the two and in an ideal world would go away. But that area of town is already 100% auto dependent and unlike the core won't be helped much by burying the freeway - you'd have to do a lot more densification, mixing of uses before you can talk about burying the freeway.
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