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.
I liked the idea of the original poll, but reading some of the posts I felt like I wanted different items to be taken away for some of the cities from the original poll along with adding some new ones.
Here is my take on each of these:
-Los Angeles: Even though freeways would be gone, you could still "downgrade" them to boulevards, plus the Metro services would be unaffected and still has room to expand. People would probably move for shorter commutes in the meantime, and some people may opt to work at home.
-New York: I feel that would have a devastating effect. It is much more dense than LA is in most areas, and unless if CBD's relocate, it would be very appaling, and traffic would be a nightmare.
-Detroit: We've already partly experienced this scenerio, even though many suburbs have done for the most part OK through different industries.
-Houston: It would more or less become just another Jacksonville/Tampa Bay with ports still around, it would suffer some, but not nearly as bad as LA/NYC here.
-Dallas: It would just become another San Antonio, just some mild losses here.
-Boston: The quality of life would take a nosedive, crime would ramp up leading many to relocate.
-New Orleans: One of the biggest ports in the world, the economy would take quite a hit here. Probably the third most affected after NYC and SJ here.
-Seattle: It would just become another Portland; transportation would then be the most important followed by lumber processing and fishing.
-San Jose: I'd say this would be the 2nd most affected here, as this is the southern anchor of Silicon Valley, and SJ would just be your run-of-the-mill bedroom suburb around half its current size.
-Chicago: Sure the two airports would make access difficult, but the freeways, railroads, and ports would still support it.
Last edited by Borntoolate85; 06-22-2010 at 06:09 AM..
...Could've at least waited for the first one to reach its termination...
And of these there is no question Los Angeles would be the worst by far. Are you kidding? Any city in America with no highways would be completely ruined, its what America was built on.
I agree that the first thread should have gone on longer before a second, but this one will stand. Just FYI for future reference though, the room does not need a "round 3, round 8, round 12" version later as this could be non-ending.
Dallas & Houston no more oil? Are you still living in the 1980's or something?
Neither economy is affected by oil nearly as much as it used to decades ago. Dallas is a center for high tech/finance & Houston is huge in medical/shipping/green energy
I think NYC with no subways would be worse than LA with no freeways. LA you can still take surface streets and trains/buses. They did manage to deal w/o several major freeways right after the Northridge Quake collapsed a few. You would still have your car to get around, many New Yorkers don't have that luxury.
Think about how much MORE crowded NY streets would be if there were no trains. The whole point of elevated and underground trains are to get places fast without having to deal with traffic, if you take that away good luck getting to where you need to be on time in New York.
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.
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.
