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 still don't see the reason why it should be filled in and turned into a Boulevard, when a bunch of it is already covered, just continue this along the waterfront stretch and you don't have to mix and mingle any thru traffic, a little or a lot, with building up a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly waterfront.
Because first, most of it isn't covered and the parts that are end in cliffs or steep embankments heading down to Delaware Ave. You can't have a vibrant, ped friendly waterfront that is 150 yards away + a 30 ft. elevation change from the rest of the city.
Quote:
Instead you'll have traffic coming from two ends of an Interstate highway traveling at high speeds suddenly have to slow down to half their speed and mingle with pedestrians, bikes, parked cars and traffic lights only to go right back onto a highway portion. Yeah, you can of course set a slower speed limit, but lets be honest because you know that's not going to mean anything. And if you'd like to see an example of this, just go take a walk around the West Side Highway any given night after 9-10pm around midtown and watch the madness ensue. Yeah, really nice "vibrant" place to walk around while you have cars coming off a limited access highway at 59th street racing each other at 55mph+ in a 35 to see how many green lights they can make in the completely off-sync string of lights. Not to mention, any thru traffic already has Columbus Blvd, which has it's own ridiculous light sequence and takes forever to get through lol.
This is like the infomercial version of reality where everything is unnecessarily difficult and exasperating so I can buy a plastic lid for the unfinished 2 ounces of soda left in my coke can.
A few points: traffic counts on I-95 are on the decline and have been for a decade, most cars coming from south of the Walt Whitman do not make it past the Ben Franklin, most cars coming from north of Girard Ave. do not make it past the Walt Whitman, most of that "through traffic" is destined for Center City or South Philly, For the 20 cars per hour headed to PHL from north of the Ben Franklin - multiple alternatives exist, quick rides encourage people to take car trips they don't need to - tearing it down will eliminate a lot of the current traffic.
Because first, most of it isn't covered and the parts that are end in cliffs or steep embankments heading down to Delaware Ave. You can't have a vibrant, ped friendly waterfront that is 150 yards away + a 30 ft. elevation change from the rest of the city.
This is like the infomercial version of reality where everything is unnecessarily difficult and exasperating so I can buy a plastic lid for the unfinished 2 ounces of soda left in my coke can.
A few points: traffic counts on I-95 are on the decline and have been for a decade, most cars coming from south of the Walt Whitman do not make it past the Ben Franklin, most cars coming from north of Girard Ave. do not make it past the Walt Whitman, most of that "through traffic" is destined for Center City or South Philly, For the 20 cars per hour headed to PHL from north of the Ben Franklin - multiple alternatives exist, quick rides encourage people to take car trips they don't need to - tearing it down will eliminate a lot of the current traffic.
I guess we'll just agree to disagree when you use lines like "quick rides encourage people to take car trips they don't need to" because I just don't subscribe to that camp and that train of thought. I'd prefer the easiest, fastest and most expansive network of all transportation links...whether it be a rail line, bus routes, highways urban or suburban and other infrastructure. Having a highway network encourages mobility for the region, just because people are using cars over trains or buses does not make it a problem in my eyes, because it increases the overall mobility of the region. Mobility for motor vehicles with a variety of destinations in and around the city, through the city and by both city, suburb and rural residents who own or drive these vehicles.
Another reason for getting rid of them is that the system as a whole is overbuilt, it induces demand that wouldn't be there otherwise and we can't afford to maintain what we have. The gas tax needs to double before we talk about rebuilding urban interstates with traffic counts below 30,000.
[Emphasis added]
Overbuilt? You must be kidding. With the daily congestion and gridlock that infects and blights nearly every major American city, you say we have too much road capacity? Frankly, that position is delusional. The transportation system needs to be upgraded, not downgraded, and that includes widening most freeways, rebuilding junctions, a drastic expansion of subways, and the creation of a high-speed rail network. What this offers is increased mobility and efficiency, whereas all that your ilk have to offer are masochistic attitudes that will send us back to the Dark Ages.
Overbuilt? You must be kidding. With the daily congestion and gridlock that infects and blights nearly every major American city, you say we have too much road capacity? Frankly, that position is delusional. The transportation system needs to be upgraded, not downgraded, and that includes widening most freeways, rebuilding junctions, a drastic expansion of subways, and the creation of a high-speed rail network. What this offers is increased mobility and efficiency, whereas all that your ilk have to offer are masochistic attitudes that will send us back to the Dark Ages.
What about the people who live in those areas?
Widening freeways don't work and they never have. Sure it increase capacity but not for the people who normally use the road. It just attract those who didn't use it along with the normal volume, thus going over the increase capacity. If a road requires more than three thru lanes, that is a problem. I'm in favor of rebuilding junctions for better flow. I understand that roads must be widened for that to happen but those should be dedicated exit lanes, not through lanes.
Subways are costly and people in the suburbs are deluded into thinking someone would take a train to commit a crime. Those are the type of people who are afraid of their own shadow. By the way, putting subway tracks down the middle of the highway is a bad idea. There is no way for any development to occur along the subway.
Most of the gridlock is caused by the combination of bad driving and poor engineering but mostly bad driving. Tailgating, blocking intersections, failure to keep right, lack of depth perception. poorly timed traffic signals, not comprehending road sign, eating, chatting away on the cell phone, etc all contribute to bad driving as well as poor traffic signal synchronizing and poor road designs.
Removing freeways is only effective if the road isn't being used or there is a more efficient alternate route nearby. If the road has surpass its usefulness and cost of maintaining it is high, I would see about getting rid of it as an option. I personally don't mind stopping at a few lights and take a look at the streets.
I don't care about other drivers and their mobility. I do what I need to do to prevent colliding into them. They can reach their destination on their own time that they set up.
Chances are, whether in an urban or suburban area, if the people who rented or bought in that area did so within the last 50-60 or so years, they already knew that they'd be living near a highway. Personally, I live about 3-4 blocks away from a highway and I actually prefer having it so close due to the convenience. I can understand in certain dense areas that the sheer amount of people surrounding the highway combined with the high volume of traffic can create an unpleasant experience, however I think freeway capping, freeway tunneling and/or freeway rerouting are typically better options to look at. While they're costly, they provide a benefit for both people who live there and people's ability to get around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phyxius
I personally don't mind stopping at a few lights and take a look at the streets.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, we have places to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phyxius
I don't care about other drivers and their mobility.
K, then don't expect others to care about your neighborhood.
Overbuilt? You must be kidding. With the daily congestion and gridlock that infects and blights nearly every major American city, you say we have too much road capacity?
I guess we'll just agree to disagree when you use lines like "quick rides encourage people to take car trips they don't need to" because I just don't subscribe to that camp and that train of thought.
Induced demand isn't a "train of thought". It's a body of research that goes back to the 1930s.
You can "unsubscribe" all you want. Not getting the message doesn't make it less true . . . it only proves that you're interested in ideology over facts.
Induced demand isn't a "train of thought". It's a body of research that goes back to the 1930s.
You can "unsubscribe" all you want. Not getting the message doesn't make it less true . . . it only proves that you're interested in ideology over facts.
"Induced demand" or not, I don't have an issue with people having as much ease and mobility of travel as possible, and even in a big urban area, this includes motor vehicles. I don't subscribe to the anti-car camp that speaks about anti-car just for the sake of "getting cars off the road". I'm all for dense urban areas putting parking out of the way in garages, underground or behind buildings, as well as taking high capacity roadways and tunneling or "decking" them. And for the folks who choose to live there, they have the option to live the urban lifestyle..."car-lite" lifestyle, if you will.
I just don't like this whole "getting people out of their cars" or "screw the drivers" mentality that some people have, because I find it completely absurd. I get that the US pretty much lacked on "traditional" urban/transit design in the last 60 or so years, but that doesn't make it right to have the mindset of "they did it this way for so long, so now screw them, we're gonna just go in this direction now" instead of the "balanced" solutions that people try and offer. Cars have an important place in the urban landscape, not for every trip but for a lot of them. You're not going to be able to take all people's car trips and replace them with transit, maybe a portion of them but there will always be a need for cars.
And taking a freeway down and replacing it with a street level boulevard because "I don't care about those damn suburban drivers (completely ignoring city residents who drive cars), their trips can take longer for all I care!" is just as ridiculous of an attitude as the claim that planners said "********** urban neighborhood, lets build a freeway through the middle of it". When it'd just be a lot more productive if we just built a system that could help all users effectively. If you want to see just how ridiculous the freeway into street level boulevard idea is in real life, just try to cross the West Side Highway and see how it's more like a suburban arterial rather than the "vibrant urban space" that proponents of that mindset try to create.
Traffic would of been so much better and people would have better mobility just like the Cross Bronx and Brooklyn Queens Expressway
Hehe
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.
