News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Is KC really going to remove i-70 downtown?

Started by silverback1065, February 18, 2017, 06:31:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Plutonic Panda

#50
Quote from: compdude787After all, traffic has to get so bad on roads before people get fed up with it and take transit.

While that would ultimately happen if the DOTs didn't do their job, that would essentially be forcing people to live a lifestyle they don't want to live. I am against that. Currently you have the opportunity to live car free in many major cities.

Even in my hometown of OKC where it mainly car oriented, it's getting easier and easier to live without a car. So people have that option. They don't need to be bitching about the entire city being accessible by foot but I do support the entire city being accessible by car. If you're against that, than feel free to explain to me how you'd have a city operate with no cars. There are cities with no rail transit, but there aren't any cities with no roads.


Plutonic Panda

#51
Quote from: froggie on April 08, 2017, 07:17:21 AM
Other way around.  Katy Freeway congestion is worse now than it was before the expansion.
Then it wasn't widened enough. As Bobby pointed out, the other freeways around the area are subpar.

Also Houston is adding an insane amount of people in the area. Thats probably a key factor to that.

As another poster pointed asked, I too would like to know where you got this info and how it was calculated.

vdeane

Come to think of it, in any other economics model, we don't use terms like "induced demand".  For example, if there was demand for 10 widgets, but only 5 could be produced, we wouldn't attack a factory that could produce 3 more as "inducing demand" and saying that widgets will always be undersupplied and that the real solution is to reduce widget production so people switch to something else.  Why do we with roads?  Also, I remember reading the Jane Jacobs book, where she was talking about the transit changes that came to NYC in the 50s/60s when the streets went one way, and how she was saying it was bad because the changes were causing people to consolidate trips, switch to driving, or just stay home/go somewhere else... exactly the same things she proposed as a good thing for drivers just a few pages earlier, and which continue to be touted as a good thing (for drivers - never for pedestrians/cyclists/transit riders) today.  Why the double standard?  Seems to me like driving has suddenly become uncool or something.  Now, granted, trying to make driving work in a dense urban environment isn't practical if everyone drives... but it seems to me as if a large part of the problem is the fact that our economy is currently centralizing into a few mega urban areas, with the rest of the country left to transfer people and businesses to these areas.  I would think it would be better to decentralize the economy rather than force everyone to change their lifestyle against their will.  There is no reason why all economic activity has to happen in a few large urban areas.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Duke87

Quote from: vdeane on April 09, 2017, 12:24:03 AM
Come to think of it, in any other economics model, we don't use terms like "induced demand".  For example, if there was demand for 10 widgets, but only 5 could be produced, we wouldn't attack a factory that could produce 3 more as "inducing demand" and saying that widgets will always be undersupplied and that the real solution is to reduce widget production so people switch to something else.  Why do we with roads?

The company producing those extra 3 widgets isn't bound by law to do an environmental impact analysis before they increase production. Nor are they bound by law to ask the general public, including people who actively dislike widgets, to comment on their proposal to do so.

Their additional widget production probably also:
- won't take up 150+ acres of real estate like building a new 10-mile freeway does
- won't cost a billion dollars to start up.
- won't force families to relocate out of their homes in order to make way for it
- won't force large numbers of families not directly in the way to deal with increased air and noise pollution from it being nearby, or the psychological impact of it forming a barrier through the middle of their neighborhood.
- will probably be paid for with the company's own money rather than taxpayer money
- will probably produce a direct return on the initial investments (roads, unless tolled, do not)


We do this with roads because, unlike with most goods and services, increasing the available supply is expensive, resource intensive, and often politically challenging. To the point where it is often easier to try and convince people to change their travel habits than to build more roads to accommodate the travel habits they would ideally like to have.

Roads are also not quite unique in this regard - you see similar tactics employed in the utility industry. Your local electric company probably has various offers available where they will pay you to use less electricity, simply because that is both less expensive and more politically feasible than building more electric generation and transmission infrastructure (which in turn is controversial for many of the same reasons roads are).
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Plutonic Panda

So you want to tell people how to live basically. Yeah I'm against that.

Scott5114

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 08, 2017, 11:01:42 PM
Even in my hometown of OKC where it mainly car oriented, it's getting easier and easier to live without a car. So people have that option. They don't need to be bitching about the entire city being accessible by foot but I do support the entire city being accessible by car. If you're against that, than feel free to explain to me how you'd have a city operate with no cars. There are cities with no rail transit, but there aren't any cities with no roads.

One advantage that OKC has that many cities in the US does not is that its freeway system was entirely built out as planned, with no freeways canceled due to opposition or cost. As a result, it more or less functions as it should. There are a few weak links due to outdated infrastructure, but in general, the only thing that really causes backups are incidents and construction.

Most other cities saw at least one freeway cancellation, meaning that the traffic that link would have carried ends up having to be shifted elsewhere, so the system cannot effectively self-balance as it was designed to.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

sparker

What it seems to boil down to is that the choice to reside in a dense urban environment is accompanied by a certain set of contingent requirements -- the proximity to other residents renders a multitude of activities acceptable in a more diffused situation such as found in suburbs, exurbs, or rural areas troublesome or even obnoxious within a denser setting.  If no one in my own household objects, I can play Mahler's 3rd followed by Steely Dan or even old Creedence at 85-90dB without generating ill will, as I live in a house on a lot; if I were to attempt to do that in an apartment/condominium block, I'd be getting -- at minimum -- a nasty note from management within a few hours, likely preceded by neighborly banging on the walls!  If one can afford it financially & logistically, urban living does have its advantages -- but it also carries with it the need to function communally to a large degree.  Some can pull it off better than others -- those who aren't willing to dispense with a number of individual prerogatives are better off locating themselves in a more individualized setting -- which usually means more widely dispersed living quarters such as found on the urban periphery.  But those who are ready to accept an intrinsic loss of personal freedom for the ability to immerse one's self in an urban genre are sui generis those who will in fact thrive within that atmosphere. 

Nevertheless, even if one elects an urbanized lifestyle, that doesn't mean any sort of intrinsic rejection of material things -- it just makes one more selective as to what would be appropriate/function well within the set of circumstances surrounding that choice.  When an urban resident wants something, there needs to be an efficient way to get it to them; disrupting or arbitrarily limiting commerce by removing egress facilities doesn't bode well for the continued well-being of city dwellers.  They haven't taken a vow of economic chastity; they're just scaling their possessions to match their situations -- they're still living in that storied "material world", sized to fit!  More the lineal descendants of the "yuppies" of the '80's than the "hippies" of the 60's/70's, with the addition of 30-some-odd years of technology.  Sure, there are the exceptions -- but those serve simply to elucidate the rule.  And few of them will go into convulsions at the mere sight of a freeway or an Interstate trailblazer; they're part of the urban environment that was chosen.  Not that even more urban freeways -- or expansion of the current network(s) -- is appropriate (it isn't), but to expend public funds on teardowns and peripheral reroutes might not be the optimal use of ever-scarce money.  Put it into light rail, trolleys, expanded bus service -- just don't waste it to satisfy a vocal minor contingent.  In this case, they're choosing to live in downtown Kansas City -- not a village in an old Bavarian duchy!       

silverback1065

driving is still cool, if you look at the stats, driving is increasing again.  the point i'm trying to make is to give people more choices to get around.  you don't need to drive everywhere, sometimes you want to walk, bike, or try the bus or subway. 

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 09, 2017, 05:10:47 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 08, 2017, 11:01:42 PM
Even in my hometown of OKC where it mainly car oriented, it's getting easier and easier to live without a car. So people have that option. They don't need to be bitching about the entire city being accessible by foot but I do support the entire city being accessible by car. If you're against that, than feel free to explain to me how you'd have a city operate with no cars. There are cities with no rail transit, but there aren't any cities with no roads.

One advantage that OKC has that many cities in the US does not is that its freeway system was entirely built out as planned, with no freeways canceled due to opposition or cost. As a result, it more or less functions as it should. There are a few weak links due to outdated infrastructure, but in general, the only thing that really causes backups are incidents and construction.

Most other cities saw at least one freeway cancellation, meaning that the traffic that link would have carried ends up having to be shifted elsewhere, so the system cannot effectively self-balance as it was designed to.
That's a great point. I never thought about that, though I've always wondered if ODOT ever had the intention of of NW 39th Expressway being converted to a freeway. There is the ROW to do and even if they wanted more they could buy from the surrounding land as most of it is just parking lots. The problems I'd foresee is downtown Bethany(probably need to build a cap and park being very costly but they could use the cut and cover method) and the Lake Overholser area presenting some issues.

I'd assume that the west side would need to grow by 100 thousand more people or so and I-40 start to get really clogged before they would consider this as I'm sure opposition would be strong.

Bobby5280

Quote from: vdeaneCome to think of it, in any other economics model, we don't use terms like "induced demand".  For example, if there was demand for 10 widgets, but only 5 could be produced, we wouldn't attack a factory that could produce 3 more as "inducing demand" and saying that widgets will always be undersupplied and that the real solution is to reduce widget production so people switch to something else.  Why do we with roads?  Also, I remember reading the Jane Jacobs book, where she was talking about the transit changes that came to NYC in the 50s/60s when the streets went one way, and how she was saying it was bad because the changes were causing people to consolidate trips, switch to driving, or just stay home/go somewhere else... exactly the same things she proposed as a good thing for drivers just a few pages earlier, and which continue to be touted as a good thing (for drivers - never for pedestrians/cyclists/transit riders) today.  Why the double standard?  Seems to me like driving has suddenly become uncool or something.  Now, granted, trying to make driving work in a dense urban environment isn't practical if everyone drives... but it seems to me as if a large part of the problem is the fact that our economy is currently centralizing into a few mega urban areas, with the rest of the country left to transfer people and businesses to these areas.  I would think it would be better to decentralize the economy rather than force everyone to change their lifestyle against their will.  There is no reason why all economic activity has to happen in a few large urban areas.

There is definitely a big trend of large city metro areas sucking population up from smaller cities and towns. Young people who have been able to make the move migrate away from smaller towns to bigger cities for better career and social opportunities. Nothing is new about that. However, smaller towns and cities now are finding it more difficult than ever to fund the basics a municipality is expected to provide, things like streets, police departments and schools.

Here in Oklahoma the state's budget debacle is hitting public education hard. A friend of mine who is a teacher in Frederick, OK told me the town of Tipton now has no more teachers in its public school. Classrooms are now "virtual" with teachers giving classes on TV screens. Lower paid "mentors" keep tabs on the students. When a town's school goes to hell the town ends up dying. Families who can move will do so.

Quote from: Plutonic PandaThat's a great point. I never thought about that, though I've always wondered if ODOT ever had the intention of of NW 39th Expressway being converted to a freeway. There is the ROW to do and even if they wanted more they could buy from the surrounding land as most of it is just parking lots. The problems I'd foresee is downtown Bethany(probably need to build a cap and park being very costly but they could use the cut and cover method) and the Lake Overholser area presenting some issues.

While it would make sense to add that part of Route 66 into metro Oklahoma City's freeway network, I don't think such a project is do-able. There isn't enough ROW to lay down a traditional urban freeway with frontage roads. Too much commercial development to the edge of the road in many places. Only a few spots have partial frontage roads. A new freeway would have to be built elevated over existing NW 39th Street all way way across Bethany. Such freeway designs are not popular politically.

Oklahoma City may have successfully planned out its original freeway network. But the cities and towns in that metro area have been terrible at planning for growth in recent decades. The Kilpatrick Turnpike could have been a larger outer loop from Edmond down through Mustang and back over to Norman. It would have provided a more effective long distance traffic bypass of the Oklahoma City core. Instead the potential corridor has been blocked or badly encroached by unorganized development.

compdude787

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 09, 2017, 03:06:56 AM
So you want to tell people how to live basically. Yeah I'm against that.

Me too! Urban planning should be done in response to how people get around the city, rather than as a means of coercing people to get around the city in a certain way. Today, most urban planners (especially the new urbanists) basically want to reduce car trips, which is never going to happen because to pretty much every American, cars=independence and freedom of movement. I know I hated not having a driver's license and after an issue with me not being able to get a hold of my mom for me to get a ride home from a Boy Scout event, I was like "I really want to take driver's ed now!!" And besides, I know I'm not the only one who dislikes buses! Even light rail seems like a glorified bus to me with the only difference being, it's a choo-choo train!  :-D

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: compdude787 on April 09, 2017, 05:20:37 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 09, 2017, 03:06:56 AM
So you want to tell people how to live basically. Yeah I'm against that.

Me too! Urban planning should be done in response to how people get around the city, rather than as a means of coercing people to get around the city in a certain way. Today, most urban planners (especially the new urbanists) basically want to reduce car trips, which is never going to happen because to pretty much every American, cars=independence and freedom of movement. I know I hated not having a driver's license and after an issue with me not being able to get a hold of my mom for me to get a ride home from a Boy Scout event, I was like "I really want to take driver's ed now!!" And besides, I know I'm not the only one who dislikes buses! Even light rail seems like a glorified bus to me with the only difference being, it's a choo-choo train!  :-D
haha yeah I agree with all of this twenty times over. I can't wait to get another car again. I'm eyeing the Alfa Romeo Giulia.

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: Bobby5280

Quote from: Plutonic PandaThat's a great point. I never thought about that, though I've always wondered if ODOT ever had the intention of of NW 39th Expressway being converted to a freeway. There is the ROW to do and even if they wanted more they could buy from the surrounding land as most of it is just parking lots. The problems I'd foresee is downtown Bethany(probably need to build a cap and park being very costly but they could use the cut and cover method) and the Lake Overholser area presenting some issues.

While it would make sense to add that part of Route 66 into metro Oklahoma City's freeway network, I don't think such a project is do-able. There isn't enough ROW to lay down a traditional urban freeway with frontage roads. Too much commercial development to the edge of the road in many places. Only a few spots have partial frontage roads. A new freeway would have to be built elevated over existing NW 39th Street all way way across Bethany. Such freeway designs are not popular politically.

Oklahoma City may have successfully planned out its original freeway network. But the cities and towns in that metro area have been terrible at planning for growth in recent decades. The Kilpatrick Turnpike could have been a larger outer loop from Edmond down through Mustang and back over to Norman. It would have provided a more effective long distance traffic bypass of the Oklahoma City core. Instead the potential corridor has been blocked or badly encroached by unorganized development.
I think it could be doable if the will was there. I mean when you get a chance if you have Google Earth check out the North Dallas Tollway through Highland Park. They could so something like that? They might have to sacrifice shoulders in the middle though.

Bobby5280

The original section of the Dallas North Tollway, part of which goes through the Highland Park neighborhood, was built in the 1960's on an old railroad corridor. That's a much different conversion than taking a busy commercial street and converting it into a freeway.

If NW 39th Street was to be converted into a freeway I think the only plausible solution would be digging the new freeway deep in a trench and having frontage roads for businesses built cantilever style. The frontage roads would be partially hanging over the freeway. Dallas' North Central Expressway had to take this approach during the 1990's when it was expanded. The problem is this approach would be very expensive and possibly very disruptive to existing businesses along the corridor.

Plutonic Panda

Yeah I'm guessing it would require traffic congestion to become a serious issue in OKC before anything like that is considered and as it stands now traffic congestion is almost non existent in that metro.

The Ghostbuster

People are not being coerced into driving. Do any of you have to have your arms twisted into driving your cars? I think compdude787 is spot on in his assessment.

vdeane

Exactly.  We need to improve mobility for other modes - for many decades, policy was car-centric to the point where many areas are impossible to navigate without one - not just suburbs, but even some cities!  It has to be done right, though, not at the cost of making things worse off for drivers.  A road diet on an overly wide street to improve bicycle/pedestrian connectivity is a good thing (often for drivers, too, since these usually means the addition of a turn lane where one didn't exist).  A road diet on an already congested arterial is another matter, and I don't support schemes like the Pennsylvania Turnpike to divert toll revenue to transit.  Unfortunately, there ARE a significant number of people who are truly anti-car and seek to INCREASE congestion to drive (pun not intended) people into using transit, and it feels like they're the ones setting the terms of the debate right now.  Highway widenings, if targeted right, can do a lot of good without taking too much land, and should not be ruled out entirely like many want.  And development should absolutely be guided in a less traffic-increasing way.  Do we really need to build a whole new shopping plaza when there's one sitting a couple miles down the road half-empty, for example?  And there are so many houses sitting vacant, that these neighborhoods should probably be redeveloped before building new ones.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

jakeroot

Cars are not efficient use of space. Dense cities, on the other hand, are. The two just don't mix well; never have, and never will.

Cities that are really spread out work well with cars (Kansas City for example), because they aren't dense. There's less of a chance that a whole bunch of cars will be in one area at the same time, creating some sort of traffic jam.

On the other hand, cities that are super dense (Vancouver, NYC, Tokyo) don't work well with cars, because cars take up too much space relative to the operator. It's basic mathematics. As WaPo put it last March;

Quote from: Jarrett Walker, Washington Post Opinion
1) A city is a place where people live close together, so there's not much space per person. 2) Cars take up a lot of space per person. 3) Therefore, cities quickly run out of room for cars.

I know it sounds like an over-simplification, but it really is rather simple. Cars are not good use of a space. Invest in it all you want outside of "the city", but within the city, most every other mode of transport is a better use of space, so it's going to get priority.

compdude787

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 10, 2017, 05:48:02 PM
People are not being coerced into driving. Do any of you have to have your arms twisted into driving your cars?

^ This x 1000. I'm glad there's quite a few other people on here that agree with me! :)

jakeroot

Quote from: compdude787 on April 10, 2017, 06:52:00 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 10, 2017, 05:48:02 PM
People are not being coerced into driving. Do any of you have to have your arms twisted into driving your cars?

^ This x 1000.

No, no no. People are coerced into driving when local city planners refuse to accept the idea that more than two modes of transportation exist (walking and driving). No one is ever forced to do anything (nice strawman, ghostbuster), but when they have to actually leave their fucking homes, they need options. Most American cities already have a very good road system (infrastructure quality not-withstanding). If we can focus our efforts on incentivising drivers to switch their modes of transport from driving to literally anything else, we can help keep congestion from growing any more, without having to invest billions into our roads.

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: jakeroot on April 10, 2017, 07:38:55 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on April 10, 2017, 06:52:00 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 10, 2017, 05:48:02 PM
People are not being coerced into driving. Do any of you have to have your arms twisted into driving your cars?

^ This x 1000.

No, no no. People are coerced into driving when local city planners refuse to accept the idea that more than two modes of transportation exist (walking and driving). No one is ever forced to do anything (nice strawman, ghostbuster), but when they have to actually leave their fucking homes, they need options. Most American cities already have a very good road system (infrastructure quality not-withstanding). If we can focus our efforts on incentivising drivers to switch their modes of transport from driving to literally anything else, we can help keep congestion from growing any more, without having to invest billions into our roads.
Or we can let the market decide and if people want to give up their cars and live in an urban area they can do so.

So far they are deciding they want the suburban lifestyle which requires wide roads and freeways.

compdude787

Quote from: jakeroot on April 10, 2017, 06:50:14 PM
Cars are not efficient use of space.

With that logic, neither are trucks. Or, even horse drawn carriages, which I'm pretty sure took up the same amount of space that trucks do today, and were used to get around in cities for hundreds of years.

jakeroot

Quote from: compdude787 on April 10, 2017, 10:07:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 10, 2017, 06:50:14 PM
Cars are not efficient use of space.

With that logic, neither are trucks. Or, even horse drawn carriages, which I'm pretty sure took up the same amount of space that trucks do today, and were used to get around in cities for hundreds of years.

Trucks have to be big. And they are often banned from certain roads specifically because of their large size. Cars, on the other hand, continue to grow larger and larger, yet they don't accommodate any more people than they did 40 years ago (if not less, given that no cars come with front bench seats like they often did).

Horse-drawn carriages were used for transport in cities only for the very wealthy and those that absolutely needed to use it. Most people rode trolleys or walked (living as close to the city as possible to minimise walking).

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 10, 2017, 08:51:40 PM
Or we can let the market decide and if people want to give up their cars and live in an urban area they can do so.

So far they are deciding they want the suburban lifestyle which requires wide roads and freeways.

I'm not sure who "they" are, but all I'm seeing in my area is more and more skyscrapers and townhouses, both signs of increasing density. Maybe things are different where you are. I'm not suggesting that cars aren't the way forward for everyone. I'm simply suggesting that cars don't work well in cities, and that other modes of transport make much better economic sense for both the operator and user. If you wanna live in 'burbs, commuting 40 miles a day into the city, fine. But don't fucking bitch about traffic.

Bobby5280

Quote from: jakerootIf we can focus our efforts on incentivising drivers to switch their modes of transport from driving to literally anything else, we can help keep congestion from growing any more, without having to invest billions into our roads.

One problem is alternative solutions like light rail or subways tend to cost staggering amounts of money to build, typically running into multiple billions of dollars. Only the biggest cities can try to afford these things. A more modest sized metropolis like Oklahoma City could not manage it, especially with the state's current financial situation. I don't understand why the construction costs are so high. A railroad doesn't eat as much real estate as a big superhighway project. Once these subway or light rail lines are built they don't always generate the ridership necessary to turn a profit.

Is there such a thing as anyone enjoying taking the bus to work? The strolls how ever many blocks to/from the bus stop and waiting out in the weather for the bus to arrive isn't always fun either. For most cities "mass transit" equals bus lines, not light rail or subways. Outside of that there's walking or riding a bicycle. Towns like mine aren't laid out worth a damn for that. I wish I could ride my trail bike back and forth to work, but I'm literally risking my life riding a bicycle on Lawton's streets with the kinds of inattentive drivers we have here.

jakeroot

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 10, 2017, 11:57:09 PM
Quote from: jakerootIf we can focus our efforts on incentivising drivers to switch their modes of transport from driving to literally anything else, we can help keep congestion from growing any more, without having to invest billions into our roads.

One problem is alternative solutions like light rail or subways tend to cost staggering amounts of money to build, typically running into multiple billions of dollars. Only the biggest cities can try to afford these things. A more modest sized metropolis like Oklahoma City could not manage it, especially with the state's current financial situation. I don't understand why the construction costs are so high. A railroad doesn't eat as much real estate as a big superhighway project. Once these subway or light rail lines are built they don't always generate the ridership necessary to turn a profit.

There's little to no chance that a city could, on its own, build out a massive light rail/commuter rail/BRT network. Federal funding gets jobs like this done. But it's no different for roads. Cities routinely seek federal funds to help with road construction/reconstruction.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 10, 2017, 11:57:09 PM
Is there such a thing as anyone enjoying taking the bus to work? The strolls how ever many blocks to/from the bus stop and waiting out in the weather for the bus to arrive isn't always fun either. For most cities "mass transit" equals bus lines, not light rail or subways. Outside of that there's walking or riding a bicycle. Towns like mine aren't laid out worth a damn for that. I wish I could ride my trail bike back and forth to work, but I'm literally risking my life riding a bicycle on Lawton's streets with the kinds of inattentive drivers we have here.

If I lived in the Midwest, I'm not sure I'd bother with the bus or bike either. Most cities out there are laid out in a way that promotes growth without compromising traffic flow (primarily by limiting dense development); cars work well. Here in Seattle, the trend has been towards dense development (mostly due to geographic restrictions). For dense development to be a success, there needs to be an efficient transportation network to get those who live in the dense area in and around town. Cars are good in low dense areas because there's less people in that area to occupy road space. But in dense areas, cars (mathematically) are just not good fits (too many cars in one area). Do you get coerced into public transit? Sure, especially when the twenty storey tower you moved into lacks parking. But that's kind of the way things go. This country is growing, and our transportation methods need to grow along with it.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.