Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MikieTimT]

That reminds me of a thread on Skyscraperpage forums about poverty moving from the cities to the suburbs. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=240503

Not just a thread. Fairly well-documented situation at this point.

What's particularly worrying to many, is how many seniors live in suburban housing (having moved there in the 50s-80s). This leaves them very isolated and prone to injury, plus it forces their kids to drive all the way out to wherever they are, to take care of them.

With lifespans growing (for most US demographics) -- and the fact that a large number of these folks moved to the 'burbs in the pre-'73 years when gas was under a half-buck/gallon (and a 3-bedroom house outside coastal areas could be gotten for about $35-40K or less) -- the number of seniors "stuck" in the outlying areas will only increase.  If their residence is fully paid and amortized, fixed-income folks have little incentive to move to denser areas despite the relative lack of amenities, including health care, since housing near city cores (even in "secondary" cities such as Reno, Boise, and Spokane) is priced to reflect the proximity of amenities.   I suppose seniors (and technically I'm one of them!) in outlying areas would need to regularly assess their living and health situations and make provisions to accommodate their particular requirements while avoiding things that place them at risk as much as is feasible.  Even though I live in a dense area (and with a RN), those are considerations undertaken on a regular basis (she does nag me about lifting heavy objects, which I must occasionally do as part of my business, because I have a problematic knee: displaced cartilage, courtesy of a sports accident in my youth).   But I'm one of the lucky ones -- about to turn 70 with a decent portion of my health intact.   And I have no illusions about being taken care of by my offspring -- my only child, my daughter, lives in the West Village (NYC) and has never owned a car in her life!   

Bottom line -- there's not a lot that can be done about the distribution of the senior population -- and the general population of the suburbs largely mirrors that situation -- often the consideration of relocating to a denser area is thwarted by not only the prospect of trading space for convenience and/or safety, but also the likelihood that it might not be as simple as that equation -- the differences are arguably not linear in nature, with the more desirable neighborhoods affected in terms of price by ongoing gentrification -- so even finding anything affordable becomes a quixotic quest.  At this point, a real & viable solution has yet to emerge.     

The market will provide the solution.  As more of the population ages, or becomes less mobile in general since it appears that a good portion of the current generation coming of age isn't interested in driving, transportation solutions/agencies will progressively crop up in the currently under-served areas, or the services will adapt to go to them.  I basically run my IT consulting business out of my home and do most work onsite at the customer location as it was made clear to me 15 years ago by my first client that it didn't make sense for people to bring problem equipment to me to work on and hope they could communicate and replicate the issue after unhooking everything and delivering it, only to have to hopefully hook everything back up correctly and hope the problem was fixed.  This was even before the Geek Squad became a thing, but they haven't exactly cut into my business anyway.  I've worked on an awful lot of stuff they attempted to work on before they just gave up and recommended a new computer, which, conveniently, they also sold.  There's going to be a huge market for entrepreneurs who are willing to drive to where the client is since the population is aging and will be progressively less mobile, regardless of whether cars will drive themselves.  Quite frankly, I think we'll have self-flying VTOL transportation as drones scale up in size and weight capacity before we'll have effective self-driving vehicles, if they ever actually become capable of operating better that humans on anything other than a standardized freeway environment.

[Bobby5280]

I don't see us ever having flying cars. Regular people with crappy math skills and no pilot's license have zero business controlling any vehicle that is airborne. On top of that, Americans on average are so scatter-brained we can't concentrate on piloting such a craft anyway. Just look at all the mobile phone-related car accidents and other inattentive driving issues that take place on the roads. We don't need the same stupid business happening overhead at all.

I think California is a microcosm of what the future could hold for many other parts of the nation. Apple is headquartered there and we all know how other businesses like to copy Apple!

Anyway, the housing crisis in California just keeps getting worse. Over 40% of the state's population lives in a "housing stressed" condition where they're spending more than 1/3 of their income on rent or a mortgage. People in that group span from the lower income classes well up into the upper middle class segments. California has 10% of the nation's population but over 25% of the nation's homeless. More than 100,000 residents per year are leaving California for other locations. Texas gained over 80,000 new residents from California last year. 50,000 went to Washington state.

Certain people like to laugh and mock the term "income inequality" as if it's just some meaningless "snowflake" invention. But the money math is very very real. Runaway living cost inflation in most areas of California is setting that state up for economic ruin. Most real estate developers across the United States are fixated on building new homes for the well-off set.

But if a developer wanted to build new homes or apartments with pricing accessible to the burger-flipper class or school teachers it's 100% assured NIMBY groups, real estate developers and the ever-present cronyism in local politics would block the living hell out of such efforts. In California that situation is compounded by the mountains of regulatory red tape and fees to get any residential building effort going. Developers are literally forced to build only for the rich because that's the only kind of housing development that can generate any profit. In the end GREEDY RESIDENTS do not want a larger supply of housing. They don't want the risk of their own properties losing any value/equity.

So it's looking more like a "when" and not "if" for a population exodus and employment apocalypse to happen. And then that will bring California's housing prices back down to reality in a crash. Here's how absurd the situation has become in California: in August the city of San Mateo approved a plan to convert an old Fire Station into barracks for its police officers. Why did they do that? Because a bunch of their police officers where effectively homeless. They were sleeping in their cars between shifts because they couldn't afford any housing anywhere in the vicinity.

Very few of the hundreds of thousands of people leaving California are moving to small town and rural areas where the cost of living is relatively cheap. They're mostly moving to other large cities where the bubble economy has not yet got out of hand. But issues like housing affordability are already growing problems in booming cities of Texas, Colorado, Arizona, Idaho and some other odd places -like North Dakota. Oil field workers in the Bakken Shale have a tough time finding any place affordable to rent/own.

The United States has such extremes in place that we are setting the stage for even worse long term, down-ward development than what Japan is now suffering. Once you're a grown adult 20 years can pass by pretty quick. So I'm seeing age 70 and my own Social Security Situation as something visible on the horizon. What I see ahead for America is a very ugly future. We may end up being a weak, broke nation mostly populated mostly with old farts -just dying to be invaded by another world power.

[Alps]

I don't see us ever having flying cars. Regular people with crappy math skills and no pilot's license have zero business controlling any vehicle that is airborne. On top of that, Americans on average are so scatter-brained we can't concentrate on piloting such a craft anyway. Just look at all the mobile phone-related car accidents and other inattentive driving issues that take place on the roads. We don't need the same stupid business happening overhead at all.

I think California is a microcosm of what the future could hold for many other parts of the nation. Apple is headquartered there and we all know how other businesses like to copy Apple!

Anyway, the housing crisis in California just keeps getting worse. Over 40% of the state's population lives in a "housing stressed" condition where they're spending more than 1/3 of their income on rent or a mortgage. People in that group span from the lower income classes well up into the upper middle class segments. California has 10% of the nation's population but over 25% of the nation's homeless. More than 100,000 residents per year are leaving California for other locations. Texas gained over 80,000 new residents from California last year. 50,000 went to Washington state.

Certain people like to laugh and mock the term "income inequality" as if it's just some meaningless "snowflake" invention. But the money math is very very real. Runaway living cost inflation in most areas of California is setting that state up for economic ruin. Most real estate developers across the United States are fixated on building new homes for the well-off set.

But if a developer wanted to build new homes or apartments with pricing accessible to the burger-flipper class or school teachers it's 100% assured NIMBY groups, real estate developers and the ever-present cronyism in local politics would block the living hell out of such efforts. In California that situation is compounded by the mountains of regulatory red tape and fees to get any residential building effort going. Developers are literally forced to build only for the rich because that's the only kind of housing development that can generate any profit. In the end GREEDY RESIDENTS do not want a larger supply of housing. They don't want the risk of their own properties losing any value/equity.

So it's looking more like a "when" and not "if" for a population exodus and employment apocalypse to happen. And then that will bring California's housing prices back down to reality in a crash. Here's how absurd the situation has become in California: in August the city of San Mateo approved a plan to convert an old Fire Station into barracks for its police officers. Why did they do that? Because a bunch of their police officers where effectively homeless. They were sleeping in their cars between shifts because they couldn't afford any housing anywhere in the vicinity.

Very few of the hundreds of thousands of people leaving California are moving to small town and rural areas where the cost of living is relatively cheap. They're mostly moving to other large cities where the bubble economy has not yet got out of hand. But issues like housing affordability are already growing problems in booming cities of Texas, Colorado, Arizona, Idaho and some other odd places -like North Dakota. Oil field workers in the Bakken Shale have a tough time finding any place affordable to rent/own.

The United States has such extremes in place that we are setting the stage for even worse long term, down-ward development than what Japan is now suffering. Once you're a grown adult 20 years can pass by pretty quick. So I'm seeing age 70 and my own Social Security Situation as something visible on the horizon. What I see ahead for America is a very ugly future. We may end up being a weak, broke nation mostly populated mostly with old farts -just dying to be invaded by another world power.

This thread is about the North Spokane Corridor. Please return to topic.

[Bruce]

Something to consider: Shouldn't SR 291 (a child of US 395) be extended east to the Freya Street interchange on the NSC? It would be awkward to leave it stranded, though WSDOT has a habit of doing this.

[BigManFromAFRICA88]

Something to consider: Shouldn't SR 291 (a child of US 395) be extended east to the Freya Street interchange on the NSC? It would be awkward to leave it stranded, though WSDOT has a habit of doing this.

How would WSDOT handle a WA SR 395 designation on that spur? Would that even be allowed? If it were, definitely a good statement for continuity and purpose of the future route...

[Bruce]

Something to consider: Shouldn't SR 291 (a child of US 395) be extended east to the Freya Street interchange on the NSC? It would be awkward to leave it stranded, though WSDOT has a habit of doing this.

How would WSDOT handle a WA SR 395 designation on that spur? Would that even be allowed? If it were, definitely a good statement for continuity and purpose of the future route...

The plan is to have US 395 use the new freeway and US 2 stay on Division Street. There would be no point in creating a US 395 Spur on Francis Street or to replace SR 291. If SR 291 is not extended, it should be renumbered to be a child route of US 2 (perhaps SR 208).

[jakeroot]

Something to consider: Shouldn't SR 291 (a child of US 395) be extended east to the Freya Street interchange on the NSC? It would be awkward to leave it stranded, though WSDOT has a habit of doing this.

Probably would be fine, if the state chipped in additional money for maintenance. I can tell the current stretch within the city is already maintained by Spokane.

How is 291 a child of 395? I don't think I understand numbering in this state.

[Bruce]

Something to consider: Shouldn't SR 291 (a child of US 395) be extended east to the Freya Street interchange on the NSC? It would be awkward to leave it stranded, though WSDOT has a habit of doing this.

Probably would be fine, if the state chipped in additional money for maintenance. I can tell the current stretch within the city is already maintained by Spokane.

How is 291 a child of 395? I don't think I understand numbering in this state.

US 395 fits into the state grid as "SR 29" and thus it has children there...but it also has SR 397.

US 97 is the same way, having both SR 131 and SR 150-155, as well as SR 970-971.

The full table includes all these repeats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_highways_in_Washington

[BigManFromAFRICA88]

The plan is to have US 395 use the new freeway and US 2 stay on Division Street. There would be no point in creating a US 395 Spur on Francis Street or to replace SR 291. If SR 291 is not extended, it should be renumbered to be a child route of US 2 (perhaps SR 208).

Thanks for the answer! Unfortunately, I asked my question rather ambiguously haha.

I guess it basically boils down to if Washington allowed routes of different auxiliary designations (like a state-owned SR 395 freeway from Division St. south--different from your SR 291 extension east along Francis St. as I now understand--vs. US 395 north from that interchange) like Caltrans does--essentially establishing the 395 number on the NSC freeway and retaining all old numbers until full completion and rerouting.

Really doesn't matter in the end because (1) US 395 would eventually be rerouted onto SR 291/395 (Division could then make for a good Business US 395 optionally), (2) the freeway section is already signed as Future US 395 (like on the US-2 southbound signs), and (3) frankly, nobody except roadgeeks cares.

US 395 fits into the state grid as "SR 29" and thus it has children there...but it also has SR 397.

US 97 is the same way, having both SR 131 and SR 150-155, as well as SR 970-971.

The full table includes all these repeats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_highways_in_Washington

Checks out, thanks. Extending it east via Francis and Freya to the future US 395 makes sense then.

[jakeroot]

Something to consider: Shouldn't SR 291 (a child of US 395) be extended east to the Freya Street interchange on the NSC? It would be awkward to leave it stranded, though WSDOT has a habit of doing this.

Probably would be fine, if the state chipped in additional money for maintenance. I can tell the current stretch within the city is already maintained by Spokane.

How is 291 a child of 395? I don't think I understand numbering in this state.

US 395 fits into the state grid as "SR 29" and thus it has children there...but it also has SR 397.

US 97 is the same way, having both SR 131 and SR 150-155, as well as SR 970-971.

The full table includes all these repeats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_highways_in_Washington

Oh yeah, I get it. I was thinking too literally. Thank you.

I guess it basically boils down to if Washington allowed routes of different auxiliary designations (like a state-owned SR 395 freeway from Division St. south--different from your SR 291 extension east along Francis St. as I now understand--vs. US 395 north from that interchange) like Caltrans does--essentially establishing the 395 number on the NSC freeway and retaining all old numbers until full completion and rerouting

I've not heard of this happening in Washington.

[BigManFromAFRICA88]

I guess it basically boils down to if Washington allowed routes of different auxiliary designations (like a state-owned SR 395 freeway from Division St. south--different from your SR 291 extension east along Francis St. as I now understand--vs. US 395 north from that interchange) like Caltrans does--essentially establishing the 395 number on the NSC freeway and retaining all old numbers until full completion and rerouting

I've not heard of this happening in Washington.

Thought so. Thanks man.

[Bruce]

The plan is to have US 395 use the new freeway and US 2 stay on Division Street. There would be no point in creating a US 395 Spur on Francis Street or to replace SR 291. If SR 291 is not extended, it should be renumbered to be a child route of US 2 (perhaps SR 208).

Thanks for the answer! Unfortunately, I asked my question rather ambiguously haha.

I guess it basically boils down to if Washington allowed routes of different auxiliary designations (like a state-owned SR 395 freeway from Division St. south--different from your SR 291 extension east along Francis St. as I now understand--vs. US 395 north from that interchange) like Caltrans does--essentially establishing the 395 number on the NSC freeway and retaining all old numbers until full completion and rerouting.

Really doesn't matter in the end because (1) US 395 would eventually be rerouted onto SR 291/395 (Division could then make for a good Business US 395 optionally), (2) the freeway section is already signed as Future US 395 (like on the US-2 southbound signs), and (3) frankly, nobody except roadgeeks cares.

The plan is to have the entire North Spokane Corridor, from I-90 to the Windermere interchange, signed as US 395 when it is fully complete in 2030. Until then, it is Future US 395 / internally SR 395 NSC.

There is no reason to retain any bit of US 395 on Division Street or reroute it before the full opening.

There is no SR 395, as it is the same as US 395. A separate route with the same number is something that Washington does not want to create.

[BigManFromAFRICA88]

The plan is to have the entire North Spokane Corridor, from I-90 to the Windermere interchange, signed as US 395 when it is fully complete in 2030. Until then, it is Future US 395 / internally SR 395 NSC.

There is no reason to retain any bit of US 395 on Division Street or reroute it before the full opening.

There is no SR 395, as it is the same as US 395. A separate route with the same number is something that Washington does not want to create.

Thanks very much for the thoughtful answer. My younger brother is considering following two of our older cousins to Spokane for college at Gonzaga, so if I end up visiting all of them frequently I'll definitely check out the progress!

[stevashe]

I guess it basically boils down to if Washington allowed routes of different auxiliary designations (like a state-owned SR 395 freeway from Division St. south--different from your SR 291 extension east along Francis St. as I now understand--vs. US 395 north from that interchange) like Caltrans does--essentially establishing the 395 number on the NSC freeway and retaining all old numbers until full completion and rerouting

I've not heard of this happening in Washington.

I've seen mention of something like this in only one place - old official state highway maps show I-405 and SR-405 while the former was being built in the 1960s:


------

The plan is to have the entire North Spokane Corridor, from I-90 to the Windermere interchange, signed as US 395 when it is fully complete in 2030. Until then, it is Future US 395 / internally SR 395 NSC.

There is no reason to retain any bit of US 395 on Division Street or reroute it before the full opening.

There is no SR 395, as it is the same as US 395. A separate route with the same number is something that Washington does not want to create.

What about the section of current US 395 between the end of the US 2 concurrency on division and the interchange with NSC?

[Bruce]

An answer to my own question: WSDOT's Corridor Sketch Summary for SR 291 mentions the following:

As the North Spokane Corridor (Future US 395) is completed, the corridor may extend eastward to Freya Street, converting the existing city street to a state highway to intersect with the North Spokane Corridor.

[Plutonic Panda]

Funding from politicians, including support from democrats, to restore funding and move this project forward again:

SPOKANE, Wash. — The Washington House released its transportation budget proposal on Monday, featuring some key changes from Gov. Jay Inslee’s proposed transportation budget.
One of the biggest changes is lawmakers want to continue to fund major projects like the North Spokane Corridor (NSC). Inslee's proposed budget called for pulling the funding for the NSC project for four years.

Read more here: https://www.krem.com/article/news/local/new-budget-proposal-funding-north-south-freeway-spokane/293-8ad08037-9774-4a1d-9f99-fcad472c94e9

TBH, I didn’t even know that the project was in jeopardy. That is frustrating. Hopefully it moves forward and gets built.

[Anthony_JK]

The plan is to have US 395 use the new freeway and US 2 stay on Division Street. There would be no point in creating a US 395 Spur on Francis Street or to replace SR 291. If SR 291 is not extended, it should be renumbered to be a child route of US 2 (perhaps SR 208).

Thanks for the answer! Unfortunately, I asked my question rather ambiguously haha.

I guess it basically boils down to if Washington allowed routes of different auxiliary designations (like a state-owned SR 395 freeway from Division St. south--different from your SR 291 extension east along Francis St. as I now understand--vs. US 395 north from that interchange) like Caltrans does--essentially establishing the 395 number on the NSC freeway and retaining all old numbers until full completion and rerouting.

Really doesn't matter in the end because (1) US 395 would eventually be rerouted onto SR 291/395 (Division could then make for a good Business US 395 optionally), (2) the freeway section is already signed as Future US 395 (like on the US-2 southbound signs), and (3) frankly, nobody except roadgeeks cares.

The plan is to have the entire North Spokane Corridor, from I-90 to the Windermere interchange, signed as US 395 when it is fully complete in 2030. Until then, it is Future US 395 / internally SR 395 NSC.

There is no reason to retain any bit of US 395 on Division Street or reroute it before the full opening.

There is no SR 395, as it is the same as US 395. A separate route with the same number is something that Washington does not want to create.

Has there been any thought of designating the NSC when completed as an I-x90 spur up to US 2?

[jakeroot]

Funding from politicians, including support from democrats, to restore funding and move this project forward again:

SPOKANE, Wash. — The Washington House released its transportation budget proposal on Monday, featuring some key changes from Gov. Jay Inslee’s proposed transportation budget.
One of the biggest changes is lawmakers want to continue to fund major projects like the North Spokane Corridor (NSC). Inslee's proposed budget called for pulling the funding for the NSC project for four years.

Read more here: https://www.krem.com/article/news/local/new-budget-proposal-funding-north-south-freeway-spokane/293-8ad08037-9774-4a1d-9f99-fcad472c94e9

TBH, I didn’t even know that the project was in jeopardy. That is frustrating. Hopefully it moves forward and gets built.

There's active construction occurring right now. The only potential thing in jeopardy has been the timing of the final phase of the project, not whether it moves forward or not.

[DJStephens]

For those of you not in the know, WSDOT is creating a north-south freeway in Spokane to help alleviate traffic problems. They plan on shifting US 395 over to it from its current alignment. Some more information about the project can be found at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/US395/NorthSpokaneCorridor/.
Being that the road is brand new, and will be presumably built to interstate standards, I thought it would be a great idea for it to get a 3di designation since it begins at I-90 going north. I-190 or I-390 would work. I emailed Larry Larson, the project engineer, and he didn't seem to get that all I cared about was the designation; it wouldn't be hard to install the signage for an interstate route. Anyway here's an excerpt from my correspondence with him in December 2007.

In the case of the North Spokane Corridor (NSC) it has no "parent"
highway.  It is designated US-395 and it begins in the Los Angeles area
and traverses through the east side of California, Oregon and
Washington, finally terminating at the Canadian border.  While the NSC
will be built to Interstate Standards in Spokane, the bulk of it from
beginning to end is not.   I hope this answers your question, if not please write back.  In the
meantime, here is a link to further information.

    It's a little annoying when you get talked down to about the difference between 2di, 3di and all that when you are keenly aware! He didn't seem to get that I was just referring to the freeway section of the NSC, and since it starts at I-90, it does too have a @#$#@ parent highway!
    Has anybody else had any frustrating dealings with DOT people in regards to a simple question? I just had wanted to know if they could designate that 10 mile freeway as a 3di, that's all.

  According the original poster, it was asked in 2007.  Sounds like typical arrogance, on the part of a public official.  Although the OP did get a response.  I've encountered quite a bit of this, in this part of the country.  Meaning no response, from "engineers" or "planners"  to any detailed queries.    Don't believe the Pacific NW, has the same outlook, as say, the southeast, or NC to be specific.  Kind of amazing they are even building this, instead of just giving up, and resolving to lock in eternal, constant worsening gridlock. 

[Plutonic Panda]

Well, thankfully, it seems like this project is indeed happening:

ome 77 years after it was first conceived, the North Spokane Corridor project takes the saying "Slow and steady wins the race" literally.

"I've lived in Spokane for seven years now, and I've heard for a long time that 'I'll never see it — it will never be built while I'm alive,'" says Joe McHale, spokesman for the Washington State Department of Transportation. "One thing we really want to let people know is yes, you will."

Construction on the project, which began in 2001 and is better known as the north-south freeway, is underway but faced a setback earlier this year when Gov. Jay Inlsee proposed delaying the project's funding and pushing its completion to 2035.

But this month, the Legislature approved House Bill 1125, which allocates another $169 million to the $1.5 billion project. The appropriations bill passed both the House and Senate last week.

- https://www.inlander.com/spokane/spokanes-15-billion-north-south-freeway-is-back-on-schedule-but-will-it-work-to-ease-traffic/Content?oid=25770247

[Bruce]

Construction has been underway for years, so of course it's happening.

Still a general waste of money when an expressway with traffic lights could've done just fine, but at least it frees up Division to be dieted and BRT'd to something actually usable. It's a nightmare to use in its current state.

[Plutonic Panda]

Construction has been underway for years, so of course it's happening.

Still a general waste of money when an expressway with traffic lights could've done just fine, but at least it frees up Division to be dieted and BRT'd to something actually usable. It's a nightmare to use in its current state.

It’s more efficient to drive without having to stop at traffic lights. With this high speed roadway and no lights it'll surely take a lot of traffic of Division st.

Are there any detailed plans on they’ll do with Division street? I was street viewing it and there is so much potential. Actual dedicated BRT lanes and a cycleway should be in play.

[jakeroot]

It would have been hilariously ironic if somehow the funding for the final phase never came through, leaving it disconnected from I-90. Meanwhile, the only section of the original north-south freeway that was built? The connection with I-90.

Still, yes, as mentioned by Bruce (and me before ) this project has never been in doubt. There are no NIMBYs in Spokane blocking this, no "environmentalists" or "urbanists", whatever. The only thing ever in question is exact timing of when the final phases will occur, but WSDOT has been indicating 2025 (for a while now) at the latest for everything.

[pderocco]

It would have been hilariously ironic if somehow the funding for the final phase never came through, leaving it disconnected from I-90. Meanwhile, the only section of the original north-south freeway that was built? The connection with I-90.

Gee, it looks like they could start with that freeway stub, and build an elevated freeway over the Spokane River up to Greene St, and hardly have to condemn any properties. Or, they could build part of it elevated above the RR tracks. I wonder what's more expensive, buying a quarter acre lot with a house or business on it and building 200 ft of freeway on it, or building 200 ft of freeway up in the air.

[stevashe]

It would have been hilariously ironic if somehow the funding for the final phase never came through, leaving it disconnected from I-90. Meanwhile, the only section of the original north-south freeway that was built? The connection with I-90.

Gee, it looks like they could start with that freeway stub, and build an elevated freeway over the Spokane River up to Greene St, and hardly have to condemn any properties. Or, they could build part of it elevated above the RR tracks. I wonder what's more expensive, buying a quarter acre lot with a house or business on it and building 200 ft of freeway on it, or building 200 ft of freeway up in the air.

Well if built as you describe, it would not be just up in the air, but also over a river, which is the part that would definitely make it more expensive, not to mention be much more likely to be stopped for environmental reasons. Plus, the reason that only a stub was built of the original freeway was due to public opposition, which resulted in the routing being moved further east to where it is today.