What would happen if major freeways had to be built TODAY?

[TEG24601]

Given that it is largely believed that the freeway caused the modern nation, especially the sprawl, I can imaging that it would be much harder to build freeways through the cities, and they would be a larger number of tunnels.  I would also suspect that several cities could have elevate freeways who's directions are one block apart (to fit between buildings), or build like those in Japan.  Public transport would still exist and therefore, coupled with a smaller, more densely packed populations, freeways wouldn't be needed in large part.

[vdeane]

The barrier idea comes down to whether there is a flow of people and activity across/under the road or not.  Unless there is tremendous economic pressure, there very often is not.  People in a lot of communities believe that said flow would be better with an at-grade street, and that the consequences to traffic flow are far outweighed by the overall success of the community.   

It's not whether something looks like a barrier, but rather if it functions as one. 

I also think there are very few people involved on either side who are interested in a prettier viaduct.

I find it much easier to walk under a viaduct than across a multi-lane boulevard.  I don't understand why most people think the opposite.  Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking, so not sitting at the light waiting for the walk signal to turn on probably makes crossing the boulevard less cumbersome than it is for those of us who seek to not affect vehicular traffic when walking in the highway ROW.  Plus separating the traffic is inherently safer than having it all together.  I just don't understand why people are so intimidated by viaducts.

[NE2]

I would also suspect that several cities could have elevate freeways who's directions are one block apart (to fit between buildings)

Wichita Falls, surprisingly for Texas. Still a psychological barrier (especially since the piers are on the sidewalk, meaning a large setback), but probably not as much as putting both directions above the same street. If a city must have a freeway, this may be the lesser evil.

[NE2]

I find it much easier to walk under a viaduct than across a multi-lane boulevard.

I find it easier to walk between two places inside a beltway.

[Pete from Boston]

The barrier idea comes down to whether there is a flow of people and activity across/under the road or not.  Unless there is tremendous economic pressure, there very often is not.  People in a lot of communities believe that said flow would be better with an at-grade street, and that the consequences to traffic flow are far outweighed by the overall success of the community.   

It's not whether something looks like a barrier, but rather if it functions as one. 

I also think there are very few people involved on either side who are interested in a prettier viaduct.

I find it much easier to walk under a viaduct than across a multi-lane boulevard.  I don't understand why most people think the opposite.  Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking, so not sitting at the light waiting for the walk signal to turn on probably makes crossing the boulevard less cumbersome than it is for those of us who seek to not affect vehicular traffic when walking in the highway ROW.  Plus separating the traffic is inherently safer than having it all together.  I just don't understand why people are so intimidated by viaducts.

MassDOT seems equally puzzled, as they put up colored lights under the modern, attractive Southeast Expressway in order to get people to more comfortably cross the 18 lanes of traffic above and below.  I think the people at MassDOT involved in this might not quite get it yet.

Human psychology is what it is.  This is the first, most basic concept any planner needs to understand.   People are likely to walk much further along a road with storefronts than one with railroad tracks along it.  Inefficient behavior?  Perhaps.  But it's how the ball of fat in people's heads works.  Viaducts have ended up being an unattractive direction for people to walk compared to alternatives.

It isn't that hard to grasp, either, if you spend much time walking around big cities.  At night the spaces under elevated highways can be creepy and isolating.  In the day they can be dark and dank where a landscaped boulevard, even one with just as many lights and crosswalks, gives a more enticing prospect to lead people in.  The under-spaces are usually last to be cleaned, are noisy, are generally further isolated by frontage roads, block lines of sight and therefore feeling of connection...

And frankly, what's bringing people back into cities in droves is scale, walkability, pleasant views and plazas and neighborhoods.  Developers are bending over backwards to create intimate feel.  Elevated highways running through neighborhoods are just plain bad for this very powerful business. 

[vdeane]

I admit, I'm not used to big cities in the least, especially since the introvert in me finds them too big.  I grew up and currently live in the suburbs (where I can still have the amenities of a large metro area but don't have to deal with all the people) with some smaller towns mixed in my address history.  Any walking I've done was probably to/from middle school and high school or in college when the location of parking on either end combined with traffic lights made driving impractical; beyond that, the most notable times would be family vacations (which probably created my distaste of walking as it could be uncomfortable in summer and my feet hurt a couple of years), roadmeets (especially the post-meet tour of downtown Quebec City), and that one time someone blocked my car during my internship.

Needless to say, while I have no problem whatsoever with measures to improve pedestrian/bike accessibility, I do not like any measures that reduce vehicular accessibility.

[kkt]

Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking

Citation needed.

[flowmotion]

I find it much easier to walk under a viaduct than across a multi-lane boulevard.  I don't understand why most people think the opposite.  Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking, so not sitting at the light waiting for the walk signal to turn on probably makes crossing the boulevard less cumbersome than it is for those of us who seek to not affect vehicular traffic when walking in the highway ROW.  Plus separating the traffic is inherently safer than having it all together.  I just don't understand why people are so intimidated by viaducts.

Indeed. There's a viaduct in San Francisco which crosses a 6-lane street. (Fillmore @ Geary Blvd.) The Ped people are hot under the collar to tear it down and rebuild a grade-level intersection, in the name of "reconnecting the neighborhood".

I think they're nuts and are only going to create a far more divisive and pedestrian-unfriendly situation. In fact I wonder how many of these people actually walk around rather than reading solutions out of a textbook.

[jakeroot]

Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking

Citation needed.

Warning: generalization ahead.

Ped advocates are generally anti car, and are thus prone to not giving a fuck about whether or not a car has the right of way.

[froggie]

Ped advocates are generally anti car, and are thus prone to not giving a fuck about whether or not a car has the right of way.

Not in my experience, though it depends on how you define "anti-car".  Most of the advocates I'm familiar with are multi-modal.  They know vehicles have a place...but think that vehicles have been OVER-emphasized in the urban core environment.  I have also known numerous "suburban" bike/ped advocates who feel that bike/ped accommodations are simply ignored or non-existant in the suburbs.

[Zmapper]

Back to the original topic...

Perhaps a better example would be major urban freeways that were constructed recently, such as the Century Freeway in Los Angeles or US 71 in Kansas City. Decades of urban freeway construction didn't save the poor, non-white neighborhoods in the paths of these freeways from large-scale demolition.

[Pete from Boston]

Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking

Citation needed.

Warning: generalization ahead.

Ped advocates are generally anti car, and are thus prone to not giving a fuck about whether or not a car has the right of way.

Based on what?

The average person that supports improved walkability is not also usually an asshole.  This is a case of generalizing about a group based on its most extreme members. 

Do people who walk more have different priorities than people who walk less?  Most likely.  But that's a long reach from the statements being tossed about here.

Do yourself a favor and spend some real time living someplace with very high pedestrian activity, and walk a lot.  See what insights you gain, and then start with the generalizations from a point of some perspective.

[NE2]

Perhaps a better example would be major urban freeways that were constructed recently, such as the Century Freeway in Los Angeles or US 71 in Kansas City. Decades of urban freeway construction didn't save the poor, non-white neighborhoods in the paths of these freeways from large-scale demolition.

Right of way for both of those was probably cleared or at least threatened (hence allowed to deteriorate) decades before construction.

Tampa's recent widenings of I-4 and I-275 shows that some cities are willing to tear down whole blocks adjacent to existing freeways.

But what about new freeways through dense urban areas? What's been built recently that hasn't been along a railroad or other cleared corridor (thus disqualifying the Chisholm Trail Parkway, for example)? I can't think of anything recent.

[jakeroot]

This is a case of generalizing about a group based on its most extreme members. 

Often, the most extreme are the loudest.

[NE2]

This is a case of generalizing about a group based on its most extreme members. 

Often, the most extreme are the loudest.

honk honk

[hbelkins]

How did "sprawl" become an acceptable term for what I, and many other, would call "growth?"

[NE2]

How did "sprawl" become an acceptable term for what I, and many other, would call "growth?"

Same time "cancer" became the term for what you call "bulking up".

[adventurernumber1]

Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking

Citation needed.

Warning: generalization ahead.

Ped advocates are generally anti car, and are thus prone to not giving a fuck about whether or not a car has the right of way.

Based on what?

The average person that supports improved walkability is not also usually an asshole.  This is a case of generalizing about a group based on its most extreme members. 

Do people who walk more have different priorities than people who walk less?  Most likely.  But that's a long reach from the statements being tossed about here.

Do yourself a favor and spend some real time living someplace with very high pedestrian activity, and walk a lot.  See what insights you gain, and then start with the generalizations from a point of some perspective.

The past week, while I've been in NYC, I've basically been a pedestrian walking day and night across Manhattan, but I have only too much respect for the road, and I was a burden to no one. I didn't walk one millimeter away from the front of someone's car, nor did I walk 0.00001 MPH across the crosswalk getting horns honked at me. I was as considerate as I could be along with my family, making sure I was causing nobody who was driving grief. I wasn't half asleep not paying attention, but I looked both ways constantly, walked quickly across the crosswalks when I was allowed to, made sure I was being considerate, and etc. I only J-walked once or twice, but that's because I had to, and no cars were coming. I understand there are a lot of pedestrians inconsiderate to people on the road, but not all of them are.

[cpzilliacus]

How did "sprawl" become an acceptable term for what I, and many other, would call "growth?"

Sometime before 1961?

I searched the Washington Post archives, and found a story that apparently ran 1961-09-09 by AP reporter Ovid A. Martin in the Post, which contains this sentence (emphasis added):

Behind these laws is the widespread feeling that the uncontrolled withdrawal of farmland is one of the chief causes of the so-called suburban sprawl, and that legislation to hold down  assessments on farmland ls a primary step in the direction of planned and orderly suburban development.

Spui may have other suggestions.

[cpzilliacus]

Warning: generalization ahead.

Ped advocates are generally anti car, and are thus prone to not giving a fuck about whether or not a car has the right of way.

I must respectfully disagree.  Not all ped advocates are anti-car (for one thing, at least some of them understand that those nasty car drivers help to pay for a lot of bike and pedestrian improvements).

Having known people who were struck by cars on the streets of the District of Columbia (in theory, a pedestrian-friendly jurisdiction), I suppose I am something of a pedestrian advocate myself (though it is easier for me to be a pedestrian now than it used to be).

[flowmotion]

Perhaps a better example would be major urban freeways that were constructed recently, such as the Century Freeway in Los Angeles or US 71 in Kansas City. Decades of urban freeway construction didn't save the poor, non-white neighborhoods in the paths of these freeways from large-scale demolition.

Right of way for both of those was probably cleared or at least threatened (hence allowed to deteriorate) decades before construction.

It should be mentioned that "slum clearance" used to be a fashionable idea, and many urban freeway projects were planned in conjunction with other "urban renewal" projects. So in a lot of cases, landlords were happy to sell out at elevated prices, and poor renters received the brunt of freeway construction.

At least in the case of the Century Freeway, Caltrans spent millions of dollars buying off every local neighborhood group and leader, often hiring them as a PR advocate for the freeway. That's why it was described as the "last freeway in California" (even though it wasn't) -- the cost and complications of building such things was going to be untenable.

When you look at Alaskan Way in Seattle or I-710 in Pasadena, it seems like the only way to build a modern urban freeway is just tunnel the whole thing.

[Sykotyk]

Biggest question would be how would the country progress over the past 50+ years without the major interstate projects?

I think cities wouldn't have stretched out as far as they did, as the ride to downtown would be mind-numbingly long.  I think freeways THROUGH cities would be a non-starter. Situations like Columbia or Greenville, SC, Detroit, St. Petersburg or Miami FL, etc where two roads reach into downtown, but aren't connected and the main line runs just outside the city core. Or, more similar to Pittsburgh or Rochester where the mainline runs well outside of the city and spurs run into the city from far away due to cheaper land (though, again, probably not a direct pass through). I-70 would've avoided the direct Columbus-Indianapolis-St. Louis-Kansas City corridor and been place just north or south of the main route. More of a 'hub and spoke' setup. Full beltways around the outside of the city and freeways running between beltways connecting them with the occassional freeway reaching into the urban core.

The other hypothetical is what state upgrades would be done in the absense of a federal highway system. NY's parkway system obviously would be quite extensive and well traveled. Kentucky may still have created their parkways. Many states may have jumped at toll roads to handle their plans: Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, etc.

Some other states would probably crop up major highway plans of their owns. Either toll or free. And some adventurous businesses may create their own private toll roads to serve major city-to-city needs. I could see railroad operators looking to team up by creating roadways near their ROW to help prop up their rail service, which would probably be much more thorough and economical. And once their road is built, it would be hard to argue building ANOTHER competing road.

[GCrites]

How did "sprawl" become an acceptable term for what I, and many other, would call "growth?"

When the population of an area grows and the amount of land they use grows in the same proportion, that's merely growth. When the population doesn't change but the amount of land they use increases dramatically, that's sprawl.

[roadman65]

How did "sprawl" become an acceptable term for what I, and many other, would call "growth?"

When the population of an area grows and the amount of land they use grows in the same proportion, that's merely growth. When the population doesn't change but the amount of land they use increases dramatically, that's sprawl.

Not quite.  Take a look at Clermont, FL.  Now true most is housing as well as many strip malls, so it is populated per unit, but is it growth or is it redistribution?  Many move from one area to another, and the population is not growing, but spreading out more.

Now true everybody is moving to Central Florida these days as they were back in the early 90's which is what caused the Southchase and Hunters Creek area to now reach peak capacity as when I moved in 1990 it was only a fraction of homes and no major shopping centers there like there is now.  However, Clermont is not the same as it literally grew overnight.  It took Southchase and Hunters Creek well over a decade and a half to get where it is now.

US 27 in Clermont was a rural 65 mph expressway back at the turn of the century, now its a 45 to 55 mph suburban arterial.  It also grew many traffic signals as well.  Back in 2000 there was only 3 traffic lights from I-4 to Leesburg, and now there is too many to count.

Basically most of Clermont is Orlando and Kissimme people looking for a change as the two main cities of Central Florida are have gotten really bad with crime and bad schools.  One girl I knew from Kissimmee said she had to move out to Clermont because the schools are too bad there for her daughter to attend.  Plus the neighborhoods have gone down in quality in many Orlando and Kissimmee locations. Not only in crime and social class, but in traffic too!

I myself am not happy with the traffic situation on John Young Parkway and Orange Blossom Trail as it used to take less than two minuts to go from Deerfield Boulevard to Hunters Creek Boulevard, which can now take 5 to 10 minutes due to increase in commuter, shopping, and other traffic.  To me it is frustrating at any time, not only rush hour, so a move to a new community outside the Orlando Metro area would be welcome.

[cpzilliacus]

Biggest question would be how would the country progress over the past 50+ years without the major interstate projects?

I think cities wouldn't have stretched out as far as they did, as the ride to downtown would be mind-numbingly long.  I think freeways THROUGH cities would be a non-starter. Situations like Columbia or Greenville, SC, Detroit, St. Petersburg or Miami FL, etc where two roads reach into downtown, but aren't connected and the main line runs just outside the city core. Or, more similar to Pittsburgh or Rochester where the mainline runs well outside of the city and spurs run into the city from far away due to cheaper land (though, again, probably not a direct pass through). I-70 would've avoided the direct Columbus-Indianapolis-St. Louis-Kansas City corridor and been place just north or south of the main route. More of a 'hub and spoke' setup. Full beltways around the outside of the city and freeways running between beltways connecting them with the occassional freeway reaching into the urban core.

Though in some metropolitan areas, the circumferential freeways ("beltways")  were built through suburban areas that had been built years earlier, in some cases as far back as a few years after World War II, or ever earlier. 

The other hypothetical is what state upgrades would be done in the absense of a federal highway system. NY's parkway system obviously would be quite extensive and well traveled. Kentucky may still have created their parkways. Many states may have jumped at toll roads to handle their plans: Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, etc.

Most planned toll road and toll crossing project became free projects after 1956.  Virginia built some after that (CBBT, Norfolk-Virginia Beach Expressway (Va. 44 then, I-264 now), Dulles Toll Road (Va. 267)), but many states, even with extensive toll roads built no new ones for many years.

Some other states would probably crop up major highway plans of their owns. Either toll or free. And some adventurous businesses may create their own private toll roads to serve major city-to-city needs. I could see railroad operators looking to team up by creating roadways near their ROW to help prop up their rail service, which would probably be much more thorough and economical. And once their road is built, it would be hard to argue building ANOTHER competing road.

Building roads and building railroads are quite different.  I am not aware of many highways in the U.S. having been built by railroad companies.