I saw this on city lab today, freeways trigger them so they posted this report.
https://www.cnu.org/sites/default/files/FreewaysWithoutFutures_2019.pdf
I could see a few maybe, but some of these are absolutely insane, i-275, 35, 5, and 70 are the craziest imo. 64 is going nowhere, they literally just finished the interchange with 65.
I am still reading this so I will post more opinions later in the thread. What do you guys think?
The I-980 item ignores the network redundancy value of that freeway. That was highlighted when part of I-880 in west Oakland collapsed in the 1989 earthquake. I-980 carried much of the load previously borne by I-880. It also gave Caltrans time to develop a better replacement for I-880, which was much less damaging to west Oakland neighborhoods than the original freeway, without the pressure to do a quick-fix replacement just to get traffic moving again.
Quote from: oscar on April 03, 2019, 08:21:25 PM
The I-980 item ignores the network redundancy value of that freeway. That was highlighted when part of I-880 in west Oakland collapsed in the 1989 earthquake. I-980 carried much of the load previously borne by I-880. It also gave Caltrans time to develop a better replacement for I-880, which was much less damaging to west Oakland neighborhoods than the original freeway, without the pressure to do a quick-fix replacement just to get traffic moving again.
One of the subtle benefits of 980 existing that comes to mind: the ability for some drivers to be able to bypass the MacArthur Maze in its entirety! Or to even extend the thought:
Prior to the construction of 980/24 southwest of the Caldecott Tunnel, most access to it required driving through the Maze to then get to the Eastshore Freeway, with the only other option being the surface street Broadway from downtown Oakland going northeast.
Quote from: TheStranger on April 03, 2019, 08:26:36 PM
One of the subtle benefits of 980 existing that comes to mind: the ability for some drivers to be able to bypass the MacArthur Maze in its entirety!
Especially with the forthcoming reconstruction of the Maze, which probably will be a major headache for road users.
Back over to my part of the country, I'm a little surprised the report doesn't try to tout as a success story the conversion of part of D.C.'s Southeast Freeway to Southeast Boulevard. That part of the former freeway got bypassed, via I-695 over the Eleventh Street Bridges and DC 295. I haven't had occasion to check out Southeast Boulevard rather than use the bypass (maybe that conversion didn't inconvenience cross-town travelers enough to please the report authors), so I don't know how that has worked out. Not my problem, in any case.
I would *love* to see I-64 removed from downtown Louisville for all the reasons mentioned in the article. Not only does it separate the city from her reason for existence and her largest asset -- the river -- it's an enormous eyesore, plain and simple. I'd even go so far as to say it could be removed as far east as its junction with the Watterson (I-264), thus removing it from the city's flagship park, Cherokee Park. Through traffic can easily use I-264 or I-265 to get around the city (hazmat would have to use 264).
Obviously this will never happen thanks to the newly redesigned Spaghetti Junction at I-65. The article is a bit misleading in regard to 8664 -- that movement died years ago.
Quote from: TR69 on April 03, 2019, 09:58:26 PM
I would *love* to see I-64 removed from downtown Louisville for all the reasons mentioned in the article. Not only does it separate the city from her reason for existence and her largest asset -- the river -- it's an enormous eyesore, plain and simple. I'd even go so far as to say it could be removed as far east as its junction with the Watterson (I-264), thus removing it from the city's flagship park, Cherokee Park. Through traffic can easily use I-264 or I-265 to get around the city (hazmat would have to use 264).
Obviously this will never happen thanks to the newly redesigned Spaghetti Junction at I-65. The article is a bit misleading in regard to 8664 -- that movement died years ago.
i feel like routing 64 over 265 would be a good idea.
Arguing for removing I-5 to facilitate development as a way to combat rising housing costs and then having your rendering be a marina in the river surrounded by what appear to be luxury waterfront high-rises seems just a little backward. Not to mention the massive choke point it would cause at the northern end of the Fremont Bridge where I assume I-84 would then be "extended" to terminate at.
Traffic bad enough on I-275 in Tampa as is. Removing it would be a complete f@Q@ing abortion. :-D
Quote from: TheStranger on April 03, 2019, 08:26:36 PM
Quote from: oscar on April 03, 2019, 08:21:25 PM
The I-980 item ignores the network redundancy value of that freeway. That was highlighted when part of I-880 in west Oakland collapsed in the 1989 earthquake. I-980 carried much of the load previously borne by I-880. It also gave Caltrans time to develop a better replacement for I-880, which was much less damaging to west Oakland neighborhoods than the original freeway, without the pressure to do a quick-fix replacement just to get traffic moving again.
One of the subtle benefits of 980 existing that comes to mind: the ability for some drivers to be able to bypass the MacArthur Maze in its entirety! Or to even extend the thought:
Prior to the construction of 980/24 southwest of the Caldecott Tunnel, most access to it required driving through the Maze to then get to the Eastshore Freeway, with the only other option being the surface street Broadway from downtown Oakland going northeast.
I-980 ought to be expanded over all of CA 24, the current route as is has enough daily traffic to merit it's continued existence. Granted traffic counts seem to be substantially less now that I-880 is fully repaired.
Thinking about I-70, I don't think the portion they're talking about is going anywhere, and it never seemed especially likely that it would have been removed. My outsider's impression is that people were mostly indifferent or just lightly sympathetic when it came to the organized opposition.
Since the reconstruction project is underway and the lawsuits have concluded (at least, the ones I've seen reporting on), it's not a realistic candidate for removal now, although I suppose it works better than something that was just rebuilt. What's more egregious, I think, is the report's characterization of Colorado. To start, I'd say the "key characteristic" of "Current political climate in Colorado is opposed to freeway expansion" is untrue; while there's growing interest in alternatives to driving, especially around Denver, I think it's more often wanted as addition to a accelerated highway work, not a replacement (e.g., front range rail and GPLs in addition to the HOT lanes being added to I-25).
The last paragraph describing the political environment also has some suspect leaps of logic. On the rejection of last year's transportation ballot measures, I'd argue the general motivation was much more anti-tax and anti-toll than anti-freeway. (The multi-model component of the tax-based measure was also used as a talking point by opponents, although I'm not sure how much of a factor that really was.) Education and health care, meanwhile, came across as the focus of the gubernatorial election; transportation was a footnote in the environmental portion of Polis's platform, and the only reference to it in his site's "key issues" now is about electrification. Actually, considering how transportation becomes a larger issue and talking point each year, I was mildly surprised by how little it was involved in the last round of elections.
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 03, 2019, 08:02:43 PM
I saw this on city lab today, freeways trigger them so they posted this report.
https://www.cnu.org/sites/default/files/FreewaysWithoutFutures_2019.pdf
I could see a few maybe, but some of these are absolutely insane, i-275, 35, 5, and 70 are the craziest imo. 64 is going nowhere, they literally just finished the interchange with 65.
I am still reading this so I will post more opinions later in the thread. What do you guys think?
If I-35 through Austin is going anywhere, it's underground. I remember reading the CNU stating that it isn't suitable for outright removal, due to its importance and heavy use as a NAFTA corridor. Theoretically, I-35 traffic
could be re-routed onto the tolled TX 45/130 beltway, but (1) it's a longer route (although it's usually faster in business-hours traffic; I know this from experience because I drove between Laredo and DFW regularly), and (2) it would involve the hurdle of either adding tolls to an existing Interstate or removing the tolls from the TX 45/130 beltway.
I-5 in Portland is a good candidate. Portland has been aggressive about getting freeways out of downtown, with a good prior experience. I-5 has rerouting options.
Removal of I-64 in Louisville is justified, and it also has rerouting options. The new interchange would still serve a purpose, even if it's overbuilt.
Removing I-70 in Denver is tricky.* Re-routing it onto the 470 beltway would lengthen the route, and it's a similar situation to Austin's beltway, in that part of it is tolled. But this project would probably be worth it in the long run.
I don't know enough about the others to comment on them.
*EDIT: It's actually not as tricky as I thought. I-70 would be re-routed onto I-76 and I-270. (Source: Ben Crowther, "Ditch the ditch: Citizens respond to I-70 expansion,"
Public Square: A CNU Journal, 8 April 2019, https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2019/04/08/ditch-ditch-citizens-respond-i-70-expansion .)
I don't think so.
"No" to removing 64 through Louisville. I've seen how bad traffic is with the current freeway in place. I can't imagine the cluster that would ensue without it.
Quote from: pdx-wanderer on April 03, 2019, 10:55:12 PM
Arguing for removing I-5 to facilitate development as a way to combat rising housing costs and then having your rendering be a marina in the river surrounded by what appear to be luxury waterfront high-rises seems just a little backward. Not to mention the massive choke point it would cause at the northern end of the Fremont Bridge where I assume I-84 would then be "extended" to terminate at.
Beyond that, 405 doesn't have the capacity to handle the traffic, and traffic in general is already crap in the area. Then again, I'm a proponent of turning the entire loop into a giant Roundabout around downtown.
What people like these don't understand is that freeways are what allowed our economy to grow they way it has, and without them, some cities would lose their economic vitality. As for "not recovering" after the freeway, that isn't the fault of the freeway, but usually property owners and banks, along with cities not updating zoning to better reflect the possible uses in the area.
I think we found a dumber 'Congress' than the one in DC...
No. It looks like a "new urbanist's" wet dream. These are through routes, not spurs (like the Park Freeway in Milwaukee or I-375 in Detroit). Removing them would be detrimental to the local and regional economies, and probably lead to depopulation of the area (quite the reverse of what these folks want) due to lack of access.
I'm surprised that both Portland's I-5 and I-405 are only 4 lanes (minus HOV and exit lanes) in segments. I wonder what would happen to the traffic numbers on I-405 if that segment of I-5 is removed. If that happens, I-405 surely ought to be expanded, and I don't know if Portlanders would want that.
I remember seeing a map of Oakland's freeway network on this forum once where I-980 and 580 running through the middle of Oakland were removed and replaced by a routing along CA-13 (a new freeway would be built along the routing north of CA-24). I can't find that map currently and I don't know who made it but removing I-980 makes me think of that map.
I'm really disappointed about I-345 in Dallas, because I wanted that segment of freeway to be a part of an extended I-45 that runs along US 75 and 69 and goes all the way to Tulsa. I understand the impact of the freeway to that part of Dallas, so I don't think it should exist as it is, however. That segment really ought to be a tunnel.
If I-70 in Denver were placed entirely underground, I think this freeway wouldn't be on this list. I'm disappointed that CDOT's plans didn't make more of this highway a tunnel.
Rerouting I-64 in Louisville onto 264 sounds like a great idea. But earlier comments saying it would make traffic a nightmare make me doubt this would actually be a feasible option.
The thing is, if we remove megafreeways from cities, large plots of unused land are going to remain where the freeways were, which is even worse than a 10 lane highway.
Quote from: thspfc on April 04, 2019, 06:58:12 PM
The thing is, if we remove megafreeways from cities, large plots of unused land are going to remain where the freeways were, which is even worse than a 10 lane highway.
And why would that happen, as opposed to selling the land to developers? Or turning it into a park? Etc.
Quote from: Brandon on April 04, 2019, 03:27:37 PM
No. It looks like a "new urbanist's" wet dream. These are through routes, not spurs (like the Park Freeway in Milwaukee or I-375 in Detroit). Removing them would be detrimental to the local and regional economies, and probably lead to depopulation of the area (quite the reverse of what these folks want) due to lack of access.
The report is obviously skewed to paint a certain picture. An unbiased report would have included more comprehensive traffic figures and potential negative consequences to local freeway carrying capacity. What the "urbanist" crowd doesn't understand is that a lot of American cities declined during a time when the populace wanted to move out of the inner city and into the suburbs. Urban renewal requires a whole hell of a lot more than just ripping old freeways.
i always thought louisville had to many freeways
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 04, 2019, 07:22:11 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 04, 2019, 06:58:12 PM
The thing is, if we remove megafreeways from cities, large plots of unused land are going to remain where the freeways were, which is even worse than a 10 lane highway.
And why would that happen, as opposed to selling the land to developers? Or turning it into a park? Etc.
That would happen eventually, but in the meantime.
Quote from: thspfc on April 06, 2019, 12:48:16 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 04, 2019, 07:22:11 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 04, 2019, 06:58:12 PM
The thing is, if we remove megafreeways from cities, large plots of unused land are going to remain where the freeways were, which is even worse than a 10 lane highway.
And why would that happen, as opposed to selling the land to developers? Or turning it into a park? Etc.
That would happen eventually, but in the meantime.
There are legitimate reasons to oppose removing freeways. Empty land upon removal is not one of them.
Keep in mind that the OP link is the product of a lobbying organization/special interest group. Naturally, it is not a neutral or realistic analysis of the situation - it is a demonstration of one extreme which the party producing it considers ideal, but generally does not address the needs and desires of other stakeholders. There is a fair bit of "foaming" inherent in this sort of document.
In practice, other stakeholders will come to the table with their own ideas that they consider ideal for their purposes, and discussions will proceed from there. I don't think CNU expects they will actually succeed in getting every freeway they name completely removed, but they will be happy if they can get that to happen for one of them, or if they can succeed in, as a compromise, making modifications happen that don't remove the freeway but reduce its impact on the neighborhood.
That said, the report does contain an example (I-35 Austin) where CNU acknowledges that completely removing the freeway is totally unrealistic, and they are arguing for a big dig type project instead.
Saw the article the other day. Here's a non-PDF version:
https://www.cnu.org/highways-boulevards/freeways-without-futures/2019
Most of these sound pretty ridiculous. I-275 in Tampa? That's crazy!
Any thoughts on that stretch of I-10 in NOLA? Supposedly, there has been some actual conversation about it.
Quote from: FightingIrish on April 06, 2019, 07:12:11 PM
Any thoughts on that stretch of I-10 in NOLA? Supposedly, there has been some actual conversation about it.
I think that one is non-silly. Might have to widen the freeways on the other two legs of that triangle.
Huge no to any of these.
Quote from: thspfc on April 04, 2019, 06:58:12 PM
The thing is, if we remove megafreeways from cities, large plots of unused land are going to remain where the freeways were, which is even worse than a 10 lane highway.
This is the issue with former I-170 in Baltimore. While it is no longer really needed, if they demolished it and backfilled the area, I don't know that any development would occur on the land, even in the next 20+ years, as West Baltimore is already fighting depopulation of its existing neighborhoods.
Quote from: FightingIrish on April 06, 2019, 07:12:11 PM
Any thoughts on that stretch of I-10 in NOLA? Supposedly, there has been some actual conversation about it.
I like that idea. Claiborne Ave in NOLA should be restored to its original state.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on April 06, 2019, 10:06:26 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on April 06, 2019, 07:12:11 PM
Any thoughts on that stretch of I-10 in NOLA? Supposedly, there has been some actual conversation about it.
I like that idea. Claiborne Ave in NOLA should be restored to its original state.
That freeway needs to be preserved and reconstructed. Arguably expanded by a lane or two. I know I find it convenient. There can be middle ground for reconstruction by raising the structure high to allow more sunlight underneath adding a park or maybe a transit line. For obvious reasons, tunnels are out of the question. Hopefully this freeway isn't torn down and converted to a boulevard.
If a gun is to my head and I'm to choose on any of these removals I'm familiar with, it would me this one but at the same I'd join any organized protest in favor of keeping it if the proposal to tear it down really gets considered.
The I-10 NOLA teardown idea is dead. https://nextcity.org/features/view/a-divided-neighborhood-comes-together-under-an-elevated-expressway
Quote from: Tom958 on April 06, 2019, 10:46:13 PM
The I-10 NOLA teardown idea is dead. https://nextcity.org/features/view/a-divided-neighborhood-comes-together-under-an-elevated-expressway
Good deal! I do think a rebuild should include elements to better connect the neighborhoods.
Quote from: Tom958 on April 06, 2019, 10:46:13 PM
The I-10 NOLA teardown idea is dead. https://nextcity.org/features/view/a-divided-neighborhood-comes-together-under-an-elevated-expressway
Interesting take on the situation from local residents, that might apply to others in the CNU report:
-- the benefits of freeway removal might result in gentrification, pushing out current residents so they'll never get to see those benefits
-- maybe current residents would be better off keeping their hideous freeway, so their community can remain intact.
Quote from: oscar on April 06, 2019, 11:36:16 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on April 06, 2019, 10:46:13 PM
The I-10 NOLA teardown idea is dead. https://nextcity.org/features/view/a-divided-neighborhood-comes-together-under-an-elevated-expressway
Interesting take on the situation from local residents, that might apply to others in the CNU report:
-- the benefits of freeway removal might result in gentrification, pushing out current residents so they'll never get to see those benefits
-- maybe current residents would be better off keeping their hideous freeway, so their community can remain intact.
That sucks. I wish we could tear down the freeway without seeing the negative effects of gentrification.
Quote from: Tom958 on April 06, 2019, 10:46:13 PM
The I-10 NOLA teardown idea is dead. https://nextcity.org/features/view/a-divided-neighborhood-comes-together-under-an-elevated-expressway
THANK. YOU.
Common sense still matters to some people.
You simply DO NOT tear down a major artery that provides direct access to downtown NOLA, the French Quarter, and the Superdome and force traffic to go through a 4- to 6-lane surface arterial.
A far better idea for NOLA is to do what Lafayette is trying to do with its proposed I-49 Lafayette Connector: add some Context Sensitive Solutions design standards to better integrate the Claiborne Elevated into the Treme community and the surrounding neighborhoods, and also make plans to ultimately renovate the facility to maintain and extend its life.
Good to see that some people get that freeway teardowns aren't the panacea some would have them think they are.
The removal of I-345 in Dallas would put all freeway traffic towards the I-30/I-35E mixmaster and make a busy interchange into an even worse chokepoint. Even one wreck in the Canyon, Mixmaster, or along Woodall Rodgers would make commuting in any part of the remaining freeways a messy nightmare. The side streets in Dallas are already way *way* behind in keeping up with potholes as it is, and adding more non-essential traffic to them would really exacerbate things in/near downtown. Retaining what is there may not 'look' good to some, but at least there are ways around traffic problems that would arise in that area. Putting I-345 (eventual I-45 extension, maybe??) below ground level would placate at least some of those who are into highway corridor aesthetics, and add a potential extra possible deck park opportunity for those who are fans of Klyde Warren Park (the new deck park over Woodall Rodgers).
The latest City Council recommendation made about the proposed redo of I-30 in and east of downtown, would ask TxDOT to work simultaneously on I-30 and whatever would get done to I-345. Another proposal someone hasn't thought very long on... whoever thinks that the State will agree to do both freeways at once, doesn't realize the traffic headache that would result from having 2 freeways (that cross!!) out of commission partially or completely. TxDOT hasn't answered the City's counter-proposal just yet, but I doubt that they'd agree to redo both freeways together.
Either way, there isn't a whole lot that would be positively gained by completely removing I-345. If anything should be removed regarding it, it should be the numbering. No one calls it that, and it's really too short for a legitimate separate number. Either US 75 should end at I-30, or I-45 should end north of I-30 -- many miles north of I-30 would be even better.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on April 07, 2019, 01:19:05 AM
Quote from: oscar on April 06, 2019, 11:36:16 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on April 06, 2019, 10:46:13 PM
The I-10 NOLA teardown idea is dead. https://nextcity.org/features/view/a-divided-neighborhood-comes-together-under-an-elevated-expressway (https://nextcity.org/features/view/a-divided-neighborhood-comes-together-under-an-elevated-expressway)
Interesting take on the situation from local residents, that might apply to others in the CNU report:
-- the benefits of freeway removal might result in gentrification, pushing out current residents so they'll never get to see those benefits
-- maybe current residents would be better off keeping their hideous freeway, so their community can remain intact.
That sucks. I wish we could tear down the freeway without seeing the negative effects of gentrification.
Actually, it doesn't. The very idea of freeway removal is built upon gentrificating older, mostly "minority" neighborhoods in order to attract wealthier, hipper people. Also, the "hideous" freeway can be transformed through CSS design and neighborhood feedback to be better integrated into the community while still serving its purpose of moving traffic.
Quote from: txstateends on April 07, 2019, 05:02:08 AM
The removal of I-345 in Dallas would put all freeway traffic towards the I-30/I-35E mixmaster and make a busy interchange into an even worse chokepoint. Even one wreck in the Canyon, Mixmaster, or along Woodall Rodgers would make commuting in any part of the remaining freeways a messy nightmare. The side streets in Dallas are already way *way* behind in keeping up with potholes as it is, and adding more non-essential traffic to them would really exacerbate things in/near downtown. Retaining what is there may not 'look' good to some, but at least there are ways around traffic problems that would arise in that area. Putting I-345 (eventual I-45 extension, maybe??) below ground level would placate at least some of those who are into highway corridor aesthetics, and add a potential extra possible deck park opportunity for those who are fans of Klyde Warren Park (the new deck park over Woodall Rodgers).
The latest City Council recommendation made about the proposed redo of I-30 in and east of downtown, would ask TxDOT to work simultaneously on I-30 and whatever would get done to I-345. Another proposal someone hasn't thought very long on... whoever thinks that the State will agree to do both freeways at once, doesn't realize the traffic headache that would result from having 2 freeways (that cross!!) out of commission partially or completely. TxDOT hasn't answered the City's counter-proposal just yet, but I doubt that they'd agree to redo both freeways together.
Either way, there isn't a whole lot that would be positively gained by completely removing I-345. If anything should be removed regarding it, it should be the numbering. No one calls it that, and it's really too short for a legitimate separate number. Either US 75 should end at I-30, or I-45 should end north of I-30 -- many miles north of I-30 would be even better.
Fortunately, I don't see this freeway going anywhere. TxDOT still has common sense.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 07, 2019, 05:05:14 AM
Also, the "hideous" freeway can be transformed through CSS design
I'm now imagining an engineer working with a web developer to use Cascading Style Sheets to make a freeway look better.
Aside from the already talked about stuff in this pamphlet, I really love the argument by that group under the graduated campaigns that because no 'Carmageddon' happened when the Alaskan Way switched from viaduct to tunnel, the whole tunnel was an 'unnecessary expense'. What kind of f'd up logic is that? Oh, the authorities did everything to prepare the driving the public for the change and thus chaos was avoided, clearly the tunnel was not needed at all.
Also the other two 'graduated campaigns' are Rochester loop which was only partially removed, and I-375 in Detroit, for which there aren't even any final redesign plans yet.
They're not really helping their case here.
Quote from: oscar on April 03, 2019, 08:21:25 PM
The I-980 item ignores the network redundancy value of that freeway. That was highlighted when part of I-880 in west Oakland collapsed in the 1989 earthquake. I-980 carried much of the load previously borne by I-880. It also gave Caltrans time to develop a better replacement for I-880, which was much less damaging to west Oakland neighborhoods than the original freeway, without the pressure to do a quick-fix replacement just to get traffic moving again.
Also I remember I-980 was going to be part of the proposed "Southern Crossing" to Candlestick park though in some of the maps prior to I-238 and I-380 being put as another part of the talks for an alternate Southern Crossing.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 06, 2019, 05:09:44 PM
Keep in mind that the OP link is the product of a lobbying organization/special interest group.
I'm not sure that's a fair description. As one of the leading organizations for urban design and planning, the Congress for the New Urbanism is deeply concerned for the public interest, as it aims to take a holistic and comprehensive view of urban development and design practices, as they affect everything from neighborhoods to metropolitan regions. That being said, I haven't always agreed with everything that some of the more prominent figures within the CNU have said, but for the most part, their design philosophies are well grounded in reason, evidence, and the learned experience of prior planning and design movements, such as City Beautiful, Garden City, CIAM, etc. A vacuum was left when CIAM disbanded, and CNU is, in effect, trying to correct the mistakes of CIAM and its less-than-ideal results, and pick up where it left off in its public-interest aspirations.
CNU just needs to realize that not everyone wants transit, not everyone wants walkability, and so forth and so on.
Have to agree with HK. The myopic focus on non-car transportation does not take into account suburban families (that require more flexible transportation than transit can provide) or even people who do not want to walk or bike in bad weather (rain, snow or even when it is just cold).
They also do not recognize the overwhelming market demand for single family homes -- the American Dream.
As I have said before, all of my electives im grad school were in my university's Regional Planning Department. The idea that hard science is behind modern planning mantras is totally laughable.
That is not to say that there is no merit to mixed-use developments and promoting transit and the like, but a decent number of New Urbanists promote them to an extreme. Someone mentioned that even new transit stations that should only be accessible by walking or bicycling, for example. Totally ridiculous and stupidly blind to exisiting transportation patterns. The last thing we need is to waste precious transportation dollars on such projects and the like.
Quote from: stridentweasel on April 07, 2019, 09:42:34 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 06, 2019, 05:09:44 PM
Keep in mind that the OP link is the product of a lobbying organization/special interest group.
I'm not sure that's a fair description. As one of the leading organizations for urban design and planning, the Congress for the New Urbanism is deeply concerned for the public interest, as it aims to take a holistic and comprehensive view of urban development and design practices, as they affect everything from neighborhoods to metropolitan regions.
Yeah, no, that reads like a canned mission statement. I'm sure they're deeply concerned for what,
in their opinion, is in the public's best interest. That doesn't mean they speak for the whole public.
Rule of thumb: if the group has a name of the form "X For Y", that is a pretty damn good indication that you are looking at a lobbying organization/special interest group.
After all, they are "for" New Urbanism. This is a particular viewpoint they are explicitly expressing. They are not taking input from people who are against New Urbanism (or neutral/luekwarm on it), nor are they spending any space discussing these opposing or differing viewpoints.
CNU's own website dedicates a page to "The Movement" (https://www.cnu.org/who-we-are/movement), has a whole "Get Involved" category, and under "What We Do" they have an "Our Issues" page (https://www.cnu.org/what-we-do/our-issues) which contains this statement:
QuoteCNU advocates for changes that make it easier to build great places.
(emphasis mine)
Tell me with a straight face that doesn't sound like lobbying. Hell, "advocate" is a freaking synonym for "lobby".
Quote from: Duke87 on April 08, 2019, 01:22:09 AM
After all, they are "for" New Urbanism. This is a particular viewpoint they are explicitly expressing. They are not taking input from people who are against New Urbanism (or neutral/luekwarm on it), nor are they spending any space discussing these opposing or differing viewpoints.
They spent an entire book discussing opposing and differing viewpoints:
https://www.amazon.com/Landscape-Urbanism-its-Discontents-Dissimulating/dp/0865717400/
Quote
CNU's own website dedicates a page to "The Movement" (https://www.cnu.org/who-we-are/movement), has a whole "Get Involved" category, and under "What We Do" they have an "Our Issues" page (https://www.cnu.org/what-we-do/our-issues) which contains this statement:
QuoteCNU advocates for changes that make it easier to build great places.
(emphasis mine)
Tell me with a straight face that doesn't sound like lobbying. Hell, "advocate" is a freaking synonym for "lobby".
Okay. It's time to take a deep breath and think about a very fundamental point.
Does the public interest just--reach a state of advancement--automatically?
Or--
Does someone need to
advocate for the public interest--in order to inspire changes that advance the public interest?
What do you think "to build great places" means? It sounds like something that serves the public interest, since the
public lives in
places.
You have created a false dichotomy in which advocating is somehow diametrically opposed to the public interest. It is not.
Quote from: stridentweasel on April 08, 2019, 01:53:55 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 08, 2019, 01:22:09 AM
After all, they are "for" New Urbanism. This is a particular viewpoint they are explicitly expressing. They are not taking input from people who are against New Urbanism (or neutral/luekwarm on it), nor are they spending any space discussing these opposing or differing viewpoints.
They spent an entire book discussing opposing and differing viewpoints:
https://www.amazon.com/Landscape-Urbanism-its-Discontents-Dissimulating/dp/0865717400/
Oh goodie, someone wrote a book. THAT makes them neutral and all-encompassing in
everything they do, even publications like the one linked in the OP that are clearly expressing only one specific viewpoint.
Quote
Does the public interest just--reach a state of advancement--automatically?
Or--
Does someone need to advocate for the public interest--in order to inspire changes that advance the public interest?
What do you think "to build great places" means? It sounds like something that serves the public interest, since the public lives in places.
You have created a false dichotomy in which advocating is somehow diametrically opposed to the public interest. It is not.
You're completely missing the point.
Let's look at the the dictionary definition (https://www.google.com/search?q=lobbying+definition) of "lobbying":
Quoteseek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue.
Gee, that sounds exactly like what CNU is doing. I don't know why this is so hard to accept or acknowledge.
This does not, by the way, mean that what they are doing is "diametrically opposed to the pubic interest". Lobbying for the public interest (whatever in your opinion that may be) is still lobbying, and the publications of a group doing it still need to be viewed through that lens to properly understand what they do and don't mean, and what role they play in the political process.
I'm gonna have to go with a "no".
Quote from: FightingIrish on April 06, 2019, 07:12:11 PM
Saw the article the other day. Here's a non-PDF version:
https://www.cnu.org/highways-boulevards/freeways-without-futures/2019
Most of these sound pretty ridiculous. I-275 in Tampa? That's crazy!
Any thoughts on that stretch of I-10 in NOLA? Supposedly, there has been some actual conversation about it.
IMO, The Claiborne Avenue proposal is the one legitimate idea. I-10 went through a vibrant neighborhood and contributed to its decay. There's outside interest in redeveloping the neighborhood as it got a lot fame from HBO's
Tremé and it's already undergone some restoration. Removing the freeway basically adds a few miles commute via I-610 for those east of Franklin Av. I don't think NO is known for horrible interstate traffic.
The Louisville and Syracuse proposals have some merit.
Quote from: stridentweasel on April 07, 2019, 09:42:34 PM
This does not, by the way, mean that what they are doing is "diametrically opposed to the pubic interest". Lobbying for the public interest (whatever in your opinion that may be) is still lobbying, and the publications of a group doing it still need to be viewed through that lens to properly understand what they do and don't mean, and what role they play in the political process.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 06, 2019, 05:09:44 PM
Keep in mind that the OP link is the product of a lobbying organization/special interest group.
You characterized the CNU as a "special interest group." That is where I disagree.
Quote from: stridentweasel on April 09, 2019, 01:29:58 AM
You characterized the CNU as a "special interest group." That is where I disagree.
Lobbies with largely a singular interest, yet isn't a "special interest group."
Okay. :rolleyes:
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 09, 2019, 01:51:05 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on April 09, 2019, 01:29:58 AM
You characterized the CNU as a "special interest group." That is where I disagree.
Lobbies with largely a singular interest, yet isn't a "special interest group."
Okay. :rolleyes:
"Special interest" and "special interest group" are used as pejoratives, but every advocacy group by definition is a special interest group. And for every special interest group, there are usually one or more equal and opposite special interest groups.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 09, 2019, 07:32:51 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 09, 2019, 01:51:05 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on April 09, 2019, 01:29:58 AM
You characterized the CNU as a "special interest group." That is where I disagree.
Lobbies with largely a singular interest, yet isn't a "special interest group." Okay. :rolleyes:
"Special interest" and "special interest group" are used as pejoratives, but every advocacy group by definition is a special interest group. And for every special interest group, there are usually one or more equal and opposite special interest groups.
I have heard the term "advocacy group" used as a pejorative, as well.
Relevant pop-sci video from Grist looking at Portland's Harbor Drive, SF's Embarcadero, and Seattle's Alaskan Way Viaduct.
And yes, the traffic apocalypse in Seattle did not happen. But we are seeing bigger backups thanks to the buses leaving the transit tunnel, which carried more people than the viaduct did anyway...
So...moving more people at a slower speed. Gotcha.
Quote from: Rothman on April 07, 2019, 10:53:25 PM...not to say that there is no merit to mixed-use developments and promoting transit and the like, but a decent number of New Urbanists promote them to an extreme.
I call those people "SimCity urbanists." When I used to play SimCity, I'd build my cities with nothing but rail lines simply to enhance the land value and get bigger buildings. SimCity urbanists fail to understand that every city needs room for the "ugly" and utilitarian in order to function properly.
On a somewhat related note, if highways are a psychological barrier and an eyesore, then so are rail lines. There's a reason why less desirable city neighborhoods are said to be located on "the wrong side of the tracks."
Quote from: Gnutella on April 23, 2019, 01:46:32 AM
On a somewhat related note, if highways are a psychological barrier and an eyesore, then so are rail lines. There's a reason why less desirable city neighborhoods are said to be located on "the wrong side of the tracks."
This was a significant motivating factor behind New York City tearing down numerous elevated subway lines from the 1930s through the early 1980s.
Some of the torn down lines were functionally replaced by new underground lines immediately parallel (and in some cases even immediately underneath), but others have not been replaced by anything and have left some neighborhoods less well served by transit than they used to be.
In the 1990s, subway ridership began increasing after decades of decline. New focus has been subsequently put on transit, and the teardowns have thus ceased. The fact that elevated subway lines are noisy and create dark dingy streets underneath them is no longer used as a rallying cry for their removal, and acknowledgment of these concerns is now seemingly overshadowed by regret that maybe some of those lines shouldn't have been torn down because they might be useful if they were still there.
There are parallels to be drawn between the two but also differences. In particular:
- While if you remove a freeway some number of cars are still able to use surface streets, if you remove a train line without a replacement this completely precludes any train service along that general path.
- Elevated subway lines were being removed at a time when ridership was steadily declining, leading to a perhaps logical conclusion that the system was overbuilt and should be pruned to reduce costs (this decline uncoincidentally corresponded with the proliferation of automobiles and with rapid expansion of the suburbs while the population of the city itself was in decline). The use of urban freeways, on the other hand, is not generally declining - if anything it is increasing as city populations continue growing. So where efforts to remove elevated subway lines typically were in response to shifting travel patterns, efforts to remove urban freeways typically attempt to force travel patterns to shift in ways they otherwise would not.
I have a quick suggestion before you try removing highways.
Close the highway segment to be removed for three months, then reopen it, and see how traffic flow is affected. For example, the Claiborne Expressway could be closed on October 1 and reopened January 1, through traffic directed either onto I-610 or the Pontchartrain. This would give a good idea as to whether this would truly be a worthwhile removal or whether it wouldn't be.
I, for one, would not want the structure of the Claiborne removed. An earlier poster had an article about how Tréme came together underneath the bridge, so I may want it to become an elevated park were it to be closed to traffic.
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 03, 2019, 10:13:07 PM
Quote from: TR69 on April 03, 2019, 09:58:26 PM
I would *love* to see I-64 removed from downtown Louisville for all the reasons mentioned in the article. Not only does it separate the city from her reason for existence and her largest asset -- the river -- it's an enormous eyesore, plain and simple. I'd even go so far as to say it could be removed as far east as its junction with the Watterson (I-264), thus removing it from the city's flagship park, Cherokee Park. Through traffic can easily use I-264 or I-265 to get around the city (hazmat would have to use 264).
Obviously this will never happen thanks to the newly redesigned Spaghetti Junction at I-65. The article is a bit misleading in regard to 8664 -- that movement died years ago.
i feel like routing 64 over 265 would be a good idea.
A lot of traffic commutes from Floyd and Harrison Counties in Indiana to downtown Louisville. Eliminating 64 all the way out to 264 cuts off their commuting route. It's easy to say they can go around to 65, but in reality they'll clog up streets in the West End. Now, you can eliminate the section of 64 betwen 65 and 9th Street, which would still force through traffic to go around but leave a way for commuters to get downtown.
For Indianapolis at 65/70 I think they should build green space over the Interstate to connect the area.
SM-G950U
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 03, 2020, 10:15:30 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 03, 2019, 10:13:07 PM
Quote from: TR69 on April 03, 2019, 09:58:26 PM
I would *love* to see I-64 removed from downtown Louisville for all the reasons mentioned in the article. Not only does it separate the city from her reason for existence and her largest asset -- the river -- it's an enormous eyesore, plain and simple. I'd even go so far as to say it could be removed as far east as its junction with the Watterson (I-264), thus removing it from the city's flagship park, Cherokee Park. Through traffic can easily use I-264 or I-265 to get around the city (hazmat would have to use 264).
Obviously this will never happen thanks to the newly redesigned Spaghetti Junction at I-65. The article is a bit misleading in regard to 8664 -- that movement died years ago.
i feel like routing 64 over 265 would be a good idea.
A lot of traffic commutes from Floyd and Harrison Counties in Indiana to downtown Louisville. Eliminating 64 all the way out to 264 cuts off their commuting route. It's easy to say they can go around to 65, but in reality they'll clog up streets in the West End. Now, you can eliminate the section of 64 betwen 65 and 9th Street, which would still force through traffic to go around but leave a way for commuters to get downtown.
Cap it maybe?
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on May 03, 2020, 11:57:26 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 03, 2020, 10:15:30 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 03, 2019, 10:13:07 PM
Quote from: TR69 on April 03, 2019, 09:58:26 PM
I would *love* to see I-64 removed from downtown Louisville for all the reasons mentioned in the article. Not only does it separate the city from her reason for existence and her largest asset -- the river -- it's an enormous eyesore, plain and simple. I'd even go so far as to say it could be removed as far east as its junction with the Watterson (I-264), thus removing it from the city's flagship park, Cherokee Park. Through traffic can easily use I-264 or I-265 to get around the city (hazmat would have to use 264).
Obviously this will never happen thanks to the newly redesigned Spaghetti Junction at I-65. The article is a bit misleading in regard to 8664 -- that movement died years ago.
i feel like routing 64 over 265 would be a good idea.
A lot of traffic commutes from Floyd and Harrison Counties in Indiana to downtown Louisville. Eliminating 64 all the way out to 264 cuts off their commuting route. It's easy to say they can go around to 65, but in reality they'll clog up streets in the West End. Now, you can eliminate the section of 64 betwen 65 and 9th Street, which would still force through traffic to go around but leave a way for commuters to get downtown.
Cap it maybe?
Can't really put a freeway underground that close to the river. West of 9th Street is not a tourist area and not particularly scenic. You aren't ruining anything by leaving the freeway there.
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 03, 2020, 12:53:44 PM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on May 03, 2020, 11:57:26 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 03, 2020, 10:15:30 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 03, 2019, 10:13:07 PM
Quote from: TR69 on April 03, 2019, 09:58:26 PM
I would *love* to see I-64 removed from downtown Louisville for all the reasons mentioned in the article. Not only does it separate the city from her reason for existence and her largest asset -- the river -- it's an enormous eyesore, plain and simple. I'd even go so far as to say it could be removed as far east as its junction with the Watterson (I-264), thus removing it from the city's flagship park, Cherokee Park. Through traffic can easily use I-264 or I-265 to get around the city (hazmat would have to use 264).
Obviously this will never happen thanks to the newly redesigned Spaghetti Junction at I-65. The article is a bit misleading in regard to 8664 -- that movement died years ago.
i feel like routing 64 over 265 would be a good idea.
A lot of traffic commutes from Floyd and Harrison Counties in Indiana to downtown Louisville. Eliminating 64 all the way out to 264 cuts off their commuting route. It's easy to say they can go around to 65, but in reality they'll clog up streets in the West End. Now, you can eliminate the section of 64 betwen 65 and 9th Street, which would still force through traffic to go around but leave a way for commuters to get downtown.
Cap it maybe?
Can't really put a freeway underground that close to the river. West of 9th Street is not a tourist area and not particularly scenic. You aren't ruining anything by leaving the freeway there.
They'd be doing the world a favor if they widened I-64 to 15 lanes in each direction between 9th Street and the Sherman Minton Bridge.
Routing I-64 over current (or close to it) I-265 would, in order to handle the levels of through or shifting traffic would entail upgrading both the current 65/265 interchange near New Albany and the 64/265 interchange east of Louisville. Both were built to (barely) accommodate the traffic levels seen with strictly local connectors (even though the former has one EB>NB direct ramp); the cost of upgrading these facilities, along with the fact that 265 across the bridge and through the tunnels is only 2+2 and any future capacity increases would come an at exorbitant cost, should offset any purported gain to be achieved by removing I-64's western Louisville stretch.
But then the expedition or even minimal accommodation of both through and commercial traffic is regularly dismissed -- or even decried -- by those advocating through-freeway teardowns here and elsewhere. Sociopolitically, these activists, in and out of official capacity, tend to be on a different page than much of the general public. It's not particularly educational levels that accounts for the differential; it's inculcation and propinquity that more often than not make the difference. If one spends an extended amount of time surrounded by a particular mindset -- and that mindset is perceived as normative within institutional or social circles of bounded rationality, it stands a good chance of being embedded within individuals who aren't encouraged -- or even accustomed -- to consistent critical thinking. And this pervades the entire sociopolitical spectrum from nominal right to nominal left. With the current political divide evident across the country, there's diminishing chance of meaningful idea exchange that could lead to practicable solutions; folks are afraid (or in more extreme cases, loath) to venture beyond their own "safe area". And so their bounded rationality shrinks to fit their adopted limitations rather than expanding to accommodate any influx of ideas or conceptualizations deemed beyond consideration. Hardly the most rational state of affairs -- but it's what's out there right now!
The I-64/I-265 interchange is being rebuilt, but certainly not in anticipation of making I-265 a through route.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 04, 2020, 11:48:47 AM
The I-64/I-265 interchange is being rebuilt, but certainly not in anticipation of making I-265 a through route.
So -- out of pure curiosity -- what's the planned configuration of the upgraded interchange -- stack, turbine, or some combination of those?
The site keeps closing unexpectedly on me, but you should be able to find info at https://i-moveky.com/project-map/
The alternatives are at https://transportation.ky.gov/DistrictFive/Pages/Interstate-64-at-Interstate-265-Interchange-Reconstruction.aspx
Quote from: sparker on May 04, 2020, 02:08:53 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 04, 2020, 11:48:47 AM
The I-64/I-265 interchange is being rebuilt, but certainly not in anticipation of making I-265 a through route.
So -- out of pure curiosity -- what's the planned configuration of the upgraded interchange -- stack, turbine, or some combination of those?
Quote from: hbelkins on May 05, 2020, 10:36:09 AM
The site keeps closing unexpectedly on me, but you should be able to find info at https://i-moveky.com/project-map/
The alternatives are at https://transportation.ky.gov/DistrictFive/Pages/Interstate-64-at-Interstate-265-Interchange-Reconstruction.aspx
You are correct, sir -- the selected alternative expedites movement to and from I-64
west of the I-265 interchange -- back toward Louisville -- rather than improving movements that would utilize I-265 and its new bridge as a metro bypass. Clearly in this instance metro commuter needs have been prioritized over regional ones, for better or worse.
Quote from: sparker on May 06, 2020, 04:54:02 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 04, 2020, 02:08:53 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 04, 2020, 11:48:47 AM
The I-64/I-265 interchange is being rebuilt, but certainly not in anticipation of making I-265 a through route.
So -- out of pure curiosity -- what's the planned configuration of the upgraded interchange -- stack, turbine, or some combination of those?
Quote from: hbelkins on May 05, 2020, 10:36:09 AM
The site keeps closing unexpectedly on me, but you should be able to find info at https://i-moveky.com/project-map/
The alternatives are at https://transportation.ky.gov/DistrictFive/Pages/Interstate-64-at-Interstate-265-Interchange-Reconstruction.aspx
You are correct, sir -- the selected alternative expedites movement to and from I-64 west of the I-265 interchange -- back toward Louisville -- rather than improving movements that would utilize I-265 and its new bridge as a metro bypass. Clearly in this instance metro commuter needs have been prioritized over regional ones, for better or worse.
The loop ramp from eastbound 64 to northbound 265 is a cluster foxtrot in the mornings. I have only had the misfortune of experiencing it once.
Interesting. I actually saw a presentation of Kunstler's at a conference and I found his arguments interesting to think about, though disturbing if his suppositions about the future of energy turn out to be right. I wasn't aware he was so closely tied to the ideological underpinnings of New Urbanism, however. A lot of the New Urbanist arguments make a lot more sense now. The idea that suburban living and driving are problems in and of themselves (and not just as a consequence of how we currently power our civilization) makes a lot more sense if the people arguing it believe Kunstler's predictions will come true.