"When you tear down freeways, all the traffic just disappears"

[bugo]

That is the quote I hear all the time from anti-car, anti-highway, anti-choice loony toons. How can this be true? If I am going from point A to point B and there's a freeway connecting the two points, I can get there quickly and safely. If the freeway is removed, I would have to resort to surface streets and it would take a lot longer to get where I'm going (I don't know about you, but life is not infinite and I'd rather spend my time doing something besides sitting in traffic because some greenie weenie doesn't like cars.) So my question is where do they get the idea that traffic just disappears? Is it not dispersed along surface streets, clogging them with traffic and causing more accidents? Or do motorists say "There's not a freeway between point A and point B so I'll just stay home"? I know what the fruity loops are saying isn't true, but what is a good argument to debunk their lies?

[nexus73]

Let's get rid of those long continuous holes in the ground in NYC too..LOL!  Transportation is to be seen as a system.  The more people there are in a limited space means more transportation modes are needed and even then there comes a maximum capacity before congestion sets in. 

10 megaton fusion bomb warheads make great decongestants  Like the "literal genie" commercial shows, you ask for a million bucks and that is what you get! *chuckle*  Connect the dark humor dots on your own.  What we do see at work is supply/demand at work and apparently there is too high a supply of well off people who won't demand a higher quality life so they crowd into the urban areas like rats and pay dearly for this supposed privilege.  Never underestimate the power of stupidity of people in masses.

Rick

[corco]

This thread is going to be fun

[hotdogPi]

If there are multiple surface roads that have the capacity for much more traffic without being congested, maybe. If increasing the number of cars on the surrounding surface roads would cause traffic on those roads to slow down, definitely not.

[Zeffy]

I don't understand where the traffic goes when highways are removed, but one thing is for sure - it does NOT disappear. It becomes worse because city streets aren't meant to handle traffic highways are built for.

[tradephoric]

This is a webinar by Dr. Eric Dumbaugh, an urban planner spearheading the removal of the I-10/Claybourne Ave freeway in New Orleans.  If you're interested, start watching 27 minutes into the video for his presentation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv2ajjO2avw

He uses Machiavellian tactics and creates the most biased traffic models possible to support the removal of the freeway.  He uses the lowest defensible baseline traffic volumes (IE. post Katrina traffic volumes), 50/50 directional splits (even though 60/40 splits are more common), and assumes long cycle lengths and long left turn bays to maximize capacity (even though in the real world shorter cycles will be used and short queue space is available).

[tradephoric]

^Dr. Eric Dumbaugh refers to models as being WAG's (Wild Ass Guesses).  His models are WAM's (Wild Ass Manipulations).

[Pete from Boston]

Anti-choice?  I hate that the loonies won't allow me the choice of a maglev with a bar car to Nantucket.  Fascist pigs.  Let me have what I want!

[SignGeek101]

I'll admit, I am a bit of an environmentalist myself. I tend to focus mostly about power consumption (using house fans instead of AC, and convincing my parents to buy a 94% energy efficient furnace as well as buying very expensive $9.00 LED bulbs) and water use (currently thinking of getting a rain barrel). I also would like to see more electric cars on the road, (I've only seen ONE charging station at the Vancouver aquarium) and more green space overall. Gas prices are inevitably going to go up and electric (albeit a stronger, less fragile one) will be required in the future. There was a thread about something similar in the off-topic board surrounding being a liberal (believe me, I'm quite liberal) and a highway fan, but I won't bring it up because I'm ranting a bit.

But anyway, I understand that people need to be able to get around from place to place. And although some highway projects don't really make sense, most do as either current or future traffic problems need to be resolved. The 401's (in Ontario, the busiest truck route in the world) extension to the US border through Tall Grass Prairie, a critically endangered habitat, for example justifies the use of a new highway (and a new international bridge) because of trucks having to use Ambassador bridge to the very clogged Windsor city streets just to get to the current 401. They will be preserving about 74 hectares of it, so that's alright with me.

I think as the future goes on, there will be "cleaner" means of making freeways. I don't know how, but making over/underpasses every 5 km or so to allow wildlife to cross is a first step. Yes, the people who are anti-highway are in a little bit of a dream state, I can see why they say what they say, even if it doesn't make sense. I don't think cars will "go away" or anything like that. So people have to accept that highways have to be built to prepare for an economic future.

I'll give another example. When I lived in Hamilton Ontario, the Red Hill Valley Parkway, a bypass was being considered. People were against that, but without it, the only way to bypass Hamilton would be to go on city streets, which were often full of traffic. Thus, in 2007 the Parkway was completed, and now their is a bypass around Hamilton, relieving some of the idling traffic on the old roadway.

Sorry about ranting. I have this "two sided" way of thinking because I am a fan of highways (signage mostly, but still) but I do care deeply about the environment as well. It's an inner struggle that will haunt me...

[3467]

I am with sig geek on the need to balance. I think we can look at the Chicago suburbs which have had almost no new freeways since the 60s and modest arterial expansion and those routes experience rather severe congestion and suburban growth continued for reason other than freeways. The area has a lot of mass transit as well so even that cannot absorb it all. I would call western Lake and Eastern McHenry as examples

[corco]

"Tear down the freeway" in isolation does not work, but rarely is that the case. Usually, it's advocated as part of a more comprehensive package that involves changing land use, offering other modes, and diverting traffic somewhere else.

Part of what needs to be understood is that a lot of these freeway teardowns are brought about by changes in land use or desired changes in land use. In the sort of classic "tear down the waterfront freeway" scenario, you're usually looking at a waterfront that over a period of time has evolved from being an industrial-heavy port to one that exists primarily to serve tourists and provide supporting services for that.

The latter land use just isn't as traffic intensive and doesn't involve large trucks that can't navigate city streets easily.

In other cases, like, say, those that want to tear down I-5 through Portland - there doesn't need to be as much traffic as there is. If through traffic can be diverted to a decent bypass, like I-205, there's no reason to keep a major freeway in an area that only serves local traffic.

If done comprehensively and correctly, yeah, the traffic can "go away" - it either no longer needs to exist because of changes in land use, is diverted to proper bypasses, switches to other modes of transportation, and, yeah, some of it will go to the surrounding surface streets.

In the end, it's a local decision. If done properly and depending on the situation, there can good arguments for tearing out freeways and there can be good arguments for not tearing out freeways. There's no one size fits all solution. Every city has different needs and priorities in terms of how it manages traffic and movement within its boundaries. There are certainly urban freeways that shouldn't be torn out, and there are probably urban freeways that don't really need to exist. It's not my place to advocate for a city that I don't live in to do something just because I agree or disagree with it, and I have just as much right to argue that I have a "right" to get somewhere by freeway as I have to argue that I have a "right" to get somewhere by dogsled. There's nothing "anti-choice" about tearing out a freeway- if anything, it opens an area up to more possible modes of transportation, so I'm not forced into the choice of a car, but could also cycle, take a train, or whatever else.

[tidecat]

It also helps when there are other freeways for the traffic to use.  The portion of I-64 in Louisville that some people wanted to be torn down could at least be bypassed by I-265 around Louisville once it is completed in 2016-even their plan involved shifting I-64 onto the bypass.

[hotdogPi]

There's nothing "anti-choice" about tearing out a freeway- if anything, it opens an area up to more possible modes of transportation, so I'm not forced into the choice of a car, but could also cycle, take a train, or whatever else.

Taking a train, bus, or trolley, biking, skateboarding (with a helmet), walking (if it's a short distance), riding a horse, and teleporting are all possible before tearing down the freeway, too. You're not prohibited from doing any of those with the freeway there (although some modes of transportation have to be done on roads other than the freeway).

[corco]

There's nothing "anti-choice" about tearing out a freeway- if anything, it opens an area up to more possible modes of transportation, so I'm not forced into the choice of a car, but could also cycle, take a train, or whatever else.

Taking a train, bus, or trolley, biking, skateboarding (with a helmet), walking (if it's a short distance), riding a horse, and teleporting are all possible before tearing down the freeway, too. You're not prohibited from doing any of those with the freeway there (although some modes of transportation have to be done on roads other than the freeway).

Typically, when we're talking 1950s to 60s era freeways, those facilities used ROW that would be necessary for things like trains or express buses, without provisions to include those facilities. The freeway either has to go or be significantly reconfigured to allow for these facilities to adequately exist.

Things like walking and biking are technically possible in the vicinity of freeways, but in many (absolutely not all) cases areas right by freeways tend to be a bit seedier and less safe for that kind of travel.

If we're talking about providing equitable levels of service across modes (thereby allowing maximum "choice", where multi-modal approaches are otherwise practical), and then the majority of the ROW is dedicated to a car-only freeway, that's giving cars a subsidy of sorts that may not actually be warranted or necessary. Just because something is technically possible does not mean it's actually viable or reasonable.

[Pete from Boston]

I have spent a lot of time around transit activists and I have never heard any of them say something like the quote that is the title of this thread.  What I do hear is that high-speed automobile movement through urban areas always comes with trade-offs.  To them, some of those trade-offs are not worth it. 

Of course there are extremists on both sides of the issue–some people say cars are evil, some people say those opposed to freeways are loonies.  Most people form the reasonable middle ground between those extremes. 

[kkt]

I agree with Pete, I've never heard anyone claim that all the traffic just disappears.  Reasonable discussion is not served by misstating someone else's position.

[Bruce]

The traffic usually spreads out between other corridors and other modes if it gets bad enough. In the case of the Alaskan Way Viaduct, there was a slight increase on I-5 and an increase on bus ridership (King County Metro routes).

There's a point where tearing down a freeway is more beneficial than having it remain as is. The viaduct is a good example, since it's (a) earthquake-prone, (b) ugly as sin, (c) creating a wall between our waterfront and downtown, and (d) could be mitigated somewhat by light rail on the same corridor. The only real concern is serving freight traffic, which uses the West Seattle Freeway anyway.

I try to balance my views between roads and transit. They have to work together and do so in many cases (HOV lanes create faster commuter routes, grade separation helps speed up trains and prevents accidents from drivers, etc.) and thus their supporters need to take a page from the book and talk it out. The "war on cars" mantra is old and tired and really should be replaced with "maintain with minimal expansion" or something reasonable.

[bugo]

This thread is going to be fun

All of my threads are fun.

[bugo]

This is a webinar by Dr. Eric Dumbaugh, an urban planner spearheading the removal of the I-10/Claybourne Ave freeway in New Orleans.  If you're interested, start watching 27 minutes into the video for his presentation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv2ajjO2avw

He uses Machiavellian tactics and creates the most biased traffic models possible to support the removal of the freeway.  He uses the lowest defensible baseline traffic volumes (IE. post Katrina traffic volumes), 50/50 directional splits (even though 60/40 splits are more common), and assumes long cycle lengths and long left turn bays to maximize capacity (even though in the real world shorter cycles will be used and short queue space is available).

"Dumbaugh" is an appropriate name for this assclown.

[bugo]

Who gets to decide what is "butt" ugly wand what is not? I happen to think double decker freeways are attractive in a functional, brutalist way. I even liked the Embarcadero Freeway even though I know it had to be removed because of earthquake damage.

[corco]

Who gets to decide what is "butt" ugly wand what is not? I happen to think double decker freeways are attractive in a functional, brutalist way. I even liked the Embarcadero Freeway even though I know it had to be removed because of earthquake damage.

The public makes that decision. Given that land values have universally increased in the vicinity of torn-down freeways post-teardown (in dense urban areas), it's safe to say that the collective public believes, among other things, that freeways aren't all that nice to look at.

[Scott5114]

That's not necessarily a reflection on the aesthetics of a freeway, though. If you tear down a freeway and build a 20 story apartment building or hotel there, the surrounding property values will go up because retail businesses want to build nearby to serve the new building full of people.

[hbelkins]

I don't know how, but making over/underpasses every 5 km or so to allow wildlife to cross is a first step.

Wildlife is going to go where it wants to go.

[corco]

That's not necessarily a reflection on the aesthetics of a freeway, though. If you tear down a freeway and build a 20 story apartment building or hotel there, the surrounding property values will go up because retail businesses want to build nearby to serve the new building full of people.

Agreed with that, but a lot of teardown/tunnelization projects (including the Big Dig and Embarcadero) have been a means to provide cities with much needed open-space, as opposed to developing the land directly. In that case, I'd argue that aesthetics, while almost certainly not the entire cause, is certainly a significant factor, especially if you wrap noise and pollution into a broader type of category of "aesthetics."  The Big Dig is probably the best example - property values increased, but the highway and transit capacities are still there. Basically the only thing that changed was the removal of a bigass viaduct and replacement with park space, and that caused property values to more than double.

Even in that case though, you're kind of right, because in situations where new modes of transportation have been introduced, you've now got a subway station or whatever that serves as a destination (as opposed to a car driving by an area on a freeway), which supports business development.

From that point, to get back to the broader picture, a big part of the argument for tearing down freeways in downtown areas is that they aren't terribly effective at getting people INTO the downtown area (because of limited access points, etc.), only at getting people THROUGH the downtown area. If the idea is that the downtown area should be the final destination, there's no point in building major through facilities (which could/should be relocated elsewhere).

In theory, if the intent of a freeway through the city is to serve people using the city, a freeway built to the edges of an area of whatever density that transitions to an at-grade boulevard, and then returns to freeway on the other side of the dense area would allow for more even distribution onto the street grid, as opposed to a freeway which may have two or three interchanges that lead out to just a few streets on the street grid, creating bottlenecks at those points.  If a regional transportation network is directing people that aren't using the city into cars to drive on freeways through the city, that's stupid. The purpose of freeways in dense areas should be to serve those dense areas- send traffic not using the city somewhere else.

I haven't actually modeled the above or looked at any studies - so rebuttal welcome, but to me the freeway-to-at-grade model would theoretically lower the collective travel time of everybody (assuming the majority of users are originating/terminating their trips in the at-grade area), though it probably would take longer for the rare car that drives all the way through. Thinking of something like the Westside Highway in Manhattan - I had a chance to drive that a few weeks ago, and while it is probably slower than a full freeway for somebody going from the HH to the Battery Tunnel, if your destination is Midtown or Downtown Manhattan (and presumably that is the case for 99% of the cars on that road), that seems to work pretty nicely.

[Mergingtraffic]

they complain about the ugliness of freeways but it's ok to have railyards and huge bus depots and the like. and do these anti-freeway people drive cars? I bet they do.