No More Freeways PDX

[sparker]

supplier near Harrisburg, PA -- which uses granulated coal as their raw material from which to form carbon fibers. 

And this is an extremely strange statement. In my world, carbon fibers are produced by controlled oxidation of polymers, and I don't see any way to use coal - other than through coke processing and  using tar as raw material for polymer synthesys. That may be the case, but that is a long technological chain. Saying coal is used for fibers is like saying rust and clay are used to make cars. Which is true, and probably involves a shorter chain of technological transformations

I know the polymer-oxidation method that you're referring to is used as well to form long-chain CF material (and is used by a number of overseas manufacturers of CF-intensive products) -- but from what my speaker vendor has told me on several occasions, they have chosen the PA firm as their supplier -- despite its "long way around" methodology -- specifically because that supplier is attempting to demonstrate that there are alternate uses for coal resources other than simply as fuel.  The speaker company is attempting to get away from hydrocarbon-based materials (polyolefin and other such compounds) that have found widespread usage in sound reproduction in the last 40 years.  They've even employed laminated-wood as speaker-cone material!  As one of the few remaining domestic speaker driver manufacturers, they're trying to position themselves as environmentally sound as feasible -- and they attempt, wherever possible, to use vendors who are doing likewise.  Personally, I've employed several of their products, using either woven carbon fiber or CF-infused wood pulp as cone material, in my designs (so far so good!); if they can continue to supply appropriate products that are somewhat "greener" than the competition (and maintain competitive pricing, which they've done so far!), then I'll continue to use them as a vendor. 

[kalvado]

supplier near Harrisburg, PA -- which uses granulated coal as their raw material from which to form carbon fibers. 

And this is an extremely strange statement. In my world, carbon fibers are produced by controlled oxidation of polymers, and I don't see any way to use coal - other than through coke processing and  using tar as raw material for polymer synthesys. That may be the case, but that is a long technological chain. Saying coal is used for fibers is like saying rust and clay are used to make cars. Which is true, and probably involves a shorter chain of technological transformations

I know the polymer-oxidation method that you're referring to is used as well to form long-chain CF material (and is used by a number of overseas manufacturers of CF-intensive products) -- but from what my speaker vendor has told me on several occasions, they have chosen the PA firm as their supplier -- despite its "long way around" methodology -- specifically because that supplier is attempting to demonstrate that there are alternate uses for coal resources other than simply as fuel.  The speaker company is attempting to get away from hydrocarbon-based materials (polyolefin and other such compounds) that have found widespread usage in sound reproduction in the last 40 years.  They've even employed laminated-wood as speaker-cone material!  As one of the few remaining domestic speaker driver manufacturers, they're trying to position themselves as environmentally sound as feasible -- and they attempt, wherever possible, to use vendors who are doing likewise.  Personally, I've employed several of their products, using either woven carbon fiber or CF-infused wood pulp as cone material, in my designs (so far so good!); if they can continue to supply appropriate products that are somewhat "greener" than the competition (and maintain competitive pricing, which they've done so far!), then I'll continue to use them as a vendor.

I hope I wouldn't be prosecuted for off-topic if I ask for some company names? I really want to look at the specs -because what you say sounds too much to particle board, which is a reasonable product, but...

And as far as I know, coal is a prime source of aromatic compounds, so it is far from being just fuel...

[sparker]

 

supplier near Harrisburg, PA -- which uses granulated coal as their raw material from which to form carbon fibers. 

And this is an extremely strange statement. In my world, carbon fibers are produced by controlled oxidation of polymers, and I don't see any way to use coal - other than through coke processing and  using tar as raw material for polymer synthesys. That may be the case, but that is a long technological chain. Saying coal is used for fibers is like saying rust and clay are used to make cars. Which is true, and probably involves a shorter chain of technological transformations

I know the polymer-oxidation method that you're referring to is used as well to form long-chain CF material (and is used by a number of overseas manufacturers of CF-intensive products) -- but from what my speaker vendor has told me on several occasions, they have chosen the PA firm as their supplier -- despite its "long way around" methodology -- specifically because that supplier is attempting to demonstrate that there are alternate uses for coal resources other than simply as fuel.  The speaker company is attempting to get away from hydrocarbon-based materials (polyolefin and other such compounds) that have found widespread usage in sound reproduction in the last 40 years.  They've even employed laminated-wood as speaker-cone material!  As one of the few remaining domestic speaker driver manufacturers, they're trying to position themselves as environmentally sound as feasible -- and they attempt, wherever possible, to use vendors who are doing likewise.  Personally, I've employed several of their products, using either woven carbon fiber or CF-infused wood pulp as cone material, in my designs (so far so good!); if they can continue to supply appropriate products that are somewhat "greener" than the competition (and maintain competitive pricing, which they've done so far!), then I'll continue to use them as a vendor.

I hope I wouldn't be prosecuted for off-topic if I ask for some company names? I really want to look at the specs -because what you say sounds too much to particle board, which is a reasonable product, but...

And as far as I know, coal is a prime source of aromatic compounds, so it is far from being just fuel...

The name of the my vendor speaker company is Misco; the carbon-infused pulp is certainly not in any way related to particle board, and the carbon fiber drivers are woven pure carbon fiber.  They probably won't reveal the name of their carbon-fiber supplier (I buy from them, and they won't tell me! -- they do have a lot of trade secrets that they don't let drift "downstream" to their customers -- they're deathly afraid of Chinese copies of their products).  Specifically, the carbon-infused pulp-cone driver I use is a variant of their model OC8W series; the carbon-fiber is a LC62W series (I buy units based on these models but customized for my specific design needs).  They're listed on their website, so anyone can see their basic product selection.

BTW, my website (Cascade Audio Systems) will likely be operative by February; if anyone has any interest in audio, feel free to peruse it once it's up & running (talk about off-topic..................).  One of my business partners is handling that project, so when a domain name is up, I'll move over to Off-topic to announce it.  But maybe it's not so off-topic at all; if you're sitting around home listening to your audio system, you're not driving around the city causing pollution and other mayhem! 

P.S. -- If we're going to continue to yap about chemical processes, audio, or other ancillary subjects, I suggest a breakaway thread somewhere over in Off-Topic; this sideshow has gone on long enough! 

[Bickendan]

Actually, I'm very happy how this this thread has evolved.

(Now that I've commented, I'm sure the discussion will deflate faster than a punctured balloon x.x)

[sparker]

Actually, I'm very happy how this this thread has evolved.

(Now that I've commented, I'm sure the discussion will deflate faster than a punctured balloon x.x)

Nah -- I'm sure it'll come back around in time.  Actually, I'm getting a bit of an education about polymer-chain processes thanks to kalvado; my own educational background is in public policy analysis, not chemistry; I got into speaker design from the music industry back in the early '70's, and used the business to fund my ventures in grad school.  So I tend to take what my business associates say as basically true in areas where I don't have a lot of technical expertise (I know what different speaker cone materials offer in sonic capabilities and/or limitations, but the process by which they get there is a bit over my "pay grade", so to speak).  I just tell the mfrs. what I need and they do or don't supply it (a few clunkers over the years!).  But I've toggled between audio and policy most of my adult life and I've managed to stay afloat (for the most part!) doing so.   

[kalvado]

Actually, I'm very happy how this this thread has evolved.

(Now that I've commented, I'm sure the discussion will deflate faster than a punctured balloon x.x)

Nah -- I'm sure it'll come back around in time.  Actually, I'm getting a bit of an education about polymer-chain processes thanks to kalvado; my own educational background is in public policy analysis, not chemistry; I got into speaker design from the music industry back in the early '70's, and used the business to fund my ventures in grad school.  So I tend to take what my business associates say as basically true in areas where I don't have a lot of technical expertise (I know what different speaker cone materials offer in sonic capabilities and/or limitations, but the process by which they get there is a bit over my "pay grade", so to speak).  I just tell the mfrs. what I need and they do or don't supply it (a few clunkers over the years!).  But I've toggled between audio and policy most of my adult life and I've managed to stay afloat (for the most part!) doing so.   

OK, if mods are happy - lets continue carbon fiber discussion over here 
As far as I understand carbon technology, all those procedures with polymers are aimed at producing linear structures which do not readily exist in nature. They are very directional, and work best for stretching, maybe sheer perpendicular to fiber - not sure.
Saying coal powder can do any of that is real strange.
Now looking at Misco products, they seem to use real fiber.

Next, there is something about carbon fibers in petroleum coke - solid leftover of oil processing. THose fibers are mostly mentioned in terms of health effects - as carbon fiber in general, they can be lung killers.

Concrete reinforced with carbon fiber looks like a good, but expensive material. Demolition of such structures would be a big safety issue as well.
What I see so far, is repair and certain elements - not full construction. Probably difference in directional carrying capacity vs steel  would also be an issue..

[kphoger]

Well duh, when you don't have a car, cars are a problem. A pest.

For the 5 years I lived in the Chicago area without a car, I didn't think cars were a problem.  In fact, it would have been really hard to hitchhike if nobody had had a car.  Having a car would also have made grocery shopping easier, because hauling a shopping cart on and off a bus is not exactly easy.  I was all for expanding the public transit system in my area, but it never once occurred to me that it should be done at the expense of drivers' mobility.

Why is it that you don't hear people who love cars calling for the removal of bus stations and railroads and bike lanes, yet you frequently hear people who love transit and bicycles calling for the removal of highways?  Why can't there be room for all modes of transportation?

[jakeroot]

Having a car would also have made grocery shopping easier, because hauling a shopping cart on and off a bus is not exactly easy.

People I know that don't have cars usually stop at the grocery store several times a week to collect various things, so there's less to haul around. A couple tote bags (much larger than plastic bags, and also legal, unlike plastic bags) can carry a lot of stuff.

Why is it that you don't hear people who love cars calling for the removal of bus stations and railroads and bike lanes, yet you frequently hear people who love transit and bicycles calling for the removal of highways?  Why can't there be room for all modes of transportation?

I don't hear people calling for the removal of these facilities (although I hear drivers complain about bus, bike, and HOV lanes), but drivers get very vocal when it comes to expanding the system. Most cities have a very minimal cycling/public transportation infrastructure, that generally doesn't impede traffic flow. But bigger cities with more complex public transportation systems sometimes have to take from the general purpose area (a lane here and there) to benefit the public transportation user. This sometimes doesn't seem fair, but in certain cases, it can be necessary. Denny Way in Seattle will eventually have a bus lane going several blocks from Fairview to Stewart, requiring the removal of one westbound lane. Although that doesn't seem quite fair, the buses that run along that stretch carry far more people than any of the cars (even HOV traffic), so in a way, it will improve the capacity of that road. Just not for cars.

Cars and public transportation can exist in harmony. But when space becomes a luxury, like in Seattle, one mode of transport has to give. Cars are usually first on the chopping block, because they carry the fewest amount of people per-square foot.

[sparker]

Having a car would also have made grocery shopping easier, because hauling a shopping cart on and off a bus is not exactly easy.

People I know that don't have cars usually stop at the grocery store several times a week to collect various things, so there's less to haul around. A couple tote bags (much larger than plastic bags, and also legal, unlike plastic bags) can carry a lot of stuff.

Why is it that you don't hear people who love cars calling for the removal of bus stations and railroads and bike lanes, yet you frequently hear people who love transit and bicycles calling for the removal of highways?  Why can't there be room for all modes of transportation?

I don't hear people calling for the removal of these facilities (although I hear drivers complain about bus, bike, and HOV lanes), but drivers get very vocal when it comes to expanding the system. Most cities have a very minimal cycling/public transportation infrastructure, that generally doesn't impede traffic flow. But bigger cities with more complex public transportation systems sometimes have to take from the general purpose area (a lane here and there) to benefit the public transportation user. This sometimes doesn't seem fair, but in certain cases, it can be necessary. Denny Way in Seattle will eventually have a bus lane going several blocks from Fairview to Stewart, requiring the removal of one westbound lane. Although that doesn't seem quite fair, the buses that run along that stretch carry far more people than any of the cars (even HOV traffic), so in a way, it will improve the capacity of that road. Just not for cars.

Cars and public transportation can exist in harmony. But when space becomes a luxury, like in Seattle, one mode of transport has to give. Cars are usually first on the chopping block, because they carry the fewest amount of people per-square foot.

From what I've seen over the years, most of the people who "love transit & bicycles" are simply trying to achieve a measure of balance within a system that, frankly, has favored cars and the facilities to optimize that particular mode of transit.  It so happens that the larger share of those have opted for living in densely populated area -- particularly those who also have also opted not to own a personal vehicle -- the reasons for such possibly being some sense of solidarity with others of like minds, but more likely simply because such places have the potential to provide as many personal/social/commercial needs as possible within a given bounded area.  For the most part, their goal is to live their lives as best they can within the bounded rationality that comes with self-imposed limited mobility; their choices have fostered the methodology they use to do so:  going to the store more often for less items per visit, depending upon USPS, UPS, or FedEx as part of whatever acquisition chain they favor, and certainly allowing more time when distances must be overcome.  Over time it becomes second nature not only to themselves but the others -- with or without vehicles -- with whom they interact.

It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.  It seems that they have framed the auto/everything else dichotomy in zero-sum terms; they not only want to "win" the argument but they want to see the other side lose!  It's not enough that they stop the planning of automotive-oriented facilities in their midst; they want to deprive those who are not "enlightened" enough to want to mimic their choices of the ability to efficiently traverse the urban region.  Essentially, it boils down to "our tribe versus their tribe!", with each side hunkered down in their "forts".  We see this dynamic in Dallas, Syracuse, and other venues that have longstanding freeway arterials serving their city centers; the hue and cry has reached the Northwest as well, particularly in Portland.  Seattle has largely been spared such controversies primarily because it only has effectively 1.5 N-S arterials bisecting the city (I-5 plus the somewhat less efficient WA 99 corridor); there's not a lot of fodder for the fire.  PDX, on the other hand, features that big old oval surrounding downtown (5/405) with four distinct directional branches toward the hinterlands.  The ideology witnessed there is a classic "starve the beast" program -- keep the narrow gauntlets within the oval and the first few miles of the branches from growing to address capacity issues.  It doesn't seem to matter that most of the central city is already geared toward transit, bicycles, and dense housing and commercial deployment -- some folks just seem to need to "make a statement" by denying the legitimacy of the other side; cars are intrinsically evil, so let's not let them continue to spread the disease in OUR house!  Essentially binary tribalism at its most vehement -- but part of a politicized process. 

[silverback1065]

Having a car would also have made grocery shopping easier, because hauling a shopping cart on and off a bus is not exactly easy.

People I know that don't have cars usually stop at the grocery store several times a week to collect various things, so there's less to haul around. A couple tote bags (much larger than plastic bags, and also legal, unlike plastic bags) can carry a lot of stuff.

Why is it that you don't hear people who love cars calling for the removal of bus stations and railroads and bike lanes, yet you frequently hear people who love transit and bicycles calling for the removal of highways?  Why can't there be room for all modes of transportation?

I don't hear people calling for the removal of these facilities (although I hear drivers complain about bus, bike, and HOV lanes), but drivers get very vocal when it comes to expanding the system. Most cities have a very minimal cycling/public transportation infrastructure, that generally doesn't impede traffic flow. But bigger cities with more complex public transportation systems sometimes have to take from the general purpose area (a lane here and there) to benefit the public transportation user. This sometimes doesn't seem fair, but in certain cases, it can be necessary. Denny Way in Seattle will eventually have a bus lane going several blocks from Fairview to Stewart, requiring the removal of one westbound lane. Although that doesn't seem quite fair, the buses that run along that stretch carry far more people than any of the cars (even HOV traffic), so in a way, it will improve the capacity of that road. Just not for cars.

Cars and public transportation can exist in harmony. But when space becomes a luxury, like in Seattle, one mode of transport has to give. Cars are usually first on the chopping block, because they carry the fewest amount of people per-square foot.

I've attempted to do this, I live about 500 yards from a grocery store, but I'm afraid I'll just come home everyday with a bunch of extra stuff, and it would cost more.  I'm going to give it another try!

[kkt]

Having a car would also have made grocery shopping easier, because hauling a shopping cart on and off a bus is not exactly easy.

People I know that don't have cars usually stop at the grocery store several times a week to collect various things, so there's less to haul around. A couple tote bags (much larger than plastic bags, and also legal, unlike plastic bags) can carry a lot of stuff.

Yes, I lived without a car as an adult for about 15 years.  I stopped at the grocery story 2-3 times a week and got about one grocery bag's worth each time.  I shopped at a grocery store close to my house, so I was only carrying the bag ten or fifteen minutes' walk.  I never tried to take a grocery cart onto a bus - the carts are supposed to stay at the grocery store, and the bus wouldn't allow it anyway.  One plus was getting fresh produce more often, so it hadn't been sitting in my fridge for a week before I ate it.  Of course, I was only shopping for one at the time, but if the kids are older than 4 or 5 you can draft them to help carry.

[Bruce]

It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

Speeding motorists leads to more pedestrian and bicycle deaths, so road diets get implemented. People complain and politicians get cold feet, sometimes even reversing the decision, while fatalities and injuries spike back up to "normal" levels (which are disastrously high for an industrialized nation).

The existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia. The case for removing a freeway is very sound, when you look at public health, and can actually improve the road network by shifting bottlenecks and spreading them out over a wider area instead of concentrating them on offramps and onramps.

Transit is slow but efficient, so the city cries out for bus lanes. With no room to expand the roadway, there's no choice but to "take away" car lanes (which, in reality, are heavily underutilized compared to a dedicated bus lane). The motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).

[kalvado]

It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

Speeding motorists leads to more pedestrian and bicycle deaths, so road diets get implemented. People complain and politicians get cold feet, sometimes even reversing the decision, while fatalities and injuries spike back up to "normal" levels (which are disastrously high for an industrialized nation).

The existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia. The case for removing a freeway is very sound, when you look at public health, and can actually improve the road network by shifting bottlenecks and spreading them out over a wider area instead of concentrating them on offramps and onramps.

Transit is slow but efficient, so the city cries out for bus lanes. With no room to expand the roadway, there's no choice but to "take away" car lanes (which, in reality, are heavily underutilized compared to a dedicated bus lane). The motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).

Yes, dementia seems to be on the rise... But some people believe total amount of intelligence is fixed while population keeps growing..

[sparker]

It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

Speeding motorists leads to more pedestrian and bicycle deaths, so road diets get implemented. People complain and politicians get cold feet, sometimes even reversing the decision, while fatalities and injuries spike back up to "normal" levels (which are disastrously high for an industrialized nation).

The existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia. The case for removing a freeway is very sound, when you look at public health, and can actually improve the road network by shifting bottlenecks and spreading them out over a wider area instead of concentrating them on offramps and onramps.

Transit is slow but efficient, so the city cries out for bus lanes. With no room to expand the roadway, there's no choice but to "take away" car lanes (which, in reality, are heavily underutilized compared to a dedicated bus lane). The motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).

If the Interstate System had been designed around the more European concept of a main "intercity" trunk route skirting or circling around the metro areas -- which is, according to most accounts, what Eisenhower pictured from the get-go; then the issue of freeways in the cities would have devolved down to state & local levels.  But most city halls in the '50's -- as well as the representatives they sent to the state and national capitals -- wanted those freeways for a number of reasons.  Unfortunately, in retrospect, those reasons included inherent racism -- fearing the loss of cash flow from "white flight" to the 'burbs (and calculating that minorities didn't have the resources to replace that cash flow), the Interstate trunks, by and large, were routed through the city centers.  Of course, ten or so years later some cities strenuously objected to the city-center freeway plans, with the resultant re-routing and truncations in several of those (we all know the list:  pretty much everything along the Northeast Corridor except Philadelphia, plus Memphis, New Orleans, Indianapolis, Hartford.....the list does go on).  Most of the West Coast, with the exception of San Francisco, was essentially built out to the original plans from the late '50's.  Seattle's plan was quite simple -- one north-south arterial (I-5), an easterly upgrade of the old US 10 (I-90), and the loop east of Lake Washington (I-405).  Of course, no one could have expected the Boeing expansion or the tech boom.  When that was on the horizon, there were several iterations of locally-promulgated networks of freeways to serve that population increase.  But none really came to fruition -- the popular backing was never there to support such development.  As a Seattle resident, you might say that either you dodged a bullet or, alternately, that Seattle citizens are, as a group, a bit more prone to prefer an environment with a minimal amount of freeway mileage -- which, in comparison to other metro areas, you have! 

I'm totally in agreement regarding surface streets; if the situation calls for replacement of general-purpose lanes with dedicated bus lanes, then by all means implement that format!  Surface streets do need to be shared; drivers can't expect to run rampant over them without concern for the safety of those outside a metal shell.  That being said -- taking an absolutist position regarding urban freeways, including attempting to lay blame for just about every disease and psychological condition known to mankind at their ramps seems somewhat "over the top".  I get it -- you just don't want through traffic from elsewhere traveling through the area you've adopted as your own (essentially the poster-child concept of tribalism!); you'd rather see it dispersed to city streets (akin to what US 99 did through downtown Seattle for 40+ years until I-5 was constructed).  Frankly, unless one is prepared to widen I-405 out to 12 lanes to accommodate that through traffic, I-5 is there to stay -- and I-90 as well (although much of it within the city is in a tunnel!).  There are no absolutes in the realm of transportation policy -- enough people value mobility that a shared situation is inevitable -- and Seattle seems to be moving in the direction of correcting past errors -- but eliminating urban freeways would be a bridge too far -- even downtown businesses would not likely relish that thought -- they need those tenets to the outlying areas of the region to bring in potential customers; like others, Seattle's not a "walled city" designed for its close-in residents alone -- it's the hub of a larger region. 

In short -- Seattle's moving toward a more even-handed approach to transportation; except for the tunnels, there hasn't been much in the way of roadway expansion within the 405 loop for decades; most resources have been directed to mass public transit.  Just don't let the quest for what you deem perfection derail the progress toward what's doable.  The goal should be balance -- not dominance!  Maybe coexistence with cars is a difficult situation -- psychologically and physically -- for a few folks -- but face it -- life's difficult on many levels most of the time; if your happiness and well-being depends upon a multitude of others' drastic changes in their lives, then you have my condolences if not abject sympathy -- it's not a particularly realistic position in which to put one's self.   

[jakeroot]

^^
Very well said, sparker. Ultimately, it will come down a compromise. That's just life. We can move towards a city where the dominant mode of transportation isn't SOV (single-occupancy vehicle) (and we have -- downtown commuters have been choosing public transport over SOVs very consistently lately), but SOVs will always be there. There will always be people in the suburbs who need to go downtown, and who don't want to take a bus, or train, etc. Even if that means paying a congestion charge (in discussion, as mentioned upthread), there will be that demand.

One psychological effect that urban freeways have is the inherent division they create. Walking from Harborview Medical Center to downtown Seattle via James St takes you through two very busy signals (6th and 7th, the on and off ramps respectively). Plus, you have to cross beneath I-5's 13 lanes of traffic. It's not a pretty walk. It's nearly impossible to avoid getting wet from the dripping overhead structure; you have to deal with a lot of homeless people who hang out under there (it's still drier than out in the open, to be fair); it's also just really dark. In the middle of a summer day, you're waltzing along James St, suns out, and then -BAM!- you hit the 5. Suddenly very dark. It's not pleasant. The walk would be much more enjoyable without having to cross under the freeway. Now, when you consider the benefit the freeway provides to the hundreds of thousands of motorists who use it everyday, compared to the not-so-walkable underpass, this all seems rather unimportant. But, you can't ignore the psychological barriers that freeways force upon a city.

One way to deal with the pollution of our urban freeways is to lid them. Seattle has been going crazy with lids lately. I-90 got a host of them in the 90s. The 520, once the "rest of the west" project is complete, will have four or five (or something like that). There is ongoing discussion to completely lid I-5 through the city center. It's ambitious, sure. It would be expensive, and it would take a long time to complete. And, it would almost certainly prevent further widening (which shouldn't be discussed anyway -- I-5 is already plenty wide). It will probably take an initiative for it to get built. But judging by past city initiatives, Seattleites are usually quite willing to pay increased taxes for just about anything. This is one I'd happily support.

[Duke87]

Much to my surprise, the LA metro area actually has a higher population density than the New York City metro area. I suspect the average commute in LA or Houston is lower because there are some days where you can get to work quickly, and some where it takes a while. But in New York City, where something like 50% of the population rides the subway to get to work, your commute time is limited by the speed of the trains, the amount of time it takes to make a connection, etc.

I think a lot of it also has to do with where people are going to work. In Los Angeles only something like 5% of the jobs are downtown, which means that
A) people commute in all sorts of different directions which makes for efficient use of the freeway network since all lanes get well used during both peak periods, and
B) that it's not hugely difficult to live relatively close to where you work since both the jobs and the homes are spread out.

Contrast this to New York City where a lot of the jobs are concentrated in one place (Manhattan) while the homes are still geographically spread out, and the ones in or near Manhattan command a high price. This means much of the population cannot live near where they work, which naturally drives commute times up. It also hurts the efficiency with which the transportation system is used - while the roads fill up in both directions (since anyone reverse commuting is likely to have to do so by car), train after train is running near-empty away from Manhattan during AM rush hour, purely because they gotta go back to the end of the line to pick more people up... or because they have to go somewhere after they've dropped their load of commuters from the other side of town.

*cough* Skyscrapers don't have to be all steel *cough*

Portland is building a 12-story wood-framed tower, the first of its kind in the USA. It could open up a huge market, especially in the Northwest where sustainable wood is able to be harvested for such purposes.

Wonder how well that building will do when the Cascadia Subduction Zone fault ruptures again (and the resulting earthquake could be a 9.2 or better).

Forget that - I wonder how well that building will do when someone on the 5th floor experiences an electrical short in their kitchen, or knocks a lit scented candle over in their sleep.

Building a large apartment building with a flammable structural frame just seems like a horrible idea no matter where in the world it is. If I were the fire marshall there's no way in hell I'd sign off on that building.

[Bruce]

Modern skyscrapers are also prone to all those factors, and are rigorously tested. So too are cross laminated timber buildings, which have more up-to-date tests. This article has links to some of those tests, and there's already modern buildings that use timber structuring. Not to mention most new apartment buildings still use wood frames and structure on top of a concrete base (especially in earthquake-prone regions, where they're actually able to sway and take the brunt of seismic waves).

[silverback1065]

It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

Speeding motorists leads to more pedestrian and bicycle deaths, so road diets get implemented. People complain and politicians get cold feet, sometimes even reversing the decision, while fatalities and injuries spike back up to "normal" levels (which are disastrously high for an industrialized nation).

The existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia. The case for removing a freeway is very sound, when you look at public health, and can actually improve the road network by shifting bottlenecks and spreading them out over a wider area instead of concentrating them on offramps and onramps.

Transit is slow but efficient, so the city cries out for bus lanes. With no room to expand the roadway, there's no choice but to "take away" car lanes (which, in reality, are heavily underutilized compared to a dedicated bus lane). The motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).

having cars at all increases all of these illnesses, where is your evidence that highways do this alone? 

[kalvado]

It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

Speeding motorists leads to more pedestrian and bicycle deaths, so road diets get implemented. People complain and politicians get cold feet, sometimes even reversing the decision, while fatalities and injuries spike back up to "normal" levels (which are disastrously high for an industrialized nation).

The existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia. The case for removing a freeway is very sound, when you look at public health, and can actually improve the road network by shifting bottlenecks and spreading them out over a wider area instead of concentrating them on offramps and onramps.

Transit is slow but efficient, so the city cries out for bus lanes. With no room to expand the roadway, there's no choice but to "take away" car lanes (which, in reality, are heavily underutilized compared to a dedicated bus lane). The motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).

having cars at all increases all of these illnesses, where is your evidence that highways do this alone?

I think we should start eliminating vehicles, one type at a time. EMS, fire trucks and police should be the first set on the chopping block, me thinks.

[silverback1065]

It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

Speeding motorists leads to more pedestrian and bicycle deaths, so road diets get implemented. People complain and politicians get cold feet, sometimes even reversing the decision, while fatalities and injuries spike back up to "normal" levels (which are disastrously high for an industrialized nation).

The existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia. The case for removing a freeway is very sound, when you look at public health, and can actually improve the road network by shifting bottlenecks and spreading them out over a wider area instead of concentrating them on offramps and onramps.

Transit is slow but efficient, so the city cries out for bus lanes. With no room to expand the roadway, there's no choice but to "take away" car lanes (which, in reality, are heavily underutilized compared to a dedicated bus lane). The motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).

having cars at all increases all of these illnesses, where is your evidence that highways do this alone?

I think we should start eliminating vehicles, one type at a time. EMS, fire trucks and police should be the first set on the chopping block, me thinks.

and how do you propose to do that?  i don't see how that's even remotely legal

[hotdogPi]

It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

Speeding motorists leads to more pedestrian and bicycle deaths, so road diets get implemented. People complain and politicians get cold feet, sometimes even reversing the decision, while fatalities and injuries spike back up to "normal" levels (which are disastrously high for an industrialized nation).

The existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia. The case for removing a freeway is very sound, when you look at public health, and can actually improve the road network by shifting bottlenecks and spreading them out over a wider area instead of concentrating them on offramps and onramps.

Transit is slow but efficient, so the city cries out for bus lanes. With no room to expand the roadway, there's no choice but to "take away" car lanes (which, in reality, are heavily underutilized compared to a dedicated bus lane). The motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).

having cars at all increases all of these illnesses, where is your evidence that highways do this alone?

I think we should start eliminating vehicles, one type at a time. EMS, fire trucks and police should be the first set on the chopping block, me thinks.

and how do you propose to do that?  i don't see how that's even remotely legal

Cut the fireman/police budget to zero (which means they won't exist anymore), and give the money saved from that to corporations.

[sparker]

It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

Speeding motorists leads to more pedestrian and bicycle deaths, so road diets get implemented. People complain and politicians get cold feet, sometimes even reversing the decision, while fatalities and injuries spike back up to "normal" levels (which are disastrously high for an industrialized nation).

The existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia. The case for removing a freeway is very sound, when you look at public health, and can actually improve the road network by shifting bottlenecks and spreading them out over a wider area instead of concentrating them on offramps and onramps.

Transit is slow but efficient, so the city cries out for bus lanes. With no room to expand the roadway, there's no choice but to "take away" car lanes (which, in reality, are heavily underutilized compared to a dedicated bus lane). The motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).

having cars at all increases all of these illnesses, where is your evidence that highways do this alone?

I think we should start eliminating vehicles, one type at a time. EMS, fire trucks and police should be the first set on the chopping block, me thinks.

and how do you propose to do that?  i don't see how that's even remotely legal

Followed in turn by the UPS/FedEx trucks the carless depend upon to get the shit they ordered online! (BTW, the next to last statement above was an excercise in sarcasm!) Seriously, a properly functioning freeway (yeah, in urban areas that's often akin to a unicorn!) has the potential to scoot polluting vehicles through a given area much more quickly than a network of city streets with the generally preferred urban 25mph limit applied; those on the sidewalks will be breathing much more in the way of CO, CO2, etc. than when encountering a crossing freeway either up on a bridge/berm or below grade (and possibly capped with filtered exhaust).  Maybe Elon Musk will eventually do as he's claimed and we'll have a quantum lessening of hydrocarbon pollution -- but in the meanwhile keeping that traffic that isn't destined for local service on the freeways remains the "best of a bad lot" in this regard.     

[kalvado]

Seriously, a properly functioning freeway (yeah, in urban areas that's often akin to a unicorn!) has the potential to scoot polluting vehicles through a given area much more quickly than a network of city streets with the generally preferred urban 25mph limit applied; those on the sidewalks will be breathing much more in the way of CO, CO2, etc. than when encountering a crossing freeway either up on a bridge/berm or below grade (and possibly capped with filtered exhaust).  Maybe Elon Musk will eventually do as he's claimed and we'll have a quantum lessening of hydrocarbon pollution -- but in the meanwhile keeping that traffic that isn't destined for local service on the freeways remains the "best of a bad lot" in this regard.   

Not sure. CO2, while not a cause of any medical problems, is a good one to consider: it directly relates to amount of fuel burned. I average 29.5MPG on a fast highway, 30.5 on a slower one, and city streets drop me towards 26-27. So difference is not that great. Idling - traffic lights, traffic etc - definitely makes things worse.
CO and NOx are more a function of properly working catalytic converter.

[Bruce]

Nice strawmaning.

Personal vehicles for single-occupant users that are traveling to city centers during peak hours are wholly unnecessary and a wasteful use of precious resources (fuel, road space, road capacity). Of course we'll still need service vehicles, hence why I'm not on the far-flung edges of the debate advocating for the total annihilation of roads in general, but we should be accommodating the growing population of the region with better modes (transit, cycling, walking) that are able to carry more people in less space. Otherwise, we're going to drown in traffic forever and keep wondering why those new, mega-expensive road expansions don't relieve traffic for more than a few months.

[silverback1065]

ban squiggly subdivision roads, and bring back the grid!