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

[Laura]

First, rural areas. In short, any interstate in green would have been too uneconomical to construct, either by a spendthrift state DOT or as a toll road. Many rural interstates in the lower blue category, especially those that are primarily fed by 'green' interstates, would have likely not been constructed based on traffic projections. If constructed, it would have likely been because of undue "political" input; for example, pushed through the planning and financing process as a last-ditch attempt by an "urban liberal" governor to win the "conservative farmer" vote before a close election. While the generally-recognized cutoff, if I recall correctly, for widening to four lanes divided is about 10,000 AADT (the upper limit of the green category), induced demand today would have meant that many highways would see traffic volumes perhaps half to three-fourths of what they are today.

No, they wouldn't have been constructed as interstate highways, but I think they still would have been constructed as either a new 2 lane or 4 lane alignment of a US highway. For instance, instead of I-90 through most of South Dakota, it would be a new 2 lane alignment of US 16. The major cities would have limited access, expressway bypasses because they could justify the traffic counts to build them.

[NE2]

Given that, elevated freeways would probably be more acceptable if people's first though to the term "elevated freeway" was of China's modern viaducts instead of green 1950s monstrosities like the former Central Artery.

Got a photo of one of China's "modern viaducts"? All I can find is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Yan%27an_Elevated_Road which looks a lot like the Pierce Elevated in Houston.

[vdeane]

Given that, elevated freeways would probably be more acceptable if people's first though to the term "elevated freeway" was of China's modern viaducts instead of green 1950s monstrosities like the former Central Artery.

Got a photo of one of China's "modern viaducts"? All I can find is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Yan%27an_Elevated_Road which looks a lot like the Pierce Elevated in Houston.

That's still light years ahead of the Embacadero, Central Artery, I-81 in Syracuse, etc. that most people around here think of as the only possible configuration a viaduct can possibly be.

[1995hoo]

I think if it were built today, the Jersey Turnpike as we know it would not exist due to wetlands issues in the Meadowlands and in the southern portion. It'd have to follow a radically different route. It also wouldn't run right through Elizabeth because local advocacy groups would be much more mobilized against it.

The Capital Beltway would follow a different route where it crosses the Potomac River and for several miles to the west because its impact on Cameron Run would be deemed unacceptable. I presume, given the presence of the historic areas of Old Town Alexandria, after it passed the Springfield Interchange it'd be routed further to the southeast and cross the river several miles south of where it does now, given that there are further marshy areas and wetlands for some distance south of the existing routing.

[Pete from Boston]

Given that, elevated freeways would probably be more acceptable if people's first though to the term "elevated freeway" was of China's modern viaducts instead of green 1950s monstrosities like the former Central Artery.

Got a photo of one of China's "modern viaducts"? All I can find is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Yan%27an_Elevated_Road which looks a lot like the Pierce Elevated in Houston.

That's still light years ahead of the Embacadero, Central Artery, I-81 in Syracuse, etc. that most people around here think of as the only possible configuration a viaduct can possibly be.

The road in the picture looks like the current Southeast Expressway.  If they were to bulldoze many, many acres of downtown Boston today to put something that looks like the Southeast Expressway right through its heart, people would be no less livid then if it were on green steel legs.  It takes the cold heart of a truly committed roadgeek to think the problem with the old Artery was that it didn't look cool enough or attractive enough.

If the Central Artery was built today, it would be built pretty much as it exists now–underground–only there would probably still be contiguous neighborhoods directly above it, this time with luxury condos in them.

The original Artery succeeded in getting built not just because there was little organized resistance against massive urban clearance, but also because the land involved was worth a fraction of what it is now.  Boston is in a construction boom greater than any in at least 15 years.  There is tremendous demand for new office/R&D space, and with it places to house high-salaried workers.  Eating up prime real estate with some antiquated idea of running an elevated highway through the heart of the city would be a non-starter today, even if it was so pretty it had friggin' flowers and bunny rabbits painted on the sides.

[Bickendan]

Given that, elevated freeways would probably be more acceptable if people's first though to the term "elevated freeway" was of China's modern viaducts instead of green 1950s monstrosities like the former Central Artery.

Got a photo of one of China's "modern viaducts"? All I can find is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Yan%27an_Elevated_Road which looks a lot like the Pierce Elevated in Houston.

That's still light years ahead of the Embacadero, Central Artery, I-81 in Syracuse, etc. that most people around here think of as the only possible configuration a viaduct can possibly be.

The road in the picture looks like the current Southeast Expressway.  If they were to bulldoze many, many acres of downtown Boston today to put something that looks like the Southeast Expressway right through its heart, people would be no less livid then if it were on green steel legs.  It takes the cold heart of a truly committed roadgeek to think the problem with the old Artery was that it didn't look cool enough or attractive enough.

If the Central Artery was built today, it would be built pretty much as it exists now–underground–only there would probably still be contiguous neighborhoods directly above it, this time with luxury condos in them.

The original Artery succeeded in getting built not just because there was little organized resistance against massive urban clearance, but also because the land involved was worth a fraction of what it is now.  Boston is in a construction boom greater than any in at least 15 years.  There is tremendous demand for new office/R&D space, and with it places to house high-salaried workers.  Eating up prime real estate with some antiquated idea of running an elevated highway through the heart of the city would be a non-starter today, even if it was so pretty it had friggin' flowers and bunny rabbits painted on the sides.

It's for this the Mt Hood Freeway as designed was a bad idea and was rightfully killed (taking I-305 and 505 with it, sadly(?)). That said, in the end, it should have been built as an underground facility to minimize neighborhood impact (the current renewal along SE Division Street is wonderful, though Division itself is critically overcapacity x.x).
Another similar 'killed' freeway was one of I-205's original alignments as the Laurelhurst Freeway (roughly from I-5 at OR 217, northwest toward Sellwood and SE Johnson Creek Blvd, then north along SE 52nd Ave and 42nd Ave to Washington); that got relocated initially toward 111th Ave then to 95th Ave where it was built (and nearly outright killed in Portland itself -- the Division/Powell interchange was a saving 'grace').

[PHLBOS]

Given that, elevated freeways would probably be more acceptable if people's first though to the term "elevated freeway" was of China's modern viaducts instead of green 1950s monstrosities like the former Central Artery.

Got a photo of one of China's "modern viaducts"? All I can find is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Yan%27an_Elevated_Road which looks a lot like the Pierce Elevated in Houston.

That's still light years ahead of the Embacadero, Central Artery, I-81 in Syracuse, etc. that most people around here think of as the only possible configuration a viaduct can possibly be.

One needs to keep in mind that in other countries, China in the fore-mentioned example; once an alignment is selected for a highway (be it elevated, at-grade or underground), that's it.  No Environmental assessment nor impact statements/reports, no enhanced stormwater management BMPs, and NIMBYs are largely ignored... eminent domain in full force.

Not dealing any of the above eliminates years if not decades of work in the design/planning stage prior to ground breaking.

Something to think about when comparing highway (or any other large infrastructure) projects in this country vs. ones overseas.

[vdeane]

The Thruway wouldn't be able to go where it is today either.  Through the Mohawk Valley it cuts through the heart of numerous villages and is right on top of the river in numerous spots.

Given that, elevated freeways would probably be more acceptable if people's first though to the term "elevated freeway" was of China's modern viaducts instead of green 1950s monstrosities like the former Central Artery.

Got a photo of one of China's "modern viaducts"? All I can find is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Yan%27an_Elevated_Road which looks a lot like the Pierce Elevated in Houston.

That's still light years ahead of the Embacadero, Central Artery, I-81 in Syracuse, etc. that most people around here think of as the only possible configuration a viaduct can possibly be.

The road in the picture looks like the current Southeast Expressway.  If they were to bulldoze many, many acres of downtown Boston today to put something that looks like the Southeast Expressway right through its heart, people would be no less livid then if it were on green steel legs.  It takes the cold heart of a truly committed roadgeek to think the problem with the old Artery was that it didn't look cool enough or attractive enough.

If the Central Artery was built today, it would be built pretty much as it exists now–underground–only there would probably still be contiguous neighborhoods directly above it, this time with luxury condos in them.

The original Artery succeeded in getting built not just because there was little organized resistance against massive urban clearance, but also because the land involved was worth a fraction of what it is now.  Boston is in a construction boom greater than any in at least 15 years.  There is tremendous demand for new office/R&D space, and with it places to house high-salaried workers.  Eating up prime real estate with some antiquated idea of running an elevated highway through the heart of the city would be a non-starter today, even if it was so pretty it had friggin' flowers and bunny rabbits painted on the sides.

With respect to the debate surrounding what to do with I-81 in Syracuse, the two key arguments of the boulevard crowd is "we don't want a barrier" and "elevated freeways are ugly".  If the public understood that a new viaduct would look like the China example rather than what's there now, the debate would be quite different.

[roadman65]

I think in Orlando the reason why the area has changed is because of the major freeway here: I-4. 

If it were not for I-4 there would be no Disney in its present location.  There would be no skyscrapers in Downtown Orlando as its location along the interstate system is why SunTrust and the now defunct Barnett Bank built their 20 plus story high rise towers there.

The better question is of those who had freeways built first and then added a few years later due to a boom created by the first one. 

I-95 through Brevard County, though, would now be built to the west of Viera as that for sure would have been built regardless of the interstate or not.  It just would have been an extension of the current developments east of I-95 and west of US 1. 

The Space Coast might of been more of an arrival place for later people who now migrated to Orlando to leave the Northern States if the FL interstates were never constructed.  I think Titusville might of been a much larger city then it is today had that been, and most likely would be having a night life which that city does not at all have presently.

Sharpes, Port St. John, Cocoa, and Rockledge would be more developed with modern houses with US 1 having to be made 6 lanes all the way from Scotsmore to Melbourne, and 8 to 10 lanes through Melbourne and Palm Bay which is now mainly 6 converted almost 30 years ago. Maybe some interchanges would have been built along US 1 at many key intersections to handle the traffic that I-95 now handles as well as that local scene if it had of been.

[NE2]

If the public understood that a new viaduct would look like the China example rather than what's there now, the debate would be quite different.

Riiiight.

[froggie]

If the public understood that a new viaduct would look like the China example rather than what's there now, the debate would be quite different.

I doubt this as well.  Aesthetics (which is effectively what you're referring to) is only a small part of the debate.

[Laura]

If the public understood that a new viaduct would look like the China example rather than what's there now, the debate would be quite different.

I doubt this as well.  Aesthetics (which is effectively what you're referring to) is only a small part of the debate.

Exactly. In fact, when I first looked at the pictures of the China example, my first thought was "interesting. This reminds me of a modern day Syracuse."

The debate would be exactly the same with a prettier roadway.


iPhone

[roadman65]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-01-28/news/os-the-ultimate-i4-project-is-slated-to-start-soon-20140128_1_interstate-4-college-park-neighborhood-association-winter-park  Here is what happened when an interstate got built over 50 years ago.  This I show because the OP states what happens when one gets built now over yesterday.

This shows how different for sure it would be to build I-4 today as of yesterday, as I-4 being built (as I stated above) caused the Orlando metro area to be what it is today.

If I-4 go If I I-4 got built today its routing would still be in the same spot as the neighborhoods of the 60's would still be the same today.

Note: I do not know why the last sentence got partially deleted, but fixed it.

[Pete from Boston]

If you forego what?

[NE2]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-01-28/news/os-the-ultimate-i4-project-is-slated-to-start-soon-20140128_1_interstate-4-college-park-neighborhood-association-winter-park

"I don't think my commute will be as much fun because I will not be able to see College Park anymore from I-4,"  Foglesong said. "A big wall will be there."

Waaaaah.

[GCrites]

^That's important though to some people. Young people these days are used to constant visual stimulation. When sound walls go in it's essentially like driving in a tunnel with no roof. That's the kind of stuff that makes young people dump cars for public transit since they can use their phones and laptops on it.

Think about Cleveland's West Side now; you can drive for miles and all you'll see is sound walls.

[SP Cook]

The interstates are, of course, the best investment America ever made.  And another word for "sprawl" is "freedom".  OTHER PEOPLE are going to live their lives in different manners that YOU would want them to.  For many that includes getting out of cites, having a house rather than an apartment, seeing green things like grass and trees every day, building a business wherever they wish (rather than where a monopolistic railroad is), and so on. 

If we had to build the interstates today?  Never happen.  Enviro-extemists would oppose them not only at the "first level" (wetlands, trees,  all of that) but, as they do with needed things today like Keystone, at the "second level", which is to say, they simply don't want YOU to consume more resources, because THEY know best what YOU should have, and YOU need to have less.  Plus vested business interests would also oppose (railroads, airlines, inner city slumlords, etc). 

Same thing could be said for the other great investments this nation has made, such as the massive water projects of the west, swamp drainage, and so on.   Never happen today.  The Elite know best and YOU must do with less and live your life as you are told by your betters.

[Pete from Boston]

The massive water projects that allocate each state more water than exists, enabling development that depends on fictional water?

Were the people of the Owens Valley trying to impose their lifestyle on people in LA when they said "If you're going to live in a desert don't make it our problem"? 

When my taxes go up because the cost per new mile of sewer and road and water to new subdivisions exceeds that of what exists previously, who is imposing their choices on whom?

Typical half-finished libertarian rant–"freedom" means "my freedom," never mind that it's impossible for people to be completely free to do as they choose without costing others some of their freedom.

[froggie]

And another word for "sprawl" is "freedom".

The "freedom" to be beholden to the car because it's the only way to get around.  Oh, and the DOT can't widen the road for all the "freedom-lovers" because they're broke...

[jakeroot]

And another word for "sprawl" is "freedom".

The "freedom" to be beholden to the car because it's the only way to get around.  Oh, and the DOT can't widen the road for all the "freedom-lovers" because they're broke...

I prefer the cities. Less freedom there.

[The Nature Boy]

Libertarians do realize that this "freedom" is heavily subsidized by the government, right?

[vdeane]

If the public understood that a new viaduct would look like the China example rather than what's there now, the debate would be quite different.

I doubt this as well.  Aesthetics (which is effectively what you're referring to) is only a small part of the debate.

As far as I can tell, the debate boils down to three things:
-"The elevated freeway is an ugly green monstrosity so we need an at-grade boulevard" (as shown, modern viaducts look quite nice)
-"Elevated freeways are barriers" (the freeway in the picture doesn't look even remotely like a barrier to me; the surface street that the looks like what the boulevard advocates want, on the other hand...)
-"I hate freeways and I hate suburbs" (this one isn't usually voiced openly but is quite apparent from sources like Streetsblog)

[NE2]

modern viaducts look quite nice

hahahahahahaha


Of course, if ugliness were the sole concern, cities would be as bad as suburbs as far as what colors are allowed and such. The real aim is keeping out the sippy kooks.

[vdeane]

modern viaducts look quite nice

hahahahahahaha

I think the one in that picture looks very elegant.

[Pete from Boston]

If the public understood that a new viaduct would look like the China example rather than what's there now, the debate would be quite different.

I doubt this as well.  Aesthetics (which is effectively what you're referring to) is only a small part of the debate.

As far as I can tell, the debate boils down to three things:
-"The elevated freeway is an ugly green monstrosity so we need an at-grade boulevard" (as shown, modern viaducts look quite nice)
-"Elevated freeways are barriers" (the freeway in the picture doesn't look even remotely like a barrier to me; the surface street that the looks like what the boulevard advocates want, on the other hand...)
-"I hate freeways and I hate suburbs" (this one isn't usually voiced openly but is quite apparent from sources like Streetsblog)

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

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

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