Cancelled freeways

[Bruce]

That's not absurd at all. That would've been fucking awesome to drive. Not so much for walkers but so what. Just drive out into the forests outside of the city.

Given how bad traffic has gotten there these were far from absurd, and had they been built it might actually be possible to get somewhere in a reasonable time frame.

Even in the worst normal jams, it doesn't take that long to get around Seattle. Maybe if you stubbornly stick to a car, but the city has options. I can switch modes depending on the situation; an alternate version of Seattle where all these freeways were built would not have nearly the same mode diversity.

I'm not seeing any commuter rail in Seattle, unless somehow Apple Maps isn't showing it.

(That said, I just checked how to get to Valve's headquarters from Seattle, Renton, Everett, and the SeaTac airport, and the buses all seemed pretty direct, which looks like a success.)

Also, what about those passing through on I-5? Seattle's transit system won't help with that.

Our commuter rail system (Sounder) is basic and not really usable for anything but strict 9-5 commutes into downtown. The South Line goes to Tacoma and Lakewood with a few round trips, while the North Line goes to Everett and 2 ferry terminals with extremely limited service.

Valve is in Downtown Bellevue, which is a secondary hub with decent express bus service, but outside of working hours trips become limited.

There's plenty of transfer opportunities in Downtown Seattle, so someone who needs to commute through Seattle can still get through. With Link expansion, it'll be far faster; typically on weekdays, the afternoon slog into downtown is double the time it takes to take light rail and transfer to a bus heading into SODO. Anyone who needs to go further south would logically take I-405 anyway.

[LilianaUwU]

Meanwhile, in Québec City, the multiple cancelled freeways aren't much of a problem thanks to the pretty good bus service...

...or not.

[planxtymcgillicuddy]

No. That would be Charlotte, NC.

If I recall NC never had any freeway revolts.

Charlotte had one cancelled freeway, an upgrade of US-74 across the whole city

[silverback1065]

No. That would be Charlotte, NC.

If I recall NC never had any freeway revolts.

Charlotte had one cancelled freeway, an upgrade of US-74 across the whole city

I always thought Charlotte had a strange freeway system, did they get started very late?

[brad2971]

No. That would be Charlotte, NC.

If I recall NC never had any freeway revolts.

Charlotte had one cancelled freeway, an upgrade of US-74 across the whole city

I always thought Charlotte had a strange freeway system, did they get started very late?

If Charlotte got started very late, it's because their population growth also came late. Bear in mind, Charlotte in the 1980 census only had 36% of the population it has at 2020 census (315474 in 1980 vs 874579 in 2020).

[HighwayStar]

That's not absurd at all. That would've been fucking awesome to drive. Not so much for walkers but so what. Just drive out into the forests outside of the city.

Given how bad traffic has gotten there these were far from absurd, and had they been built it might actually be possible to get somewhere in a reasonable time frame.

Even in the worst normal jams, it doesn't take that long to get around Seattle. Maybe if you stubbornly stick to a car, but the city has options. I can switch modes depending on the situation; an alternate version of Seattle where all these freeways were built would not have nearly the same mode diversity.

Good for you. I want the ease and comfort of my car.

Now apply that same(ish?) reasoning to the people who want to walk and take public transit around town.

Virtually no one fits in that category except those who cannot afford a vehicle, and even those people generally aspire to be driving someday. And on any large scale those things trade off with each other, so it pays to build the highway because it generates far more utility than transit.

[Bruce]

Virtually no one fits in that category except those who cannot afford a vehicle, and even those people generally aspire to be driving someday. And on any large scale those things trade off with each other, so it pays to build the highway because it generates far more utility than transit.

Y'know people with cars are able to use these things called "park-and-rides" to access transit to reach the city? And it's wildly convenient compared to sitting through many downtown stoplights to reach a parking spot that may or may not be there, and cost $20?

[Plutonic Panda]

I don't want to park and ride. I want a one seat ride. That's why I pay the high cost to own and operate a car.

[Bruce]

I don't want to park and ride. I want a one seat ride. That's why I pay the high cost to own and operate a car.

It's a high cost to society.

Also, supporting mode diversity greatly benefits drivers as well. If people are forced to drive because of a sub-standard transit system, there's no amount of lane sprawl that can help.

[Plutonic Panda]

I don't want to park and ride. I want a one seat ride. That's why I pay the high cost to own and operate a car.

It's a high cost to society.

Also, supporting mode diversity greatly benefits drivers as well. If people are forced to drive because of a sub-standard transit system, there's no amount of lane sprawl that can help.

High costs and high benefits. Funny how you're only painting one side of the picture. I fully support making cities more multimodal. I am however against making cities hostile to cars and lack of investment into freeways.

[hotdogPi]

If it takes 30 minutes for a bus to take a certain trip on the surface arterial paralleling WA 167, how would an east-west freeway through Kent make it slower?

[HighwayStar]

Virtually no one fits in that category except those who cannot afford a vehicle, and even those people generally aspire to be driving someday. And on any large scale those things trade off with each other, so it pays to build the highway because it generates far more utility than transit.

Y'know people with cars are able to use these things called "park-and-rides" to access transit to reach the city? And it's wildly convenient compared to sitting through many downtown stoplights to reach a parking spot that may or may not be there, and cost $20?

Why would I want to park my vehicle, unload my belongings, carry them to some pickup spot, wait for a bus/train/trolley to show up, sit in a mob of strangers on said vehicle, disembark, and then walk several more blocks carrying whatever I have with me to my destination (or very possibly multiple destinations, requiring me to carry everything with me and get around on foot the entire time), then reverse the entire thing at the end of the day?
No, a far superior alternative is to just drive to the destination, park at it, and walk into the building. Even if there are many downtown stoplights, at least when I am sitting at those I am in the comfort of my own vehicle, I can drink, eat, listen to the radio, make and receive calls, etc. And a park and ride is only going to bypass those lights if its a train on a dedicated right of way, if it is a bus or some light rail that shares right of way it has to wait for many or all of the same lights.
And even that is being generous, since we are assuming the existence of lights and limited parking. If we do as I prefer, which is to invest in freeways and other connecting roadways, along with ample parking in downtown areas, then the lights are cut to a minimum and the parking is abundant. Every $ spent on park and ride lots I would much rather have put into parking and freeways to get me where I want to go in the comfort of my own vehicle.

[HighwayStar]

there's no amount of lane sprawl that can help.

At some point, you build enough lanes and everyone can be on the road without it being clogged. Now we might agree that for reasons of cost, space, etc. that point is unobtainable in some areas and I would agree with that. But the idea that its not a point that exists is false.

And there are areas where that level of access seems to be roughly attained. East valley of the Phoenix metro comes to mind, drove around there all week and really never had sustained stop and go traffic (I'm sure there is some, just not any I saw for a week, which is more than I can say about many areas).

[hotdogPi]

Why would I want to park my vehicle

I don't even need a vehicle – the bus picks me up at the edge of the apartment complex.

unload my belongings, carry them to some pickup spot

I only bring what I need. This is typically only a reusable water bottle if I'm planning to walk there or back (which I often do for exercise), reusable bags if I'm going grocery shopping, and/or my laptop in a waterproof case for certain events. Sometimes even none of the three.

wait for a bus/train/trolley to show up

3-4 minutes. You can track where they are using an app.

sit in a mob of strangers on said vehicle

I've used the bus for years and have had very few problems with the other passengers.

disembark, and then walk several more blocks carrying whatever I have with me to my destination

Most of my destinations (my pharmacy and the location I play Magic: the Gathering being the two main exceptions) don't require any walking after getting off other than through the parking lot.

(or very possibly multiple destinations, requiring me to carry everything with me and get around on foot the entire time),

I've been known to put my prescriptions and my groceries in the same bag, even though they're from different stores. Sometimes I've even done so with the local bakery.

[mgk920]

Virtually no one fits in that category except those who cannot afford a vehicle, and even those people generally aspire to be driving someday. And on any large scale those things trade off with each other, so it pays to build the highway because it generates far more utility than transit.

Y'know people with cars are able to use these things called "park-and-rides" to access transit to reach the city? And it's wildly convenient compared to sitting through many downtown stoplights to reach a parking spot that may or may not be there, and cost $20?

Why would I want to park my vehicle, unload my belongings, carry them to some pickup spot, wait for a bus/train/trolley to show up, sit in a mob of strangers on said vehicle, disembark, and then walk several more blocks carrying whatever I have with me to my destination (or very possibly multiple destinations, requiring me to carry everything with me and get around on foot the entire time), then reverse the entire thing at the end of the day?
No, a far superior alternative is to just drive to the destination, park at it, and walk into the building. Even if there are many downtown stoplights, at least when I am sitting at those I am in the comfort of my own vehicle, I can drink, eat, listen to the radio, make and receive calls, etc. And a park and ride is only going to bypass those lights if its a train on a dedicated right of way, if it is a bus or some light rail that shares right of way it has to wait for many or all of the same lights.
And even that is being generous, since we are assuming the existence of lights and limited parking. If we do as I prefer, which is to invest in freeways and other connecting roadways, along with ample parking in downtown areas, then the lights are cut to a minimum and the parking is abundant. Every $ spent on park and ride lots I would much rather have put into parking and freeways to get me where I want to go in the comfort of my own vehicle.

Well, the cost to park and the round trip are on the CTA's Blue Line between Cumberland Ave and downtown Chicago is less than $10 for the day compared with traffic and parking ($30 or more just for the parking) when I drive it from here in Appleton.  Whenever common-carrier rail passenger service restarts, I am expecting the round-trip fare to be in the $100-125 range (4 hours or so transit time in each direction).

Mike

[HighwayStar]

Why would I want to park my vehicle

I don't even need a vehicle – the bus picks me up at the edge of the apartment complex.

unload my belongings, carry them to some pickup spot

I only bring what I need. This is typically only a reusable water bottle if I'm planning to walk there or back (which I often do for exercise), reusable bags if I'm going grocery shopping, and/or my laptop in a waterproof case for certain events. Sometimes even none of the three.

wait for a bus/train/trolley to show up

3-4 minutes. You can track where they are using an app.

sit in a mob of strangers on said vehicle

I've used the bus for years and have had very few problems with the other passengers.

disembark, and then walk several more blocks carrying whatever I have with me to my destination

Most of my destinations (my pharmacy and the location I play Magic: the Gathering being the two main exceptions) don't require any walking after getting off other than through the parking lot.

(or very possibly multiple destinations, requiring me to carry everything with me and get around on foot the entire time),

I've been known to put my prescriptions and my groceries in the same bag, even though they're from different stores. Sometimes I've even done so with the local bakery.

Most people are not having a bus right in front of their residence though, most are going to walk several blocks to get to a bus. When I was using public transit it was 6 blocks, and that was in one of the best served cities in the US.
I'm all for bringing what you need, but many people have to bring a good sized bag to and from work. Even in an office I was hauling a laptop bag with a laptop, various accessories, chargers, and things I needed since I would not be home all day (food, minimal supplies of medicine, etc). And in many jobs there is a significant amount to bring. Or if you have kids you just added a diaper bag to the equation. No matter what it is its easier to throw it in the trunk.
3-4 minutes is not always the case. My bus was closer to 10 minutes but when it was off schedule it could be 20+. Even 3-4 minutes is still 3-4 minutes more than just getting in my car.
In the relatively short time I used the bus I did not have a "problem" in the sense that I was physically attacked, but I was nevertheless subjected to the odor, filth, communicable diseases, drug use, etc. of everyone else. And even without any of those issues the noise was enough that having a call with someone was problematic, and with a colleague not possible. I and many of my coworkers get a significant amount of additional time back each day by being able to hold calls from the vehicle.
You have an unusual experience with destinations. Most people are looking at a few blocks to their building, and that few blocks becomes a pain in the ass when there is rain, snow, ice, or brutal heat. Mine was 3 blocks, and that was the closest bus line. Most destinations were 2-3 blocks.
Even if you are pilling things in one bag, that is still a bag full of crap you have to carry, you are not reducing weight. Also a trip to the grocery store is usually several bags, taking that crap on a bus was a pain in the ass.

No matter how you dice it, as long as proper parking and road infrastructure is provided, it will always be a more luxurious and pleasant experience for me to drive my vehicle point to point destinations, in perfect climate control, without having to share the space with strangers, and having all the cargo capacity and passenger seating I need. I've done it both ways and there simply is no comparison.

[HighwayStar]

Virtually no one fits in that category except those who cannot afford a vehicle, and even those people generally aspire to be driving someday. And on any large scale those things trade off with each other, so it pays to build the highway because it generates far more utility than transit.

Y'know people with cars are able to use these things called "park-and-rides" to access transit to reach the city? And it's wildly convenient compared to sitting through many downtown stoplights to reach a parking spot that may or may not be there, and cost $20?

Why would I want to park my vehicle, unload my belongings, carry them to some pickup spot, wait for a bus/train/trolley to show up, sit in a mob of strangers on said vehicle, disembark, and then walk several more blocks carrying whatever I have with me to my destination (or very possibly multiple destinations, requiring me to carry everything with me and get around on foot the entire time), then reverse the entire thing at the end of the day?
No, a far superior alternative is to just drive to the destination, park at it, and walk into the building. Even if there are many downtown stoplights, at least when I am sitting at those I am in the comfort of my own vehicle, I can drink, eat, listen to the radio, make and receive calls, etc. And a park and ride is only going to bypass those lights if its a train on a dedicated right of way, if it is a bus or some light rail that shares right of way it has to wait for many or all of the same lights.
And even that is being generous, since we are assuming the existence of lights and limited parking. If we do as I prefer, which is to invest in freeways and other connecting roadways, along with ample parking in downtown areas, then the lights are cut to a minimum and the parking is abundant. Every $ spent on park and ride lots I would much rather have put into parking and freeways to get me where I want to go in the comfort of my own vehicle.

Well, the cost to park and the round trip are on the CTA's Blue Line between Cumberland Ave and downtown Chicago is less than $10 for the day compared with traffic and parking ($30 or more just for the parking) when I drive it from here in Appleton.  Whenever common-carrier rail passenger service restarts, I am expecting the round-trip fare to be in the $100-125 range (4 hours or so transit time in each direction).

Mike

All that proves is the funds are being allocated incorrectly. If the value of parking on site is worth 3x what the stupid park and ride is worth we should be greatly expanding parking in that area.

[Bruce]

If it takes 30 minutes for a bus to take a certain trip on the surface arterial paralleling WA 167, how would an east-west freeway through Kent make it slower?

Simply put: the new freeway will encourage more car use and bring more traffic into areas surrounding exits, which would likely include a street where the bus you're describing would run. Also, buses that might run on that route might have to deadhead on any number of freeways that would be affected by increased traffic funneled in by this new freeway.

The east-west route across Kent was likely the Petrovitsky Expressway, which never went anywhere because it wouldn't have been usable for a lot of people. At the time, SR 167 was just fine for getting to downtown, and SR 516 wasn't that bad an option either. Even today, SR 516 doesn't congest much and all the trouble appears when hitting an actual chokepoint or driving during the peak of peak (which is unwise anyway).

[Brandon]

That's not absurd at all. That would've been fucking awesome to drive. Not so much for walkers but so what. Just drive out into the forests outside of the city.

The forests that would be long gone due to added sprawl aided by suburban freeways?

1. Just because a road is built doesn't mean development automatically comes with it.
2. Development comes regardless of whether the roads have been built or not.  May I present to you Exhibit A: Western Lake County, Illinois.

[Max Rockatansky]

there's no amount of lane sprawl that can help.

At some point, you build enough lanes and everyone can be on the road without it being clogged. Now we might agree that for reasons of cost, space, etc. that point is unobtainable in some areas and I would agree with that. But the idea that its not a point that exists is false.

And there are areas where that level of access seems to be roughly attained. East valley of the Phoenix metro comes to mind, drove around there all week and really never had sustained stop and go traffic (I'm sure there is some, just not any I saw for a week, which is more than I can say about many areas).

Some choke points do exist in the east valley.  The big one that I dealt with frequently was the back ups caused on southbound 101 on the Gila Reservation which originated at 202 or sometimes even as far south as US 60.  Coming into downtown on westbound 202 towards the 10/51 interchange usually is a monster backup during commuter hours.  US 60 westbound onto I-10 westbound isn't usually a cake walk, but that's also being rebuilt.  Having the South Mountain Freeway/202 bypass of downtown available leaving the area from Gilbert two months ago was something I would have welcomed two decades ago.

[silverback1065]

  I knew this would start an argument. The transit proponents always bringing up their substandard arguments and the car proponents bringing their arguments. there's pros and cons, i have always thought the transit proponents propose solutions that just aren't as wonderful as they claim they are. And the car proponents propose solutions that are also full of issues. I've recently been able to commute both ways to work, via car and bike. I find they both take the exact same time but cost is definitely better with a bike. In my opinion, transit (bus, bike, ride share, etc.) is almost always cheaper than a car, but in terms of time investment, it's almost always the same amount of time if not more, and honestly it's usually more time. This is why I always default to car because the car in almost every situation where I am is faster from a time perspective.

[mgk920]

The Dutch (as in 'Nederlands') government fully bought into the 'induced demand' thing by pretty much stopping all of their investments in new and expanded highways in the 1970s.  Since then, they have spent billions of Euros undoing that mistake.

Mike

[kphoger]

Now apply that same(ish?) reasoning to the people who want to walk and take public transit around town.

Virtually no one fits in that category except those who cannot afford a vehicle, and even those people generally aspire to be driving someday.

Y'know people with cars are able to use these things called "park-and-rides" to access transit to reach the city? And it's wildly convenient compared to sitting through many downtown stoplights to reach a parking spot that may or may not be there, and cost $20?

Why would I want to park my vehicle, unload my belongings, carry them to some pickup spot, wait for a bus/train/trolley to show up, sit in a mob of strangers on said vehicle, disembark, and then walk several more blocks carrying whatever I have with me to my destination (or very possibly multiple destinations, requiring me to carry everything with me and get around on foot the entire time), then reverse the entire thing at the end of the day?

No one said you wanted to do that, nor did anyone say you should want to.  But your claim that "virtually no one" wants to is plainly false, because all the cars at park-and-rides were obviously driven there by real people–many of them being business professionals with enough disposable income to commute back and forth between suburbs and city center.  Multiple users on this very forum have used park-and-rides as a matter of convenience.  I've done similar back when I lived in the Chicago suburbs, although I generally chose to guerilla-park at a shopping complex near the Green Line L station instead of paying for the park-and-ride at the Blue Line station, because doing so was more convenient than driving all the way downtown.

[skluth]

That's not absurd at all. That would've been fucking awesome to drive. Not so much for walkers but so what. Just drive out into the forests outside of the city.

Given how bad traffic has gotten there these were far from absurd, and had they been built it might actually be possible to get somewhere in a reasonable time frame.

Even in the worst normal jams, it doesn't take that long to get around Seattle. Maybe if you stubbornly stick to a car, but the city has options. I can switch modes depending on the situation; an alternate version of Seattle where all these freeways were built would not have nearly the same mode diversity.

Good for you. I want the ease and comfort of my car.

Now apply that same(ish?) reasoning to the people who want to walk and take public transit around town.

Virtually no one fits in that category except those who cannot afford a vehicle, and even those people generally aspire to be driving someday. And on any large scale those things trade off with each other, so it pays to build the highway because it generates far more utility than transit.

Maybe in Lilliput, but there are a significant number of teens who don't want to drive because the hassle and expense of owning a car isn't worth it to them. "In 1997, 43 percent of 16-year-olds and 62 percent of 17-year-olds had driver's licenses. In 2020, those numbers had fallen to 25 percent and 45 percent." Teens and young adults today often use ride-hailing apps or will use transit if available. I honestly probably wouldn't bother getting my license today if I were young; as it was I didn't own a car until I was 29 and only got my license at 17 because my parents demanded it (I was the oldest and they wanted help with chauffeuring my younger brothers.). I got along fine without a car the four years I lived in Madison WI as my bicycle and the frequent bus service were more than adequate; I could walk a couple blocks to a grocery, a laundromat, and even a liquor store on the isthmus. I even lived a couple years in Green Bay without a car though that was tougher. And I certainly didn't need a car in the Navy. So I can easily see with better transportation options today in many cities like Portland, Washington, and Chicago why teens may not want to bother with a car ever. I know at least one of my nieces doesn't have her license and has no desire for one; it helps that she lives two blocks from a light rail station between downtown and the MSP airport.

Many younger people are also looking at it from a more environmental perspective. Climate change is a real fear for many of them whether you believe it's happening or not. Not adding to their carbon footprint is personal. Maybe it will change if EVs become more affordable but EVs still have a significant carbon footprint from the manufacturing process to the charging (if not from renewable sources) to the extraction of rare earths needed for batteries. That's not to mention the human exploitation involved in that extraction. Regardless of the reasoning, younger people are driving less and wanting more options that often don't include cars at all. Lilliputians may think differently but many young people in cities and the nearer suburbs are wanting to drive less - even if they can afford it.

[kphoger]

"In 1997, 43 percent of 16-year-olds and 62 percent of 17-year-olds had driver's licenses. In 2020, those numbers had fallen to 25 percent and 45 percent."

I'd be curious to know how much of that is due to states' raising the age for, or drawing out the process of, obtaining a DL.