AARoads Forum

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/02/13/tear-down-these-10-freeways-and-then-tear-down-some-more/

Thankful to have not seen "8664" in this list.

Meh. The envirowackos can keep crowing. Ain't happening.

Making highways costs money. But tearing them down does NOT make money.

Eventually they'll get abandoned in place if we keep putting shit into the atmosphere.

What happens when they end up cutting sections of longer distance 2di's out though..?

The primary arguments in favor of removing a freeway seem to usually boil down to either "they look ugly" or "cars are bad".

On the former point, the fact that people often seem to care more about what things look like than about how they function is something that continually erodes my faith in humanity. Sure, your neighborhood may look nicer without the freeway, but the reduced capacity and speeds for automotive traffic have negative economic impacts on the region (albeit not necessarily for that particular neighborhood), and the fact that you now have at-grade intersections where you previously didn't reduces safety for drivers, bikers, and pedestrians alike. I'll take walking under an eight lane freeway over walking across an eight lane boulevard at grade any day.

On the latter point... Steve's term of "enviro-wackos" is apropos. If the concern is carbon emissions, consider that technology to run cars without using fossil fuels already exists, it just requires further development to increase its commercial viability. If the concern is that cars do not use space as efficiently as bikes or public transit do, that's true, and it's worth promoting the use of those alternative modes of transportation when practical. But those modes lack the versatility of automobile travel, so there will always be a lot of trips you cannot reasonably divert to them. And promoting the use of transit by tearing down highways rather than by building more subways is just bassackwards thinking. Way to repress more latent demand and decrease a city's overall mobility, guys!


Also, anyone who says "but there's this other parallel freeway people can use!" needs to be forced to spend an hour sitting on a three person couch with five other people before they are allowed to make that argument.

Quote from: Duke87 on February 14, 2014, 10:00:53 PM
Sure, your neighborhood may look nicer without the freeway

I'm not convinced. I think Interstate 90 over Mercer Island it quite pretty (http://goo.gl/xB8sho).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3543%2F3350129094_37517b6fae_b.jpg&hash=03574b08d2e55610eec16731e0142ce7ce9344f2)

Also, I know they intentionally left the Alaskan Way Viaduct out because, well half of it's missing and the rest is primed for demolition. But with the tunnel-boring machine continually breaking down, locals seem to be (to borrow Alps' term) "crowing" about it and seem to just want to keep the viaduct. Uh yeah that's not happening you imbeciles. That thing is either gonna be torn down or it's falling down on its own.

Tear down a key interstate just to remove a barrier between St. Louis and the Arch. Next we'll hear cries to tear down Lake Shore Drive because it disconnects the city from the lakefront  :banghead:

Quote from Duke 87:

QuoteOn the former point, the fact that people often seem to care more about what things look like than about how they function is something that continually erodes my faith in humanity

Well said. This is like women wearing high heels. How they can stand to wear those things is beyond me.

Quoteand the fact that you now have at-grade intersections where you previously didn't reduces safety for drivers, bikers, and pedestrians alike.

I think the jury is still out on this one.  But it demonstrates how a study on the before/after safety of those few freeway deconstruction examples we've done in this country (San Fran, Manhattan, Milwaukee)  could provide useful data.

QuoteIf the concern is that cars do not use space as efficiently as bikes or public transit do, that's true, and it's worth promoting the use of those alternative modes of transportation when practical. But those modes lack the versatility of automobile travel, so there will always be a lot of trips you cannot reasonably divert to them.

I will disagree with you to a degree on bikes.  A strong argument could be made that bicycling is more versatile than driving for short distances, especially in urban areas.  Easier to park...less delay due to traffic.  Case-in-point:  it takes me an average of about 4 minutes from when I walk out of my apartment to when I get my car out of the complex's parking garage.  In that 4 minutes, by bike, I can be halfway to Ghent or anywhere downtown.  I can be to pretty much anything I would want or need outside of base within 10 minutes by bike.

This is an example of why adding bike infrastructure in cities is important, and WILL make a difference.  Not only does it cut down on traffic and parking needs (1 car parking spot can, on average, hold 10 bikes), but recent studies have suggested that bike infrastructure brings economic benefits far in excess of its cost, including an increase in business customers to businesses along the bike route.  Another factor to consider is that, per the 2009 National Household Transportation Survey (data extractable here (http://nhts.ornl.gov/det/Extraction3.aspx)), one-third of all vehicle trips are under 3 miles in length (and half of all vehicle trips are less than 5mi).  This is a trip pool that could easily be tapped into if we had better bike/ped infrastructure.  Unfortunately, we've been so car-happy in this country for the past 50 years and cash-strapped for the past 20 that we've forgotten how to build a decent all-mode transportation network (nevermind forgotten how to build community and "place")...

I love how these wackos think they can just remove a section of a major interstate through a city. Then they'll probably complain when the interstate is rerouted around the city in the suburbs.

You have to love how some of these NIMBYs think. Life would be so much better if it weren't for those dreaded cars and roads. There would be no need for cars if everyone lived in the city and used urban mass transit and their love affair with (inhale deeply) TRAINS! They point to the success of mass transit in places like Singapore, and ignoring the fact that Singapore is the size of postage stamp that is very urban dense.

How old is this article? Eddie Perez is no longer the mayor of Hartford.  He had to resign in 2010.  Of course, the Busway to Nowhere underneath the Aetna Viaduct will make grade-level building difficult.

Quote from: froggie on February 15, 2014, 09:17:10 AM

Quoteand the fact that you now have at-grade intersections where you previously didn't reduces safety for drivers, bikers, and pedestrians alike.

I think the jury is still out on this one.  But it demonstrates how a study on the before/after safety of those few freeway deconstruction examples we've done in this country (San Fran, Manhattan, Milwaukee)  could provide useful data.

I would consider "objects which cross through the same point in space are more likely to collide than objects which do not" to be simply common sense and do not see any apparent mechanism by which that would turn out to not be true. It seems to me to be a question of perceived danger ("oh no, I'm under the dark scary highway") being inconsistent with actual danger.

But I am curious to see if this has been seriously studied.

QuoteA strong argument could be made that bicycling is more versatile than driving for short distances, especially in urban areas.  Easier to park...less delay due to traffic.

I don't know about "easier to park", but then I could just be seeing a relative lack of infrastructure for doing so relative to cars. Seems like in Manhattan it's far easier to park a CitiBike than a bike you own (and I'm sure the folks behind the bikeshare program have a vested interest in keeping it that way).

Also, a car is a lot more difficult to steal than a bike. And a lot more difficult to get away with stealing once you've done it, since bikes don't have license plates or VINs or anything like that that they can be tracked with - although perhaps they should.

With regards to travel itself, though, I would agree with what you're saying since a bike can get into tighter spaces and can maneuver around stopped traffic. There is a good reason that food delivery people around here all use bikes instead of cars.

Nonetheless, while a bike is fine for within a city, it's not helpful when you want to leave the city and travel longer distances. And while you can argue that greater bike use means lower car use and therefore means less need for traffic lanes for cars, the same cannot be said for parking unless car ownership is reduced. Car ownership is a related but different matter from car use. It's dandy to tell me that I don't need to use my car to travel around the city (because really, I don't), but the leap from that to "therefore I don't need to own a car" isn't one I'm making. I lived in the city without owning a car for four years when I was in college. I was able to get by just fine, but there is no question in my mind that since then, owning a car has been a source of substantial improvement to my life.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 15, 2014, 11:53:45 AM
How old is this article? Eddie Perez is no longer the mayor of Hartford.  He had to resign in 2010.  Of course, the Busway to Nowhere underneath the Aetna Viaduct will make grade-level building difficult.

Not sure, and I also don't remember where I saw the link originally. It may have floated across my Facebook feed.

As I posted to a similar discussion on Facebook, human perception is about 100,000 years out of date.  To your subconscious mind, a freeway is just an ugly river.

Also of note: in the form vs. function debate, it's also important to not discard aesthetics completely; the ugly structures of the 40s-60s galvanized the freeway revolt in the first place.  If we built elevated structures then with the designs we use now, NIMBY culture would have likely never taken hold.

Quote from: Brian556 on February 15, 2014, 12:45:57 AM
Quote from Duke 87:

QuoteOn the former point, the fact that people often seem to care more about what things look like than about how they function is something that continually erodes my faith in humanity

Well said. This is like women wearing high heels. How they can stand to wear those things is beyond me.

Depends on the shoe, genetics, and practice.  I have a pair of high heeled boots that I barely feel.  I also have some shoes with an identical heel height that I try to avoid walking in.  When it comes to heels, the shoes need to fit perfectly or you're gonna be miserable.

Quote from: ap70621 on February 15, 2014, 11:26:48 AM
I love how these wackos think they can just remove a section of a major interstate through a city. Then they'll probably complain when the interstate is rerouted around the city in the suburbs.

Sometimes it is practical but almost always there is not much you can do.  Destroy all the freeways without an alternative and what can you do?  Every time they get a decent idea like routing I-35 traffic around Austin, they build it too far out and then put expensive tolls on it.    In many cities they could build more efficient routes around the cities to get the traffic out of town but it rarely happens.

Quote from: ZLoth on February 15, 2014, 11:45:46 AM
There would be no need for cars if everyone lived in the city and used urban mass transit and their love affair with (inhale deeply) TRAINS!

They also conveniently forget that in most of the United States (including New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C.), the trains and buses would grind to a halt and the employees would go home unpaid without the diverted motor fuel tax revenue and toll revenue that goes to subsidize their operations.

Quote from: ZLoth on February 15, 2014, 11:45:46 AM
They point to the success of mass transit in places like Singapore, and ignoring the fact that Singapore is the size of postage stamp that is very urban dense.

Agreed.  Or perhaps more commonly, they tour European cities with reasonably high-density core areas dating back hundreds or thousands of years (plus good and frequently excellent transit service) like Rome, London, Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, Copenhagen and Stockholm, and come back home to North America and write Letters to the Editor lauding the "clean and efficient" rail transit systems they observed on the other side of the pond.  What these people don't do is take a trip to see the North American-style "sprawling" suburbs to be found to varying degrees around all of those cities.

Quote from: vdeane on February 15, 2014, 07:22:08 PM
Also of note: in the form vs. function debate, it's also important to not discard aesthetics completely; the ugly structures of the 40s-60s galvanized the freeway revolt in the first place.  If we built elevated structures then with the designs we use now, NIMBY culture would have likely never taken hold.

Agreed.  Though my personal preference is for the built and unbuilt urban freeways to be rerouted into bored tunnels under the city (think Big Dig in Boston or the undergrounded motorways in Madrid and Stockholm) - with tolls to assure that those tunnels run at or near the speed limit at all times.

Quote from: froggie on February 15, 2014, 09:17:10 AM
I will disagree with you to a degree on bikes.  A strong argument could be made that bicycling is more versatile than driving for short distances, especially in urban areas.  Easier to park...less delay due to traffic.  Case-in-point:  it takes me an average of about 4 minutes from when I walk out of my apartment to when I get my car out of the complex's parking garage.  In that 4 minutes, by bike, I can be halfway to Ghent or anywhere downtown.  I can be to pretty much
anything I would want or need outside of base within 10 minutes by bike.

Adam, there's a 900 kilo gorilla here - in Europe, grocery shopping usually means walking or biking to a relatively small grocery store nearby several days a week (though in parts of the EU, Carrefour runs stores that rival a Wal-Mart Supercenter in store and parking lot size).   

But many people on this side of the pond like to shop at the grocery maybe once a week instead.  Somewhat difficult to do with a bike or on foot.

QuoteOn the former point, the fact that people often seem to care more about what things look like than about how they function is something that continually erodes my faith in humanity.

We aren't robots. Humans need to be in an environment they are comfortable in in order to want to use the facility. Why do you think light rail is so much more accepted by middle/upper classes than buses? People are more comfortable on light rail, for whatever reason.

The best functioning things in the world are useless if people are uncomfortable using them, and that requires attention to environment, which requires attention to aesthetics. Environment and aesthetics are very much a part of function, to the degree that environment and aesthetics are leveraged to draw people into an efficient operation. You can dislike that, but it's something that can't and won't ever be changed, and it's unrealistic to make any sort of policy decision without taking that into account. It's human nature. Hell, it's animal nature. Awareness of and sensitivity to environment go to the very core of being conscious, so you can't really discard it. When people have tried to discard it, it has failed.

Back on point, it is shitty to have a massive especially elevated freeway running through your neighborhood. That does make for a crummy environment,  but I agree that the solution is not to tear down the freeway (unless you can replace it with something with similar throughput), but to work around the existing design to make it more pleasant for the people that have to live next to it. For something to really work, it needs to be both functional and aesthetically pleasing. If it's non functional, that makes it useless too.

Quote from: corco on February 15, 2014, 09:17:52 PM

QuoteOn the former point, the fact that people often seem to care more about what things look like than about how they function is something that continually erodes my faith in humanity.

We aren't robots. Humans need to be in an environment they are comfortable in in order to want to use the facility. Why do you think light rail is so much more accepted by middle/upper classes than buses? People are more comfortable on light rail, for whatever reason.

The best functioning things in the world are useless if people are uncomfortable using them, and that requires attention to environment, which requires attention to aesthetics. Environment and aesthetics are very much a part of function, to the degree that environment and aesthetics are leveraged to draw people into an efficient operation. You can dislike that, but it's something that can't and won't ever be changed, and it's unrealistic to make any sort of policy decision without taking that into account. It's human nature. Hell, it's animal nature. Awareness of and sensitivity to environment go to the very core of being conscious, so you can't really discard it. When people have tried to discard it, it has failed.

Back on point, it is shitty to have a massive especially elevated freeway running through your neighborhood. That does make for a crummy environment,  but I agree that the solution is not to tear down the freeway (unless you can replace it with something with similar throughput), but to work around the existing design to make it more pleasant for the people that have to live next to it. For something to really work, it needs to be both functional and aesthetically pleasing. If it's non functional, that makes it useless too.

I think the point was that people were/are emphasizing aesthetics to the point of EXCLUDING a functional considerations.  The teardown proposals typically handwave function with "pedestrians will no longer perceive a barrier" and then ignore car function entirely.

Cars don't (yet) give a shit. It's the person in the car that matters.

Quote from: corco on February 15, 2014, 09:17:52 PM
We aren't robots. Humans need to be in an environment they are comfortable in in order to want to use the facility.
{...}
The best functioning things in the world are useless if people are uncomfortable using them

Yes, but the conjugate to that is also true. The world's most comfortable toilet is useless if you can't piss in it.

QuoteAdam, there's a 900 kilo gorilla here - in Europe, grocery shopping usually means walking or biking to a relatively small grocery store nearby several days a week (though in parts of the EU, Carrefour runs stores that rival a Wal-Mart Supercenter in store and parking lot size).   

But many people on this side of the pond like to shop at the grocery maybe once a week instead.  Somewhat difficult to do with a bike or on foot.

A couple counter-points:

A) not a lot of overall trips are grocery store trips, and there are other short trips that could be captured by other modes.  While roughly half of all trips less than 3 miles in length are for "Family/Personal Business", it stands to reason that not all of those are grocery trips.

B) there's nothing stopping people on this side of the pond from grocery shopping more than once a week.  Even when I was in non-bikeable land and driving everywhere, I'd typically hit the grocery store (or Commissary as the case may be) every 4-5 days.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 15, 2014, 08:45:17 PM

Quote from: ZLoth on February 15, 2014, 11:45:46 AM
There would be no need for cars if everyone lived in the city and used urban mass transit and their love affair with (inhale deeply) TRAINS!

They also conveniently forget that in most of the United States (including New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C.), the trains and buses would grind to a halt and the employees would go home unpaid without the diverted motor fuel tax revenue and toll revenue that goes to subsidize their operations.

Quote from: ZLoth on February 15, 2014, 11:45:46 AM
They point to the success of mass transit in places like Singapore, and ignoring the fact that Singapore is the size of postage stamp that is very urban dense.

Agreed.  Or perhaps more commonly, they tour European cities with reasonably high-density core areas dating back hundreds or thousands of years (plus good and frequently excellent transit service) like Rome, London, Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, Copenhagen and Stockholm, and come back home to North America and write Letters to the Editor lauding the "clean and efficient" rail transit systems they observed on the other side of the pond.  What these people don't do is take a trip to see the North American-style "sprawling" suburbs to be found to varying degrees around all of those cities.

And they ignore the train breakdowns that do occur over there.

Quote from: corco on February 15, 2014, 09:17:52 PMWe aren't robots. Humans need to be in an environment they are comfortable in in order to want to use the facility. Why do you think light rail is so much more accepted by middle/upper classes than buses? People are more comfortable on light rail, for whatever reason.

The experience of riding on light rail is much better.

*  The ride is much smoother, partly because light-rail vehicles don't chew up the pavement under themselves and partly because they tend to be routed down the middle of the road, where geometry is more favorable (no "humps" when traversing the crown of intersecting roads, for example).

*  Seating is more flexible.  Most light-rail vehicles of recent design allow the option of seating en banc, which gives the passenger much more open sightlines since he or she is sitting looking outside a large window at the urban landscape instead of straight forward into a visual "tunnel" occluded by the driver cabin, heads of other passengers, backs of seats further forward, etc.  In SRO situations, it is also more comfortable to stand than on a bus.

*  Timekeeping tends to be better because virtually every light-rail system--even old-fashioned trams carried forward into the twenty-first century (as in Vienna)--runs on some dedicated right-of-way.

Quote from: vdeane on February 15, 2014, 07:22:08 PMAlso of note: in the form vs. function debate, it's also important to not discard aesthetics completely; the ugly structures of the 40s-60s galvanized the freeway revolt in the first place.  If we built elevated structures then with the designs we use now, NIMBY culture would have likely never taken hold.

I am not so sure about this.  Two points come to mind:

*  What recent examples are there of successful new-build freeway viaduct designs that have gained community acceptance?  I am looking for something finished after 1990 or so--the Canal Route viaduct in Wichita (completed 1979) arguably does not qualify (has no graffiti, which argues for community acceptance; has lighting and bike paths underneath, plus a carefully maintained waterway in the median which could be regarded as an amenity feature; follows a severance corridor that long predates the freeway; but also has lots of loose dirt since grass won't grow in the shadow of the road deck).  I am not so sure we have genuinely fixed the problems with elevated freeway designs as opposed to simply refraining from adding more fuel to the fires of NIMBYism.

*  When generalized urban freeway build options were (to the best of my knowledge) last studied in a systematic way that tried to take into account cost, amenities, and redevelopment adjacent to the freeway corridor, in the research effort in Britain that resulted in publication of the Report of the Urban Motorways Project Team to the Urban Motorways Committee (1973), viaducts were found to be much cheaper even with their various disadvantages taken into account, such as visual occlusion, "dead" area underneath the road deck (which, it was suggested, could be mitigated by building "walls" of specially soundproofed housing next to the viaduct with the area under the deck becoming part of the yards for the houses), psychological severance (more below), etc.

Quote from: vdeane on February 15, 2014, 10:21:40 PMI think the point was that people were/are emphasizing aesthetics to the point of EXCLUDING a functional considerations.  The teardown proposals typically handwave function with "pedestrians will no longer perceive a barrier" and then ignore car function entirely.

As a general proposition, I don't think it is true that pedestrians no longer perceive a barrier even when an overhead freeway is removed.  Removing the freeway takes care of the "Chinese wall" effect (a noted problem with the double-decker freeways that have been removed in San Francisco, as well as the multi-story expressways that still stand in Japan), and also tends to remove dark shaded areas underneath the road deck which (in the absence of shared-use development, e.g. factories immediately underneath the viaduct, as has been tried with the A40 Westway in London and in Japan with the often-cited example of a shopping promenade immediately underneath an expressway) tend to degenerate into visually unappealing locations that attract trash and crime.  However, the absence of the freeway creates an open area that pedestrians tend to perceive as a barrier.  This is known as "psychological severance" and it is also a problem with freeways in cut (regardless of whether retaining walls are used to confine the freeway to a narrow right-of-way), and to a lesser extent also rail lines.  The effect is present regardless of how heavy traffic is on whatever surface boulevard replaces the freeway.  (There is usually an attempt to simulate a natural landscape on top of wildlife bridges to encourage animals to use them, and humans are not so far removed from animals in this respect.)

In the case of the Embarcadero removal in San Francisco, I think this effect is less pronounced partly because the Ferry Building serves as a landmark that guides pedestrians through the former freeway alignment.  It also helps that the Embarcadero, as a double-decker freeway with just three lanes in the up and down directions, was already in a very narrow right-of-way, with a footprint generally only forty feet wide away from interchanges.  A similar scenario isn't really workable with single-level viaducts where the "dead area" is typically on the order of 80 feet and often much larger if interchange ramps are involved.  Removing the freeway only to replace it with a wasteland (even if a surface boulevard is subsequently built to provide some residual capacity) isn't really a solution--this is why successful teardowns (e.g. Mandela Parkway in Oakland) have involved some element both of relocation (I-880 now runs in a different corridor) and urban design in the former freeway right-of-way.

Lynch, Appleyard, and Myers' The View from the Road (1962, if memory serves) offers a good introduction to some of the design issues involved.

Edit:  Had to revise this post to fix missing sentence clauses.

Quote from: froggie on February 16, 2014, 08:50:45 AM

QuoteAdam, there's a 900 kilo gorilla here - in Europe, grocery shopping usually means walking or biking to a relatively small grocery store nearby several days a week (though in parts of the EU, Carrefour runs stores that rival a Wal-Mart Supercenter in store and parking lot size).   

But many people on this side of the pond like to shop at the grocery maybe once a week instead.  Somewhat difficult to do with a bike or on foot.

A couple counter-points:

A) not a lot of overall trips are grocery store trips, and there are other short trips that could be captured by other modes.  While roughly half of all trips less than 3 miles in length are for "Family/Personal Business", it stands to reason that not all of those are grocery trips.

B) there's nothing stopping people on this side of the pond from grocery shopping more than once a week.  Even when I was in non-bikeable land and driving everywhere, I'd typically hit the grocery store (or Commissary as the case may be) every 4-5 days.

You forget that culture is different here than there.

A) These trips often include having more than one person in the vehicle.  Even with the price of fuel, it is cheaper and more timely than waiting for a bus or walking.  These trips are often combined as well.

B) Depends on the distance.  The culture is different here than there.  Most people in North America go to the grocer weekly as it fits better into their schedules.

Quote*  Seating is more flexible.  Most light-rail vehicles of recent design allow the option of seating en banc, which gives the passenger much more open sightlines since he or she is sitting looking outside a large window at the urban landscape instead of straight forward into a visual "tunnel" occluded by the driver cabin, heads of other passengers, backs of seats further forward, etc.  In SRO situations, it is also more comfortable to stand than on a bus.

Would this not be possible to configure in a bus? Some things are going to be design limitations, yes- a bus will never be as smooth as light rail, but isn't there a way to make the environment of a bus car more or less identical to that of a light rail car?

Quote from: corco on February 16, 2014, 02:01:28 PM
isn't there a way to make the environment of a bus car more or less identical to that of a light rail car?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_Er3PPdn60AM%2FTFhFzEOnkhI%2FAAAAAAAABC8%2FGuCsOHZsbHw%2Fs1600%2FDisney%2BBus.JPG&hash=5c865f6be33423e8bb02ed879d1fafba6b410bfe)
Disney buses have side-facing seats, so yes. But seating capacity is less, which means bendy buses (which Disney is starting to use, but they have their own infrastructure requirements).

Quote from: corco on February 16, 2014, 02:01:28 PMWould this not be possible to configure in a bus? Some things are going to be design limitations, yes- a bus will never be as smooth as light rail, but isn't there a way to make the environment of a bus car more or less identical to that of a light rail car?

To add to NE2's answer:  part of the ride discomfort associated with buses comes from stopping and starting.  Trams (of whatever seating configuration--and some older trams, e.g. in Vienna, Lisbon, and Bratislava, as well as some newer ones, e.g. in Sacramento, do seat passengers facing toward the direction of travel) are generally superior from this perspective.

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 16, 2014, 10:12:29 AM
*  What recent examples are there of successful new-build freeway viaduct designs that have gained community acceptance?

In the US, can't think of any, but in China:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.nationalgeographic.com%2Fwpf%2Fmedia-live%2Fphotos%2F000%2F212%2Fcache%2Felevated-highway-shanghai_21243_990x742.jpg&hash=957d2e647f33d9957102b721daa30fc6e2e93c55)
Quite the contrast from the US elevated structures, I'd say.

The I-86 Horseheads bypass is technically elevated and looks good, but it's not a viaduct and is built on landfill contained by concrete walls.

One of the proposals for the Gardiner in Toronto is similar to the Chinese example.

I'm not sure if people would have embraced freeways, but they probably would have learned to live with them at least.

QuoteAs a general proposition, I don't think it is true that pedestrians no longer perceive a barrier even when an overhead freeway is removed.  Removing the freeway takes care of the "Chinese wall" effect (a noted problem with the double-decker freeways that have been removed in San Francisco, as well as the multi-story expressways that still stand in Japan), and also tends to remove dark shaded areas underneath the road deck which (in the absence of shared-use development, e.g. factories immediately underneath the viaduct, as has been tried with the A40 Westway in London and in Japan with the often-cited example of a shopping promenade immediately underneath an expressway) tend to degenerate into visually unappealing locations that attract trash and crime.  However, the absence of the freeway creates an open area that pedestrians tend to perceive as a barrier.  This is known as "psychological severance" and it is also a problem with freeways in cut (regardless of whether retaining walls are used to confine the freeway to a narrow right-of-way), and to a lesser extent also rail lines.  The effect is present regardless of how heavy traffic is on whatever surface boulevard replaces the freeway.  (There is usually an attempt to simulate a natural landscape on top of wildlife bridges to encourage animals to use them, and humans are not so far removed from animals in this respect.)

And none of this is ever brought up by freeway teardown advocates.  They always assume that traffic will just magically vanish.

Quote from: ET21 on February 14, 2014, 11:43:32 PM
Tear down a key interstate just to remove a barrier between St. Louis and the Arch. Next we'll hear cries to tear down Lake Shore Drive because it disconnects the city from the lakefront  :banghead:

I though that cry had already been made once, in addition to the proposals to downgrade the northern end (which is covered in a thread somewhere around here)

QuoteYou forget that culture is different here than there.

A) These trips often include having more than one person in the vehicle.  Even with the price of fuel, it is cheaper and more timely than waiting for a bus or walking.  These trips are often combined as well.

B) Depends on the distance.  The culture is different here than there.  Most people in North America go to the grocer weekly as it fits better into their schedules.

First off, the trip length figures I cited earlier are for the US, not for "there".

Second, I'm not saying all trips can be converted...but given the large percentage of trips that are 3 miles or less (one-third, as cited earlier), these are trips that could fairly easily be converted to other modes if the infrastructure was there.

Third, car culture has been so heavily built/wrapped around the US for the past 60 years that Americans (including, I daresay, several members of this forum) find it impossible to think in terms of anything else.

Inflammatory, yes.  But that's the reality.

QuoteAnd none of this is ever brought up by freeway teardown advocates.  They always assume that traffic will just magically vanish.

Though we admittedly have limited examples of freeway teardowns or long-term freeway closures, a percentage of that traffic really does "magically vanish".

^^ Car culture took off in the US due to the distances between places.  Have you even bothered to look at the population densities between continental Europe and the US/Canada?  Having a viable system of public transit that people will use on a daily basis for trips to the grocer requires density.  We lack that density in most places.  Get off the navy base and take a look at reality.

Let's use an example.  If I want to go to a grocer, I can either walk over a mile to a bus stop, and take the bus a mere half mile to the store; bicycle to the store; drive; or simply walk.

1. There's not much point to the bus.  If does not run on the schedule I need, and it's too far away.
2. Bicycling is fine for small items, but you try to carry home 20 pounds of cat litter on a bicycle.  Bet you tire of it quickly as well.
3. A car can carry everything, and I can fit the shopping into my schedule when I want to go.
4. Walking's fine, but it runs into the same problem as the bicycle.

I am very certain most other North Americans run into the same problems.  And it's not just the US/Canada, Europe outside the city centers is much the same way.  it has nothing to do with changing how one thinks, it has to do with the infrastructure and lack of density we have.

Quote from: Brandon on February 17, 2014, 11:16:29 AM
^^ Car culture took off in the US due to the distances between places.  Have you even bothered to look at the population densities between continental Europe and the US/Canada?  Having a viable system of public transit that people will use on a daily basis for trips to the grocer requires density.  We lack that density in most places.  Get off the navy base and take a look at reality.

Let's use an example.  If I want to go to a grocer, I can either walk over a mile to a bus stop, and take the bus a mere half mile to the store; bicycle to the store; drive; or simply walk.

1. There's not much point to the bus.  If does not run on the schedule I need, and it's too far away.
2. Bicycling is fine for small items, but you try to carry home 20 pounds of cat litter on a bicycle.  Bet you tire of it quickly as well.
3. A car can carry everything, and I can fit the shopping into my schedule when I want to go.
4. Walking's fine, but it runs into the same problem as the bicycle.

I am very certain most other North Americans run into the same problems.  And it's not just the US/Canada, Europe outside the city centers is much the same way.  it has nothing to do with changing how one thinks, it has to do with the infrastructure and lack of density we have.

And SPRAWL is not the problem.  Many people even in the suburbs live reasonably close to the places they need to shop. 

Quote from: Brandon on February 17, 2014, 11:16:29 AMLet's use an example.  If I want to go to a grocer, I can either walk over a mile to a bus stop, and take the bus a mere half mile to the store; bicycle to the store; drive; or simply walk.

1. There's not much point to the bus.  If does not run on the schedule I need, and it's too far away.

2. Bicycling is fine for small items, but you try to carry home 20 pounds of cat litter on a bicycle.  Bet you tire of it quickly as well.

3. A car can carry everything, and I can fit the shopping into my schedule when I want to go.

4. Walking's fine, but it runs into the same problem as the bicycle.

I am very certain most other North Americans run into the same problems.  And it's not just the US/Canada, Europe outside the city centers is much the same way.  it has nothing to do with changing how one thinks, it has to do with the infrastructure and lack of density we have.

Adapting your example to my situation:

1.  Since I live within a mile of the nearest supermarket and the nearest bus stop is also outside the supermarket, taking the bus is pointless.

2.  In Britain I got quite used to carrying several days' worth of groceries in a bike basket.  I could do the same over here, except I don't really have a usable bicycle and getting to the store from within my subdivision entails an awkward crossing of a four-lane arterial that does not have curbside cycle lanes.

3.  A bicycle may not be able to accommodate the same payload as a car, but it is equally flexible as to schedule, and also gives you exercise as an incidental benefit.  (I don't know about the Navy specifically, but both the Army and the Air Force require their service personnel to pass an annual physical fitness test that has strength and cardiovascular endurance components.)

4.  If you walk, you can use a bag on wheels, which is how many older people do their grocery shopping in Britain.  For that matter, when I lived in Riverdale Park, Maryland, and walked to the nearby Giant supermarket (only about half a mile away), I adapted a wheeled luggage carrier to carry bags of groceries.

When a grocery store is nearby, I would say the strongest use cases for cars involve extreme weather, since it is tedious to deal with groceries and snow while walking or cycling, while milk goes sour very rapidly outdoors when the temperature is over 90° F.

I'd also question whether most Americans in fact do their grocery shopping just once a week.  That frequency might work for families that eat nothing but processed food that can be stored in freezers or cupboards for extended periods with little decline in quality.  If you eat fresh food for taste and nutrition, however, a shorter shopping interval is better.  In this household we usually do a grocery shop once every two to three days.  I eat apples as a fiber snack immediately before going to bed and I never get more than five at a time since, unless I keep them refrigerated (which causes space problems in the fruit and vegetable drawer), they go soft and mealy after five days.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-jUkRpLFJ5Lw%2FTecy3qm0lVI%2FAAAAAAAAADM%2F7us49Xt1MRc%2Fs1600%2Fegg-chicken.jpg&hash=baddffb93ee6bc0db114c25c62464aaa45b777b3)

Hopefully none of these freeways are torn down. Turning a freeway into a road with at grade intersections is just stupid.

Quote from: Brandon^^ Car culture took off in the US due to the distances between population centers.

FTFY.  Distances between cities was significant, but not within those cities.  Yes, a majority of the population at the time lived in rural areas, but within the cities, and thanks to a more mixed-use development pattern (instead of zoning everything far apart like the past 50 years), you were close to things.  Density was also noticeably higher in our cities back in those days.

QuoteHave you even bothered to look at the population densities between continental Europe and the US/Canada?  Having a viable system of public transit that people will use on a daily basis for trips to the grocer requires density.  We lack that density in most places.

Yes, I'm aware of the population densities.  You may want to go back over my posts and note that nowhere did I say that transit was the answer (in fact, I haven't even mentioned transit in this thread until now).

QuoteGet off the navy base and take a look at reality.

Nice jab.  For the record, aside from temporary periods during transfers (none lasting more than a month), I haven't lived on a Navy base since 1999.

QuoteLet's use an example.  If I want to go to a grocer, I can either walk over a mile to a bus stop, and take the bus a mere half mile to the store; bicycle to the store; drive; or simply walk.

1. There's not much point to the bus.  If does not run on the schedule I need, and it's too far away.
2. Bicycling is fine for small items, but you try to carry home 20 pounds of cat litter on a bicycle.  Bet you tire of it quickly as well.
3. A car can carry everything, and I can fit the shopping into my schedule when I want to go.
4. Walking's fine, but it runs into the same problem as the bicycle.

You have a point on #1 (but again, I haven't been talking about transit).  Carrying home 20 pounds of cat litter is very doable on a bicycle.  On my bike commutes, I carry about 40 pounds worth of gear, uniforms, and shower stuff.  It's easily done with the right gear on a bike (a rear rack and two panniers in my case).  They also make dedicated cargo bikes that could easily carry a large amount of groceries, but those aren't viable for most people.  Regarding #3, yes a car can "carry everything", but walking and bicycling can also fit easily into a "schedule when one wants to go".  Arguably more easily in urban areas (as I cited earlier in response to Duke).

QuoteI am very certain most other North Americans run into the same problems.  And it's not just the US/Canada, Europe outside the city centers is much the same way.  it has nothing to do with changing how one thinks, it has to do with the infrastructure and lack of density we have.

With this, you actually prove my earlier point about infrastructure.  And you don't need density in order to add sidewalks or bike paths or bike lanes.

Quote from: texasdogAnd SPRAWL is not the problem.  Many people even in the suburbs live reasonably close to the places they need to shop.

Depends what you define as "reasonably close".  Per the 2009 travel survey, the average distance for a shopping trip was over 6 miles.  Short out in the sticks, perhaps (especially since our Vermont house is 25 miles from the nearest decent and dedicated grocery store...our town store is 4.5 miles but doesn't have everything).  But still getting lengthy when you're talking about urban and suburban areas.

Quote from: JN Winkler(I don't know about the Navy specifically, but both the Army and the Air Force require their service personnel to pass an annual physical fitness test that has strength and cardiovascular endurance components.)

Twice a year.

QuoteI'd also question whether most Americans in fact do their grocery shopping just once a week.  That frequency might work for families that eat nothing but processed food that can be stored in freezers or cupboards for extended periods with little decline in quality.  If you eat fresh food for taste and nutrition, however, a shorter shopping interval is better.  In this household we usually do a grocery shop once every two to three days.  I eat apples as a fiber snack immediately before going to bed and I never get more than five at a time since, unless I keep them refrigerated (which causes space problems in the fruit and vegetable drawer), they go soft and mealy after five days.

Concur.  Most fresh fruits and vegetables start going bad after 4-5 days (even in the fridge for some of them....try keeping a pint of raspberries for more than 3 days).  And unless you freeze it, meat should be used within 2-3 days.

As a single girl, I can shop every 5-6 days and still fit all my stuff in the 15 item "express" line (which translates to 3-5 bags of groceries depending on how efficient the cashier is).  My Mom shops every couple days and comes home with at least three full bags every time.  Some of the difference is caused by feeding one person vs. two-three plus two dogs, but a lot of it comes down to me standardizing all my meals and Mom buying things she regularly uses whenever she runs out only to figure out what will actually be for dinner on the same day.  Even with the much lower volume, I'm glad I can drive my groceries home.

Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2014, 09:23:53 PM
Meh. The envirowackos can keep crowing. Ain't happening.

True, but all it takes is one election victory en masse to change the score.

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 17, 2014, 11:52:20 AM
I'd also question whether most Americans in fact do their grocery shopping just once a week.

For nearly a decade in my family there was always with little exception one of us too young to be in school, so a trip anywhere required strapping at least one child into the car no matter what. This naturally made it a to-do, so when I was little my mother would make one big grocery shopping trip once a week with my father picking up a few things on the way home from work as needed.  Once we got a bit older and could be left at home alone for a bit, my mother started making 2-3 grocery trips a week. But for a family of five, that still meant too much cargo per trip to carry on a bicycle, so that wouldn't have been an option even if we lived close enough to the grocery store for biking to otherwise be an option.

Living on my own now, I stop at the grocery store 1-2 times a week. I then just walk home, since it's only a block and a half away. Naturally, I am not carrying enough to require a car, but I am only shopping for one person. For households with more people, they either make more frequent trips or buy one of those personal shopping carts that they can push home from the store. Walking is far more dominant than biking, but then the area where I live is exceptionally densely populated, especially by American standards.

Also, I don't know how common this trend is elsewhere, but where I grew up in Connecticut, shopping in a lot of families is done daily - because when both parents work 50+ hours a week, a quick stop on the way home to pick up tonight's dinner is all they usually have time for. This also reduces the number of home-cooked meals these families eat.
So, I would propose that the fact that Americans on average work longer hours than Europeans also has an influence on our grocery shopping habits.

Quote from: jake on February 14, 2014, 10:06:49 PM

Quote from: Duke87 on February 14, 2014, 10:00:53 PM
Sure, your neighborhood may look nicer without the freeway

I'm not convinced. I think Interstate 90 over Mercer Island it quite pretty (http://goo.gl/xB8sho).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3543%2F3350129094_37517b6fae_b.jpg&hash=03574b08d2e55610eec16731e0142ce7ce9344f2)

Also, I know they intentionally left the Alaskan Way Viaduct out because, well half of it's missing and the rest is primed for demolition. But with the tunnel-boring machine continually breaking down, locals seem to be (to borrow Alps' term) "crowing" about it and seem to just want to keep the viaduct. Uh yeah that's not happening you imbeciles. That thing is either gonna be torn down or it's falling down on its own.

For example, if the big 9.0 earthquake hits in the next few years or so.

Quote from: ET21 on February 14, 2014, 11:43:32 PM
Tear down a key interstate just to remove a barrier between St. Louis and the Arch. Next we'll hear cries to tear down Lake Shore Drive because it disconnects the city from the lakefront  :banghead:

Did they ever hear of "bridges" and "pedestrian overcrossings?"

Quote from: hm insulators on February 25, 2014, 02:11:08 PM

Quote from: ET21 on February 14, 2014, 11:43:32 PM
Tear down a key interstate just to remove a barrier between St. Louis and the Arch. Next we'll hear cries to tear down Lake Shore Drive because it disconnects the city from the lakefront  :banghead:

Did they ever hear of "bridges" and "pedestrian overcrossings?"

That's what I'm thinking. I guess these bridges don't count and they want just a big open field/beach with no roads

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 16, 2014, 10:12:29 AM

Quote from: corco on February 15, 2014, 09:17:52 PMWe aren't robots. Humans need to be in an environment they are comfortable in in order to want to use the facility. Why do you think light rail is so much more accepted by middle/upper classes than buses? People are more comfortable on light rail, for whatever reason.

The experience of riding on light rail is much better.

*  The ride is much smoother, partly because light-rail vehicles don't chew up the pavement under themselves and partly because they tend to be routed down the middle of the road, where geometry is more favorable (no "humps" when traversing the crown of intersecting roads, for example).

*  Seating is more flexible.  Most light-rail vehicles of recent design allow the option of seating en banc, which gives the passenger much more open sightlines since he or she is sitting looking outside a large window at the urban landscape instead of straight forward into a visual "tunnel" occluded by the driver cabin, heads of other passengers, backs of seats further forward, etc.  In SRO situations, it is also more comfortable to stand than on a bus.

*  Timekeeping tends to be better because virtually every light-rail system--even old-fashioned trams carried forward into the twenty-first century (as in Vienna)--runs on some dedicated right-of-way.

Where do you get these figures anyway? I've been in situations when I regularly took light rail, regular trains, buses, and subways in a single trip. I've never noticed any difference in the type of people who ride them (I'm not talking Amrak and Greyhound here. Local / commuter transit only). It's whatever is more convenient.

Light rail also makes no sense for longer distance trips when there is a parallel bus that only stops if people actually need to get on or off. The recently built River Line between Camden and Trenton, NJ makes zero sense for anyone travelling anywhere close to the entire length (over an hour). The parallel bus (which has been cut back since the line opened) actually makes the trip slightly faster, and anyone with access to a car will never even consider using it (it's a 30 minute drive, so it only makes sense if congestion is bad enough to double the trip). On the other hand, the also recently opened light rail link in Newark between Broad Street and Penn stations makes sense because it's short, connects two places where a high number of people is already getting off or on another public transit line, and parallel buses often get stuck in traffic.

Quote from: bzakharin on February 25, 2014, 03:56:41 PM
Light rail also makes no sense for longer distance trips when there is a parallel bus that only stops if people actually need to get on or off.

IIRC Boston's Green Line only stops if requested to.

Quote from: NE2 on February 25, 2014, 04:17:19 PM

Quote from: bzakharin on February 25, 2014, 03:56:41 PM
Light rail also makes no sense for longer distance trips when there is a parallel bus that only stops if people actually need to get on or off.

IIRC Boston's Green Line only stops if requested to.

What you're describing is known as a flag stop (it will only stop when a rider requests such and/or if there's passenger(s) waiting at the stops/platforms) and I believe such applies for the at-grade legs outside the Boston tunnels and beyond/west of where the T's Green Line routes (B, C , D & E) branch off.

Similar flag stops holds true for the SEPTA trolley routes in the Philly area and for some low-volume stations along the Regional Rail system during off-peak periods.

Quote from: ET21 on February 25, 2014, 02:32:27 PM

Quote from: hm insulators on February 25, 2014, 02:11:08 PM

Quote from: ET21 on February 14, 2014, 11:43:32 PM
Tear down a key interstate just to remove a barrier between St. Louis and the Arch. Next we'll hear cries to tear down Lake Shore Drive because it disconnects the city from the lakefront  :banghead:

Did they ever hear of "bridges" and "pedestrian overcrossings?"

That's what I'm thinking. I guess these bridges don't count and they want just a big open field/beach with no roads

I think the best solution would be large, oversized bridges at pedestrian level/mini tunnels at car level that don't feel like bridges from the surface. The best example I can think is the one recently constructed on MD-200 (ICC).

Quote from: Laura on February 27, 2014, 06:57:20 PM

Quote from: ET21 on February 25, 2014, 02:32:27 PM
That's what I'm thinking. I guess these bridges don't count and they want just a big open field/beach with no roads

I think the best solution would be large, oversized bridges at pedestrian level/mini tunnels at car level that don't feel like bridges from the surface. The best example I can think is the one recently constructed on MD-200 (ICC).

You mean like this? (https://maps.google.com/?ll=47.578415,-122.210112&spn=0.004591,0.008256&t=k&z=18) (I-90 in Mercer Island, WA)

Quote from: pianocello on February 27, 2014, 11:31:29 PM

Quote from: Laura on February 27, 2014, 06:57:20 PM

Quote from: ET21 on February 25, 2014, 02:32:27 PM
That's what I'm thinking. I guess these bridges don't count and they want just a big open field/beach with no roads

I think the best solution would be large, oversized bridges at pedestrian level/mini tunnels at car level that don't feel like bridges from the surface. The best example I can think is the one recently constructed on MD-200 (ICC).

You mean like this? (https://maps.google.com/?ll=47.578415,-122.210112&spn=0.004591,0.008256&t=k&z=18) (I-90 in Mercer Island, WA)

Any environment that feels predominately focused on a single transportation method will generally be hated by someone. I-90 over Mercer Washington is indeed one of the few places where you actually feel as though cars/buses/cyclists/pedestrians can actually get along w/o conflict. And, the whole area is functional too, unlike those weird 6-7 inch tablets that try to do everything but succeed at nothing; traffic rarely backs up in that area, and as Mercer Island is made up entirely of rich folk, the whole cycling/pedestrian environment must work pretty well too.

Quote from: jake on February 28, 2014, 12:36:05 AM

Quote from: pianocello on February 27, 2014, 11:31:29 PM

Quote from: Laura on February 27, 2014, 06:57:20 PM

Quote from: ET21 on February 25, 2014, 02:32:27 PM
That's what I'm thinking. I guess these bridges don't count and they want just a big open field/beach with no roads

I think the best solution would be large, oversized bridges at pedestrian level/mini tunnels at car level that don't feel like bridges from the surface. The best example I can think is the one recently constructed on MD-200 (ICC).

You mean like this? (https://maps.google.com/?ll=47.578415,-122.210112&spn=0.004591,0.008256&t=k&z=18) (I-90 in Mercer Island, WA)

Any environment that feels predominately focused on a single transportation method will generally be hated by someone. I-90 over Mercer Washington is indeed one of the few places where you actually feel as though cars/buses/cyclists/pedestrians can actually get along w/o conflict. And, the whole area is functional too, unlike those weird 6-7 inch tablets that try to do everything but succeed at nothing; traffic rarely backs up in that area, and as Mercer Island is made up entirely of rich folk, the whole cycling/pedestrian environment must work pretty well too.

That's exactly what I had in mind.


iPhone

As for the 10 freeways mentioned in the article, most, if not all, were constructed in the 1960's to early 1970's.  Many of these freeways were planned through downtown areas with little regard for the citizens who happened to be living in the right-of-way.  Yes, they do serve an important purpose, however, many of these freeways are in need of major repairs or replacements because of their age.

Being from the Syracuse area originally, I-81 is the shortest way to get through Syracuse.  The planning, in hindsight, was not well thought out in regards to through lanes and placement.  This is one of the narrowest, exit-induced sections of interstate highway in the country (outside of downtown Chicago).  There is a weakening viaduct in need of repair near Syracuse University and a winding, go around-the-buildings section north of I-690.  Yes, it has separated the university from downtown.  IMHO, I-81 should become a "boulevard".  I-81 would be re-routed on I-481 around the city and the current sections of I-81 would remain a freeway until Harrison St. (northbound) and Bear St. (southbound).  The south section could be renamed Jim Boeheim Blvd. (like Memphis's Sam Cooper Blvd.) and the north end could be I-981, as it is already to interstate standards.  It would be a bit funny to see signs that say:
                                 NORTH

                            Watertown

As for I-70 (soon to be I-44) in St. Louis, it should remain as is because the Gateway Arch should be isolated as it is a national landmark. 

         

                   

I-481 is congested now, so I don't see it handling the I-81 through traffic without a major upgrade.  Plus can a surface street really handle the traffic of what is now two local roads and a freeway?

On the plus side, it would probably result in I-81 being converted to mileage based exit numbers since every exit number and milepost north of exit 16 would need to be redone anyways.

Quote from: hm insulators on February 25, 2014, 02:11:08 PM

Quote from: ET21 on February 14, 2014, 11:43:32 PM
Tear down a key interstate just to remove a barrier between St. Louis and the Arch. Next we'll hear cries to tear down Lake Shore Drive because it disconnects the city from the lakefront  :banghead:

Did they ever hear of "bridges" and "pedestrian overcrossings?"

IIRC, back in the early 2000's there was a study that looked at doing either a giant land bridge that crossed both Memorial Drive and the depressed lanes or a much longer cap than is currently being built.

I don't really see how I-81 could be demolished without a parallel alignment built somewhere else through town.  481 seems like a long around for it to become the through route.  In retrospect however, it is a shame that I-81 was built exactly where it was through Syracuse.

Quote from: froggie on February 16, 2014, 08:50:45 AM
B) there's nothing stopping people on this side of the pond from grocery shopping more than once a week.  Even when I was in non-bikeable land and driving everywhere, I'd typically hit the grocery store (or Commissary as the case may be) every 4-5 days.

Sure there is.  Not everybody has time to go shopping 3 times a week.  Personally, I hate shopping and try to avoid going to the grocery store more than once a week or so.  It's a major nuisance.

Quote from: froggie on February 17, 2014, 11:03:22 AM
Third, car culture has been so heavily built/wrapped around the US for the past 60 years that Americans (including, I daresay, several members of this forum) find it impossible to think in terms of anything else.

For good reason.  How are you going to get around in a sprawled out city like, say, Tulsa or Kansas City, without a car?

Quote
Though we admittedly have limited examples of freeway teardowns or long-term freeway closures, a percentage of that traffic really does "magically vanish".

Where does it go?  Do folks just quit driving because a freeway was removed?  Do long distance travelers reroute their trips hundreds of miles out of the way to avoid a 2 mile stretch of non-freeway?

QuoteI-481 is congested now,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!

Sorry...that was a good laugh.  But in all seriousness, I-481 is not that congested and could easily absorb what little through traffic there is on I-81.  At the absolute worst, all that's really needed on I-481 is a couple of auxiliary lanes here and there between ramps.

QuoteFor good reason.  How are you going to get around in a sprawled out city like, say, Tulsa or Kansas City, without a car?

Which is the result of the last 60 years of car-focused culture.  Tulsa and Kansas City were not always as sprawled out as they are today.

QuoteWhere does it go?  Do folks just quit driving because a freeway was removed?  Do long distance travelers reroute their trips hundreds of miles out of the way to avoid a 2 mile stretch of non-freeway?

Some traffic moves to other routes, some traffic sticks with the original route (even if not a freeway).  And yes, some of it just simply disappears.  Contrary to popular belief, a very large percentage (possibly a majority) of trips are discretionary trips.  Only about 20% of all trips are work or work-related.

And in urban areas, "long distance travelers" are really a small percentage of overall traffic.  Going back to the I-81 Syracuse example, NYSDOT's study determined that there's only about 7,200 trips a day that are "long distance travelers" going through Syracuse on I-81.  All those tens-of-thousands of other trips have either an origin or destination (or both) within the Syracuse area.

The ends of I-481 may not be that congested, but it sure feels congested between NY 5/92 and I-90.  It's very rare that I can even go the speed limit (65) on that stretch.

Yep. Hypothetically, the average person can only sprawl so far from their job before they give up and move closer, whether by miles or minutes. The exception to this would be large cities like NYC, LA, SF, DC, or any other place that lacks affordable housing (up to the middle class's standards).

Now would be as good a time as any culturally to take out sections of freeway, as many in my generation (children of the boomers) are renting and not tied into previous housing investments in the far reaches of suburbia.

Quote from: Laura on March 01, 2014, 02:38:54 PM
Yep. Hypothetically, the average person can only sprawl so far from their job before they give up and move closer, whether by miles or minutes. The exception to this would be large cities like NYC, LA, SF, DC, or any other place that lacks affordable housing (up to the middle class's standards).

On another forum, someone worked out a comparison, based purely on money, between commuting to Central London from Zone 6 (edge of the urban area, 15-20 miles away) and Lincoln (about 150 miles away).

House prices in Lincoln were 80 season ticket (on the railway, because if you are doing this kind of calculation, you would be sane enough not to drive into Central London!) differentials cheaper than house prices in Zone 6. Lincoln is a nice place to live too, and rather booming at the moment - most places that distance from London will be cheaper.

Of course, the sub-1h commute times vs the just over 2h journey from Lincoln might sway things towards somewhere closer, but more costly.

Quote from: Laura on March 01, 2014, 02:38:54 PM
Now would be as good a time as any culturally to take out sections of freeway, as many in my generation (children of the boomers) are renting and not tied into previous housing investments in the far reaches of suburbia.

They might be renting now, but are they still going to be renting in five years after the rent goes up a few times?  And should the next generation change their minds, why should this generation screw them out of the choice of a suburban lifestyle?  With most of the tear down proposals, I don't see alternative mass transit options being adequately considered, nor consideration of keeping the former land open for future transportation developments.

You get screwed into a suburban "lifestyle". Unless you tag bees for fun.

Quote from: NE2 on March 01, 2014, 05:46:47 PM
You get screwed into a suburban "lifestyle". Unless you tag bees for fun.

Do you?  I sure the millions who bought in the Levitowns did not feel "screwed" when they bought.  Hell, it must have felt somewhat liberating to be out of the city, the congestion, the dirt, etc.

You assume much, Dan.

Quote from: Revive 755 on March 01, 2014, 05:19:57 PM

Quote from: Laura on March 01, 2014, 02:38:54 PM
Now would be as good a time as any culturally to take out sections of freeway, as many in my generation (children of the boomers) are renting and not tied into previous housing investments in the far reaches of suburbia.

They might be renting now, but are they still going to be renting in five years after the rent goes up a few times?

And will they want to rent once they mature and marry, and have kids?  I have sincere doubts they will want to remain where they are.  A lot of folks move due to the school district they are in, and how good it is.  Let's be quite frank, the Chicago Public Schools is not renown for its educational excellence.

Problems I have with the idea of rerouting I-81 along I-481:

1) It creates a situation where there is no redundancy in the freeway network south of I-690, and makes it so traffic coming east on I-690 has to either take a circuitous route or use surface streets to head south on I-81
2) The northern 481/81 junction is a cloverleaf which has 81 south to 481 south use a tight loop ramp. This interchange would need to be rebuilt to make that the through route for I-81.
3) As bypass routes go, I-481 is rather boxy, which adds unnecessary length if it's used as such. If you want to make it the through route, it should be rerouted so that it heads straight into I-81 to the south, rather than taking two 90 degree turns.

And that's all assuming that tearing down the freeway is a desirable thing to do... a claim which I find to be dubious. Somehow, I just can't accept the idea that destroying infrastructure without replacing it with something equal or better is a productive thing to do. Not unless the road has capacity far exceeding its current and projected future traffic volumes and thus isn't worth rebuilding on the same scale. There are certainly cases of this, but I-81 in Syracuse is not one of them. The desire to tear it down is based on purely aesthetic concerns about the neighborhood, not objective assessment of infrastructure needs - THAT is wrong.


As for the debate about suburbs, all I will say about that is that... suburbs aren't going away. Yes, our generation wants to live in cities more than our parents did, but at the same time, our generation is not getting married and having kids as young as our parents did. We're living it up in the city in our 20s rather than settling down and starting a family in our 20s. But when we do settle down and start a family (most likely in our 30s), something interesting happens: we leave the city and move back to, where else, the suburbs. The city is great for young single adults, but it is more a more challenging (and more expensive) place to raise children.

I've also been wondering when it became fashionable to NOT serve discretionary trips.

Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2014, 03:13:22 PM
I've also been wondering when it became fashionable to NOT serve discretionary trips.

When the global warming hoax was unleashed onto the world.

Personally I'd address that with a push for renewable energy (and cold fusion if/when we figure that out) and electric cars with better electric storage than we have today.

Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2014, 03:24:30 PM
... electric cars with better electric storage than we have today.

Praytell, where does the electricity come from?  :pan:

Quote from: jbnv on March 02, 2014, 09:42:03 PM

Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2014, 03:24:30 PM
... electric cars with better electric storage than we have today.

Praytell, where does the electricity come from?  :pan:

If people can figure out a way to do it in the near future, lightning.

Quote from: Duke87 on March 02, 2014, 12:24:26 AM
The desire to tear it down is based on purely aesthetic concerns about the neighborhood, not objective assessment of infrastructure needs - THAT is wrong.

As for the debate about suburbs, all I will say about that is that... suburbs aren't going away. Yes, our generation wants to live in cities more than our parents did, but at the same time, our generation is not getting married and having kids as young as our parents did. We're living it up in the city in our 20s rather than settling down and starting a family in our 20s. But when we do settle down and start a family (most likely in our 30s), something interesting happens: we leave the city and move back to, where else, the suburbs. The city is great for young single adults, but it is more a more challenging (and more expensive) place to raise children.

I'd like to think it's less about neighborhood aesthetics and more about eliminating the wall between neighborhoods. While not on the list, there are people who want I-83 truncated at Guilford Ave. in Baltimore because the viaduct has killed any redevelopment efforts east of it (and downtown). This is a situation where tearing down the freeway *might* be beneficial: that section could be converted to a boulevard (it's pretty much at a standstill during rush hour anyway), which would take down a barried to redeveloping Oldtown (of course, there are several other barriers unrelated to roads regarding the blight in this area, hence the might).

I'm not for this trendy mass tearing down of freeways by any means. I was only referencing the fact that this window of time would be the best one to push these kinds of ideas through. Millennials are renting longer and delaying families, but that won't last forever. These groups will not be nearly as successful ten years from now, unless the roads deteriorate and it's more cost-effective to tear them down.

All of that said, I really do think that more millennials will stay in cities than the past few generations. They won't be a majority, but more of them will stay than before. I know plenty of people in their late 20's and early 30's who are child-free by choice that grew up in the 'burbs and live in Baltimore now (they are paying mortgages on rowhomes), and the ones who choose to have a kid or two are sending them to charter schools.

Quote from: jbnv on March 02, 2014, 09:42:03 PM

Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2014, 03:24:30 PM
... electric cars with better electric storage than we have today.

Praytell, where does the electricity come from?  :pan:

If you're referring to how it gets to the car, the same as now with the Tesla; it would just be faster and last longer due to enhancing batteries with graphene or replacing them with capacitors.  If you're referring to how electricity would be generated in the first place, renewables (cheaper if we research long distance electric transmission, allowing plants to be built at the optimum place rather than near where the electricity will be used), and fusion if we figure it out.  I personally like SimCity 3000's idea of collecting solar energy in space and beaming it down as microwaves.

For I-70 (now I-44) in St. Louis, the city can just cap the freeway similar to how Columbus capped I-670.

I would support the removal/downgrade of the Buffalo Skyway. It doesn't look like it carries much traffic and using US 62 instead of NY 5 only adds a few minutes.

Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 03, 2014, 05:00:51 PM
For I-70 (now I-44) in St. Louis, the city can just cap the freeway similar to how Columbus capped I-670.

Capping it would be better than either leaving it as it is or removing it.

Leaving it as it is keeps the same eyesore as before.
Removing it will cause traffic issues in the downtown area.
Capping it will connect the area while leaving the freeway intact for traffic.  It's the best of both worlds.

Quote from: jbnv on March 02, 2014, 09:42:03 PM

Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2014, 03:24:30 PM
... electric cars with better electric storage than we have today.

Praytell, where does the electricity come from?  :pan:

Ideally from renewable sources like solar or wind, or something low emission like nuclear. But even for coal and natural gas, electric cars move the pollution from millions of small sources (cars) to a handful of centralized sources (power plants). It's much easier to mitigate/control the pollution from a handful of power plants than from all of the cars on the roads.

Quote2) The northern 481/81 junction is a cloverleaf which has 81 south to 481 south use a tight loop ramp. This interchange would need to be rebuilt to make that the through route for I-81.

Reading through the preliminary studies, if the "boulevard" option is selected, both 81/481 interchanges would be revised to make the transition more seamless.

Quote3) As bypass routes go, I-481 is rather boxy, which adds unnecessary length if it's used as such. If you want to make it the through route, it should be rerouted so that it heads straight into I-81 to the south, rather than taking two 90 degree turns.

This was suggested during the public input process, but would require a lot of right-of-way and construction and so was dropped.  There's also topographical issues with such, as the neighborhoods along NY 173/Seneca Tpk east of I-81 are on a plateau.  There's also a state park (Clark Reservation) in the way.

It should also be noted that using I-481 over I-81 adds a total of about 3.5 miles.  The bigger issue is the I-690 West to I-81 south traffic noted by someone else earlier...the "all freeway" route adds 8 miles....though I think even with that distance, most of such drivers would stick to the boulevard.

You say "It only adds 3.5 miles" as though that should be no big deal. And for one trip in one vehicle it may not be, but multiply that by thousands of trips every day* and it quickly adds up to a lot of miles and a lot of wasted time.

As for the alternative of "just use the boulevard"... yeah, no. You're taking away what's currently a free flowing route, and replacing it with inferior infrastructure that makes people slow down and stop at red lights instead. This isn't called a "downgrade" for nothing. It is backwards progress for mobility.

Now, if you build a light rail line that runs north-south through the city, then maybe you mitigate that. But destruction without corresponding construction is just that: destruction.

(and I'd rather have both the light rail line and the freeway, but one is better than neither)

*AADT is about 80,000 on that segment, but I don't know how much of it is through traffic. Presumably a large chunk of it is bound for somewhere in the city.

QuoteYou say "It only adds 3.5 miles" as though that should be no big deal.

I did not use the word "only".  I was simply making a statement of fact of the mileage given that it was mentioned earlier.

QuoteAs for the alternative of "just use the boulevard"... yeah, no. You're taking away what's currently a free flowing route, and replacing it with inferior infrastructure that makes people slow down and stop at red lights instead. This isn't called a "downgrade" for nothing. It is backwards progress for mobility.

There is far more to a city and urban area than infrastructure.  True, some drivers would be inconvenienced, but it could be argued (and is by some in Syracuse) that there are more benefits to the city to removing the eyesore (which, to be fair, the I-81 viaduct *IS* an eyesore) and restoring connectivity between downtown and SU than the loss of mobility for some.

Quote*AADT is about 80,000 on that segment, but I don't know how much of it is through traffic. Presumably a large chunk of it is bound for somewhere in the city.

According to NYSDOT's own study (mentioned earlier), I-81 through traffic is about 7,200 vehicles a day.

Just to be clear, I'm *NOT* advocating one way or the other regarding I-81.  There are strong arguments for both options.  I'm still mapping out (via GIS) my own scenarios.

I-81 in Syracuse strikes me as a poor choice for a teardown, not just because of the indirect routings that would result for through traffic and the added delay at traffic signals for local and regional traffic, but also because casual inspection in StreetView suggests that NYSDOT and the local agencies have already done many of the things that are considered good practice for mitigating the visual impact of urban viaducts, such as converting the space underneath into parking lots.  Are there additional things that can be done as an alternative to tearing down I-81, such as retrofitting it with transparent noise panels, or upgrading the lighting to remove shadowed areas at ground level?

As for I-70 in St. Louis, nobody has yet mentioned the I-10 deck park in Phoenix (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Phoenix,+AZ&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Phoenix,+Maricopa+County,+Arizona&ll=33.461234,-112.071769&spn=0.009756,0.01929&t=h&z=16&vpsrc=6) as a possible model for what can be done.

QuoteAre there additional things that can be done as an alternative to tearing down I-81, such as retrofitting it with transparent noise panels, or upgrading the lighting to remove shadowed areas at ground level?

Pointless to do now given that the bridges are in dire need of replacement, though it's something that could be incorporated into the new bridge.  But it still doesn't remove the bridge as a physical/psychological impediment.

Update on the Gardiner: http://torontoist.com/2014/03/new-proposal-for-gardiner-expressway/

Not a freeway, but some people in Somerville, Mass., are very actively pushing to get the elevated McGrath Highway (MA 28 ) torn down.  The road currently has something like six traffic lights between I-93 and the Cambridge line, but the elevated portion avoids two busy major cross-street intersections.

Moreover, the most recent proposal I have heard has the road reduced to two lanes each way along its length (currently at least three lanes each way, including surface roads). 

And the icing -- it's been suggested that the road's name be removed, instead reassigning names of streets formerly running along part of its route, in essence demapping it as a through route but for the route number (and for all we know that's next).

Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 06, 2014, 10:23:17 PM
Not a freeway, but some people in Somerville, Mass., are very actively pushing to get the elevated McGrath Highway (MA 28 ) torn down.  The road currently has something like six traffic lights between I-93 and the Cambridge line, but the elevated portion avoids two busy major cross-street intersections.

Moreover, the most recent proposal I have heard has the road reduced to two lanes each way along its length (currently at least three lanes each way, including surface roads). 

And the icing -- it's been suggested that the road's name be removed, instead reassigning names of streets formerly running along part of its route, in essence demapping it as a through route but for the route number (and for all we know that's next).

So stopping the I-695/Inner Belt 40+ years ago wasn't enough for these... *Ahem* people.

If this goes through (I could see MA 28 being thrown onto I-93 and exiting at the Leverett Circle Connector); one better pray that Somerville doesn't undergo an emergency evacuation scenario (I-93 doesn't serve all points of the town).  MA 28/McGrath (& O'Brien) Highway is the primary arterial north-south road that serves the town.

Not to get political, but maybe it's time that Bay State voters (at large) to stop blindly voting in one-party for every single elected office out there.  A more balanced political demographic (for both state and local offices) would put a stop to this road tear-down (w/no suitable alternative/replacement) nonsense IMHO.

Regarding my earlier post about I-81 in Syracuse...

If I-81 (and I-690) could be modernized, then I'm all for keeping I-81 where it is.  The way the freeways are in downtown Syracuse currently, traffic will only get worse.  Like I mentioned earlier, the flow is just not conducive to modern driving.

With hindsight being 20/20, it's a shame I-81 wasn't built a few miles to the east to go around Syracuse.  However, the idea in the 1950's and 1960's was to build the interstate highways as close to downtown as possible.  This is, IMHO, the reason why there is so much gridlock in downtown areas on these freeways.

I use Lexington, KY as a model to have an interstate highway near the city, but not through it.  If  you need to get to downtown Lexington (most likely to go to Rupp Arena to see UK play), you can use surface streets to get there.  Admittedly, Lexington/Fayette County has nearly 270,000 people verses Syracuse/Onondaga County's 460,000, but the model could have worked in Syracuse.  Explaining this would require using the Fictional Highways thread, though.

Since I-81 and I-690 are there, to modernize them would basically require many buildings north of I-690 to be demolished and the viaduct to be totally reconstructed.  Some of the downtown exits (north of I-690 on I-81 and the West and Geddes Street exits on I-690) would have to be permanently closed to allow a more streamlined flow through that area.  The I-81/I-690 interchange would need to be upgraded to allow free flow for every direction instead of the right exit/left slip ramp entrance currently in use as well as no access from I-81 south to I-690 west and I-690 east to I-81 north.  To make these connections, you have to use the Bear Street exits (NY 298) from both freeways.  Plus, does NYSDOT and the City of Syracuse have the funds to accomplish this?  I do not believe so.  With our economy in its current state, I cannot see these changes happening anytime in the near future.

Modernizing the interchange, I-81 viaduct, and building the missing movements is actually one of the proposed alternatives for this project.  I'm not too hopeful about it though - NYSDOT historically hasn't been very effective with standing up to tear down advocates.

From what I remember, it looked like I-81 from the north and I-690 were built between many buildings (I-690 followed an abandoned rail line) so it does not appear to be much room as is for the improvements.  Now if some of those buildings were razed, then the interchange and flow would be improved 200%. 

I know that where the freeways ultimately ended up was according to the 1947 freeway plan for Syracuse and that the belief then was to improve access to the downtown area (as was the case for many cities across the US).  It just does not work in its current form right now.

Dusting off a two year ago topic...

Yesterday on Syracuse.com, I was reading about the new proposal for I-81/I-690 in Syracuse.  Basically, the proposal followed what I said in my March 12, 2014 post--many buildings, historic and non-historic would have to be torn down for the new streamlined interchange to work.  Instead of doing that, NYSDOT should consider routing I-81 on I-481 around the city and making I-81 from I-690 to the I-481/NY 481 interchange either I-381, a state route, or routing US 11 on it.  I-81 south of I-690 should be torn down until the hillclimb south of Harrison.  Make it a boulevard or whatever.  The viaduct needs to go before it falls down on its own.  It will improve traffic and looks in that section of Syracuse.

Rerouting I-81 onto I-481 is a lot more work than people seem to think.  First, the interchanges at either end MUST be rebuilt if that happens.  Then you have the question of what to do about NY 481.  Then you would ideally widen ALL of I-481 to six lanes (eight between NY 5 and I-690 and also I-690 to the Thruway) (no idea why Region 3 is only looking at widening a small piece of the route - I-481 is quite congested now, and traffic moves at below the 65 mph speed limit).  And of course, you'd need to change all of the mileposts and exit numbers on I-81 north of Syracuse (which probably means converting all of I-81 to mile-based given the current MUTCD), and of course the same for I-481 and NY 481.  What a mess.

And where would the truckers go?  The viaduct is a MAJOR truck corridor, handling the freight between Rochester/Buffalo/western Syracuse and points south.  I doubt they will want to divert onto I-481.  I wouldn't want to divert onto I-481 for those movements either.  It's way out of the way and involves dealing with either more Thruway tolls or that boring part of I-690 east of I-81 (for that matter, the Thruway east of I-81 isn't that interesting either).

When your arguments include "what do we number NY 481" and "the proposed realignment is boring to drive" you've probably lost.

Quote from: NE2 on June 07, 2016, 01:39:34 PM
When your arguments include "what do we number NY 481" and "the proposed realignment is boring to drive" you've probably lost.

Just look at the map... THis is Syracuse NY.  Removing portion of I-81 between 481 and 690 makes routing real strange for southbound traffic from the west. Things are not that bad given I-86 progress, though.
North-south traffic gets extra 3 miles, which may be tolerable.

I would agree that interchange construction is costly.. but elevated portion of I-81 is at the end of life, as far as I understand - so large bill is coming due anyway. Interchanges may be the cheaper part of it..

Widening is expensive too.

Know what the reroute would do? Put more trucks and buses on I-390 and NY 63. Gets rid of any time advantage for taking the Thruway to Syracuse if you have to backtrack. I clinched 481 a couple weeks ago. That thing is heavily congested as it is. As previously stated, you'd have to change every sign on I-81 north of Syracuse, as well as spend hundreds of millions to rebuild the interchanges, including blasting through a ridge at the southern end. Yeah, I-81 isn't great, but the alternatives might be worse.

Quote from: cl94 on June 07, 2016, 01:55:46 PM
Know what the reroute would do? Put more trucks and buses on I-390 and NY 63. Gets rid of any time advantage for taking the Thruway to Syracuse if you have to backtrack. I clinched 481 a couple weeks ago. That thing is heavily congested as it is. As previously stated, you'd have to change every sign on I-81 north of Syracuse, as well as spend hundreds of millions to rebuild the interchanges, including blasting through a ridge at the southern end. Yeah, I-81 isn't great, but the alternatives might be worse.

Overall sounds like a second Tapan Zee: noone knows how to do it, but something needs to be done before damn thing falls apart!

Quote from: ET21 on February 14, 2014, 11:43:32 PM
Tear down a key interstate just to remove a barrier between St. Louis and the Arch.

Just cap it

This isn't an interstate, but I really think that the Bethpage State Parkway in eastern Nassau County, New York is really unnecessary because it has a total of 3 exits including termini, and NY 135 is not even half a mile away and crosses all of Long Island.

When the park east in Milwaukee was torn down back in the early 2000's we were all promised it was going to bring in all this development and how wonderful it would be. Now over a decade later it's still mostly vacant despite some claims it was the most valuable land in the state. What a joke just keep that mind next time you propose tearing a freeway down will bring in economic development.

Quote from: dvferyance on June 07, 2016, 06:41:47 PM
When the park east in Milwaukee was torn down back in the early 2000's we were all promised it was going to bring in all this development and how wonderful it would be. Now over a decade later it's still mostly vacant despite some claims it was the most valuable land in the state. What a joke just keep that mind next time you propose tearing a freeway down will bring in economic development.

Well, at least there's room for additional development. You can't build under a viaduct (not effectively, at least). Tearing down a viaduct does not automatically result in increased development. The city has to be in a situation where additional development is feasible. And from the looks of it, Milwaukee has begun to develop quite nicely as of late. And there's nothing that says the development has to be exactly where the viaduct formerly stood. Tearing down a viaduct helps improve the walkability of areas not just where the viaduct stood, but also miles away (perhaps increasing the demand for lots up to 15 or 20 blocks away).

Quote from: jakeroot on June 07, 2016, 07:16:37 PM

Quote from: dvferyance on June 07, 2016, 06:41:47 PM
When the park east in Milwaukee was torn down back in the early 2000's we were all promised it was going to bring in all this development and how wonderful it would be. Now over a decade later it's still mostly vacant despite some claims it was the most valuable land in the state. What a joke just keep that mind next time you propose tearing a freeway down will bring in economic development.

Well, at least there's room for additional development. You can't build under a viaduct (not effectively, at least). Tearing down a viaduct does not automatically result in increased development. The city has to be in a situation where additional development is feasible. And from the looks of it, Milwaukee has begun to develop quite nicely as of late. And there's nothing that says the development has to be exactly where the viaduct formerly stood. Tearing down a viaduct helps improve the walkability of areas not just where the viaduct stood, but also miles away (perhaps increasing the demand for lots up to 15 or 20 blocks away).

That makes absolutely no sense. Tearing the freeway down had no effect on walkability at all. If your not going to build anything there what was the point of tearing it down? Yeah there is room for development all right but if it ain't happening what's the point anyways? We were promised this was going to bring in development. I would think if this land was so valuable as they claim anyone would have built there in a heartbeat.

Quote from: jakeroot on June 07, 2016, 07:16:37 PM

Quote from: dvferyance on June 07, 2016, 06:41:47 PM
When the park east in Milwaukee was torn down back in the early 2000's we were all promised it was going to bring in all this development and how wonderful it would be. Now over a decade later it's still mostly vacant despite some claims it was the most valuable land in the state. What a joke just keep that mind next time you propose tearing a freeway down will bring in economic development.

Well, at least there's room for additional development. You can't build under a viaduct (not effectively, at least). Tearing down a viaduct does not automatically result in increased development. The city has to be in a situation where additional development is feasible. And from the looks of it, Milwaukee has begun to develop quite nicely as of late. And there's nothing that says the development has to be exactly where the viaduct formerly stood. Tearing down a viaduct helps improve the walkability of areas not just where the viaduct stood, but also miles away (perhaps increasing the demand for lots up to 15 or 20 blocks away).

Last time I checked, US was still third largest country by area with modest population density.
Can you show me ANY projects in US that didn't take off because there was not enough land to be found? Of course, land may be an issue on Manhattan or within Beltway...

Quote from: kalvado on June 08, 2016, 08:01:16 AM

Can you show me ANY projects in US that didn't take off because there was not enough land to be found? Of course, land may be an issue on Manhattan or within Beltway...

Any proposal to add more lanes to avenues on Manhattan. :D

Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2016, 08:23:22 AM

Quote from: kalvado on June 08, 2016, 08:01:16 AM

Can you show me ANY projects in US that didn't take off because there was not enough land to be found? Of course, land may be an issue on Manhattan or within Beltway...

Any proposal to add more lanes to avenues on Manhattan. :D

Well.. it is difficult to get more room for that by demolishing existing roads...

Quote from: cl94Know what the reroute would do? Put more trucks and buses on I-390 and NY 63.

Unless someone has hard numbers showing otherwise, there isn't a lot of through traffic that would be impacted by this viaduct removal.  It's mostly Onondaga County traffic that would be impacted.  Sure, some would shift to 481 (which isn't as bad as val and cl94 claim, BTW)...probably enough to warrant 6 laning.  And as val noted the interchanges on either end would need to be addressed.  But it's also safe to say that such would be less expensive than rebuilding the viaduct.  And I believe the earlier project studies confirmed that.

Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2016, 08:23:22 AM

Quote from: kalvado on June 08, 2016, 08:01:16 AM

Can you show me ANY projects in US that didn't take off because there was not enough land to be found? Of course, land may be an issue on Manhattan or within Beltway...

Any proposal to add more lanes to avenues on Manhattan. :D

Yea, I could see adding lanes to a grid network laid out in the 1810s being difficult.

Quote from: kalvado on June 08, 2016, 08:01:16 AM
Last time I checked, US was still third largest country by area with modest population density.
Can you show me ANY projects in US that didn't take off because there was not enough land to be found? Of course, land may be an issue on Manhattan or within Beltway...

And many other cities.  Lack of land has been a principal reason for the freeway revolts in San Francisco, Portland, Or., Seattle, other places.  It's not so much the 1810 gridwork, which is not the case in any of those western cities, as expensive buildings built right up to their lot lines.

Quote from: kkt on June 08, 2016, 12:38:21 PM

Quote from: kalvado on June 08, 2016, 08:01:16 AM
Last time I checked, US was still third largest country by area with modest population density.
Can you show me ANY projects in US that didn't take off because there was not enough land to be found? Of course, land may be an issue on Manhattan or within Beltway...

And many other cities.  Lack of land has been a principal reason for the freeway revolts in San Francisco, Portland, Or., Seattle, other places.  It's not so much the 1810 gridwork, which is not the case in any of those western cities, as expensive buildings built right up to their lot lines.

There is a huge difference between "no room for road" and "lets demolish road to make room for something else".
My point is, I am not aware of any business, university, hospital, government organisation etc. giving up an idea to build something on US soil because there is no land.
Different state, maybe, but even that primarily due to tax giveaways. Sometimes expansion is difficult, but usually ends up with moving to a new location or second campus. In those cases value of road connections is readily recognized.
Squeezing something into existing footprint is mostly done in cities with old fixed borders, where all land is developed. Hope is new business would bring money with no new expenses as old city is mostly trashed and cannot pay for what is there. Common wisdom tells that you cannot have a cake and eat it too. Best double use, as it turns out, is to demolish the cake - so you nether have it, nor eat it too - which seems a preferred option.

Quote from: dvferyance on June 07, 2016, 08:52:22 PM
That makes absolutely no sense. Tearing the freeway down had no effect on walkability at all. If your not going to build anything there what was the point of tearing it down? Yeah there is room for development all right but if it ain't happening what's the point anyways? We were promised this was going to bring in development. I would think if this land was so valuable as they claim anyone would have built there in a heartbeat.

Okay, sorry they couldn't predict the future. Would you rather they rebuild the freeway? Unless Milwaukee is done growing, I don't see any sort of timeline where that land doesn't come into play, eventually.

By the way, walkability is a measure of how friendly an area is to walking. Viaducts are not friendly to those walking, because they are dark, cold, drippy, shelter lots of homeless people, among other things. They're more of a psychological barrier than a physical one, but they're a barrier nonetheless.

Quote from: froggie on June 08, 2016, 09:21:23 AM

Quote from: cl94Know what the reroute would do? Put more trucks and buses on I-390 and NY 63.

Unless someone has hard numbers showing otherwise, there isn't a lot of through traffic that would be impacted by this viaduct removal.  It's mostly Onondaga County traffic that would be impacted.  Sure, some would shift to 481 (which isn't as bad as val and cl94 claim, BTW)...probably enough to warrant 6 laning.  And as val noted the interchanges on either end would need to be addressed.  But it's also safe to say that such would be less expensive than rebuilding the viaduct.  And I believe the earlier project studies confirmed that.

I recall reading that the through traffic numbers are somewhere between 10-15k.  Still leaves what to do with the 70k people going into the city (whose destination is assumed to be downtown; don't remember if it was tracked or not).  I-481's traffic counts near the Thruway are at the level of the recently widened part of the Thruway between exits 23 and 24.  It has felt congested the past few times I've driven on it.  Traffic flow was around 55 despite the 65 mph speed limit, and due to traffic levels, getting around the slowpokes was impossible.

Two blocks of the former Park East corridor will become a new basketball arena for the Bucks.
The area has been filling in considerably in the last few years and adjacent blocks have seen significant development including a residential high rise that is among the 10 tallest buildings in the city.

Removing the barrier created by the Park East has lead to a renaissance on the west bank of the Milwaukee River in Schiltz Park and Brewers Hill.  The physical and psychological barrier between the established part of downtown and these formerly neglected neighborhoods made these areas much more attractive to redevelopment.  All stuff that wouldn't have happened with a big ugly freeway across the street.

It was more than worth the extra 90 seconds (or whatever) it now takes to get to MSOE from I-43.  The removal saved a huge amount of money in maintenance and simplified the Marquette Interchange rebuild considerably.  I do not miss it one bit.  One of the best decisions the city has made in recent decades was to tear down that freeway to nowhere.

Surprised no one has yet to mention  the US-40/former I-170 freeway to nowhere in Western Baltimore. It's really unfortunate what that highway did to the nearby community and I think if it was made into a nice blvd or something it would really help out that area. Also I wouldn't mind seeing the Whitehurst in DC being torn down either, as it would greatly improve the waterfront.

QuoteAlso I wouldn't mind seeing the Whitehurst in DC being torn down either, as it would greatly improve the waterfront.

The problem that (mostly-) out-of-state drivers will bring up here is what do you do with the Whitehurst traffic when M St through Georgetown is already gridlocked most days?

Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 08, 2016, 10:12:04 PM
Two blocks of the former Park East corridor will become a new basketball arena for the Bucks.
The area has been filling in considerably in the last few years and adjacent blocks have seen significant development including a residential high rise that is among the 10 tallest buildings in the city.

Removing the barrier created by the Park East has lead to a renaissance on the west bank of the Milwaukee River in Schiltz Park and Brewers Hill.  The physical and psychological barrier between the established part of downtown and these formerly neglected neighborhoods made these areas much more attractive to redevelopment.  All stuff that wouldn't have happened with a big ugly freeway across the street.

It was more than worth the extra 90 seconds (or whatever) it now takes to get to MSOE from I-43.  The removal saved a huge amount of money in maintenance and simplified the Marquette Interchange rebuild considerably.  I do not miss it one bit.  One of the best decisions the city has made in recent decades was to tear down that freeway to nowhere.

My whole point is we are all told when the freeway was torn down it would lead to all this development and it was going to be so wonderful. They even called that land some of the most valuable in the state. Well if it was really so valuable why is it taking well over a decade to see any development? Ok perhaps with the Bucks arena coming in we will finally see some development. But I think it's pathetic that it took so insanely long after we were promised how wonderful this was going to be. If this land was such a gold mine like city leaders said it was I would think development would have happened a long time ago. As I recalled former mayor Norquist who was so obsessed with tearing this freeway down did absolutely nothing to try to bring in any economic development. It just amazes me that even after all this time supporters of this still won't admit uh perhaps this land wasn't as attractive as we thought.

In fairness to your position, much of the newly vacant land in the Park East Corridor got caught up in bureaucratic garbage.  The city got some of it and the county kept the rest.  Neither entity wanted to just turn around and sell it to the highest bidder.  They wanted concrete proposals that matched certain criteria that were considered 'worthwhile.'  I think the reasoning was they didn't want someone scooping up this land and just sitting on it until the value went up enough for them to turn a profit.  But it also meant prospective buyers had to come to the table with a fully fleshed out plan of what they wanted to build, how they were going to pay for it and who was going to live there.  Basically, there are people in local government and NGO's who want projects that are not just up-scale residential.  They want affordable housing in the mix.

There are others who want to keep some of the land available to lure a large corporation to town to build their headquarters.  That always seemed like an optimistic reach to me.  But it came close to working with Kohls when they were looking to either expand in or move from Menomonee Falls.

But to my point, the debates about what to do with land made available by freeway demolition can only really happen in earnest once it's actually gone.  Until then it's all just speculation.  Prior to actually demolishing the Park East, there were years of thought experiments about what to do with the land.  The Harley-Davidson Museum was going to go there.  Before that, it was considered as a location for County Stadium's replacement.  But none of those ideas could go forward because the freeway was still in place.

It has been a longer process than I think most had hoped.  There are lessons to be learned by other cities from Milwaukee's example.  The best one seems to be "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."  Don't pass on okay projects because you are so focused on an ideal of urban infill.
I would also advise other cities to take some of the land and turn it loose on the market.  Take a block, auction it off and see what happens.  At least that way you're collecting taxes on it.

Even with large chunks of the land sitting idle, it was still worthwhile to remove the Park East.  Because realistically, this dead-end road had very limited functionality.  When I lived in Milwaukee I used McKinley Ave to get to and from I-43 all the time, so if the Park East had still been there, I would have used it.  But it would have saved me all of 60 seconds.  It wasn't an especially useful highway.  The trade off in land use and the visual barrier it created wasn't worth it.  I will continue to be patient with redevelopment and satisfied with all the beneficial changes the removal has brought to that part of the city.

I don't get it, how could you possibly remove I-84? it's the busiest interstate in the area, what the hell are they going to do with the traffic? 

Quote from: froggie on February 15, 2014, 09:17:10 AM

Quoteand the fact that you now have at-grade intersections where you previously didn't reduces safety for drivers, bikers, and pedestrians alike.

I think the jury is still out on this one.  But it demonstrates how a study on the before/after safety of those few freeway deconstruction examples we've done in this country (San Fran, Manhattan, Milwaukee)  could provide useful data.

QuoteIf the concern is that cars do not use space as efficiently as bikes or public transit do, that's true, and it's worth promoting the use of those alternative modes of transportation when practical. But those modes lack the versatility of automobile travel, so there will always be a lot of trips you cannot reasonably divert to them.

I will disagree with you to a degree on bikes.  A strong argument could be made that bicycling is more versatile than driving for short distances, especially in urban areas.  Easier to park...less delay due to traffic.  Case-in-point:  it takes me an average of about 4 minutes from when I walk out of my apartment to when I get my car out of the complex's parking garage.  In that 4 minutes, by bike, I can be halfway to Ghent or anywhere downtown.  I can be to pretty much anything I would want or need outside of base within 10 minutes by bike.

This is an example of why adding bike infrastructure in cities is important, and WILL make a difference.  Not only does it cut down on traffic and parking needs (1 car parking spot can, on average, hold 10 bikes), but recent studies have suggested that bike infrastructure brings economic benefits far in excess of its cost, including an increase in business customers to businesses along the bike route.  Another factor to consider is that, per the 2009 National Household Transportation Survey (data extractable here (http://nhts.ornl.gov/det/Extraction3.aspx)), one-third of all vehicle trips are under 3 miles in length (and half of all vehicle trips are less than 5mi).  This is a trip pool that could easily be tapped into if we had better bike/ped infrastructure.  Unfortunately, we've been so car-happy in this country for the past 50 years and cash-strapped for the past 20 that we've forgotten how to build a decent all-mode transportation network (nevermind forgotten how to build community and "place")...

I disagree.  I do not think a bike is ever more efficient than a car, even for short distances.  even if I can zoom by on my bike rather than sit in traffic (by the way, that's illegal, since bike have to obey all the laws that cars do), I still have to do something with the bike since a bike is easier to steal than a car.  So I find somewhere to lock it up, and I have to carry in all the things I was carrying on the bike since I can't have them out there for anyone to steal.  So the mess of unlocking the bike at home, strapping down my crap for work for the day to the bike, riding to work, unstrapping my crap off the bike, messing with all the time it takes to lock up the bike in a way that it is a deterrent to thieves (because we all know it is one thing to lock the bike up, and entirely another thing to lock it up in a way to keep people from stealing it) I have wasted more time than if I drove.  Plus, you're argument only works regionally.  I live in Austin, TX, where you cannot even stand outside in the summer without being drenched with sweat when the temperature reaches 108 degrees, much less ride a bike.  There is no way I am riding a bike to a destination when I have to be business causal even in the summer without standing in front of clients looking like I don't care about myself at all because my shirt and pants are sweated completely through.  remember again, just because you are on a bike doesn't mean you get to play by your own rules.  You are not supposed to be on the sidewalk ever.  So in areas where there are not bike lanes, you better be in the lane with the cars, and pedaling your butt off so you don't get run over by a car.  And the same lights you stop at by car, you had better be stopping at by bike.  To me it will never work out unless I am going less than a block.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 22, 2016, 11:15:36 AM
I disagree.  I do not think a bike is ever more efficient than a car, even for short distances.  even if I can zoom by on my bike rather than sit in traffic (by the way, that's illegal, since bike have to obey all the laws that cars do), I still have to do something with the bike since a bike is easier to steal than a car.  So I find somewhere to lock it up, and I have to carry in all the things I was carrying on the bike since I can't have them out there for anyone to steal.  So the mess of unlocking the bike at home, strapping down my crap for work for the day to the bike, riding to work, unstrapping my crap off the bike, messing with all the time it takes to lock up the bike in a way that it is a deterrent to thieves (because we all know it is one thing to lock the bike up, and entirely another thing to lock it up in a way to keep people from stealing it) I have wasted more time than if I drove.  Plus, you're argument only works regionally.  I live in Austin, TX, where you cannot even stand outside in the summer without being drenched with sweat when the temperature reaches 108 degrees, much less ride a bike.  There is no way I am riding a bike to a destination when I have to be business causal even in the summer without standing in front of clients looking like I don't care about myself at all because my shirt and pants are sweated completely through.  remember again, just because you are on a bike doesn't mean you get to play by your own rules.  You are not supposed to be on the sidewalk ever.  So in areas where there are not bike lanes, you better be in the lane with the cars, and pedaling your butt off so you don't get run over by a car.  And the same lights you stop at by car, you had better be stopping at by bike.  To me it will never work out unless I am going less than a block.

Of course, you cannot leave a lot of stuff at bike parking that you leave at the car - EZpass, spare tire, pile of paper and empty bottles on a back seat, spare boots, umbrella... what not.
BUt at the end of the day, you actually need to carry only things you carry to the destination - in my case, laptop, phone and travel coffee mug. I could dump everything else from the car..

Dedicated bike lanes help bypassing traffic, and that is OK - with some fine print regarding collisions with turning cars.

But weather is really a big deal. You have +100F in summer, we have -10F in  winter - both are uncomfortable for bike. Rain, snow, what not.
Hot shower and dry clothing  at the destination (I can bring dry stuff, but we have no showers here) is a must for bike commute  from my perspective. With that.. I can see the point if I still keep car as a plan B.

Quote from: kalvado on June 22, 2016, 11:43:18 AM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 22, 2016, 11:15:36 AM
I disagree.  I do not think a bike is ever more efficient than a car, even for short distances.  even if I can zoom by on my bike rather than sit in traffic (by the way, that's illegal, since bike have to obey all the laws that cars do), I still have to do something with the bike since a bike is easier to steal than a car.  So I find somewhere to lock it up, and I have to carry in all the things I was carrying on the bike since I can't have them out there for anyone to steal.  So the mess of unlocking the bike at home, strapping down my crap for work for the day to the bike, riding to work, unstrapping my crap off the bike, messing with all the time it takes to lock up the bike in a way that it is a deterrent to thieves (because we all know it is one thing to lock the bike up, and entirely another thing to lock it up in a way to keep people from stealing it) I have wasted more time than if I drove.  Plus, you're argument only works regionally.  I live in Austin, TX, where you cannot even stand outside in the summer without being drenched with sweat when the temperature reaches 108 degrees, much less ride a bike.  There is no way I am riding a bike to a destination when I have to be business causal even in the summer without standing in front of clients looking like I don't care about myself at all because my shirt and pants are sweated completely through.  remember again, just because you are on a bike doesn't mean you get to play by your own rules.  You are not supposed to be on the sidewalk ever.  So in areas where there are not bike lanes, you better be in the lane with the cars, and pedaling your butt off so you don't get run over by a car.  And the same lights you stop at by car, you had better be stopping at by bike.  To me it will never work out unless I am going less than a block.

Of course, you cannot leave a lot of stuff at bike parking that you leave at the car - EZpass, spare tire, pile of paper and empty bottles on a back seat, spare boots, umbrella... what not.
BUt at the end of the day, you actually need to carry only things you carry to the destination - in my case, laptop, phone and travel coffee mug. I could dump everything else from the car..

Dedicated bike lanes help bypassing traffic, and that is OK - with some fine print regarding collisions with turning cars.

But weather is really a big deal. You have +100F in summer, we have -10F in  winter - both are uncomfortable for bike. Rain, snow, what not.
Hot shower and dry clothing  at the destination (I can bring dry stuff, but we have no showers here) is a must for bike commute  from my perspective. With that.. I can see the point if I still keep car as a plan B.

I would love to ride my bike around town.  I would.  I have no issues with it.  I just am a realist.  I have 2 jobs, and need to bring stuff to both jobs, so I have more than a laptop and a coffee mug. 

I am not saying that it's not a bad idea, it's just not universally a perfect fit.  I am sure you are not this way, but it seams like the ultra liberals here in Austin think because they can ride their bike from their loft a block to work, then everyone can. 

Of course if you say "I am not riding my bike around town" then you look like an uneducated hick.  Whatever, if I look like that fine.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 22, 2016, 03:12:06 PM
I am not saying that it's not a bad idea, it's just not universally a perfect fit. 

I am trying to think of a single thing which is a universally perfect fit. So far breathing air and drinking water are the only two things I could come up with..