http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/07/01/8-monster-interchanges-that-blight-american-cities/
What do you think of this though? I thought some of the criteria is questionable.
I'm sure this will initiate a worthwhile discussion. Same as every article of this nature.
I'd say the criteria are questionable, IMHO. The Circle Interchange, for example, is barely a blight as it sits within a mere four square blocks and never has a ramp rise much above the level of the streets around it. The Stevenson-Ryan interchange just to the south is a much bigger "blight" as it rises high above the level of the streets and takes up far more land.
Quote from: bing101 on July 02, 2014, 01:08:46 PM
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/07/01/8-monster-interchanges-that-blight-american-cities/
What do you think of this though? I thought some of the criteria is questionable.
Considering the criteria is along the lines of "Anything with cars on it", I'm surprised they only named 8.
Personally, any interchange with stubs would be blight to me. Rarely if ever can you take an uncompleted stub and make it look somewhat presentable.
Is this really considered blight though? Last time I checked, massive highway ramps do not actually encourage crime in cities, unlike say, vacant buildings.
Quote from: ArticleBut despite their massive scale and the huge sums we spend on them, highway interchanges in American cities can seem invisible. After all, no one ever goes to hang out by the interchange.
Underlined part right near the beginning negates the point of the article. Nice job selling it to the audience.
Then there's the usual "well, a few people hate it", but a million others' lives are made a bit easier...nobody explains that land owners made money off it, it directly created employment, helped reduce commute times, reduced accidents and injuries, lowered transportation delivery times, and the increased efficiency payout to commuters who could sleep in that extra 30-60 minutes, get some exercise, go use that time with their families, or do whatever they felt like.
But hey, just another way to show that
looks are everything. Nothing is allowed to be elegant if it doesn't have a brand name in America.
QuoteLast time I checked, massive highway ramps do not actually encourage crime in cities, unlike say, vacant buildings.
To oversimplify (because the reality is pretty complex), yes massive highway ramps can encourage crime in cities, both directly and (moreso) indirectly. The general trend is that such ramps (especially those above grade and not below) create dead/shadow zones (easier for petty crimes to take place). And in residential areas, the highways and the noise and pollution they create lower property values, which in turn makes them less desirable to live in, which in turn tends to bring forth the less savory elements of society.
Quoteand the increased efficiency payout to commuters who could sleep in that extra 30-60 minutes, get some exercise, go use that time with their families, or do whatever they felt like.
I have always been of the belief that living closer to one's workplace is a much more efficient way to do this than spending multimillions (up to billions in some cases) of dollars on freeway and interchange upgrades. Which is why we need to improve our suburbs and cities so that they are actual PLACES instead of bedrooms and traffic sewers.
As for your point about exercise, that's a good argument for bike commuting.
Quote from: froggie on July 02, 2014, 02:41:03 PM
I have always been of the belief that living closer to one's workplace is a much more efficient way to do this than spending multimillions (up to billions in some cases) of dollars on freeway and interchange upgrades. Which is why we need to improve our suburbs and cities so that they are actual PLACES instead of bedrooms and traffic sewers.
It is far easier to change one's workplace location, and far more likely to happen than changing one's domicile, especially in this housing market. Why should a person spend far more in taxes, food, water supply, etc, etc just to live close to a workplace? It would be far better to remove these workplaces from places such as the Loop and get them out to where people actually live.
Last time I checked, there were still plenty (millions) living within 10 miles of the loop...
As for "spending far more in taxes, food, water supply, etc etc", you know that isn't always the case. And with transportation being the 2nd largest household expense, one would save a fair bit on that large expense by living closer.
Or, given what you mentioned in your first sentence, if you can't move closer to where you work, find a job closer to where you live. Accomplishes much the same thing from a transportation and traffic perspective.
Froggie,
One thing to keep in mind that there are many instances where the real estate (mortgages/rent) closer to the major cities are exponentially higher than those in the suburbs; many that work in said-cities live further out because they simply can not afford to live near or in the city.
I know for a fact that many commute to NYC (via Amtrak, NJ Transit or by car) for work that live as away as the Trenton, NJ because of the real estate costs near/at NYC.
A friend of my brother's works in Boston but lives as far out as Oxford (near I-395) because the real estate costs inside of I-495 are still absolutely outrageous even after the housing bubble bursted several years ago.
I won't even bother to discuss that many of the city school systems aren't the most desirable ones (among public schools) to send one's kids to.
An attempt to steer the topic back on course
One needs to realize that highways through cities and their interchanges aren't just used by commuters heading to/from their jobs. Trucking carrying cargo, supplies, goods and services along with busses (a common form of mass transit) utilize these highways as well.
How does that ritzy downtown restaurant that a city resident frequents get all its food items, furniture, etc.? Chances are it came from delivery trucks that use these highways as a means of delivering goods & services in a safe & timely manner. In short, these highways & their interchanges serve as instruments of commerce.
And before one says, let's just bury the highways like what was done w/I-93 in Boston, one needs to keep in mind that there are consequences for such actions; besides the enormous associated cost as the Big Dig proved. Such consequences typically involve restricting certain vehicles and/or cargo for using the underground highways. If one needs to transport certain materials/chemicals to a facility that's actually located in the City of Boston, for example; they are not allowed to use the I-93 and I-90 tunnels. Such vehicles have to use narrower surface streets as a means of getting to/from their city-located destination.
Ugh where do I begin...
Ramming highways through the middle of American cities was undoubtedly one of the worst mistakes of the 20th century demolishing urban habitat, dividing neighborhoods, and erecting structures that suck the life out of places.
But they also bring people TO & FROM cities.
What could be worse than a highway through the middle of town? How about when two highways intersect, with all their assorted high-speed ramps carving out huge chunks of land to move cars.
So would you rather have stoplights at every corner making side streets gridlock!?! That's why they were built in the first place b/c of traffic congestion in the 30s and 40s. Where is the traffic supposed to go now that it's here!? It won't just evaporate.
But despite their massive scale and the huge sums we spend on them, highway interchanges in American cities can seem invisible. After all, no one ever goes to hang out by the interchange.
Just like nobody goes to hang out at the mass transit station (bus station, train station unless they're using it.
So, to give you a good look, we put together this list of some of the most enormous interchanges in U.S. cities. Just imagine what cities could do with all this space
Take up the same amount of space with a bus depot!?
These anti-highway people think the removal of roads is the answer to everything. People forget why the interstates were built to begin with, some cities were already suffering from massive traffic before the expressways. The way interstates were built weren't perfect but tearing them down won't magically bring back the "good 'ole days."
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 02, 2014, 03:38:12 PM
I know for a fact that many commute to NYC (via Amtrak, NJ Transit or by car) for work that live as away as the Trenton, NJ because of the real estate costs near/at NYC.
I've heard a Scranton-NYC commute is becoming appallingly popular.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: July 03, 2014, 12:05:31 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fusa.streetsblog.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F06%2FI71-I670-Interchange_U.jpg&hash=a0c2ee9dec8d42c2bf9258f81f6074b0d88a7803)
what is going on in this render? what is the "checkerboard" paving at lower right intended to convey?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 02, 2014, 05:50:11 PM
what is going on in this render? what is the "checkerboard" paving at lower right intended to convey?
I think that is very simply...identification of where the road surface turns to concrete (instead of asphalt) due to using an overpass.
There's this gem regarding the 110/105 interchange in LA: It includes nine miles of cloverleaf loops . . .
Huh?!
And this one about the 5/163 interchange in San Diego: But good luck getting to the Art and Space Museum on foot from downtown.
Actually, it's easy. You just go up Park Blvd.
According to the idiots who wrote that, Spaghetti Junction in Louisville is south of downtown.
Downtown Jeffersonville, Ind., maybe.
People who fail basic geography are definitely not going to succeed at highway engineering.
Quote from: froggie on July 02, 2014, 02:55:28 PM
As for "spending far more in taxes, food, water supply, etc etc", you know that isn't always the case. And with transportation being the 2nd largest household expense, one would save a fair bit on that large expense by living closer.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 02, 2014, 03:38:12 PM
One thing to keep in mind that there are many instances where the real estate (mortgages/rent) closer to the major cities are exponentially higher than those in the suburbs; many that work in said-cities live further out because they simply can not afford to live near or in the city.
This is a valid truth: the only thing that is particularly more expensive about living in the suburbs is extra transportation costs for commuting if you work in the city. To counter this, real estate is likely to be cheaper, taxes might be lower, and lots of other things may be cheaper as well. Not to mention the generally lower crime, better schools, and better government services that suburbs have compared to cities.
That said, the reason why you see this in the US and not so much in other parts of the world is that transportation is cheap here. If you doubled the price of gas (as places like Europe did decades ago), the sprawl machine would stop and people would make it a much more serious goal to live close to where they work.
As for the original subject of "8 Monster Interchanges That Blight American Cities", like all of these sorts of listicles, there are no criteria. It's 8 randomly selected urban interchanges that the author felt like sharing. The discussion is not meant to be about specific cases, it is meant to make a broad brush statement that all urban freeway interchanges are blight to some degree and argue that all of them ought to be rethought.
Now, it is not inherently a bad conversation to have as to how one can make transportation infrastructure more friendly to the communities along it... a rational, balanced conversation, mind you. Sadly these conversations tend to pit people who think it is their god-given right to drive everywhere without impediment against people who think cars are the work of Satan. Hence why these topics tend to be good for eating popcorn to. :-D
Quote from: Duke87 on July 02, 2014, 09:37:10 PM
As for the original subject of "8 Monster Interchanges That Blight American Cities", like all of these sorts of listicles, there are no criteria. It's 8 randomly selected urban interchanges that the author felt like sharing. The discussion is not meant to be about specific cases, it is meant to make a broad brush statement that all urban freeway interchanges are blight to some degree and argue that all of them ought to be rethought.
The unstated criteria for inclusion on the list appears to be some form of community opposition, either past or present.
I would say that Louisville is a very unfortunate situation, but planners probably could not have forseen than an industrial riverfront area could be turned into an amenity in the post-industrial economy. And San Diego Baldwin Park just makes me angry. Planners should have never been allowed to build a freeway through the park just because the land was easier to obtain.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 02, 2014, 09:37:10 PMIf you doubled the price of gas
Which indeed has already happened over the last decade. It didn't seem all that long ago (late 2008-early 2009), that the average price at the pump was about $1.75-$1.80 a gallon.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 02, 2014, 09:37:10 PMthe sprawl machine would stop and people would make it a much more serious goal to live close to where they work.
Not only would the sprawl machine stop, prices of everything else would increase as well (higher fuel costs=higher transport costs), unemployment would ultimately increase and we would be in a recession; kind of like where we
actually are today despite what the press & Wall St. say.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 02, 2014, 05:49:51 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 02, 2014, 03:38:12 PM
I know for a fact that many commute to NYC (via Amtrak, NJ Transit or by car) for work that live as away as the Trenton, NJ because of the real estate costs near/at NYC.
I've heard a Scranton-NYC commute is becoming appallingly popular.
Ten years ago I visited Steamtown NHS and talked with one of the guides about how realistic reopening the Lackawanna Cutoff to Scranton was. He told me commuter buses ran regularly to NY in the morning, full to capacity.
That article (and from the impression I'm getting, the whole blog) seems to be a tool to push the anti-mobility propaganda down peoples throats. The adjectives they use to describe the actions of the various transportation agencies show how biased they are.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 02, 2014, 02:19:11 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 02, 2014, 01:08:46 PM
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/07/01/8-monster-interchanges-that-blight-american-cities/
What do you think of this though? I thought some of the criteria is questionable.
Considering the criteria is along the lines of "Anything with cars on it", I'm surprised they only named 8.
Personally, any interchange with stubs would be blight to me. Rarely if ever can you take an uncompleted stub and make it look somewhat presentable.
I think stubs make an an interchange MORE beautiful. They make one wonder why the stub is there, why the ramp wasn't built, where it would have gone.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on July 02, 2014, 06:25:42 PM
And this one about the 5/163 interchange in San Diego: But good luck getting to the Art and Space Museum on foot from downtown.
Actually, it's easy. You just go up Park Blvd.
Yeah, that one made NO sense. My first visit to San Diego was last summer, I found it simple and easy (if long) to walk from Petco downtown to the zoo.
Actually, the interchange seemed to fit with the environment pretty well.
On another note, as a native Detroiter I don't find the 75/375
interchange that bad. What is bad is
375 itself. The road was never really needed, just needed a traffic-light controlled boulevard.
They are right on 90/5 in Seattle and 64/65/71 in Louisville. Both disasters IMHO. Portland Oregon, the 405/5/84 mess just north and east of downtown qualifies too.
Now I want to know more about the Circle Interchange project. :bigass:
Quote from: keithvh on July 03, 2014, 08:12:20 PM
They are right on 90/5 in Seattle and 64/65/71 in Louisville.
Where could they have run I-64? If had been south of the current location, it really would have plowed through parts of town. I don't recall there being a whole lot along the route where it was built. The Louisville riverfront ain't that great. I see it at least once a year.
How is the Circle a "monster"? :-D :-D :-D
Quote from: hbelkins on July 03, 2014, 11:33:35 PM
Quote from: keithvh on July 03, 2014, 08:12:20 PM
They are right on 90/5 in Seattle and 64/65/71 in Louisville.
Where could they have run I-64? If had been south of the current location, it really would have plowed through parts of town. I don't recall there being a whole lot along the route where it was built. The Louisville riverfront ain't that great. I see it at least once a year.
You just hate Louisville. Jesus Christ Himself could make His return to Louisville atop a unicorn with a rainbow out of his ass and you'd find something wrong with it. Why do you have such a hatred for a city in your own state? I don't like some towns around here but I don't have such a seething hate for any of them.
Even though I support the 8664 concept, the Kennedy doesn't belong on this list. It's location along the waterfront doesn't blight any neighborhoods, unless you count the fish in the Ohio River. Once the parallel span for I-65 is built, it might be a different story, but it will have more to do with what damage the new approach has done to Downtown Louisville and Downtown Jeffersonville. The area along Adams Street in Louisville, for example, will get a huge shadow from the new ramps.
What I-64 over Waterfront Park does is limit the park's capacity to be a gathering place. This is most apparent during Thunder Over Louisville, when crowds 3 to 5 times the size of those who attend the Kentucky Derby watch the airshow and fireworks along the Ohio River.
Remove I-64 between I-65 and 9th Street, and I-64 is no longer casting a shadow over the Belle of Louisville, Great Lawn (part of Waterfront Park), the Yum Center!, etc. None of that has anything to do with the presence of I-65 or I-71.
I always accept Streetsblog with a grain of salt.
Streetsblog does a very good job of publishing articles that deal with changes to streets, highways, and transit. You can find out about proposed bus and train lines, new bikeways, road diets, and other changes to our road network, particularly local to the cities they cover intently -- NY, LA, SF, CHI. I read the NY and LA sites extensively because they provide news on these topics that you can't find elsewhere.
However, their anti-road politics is a little hard to swallow. They might make it easier for themselves if they focus on low traffic expressways that can be removed without too much impact, like the Sheridan Expy in the Bronx (and yes they have many articles on that). But what is the purpose of singling out these 8 interchanges? These are all very important interchanges and cannot be removed despite the "blight" that they may cause.
I can tell you that in some of those urban neighborhoods (particularly S Central LA) were absolute slums to begin with and the highways did no additional damage. And as said by others here, highways are critical for commerce and they have to be put somewhere. And yes, we need an interchange to efficiently connect the freeways and relying on Breezewoods to connect the 110 to the 105 just to have less of an impact on S Central LA is not acceptable.
California seems to do a good job with their wide area interchanges. You will see many with the local streets passing between them and the businesses along them still in place. If you are on street level and visit the areas in between the ramps you would never know in many places that you are inside an interchange.
Quote from: mrsman on July 04, 2014, 10:43:41 AMI can tell you that in some of those urban neighborhoods (particularly S Central LA) were absolute slums to begin with and the highways did no additional damage.
I see your point (I was a little surprised that anyone anywhere in LA minded large interchanges) but by that same token, plenty of neighborhoods in this country that were slummy during the era of highway construction aren't now. The point could be implied (and often is) that some places with massive interchange footprints could have otherwise joined that group, and/or that they were chosen because they were slums whose residents were powerless to complicate construction.
* * *
The first red flag to me on this piece is the word "blight." It's one of those loaded words that has a very specific connotation and vague actual meaning. Politicians love it until they offend someone with it. People use it to define the conversation – once blightedness is accepted as part of the terms, it becomes unquestionable that "something must be done!"
The very best attempted use I can remember of "blight" as a tool is in a line attributed to someone in the Tom Menino administration (possibly the mayor himself) when plans were afoot to seize and level a thriving but unpretty commercial district to move Fenway Park. When the "urban blight" motivation in the proposed project in a healthy corridor was questioned, the response was, "It's really blight
prevention." The story may be apocryphal, but it's one of my favorites.
I know in Orlando I can say for sure that I-4 is responsible for what both Parramore and Holden Heights have become. The fact that industry is east of I-4 and a social class area to the west of it shows the highway formed what is of the neighborhoods today. Also through Downtown you have the Business District stop immediately at I-4 itself acting as its western border to another social class neighborhood.
Interchange? Blight? But, but, but....interchanges are by definition beautiful things (well, with perhaps the exception of one or two fugly ones: 84/91, I'm looking at you!). How can they be considered blight?
:)
Seriously though...I reject part of the premise behind the article. There's a certain "tear down the freeways" bias that leads me to discount much of what's written.
That being said, I'll admit that one of the flaws of the U.S.'s freeway system is the set of decisions that lead to long-distance freeways doubling as local/intrametro arterials, and I'm not a fan of sprawl. There is something to be said for a simplicity and efficiency of design in attempting to make freeways and interchanges have no more impact on an urban environment than is strictly necessary, while still performing the essential function of helping move people and goods efficiently into and out from the urban centers.
I don't necessarily object to a desire to make highways less disruptive on the cityscape; I just cringe about the tax bills that would arise from effectively pulling that off.
As to the interchanges mentioned, I can see the point of being annoyed with the 71/670 interchange, but the others seem reasonable given the hands that have been dealt with the decision to run major freeways into city centers.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 02, 2014, 06:08:13 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 02, 2014, 05:50:11 PM
what is going on in this render? what is the "checkerboard" paving at lower right intended to convey?
I think that is very simply...identification of where the road surface turns to concrete (instead of asphalt) due to using an overpass.
That is correct. I was a bit surprised to see that one show up on the list. There's a college to the south, an old base to the north (and in the middle), a bakery and Abbott Nutrition to the northwest, and fuck-all everywhere else. The freeway itself was run mostly along old railways for crying out loud.
Surprised that the East LA interchange didn't make it on there, though the area east of there is a bit run-down.
I don't see how this article calls freeways blight. As mentioned upthread, they may be a cause of blight, but the interchanges themselves aren't blight. THIS is blight:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F6%2F69%2FCamden_NJ_poverty.jpg&hash=817ee13dabc80797dabb254305ddab16c43860fb)
This is one article you only read for the pictures. :)
The description of the interchange between I-5 and CA 163 in San Diego made me laugh. I suspect the author has never driven through that interchange and simply looked at a few satelitte images before drawing misinformed conclusions.
That stack interchange occupies the end of a relatively shallow canyon, and compliments the surrounding topography exceedingly well. Furthermore, pedestrians may easily access Balboa Park from downtown either via the Cabrillo Bridge or Park Boulevard; the interchange is not a barrier.
Quote from: bugo on July 04, 2014, 06:00:04 AM
Why do you have such a hatred for a city in your own state? I don't like some towns around here but I don't have such a seething hate for any of them.
I didn't have a dislike for Louisville until I began attending work-related conferences in downtown. The venues are difficult to access. It's a decent drive to shopping or other activities I'd enjoy in the evening hours. And in at least one of the hotels where the conferences are sometimes held, it's a challenge to find a parking spot if you do go somewhere in the evenings. It's in walking distance of the 4th Street Live district, but I can do without overpriced restaurants like Hard Rock Cafe.
My feelings are pretty much confined to the downtown area. I don't mind the St. Matthews, Preston Highway, Middletown or other areas out of downtown. I keep trying to convince the conference organizers to move to hotels out of downtown but my pleas fall on deaf ears.
I spent a week 10 years ago at a conference at the Renaissance in Washington DC. Hated it too. Didn't move my vehicle from the time I parked it when I got there until I left. I actually took a cooler and some lunch meat, chips and bread for sandwiches for my evening meals because I knew I'd get tired of eating in the hotel's restaurants all week. It was in January and it was dark at 5 o'clock, and I didn't know what was close by the hotel in the way of restaurants and I had no desire to walk around in DC after dark.
I-375 coming out I could understand – it really doesn't serve a purpose now that the area to the north and east of it is pretty much empty. (I personally think that the fall of industry there is a far bigger factor in the increase in crime.) Widen the frontage roads and zone the reclaimed land for commercial and retail.
If the new ON 401 crossing goes through, you could actually take out the last part of M-10 as well.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 04, 2014, 06:33:58 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 04, 2014, 06:00:04 AM
Why do you have such a hatred for a city in your own state? I don't like some towns around here but I don't have such a seething hate for any of them.
I didn't have a dislike for Louisville until I began attending work-related conferences in downtown. The venues are difficult to access. It's a decent drive to shopping or other activities I'd enjoy in the evening hours. And in at least one of the hotels where the conferences are sometimes held, it's a challenge to find a parking spot if you do go somewhere in the evenings. It's in walking distance of the 4th Street Live district, but I can do without overpriced restaurants like Hard Rock Cafe.
My feelings are pretty much confined to the downtown area. I don't mind the St. Matthews, Preston Highway, Middletown or other areas out of downtown. I keep trying to convince the conference organizers to move to hotels out of downtown but my pleas fall on deaf ears.
I spent a week 10 years ago at a conference at the Renaissance in Washington DC. Hated it too. Didn't move my vehicle from the time I parked it when I got there until I left. I actually took a cooler and some lunch meat, chips and bread for sandwiches for my evening meals because I knew I'd get tired of eating in the hotel's restaurants all week. It was in January and it was dark at 5 o'clock, and I didn't know what was close by the hotel in the way of restaurants and I had no desire to walk around in DC after dark.
You missed out then! That part of DC is full of fantastic restaurants and is perfectly safe after dark. I visit that area regularly for work and it's one of my favorite business trip destinations. Of course nowadays with Yelp and Urbanspoon it is much easier to find good food while traveling.
DC is weird though. It has an extraordinarily high crime rate, yet most of the city is extremely safe. The crime really is concentrated to a few really bad areas.
Quote
Ramming highways through the middle of American cities was undoubtedly one of the worst mistakes of the 20th century
No it wasn't. It was one of the best moves. It would take forever to get to the downtown of a big city going through 457 stop lights. No one would ever go to the downtown area.
Quote from: US 41 on July 06, 2014, 08:48:50 AM
Quote
Ramming highways through the middle of American cities was undoubtedly one of the worst mistakes of the 20th century
No it wasn't. It was one of the best moves. It would take forever to get to the downtown of a big city going through 457 stop lights. No one would ever go to the downtown area.
Both of these are broad and hardly universally-applicable generalizations.
Some cities with interstates downtown are doing fine. Others are doing terribly despite the access. But this is ground well covered here and elsewhere.
I don't see anything in this article than a bunch of anti-choice out-of-touch types who want everybody to live the lifestyle they have chosen for themselves (and, truth be know, are probably mostly subsidized in said lifestyle because it economically unviable) .
IMHO, the interstate system is the greatest acomplishment of the last 80 years. It got people out of the clutches of greedy old-money urban landlords and into nice safe suburbs where they could live as they wished, and got business out of the clutches of monopoly railroads and moving on a truck.
As to Louisville, I find it to be about typical of Ohio River cities. Probably a little worse than most. Most Ohio River cites saw their best days about 1955 or so. Most are pretty fouled up with idiot "brownfield redevelopment" projects, which don't work.
Quote from: realjdYou missed out then! That part of DC is full of fantastic restaurants and is perfectly safe after dark. I visit that area regularly for work and it's one of my favorite business trip destinations. Of course nowadays with Yelp and Urbanspoon it is much easier to find good food while traveling.
HB also mentioned that it was 10 years ago. Most of those restaurants didn't exist back then, especially east of 6th.
Quote from: SP CookI don't see anything in this article than a bunch of anti-choice out-of-touch types who want everybody to live the lifestyle they have chosen for themselves
The same could just as easily be argued for those who want to eliminate bike/ped and transit funding and shift all transportation funding to roads only...
Quote(and, truth be know, are probably mostly subsidized in said lifestyle because it economically unviable) .
Speaking of
"broad and hardly universally-applicable generalizations"...
QuoteIt got people out of the clutches of greedy old-money urban landlords and into nice safe suburbs where they could live as they wished,
First off, this completely discounts the vast numbers of single-family homes that have long existed in the cities. Second, the safety of the suburbs is an illusion. True, they may have been "safe" at first, but that is no longer the case. Thirdly, thanks to how those suburbs were designed, it requires driving an ungodly amount of miles just to go do anything.
Quoteand got business out of the clutches of monopoly railroads and moving on a truck.
The shifting to an information, technology, and service economy did far more to get business "out of the clutches" than the Interstates ever did...
Quote from: SP Cook on July 06, 2014, 09:52:20 AM
I don't see anything in this article than a bunch of anti-choice out-of-touch types who want everybody to live the lifestyle they have chosen for themselves (and, truth be know, are probably mostly subsidized in said lifestyle because it economically unviable) .
IMHO, the interstate system is the greatest acomplishment of the last 80 years. It got people out of the clutches of greedy old-money urban landlords and into nice safe suburbs where they could live as they wished, and got business out of the clutches of monopoly railroads and moving on a truck.
As to Louisville, I find it to be about typical of Ohio River cities. Probably a little worse than most. Most Ohio River cites saw their best days about 1955 or so. Most are pretty fouled up with idiot "brownfield redevelopment" projects, which don't work.
I don't agree with you on a lot of things, but this is an exception.
Quote from: SP Cook on July 06, 2014, 09:52:20 AMMost are pretty fouled up with idiot "brownfield redevelopment" projects, which don't work.
Tell us what your preferred alternative to redeveloping these sites would be.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 06, 2014, 11:20:44 AM
Tell us what your preferred alternative to redeveloping these sites would be.
Speaking SPECIFICALLY about the various cities along the Ohio River, they were developed in the first place because they fit a particular niche in a particular economic situation that no longer exists. All up and down the Ohio, on both sides, politicians and planners of all political and economic stripes, are trying, and mostly failing, recapture that magic. Especially with plans about the riverfront (generally either some sort of parkland or some sort of arena or mall, or both). Rarely work at all, sometimes only work within the artificial bubble of subsidy.
Maybe it time to just accept that the part of the country simply is going to be smaller in population than it was when they were the center of a coal-steel-car economy, and riverbanks that were, for a million years, a riverbank and then were, for 50 years a steel mill, are probably intended to be either a steel mill or a riverbank.
Quote from: froggie on July 06, 2014, 10:11:19 AM
Quote from: realjdYou missed out then! That part of DC is full of fantastic restaurants and is perfectly safe after dark. I visit that area regularly for work and it's one of my favorite business trip destinations. Of course nowadays with Yelp and Urbanspoon it is much easier to find good food while traveling.
HB also mentioned that it was 10 years ago. Most of those restaurants didn't exist back then, especially east of 6th.
It was also late January (I drove into DC on MLK Day) and cold as crap, and IIRC there was also some snow during the week, and I had no desire to be wandering around out in the weather.
Quote from: SP Cook on July 06, 2014, 12:11:36 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 06, 2014, 11:20:44 AM
Tell us what your preferred alternative to redeveloping these sites would be.
Speaking SPECIFICALLY about the various cities along the Ohio River, they were developed in the first place because they fit a particular niche in a particular economic situation that no longer exists. All up and down the Ohio, on both sides, politicians and planners of all political and economic stripes, are trying, and mostly failing, recapture that magic. Especially with plans about the riverfront (generally either some sort of parkland or some sort of arena or mall, or both). Rarely work at all, sometimes only work within the artificial bubble of subsidy.
Maybe it time to just accept that the part of the country simply is going to be smaller in population than it was when they were the center of a coal-steel-car economy, and riverbanks that were, for a million years, a riverbank and then were, for 50 years a steel mill, are probably intended to be either a steel mill or a riverbank.
Is a low-density big-box shopping center a good reuse of a steel site? I see a fair amount of that.
They built a Walmart atop a slag pile in West Mifflin, PA. Was that site intended to be a slag pile, a Walmart, whatever came before the slag pile, and nothing else?
I don't really understand the hostility some people have with driving to the grocery store. I honestly prefer it. Who wants to lug five bags of groceries down a few blocks? It's not even an extra trip for me since I go after work.
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2014, 06:20:06 PM
I don't really understand the hostility some people have with driving to the grocery store. I honestly prefer it. Who wants to lug five bags of groceries down a few blocks? It's not even an extra trip for me since I go after work.
+1
For a lot of these freeways, wouldn't a footbridge placed every 1/8 to 1/4 mile through the areas affected suffice? Cut and cover tunnels are another alternative but they are expensive. I wouldn't mind having to walk a few hundred yards to a footbridge if I were going to the riverfront.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 06, 2014, 09:33:37 AM
Some cities with interstates downtown are doing fine. Others are doing terribly despite the access. But this is ground well covered here and elsewhere.
Indeed. Freeways are a physically prominent thing and an easy scapegoat. They do influence the communities they pass through, but the consequences that their presence or lack thereof has on the ability of a community to thrive are vastly overstated. Look at any city in detail and you will be hard pressed to find any significant correlation between a neighborhood's economic success and its proximity to a freeway.
Hell, some of the worst parts of New York are some of the least freeway accessible, while some of the nicest have freeways running right through them.
Ultimately, two things cause blight:
1) The local economy going in the crapper, meaning people can't find good paying jobs or any jobs at all
2) Government policy encouraging or failing to prevent item 1
For most American cities the problem has been the collapse of the American manufacturing industry. The cities which survived the best or have bounced back the best are the cities which found other types of business to run a successful economy based on - banking and advertising for New York, TV and film for Los Angeles, etc. The cities which continue to be blighted are the cities that have been unable to replace the jobs lost when the factories closed down.
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2014, 06:20:06 PM
I don't really understand the hostility some people have with driving to the grocery store. I honestly prefer it. Who wants to lug five bags of groceries down a few blocks? It's not even an extra trip for me since I go after work.
If you live alone the amount of groceries purchased in one trip is likely not prohibitive for carrying. And you can always get yourself one of those fold-up shopping carts if you want to save some effort, although it is unusual for a young and able-bodied person to do so.
There are practical advantages. I leave the front door of my building and walk in the front door of the grocery store five minutes later. It is difficult to have that short of a door to door time when driving, and if it is, you're close enough that you might as well just walk. I usually go grocery shopping on my way home from work but I can easily do so
any time without needing to get in my car specifically to do so. This reduces the mental effort involved in a trip to the store and thus effectively gives me more flexibility in doing so.
Not to mention that when there's snow on the ground, I'd rather be walking somewhere than driving. I don't have to clean off and dig out my car, I can just go outside and start walking. While in transit the potential consequences of my feet losing traction are much less than the potential consequences of my wheels losing traction, and I have more latitude to compensate for the feet than I do for the wheels.
But the biggest issue is the broader picture of automobile
dependence. I like that I have my car when I want it, but I don't
need it on day to day basis and if for some reason I am temporarily unable to use it, my life goes on unhindered.
QuoteBut the biggest issue is the broader picture of automobile dependence. I like that I have my car when I want it, but I don't need it on day to day basis and if for some reason I am temporarily unable to use it, my life goes on unhindered.
THIS.
Quote from: froggie on July 08, 2014, 10:46:33 AM
THIS.
Your choice. Millions have a different opinion. The problems begin when the anti-choice crowd tries to make decisions for others.
Quote from: froggie on July 08, 2014, 10:46:33 AM
QuoteBut the biggest issue is the broader picture of automobile dependence. I like that I have my car when I want it, but I don't need it on day to day basis and if for some reason I am temporarily unable to use it, my life goes on unhindered.
THIS.
Not everyone has the ability nor the will to live in such places. You can keep NYC as far as I am concerned. I'd rather live in a much smaller city with access to rural areas.
Articles like this are a dime-a-dozen now days, how is this one is any different? Especially coming from a blog focused on smart growth, bike paths, and transit.
Quote from: SP Cook on July 08, 2014, 05:53:16 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 08, 2014, 10:46:33 AM
THIS.
Your choice. Millions have a different opinion. The problems begin when the anti-choice crowd tries to make decisions for others.
What happened when city neighborhoods got leveled for highways to be put through them? Choice, or a lifestyle imposition?
Not every lifestyle gets accommodated in every turn society takes. Where I live, the places they're redistributing road capacity to better accommodate more modes are experiencing skyrocketing property values, which therefore doesn't accommodate me. Such is the Market, though. Here the Market chooses bike paths and traffic calming, and walkable supermarkets.
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2014, 06:20:06 PM
I don't really understand the hostility some people have with driving to the grocery store. I honestly prefer it. Who wants to lug five bags of groceries down a few blocks? It's not even an extra trip for me since I go after work.
Quote from: froggie on July 08, 2014, 10:46:33 AM
QuoteBut the biggest issue is the broader picture of automobile dependence. I like that I have my car when I want it, but I don't need it on day to day basis and if for some reason I am temporarily unable to use it, my life goes on unhindered.
THIS.
I like having the option of both, honestly. I live within walking distance of two supermarkets, a dollar general, and a Walgreens. Unless I'm in a serious rush, I will always walk to Dollar General and Walgreens. It's also rare that I'm buying a bunch of stuff from those places at once, so I can easily fit all of my purchases into my backpack.
As for walking/driving to the grocery stores, it honestly depends on how many groceries I'm buying and whether or not I'm in the middle of cooking/baking something and realize that I forgot an ingredient. I have one of those folding shopping carts, so if I'm not in a rush, I can easily walk and wheel my groceries home. Most of the time, it's a moot point: I try to shop at a discount grocery store that I pass on my (driving) commute home from work because the prices are significantly cheaper.
Quote from: SP Cook on July 08, 2014, 05:53:16 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 08, 2014, 10:46:33 AM
THIS.
Your choice. Millions have a different opinion. The problems begin when the anti-choice crowd tries to make decisions for others.
If you live somewhere like I do, you really don't have a choice. The mass transit system here is awful, and if you relied on buses you would lose 2-3 hours a day just waiting for the next bus.
Quote from: Brandon on July 08, 2014, 05:55:59 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 08, 2014, 10:46:33 AM
QuoteBut the biggest issue is the broader picture of automobile dependence. I like that I have my car when I want it, but I don't need it on day to day basis and if for some reason I am temporarily unable to use it, my life goes on unhindered.
THIS.
Not everyone has the ability nor the will to live in such places. You can keep NYC as far as I am concerned. I'd rather live in a much smaller city with access to rural areas.
THIS.
I hope I'm not jumping into this conversation too late, but isn't automobile dependence a result of freeways?
Let's take a hypothetical walk-through of a world without freeways, as thought up by me:
1950s: The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways is defeated and funding for interstates and freeways is not allocated.
1960s: Without interstates, citizens find it very difficult to move throughout the city, and move closer to their place of work. Most people cannot afford to live in the downtown areas, so small business-areas start to sprout up in outlying areas (remember, expressways existed before the 50s which is how suburbs got created in the first place - interstate funding defeat eventually made expressway development worthless)
1970s: Citizens are finding it difficult to reach their friends house in neighbouring towns, and a mass-transit system is developed. Light rail, heavy commuter rail, subways, and busways are developed to quickly move mass-amounts of people to nearby areas
1980s: Mass transit continues to grow and soon most places can be reached without car
1990s: The need for cars mostly dries up as everything can be reached by either plane, train, etc. (remember, car culture never really developed)
The concept of being able to move freely about one's geographic residence is hard to ignore, but in a world where mass transit is the norm, such a mindset became rare at best.
I'm sure my "world without freeways" is flawed in more than one way, but maybe it can start a conversation?
Quote from: SP Cook on July 08, 2014, 05:53:16 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 08, 2014, 10:46:33 AM
THIS.
Your choice. Millions have a different opinion. The problems begin when the anti-choice crowd tries to make decisions for others.
For what it's worth, I agree on the point of having options. Depending on where I am going and why, I have my car, I have transit, and I have my own two feet all at my disposal. It is damn nice having all three. In most places you only have one or two of those as practical options.
I do find it disheartening then, that NYC seems to be moving in a direction of making itself less car-friendly. Anti-choice indeed.
Of course, a majority of households in the five boroughs (55.7%) do not own a car. Given this it does make actual practical sense that other modes of transportation be given priority and focused on.
Quote from: Brandon on July 08, 2014, 05:55:59 PM
Not everyone has the ability nor the will to live in such places. You can keep NYC as far as I am concerned. I'd rather live in a much smaller city with access to rural areas.
Especially as a roadgeek I can certainly understand this sentiment. I tell some people in the city that on such and such weekend I was driving around random places in Pennsylvania and their reaction is usually "WTF?
Why?" :P
The congestion of the city does add time to how long it takes to get places outside of the city. But living in the city shortens my commute greatly. It makes the most sense for me to live in the city because I work in the city. The convenience of a trip I make five days a week is much more important than the convenience of trips I only make on weekends.
I will grant you, though, that this lifestyle is not for everyone. It's a question of what you're used to. I am a city boy at heart so I don't mind the hustle and bustle, it's normal to me. Rural areas are great fun to drive through and stuff but at the same time I see them and say "man, it must be awful to live out here in the middle of nowhere". But I am sure that the people who live out there enjoy being in the middle of nowhere and find the city to be an awful place.
Quote from: jake on July 09, 2014, 12:33:23 AM
I hope I'm not jumping into this conversation too late, but isn't automobile dependence a result of freeways?
No. Automobile dependence is a result of development patterns that put basic services (grocery store, etc.) too far away to walk to and create population densities too low to sustain transit as a complete door to door mode rather than only as part of an intermodal ("park and ride") commute.
Or to put it more bluntly, automobile dependence is the result of low-density suburbs.
Yes, without freeways, suburbs become nonviable as places to live, so the two are related. But a hypothetical city that has freeways but not suburbs is not impossible to fathom, you could theoretically build one. The reason this hasn't happened is that when you give people the option of traveling by car, some people will voluntarily choose to rely on it exclusively, and there are many reasons both psychological and practical why one might do so. The theoretical city with freeways but not suburbs would require the imposition and enforcement of zoning laws prohibiting low-density development in all surrounding areas to sustain itself in that state. Either that, or it would require driving being too expensive to be an affordable means of commuting.
As pro-car as I am, I would still like to have better transit options as a backup in case something happens to my car. If it broke down, I would have no way to go to work because I live several miles away and I have to cross the Arkansas River and the I-44 bridge doesn't have a sidewalk.
Quote from: jake on July 09, 2014, 12:33:23 AM
I hope I'm not jumping into this conversation too late, but isn't automobile dependence a result of freeways?
Yes, it is one of its gifts.
Let us run through a world without freeways.
First, it is a far poorer world. Businessmen are trapped into dealing with their one and only monopoly railroad for transport. The economic boom, and the move south and west, of the 50s and 60s never happened.
Second, it is a dank, crowded, and unhappy world. Without the individual mobility of the automobile, people have to live in the city. At the mercy of old-money landlords. Government responds, not with mass transit schemes, but with housing projects and rent control. Not for the lifewelfarist as in reality, but for everyone. Everyone living in tenaments. And, able to work only where one can walk to, people are tied into going into the factory dad worked at. For life.
Third, it is a less moble society. Remember that it took airline deregulation to turn the plane into something useful for common people (1979). A vacation means a train, or risking you life on some two lane deathroad, taking three or four days to get from the northeast to Florida. If you make it. So mostly people just stay home and live out their dark lives on the street they were born on. Riding bikes and being crammed in even more.
No thank you.
Quote from: jake on July 09, 2014, 12:33:23 AM
I hope I'm not jumping into this conversation too late, but isn't automobile dependence a result of freeways?
No. It's actually the reverse.
Quote from: jake on July 09, 2014, 12:33:23 AM
Let's take a hypothetical walk-through of a world without freeways, as thought up by me:
1950s: The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways is defeated and funding for interstates and freeways is not allocated.
States build their own systems of freeways, tollways, and expressways not unlike Ontario and Quebec. Freeways inside of cities get built anyway as many of them were already in progress prior to 1956. We still have a similar system, but out west it looks more like the Canadian Prairies with more at-grade expressways, and out east, more tollways.
A world without freeways does not exist. Look north, young man, and see what the US would've been like without the Interstate Highway bill being passed.
Quote from: jake on July 09, 2014, 12:33:23 AM
1990s: The need for cars mostly dries up as everything can be reached by either plane, train, etc. (remember, car culture never really developed)
I'm sure my "world without freeways" is flawed in more than one way, but maybe it can start a conversation?
Car culture, much to the chagrin of folks from Southern California, started in Detroit in the late 1910s and 1920s. There was already a vibrant car culture well prior to 1956, and it started, of course, where the automobile was made in the US. The Ford Model T, starting production in 1908, had its price lowered in 1913-14 to become the first real "people's car" in the world. And, of course, those who built it bought it (as well as many others - a worker on the line in 1914 could buy it with 4 months' pay). The price continued to drop into the 1920s.
Car culture also took off in rural areas by the 1930s and replaced short haul passenger rail (long-haul passenger rail was mostly killed off by airplanes) and the horse and wagon. The reason for the Interstate System in 1956 was not to push economic growth or to grow the car culture, it was to alleviate traffic congestion already there from a preexisting car culture.
Quote from: Brandon on July 09, 2014, 07:57:39 AM
States build their own systems of freeways, tollways, and expressways not unlike Ontario and Quebec. Freeways inside of cities get built anyway as many of them were already in progress prior to 1956.
To put that in perspective: wasn't NYC's parkway system first started in the 1930s? Some freeway-type roads also emerged as the result of certain projects (i.e. the East Bay approaches to the Bay Bridge and the Doyle Drive/Golden Gate Bridge/Presidio Tunnel complex in San Francisco), even before iconic limited access roads such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike and Arroyo Seco Parkway were thought up.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 09, 2014, 01:04:40 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 09, 2014, 07:57:39 AM
States build their own systems of freeways, tollways, and expressways not unlike Ontario and Quebec. Freeways inside of cities get built anyway as many of them were already in progress prior to 1956.
To put that in perspective: wasn't NYC's parkway system first started in the 1930s? Some freeway-type roads also emerged as the result of certain projects (i.e. the East Bay approaches to the Bay Bridge and the Doyle Drive/Golden Gate Bridge/Presidio Tunnel complex in San Francisco), even before iconic limited access roads such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike and Arroyo Seco Parkway were thought up.
Yep. Even depressed urban freeways predate the Act with the first being the Davison Expressway in Detroit and Highland Park (1942). Lake Shore Drive in Chicago was turned into a limited access road as early as the 1930s. Then, of course, was the Pennsylvania Turnpike in 1940.
After the war, many freeways and tollways were built well before 1956. Maine had their turnpike as early as 1947, followed by New Jersey, Oklahoma, Ohio, and Indiana (among others). There were many freeways built as well. I'll use Chicagoland as an example. The Bishop Ford (Calumet) and Kingery were built in 1950, followed by the Eisenhower (Congress), Edens, and Borman (Tri-State Hwy).
When you look back at bridges and tunnels built from 1900-1950, many of them were congested well before it was thought they would become congested.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2014, 01:37:21 PM
When you look back at bridges and tunnels built from 1900-1950, many of them were congested well before it was thought they would become congested.
They seriously underestimated the demand and how it would grow. One must remember that between 1900 and 1950, the US only had 76 million (1900) to 151 million (1950), and increase of 75 million, or almost double in 50 years. Currently, we have about 317 million (2014 estimate), and increase of 166 million, or more than double since 1950. People who complain about congestion and growth often overlook that. These folks need to live somewhere, work somewhere, shop somewhere, and of course, travel somewhere.
It's also worth noting that women weren't in the workforce in 1950. On its own, this essentially doubled the number of commuters, and led to the rise of multi-car families.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 09, 2014, 01:04:40 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 09, 2014, 07:57:39 AM
States build their own systems of freeways, tollways, and expressways not unlike Ontario and Quebec. Freeways inside of cities get built anyway as many of them were already in progress prior to 1956.
To put that in perspective: wasn't NYC's parkway system first started in the 1930s? Some freeway-type roads also emerged as the result of certain projects (i.e. the East Bay approaches to the Bay Bridge and the Doyle Drive/Golden Gate Bridge/Presidio Tunnel complex in San Francisco), even before iconic limited access roads such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike and Arroyo Seco Parkway were thought up.
Yep. If we hadn't created the interstate system we would still have freeways, but they would have been built on an ad hoc basis state by state rather than forming a smoothly continuous national network.
Western states would likely have opted to build a lot of corridors as divided highways but not as complete limited access.
A lot more of the freeways that did get built would have been tolled - Pennsylvania and Illinois would have turnpike networks forming webs across the whole state, the Maine turnpike would have made it to Bangor, etc.
States would not have built segments of freeway which serve regional interests but not interests to much of anyone within the state - for example, there would not be a freeway or even a divided highway through the northwestern corner of Arizona where I-15 now is, and either it would be a notorious bottleneck on US 91, or Nevada and Utah would have collectively decided to reroute the road when improving it to avoid Arizona entirely.
Quote from: Brandon on July 09, 2014, 03:03:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2014, 01:37:21 PM
When you look back at bridges and tunnels built from 1900-1950, many of them were congested well before it was thought they would become congested.
They seriously underestimated the demand and how it would grow. One must remember that between 1900 and 1950, the US only had 76 million (1900) to 151 million (1950), and increase of 75 million, or almost double in 50 years. Currently, we have about 317 million (2014 estimate), and increase of 166 million, or more than double since 1950. People who complain about congestion and growth often overlook that. These folks need to live somewhere, work somewhere, shop somewhere, and of course, travel somewhere.
In regards to the imbeciles who get angry at congestion, they feel that their tax dollar wasn't used to its full potential, which is of course bullshit because they're the same people who refused to sell their land for a new freeway interchange.
Quote from: jake on July 10, 2014, 07:16:11 PM
In regards to the imbeciles who get angry at congestion, they feel that their tax dollar wasn't used to its full potential, which is of course bullshit because they're the same people who refused to sell their land for a new freeway interchange.
You can't refuse to sell your land for a new interchange. The state can condemn it for public use under eminent domain. Then it's a question of negotiating a price or having a court determine how much you'll be paid.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 02, 2014, 09:29:16 PM
According to the idiots who wrote that, Spaghetti Junction in Louisville is south of downtown.
Downtown Jeffersonville, Ind., maybe.
People who fail basic geography are definitely not going to succeed at highway engineering.
Basic rule of journalism: Use the most important city in the area as your reference point ;-)
Quote from: hbelkins on July 11, 2014, 09:20:08 AM
Quote from: jake on July 10, 2014, 07:16:11 PM
In regards to the imbeciles who get angry at congestion, they feel that their tax dollar wasn't used to its full potential, which is of course bullshit because they're the same people who refused to sell their land for a new freeway interchange.
You can't refuse to sell your land for a new interchange. The state can condemn it for public use under eminent domain. Then it's a question of negotiating a price or having a court determine how much you'll be paid.
I'm aware of compulsory purchase, but my point is, he's all for road expansion, unless it's him who gets the boot, in which case he goes NIMBY. He could just be a civilized human being and move on but he doesn't because he's a selfish twat.
iPhone
Quote from: jake on July 10, 2014, 07:16:11 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 09, 2014, 03:03:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2014, 01:37:21 PM
When you look back at bridges and tunnels built from 1900-1950, many of them were congested well before it was thought they would become congested.
They seriously underestimated the demand and how it would grow. One must remember that between 1900 and 1950, the US only had 76 million (1900) to 151 million (1950), and increase of 75 million, or almost double in 50 years. Currently, we have about 317 million (2014 estimate), and increase of 166 million, or more than double since 1950. People who complain about congestion and growth often overlook that. These folks need to live somewhere, work somewhere, shop somewhere, and of course, travel somewhere.
In regards to the imbeciles who get angry at congestion, they feel that their tax dollar wasn't used to its full potential, which is of course bullshit because they're the same people who refused to sell their land for a new freeway interchange.
Is there truly a one-to-one connection between non-sale of land for road-building and complaint about congestion?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 11, 2014, 12:48:00 PM
Quote from: jake on July 10, 2014, 07:16:11 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 09, 2014, 03:03:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2014, 01:37:21 PM
When you look back at bridges and tunnels built from 1900-1950, many of them were congested well before it was thought they would become congested.
They seriously underestimated the demand and how it would grow. One must remember that between 1900 and 1950, the US only had 76 million (1900) to 151 million (1950), and increase of 75 million, or almost double in 50 years. Currently, we have about 317 million (2014 estimate), and increase of 166 million, or more than double since 1950. People who complain about congestion and growth often overlook that. These folks need to live somewhere, work somewhere, shop somewhere, and of course, travel somewhere.
In regards to the imbeciles who get angry at congestion, they feel that their tax dollar wasn't used to its full potential, which is of course bullshit because they're the same people who refused to sell their land for a new freeway interchange.
Is there truly a one-to-one connection between non-sale of land for road-building and complaint about congestion?
Not really, no.