So, here was something that just popped in my mind. What would it be like if the major freeways in the United States had to be built today? 50 years ago, there wasn't as much sprawl as there is now, so it was a bit easier. Nowadays, it's incredibly hard to imagine getting a new freeway built in some of the densely populated areas.
Which freeways do you think would be incredibly hard to build - or which ones do you think would have to suffer a major change in their alignments to get built?
I think Interstate 95 in general would be a big example for a freeway that wouldn't be built today, especially through Connecticut. The route cuts across many wetlands and other environmental concerns that today's freeways usually avoid. Also, it literally ripped some cities along it's route in half. Some examples could be Stamford, Bridgeport, and New Haven. I-95 cuts right through the downtown areas of Stamford and Bridgeport. In New Haven, it practically cuts off the rest of the city from the waterfront. I think if I-95 was built today through these cities, it would either be tunneled through them or the route would probably go inland a few miles. Another major issue is that most of the road was built for 1960s-70s traffic patterns. In some places it's very narrow and the widest it ever really gets is 8 lanes through Bridgeport and in the future New Haven. If it was built according to patterns for 2014 and so on, it would definitely be much wider at 8-10 lanes. ConnDOT has proposed widening I-95 to 8 lanes through southern Fairfield County, but I'm sure it won't happen. At least they're widening it through the major cities it passes through.
They wouldn't have to be built. Freeways were built back in the day because enough people, including those in their path, either bought into the idea of freeways or were marginalized to the point of being unpersons.
A lot of the sprawl happened precisely because the freeways were built. So, if they hadn't been built, there would likely be less sprawl to ram them through. Building rural freeways in rural areas would then probably be fairly easy. Also, without the sprawl, it is likely that the cities would be denser than they currently are. Which means that building freeways in them would be pretty much impossible due to the sheer number of people who would be opposed to them. As a result, I think pretty much every major city would be bypassed by the freeways, making them an almost exclusively rural phenomenon, with parkways and other arterial roads making up the backbone of urban roads. Possibly, too, there would be widespread public transportation use within the cities.
For an actual example, there is simply no way you'd get the 101 to run right through downtown Santa Barbara if the road were built today. The Santa Barbarians would throw a fit if it were even suggested, which it likely wouldn't be, because the land aquisition costs would be astronomical.
I have to agree with above (CtrlAltDel). Much of the sprawl we see today is the result of freeways. I assume without freeways, our cities would be scattered with long, two-lane roads connecting them. Most people probably wouldn't leave their city except for vacations. Most cities would have thriving downtown areas, since shopping malls never became necessary.
So, if this alternate universe decided to construct freeways, they would only be built as bypass roads. Larger cities would get full ring roads.
In other words, we would look a lot like Europe.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 23, 2014, 03:48:40 AM
I assume without freeways, our cities would be scattered with long, two-lane roads connecting them. Most people probably wouldn't leave their city except for vacations. Most cities would have thriving downtown areas, since shopping malls never became necessary.
A couple of thoughts:
1. Wouldn't we have had at least four-lane conventional roads between major cities, as was the case in the later 1940s? Dual carriageway/widening projects were happening even in the middle period of the US route system
2. With the advent of streetcar suburbs in the early half of the 1920s, at least some shopping would have occurred there rather than entirely in big-city downtowns, though the balance would have not shifted entirely towards non-downtown retail.
The first strip mall was built in Kansas City in the 1920s, people were already looking to escape downtown for shopping. The interstate just made this a lot easier.
Honestly, with no interstate system, we would've likely still seen sprawl. The Pennsylvania Turnpike and New York Thruway both predate the interstate system so it's not like the idea wasn't already there. As New Jersey illustrates, the existence of a toll road is not a barrier to sprawl. With no interstates, we likely just get long toll roads that connect cities.
The invention and wide availability of automobiles, combined with post-World War II veterans benefits and easy availability of FHA backed loans in the 50s drove sprawl more than the interstate system ever really could.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 23, 2014, 03:48:40 AM
I have to agree with above (CtrlAltDel). Much of the sprawl we see today is the result of freeways. I assume without freeways, our cities would be scattered with long, two-lane roads connecting them. Most people probably wouldn't leave their city except for vacations. Most cities would have thriving downtown areas, since shopping malls never became necessary.
So, if this alternate universe decided to construct freeways, they would only be built as bypass roads. Larger cities would get full ring roads.
In other words, we would look a lot like Europe.
I think Canada is a better comparison. That country gets by fine without freeways everywhere, because its Trans-Canada network for the most part has four lanes and is built mostly as a series of at-grade expressways. The 400-series highways in ON and the Autoroutes in QC serve their own purpose well, but again, the Canadians have proved that a properly-built road can handle traffic just as good as the freeways we have in the States.
I think pretty much every freeway in NYC would probably be pretty dawgawn hard to build today.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 23, 2014, 11:56:34 AM
The invention and wide availability of automobiles, combined with post-World War II veterans benefits and easy availability of FHA backed loans in the 50s drove sprawl more than the interstate system ever really could.
This, combined with 90% federal funding from the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, is what exponentially created sprawl as we know it today.
I spent a fair amount of time studying "the highway city" from an urban planning perspective this past semester, and there was really only a short window where all of the downtown urban highways got built (late 50s-early 60s). Basically, if a city had all of its plans together from the moment the funding became available in 1956, they got built. If they got delayed for whatever reason and got pushed into the 60s, they bypassed downtown, had a spur (or spurs) instead, or got cancelled.
Contrary to how we think of highways today, leaders in the mid 1950s saw highways as a way to bring life back into downtown and genuinely feared that if they didn't build them, people would move to the suburbs and never return to the city. If the city provided a high speed road, then the suburbanites would return downtown to work and shop. This is why they pushed for highways to be considered not only as defense but for urban renewal and changed the system to include mileage for downtown routes. There was the obvious problem of using them for slum clearance, but other routings that would never get passed today are the ones that go through industrial and waterfront areas as well as parks and riverfronts.
Ultimately, without all of the funding, pretty much all of the highways in populated areas would have been toll roads and all of the rural highways would have been two or four lane and would not be limited access.
To answer the original question, I think sprawl would have happened, but not to the extent that it is seen today. There still would be enough lane available to build highways, particularly in rural areas. It's actually quite likely that if a city or region still owned land from the 1950s that it could use that land to build a road today. This is how the ICC in Maryland was able to be built over 50 years after the original proposal - the land had been saved from the 1950s. The initial reason that the project was put on hold in the 50s was that it did not qualify for any federal funding. You would see a lot more examples like this (and, to go with it, all of the protests and the like, with the road eventually being built).
To explain my "European" comparison, I've excerpted a piece from Wikipedia on Ireland's road system, but changed key items (and added some other items) to match America (though it is very fictionalized). Basically, I'm imagining fictionalized freeway-less America as something similar to real-life Ireland (circa early 90s). I'm not good at numbering schemes so try not to focus too much on that:
Primary Highways form the main cross country roads in the United States. This category of road is numbered from 1—99 with the prefix "PH". The routes numbered PH-1 through PH-99 radiate anti-clockwise from Kansas City. Ring Roads have "-0" at the end of the Primary Highway number that serves the city in question. PH-250 is the Los Angeles Ring Road, PH-600 is the New York City Ring Road and PH-950 is the Chicago Ring Road. Secondary Highways (see next section) are numbered under the same scheme with higher numbers. On road signage, destinations served but not on the route in question are listed in brackets, with the connecting route also listed.
Secondary Highways fill in the rest of the main cross country routes in the United States. They connect large towns (such as Spokane) which are not served by Primary Highways. They are indicated with a "SH" prefix followed by a number from 100-999. They are numbered under the same scheme as Primary Highways, with numbers radiating anti-clockwise from Kansas City.
Secondary Highways are generally more poorly maintained than Primary Highways (although their quality can vary widely), but often carry more traffic than State Roads. Almost the entire network of Secondary Highways is single carriageway, although there are some short sections of dual carriageway on the Denver bypass section of the SH-140, on SH-168 near Portland (Oregon), on the SH-460 near Baton Rouge and on the SH-520 outside Charlotte. Typically, Secondary Highways are of a similar standard or higher than State Roads although some are of lower quality than the better sections of State Roads. Many of them have been resurfaced with higher quality pavements in recent years with relatively smooth surfaces and good road markings and signposting. However, road widths and alignments are often inadequate, with many narrow and winding sections.
Secondary Highways generally do not bypass towns on their routes although there are a number of exceptions.
Without interstates, we might see more suburban development. The push away from downtown was underway before a mile of interstate highway was laid. You might see more people commuting from suburb to suburb.
Immediately after WWII, we began seeing "Levittowns" and other cookie cutter suburbs pushed as the ideal. The idea of a house on a plot of land with a white picket fence seemed awfully enticing to city-dwellers who had previously been stuck in rowhouses with no space or land of their own. Sprawl would probably be WORSE if not for the interstate system honestly. People wouldn't be working downtown, they'd be working in a suburb and you'd see a lot more suburb to suburb commuting. The interstate system provided an easy means to get downtown, which might have actually saved a lot of cities.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 23, 2014, 03:48:40 AM
Much of the sprawl we see today is the result of freeways.
I disagree.
There was suburban growth going on in many parts of the U.S. as soon as transportation technologies improved to allow people access to formerly rural land from downtown employment centers. This happened in the United States and in more than a few places on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
In some cases, it happened because the developers of those lands provided improved transportation connections to the homes they were selling in the form of electric street railways (consider the streetcar networks in Los Angeles County, California as an example), in other cases, it happened because mainline railroads found that there was profit in carrying passengers in addition to freight.
In still other cases, sprawl happened as soon as Henry Ford's Model T started to roll off his assembly lines, but long before there was much in the way of freeway or expressway networks.
Things would likely look similar to other places in the world, like Australia and Brazil, where only the big city areas had freeways and are island off from other big cities with their own highway structure. Freeways would still exist, but wouldn't be the network system it is today.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on December 23, 2014, 02:52:39 PM
Things would likely look similar to other places in the world, like Australia and Brazil, where only the big city areas had freeways and are island off from other big cities with their own highway structure. Freeways would still exist, but wouldn't be the network system it is today.
I disagree
American development is driven by the idea (that slightly predates the interstate system) that everyone is entitled to a house, land, a white picket fence, two kids and a dog. Other countries have people who LIKE living in cities, Americans largely want the amenities of a city without actually having to live there. We are so unique in our preferences that we would've still developed differently than other nations.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 23, 2014, 02:28:29 PM
Immediately after WWII, we began seeing "Levittowns" and other cookie cutter suburbs pushed as the ideal. The idea of a house on a plot of land with a white picket fence seemed awfully enticing to city-dwellers who had previously been stuck in rowhouses with no space or land of their own. Sprawl would probably be WORSE if not for the interstate system honestly. People wouldn't be working downtown, they'd be working in a suburb and you'd see a lot more suburb to suburb commuting. The interstate system provided an easy means to get downtown, which might have actually saved a lot of cities.
Maryland's Levittown, the City of Bowie in Prince George's County, east of Washington, D.C., dates to around World War I, but it was
enormously enlarged by annexing Levitt's development originally known as Belair (not to be confused with the county seat of Harford County, Bel Air), but now commonly just called Bowie. Levitt purchased the Belair Stud horsefarm in 1957, and started construction on a massive greenfield parcel in the early 1960's (using essentially the same models as the other Levitt developments), not long after a non-Interstate freeway, the John Hanson Highway (U.S. 50) was completed between the Washington, D.C./Maryland border and the outskirts of Annapolis (now it is "secret" I-595, but it was not back then).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 23, 2014, 02:51:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 23, 2014, 03:48:40 AM
Much of the sprawl we see today is the result of freeways.
I disagree.
There was suburban growth going on in many parts of the U.S. as soon as transportation technologies improved to allow people access to formerly rural land from downtown employment centers. This happened in the United States and in more than a few places on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
In some cases, it happened because the developers of those lands provided improved transportation connections to the homes they were selling in the form of electric street railways (consider the streetcar networks in Los Angeles County, California as an example), in other cases, it happened because mainline railroads found that there was profit in carrying passengers in addition to freight.
In still other cases, sprawl happened as soon as Henry Ford's Model T started to roll off his assembly lines, but long before there was much in the way of freeway or expressway networks.
My comment was a bit brash; if I had a chance to re-word it, I would have instead said "freeways assisted in the growth of suburban towns". A great example of what I mean is the Eastside, east of Seattle. The population basically exploded after the construction of the Lake Washington bridges (both freeways).
Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 23, 2014, 02:54:48 PM
American development is driven by the idea (that slightly predates the interstate system) that everyone is entitled to a house, land, a white picket fence, two kids and a dog. Other countries have people who LIKE living in cities, Americans largely want the amenities of a city without actually having to live there. We are so unique in our preferences that we would've still developed differently than other nations.
It is also driven by a sense of hopelessness when it comes to public school systems in many inner-city school districts, along with the usual urban problems that I do not need to repeat here.
Hence "voting with their feet."
Not only white people did it. During the first three terms (1979 to 1991) of the years that the late D.C. Mayor-for-Life Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr. was in office, it was more African-American families that moved out of D.C. than it was families belonging to other ethnic groups, with the departures surging after the start of the crack cocaine epidemic during Reagan's second term in office (both Barry and Reagan seemed to be powerless to do much about it).
Barry jokingly (and probably resentfully) used to call Prince George's County, Maryland "Ward 9" (D.C. had and has 8 councilmanic wards), because so many former D.C. residents had moved away from his municipality across the border to Maryland.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 23, 2014, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on December 23, 2014, 02:52:39 PM
Things would likely look similar to other places in the world, like Australia and Brazil, where only the big city areas had freeways and are island off from other big cities with their own highway structure. Freeways would still exist, but wouldn't be the network system it is today.
I disagree
American development is driven by the idea (that slightly predates the interstate system) that everyone is entitled to a house, land, a white picket fence, two kids and a dog. Other countries have people who LIKE living in cities, Americans largely want the amenities of a city without actually having to live there. We are so unique in our preferences that we would've still developed differently than other nations.
Exactly. The earliest suburbs date from the 19th Century. One of the first, albeit based around a rail station, was Riverside (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside,_Illinois), Illinois (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1080.html). The town was designed in 1869 by none other than Fredrick Law Olmsted and incorporated in 1875. It was meant from the start to be a commuter suburb well before freeways or even the automobile.
If the interstates weren't built back in the day, the Staggers Act of 1980 probably wouldn't have been passed, and we probably wouldn't have had Conrail and/or Amtrak, if any of the modern railroads at all.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 23, 2014, 05:49:47 PM
If the interstates weren't built back in the day, the Staggers Act of 1980 probably wouldn't have been passed, and we probably wouldn't have had Conrail and/or Amtrak, if any of the modern railroads at all.
Correct, but probably in a different way than you seem to be implying. The railroads would still operate passenger services as they would have a monopoly on high-speed land-based travel. Without competition from long-distance trucking, Conrail would not have existed as the New York Central, Pennsy, and other fallen flags would still be afloat from the freight traffic. Mergers wouldn't have happened and conglomerates such as CSX and Norfolk Southern wouldn't exist.
See Canada.
Perhaps the premise should be restricted to no master-planned and/or funded divided-highway interstate system.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftransportationfortomorrow.com%2Fimages%2Ffinal_report%2Fex_3_1.gif&hash=bc634d4c2437f78cad603265f673ca92b402c170)
First, rural areas. In short, any interstate in green would have been too uneconomical to construct, either by a spendthrift state DOT or as a toll road. Many rural interstates in the lower blue category, especially those that are primarily fed by 'green' interstates, would have likely not been constructed based on traffic projections. If constructed, it would have likely been because of undue "political" input; for example, pushed through the planning and financing process as a last-ditch attempt by an "urban liberal" governor to win the "conservative farmer" vote before a close election. While the generally-recognized cutoff, if I recall correctly, for widening to four lanes divided is about 10,000 AADT (the upper limit of the green category), induced demand today would have meant that many highways would see traffic volumes perhaps half to three-fourths of what they are today.
Most interstates today above 40,000 AADT (orange, red, and purple) would have been constructed somehow. My guess at this point is that the Northeast and Midwestern states with established populations would have constructed state-backed toll roads; Iowa had plans for a turnpike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_80_in_Iowa#Iowa_Turnpike), which if it had been constructed would have likely led adjacent states to construct their own turnpikes. States in the Deep South and Sunbelt, excepting Florida due to its strong Northeastern influence which led it to develop its own state turnpike, would have first favored "public good" highways paid out of tax revenue, likely with greater amounts of "pork" highways created for vague economic development purposes compared to the Northeast and Midwest, which would have based their highways more off of established demand patterns. As funding would shrink due to the electorate's resistance to increasing taxes to pay for the looming maintenance bill, these states would have then turned to modern-day toll roads, especially roads with significant private-sector backing. For the most part, Mountain West states would have not constructed interstates due to low demand and more suitable rail networks for freight. The West Coast would have likely followed the Northeast by developing intra-state turnpikes between cities, but I would expect that I-5 would have a gap somewhere between Sacramento and Eugene due to the cost of constructing through mountainous terrain.
In cities, many highways would have been owned by the city and viewed as a high-speed extension of its street network, with a few owned by private, for-profit companies. It would have been cost-prohibitive to take any more land than the absolute minimum required, thus standards would have been comparable to the early 1950's, with design speeds between 40 and 55, no or right-only shoulders, many elevated sections on pillars, and with tight corners and ramps. Freeways would still exist in suburban areas, but as part of inter-city turnpikes or state DOT extensions. State and city DOT standards would be slightly less than today; no suburban freeway would have likely had a left shoulder with only eight lanes, much less six. For real-world examples today, see Japan for urban freeway standards and Germany for suburban freeway standards.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 23, 2014, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on December 23, 2014, 02:52:39 PM
Things would likely look similar to other places in the world, like Australia and Brazil, where only the big city areas had freeways and are island off from other big cities with their own highway structure. Freeways would still exist, but wouldn't be the network system it is today.
I disagree
American development is driven by the idea (that slightly predates the interstate system) that everyone is entitled to a house, land, a white picket fence, two kids and a dog. Other countries have people who LIKE living in cities, Americans largely want the amenities of a city without actually having to live there. We are so unique in our preferences that we would've still developed differently than other nations.
Snowflake Americans; so different and special as compared to people from other countries. NOT. Anything heavily subsidized will be overconsumed. Starting in the Depression, very little money was put into our cities. By the end of WWII, the cities were looking very worse for wear since all the national effort was going into the war. After the dust settled, the subsidies ramped up for sprawl and rural areas -- a practice that continues to this day. Investment money follows subsidies.
If we'd not built major freeways in the past, we'd be building them today for the simple reason that the "freeway revolts" and NEPA never would have happened without freeway building. We'd likely see some specific differences based on timing and local circumstance (maybe the Claiborne Elevated never happens but Overton Park I-40 does; maybe I-676 through Philly doesn't get built but the Somerset Freeway succeeds) but the "lesson" that we need laws like NEPA wouldn't have been learned without the experience of building crap like the Embarcadero or the original Central Artery first.
Given that, elevated freeways would probably be more acceptable if people's first though to the term "elevated freeway" was of China's modern viaducts instead of green 1950s monstrosities like the former Central Artery.
Quote from: Zmapper on December 24, 2014, 12:03:20 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftransportationfortomorrow.com%2Fimages%2Ffinal_report%2Fex_3_1.gif&hash=bc634d4c2437f78cad603265f673ca92b402c170)
First, rural areas. In short, any interstate in green would have been too uneconomical to construct, either by a spendthrift state DOT or as a toll road. Many rural interstates in the lower blue category, especially those that are primarily fed by 'green' interstates, would have likely not been constructed based on traffic projections. If constructed, it would have likely been because of undue "political" input; for example, pushed through the planning and financing process as a last-ditch attempt by an "urban liberal" governor to win the "conservative farmer" vote before a close election. While the generally-recognized cutoff, if I recall correctly, for widening to four lanes divided is about 10,000 AADT (the upper limit of the green category), induced demand today would have meant that many highways would see traffic volumes perhaps half to three-fourths of what they are today.
No, they wouldn't have been constructed as interstate highways, but I think they still would have been constructed as either a new 2 lane or 4 lane alignment of a US highway. For instance, instead of I-90 through most of South Dakota, it would be a new 2 lane alignment of US 16. The major cities would have limited access, expressway bypasses because they could justify the traffic counts to build them.
Quote from: vdeane on December 31, 2014, 01:13:21 PM
Given that, elevated freeways would probably be more acceptable if people's first though to the term "elevated freeway" was of China's modern viaducts instead of green 1950s monstrosities like the former Central Artery.
Got a photo of one of China's "modern viaducts"? All I can find is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Yan%27an_Elevated_Road which looks a lot like the Pierce Elevated (http://www.texasfreeway.com/houston/photos/downtown/images/45_pierce.jpg) in Houston.
Quote from: NE2 on December 31, 2014, 01:35:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 31, 2014, 01:13:21 PM
Given that, elevated freeways would probably be more acceptable if people's first though to the term "elevated freeway" was of China's modern viaducts instead of green 1950s monstrosities like the former Central Artery.
Got a photo of one of China's "modern viaducts"? All I can find is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Yan%27an_Elevated_Road which looks a lot like the Pierce Elevated (http://www.texasfreeway.com/houston/photos/downtown/images/45_pierce.jpg) in Houston.
That's still light years ahead of the Embacadero, Central Artery, I-81 in Syracuse, etc. that most people around here think of as the only possible configuration a viaduct can possibly be.
I think if it were built today, the Jersey Turnpike as we know it would not exist due to wetlands issues in the Meadowlands and in the southern portion. It'd have to follow a radically different route. It also wouldn't run right through Elizabeth because local advocacy groups would be much more mobilized against it.
The Capital Beltway would follow a different route where it crosses the Potomac River and for several miles to the west because its impact on Cameron Run would be deemed unacceptable. I presume, given the presence of the historic areas of Old Town Alexandria, after it passed the Springfield Interchange it'd be routed further to the southeast and cross the river several miles south of where it does now, given that there are further marshy areas and wetlands for some distance south of the existing routing.
Quote from: vdeane on December 31, 2014, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 31, 2014, 01:35:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 31, 2014, 01:13:21 PM
Given that, elevated freeways would probably be more acceptable if people's first though to the term "elevated freeway" was of China's modern viaducts instead of green 1950s monstrosities like the former Central Artery.
Got a photo of one of China's "modern viaducts"? All I can find is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Yan%27an_Elevated_Road which looks a lot like the Pierce Elevated (http://www.texasfreeway.com/houston/photos/downtown/images/45_pierce.jpg) in Houston.
That's still light years ahead of the Embacadero, Central Artery, I-81 in Syracuse, etc. that most people around here think of as the only possible configuration a viaduct can possibly be.
The road in the picture looks like the current Southeast Expressway. If they were to bulldoze many, many acres of downtown Boston today to put something that looks like the Southeast Expressway right through its heart, people would be no less livid then if it were on green steel legs. It takes the cold heart of a truly committed roadgeek to think the problem with the old Artery was that it didn't look cool enough or attractive enough.
If the Central Artery was built today, it would be built pretty much as it exists now–underground–only there would probably still be contiguous neighborhoods directly above it, this time with luxury condos in them.
The original Artery succeeded in getting built not just because there was little organized resistance against massive urban clearance, but also because the land involved was worth a fraction of what it is now. Boston is in a construction boom greater than any in at least 15 years. There is tremendous demand for new office/R&D space, and with it places to house high-salaried workers. Eating up prime real estate with some antiquated idea of running an elevated highway through the heart of the city would be a non-starter today, even if it was so pretty it had friggin' flowers and bunny rabbits painted on the sides.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 31, 2014, 03:42:37 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 31, 2014, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 31, 2014, 01:35:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 31, 2014, 01:13:21 PM
Given that, elevated freeways would probably be more acceptable if people's first though to the term "elevated freeway" was of China's modern viaducts instead of green 1950s monstrosities like the former Central Artery.
Got a photo of one of China's "modern viaducts"? All I can find is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Yan%27an_Elevated_Road which looks a lot like the Pierce Elevated (http://www.texasfreeway.com/houston/photos/downtown/images/45_pierce.jpg) in Houston.
That's still light years ahead of the Embacadero, Central Artery, I-81 in Syracuse, etc. that most people around here think of as the only possible configuration a viaduct can possibly be.
The road in the picture looks like the current Southeast Expressway. If they were to bulldoze many, many acres of downtown Boston today to put something that looks like the Southeast Expressway right through its heart, people would be no less livid then if it were on green steel legs. It takes the cold heart of a truly committed roadgeek to think the problem with the old Artery was that it didn't look cool enough or attractive enough.
If the Central Artery was built today, it would be built pretty much as it exists now–underground–only there would probably still be contiguous neighborhoods directly above it, this time with luxury condos in them.
The original Artery succeeded in getting built not just because there was little organized resistance against massive urban clearance, but also because the land involved was worth a fraction of what it is now. Boston is in a construction boom greater than any in at least 15 years. There is tremendous demand for new office/R&D space, and with it places to house high-salaried workers. Eating up prime real estate with some antiquated idea of running an elevated highway through the heart of the city would be a non-starter today, even if it was so pretty it had friggin' flowers and bunny rabbits painted on the sides.
It's for this the Mt Hood Freeway as designed was a bad idea and was rightfully killed (taking I-305 and 505 with it, sadly(?)). That said, in the end, it should have been built as an underground facility to minimize neighborhood impact (the current renewal along SE Division Street is wonderful, though Division itself is critically overcapacity x.x).
Another similar 'killed' freeway was one of I-205's original alignments as the Laurelhurst Freeway (roughly from I-5 at OR 217, northwest toward Sellwood and SE Johnson Creek Blvd, then north along SE 52nd Ave and 42nd Ave to Washington); that got relocated initially toward 111th Ave then to 95th Ave where it was built (and nearly outright killed in Portland itself -- the Division/Powell interchange was a saving 'grace').
Quote from: vdeane on December 31, 2014, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 31, 2014, 01:35:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 31, 2014, 01:13:21 PM
Given that, elevated freeways would probably be more acceptable if people's first though to the term "elevated freeway" was of China's modern viaducts instead of green 1950s monstrosities like the former Central Artery.
Got a photo of one of China's "modern viaducts"? All I can find is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Yan%27an_Elevated_Road which looks a lot like the Pierce Elevated (http://www.texasfreeway.com/houston/photos/downtown/images/45_pierce.jpg) in Houston.
That's still light years ahead of the Embacadero, Central Artery, I-81 in Syracuse, etc. that most people around here think of as the only possible configuration a viaduct can possibly be.
One needs to keep in mind that in other countries, China in the fore-mentioned example; once an alignment is selected for a highway (be it elevated, at-grade or underground), that's it. No Environmental assessment nor impact statements/reports, no enhanced stormwater management BMPs, and NIMBYs are largely ignored... eminent domain in full force.
Not dealing any of the above eliminates years if not decades of work in the design/planning stage prior to ground breaking.
Something to think about when comparing highway (or any other large infrastructure) projects in this country vs. ones overseas.
The Thruway wouldn't be able to go where it is today either. Through the Mohawk Valley it cuts through the heart of numerous villages and is right on top of the river in numerous spots.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 31, 2014, 03:42:37 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 31, 2014, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 31, 2014, 01:35:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 31, 2014, 01:13:21 PM
Given that, elevated freeways would probably be more acceptable if people's first though to the term "elevated freeway" was of China's modern viaducts instead of green 1950s monstrosities like the former Central Artery.
Got a photo of one of China's "modern viaducts"? All I can find is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Yan%27an_Elevated_Road which looks a lot like the Pierce Elevated (http://www.texasfreeway.com/houston/photos/downtown/images/45_pierce.jpg) in Houston.
That's still light years ahead of the Embacadero, Central Artery, I-81 in Syracuse, etc. that most people around here think of as the only possible configuration a viaduct can possibly be.
The road in the picture looks like the current Southeast Expressway. If they were to bulldoze many, many acres of downtown Boston today to put something that looks like the Southeast Expressway right through its heart, people would be no less livid then if it were on green steel legs. It takes the cold heart of a truly committed roadgeek to think the problem with the old Artery was that it didn't look cool enough or attractive enough.
If the Central Artery was built today, it would be built pretty much as it exists now–underground–only there would probably still be contiguous neighborhoods directly above it, this time with luxury condos in them.
The original Artery succeeded in getting built not just because there was little organized resistance against massive urban clearance, but also because the land involved was worth a fraction of what it is now. Boston is in a construction boom greater than any in at least 15 years. There is tremendous demand for new office/R&D space, and with it places to house high-salaried workers. Eating up prime real estate with some antiquated idea of running an elevated highway through the heart of the city would be a non-starter today, even if it was so pretty it had friggin' flowers and bunny rabbits painted on the sides.
With respect to the debate surrounding what to do with I-81 in Syracuse, the two key arguments of the boulevard crowd is "we don't want a barrier" and "elevated freeways are ugly". If the public understood that a new viaduct would look like the China example rather than what's there now, the debate would be quite different.
I think in Orlando the reason why the area has changed is because of the major freeway here: I-4.
If it were not for I-4 there would be no Disney in its present location. There would be no skyscrapers in Downtown Orlando as its location along the interstate system is why SunTrust and the now defunct Barnett Bank built their 20 plus story high rise towers there.
The better question is of those who had freeways built first and then added a few years later due to a boom created by the first one.
I-95 through Brevard County, though, would now be built to the west of Viera as that for sure would have been built regardless of the interstate or not. It just would have been an extension of the current developments east of I-95 and west of US 1.
The Space Coast might of been more of an arrival place for later people who now migrated to Orlando to leave the Northern States if the FL interstates were never constructed. I think Titusville might of been a much larger city then it is today had that been, and most likely would be having a night life which that city does not at all have presently.
Sharpes, Port St. John, Cocoa, and Rockledge would be more developed with modern houses with US 1 having to be made 6 lanes all the way from Scotsmore to Melbourne, and 8 to 10 lanes through Melbourne and Palm Bay which is now mainly 6 converted almost 30 years ago. Maybe some interchanges would have been built along US 1 at many key intersections to handle the traffic that I-95 now handles as well as that local scene if it had of been.
Quote from: vdeane on January 01, 2015, 05:12:15 PM
If the public understood that a new viaduct would look like the China example rather than what's there now, the debate would be quite different.
Riiiight.
QuoteIf the public understood that a new viaduct would look like the China example rather than what's there now, the debate would be quite different.
I doubt this as well. Aesthetics (which is effectively what you're referring to) is only a small part of the debate.
Quote from: froggie on January 02, 2015, 08:06:55 AM
QuoteIf the public understood that a new viaduct would look like the China example rather than what's there now, the debate would be quite different.
I doubt this as well. Aesthetics (which is effectively what you're referring to) is only a small part of the debate.
Exactly. In fact, when I first looked at the pictures of the China example, my first thought was "interesting. This reminds me of a modern day Syracuse."
The debate would be exactly the same with a prettier roadway.
iPhone
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-01-28/news/os-the-ultimate-i4-project-is-slated-to-start-soon-20140128_1_interstate-4-college-park-neighborhood-association-winter-park Here is what happened when an interstate got built over 50 years ago. This I show because the OP states what happens when one gets built now over yesterday.
This shows how different for sure it would be to build I-4 today as of yesterday, as I-4 being built (as I stated above) caused the Orlando metro area to be what it is today.
If I-4 go If I I-4 got built today its routing would still be in the same spot as the neighborhoods of the 60's would still be the same today.
Note: I do not know why the last sentence got partially deleted, but fixed it.
If you forego what?
Quote from: roadman65 on January 02, 2015, 06:41:40 PM
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-01-28/news/os-the-ultimate-i4-project-is-slated-to-start-soon-20140128_1_interstate-4-college-park-neighborhood-association-winter-park
Quote"I don't think my commute will be as much fun because I will not be able to see College Park anymore from I-4," Foglesong said. "A big wall will be there."
Waaaaah.
^That's important though to some people. Young people these days are used to constant visual stimulation. When sound walls go in it's essentially like driving in a tunnel with no roof. That's the kind of stuff that makes young people dump cars for public transit since they can use their phones and laptops on it.
Think about Cleveland's West Side now; you can drive for miles and all you'll see is sound walls.
The interstates are, of course, the best investment America ever made. And another word for "sprawl" is "freedom". OTHER PEOPLE are going to live their lives in different manners that YOU would want them to. For many that includes getting out of cites, having a house rather than an apartment, seeing green things like grass and trees every day, building a business wherever they wish (rather than where a monopolistic railroad is), and so on.
If we had to build the interstates today? Never happen. Enviro-extemists would oppose them not only at the "first level" (wetlands, trees, all of that) but, as they do with needed things today like Keystone, at the "second level", which is to say, they simply don't want YOU to consume more resources, because THEY know best what YOU should have, and YOU need to have less. Plus vested business interests would also oppose (railroads, airlines, inner city slumlords, etc).
Same thing could be said for the other great investments this nation has made, such as the massive water projects of the west, swamp drainage, and so on. Never happen today. The Elite know best and YOU must do with less and live your life as you are told by your betters.
The massive water projects that allocate each state more water than exists, enabling development that depends on fictional water?
Were the people of the Owens Valley trying to impose their lifestyle on people in LA when they said "If you're going to live in a desert don't make it our problem"?
When my taxes go up because the cost per new mile of sewer and road and water to new subdivisions exceeds that of what exists previously, who is imposing their choices on whom?
Typical half-finished libertarian rant–"freedom" means "my freedom," never mind that it's impossible for people to be completely free to do as they choose without costing others some of their freedom.
QuoteAnd another word for "sprawl" is "freedom".
The "freedom" to be beholden to the car because it's the only way to get around. Oh, and the DOT can't widen the road for all the "freedom-lovers" because they're broke...
Quote from: froggie on January 03, 2015, 03:03:52 PM
QuoteAnd another word for "sprawl" is "freedom".
The "freedom" to be beholden to the car because it's the only way to get around. Oh, and the DOT can't widen the road for all the "freedom-lovers" because they're broke...
I prefer the cities. Less freedom there.
Libertarians do realize that this "freedom" is heavily subsidized by the government, right?
Quote from: froggie on January 02, 2015, 08:06:55 AM
QuoteIf the public understood that a new viaduct would look like the China example rather than what's there now, the debate would be quite different.
I doubt this as well. Aesthetics (which is effectively what you're referring to) is only a small part of the debate.
As far as I can tell, the debate boils down to three things:
-"The elevated freeway is an ugly green monstrosity so we need an at-grade boulevard" (as shown, modern viaducts look quite nice)
-"Elevated freeways are barriers" (the freeway in the picture doesn't look even remotely like a barrier to me; the surface street that the looks like what the boulevard advocates want, on the other hand...)
-"I hate freeways and I hate suburbs" (this one isn't usually voiced openly but is quite apparent from sources like Streetsblog)
Quote from: vdeane on January 03, 2015, 08:52:26 PM
modern viaducts look quite nice
hahahahahahaha
Of course, if ugliness were the sole concern, cities would be as bad as suburbs as far as what colors are allowed and such. The real aim is keeping out the sippy kooks.
Quote from: vdeane on January 03, 2015, 08:52:26 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 02, 2015, 08:06:55 AM
QuoteIf the public understood that a new viaduct would look like the China example rather than what's there now, the debate would be quite different.
I doubt this as well. Aesthetics (which is effectively what you're referring to) is only a small part of the debate.
As far as I can tell, the debate boils down to three things:
-"The elevated freeway is an ugly green monstrosity so we need an at-grade boulevard" (as shown, modern viaducts look quite nice)
-"Elevated freeways are barriers" (the freeway in the picture doesn't look even remotely like a barrier to me; the surface street that the looks like what the boulevard advocates want, on the other hand...)
-"I hate freeways and I hate suburbs" (this one isn't usually voiced openly but is quite apparent from sources like Streetsblog)
The barrier idea comes down to whether there is a flow of people and activity across/under the road or not. Unless there is tremendous economic pressure, there very often is not. People in a lot of communities believe that said flow would be better with an at-grade street, and that the consequences to traffic flow are far outweighed by the overall success of the community.
It's not whether something looks like a barrier, but rather if it functions as one.
I also think there are very few people involved on either side who are interested in a prettier viaduct.
Given that it is largely believed that the freeway caused the modern nation, especially the sprawl, I can imaging that it would be much harder to build freeways through the cities, and they would be a larger number of tunnels. I would also suspect that several cities could have elevate freeways who's directions are one block apart (to fit between buildings), or build like those in Japan. Public transport would still exist and therefore, coupled with a smaller, more densely packed populations, freeways wouldn't be needed in large part.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2015, 05:21:36 AM
The barrier idea comes down to whether there is a flow of people and activity across/under the road or not. Unless there is tremendous economic pressure, there very often is not. People in a lot of communities believe that said flow would be better with an at-grade street, and that the consequences to traffic flow are far outweighed by the overall success of the community.
It's not whether something looks like a barrier, but rather if it functions as one.
I also think there are very few people involved on either side who are interested in a prettier viaduct.
I find it much easier to walk under a viaduct than across a multi-lane boulevard. I don't understand why most people think the opposite. Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking, so not sitting at the light waiting for the walk signal to turn on probably makes crossing the boulevard less cumbersome than it is for those of us who seek to not affect vehicular traffic when walking in the highway ROW. Plus separating the traffic is inherently safer than having it all together. I just don't understand why people are so intimidated by viaducts.
Quote from: TEG24601 on January 04, 2015, 02:12:42 PM
I would also suspect that several cities could have elevate freeways who's directions are one block apart (to fit between buildings)
Wichita Falls, surprisingly for Texas. Still a psychological barrier (especially since the piers are on the sidewalk, meaning a large setback), but probably not as much as putting both directions above the same street. If a city must have a freeway, this may be the lesser evil.
Quote from: vdeane on January 04, 2015, 03:46:19 PM
I find it much easier to walk under a viaduct than across a multi-lane boulevard.
I find it easier to walk between two places inside a beltway.
Quote from: vdeane on January 04, 2015, 03:46:19 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2015, 05:21:36 AM
The barrier idea comes down to whether there is a flow of people and activity across/under the road or not. Unless there is tremendous economic pressure, there very often is not. People in a lot of communities believe that said flow would be better with an at-grade street, and that the consequences to traffic flow are far outweighed by the overall success of the community.
It's not whether something looks like a barrier, but rather if it functions as one.
I also think there are very few people involved on either side who are interested in a prettier viaduct.
I find it much easier to walk under a viaduct than across a multi-lane boulevard. I don't understand why most people think the opposite. Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking, so not sitting at the light waiting for the walk signal to turn on probably makes crossing the boulevard less cumbersome than it is for those of us who seek to not affect vehicular traffic when walking in the highway ROW. Plus separating the traffic is inherently safer than having it all together. I just don't understand why people are so intimidated by viaducts.
MassDOT seems equally puzzled, as they put up colored lights under the modern, attractive Southeast Expressway in order to get people to more comfortably cross the 18 lanes of traffic above and below. I think the people at MassDOT involved in this might not quite get it yet.
Human psychology is what it is. This is the first, most basic concept any planner needs to understand. People are likely to walk much further along a road with storefronts than one with railroad tracks along it. Inefficient behavior? Perhaps. But it's how the ball of fat in people's heads works. Viaducts have ended up being an unattractive direction for people to walk compared to alternatives.
It isn't that hard to grasp, either, if you spend much time walking around big cities. At night the spaces under elevated highways can be creepy and isolating. In the day they can be dark and dank where a landscaped boulevard, even one with just as many lights and crosswalks, gives a more enticing prospect to lead people in. The under-spaces are usually last to be cleaned, are noisy, are generally further isolated by frontage roads, block lines of sight and therefore feeling of connection...
And frankly, what's bringing people back into cities in droves is scale, walkability, pleasant views and plazas and neighborhoods. Developers are bending over backwards to create intimate feel. Elevated highways running through neighborhoods are just plain bad for this very powerful business.
I admit, I'm not used to big cities in the least, especially since the introvert in me finds them too big. I grew up and currently live in the suburbs (where I can still have the amenities of a large metro area but don't have to deal with all the people) with some smaller towns mixed in my address history. Any walking I've done was probably to/from middle school and high school or in college when the location of parking on either end combined with traffic lights made driving impractical; beyond that, the most notable times would be family vacations (which probably created my distaste of walking as it could be uncomfortable in summer and my feet hurt a couple of years), roadmeets (especially the post-meet tour of downtown Quebec City), and that one time someone blocked my car during my internship.
Needless to say, while I have no problem whatsoever with measures to improve pedestrian/bike accessibility, I do not like any measures that reduce vehicular accessibility.
Quote from: vdeane on January 04, 2015, 03:46:19 PM
Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking
Citation needed.
Quote from: vdeane on January 04, 2015, 03:46:19 PM
I find it much easier to walk under a viaduct than across a multi-lane boulevard. I don't understand why most people think the opposite. Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking, so not sitting at the light waiting for the walk signal to turn on probably makes crossing the boulevard less cumbersome than it is for those of us who seek to not affect vehicular traffic when walking in the highway ROW. Plus separating the traffic is inherently safer than having it all together. I just don't understand why people are so intimidated by viaducts.
Indeed. There's a viaduct in San Francisco which crosses a 6-lane street. (Fillmore @ Geary Blvd.) The Ped people are hot under the collar to tear it down and rebuild a grade-level intersection, in the name of "reconnecting the neighborhood".
I think they're nuts and are only going to create a far more divisive and pedestrian-unfriendly situation. In fact I wonder how many of these people actually walk around rather than reading solutions out of a textbook.
Quote from: kkt on January 04, 2015, 05:26:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 04, 2015, 03:46:19 PM
Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking
Citation needed.
Warning: generalization ahead.
Ped advocates are
generally anti car, and are thus prone to not giving a fuck about whether or not a car has the right of way.
QuotePed advocates are generally anti car, and are thus prone to not giving a fuck about whether or not a car has the right of way.
Not in my experience, though it depends on how you define "anti-car". Most of the advocates I'm familiar with are multi-modal. They know vehicles have a place...but think that vehicles have been OVER-emphasized in the urban core environment. I have also known numerous "suburban" bike/ped advocates who feel that bike/ped accommodations are simply ignored or non-existant in the suburbs.
Back to the original topic...
Perhaps a better example would be major urban freeways that were constructed recently, such as the Century Freeway in Los Angeles or US 71 in Kansas City. Decades of urban freeway construction didn't save the poor, non-white neighborhoods in the paths of these freeways from large-scale demolition.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2015, 05:40:05 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 04, 2015, 05:26:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 04, 2015, 03:46:19 PM
Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking
Citation needed.
Warning: generalization ahead.
Ped advocates are generally anti car, and are thus prone to not giving a fuck about whether or not a car has the right of way.
Based on what?
The average person that supports improved walkability is not also usually an asshole. This is a case of generalizing about a group based on its most extreme members.
Do people who walk more have different priorities than people who walk less? Most likely. But that's a long reach from the statements being tossed about here.
Do yourself a favor and spend some real time living someplace with very high pedestrian activity, and walk a lot. See what insights you gain, and then start with the generalizations from a point of some perspective.
Quote from: Zmapper on January 04, 2015, 05:51:25 PM
Perhaps a better example would be major urban freeways that were constructed recently, such as the Century Freeway in Los Angeles or US 71 in Kansas City. Decades of urban freeway construction didn't save the poor, non-white neighborhoods in the paths of these freeways from large-scale demolition.
Right of way for both of those was probably cleared or at least threatened (hence allowed to deteriorate) decades before construction.
Tampa's recent widenings of I-4 and I-275 shows that some cities are willing to tear down whole blocks adjacent to existing freeways.
But what about new freeways through dense urban areas? What's been built recently that hasn't been along a railroad or other cleared corridor (thus disqualifying the Chisholm Trail Parkway, for example)? I can't think of anything recent.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2015, 05:55:34 PM
This is a case of generalizing about a group based on its most extreme members.
Often, the most extreme are the loudest.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2015, 06:25:11 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2015, 05:55:34 PM
This is a case of generalizing about a group based on its most extreme members.
Often, the most extreme are the loudest.
honk honk
How did "sprawl" become an acceptable term for what I, and many other, would call "growth?"
Quote from: hbelkins on January 04, 2015, 07:03:45 PM
How did "sprawl" become an acceptable term for what I, and many other, would call "growth?"
Same time "cancer" became the term for what you call "bulking up".
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2015, 05:55:34 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2015, 05:40:05 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 04, 2015, 05:26:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 04, 2015, 03:46:19 PM
Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking
Citation needed.
Warning: generalization ahead.
Ped advocates are generally anti car, and are thus prone to not giving a fuck about whether or not a car has the right of way.
Based on what?
The average person that supports improved walkability is not also usually an asshole. This is a case of generalizing about a group based on its most extreme members.
Do people who walk more have different priorities than people who walk less? Most likely. But that's a long reach from the statements being tossed about here.
Do yourself a favor and spend some real time living someplace with very high pedestrian activity, and walk a lot. See what insights you gain, and then start with the generalizations from a point of some perspective.
The past week, while I've been in NYC, I've basically been a pedestrian walking day and night across Manhattan, but I have only too much respect for the road, and I was a burden to no one. I didn't walk one millimeter away from the front of someone's car, nor did I walk 0.00001 MPH across the crosswalk getting horns honked at me. I was as considerate as I could be along with my family, making sure I was causing nobody who was driving grief. I wasn't half asleep not paying attention, but I looked both ways constantly, walked quickly across the crosswalks when I was allowed to, made sure I was being considerate, and etc. I only J-walked once or twice, but that's because I had to, and no cars were coming. I understand there are a lot of pedestrians inconsiderate to people on the road, but not all of them are.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 04, 2015, 07:03:45 PM
How did "sprawl" become an acceptable term for what I, and many other, would call "growth?"
Sometime before
1961?
I searched the
Washington Post archives, and found a story that apparently ran 1961-09-09 by AP reporter Ovid A. Martin in the
Post, which contains this sentence (emphasis added):
QuoteBehind these laws is the widespread feeling that the uncontrolled withdrawal of farmland is one of the chief causes of the so-called suburban sprawl, and that legislation to hold down assessments on farmland ls a primary step in the direction of planned and orderly suburban development.
Spui may have other suggestions.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2015, 05:40:05 PM
Warning: generalization ahead.
Ped advocates are generally anti car, and are thus prone to not giving a fuck about whether or not a car has the right of way.
I must respectfully disagree. Not all ped advocates are anti-car (for one thing, at least some of them understand that those nasty car drivers help to pay for a lot of bike and pedestrian improvements).
Having known people who were struck by cars on the streets of the District of Columbia (in theory, a pedestrian-friendly jurisdiction), I suppose I am something of a pedestrian advocate myself (though it is easier for me to be a pedestrian now than it used to be).
Quote from: NE2 on January 04, 2015, 06:10:52 PM
Quote from: Zmapper on January 04, 2015, 05:51:25 PM
Perhaps a better example would be major urban freeways that were constructed recently, such as the Century Freeway in Los Angeles or US 71 in Kansas City. Decades of urban freeway construction didn't save the poor, non-white neighborhoods in the paths of these freeways from large-scale demolition.
Right of way for both of those was probably cleared or at least threatened (hence allowed to deteriorate) decades before construction.
It should be mentioned that "slum clearance" used to be a fashionable idea, and many urban freeway projects were planned in conjunction with other "urban renewal" projects. So in a lot of cases, landlords were happy to sell out at elevated prices, and poor renters received the brunt of freeway construction.
At least in the case of the Century Freeway, Caltrans spent millions of dollars buying off every local neighborhood group and leader, often hiring them as a PR advocate for the freeway. That's why it was described as the "last freeway in California" (even though it wasn't) -- the cost and complications of building such things was going to be untenable.
When you look at Alaskan Way in Seattle or I-710 in Pasadena, it seems like the only way to build a modern urban freeway is just tunnel the whole thing.
Biggest question would be how would the country progress over the past 50+ years without the major interstate projects?
I think cities wouldn't have stretched out as far as they did, as the ride to downtown would be mind-numbingly long. I think freeways THROUGH cities would be a non-starter. Situations like Columbia or Greenville, SC, Detroit, St. Petersburg or Miami FL, etc where two roads reach into downtown, but aren't connected and the main line runs just outside the city core. Or, more similar to Pittsburgh or Rochester where the mainline runs well outside of the city and spurs run into the city from far away due to cheaper land (though, again, probably not a direct pass through). I-70 would've avoided the direct Columbus-Indianapolis-St. Louis-Kansas City corridor and been place just north or south of the main route. More of a 'hub and spoke' setup. Full beltways around the outside of the city and freeways running between beltways connecting them with the occassional freeway reaching into the urban core.
The other hypothetical is what state upgrades would be done in the absense of a federal highway system. NY's parkway system obviously would be quite extensive and well traveled. Kentucky may still have created their parkways. Many states may have jumped at toll roads to handle their plans: Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, etc.
Some other states would probably crop up major highway plans of their owns. Either toll or free. And some adventurous businesses may create their own private toll roads to serve major city-to-city needs. I could see railroad operators looking to team up by creating roadways near their ROW to help prop up their rail service, which would probably be much more thorough and economical. And once their road is built, it would be hard to argue building ANOTHER competing road.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 04, 2015, 07:03:45 PM
How did "sprawl" become an acceptable term for what I, and many other, would call "growth?"
When the population of an area grows and the amount of land they use grows in the same proportion, that's merely growth. When the population doesn't change but the amount of land they use increases dramatically, that's sprawl.
Quote from: GCrites80s on January 04, 2015, 09:09:32 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 04, 2015, 07:03:45 PM
How did "sprawl" become an acceptable term for what I, and many other, would call "growth?"
When the population of an area grows and the amount of land they use grows in the same proportion, that's merely growth. When the population doesn't change but the amount of land they use increases dramatically, that's sprawl.
Not quite. Take a look at Clermont, FL. Now true most is housing as well as many strip malls, so it is populated per unit, but is it growth or is it redistribution? Many move from one area to another, and the population is not growing, but spreading out more.
Now true everybody is moving to Central Florida these days as they were back in the early 90's which is what caused the Southchase and Hunters Creek area to now reach peak capacity as when I moved in 1990 it was only a fraction of homes and no major shopping centers there like there is now. However, Clermont is not the same as it literally grew overnight. It took Southchase and Hunters Creek well over a decade and a half to get where it is now.
US 27 in Clermont was a rural 65 mph expressway back at the turn of the century, now its a 45 to 55 mph suburban arterial. It also grew many traffic signals as well. Back in 2000 there was only 3 traffic lights from I-4 to Leesburg, and now there is too many to count.
Basically most of Clermont is Orlando and Kissimme people looking for a change as the two main cities of Central Florida are have gotten really bad with crime and bad schools. One girl I knew from Kissimmee said she had to move out to Clermont because the schools are too bad there for her daughter to attend. Plus the neighborhoods have gone down in quality in many Orlando and Kissimmee locations. Not only in crime and social class, but in traffic too!
I myself am not happy with the traffic situation on John Young Parkway and Orange Blossom Trail as it used to take less than two minuts to go from Deerfield Boulevard to Hunters Creek Boulevard, which can now take 5 to 10 minutes due to increase in commuter, shopping, and other traffic. To me it is frustrating at any time, not only rush hour, so a move to a new community outside the Orlando Metro area would be welcome.
Quote from: Sykotyk on January 04, 2015, 08:51:34 PM
Biggest question would be how would the country progress over the past 50+ years without the major interstate projects?
I think cities wouldn't have stretched out as far as they did, as the ride to downtown would be mind-numbingly long. I think freeways THROUGH cities would be a non-starter. Situations like Columbia or Greenville, SC, Detroit, St. Petersburg or Miami FL, etc where two roads reach into downtown, but aren't connected and the main line runs just outside the city core. Or, more similar to Pittsburgh or Rochester where the mainline runs well outside of the city and spurs run into the city from far away due to cheaper land (though, again, probably not a direct pass through). I-70 would've avoided the direct Columbus-Indianapolis-St. Louis-Kansas City corridor and been place just north or south of the main route. More of a 'hub and spoke' setup. Full beltways around the outside of the city and freeways running between beltways connecting them with the occassional freeway reaching into the urban core.
Though in some metropolitan areas, the circumferential freeways ("beltways") were built through suburban areas that had been built years earlier, in some cases as far back as a few years after World War II, or ever earlier.
Quote from: Sykotyk on January 04, 2015, 08:51:34 PM
The other hypothetical is what state upgrades would be done in the absense of a federal highway system. NY's parkway system obviously would be quite extensive and well traveled. Kentucky may still have created their parkways. Many states may have jumped at toll roads to handle their plans: Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, etc.
Most planned toll road and toll crossing project became free projects after 1956. Virginia built some after that (CBBT, Norfolk-Virginia Beach Expressway (Va. 44 then, I-264 now), Dulles Toll Road (Va. 267)), but many states, even with extensive toll roads built no new ones for many years.
Quote from: Sykotyk on January 04, 2015, 08:51:34 PM
Some other states would probably crop up major highway plans of their owns. Either toll or free. And some adventurous businesses may create their own private toll roads to serve major city-to-city needs. I could see railroad operators looking to team up by creating roadways near their ROW to help prop up their rail service, which would probably be much more thorough and economical. And once their road is built, it would be hard to argue building ANOTHER competing road.
Building roads and building railroads are quite different. I am not aware of many highways in the U.S. having been built by railroad companies.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 04, 2015, 08:29:33 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2015, 05:40:05 PM
Warning: generalization ahead.
Ped advocates are generally anti car, and are thus prone to not giving a fuck about whether or not a car has the right of way.
I must respectfully disagree. Not all ped advocates are anti-car (for one thing, at least some of them understand that those nasty car drivers help to pay for a lot of bike and pedestrian improvements).
Having known people who were struck by cars on the streets of the District of Columbia (in theory, a pedestrian-friendly jurisdiction), I suppose I am something of a pedestrian advocate myself (though it is easier for me to be a pedestrian now than it used to be).
When I say "ped advocate", I mean people who, on a more or less weekly basis, publicly bitch about poor pedestrian facilities on online forums and social media sites. People like you and I, who like cars but support better pedestrian access in areas, are not what I would categorize as "ped advocates" (we support increased pedestrian access when we see it happening, but we don't complain when it isn't happening (the latter being what I imagine ped advocates do in their spare time)).
So basically, my definition for "ped advocate" is someone who is, over most other things, very publicly pro-pedestrian and someone who spends their time advocating for increased pedestrian access, even if it comes at the cost of drivers. From my own, somewhat limited personal experience, a marked amount of Downtown Seattle residents are ped advocates, meaning they would be happier with narrower lanes, a reduced number of lanes overall, the removal of roads from high pedestrian areas, etc., even in the face of increased car growth.
Quote from: GCrites80s on January 04, 2015, 09:09:32 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 04, 2015, 07:03:45 PM
How did "sprawl" become an acceptable term for what I, and many other, would call "growth?"
When the population of an area grows and the amount of land they use grows in the same proportion, that's merely growth. When the population doesn't change but the amount of land they use increases dramatically, that's sprawl.
The definition I've heard is that "sprawl" is noncontiguous growth, e.g. developments at the outer fringes rather than infill locations. The issue is that all sorts of new infrastructure needs to be built to service this growth, even when the existing infrastructure may be underutilized. And once an area has "sprawled", it's often nearly impossible to densify the area or build infill development.
(Of course, if you're in the road business like hbelkins, that might not be perceived as a problem.)
As a non-road example, I always thought it was interesting how every new suburb had to build a bunch of schools, only to start closing them down 10-15 years later.
Quote from: flowmotion on January 04, 2015, 10:32:42 PMThe issue is that all sorts of new infrastructure needs to be built to service this growth, even when the existing infrastructure may be underutilized. And once an area has "sprawled", it's often nearly impossible to densify the area or build infill development.
This is the heart of the issue. In another thread it was said that what people call sprawl is actually freedom. The problem is that it's freedom at the general expense of the community. I know this is true of many, many public services, but the "sprawl" definition implies a heavy public burden for mostly private gain.
It's an exhausting debate that's had over and over again, and you may be on one side or the other but this is just an attempt to explain why the term is distinguished from "growth."
To provide a probably flawed comparison, think of a person growing up: their organs and systems grow to keep up. Then think of an adult gaining an additional 100 lbs. over their normal weight–technically this is still growth, but the organs are not growing as the body spreads every wider, and the corporeal geography involved strains all the systems involved.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2015, 10:51:40 PM
This is the heart of the issue. In another thread it was said that what people call sprawl is actually freedom. The problem is that it's freedom at the general expense of the community. I know this is true of many, many public services, but the "sprawl" definition implies a heavy public burden for mostly private gain.
It's an exhausting debate that's had over and over again, and you may be on one side or the other but this is just an attempt to explain why the term is distinguished from "growth."
I don't like to be too allegorical, but I think you can see how it happens it in two respects:
1) US Municipalities are defined around horses, not cars. Every government is competing for tax revenue with another town two miles away. There is no regional planning, everyone is trying to bribe Walmart to come to their town and not the one at the next exit.
(Note this also leads to huge inefficiencies on all other levels: police depts, schools, road repair, etc. Every little suburb has their own set of bureaucracies.)
2) All this development is bought on credit because muni bonds are/were considered to be effectively the gold standard. Today's politicians can build a bunch of crap and then someone has to worry about it 30 years from now. Since Detroit and a number of other municipalities have gone under, the risk assumptions around sprawl will probably change.
And just on a roadgeek level, it's interesting how we constantly talk about roads which could go from A to B. But what actually gets built is uninteresting commuter routes of no national importance just to enable sprawl development and stripmalls. I think the essence of this hobby is going from place to place. Not cheerleading for "growth".
Quote from: roadman65 on January 04, 2015, 09:27:38 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on January 04, 2015, 09:09:32 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 04, 2015, 07:03:45 PM
How did "sprawl" become an acceptable term for what I, and many other, would call "growth?"
When the population of an area grows and the amount of land they use grows in the same proportion, that's merely growth. When the population doesn't change but the amount of land they use increases dramatically, that's sprawl.
Not quite. Take a look at Clermont, FL. Now true most is housing as well as many strip malls, so it is populated per unit, but is it growth or is it redistribution? Many move from one area to another, and the population is not growing, but spreading out more.
Now true everybody is moving to Central Florida these days as they were back in the early 90's which is what caused the Southchase and Hunters Creek area to now reach peak capacity as when I moved in 1990 it was only a fraction of homes and no major shopping centers there like there is now. However, Clermont is not the same as it literally grew overnight. It took Southchase and Hunters Creek well over a decade and a half to get where it is now.
US 27 in Clermont was a rural 65 mph expressway back at the turn of the century, now its a 45 to 55 mph suburban arterial. It also grew many traffic signals as well. Back in 2000 there was only 3 traffic lights from I-4 to Leesburg, and now there is too many to count.
Basically most of Clermont is Orlando and Kissimme people looking for a change as the two main cities of Central Florida are have gotten really bad with crime and bad schools. One girl I knew from Kissimmee said she had to move out to Clermont because the schools are too bad there for her daughter to attend. Plus the neighborhoods have gone down in quality in many Orlando and Kissimmee locations. Not only in crime and social class, but in traffic too!
I myself am not happy with the traffic situation on John Young Parkway and Orange Blossom Trail as it used to take less than two minuts to go from Deerfield Boulevard to Hunters Creek Boulevard, which can now take 5 to 10 minutes due to increase in commuter, shopping, and other traffic. To me it is frustrating at any time, not only rush hour, so a move to a new community outside the Orlando Metro area would be welcome.
What you are talking about is people already in sprawl fleeing sprawl and thereby creating more sprawl. The large amount of rotted out post-WWII areas in this country are examples of this phenomenon. These days, the vast majority of sprawl is created by those fleeing sprawl rather than traditional downtowns, small towns and city centers.
Quote from: kkt on January 04, 2015, 05:26:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 04, 2015, 03:46:19 PM
Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking
Citation needed.
Ever notice how, whenever the topic of pedestrian fatalities comes up, the solution is always lowering the speed limit and traffic calming, and common sense things like "require pedestrians to cross only at crosswalks" and "look both ways before crossing the street" aren't ever considered? It doesn't seem like there's a difference in many people's minds between a driver who runs a red and mows down a line of pedestrians crossing the street and a driver who doesn't have time to stop for a pedestrian who just randomly darted out into traffic in the middle of the street without looking. Then we have laws like "you must stop if there's a pedestrian anywhere near the crosswalk even if he wouldn't be anywhere near your car at any point when you're driving through".
Quote from: Sykotyk on January 04, 2015, 08:51:34 PM
Many states may have jumped at toll roads to handle their plans: Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, etc.
It's worth noting that most of Pennsylvania's interstate system was originally planned as extensions of the Turnpike. I-81 in NY was planned as part of the Thruway as well.
Quote from: vdeane on January 05, 2015, 12:56:15 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 04, 2015, 05:26:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 04, 2015, 03:46:19 PM
Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking
Citation needed.
Ever notice how, whenever the topic of pedestrian fatalities comes up, the solution is always lowering the speed limit and traffic calming, and common sense things like "require pedestrians to cross only at crosswalks" and "look both ways before crossing the street" aren't ever considered?
This is a series of straw man arguments. You exaggerate the positions of people who disagree with you, then attack them for a position they don't actually hold. Okay if you just want to rant, but it prevents understanding and is not very persuasive.
Those pedestrian safety measures are already the law and the subject of education by parents and preschools just about everywhere. I'm not sure what else you'd have people do. I do expect better behavior from licensed drivers than I do unlicensed pedestrians, many of whom are kids.
QuoteIt doesn't seem like there's a difference in many people's minds between a driver who runs a red and mows down a line of pedestrians crossing the street and a driver who doesn't have time to stop for a pedestrian who just randomly darted out into traffic in the middle of the street without looking.
If there are many people who consider those actions equivalent, how about naming three people who have actually expressed that opinion?
QuoteThen we have laws like "you must stop if there's a pedestrian anywhere near the crosswalk even if he wouldn't be anywhere near your car at any point when you're driving through".
What state law says the driver must stop for a pedestrian who is not anywhere near the crosswalk? State laws I know about are about pedestrians in or about to walk into the crosswalk. Are you talking about the general duty to avoid an accident if possible, even if the other party doesn't have the right of way?
Quote from: kkt on January 05, 2015, 01:47:09 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 05, 2015, 12:56:15 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 04, 2015, 05:26:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 04, 2015, 03:46:19 PM
Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking
Citation needed.
Ever notice how, whenever the topic of pedestrian fatalities comes up, the solution is always lowering the speed limit and traffic calming, and common sense things like "require pedestrians to cross only at crosswalks" and "look both ways before crossing the street" aren't ever considered?
This is a series of straw man arguments. You exaggerate the positions of people who disagree with you, then attack them for a position they don't actually hold. Okay if you just want to rant, but it prevents understanding and is not very persuasive.
Those pedestrian safety measures are already the law and the subject of education by parents and preschools just about everywhere. I'm not sure what else you'd have people do. I do expect better behavior from licensed drivers than I do unlicensed pedestrians, many of whom are kids.
QuoteIt doesn't seem like there's a difference in many people's minds between a driver who runs a red and mows down a line of pedestrians crossing the street and a driver who doesn't have time to stop for a pedestrian who just randomly darted out into traffic in the middle of the street without looking.
If there are many people who consider those actions equivalent, how about naming three people who have actually expressed that opinion?
QuoteThen we have laws like "you must stop if there's a pedestrian anywhere near the crosswalk even if he wouldn't be anywhere near your car at any point when you're driving through".
What state law says the driver must stop for a pedestrian who is not anywhere near the crosswalk? State laws I know about are about pedestrians in or about to walk into the crosswalk. Are you talking about the general duty to avoid an accident if possible, even if the other party doesn't have the right of way?
New York and most of the northeastern states have such a law
Our law is that you must stop if the pedestrian's on your side, or within ten feet of your side on the other.
Quote from: cl94 on January 05, 2015, 01:52:19 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 05, 2015, 01:47:09 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 05, 2015, 12:56:15 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 04, 2015, 05:26:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 04, 2015, 03:46:19 PM
Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking
Citation needed.
Ever notice how, whenever the topic of pedestrian fatalities comes up, the solution is always lowering the speed limit and traffic calming, and common sense things like "require pedestrians to cross only at crosswalks" and "look both ways before crossing the street" aren't ever considered?
This is a series of straw man arguments. You exaggerate the positions of people who disagree with you, then attack them for a position they don't actually hold. Okay if you just want to rant, but it prevents understanding and is not very persuasive.
Those pedestrian safety measures are already the law and the subject of education by parents and preschools just about everywhere. I'm not sure what else you'd have people do. I do expect better behavior from licensed drivers than I do unlicensed pedestrians, many of whom are kids.
QuoteIt doesn't seem like there's a difference in many people's minds between a driver who runs a red and mows down a line of pedestrians crossing the street and a driver who doesn't have time to stop for a pedestrian who just randomly darted out into traffic in the middle of the street without looking.
If there are many people who consider those actions equivalent, how about naming three people who have actually expressed that opinion?
QuoteThen we have laws like "you must stop if there's a pedestrian anywhere near the crosswalk even if he wouldn't be anywhere near your car at any point when you're driving through".
What state law says the driver must stop for a pedestrian who is not anywhere near the crosswalk? State laws I know about are about pedestrians in or about to walk into the crosswalk. Are you talking about the general duty to avoid an accident if possible, even if the other party doesn't have the right of way?
New York and most of the northeastern states have such a law
No they don't. They have laws that state if a pedestrian is IN a crosswalk, you must stop or yield. But just because they're in the vicinity of the crosswalk doesn't require a driver to stop or yield.
Here's NY's actual law: 1151. Pedestrians' right of way in crosswalks. (a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk on the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, except that any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overpass has been provided shall yield the right of way to all vehicles.
(b) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impractical for the driver to yield.
(c) Whenever any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle.
Quote from: kkt on January 05, 2015, 01:47:09 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 05, 2015, 12:56:15 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 04, 2015, 05:26:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 04, 2015, 03:46:19 PM
Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking
Citation needed.
Ever notice how, whenever the topic of pedestrian fatalities comes up, the solution is always lowering the speed limit and traffic calming, and common sense things like "require pedestrians to cross only at crosswalks" and "look both ways before crossing the street" aren't ever considered?
This is a series of straw man arguments. You exaggerate the positions of people who disagree with you, then attack them for a position they don't actually hold. Okay if you just want to rant, but it prevents understanding and is not very persuasive.
Look DeBlasio's Vision Zero. Two things have been enacted under it: the addition of "school zone" speed cameras that in practice act as mobile toll collection units (they're situated in locations that maximize the amount of tickets generated, not areas that actually have children; the infamous example is one on a frontage road to I-278 on Staten Island that doesn't even give cars enough time to safely slow from 50 mph to 25 mph), and the reduction of the speed limit to 25 city-wide and 20 in some locations. The "slower is always safer" lobby definitely runs NYC. For me, the fact that many of these initiatives focus on drivers while seemingly ignoring pedestrian behavior (which is never mentioned in the PR) is what gets me miffed. I don't like it when one group is favored over another. For anything. Fairness defines my core values.
Quote
Those pedestrian safety measures are already the law and the subject of education by parents and preschools just about everywhere. I'm not sure what else you'd have people do. I do expect better behavior from licensed drivers than I do unlicensed pedestrians, many of whom are kids.
Actually follow those measures? I knew to do them since before I was three. It's not that hard. How is it fair to inconvenience motorists because some people act like idiots? It isn't!
There are laws against jaywalking and such, yes. But they're not enforced. At all. And people would likely scream if they were. Especially in NYC.
Quote
If there are many people who consider those actions equivalent, how about naming three people who have actually expressed that opinion?
I'm speaking in generalities that I've learned from years on reading articles and comments on the internet. I don't keep a portfolio of every single comment I've ever seen - that would be a ridiculous burden. I think primarily my intuitive thought processes, and as such most of what I know is the synthesis of countless other sources, most of which I can't discretely pull out any more.
Quote
What state law says the driver must stop for a pedestrian who is not anywhere near the crosswalk? State laws I know about are about pedestrians in or about to walk into the crosswalk.
In NY, the law is that you must stop if there is a pedestrian anywhere in the crosswalk or approaching it regardless of other circumstances (including the pedestrian moving slowly enough that you would otherwise be long gone before he got to your side of the crosswalk). And yes, it's stop, not yield. Says so right on the signs that are sometimes placed in the middle of crosswalks; many drivers will stop even if there's no pedestrian in sight and aren't sure if "for pedestrians using the crosswalk" is when you need to stop or an explanation for why you have to stop.
Also, there was a story recently about Fort Lee, NJ having a police officer dress up like a duck, stand near a crosswalk, and ticket people for failure to stop. The comments on the article were a mix of people livid that drivers were getting ticketed for failing to stop for a creepy duck that didn't even look like he was about to cross the road and people who were livid that anyone dare suggest that drivers should have the ROW.
Yawn, carsplaining.
There's only extremism if this is extreme to you:
Peds rule in the urban environment, no ifs, ands, or buts. It's not a mystery except to some people not in that environment. It's out of practicality, necessity, and common sense. Steel thing with motor yields to squishy thing without, no matter the inconvenience. If the general common sense of drivers and/or peds goes down (or remains down), so do speed limits. Your sense of urgency is secondary–leave earlier next time.
My guess is that the percentage of the general population that finds this extreme is somewhat lower than that on this forum.
Quote from: vdeane on January 05, 2015, 02:47:19 PM
In NY, the law is that you must stop if there is a pedestrian anywhere in the crosswalk or approaching it
Please site the law regarding what I bolded above. I already provided the law regarding within a crosswalk, but have not seen anything that states "approaching" a crosswalk.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2015, 10:51:40 PM
This is the heart of the issue. In another thread it was said that what people call sprawl is actually freedom. The problem is that it's freedom at the general expense of the community. I know this is true of many, many public services, but the "sprawl" definition implies a heavy public burden for mostly private gain.
I would dispute that assertion, and here's why.
Vacant property is worth only so much. Once something is built on it, it becomes worth much more. That increases the tax base.
I'll give you a personal example. About 15 years ago, I bought some vacant property. The property's value increased slightly for tax purposes during that time. I recently sold the property (at a loss from what I originally paid for it, which will help me when I file my income taxes this year but will also lower the property's taxable value) to someone who wants to build a house on it. When he builds, the taxable value of the property will go up dramatically, and new tax revenue will flow into the county's coffers.
When a big field is subdivided and houses are built, or if commercial buildings go up on the property, the amount of tax revenue the property generates will go up, and that can be used to make the initial investment in infrastructure. Water and sewer service will pay for itself in a few years once the lines are installed; other revenue can pay for street upkeep.
QuoteVacant property is worth only so much. Once something is built on it, it becomes worth much more. That increases the tax base.
The catch is that, especially for lower-denstiy development, the rate of tax base increase is usually less than the increase in public service costs (roads, schools, utilities, etc) to cover that development.
QuoteWater and sewer service will pay for itself in a few years once the lines are installed
This isn't usually the case. It often takes either several years or a rate increase (affecting all pre-existing customers) before water/sewer service pays itself off for a new greenfield development.
Quote from: froggie on January 05, 2015, 10:35:30 PM
QuoteVacant property is worth only so much. Once something is built on it, it becomes worth much more. That increases the tax base.
The catch is that, especially for lower-denstiy development, the rate of tax base increase is usually less than the increase in public service costs (roads, schools, utilities, etc) to cover that development.
And if the new structure results in the abandonment of an old structure, the property value of the old structure drops. Or the new structure can result in the marginal depreciation of 10 other structures, spread out in different proportions between them. In other cases, they can keep other properties from appreciating as quickly as they would if the new structure wasn't built.
A classic example is when a mall is successful until someone builds a new mall two miles down the road causing the tenants of the old mall to leave for the new mall. The old mall eventually becomes worthless, gets demoed and the land drops in value almost to its pre-improvement level when adjusted for inflation.
Quote from: froggie on January 05, 2015, 10:35:30 PM
QuoteWater and sewer service will pay for itself in a few years once the lines are installed
This isn't usually the case. It often takes either several years or a rate increase (affecting all pre-existing customers) before water/sewer service pays itself off for a new greenfield development.
Which is why many parts of Maryland charge new development a so-called "front foot benefit charge" on new hookups to water and sewer service. That is to pay for the new connection, and it is usually collected in a series of 23 annual payments on the property tax bill.
Quote from: Sykotyk on January 04, 2015, 08:51:34 PM
Biggest question would be how would the country progress over the past 50+ years without the major interstate projects?
I think cities wouldn't have stretched out as far as they did, as the ride to downtown would be mind-numbingly long. I think freeways THROUGH cities would be a non-starter. Situations like Columbia or Greenville, SC, Detroit, St. Petersburg or Miami FL, etc where two roads reach into downtown, but aren't connected and the main line runs just outside the city core. Or, more similar to Pittsburgh or Rochester where the mainline runs well outside of the city and spurs run into the city from far away due to cheaper land (though, again, probably not a direct pass through). I-70 would've avoided the direct Columbus-Indianapolis-St. Louis-Kansas City corridor and been place just north or south of the main route. More of a 'hub and spoke' setup. Full beltways around the outside of the city and freeways running between beltways connecting them with the occassional freeway reaching into the urban core.
The other hypothetical is what state upgrades would be done in the absense of a federal highway system. NY's parkway system obviously would be quite extensive and well traveled. Kentucky may still have created their parkways. Many states may have jumped at toll roads to handle their plans: Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, etc.
Some other states would probably crop up major highway plans of their owns. Either toll or free. And some adventurous businesses may create their own private toll roads to serve major city-to-city needs. I could see railroad operators looking to team up by creating roadways near their ROW to help prop up their rail service, which would probably be much more thorough and economical. And once their road is built, it would be hard to argue building ANOTHER competing road.
I think we would have more cities with traffic like the infamously bad São Paolo traffic. If population is dense enough mass transit is a no brained. But it has to be convenient. Who wants to be beholden to an inconvenient schedule
Quote from: Sykotyk on January 04, 2015, 08:51:34 PM
Biggest question would be how would the country progress over the past 50+ years without the major interstate projects?
I think cities wouldn't have stretched out as far as they did, as the ride to downtown would be mind-numbingly long. I think freeways THROUGH cities would be a non-starter. Situations like Columbia or Greenville, SC, Detroit, St. Petersburg or Miami FL, etc where two roads reach into downtown, but aren't connected and the main line runs just outside the city core. Or, more similar to Pittsburgh or Rochester where the mainline runs well outside of the city and spurs run into the city from far away due to cheaper land (though, again, probably not a direct pass through). I-70 would've avoided the direct Columbus-Indianapolis-St. Louis-Kansas City corridor and been place just north or south of the main route. More of a 'hub and spoke' setup. Full beltways around the outside of the city and freeways running between beltways connecting them with the occassional freeway reaching into the urban core.
The other hypothetical is what state upgrades would be done in the absense of a federal highway system. NY's parkway system obviously would be quite extensive and well traveled. Kentucky may still have created their parkways. Many states may have jumped at toll roads to handle their plans: Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, etc.
Some other states would probably crop up major highway plans of their owns. Either toll or free. And some adventurous businesses may create their own private toll roads to serve major city-to-city needs. I could see railroad operators looking to team up by creating roadways near their ROW to help prop up their rail service, which would probably be much more thorough and economical. And once their road is built, it would be hard to argue building ANOTHER competing road.
There would be local toll roads like in Florida large cities. Miami Dade Expressway authority. Orlando-orange County Expressway Authority and Jacksonville Expressway authority built pre-interstate freeways. Some were incorporated into interstate plans
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 05, 2015, 03:08:31 PM
There's only extremism if this is extreme to you:
Peds rule in the urban environment, no ifs, ands, or buts. It's not a mystery except to some people not in that environment. It's out of practicality, necessity, and common sense. Steel thing with motor yields to squishy thing without, no matter the inconvenience. If the general common sense of drivers and/or peds goes down (or remains down), so do speed limits. Your sense of urgency is secondary–leave earlier next time.
My guess is that the percentage of the general population that finds this extreme is somewhat lower than that on this forum.
In boating, the principle is that traffic that can more easily yield is the one that yields; sailboats yield to ships, power boats yield to sailboats, and everyone else yields to power boats. But for road traffic we do the reverse! I've never understood that. It seems to me that it would be safer to have pedestrians, who can stop immediately, yield to vehicular traffic, which can't. To me, having it the opposite essentially makes the statement "pedestrians are more important", and assertion which I've never understood. It feels like cars are being treated more and more like second class citizens by planners and politicians, and as someone who won't be giving up her car as her primary/only means of transport in the next few decades, that stings.
I tend to avoid driving in cities specifically for this reason, but it really sucks when I do have need to go in one. It's not a case of being in a hurry either - even if I have plenty of time, it drives my brain nuts to deal with constant stop and go or to sustain a speed lower than what I would have selected for the roadway condition. I'm not a patient girl.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 05, 2015, 03:10:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 05, 2015, 02:47:19 PM
In NY, the law is that you must stop if there is a pedestrian anywhere in the crosswalk or approaching it
Please site the law regarding what I bolded above. I already provided the law regarding within a crosswalk, but have not seen anything that states "approaching" a crosswalk.
It's what I was taught in drivers ed and what the police were enforcing with the duck in Fort Lee, NJ. It was also cited as such in a newspaper article I read a few months ago out of Albany regarding a study to show racial bias in who car drivers stopped to let cross (really). If it's not actual law, then it's certainly entrenched enough that planners, politicians, and law enforcement believe it.
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2015, 01:22:14 PM
To me, having it the opposite essentially makes the statement "pedestrians are more important", and assertion which I've never understood. It feels like cars are being treated more and more like second class citizens by planners and politicians, and as someone who won't be giving up her car as her primary/only means of transport in the next few decades, that stings.
It's your assumption that cars are citizens at all that's entirely bogus.
I think the freeways between cities would be straighter, and the ones going into cities would be a bit different. Instead of sending the freeway right through they'd likely have connectors going in in the path of least resistance.
Quote from: NE2 on January 06, 2015, 01:42:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2015, 01:22:14 PM
To me, having it the opposite essentially makes the statement "pedestrians are more important", and assertion which I've never understood. It feels like cars are being treated more and more like second class citizens by planners and politicians, and as someone who won't be giving up her car as her primary/only means of transport in the next few decades, that stings.
It's your assumption that cars are citizens at all that's entirely bogus.
However, the drivers are citizens. Nice strawman.
Traffic seems to obey different rules depending on what medium (land, water, air) the traffic uses.
Air is the most obvious. Air traffic control directs air traffic, and pilots keep in communication with each other. They still manage to collide from time to time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_182).
Val pointed out how water traffic operates.
Land is a bit more of a mess (mostly due to volume and different types of traffic). You have trains, which get the right of way over motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. In fact, track construction crews need a flagman to warn them away from the track when a train comes bay, and can be considered at fault if they stray into the path of a train. You have purely pedestrian areas where no rules seem to apply at times, but somehow folks manage to go to the side of the hallway they drive on. Then there are the mixed flows.
Street traffic seems to work as streams of traffic (foot, bike, motor) that have right of way over crossing streams of traffic. I disagree with the idea of the Fort Lee Duck (see above) and mid-block unsignalized pedestrian crossings. They interfere with this idea of streams of traffic. To elaborate, I'll use the following situations below to illustrate my point:
1. If I'm driving, and I wish to turn right onto a side street from a main street, I should stop and wait for any pedestrians to finish crossing the side street. I am breaking through their stream of traffic, which is that of the main street. Ditto if I'm coming out of the side street. I'll wait for all traffic (ped/bike/motor) to finish before I exit said side street. I'm breaking through their stream.
2. If I'm walking, and I cross said side street, I do not stop as I am on the main street and with/parallel to its flow. But, if I'm crossing the main street, like I was driving, I should stop and wait my turn to cross when it is clear.
Quote from: Brandon on January 06, 2015, 01:51:22 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 06, 2015, 01:42:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2015, 01:22:14 PM
To me, having it the opposite essentially makes the statement "pedestrians are more important", and assertion which I've never understood. It feels like cars are being treated more and more like second class citizens by planners and politicians, and as someone who won't be giving up her car as her primary/only means of transport in the next few decades, that stings.
It's your assumption that cars are citizens at all that's entirely bogus.
However, the drivers are citizens. Nice strawman.
Actually it's the whole point. The drivers are citizens, and have the rights of pedestrians when they choose to walk.
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2015, 01:22:14 PM
In boating, the principle is that traffic that can more easily yield is the one that yields; sailboats yield to ships, power boats yield to sailboats, and everyone else yields to power boats. But for road traffic we do the reverse! I've never understood that. It seems to me that it would be safer to have pedestrians, who can stop immediately, yield to vehicular traffic, which can't. To me, having it the opposite essentially makes the statement "pedestrians are more important", and assertion which I've never understood. It feels like cars are being treated more and more like second class citizens by planners and politicians, and as someone who won't be giving up her car as her primary/only means of transport in the next few decades, that stings.
I tend to avoid driving in cities specifically for this reason, but it really sucks when I do have need to go in one. It's not a case of being in a hurry either - even if I have plenty of time, it drives my brain nuts to deal with constant stop and go or to sustain a speed lower than what I would have selected for the roadway condition. I'm not a patient girl.
The boating analogy fails for a couple of reasons. Cities are densely packed, and no one gets to go as fast as they please. It's rare for boats to be that closely packed, and when they are there are rules beyond the "burdened vessel" rule for determining where and how fast they can go -- speed limits, channels which you can only use in one direction. A few places have controllers much like air traffic. You might be able to go 75 mph down Broadway if only all those people and cars weren't in your way, but it's never going to happen. There are always unexpected events, people turning, restricted visibility, and pedestrians already in crosswalks when you approach.
Second, the burdened vessel rule applies between adult, trained boaters. The pedestrians are burdened by reason of not necessarily having adult judgement for how long it takes a car to turn or stop, or where it's likely to go next. The streets are for everyone, not just for cars, therefore the driver must drive accordingly.
It's not really that much to ask to yield to people already in a crosswalk or in the act of stepping into one.
I've seen more police involved in jaywalking stings than in failure to yield to pedestrians stings.
It fails for other reasons as well. Having spent numerous years on the sea, it is not as simple as val portrays it. For example, sailboats do not necessarily yield to ships (I have had personal experience with this off the Outer Banks). On the open seas, it depends much more on direction of travel than what type of boat you are.
Quote from: NE2 on January 06, 2015, 01:42:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2015, 01:22:14 PM
To me, having it the opposite essentially makes the statement "pedestrians are more important", and assertion which I've never understood. It feels like cars are being treated more and more like second class citizens by planners and politicians, and as someone who won't be giving up her car as her primary/only means of transport in the next few decades, that stings.
It's your assumption that cars are citizens at all that's entirely bogus.
But corporations are people ;)
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2015, 01:22:14 PM
In boating, the principle is that traffic that can more easily yield is the one that yields; sailboats yield to ships, power boats yield to sailboats, and everyone else yields to power boats. But for road traffic we do the reverse! I've never understood that. It seems to me that it would be safer to have pedestrians, who can stop immediately, yield to vehicular traffic, which can't. To me, having it the opposite essentially makes the statement "pedestrians are more important", and assertion which I've never understood. It feels like cars are being treated more and more like second class citizens by planners and politicians, and as someone who won't be giving up her car as her primary/only means of transport in the next few decades, that stings.
Small boats are small versions of big boats. Pedestrians are not small versions of cars.
The law necessarily protects pedestrians because pedestrians have much more at stake. They are much more likely to die than automobile operators when the two conflict. All other distinctions take a back seat.
Moreover, this imbalance being the case, pedestrians will ultimately need a path carved out for them by regulation, since motorists with less at stake are unlikely to provide it. Pedestrians would hardly ever make it across the street in too many cases. It is similar to how we protect children and minorities even though it is inconvenient, because they also are vulnerable to a majority that has proven it would not protect them otherwise.
You've repeated that you don't make being a pedestrian a big part of your life, and therefore you may be under the misapprehension that without the right of way over pedestrians, motorists are at a disadvantage. I assure you, with lots of time spent on both sides of this one, that they are not.
QuoteI tend to avoid driving in cities specifically for this reason, but it really sucks when I do have need to go in one. It's not a case of being in a hurry either - even if I have plenty of time, it drives my brain nuts to deal with constant stop and go or to sustain a speed lower than what I would have selected for the roadway condition. I'm not a patient girl.
Urban driving makes evident the isolating and personal-needs-elevating effect being locked in a metal box can have. There is much more expressed hostility between motorists than between pedestrians (speed and isolation better protect motorists from the consequences of their behavior). It is an environment that requires a lot of cooperation between actors so that it all works smoothly at all. This means subordinating one's desires from time to time. This, in my opinion, is valuable practice for life in general.
QuoteIt's what I was taught in drivers ed and what the police were enforcing with the duck in Fort Lee, NJ.
From what I heard, people were driving right by the duck when it was in the crosswalk. The duck was probably not a great exercise to make a lot of difference, because while it was obvious, it also freaked people out.
There are lots of plainclothes-officer crosswalk stings here. But they don't matter–you just have to be a frequent pedestrian to know that you can frequently be halfway across and some isolated driver's desire to be someplace quickly will prevail over your safety.
Last night's adventures in How Not to Cross a Street:
I am driving on a busy city street, in a school zone about 6:00 PM. A pedestrian is standing in a crosswalk, one step into the street, waiting to cross. I stop for him. Cars coming toward me do not stop. Pedestrian continues to stand on the right side of my line, still waiting to cross. Not a single car coming towards me stops. He and I are sitting there for about 5 minutes before there's enough of a break in traffic for him to cross. Who's at fault?
- Me, for stopping for a pedestrian in the crosswalk as the law and safety requires?
- Pedestrian, for not advancing to the left side of my lane and being more aggressive about forcing the oncoming drivers to stop?
- About 300 drivers who were all required to stop and didn't?
Quote from: kkt on January 08, 2015, 07:17:10 PM
Last night's adventures in How Not to Cross a Street:
I am driving on a busy city street, in a school zone about 6:00 PM. A pedestrian is standing in a crosswalk, one step into the street, waiting to cross. I stop for him. Cars coming toward me do not stop. Pedestrian continues to stand on the right side of my line, still waiting to cross. Not a single car coming towards me stops. He and I are sitting there for about 5 minutes before there's enough of a break in traffic for him to cross. Who's at fault?
- Me, for stopping for a pedestrian in the crosswalk as the law and safety requires?
- Pedestrian, for not advancing to the left side of my lane and being more aggressive about forcing the oncoming drivers to stop?
- About 300 drivers who were all required to stop and didn't?
Was there a median? Not saying the drivers were right, but if there was a median, they probably assumed that they didn't need to stop until the ped was there.
iPhone
Quote from: Laura on January 09, 2015, 07:17:28 AM
Quote from: kkt on January 08, 2015, 07:17:10 PM
Last night's adventures in How Not to Cross a Street:
I am driving on a busy city street, in a school zone about 6:00 PM. A pedestrian is standing in a crosswalk, one step into the street, waiting to cross. I stop for him. Cars coming toward me do not stop. Pedestrian continues to stand on the right side of my line, still waiting to cross. Not a single car coming towards me stops. He and I are sitting there for about 5 minutes before there's enough of a break in traffic for him to cross. Who's at fault?
- Me, for stopping for a pedestrian in the crosswalk as the law and safety requires?
- Pedestrian, for not advancing to the left side of my lane and being more aggressive about forcing the oncoming drivers to stop?
- About 300 drivers who were all required to stop and didn't?
Was there a median? Not saying the drivers were right, but if there was a median, they probably assumed that they didn't need to stop until the ped was there.
iPhone
Could the other drivers see the pedestrian?
Based on the exact description you provided, the pedestrian was at fault for not crossing. Here's Washington State's law:
QuoteThe operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning.
If the pedestrian was still in the shoulder area, that is not within one lane of the half the roadway, and the opposing traffic still had the right to cross the roadway.
Since you mentioned this was city traffic, generally they tend to be more aggressive, and the pedestrian would have had to definitely start walking across in order to get one of the drivers to stop. Sure, there's some assholes out there that won't stop no matter what, but out of 300 vehicles, you're going to find that most of them would stop for an approaching ped.
What is an "unmarked" crosswalk? How is one expected to know of its existence?
We have officially abandoned the subject of this thread.
"Unmarked crosswalks" are apparently any corner, etc., where pedestrians cross that is not marked. The implication is that if you're at an intersection and there are sidewalks along the cross street ending on either side of you and no painted crosswalk, you're supposed to infer that if a pedestrian is trying to cross in such a situation, you need to stop.
I don't like the vagueness, though I get the intent.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 09, 2015, 09:02:35 AM
We have officially abandoned the subject of this thread.
Yeah, that's... pretty true. Can we try to go back to the original topic on hand? Thanks!
What if they had to be built today, but with 1950s design standards? Would the narrower R/Ws, tighter radii turns, shorter ramps etc. help their cause much cost- and impact-wise significantly? Or not really? Obviously the old standards would be cheaper to construct but there are a lot of other factors at play.
We would spend years just arguing over the funding.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 09, 2015, 12:08:13 PM
We would spend years just arguing over the funding.
Not if urban freeway construction was funded the right way - with toll revenue bonds, and with variable pricing set to encourage free-flow conditions at all times?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2015, 01:53:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 09, 2015, 12:08:13 PM
We would spend years just arguing over the funding.
Not if urban freeway construction was funded the right way - with toll revenue bonds, and with variable pricing set to encourage free-flow conditions at all times?
Toll rates would be multiple dollars per mile in a true urban (city) environment.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2015, 01:55:42 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2015, 01:53:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 09, 2015, 12:08:13 PM
We would spend years just arguing over the funding.
Not if urban freeway construction was funded the right way - with toll revenue bonds, and with variable pricing set to encourage free-flow conditions at all times?
Toll rates would be multiple dollars per mile in a true urban (city) environment.
Heck, just look at Highway 407 in Toronto. Might only be 50 cents/mile, but that's on the outskirts. Little congestion, but you certainly pay for it, plus a $3-4 surcharge if you don't have a transponder.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2015, 01:53:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 09, 2015, 12:08:13 PM
We would spend years just arguing over the funding.
Not if urban freeway construction was funded the right way - with toll revenue bonds, and with variable pricing set to encourage free-flow conditions at all times?
When one party is certain that their way is the Right Way, the arguments can definitely last for years or decades.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 09, 2015, 12:08:13 PM
We would spend years just arguing over the funding.
It helped that the decision to do the interstates was made during the U.S. quasi-fascist experimental years between The Depression and 1960. And I don't mean that pejoratively.
In reality some areas would benefit the most if freeways were built, as there are some regions with too many cars and not enough roads along with lengthy stop lights that a major freeway would improve an area greatly.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 09, 2015, 08:52:56 AM
What is an "unmarked" crosswalk? How is one expected to know of its existence?
It's a any corner, anywhere, as I told the asshole bicyclist who damn near ran me down at one in Chicago.
Quote from: Brandon on February 17, 2015, 01:36:06 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 09, 2015, 08:52:56 AM
What is an "unmarked" crosswalk? How is one expected to know of its existence?
It's a any corner, anywhere, as I told the asshole bicyclist who damn near ran me down at one in Chicago.
Please, let's not derail this thread again. But I should point out one exception.
Last time I looked at Illinois's laws, there is one type of corner that doesn't count as an unmarked crosswalk. A T-intersection at which the terminating road has no sidewalks is not to be understood to have an unmarked crosswalk extending from the curb line to the other side of the continuing road. It's a loophole in the wording of the law.
Quote from: kphoger on February 17, 2015, 02:00:14 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 17, 2015, 01:36:06 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 09, 2015, 08:52:56 AM
What is an "unmarked" crosswalk? How is one expected to know of its existence?
It's a any corner, anywhere, as I told the asshole bicyclist who damn near ran me down at one in Chicago.
Please, let's not derail this thread again. But I should point out one exception.
Last time I looked at Illinois's laws, there is one type of corner that doesn't count as an unmarked crosswalk. A T-intersection at which the terminating road has no sidewalks is not to be understood to have an unmarked crosswalk extending from the curb line to the other side of the continuing road. It's a loophole in the wording of the law.
Interesting exemption - do you have a reference?
In another thread I asked if unmarked crosswalks technically exist at 3/4 intersections (and thus the relevant road authority would need to have ADA-compliant curb cuts), with no resulting consensus.
Quote from: kphoger on February 17, 2015, 02:00:14 PM
Last time I looked at Illinois's laws, there is one type of corner that doesn't count as an unmarked crosswalk. A T-intersection at which the terminating road has no sidewalks is not to be understood to have an unmarked crosswalk extending from the curb line to the other side of the continuing road. It's a loophole in the wording of the law.
The law is ambiguous enough that different courts have interpreted it differently.
"See also Ellis v. Glenn (Ky.) 269 S.W. 2d 234, where the Court held a pedestrian was within an unmarked crosswalk when crossing the through street of a T intersection within what would be an extension of the sidewalk lines of the street forming the stem of the T."
http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19680112_0040632.NC.htm/qx
but http://az.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19830913_0040177.AZ.htm/qx
"... Since the 'T' intersection here did not have a sidewalk on the 'opposite side' of the highway, there are no lateral lines to 'connect' to each other in order to form an unmarked crosswalk...."
Arizona responded by changing the law to say "within the prolongations or connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks".
Quote from: Zmapper on February 17, 2015, 03:35:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 17, 2015, 02:00:14 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 17, 2015, 01:36:06 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 09, 2015, 08:52:56 AM
What is an "unmarked" crosswalk? How is one expected to know of its existence?
It's a any corner, anywhere, as I told the asshole bicyclist who damn near ran me down at one in Chicago.
Please, let's not derail this thread again. But I should point out one exception.
Last time I looked at Illinois's laws, there is one type of corner that doesn't count as an unmarked crosswalk. A T-intersection at which the terminating road has no sidewalks is not to be understood to have an unmarked crosswalk extending from the curb line to the other side of the continuing road. It's a loophole in the wording of the law.
Interesting exemption - do you have a reference?
In another thread I asked if unmarked crosswalks technically exist at 3/4 intersections (and thus the relevant road authority would need to have ADA-compliant curb cuts), with no resulting consensus.
Taken from Illinois's definition of "crosswalk":
Quote from: (625 ILCS 5/1-113) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1-113)
Sec. 1-113. Crosswalk. (a) That part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway, and in the absence of a sidewalk on one side of the highway, that part of the highway included within the extension of the lateral line of the existing sidewalk to the side of the highway without the sidewalk, with such extension forming a right angle to the centerline of the highway;
Quote from: NE2 on February 17, 2015, 05:44:25 PM
Arizona responded by changing the law to say "within the prolongations or connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks".
How is that any better, since "sidewalks" is still plural?
And . . . now we've derailed the thread again.
Quote from: kphoger on February 17, 2015, 07:24:43 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 17, 2015, 05:44:25 PM
Arizona responded by changing the law to say "within the prolongations or connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks".
How is that any better, since "sidewalks" is still plural?
There's one sidewalk on each side of the trunk of the T. "prolongations or" was added.
But, one might ask: Are there (or would there be) any sidewalks with conflicting intersections on any of these existing (in real life) but still needing to be built (for the purposes of this thread) major freeways across the US? :)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2015, 01:55:42 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2015, 01:53:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 09, 2015, 12:08:13 PM
We would spend years just arguing over the funding.
Not if urban freeway construction was funded the right way - with toll revenue bonds, and with variable pricing set to encourage free-flow conditions at all times?
Toll rates would be multiple dollars per mile in a true urban (city) environment.
They already are, at least on some variable-priced lanes ... and in New York City.