That is the quote I hear all the time from anti-car, anti-highway, anti-choice loony toons. How can this be true? If I am going from point A to point B and there's a freeway connecting the two points, I can get there quickly and safely. If the freeway is removed, I would have to resort to surface streets and it would take a lot longer to get where I'm going (I don't know about you, but life is not infinite and I'd rather spend my time doing something besides sitting in traffic because some greenie weenie doesn't like cars.) So my question is where do they get the idea that traffic just disappears? Is it not dispersed along surface streets, clogging them with traffic and causing more accidents? Or do motorists say "There's not a freeway between point A and point B so I'll just stay home"? I know what the fruity loops are saying isn't true, but what is a good argument to debunk their lies?
Let's get rid of those long continuous holes in the ground in NYC too..LOL! Transportation is to be seen as a system. The more people there are in a limited space means more transportation modes are needed and even then there comes a maximum capacity before congestion sets in.
10 megaton fusion bomb warheads make great decongestants Like the "literal genie" commercial shows, you ask for a million bucks and that is what you get! *chuckle* Connect the dark humor dots on your own. What we do see at work is supply/demand at work and apparently there is too high a supply of well off people who won't demand a higher quality life so they crowd into the urban areas like rats and pay dearly for this supposed privilege. Never underestimate the power of stupidity of people in masses.
Rick
This thread is going to be fun
If there are multiple surface roads that have the capacity for much more traffic without being congested, maybe. If increasing the number of cars on the surrounding surface roads would cause traffic on those roads to slow down, definitely not.
I don't understand where the traffic goes when highways are removed, but one thing is for sure - it does NOT disappear. It becomes worse because city streets aren't meant to handle traffic highways are built for.
This is a webinar by Dr. Eric Dumbaugh, an urban planner spearheading the removal of the I-10/Claybourne Ave freeway in New Orleans. If you're interested, start watching 27 minutes into the video for his presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv2ajjO2avw
He uses Machiavellian tactics and creates the most biased traffic models possible to support the removal of the freeway. He uses the lowest defensible baseline traffic volumes (IE. post Katrina traffic volumes), 50/50 directional splits (even though 60/40 splits are more common), and assumes long cycle lengths and long left turn bays to maximize capacity (even though in the real world shorter cycles will be used and short queue space is available).
^Dr. Eric Dumbaugh refers to models as being WAG's (Wild Ass Guesses). His models are WAM's (Wild Ass Manipulations).
Anti-choice? I hate that the loonies won't allow me the choice of a maglev with a bar car to Nantucket. Fascist pigs. Let me have what I want!
I'll admit, I am a bit of an environmentalist myself. I tend to focus mostly about power consumption (using house fans instead of AC, and convincing my parents to buy a 94% energy efficient furnace as well as buying very expensive $9.00 LED bulbs) and water use (currently thinking of getting a rain barrel). I also would like to see more electric cars on the road, (I've only seen ONE charging station at the Vancouver aquarium) and more green space overall. Gas prices are inevitably going to go up and electric (albeit a stronger, less fragile one) will be required in the future. There was a thread about something similar in the off-topic board surrounding being a liberal (believe me, I'm quite liberal) and a highway fan, but I won't bring it up because I'm ranting a bit.
But anyway, I understand that people need to be able to get around from place to place. And although some highway projects don't really make sense, most do as either current or future traffic problems need to be resolved. The 401's (in Ontario, the busiest truck route in the world) extension to the US border through Tall Grass Prairie, a critically endangered habitat, for example justifies the use of a new highway (and a new international bridge) because of trucks having to use Ambassador bridge to the very clogged Windsor city streets just to get to the current 401. They will be preserving about 74 hectares of it, so that's alright with me.
I think as the future goes on, there will be "cleaner" means of making freeways. I don't know how, but making over/underpasses every 5 km or so to allow wildlife to cross is a first step. Yes, the people who are anti-highway are in a little bit of a dream state, I can see why they say what they say, even if it doesn't make sense. I don't think cars will "go away" or anything like that. So people have to accept that highways have to be built to prepare for an economic future.
I'll give another example. When I lived in Hamilton Ontario, the Red Hill Valley Parkway, a bypass was being considered. People were against that, but without it, the only way to bypass Hamilton would be to go on city streets, which were often full of traffic. Thus, in 2007 the Parkway was completed, and now their is a bypass around Hamilton, relieving some of the idling traffic on the old roadway.
Sorry about ranting. I have this "two sided" way of thinking because I am a fan of highways (signage mostly, but still) but I do care deeply about the environment as well. It's an inner struggle that will haunt me...
I am with sig geek on the need to balance. I think we can look at the Chicago suburbs which have had almost no new freeways since the 60s and modest arterial expansion and those routes experience rather severe congestion and suburban growth continued for reason other than freeways. The area has a lot of mass transit as well so even that cannot absorb it all. I would call western Lake and Eastern McHenry as examples
"Tear down the freeway" in isolation does not work, but rarely is that the case. Usually, it's advocated as part of a more comprehensive package that involves changing land use, offering other modes, and diverting traffic somewhere else.
Part of what needs to be understood is that a lot of these freeway teardowns are brought about by changes in land use or desired changes in land use. In the sort of classic "tear down the waterfront freeway" scenario, you're usually looking at a waterfront that over a period of time has evolved from being an industrial-heavy port to one that exists primarily to serve tourists and provide supporting services for that.
The latter land use just isn't as traffic intensive and doesn't involve large trucks that can't navigate city streets easily.
In other cases, like, say, those that want to tear down I-5 through Portland - there doesn't need to be as much traffic as there is. If through traffic can be diverted to a decent bypass, like I-205, there's no reason to keep a major freeway in an area that only serves local traffic.
If done comprehensively and correctly, yeah, the traffic can "go away" - it either no longer needs to exist because of changes in land use, is diverted to proper bypasses, switches to other modes of transportation, and, yeah, some of it will go to the surrounding surface streets.
In the end, it's a local decision. If done properly and depending on the situation, there can good arguments for tearing out freeways and there can be good arguments for not tearing out freeways. There's no one size fits all solution. Every city has different needs and priorities in terms of how it manages traffic and movement within its boundaries. There are certainly urban freeways that shouldn't be torn out, and there are probably urban freeways that don't really need to exist. It's not my place to advocate for a city that I don't live in to do something just because I agree or disagree with it, and I have just as much right to argue that I have a "right" to get somewhere by freeway as I have to argue that I have a "right" to get somewhere by dogsled. There's nothing "anti-choice" about tearing out a freeway- if anything, it opens an area up to more possible modes of transportation, so I'm not forced into the choice of a car, but could also cycle, take a train, or whatever else.
It also helps when there are other freeways for the traffic to use. The portion of I-64 in Louisville that some people wanted to be torn down could at least be bypassed by I-265 around Louisville once it is completed in 2016-even their plan involved shifting I-64 onto the bypass.
Quote from: corco on June 13, 2015, 04:26:58 PM
There's nothing "anti-choice" about tearing out a freeway- if anything, it opens an area up to more possible modes of transportation, so I'm not forced into the choice of a car, but could also cycle, take a train, or whatever else.
Taking a train, bus, or trolley, biking, skateboarding (with a helmet), walking (if it's a short distance), riding a horse, and teleporting are all possible
before tearing down the freeway, too. You're not prohibited from doing any of those with the freeway there (although some modes of transportation have to be done on roads other than the freeway).
Quote from: 1 on June 13, 2015, 04:38:32 PM
Quote from: corco on June 13, 2015, 04:26:58 PM
There's nothing "anti-choice" about tearing out a freeway- if anything, it opens an area up to more possible modes of transportation, so I'm not forced into the choice of a car, but could also cycle, take a train, or whatever else.
Taking a train, bus, or trolley, biking, skateboarding (with a helmet), walking (if it's a short distance), riding a horse, and teleporting are all possible before tearing down the freeway, too. You're not prohibited from doing any of those with the freeway there (although some modes of transportation have to be done on roads other than the freeway).
Typically, when we're talking 1950s to 60s era freeways, those facilities used ROW that would be necessary for things like trains or express buses, without provisions to include those facilities. The freeway either has to go or be significantly reconfigured to allow for these facilities to adequately exist.
Things like walking and biking are technically possible in the vicinity of freeways, but in many (absolutely not all) cases areas right by freeways tend to be a bit seedier and less safe for that kind of travel.
If we're talking about providing equitable levels of service across modes (thereby allowing maximum "choice", where multi-modal approaches are otherwise practical), and then the majority of the ROW is dedicated to a car-only freeway, that's giving cars a subsidy of sorts that may not actually be warranted or necessary. Just because something is technically possible does not mean it's actually viable or reasonable.
I have spent a lot of time around transit activists and I have never heard any of them say something like the quote that is the title of this thread. What I do hear is that high-speed automobile movement through urban areas always comes with trade-offs. To them, some of those trade-offs are not worth it.
Of course there are extremists on both sides of the issue–some people say cars are evil, some people say those opposed to freeways are loonies. Most people form the reasonable middle ground between those extremes.
I agree with Pete, I've never heard anyone claim that all the traffic just disappears. Reasonable discussion is not served by misstating someone else's position.
The traffic usually spreads out between other corridors and other modes if it gets bad enough. In the case of the Alaskan Way Viaduct, there was a slight increase on I-5 and an increase on bus ridership (King County Metro routes).
There's a point where tearing down a freeway is more beneficial than having it remain as is. The viaduct is a good example, since it's (a) earthquake-prone, (b) ugly as sin, (c) creating a wall between our waterfront and downtown, and (d) could be mitigated somewhat by light rail on the same corridor. The only real concern is serving freight traffic, which uses the West Seattle Freeway anyway.
I try to balance my views between roads and transit. They have to work together and do so in many cases (HOV lanes create faster commuter routes, grade separation helps speed up trains and prevents accidents from drivers, etc.) and thus their supporters need to take a page from the book and talk it out. The "war on cars" mantra is old and tired and really should be replaced with "maintain with minimal expansion" or something reasonable.
Quote from: corco on June 13, 2015, 01:24:57 PM
This thread is going to be fun
All of my threads are fun.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 13, 2015, 02:15:49 PM
This is a webinar by Dr. Eric Dumbaugh, an urban planner spearheading the removal of the I-10/Claybourne Ave freeway in New Orleans. If you're interested, start watching 27 minutes into the video for his presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv2ajjO2avw
He uses Machiavellian tactics and creates the most biased traffic models possible to support the removal of the freeway. He uses the lowest defensible baseline traffic volumes (IE. post Katrina traffic volumes), 50/50 directional splits (even though 60/40 splits are more common), and assumes long cycle lengths and long left turn bays to maximize capacity (even though in the real world shorter cycles will be used and short queue space is available).
"Dumbaugh" is an appropriate name for this assclown.
Who gets to decide what is "butt" ugly wand what is not? I happen to think double decker freeways are attractive in a functional, brutalist way. I even liked the Embarcadero Freeway even though I know it had to be removed because of earthquake damage.
Quote from: bugo on June 13, 2015, 07:38:06 PM
Who gets to decide what is "butt" ugly wand what is not? I happen to think double decker freeways are attractive in a functional, brutalist way. I even liked the Embarcadero Freeway even though I know it had to be removed because of earthquake damage.
The public makes that decision. Given that land values have universally increased in the vicinity of torn-down freeways post-teardown (in dense urban areas), it's safe to say that the collective public believes, among other things, that freeways aren't all that nice to look at.
That's not necessarily a reflection on the aesthetics of a freeway, though. If you tear down a freeway and build a 20 story apartment building or hotel there, the surrounding property values will go up because retail businesses want to build nearby to serve the new building full of people.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on June 13, 2015, 03:58:32 PMI don't know how, but making over/underpasses every 5 km or so to allow wildlife to cross is a first step.
Wildlife is going to go where it wants to go.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 13, 2015, 07:58:17 PM
That's not necessarily a reflection on the aesthetics of a freeway, though. If you tear down a freeway and build a 20 story apartment building or hotel there, the surrounding property values will go up because retail businesses want to build nearby to serve the new building full of people.
Agreed with that, but a lot of teardown/tunnelization projects (including the Big Dig and Embarcadero) have been a means to provide cities with much needed open-space, as opposed to developing the land directly. In that case, I'd argue that aesthetics, while almost certainly not the entire cause, is certainly a significant factor, especially if you wrap noise and pollution into a broader type of category of "aesthetics." The Big Dig is probably the best example - property values increased, but the highway and transit capacities are still there. Basically the only thing that changed was the removal of a bigass viaduct and replacement with park space, and that caused property values to more than double.
Even in that case though, you're kind of right, because in situations where new modes of transportation have been introduced, you've now got a subway station or whatever that serves as a destination (as opposed to a car driving by an area on a freeway), which supports business development.
From that point, to get back to the broader picture, a big part of the argument for tearing down freeways in downtown areas is that they aren't terribly effective at getting people INTO the downtown area (because of limited access points, etc.), only at getting people THROUGH the downtown area. If the idea is that the downtown area should be the final destination, there's no point in building major through facilities (which could/should be relocated elsewhere).
In theory, if the intent of a freeway through the city is to serve people using the city, a freeway built to the edges of an area of whatever density that transitions to an at-grade boulevard, and then returns to freeway on the other side of the dense area would allow for more even distribution onto the street grid, as opposed to a freeway which may have two or three interchanges that lead out to just a few streets on the street grid, creating bottlenecks at those points. If a regional transportation network is directing people that aren't using the city into cars to drive on freeways through the city, that's stupid. The purpose of freeways in dense areas should be to serve those dense areas- send traffic not using the city somewhere else.
I haven't actually modeled the above or looked at any studies - so rebuttal welcome, but to me the freeway-to-at-grade model would theoretically lower the collective travel time of everybody (assuming the majority of users are originating/terminating their trips in the at-grade area), though it probably would take longer for the rare car that drives all the way through. Thinking of something like the Westside Highway in Manhattan - I had a chance to drive that a few weeks ago, and while it is probably slower than a full freeway for somebody going from the HH to the Battery Tunnel, if your destination is Midtown or Downtown Manhattan (and presumably that is the case for 99% of the cars on that road), that seems to work pretty nicely.
they complain about the ugliness of freeways but it's ok to have railyards and huge bus depots and the like. and do these anti-freeway people drive cars? I bet they do.
This is really relevant in New York right now. Study after study reports that the NY 198 expressway should remain, yet politicians are forcing NYSDOT to remove it. I didn't mention this, but another study saying the same thing was being finalized when the incident occurred.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 13, 2015, 02:15:49 PM
He uses Machiavellian tactics and creates the most biased traffic models possible to support the removal of the freeway. He uses the lowest defensible baseline traffic volumes (IE. post Katrina traffic volumes), 50/50 directional splits (even though 60/40 splits are more common), and assumes long cycle lengths and long left turn bays to maximize capacity (even though in the real world shorter cycles will be used and short queue space is available).
IMO, the
only model that should be used in such discussions is the current models set approved and adopted for use by the New Orleans MPO, otherwise called the RPC (http://www.norpc.org/). That's the only model that should everyone in the region has some agreement on.
Quote from: kkt on June 13, 2015, 05:40:33 PM
I agree with Pete, I've never heard anyone claim that all the traffic just disappears. Reasonable discussion is not served by misstating someone else's position.
Why Toronto Should Tear Down Its Urban Expressway
Removing an elevated city highway doesn't always make traffic worse–some cars just disappear.
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/06/why-toronto-should-tear-down-its-urban-expressway/395474/
From the link:
"...what happens to traffic when a major roadway gets removed or altered. Some people change their routes. Some shift their travel times to hit the road earlier or later. Some switch from cars onto public transit or another mode. And some–typically the case for non-work travel–just don't make the trip at all."
Quote from: corco on June 13, 2015, 04:26:58 PM
"Tear down the freeway" in isolation does not work, but rarely is that the case. Usually, it's advocated as part of a more comprehensive package that involves changing land use, offering other modes, and diverting traffic somewhere else.
But
where is that somewhere else?
Quote from: corco on June 13, 2015, 04:26:58 PM
Part of what needs to be understood is that a lot of these freeway teardowns are brought about by changes in land use or desired changes in land use. In the sort of classic "tear down the waterfront freeway" scenario, you're usually looking at a waterfront that over a period of time has evolved from being an industrial-heavy port to one that exists primarily to serve tourists and provide supporting services for that.
Correct. But what are the
systemwide impacts? Is there transit that can
really handle the amount of patronage that a freeway tear-down might divert?
Quote from: corco on June 13, 2015, 04:26:58 PM
The latter land use just isn't as traffic intensive and doesn't involve large trucks that can't navigate city streets easily.
Unless there are annoying retail stores in the area that annoyingly depend on trucks for delivery of their inventory.
Quote from: corco on June 13, 2015, 04:26:58 PM
In other cases, like, say, those that want to tear down I-5 through Portland - there doesn't need to be as much traffic as there is. If through traffic can be diverted to a decent bypass, like I-205, there's no reason to keep a major freeway in an area that only serves local traffic.
I have been in Portland, and I got the impression that a lot of through traffic (cars and trucks) uses I-5. And what about
network redundancy? Take away I-5, what happens when something goes wrong on (what is now) I-205?
Quote from: corco on June 13, 2015, 04:26:58 PM
If done comprehensively and correctly, yeah, the traffic can "go away" - it either no longer needs to exist because of changes in land use, is diverted to proper bypasses, switches to other modes of transportation, and, yeah, some of it will go to the surrounding surface streets.
My observation is that it tries to go some other way, but ends of severely congesting some other highway or set of highways. it is usually wishful thinking to assume that transit can handle the added demand.
Quote from: corco on June 13, 2015, 04:26:58 PM
In the end, it's a local decision. If done properly and depending on the situation, there can good arguments for tearing out freeways and there can be good arguments for not tearing out freeways. There's no one size fits all solution. Every city has different needs and priorities in terms of how it manages traffic and movement within its boundaries. There are certainly urban freeways that shouldn't be torn out, and there are probably urban freeways that don't really need to exist. It's not my place to advocate for a city that I don't live in to do something just because I agree or disagree with it, and I have just as much right to argue that I have a "right" to get somewhere by freeway as I have to argue that I have a "right" to get somewhere by dogsled. There's nothing "anti-choice" about tearing out a freeway- if anything, it opens an area up to more possible modes of transportation, so I'm not forced into the choice of a car, but could also cycle, take a train, or whatever else.
Not entirely a local decision, not if there are state dollars and federal dollars tied-up in the project.
There's also the matter of "be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it."
In most urban areas around the U.S., public transit is profoundly dependent on subsidies from highway users in the form of diverted motor fuel tax revenues and in many states, diverted toll revenues, in addition to revenues associated with on-street parking and taxes associated with off-street parking.
If a freeway tear-down
really has the advertised results,
where will the transit capital and operating subsidies come from?
QuoteIf a freeway tear-down really has the advertised results, where will the transit capital and operating subsidies come from?
Which can be countered by the question of, if you tear down city space to build or expand a city, where will the property taxes to finish paying for the roads come from? Since the gas tax doesn't fully pay for the roads (even if you were to eliminate the transit diversion you're arguing about), how do you make up the difference with a reduced tax base?
Regarding the original premise of this thread, there are a number of things involved...many of them also happen with major construction projects that involve significant and/or long-term closures.
In short, traffic does all sorts of bunches of things. Some of the traffic diverts to other routes. Some people switch to a different mode (if alternative modes are available). Some traffic switches their travel to a different, likely less congested timeframe. And yes, some traffic simply goes away as some trips just don't happen. These last two concepts are possible because a large chunk (perhaps up to 80%) of vehicle trips are discretionary in nature and not "required". This is borne by FHWA data that shows that only about 20% of trips are commutes or work-related.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 13, 2015, 09:17:51 PM
Quote from: corco on June 13, 2015, 04:26:58 PM
"Tear down the freeway" in isolation does not work, but rarely is that the case. Usually, it's advocated as part of a more comprehensive package that involves changing land use, offering other modes, and diverting traffic somewhere else.
But where is that somewhere else?
That's a case by case situation, but unless you are dealing with something as large and dense as, say, New York City, there's typically room somewhere. To address your point below about Portland - I agree that network redundancy is important, and in the case of Portland you would probably want to complete a proper westerly bypass, perhaps upgrading the US 30 corridor up to the Kelso bridge. Really - a lot of this is a case-by-case situation, and I wouldn't advocate for tearing down EVERY urban freeway, only those where it makes sense.
You pose interesting hypotheticals, and they'd definitely need to be considered, but that's why there is no possible blanket approach.
As far as retail trucks- there are already thousands of retail businesses not near freeways in downtown areas. These areas aren't served by full-size semitrucks, but by local delivery trucks. In a dense-city situation, there certainly exists the resources to continue to operate in this manner.
QuoteIf a freeway tear-down really has the advertised results, where will the transit capital and operating subsidies come from?
What are the "advertised results?" Certainly transit advocates think that tearing down the freeway will allow everybody to use trains/buses as they always wanted to, but not everybody that advocates a freeway teardown is a transit advocate. As somebody who does land use planning for a living, my first instinct on freeway teardowns is the site-specific revitalization benefits, and to me that would be the "advertised result"- if it happens to have negative effects on portions of the remaining system, it's worth evaluating whether that is worth the tradeoff, but that's where I end. My concern isn't getting people out of their cars - I frankly don't give a shit how people get where there are going, so long as people are able to get where they need to go in a reasonably timely and equitable fashion, and in a way that (where possible) maximizes efficiency beyond just the transportation network.
On the subject of funding (and without getting into a long conversation about infrastructure funding sources on a Saturday night) - we are both in agreement that the current funding system for transportation generally is broken. I'm not opposed to transit subsidies, just as I am not opposed to subsidies for freeways. If a massive freeway network is needed to transport manufactured goods and a subsidy is warranted on that front, a transit network that transports people to locations where they can purchase goods and services also warrants subsidy. Funding transit through taxable "transit districts" in areas where people most use/benefit from the presence of transit would be one possible funding solution. Tax increment financing is another possible option for initial costs - if you tear down a freeway and expand transit service, use the property value climb to fund those improvements.
Quote from: bugo on June 13, 2015, 12:48:21 PMwhat is a good argument to debunk their lies?
Ask them questions in return: The jobs all those people using the freeways are traveling to and from...all the commerce that traffic helps the region engage in...does all that go away if the freeways are torn down? Or would you rather the region's drivers just sit in 24-hour traffic jams on roads that are already overcrowded now?
You might then point out that if they don't like freeways, they can choose not to live near one and they can choose not to use them. They can also choose not to forced their dislikes upon the rest of us.
Quote from: froggie on June 13, 2015, 09:45:09 PM
QuoteIf a freeway tear-down really has the advertised results, where will the transit capital and operating subsidies come from?
Which can be countered by the question of, if you tear down city space to build or expand a city, where will the property taxes to finish paying for the roads come from? Since the gas tax doesn't fully pay for the roads (even if you were to eliminate the transit diversion you're arguing about), how do you make up the difference with a reduced tax base?
In general, property taxes do not fund public transportation operating deficits or capital subsidies. Highway user fees pay for both.
But beyond that, a freeway tear-down does not free-up
that much real estate,
because urban area freeway corridors tend to be pretty constrained. Having said that, a freeway removal might return some land to the tax roles, but maybe not as much as you might expect.
How much land that was taken-up by the old Central Artery in Boston has been put back in private (taxable) hands?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 13, 2015, 11:04:45 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 13, 2015, 09:45:09 PM
QuoteIf a freeway tear-down really has the advertised results, where will the transit capital and operating subsidies come from?
Which can be countered by the question of, if you tear down city space to build or expand a city, where will the property taxes to finish paying for the roads come from? Since the gas tax doesn't fully pay for the roads (even if you were to eliminate the transit diversion you're arguing about), how do you make up the difference with a reduced tax base?
In general, property taxes do not fund public transportation operating deficits or capital subsidies. Highway user fees pay for both.
But beyond that, a freeway tear-down does not free-up that much real estate, because urban area freeway corridors tend to be pretty constrained. Having said that, a freeway removal might return some land to the tax roles, but maybe not as much as you might expect.
How much land that was taken-up by the old Central Artery in Boston has been put back in private (taxable) hands?
Very little, but surrounding property values have more than doubled since the freeway was demolished, so the taxable value of the area has increased greatly.
Quote from: Mrt90 on June 13, 2015, 09:14:31 PM
Why Toronto Should Tear Down Its Urban Expressway
Removing an elevated city highway doesn't always make traffic worse–some cars just disappear.
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/06/why-toronto-should-tear-down-its-urban-expressway/395474/
From the link:
"...what happens to traffic when a major roadway gets removed or altered. Some people change their routes. Some shift their travel times to hit the road earlier or later. Some switch from cars onto public transit or another mode. And some–typically the case for non-work travel–just don't make the trip at all."
Key word highlighted for you.
I don't know enough about Toronto to say whether that particular expressway should be removed, but in other cities some expressway removals have had exactly the effects outlined.
A lot of tl;dr here, but I will say that the idea for a lot if folks is that if where you live gets hard to drive, you move out to where it's easier to drive, and your place is filled by folks that drive less or not at all.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 13, 2015, 08:42:18 PM
they complain about the ugliness of freeways but it's ok to have railyards and huge bus depots and the like. and do these anti-freeway people drive cars? I bet they do.
Railroads use a much smaller ROW than a freeway to carry the same number of people, so railroads can be built in tunnels much, much more easily through cores of central cities than a freeway. Rail yards do need to exist, but they can be built in the outskirts of cities instead of the cores. (Or in extreme cases under a street network, see Park Avenue-Grand Central Terminal.)
Quote from: kkt on June 14, 2015, 12:40:42 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 13, 2015, 08:42:18 PM
they complain about the ugliness of freeways but it's ok to have railyards and huge bus depots and the like. and do these anti-freeway people drive cars? I bet they do.
Railroads use a much smaller ROW than a freeway to carry the same number of people, so railroads can be built in tunnels much, much more easily through cores of central cities than a freeway. Rail yards do need to exist, but they can be built in the outskirts of cities instead of the cores. (Or in extreme cases under a street network, see Park Avenue-Grand Central Terminal.)
A railroad that shares its tracks between a lot of freight traffic and passenger trains can often
not accommodate that many (
added) passenger trains without congestion raising it ugly head.
Yes, railroads can also be badly congested, just like highways.
Yes, traffic tends to "disappear," but do we as a society want that traffic to disappear?
When travel is cheap, people travel more; when travel is expensive, people travel less - this is a basic demand curve. Highway-to-Boulevard conversions reduce the "supply" of roads and thus can be presumed to make travel more expensive, which leads to substitutions or no-go decisions; if I recall correctly, the West Side Highway boulevard conversion had a roughly even three-way split between increased car traffic, alternative modes or times, and forgoing the trip altogether.
The problem is that people travel with a purpose; very few trips are truly frivolous that it is pointless to take them into consideration. In reality, people forgoing travel translates into a family not visiting grandma or a $9/hour fast food worker not being able to take a $15/hour job in their field due to the increased trip cost, in terms of increased time or monetary costs. Conversely, when freeways are improved (ie: a supply increase) the cost decreases, which causes people to travel more - now it is feasible to eat at a restaurant or take a job in the next town over, or even move (this is the induced demand theory, when an increase in supply causes a long-run increase in demand such that the market returns to its former price level).
In theory, a congested 8-lane highway is better than an equally congested 8-lane highway; twice as many vehicles benefit from the 8-lane highway. The same applies in reverse, an 8-lane highway deconstructed to a 4-lane highway or a Boulevard may be equally congested, but fewer trips are being made. The question is if the non-highway advantages to a Boulevard conversion economically outweigh the losses from reduced road capacity (supply).
Quote from: corco on June 13, 2015, 08:29:27 PMbut a lot of teardown/tunnelization projects (including the Big Dig and Embarcadero) have been a means to provide cities with much needed open-space, as opposed to developing the land directly. In that case, I'd argue that aesthetics, while almost certainly not the entire cause, is certainly a significant factor, especially if you wrap noise and pollution into a broader type of category of "aesthetics." The Big Dig is probably the best example - property values increased, but the highway and transit capacities are still there. Basically the only thing that changed was the removal of a bigass viaduct and replacement with park space, and that caused property values to more than double.
With regards to the Big Dig; it should be noted that
something had to be done in terms of highway construction. The old Central Artery was carrying traffic loads well beyond what it was originally designed/intended to carry (killing off the I-695/Inner Belt in the early 70s did the Central Artery no favors).
Long story short;
traffic issues (6+ hours of LOS F per day) was the driving force behind moving the Big Dig forward. Had such been
just a beautification project alone; the initial Federal funding for such wouldn't have survived then-President Reagan's veto. The latter was the primary reason why it took so long (roughly 15 years) to get Federal funding for the Big Dig; not everybody in Congress believed that tunnelling I-93 was the
only highway-based solution out there.
With regards to the Embarcadero: IMHO, had there not been an earthquake in 1989; that highway would likely still be standing to this day.
Wiki Account of CA 480 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_480)
Quote from: Wiki AccountOn November 5, 1985, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to tear down the Embarcadero Freeway. The proposal was put to the voters in 1987, and soundly defeated. The October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake significantly damaged the structure, causing it to be closed to traffic. Caltrans planned to retrofit and retain the double-decker freeway. Various groups in and outside the City supported the Caltrans plan, but there was a significant opinion within the City in favor of removing the freeway structure. Then-Mayor Art Agnos proposed demolishing the freeway in favor of a boulevard with an underpass at the Ferry Building to allow for a large plaza.
Opposition to demolishing the freeway mounted again, with over 20,000 signatures gathered to again create a ballot measure. Prior to the earthquake, the Embarcadero Freeway carried approximately 70,000 vehicles daily in the vicinity of the Ferry Building. Another 40,000 vehicles/day used associated ramps at Main and Beale Streets. The strongest opposition came from Chinatown and other neighborhoods north of downtown. Merchants in Chinatown had suffered a dramatic decline in business in the months immediately following the earthquake and feared that if the freeway was not reopened they would not recover.
Agnos continued to negotiate with federal and state officials to win enough funding to make the demolition practical, and the opposition relented. Agnos argued that the city would squander "the opportunity of a lifetime" if it allowed the freeway to remain. After months of debate, the Board of Supervisors narrowly voted in favor of demolition by a 6-5 margin. Demolition began on February 27, 1991. That year Agnos was defeated for re-election as Chinatown switched its support away from him.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 13, 2015, 08:42:18 PM
they complain about the ugliness of freeways but it's ok to have railyards and huge bus depots and the like. and do these anti-freeway people drive cars? I bet they do.
There's a words that describes such attitudes...
hypocrites!
You'd think this statement wouldn't be true. But there's a lot more traffic around here than there was before our freeways were done, even though the population around here hasn't grown that much.
I think it's because there was a better system in place before. Too many freeways caused the commercial centers to be moved further and further out, which creates more traffic.
Quote from: bandit957 on June 15, 2015, 03:25:27 PM
You'd think this statement wouldn't be true. But there's a lot more traffic around here than there was before our freeways were done, even though the population around here hasn't grown that much.
I think it's because there was a better system in place before. Too many freeways caused the commercial centers to be moved further and further out, which creates more traffic.
One must also remember that when the freeways were first conceived, we had only about 150 million people. Now, about 70 years on, we now have about 320 million people. That's an increase of 170 million people, or more than double what it was before the freeways. So of course, there will be more traffic. There's 113% more people here than there was 70 years ago! These people need a way to get around, and more commercial centers to serve them adequately.
Quote from: Brandon on June 15, 2015, 03:44:04 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on June 15, 2015, 03:25:27 PM
You'd think this statement wouldn't be true. But there's a lot more traffic around here than there was before our freeways were done, even though the population around here hasn't grown that much.
I think it's because there was a better system in place before. Too many freeways caused the commercial centers to be moved further and further out, which creates more traffic.
One must also remember that when the freeways were first conceived, we had only about 150 million people. Now, about 70 years on, we now have about 320 million people. That's an increase of 170 million people, or more than double what it was before the freeways. So of course, there will be more traffic. There's 113% more people here than there was 70 years ago! These people need a way to get around, and more commercial centers to serve them adequately.
There is not a consensus that the Interstate highway system is infinitely scalable, nor that such scaling is how we should address all future needs.
You do point out that the country was a very different place 70 years ago when this groundwork was being laid. Part of the difference is that we know a lot more now having lived through several generations of the freeway-based transportation paradigm.
In other words, while nobody doubts that transportation investment is a critical part of current and future economic growth, it is debatable whether 1940s-1950s logic is what we should be using to address that need.
The worst thing we can do is to take a dogmatic commitment to a single mode as our salvation in all cases.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 15, 2015, 03:02:20 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 13, 2015, 08:42:18 PM
they complain about the ugliness of freeways but it's ok to have railyards and huge bus depots and the like. and do these anti-freeway people drive cars? I bet they do.
There's a words that describes such attitudes... hypocrites!
Not at all. It's a matter of where. Build an ugly viaduct in industrial suburbs, like where rail yards and bus storage lots are, and I won't complain at all. Build them in the urban core, such as between a major city and its waterfront like the Alaskan Way Viaduct or the Embarcadero, and I'll complain vigorously.
Most major cities that have downtown train stations have the through railroad tracks in tunnels through the urban core. Seattle, NYC, Philly, Washington DC, ...
Quote from: kkt on June 15, 2015, 04:52:23 PMMost major cities that have downtown train stations have the through railroad tracks in tunnels through the urban core. Seattle, NYC, Philly, Washington DC, ...
Most of those (not sure about Seattle but definitely NYC, Philly & DC) were built years if not
decades before any highway systems were planned and the NIMBY mindset didn't exist
as much then as it did in later years as well as today.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 15, 2015, 05:28:21 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 15, 2015, 04:52:23 PMMost major cities that have downtown train stations have the through railroad tracks in tunnels through the urban core. Seattle, NYC, Philly, Washington DC, ...
Most of those (not sure about Seattle but definitely NYC, Philly & DC) were built years if not decades before any highway systems were planned and the NIMBY mindset didn't exist then as it did in later years as well as today.
Sure it did. You think the railroads built those tunnels just because they were sweethearts? At the time people used phrases like "City Beautiful Movement" instead of NIMBY but the sentiment was there. Beauty and grandeur are important to cities, and their downtowns shouldn't be ripped up for unattractive infrastructure that's out of scale with a downtown. Money should be spent to make cities look good.
The depression and electrification of the New York Central in Manhattan seems to have come at least in part as a reaction to public outcry, and that was a hundred years ago.
Somewhat ironically, public outcry is why the Miller Highway (West Side Elevated Highway) and High Line, both in Manhattan, were built
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 13, 2015, 08:42:18 PM
they complain about the ugliness of freeways but it's ok to have railyards and huge bus depots and the like.
In certain places, it is not okay to have flyovers for rail systems - the fighting over a proposed CTA flyover in Chicagoland is an example of this.
Quote from: Brandon on June 15, 2015, 03:44:04 PM
One must also remember that when the freeways were first conceived, we had only about 150 million people. Now, about 70 years on, we now have about 320 million people. That's an increase of 170 million people, or more than double what it was before the freeways. So of course, there will be more traffic. There's 113% more people here than there was 70 years ago! These people need a way to get around, and more commercial centers to serve them adequately.
I don't think there's any more commercial "centers" than there used to be. The "centers" are actually now stretched along a loop around the edge of town - which forces people to drive further and create more congestion.
My area didn't gain many more people, but the traffic got a lot worse anyway.
Quote from: Zmapper on June 14, 2015, 05:17:21 AM
In theory, a congested 8-lane highway is better than an equally congested 4-lane highway; twice as many vehicles benefit from the 8-lane highway. The same applies in reverse, an 8-lane highway deconstructed to a 4-lane highway or a Boulevard may be equally congested, but fewer trips are being made. The question is if the non-highway advantages to a Boulevard conversion economically outweigh the losses from reduced road capacity (supply).
Indeed, you have hit on a key problem here, a sort of problem that negatively impacts a lot of discussions - we live in a world where lots of important matters require specialized knowledge to fully appreciate, so the discussion is always dragged in crazy directions because while the public is not really literate on the underlying concepts, everyone still has an opinion, and perception and reality can be staggeringly different.
In this case, the thing everyone perceives is traffic, and how much time they spend sitting in it. There is an assumption that if congestion does not improve, there has been no useful improvement, and if congestion does not get worse, there has been no negative impact. But that is looking at the matter from an entirely selfish perspective. If you look at it from a more societal perspective, indeed - a wider but equally congested highway still moves more people, as you say.
Now, this much is true - no urban freeway removal has ever directly resulted in ungodly congestion as detractors often predict it will. This is because, as has been discussed, most of the trips on the freeway are discretionary in their specific destination if not in outright existence. If I need to go to the store, I need to go to the store, but maybe if the fastest road to the store I like to go to is closed, I'll go to a different store. As to whether this is a good or bad thing, well, that is a matter of personal opinion. On the one hand, making travel down a specific corridor more difficult reduces people's practical options, and gives them fewer choices due to the reduced general mobility. From a perspective of personal freedom, this isn't a good thing. On the other hand, if the removal of the freeway reduces the overall number of vehicle miles driven in the area, an argument could be made that that is a major benefit for environmental reasons.
This is why the proponents of freeway removals, road diets, and the like are often derisively referred to as "anti-mobility advocates" - because, strictly speaking, that is true. If you advocate reduced transportation capacity, you advocate reduced mobility. But mobility does consume energy, so therefore reduced mobility equals energy is conserved - which is a benefit.
As with anything in life, there are upsides and downsides. Removing a freeway benefits some people and harms others. Building a new freeway does the same. Any given space can only be built up in one manner at a time, so no matter what is built there is an opportunity cost associated with it. Half a century ago the general consensus was that freeways were a highly worthwhile use of urban space. Today, that consensus has changed.
One thing I at least believe (in hindsight, mind you) is a major design flaw of our nation's freeway system is that as built it more often than not funnels long distance traffic directly through the downtowns of major cities. Bypasses generally do exist, but they are usually longer and therefore not the favored route (traffic congestion notwithstanding). This is a major weakness of a hub and spoke type freeway system. If we could erase the entire interstate network off the map and redraw it from scratch, it would make a hell of a lot more sense to design it the way several earlier toll roads were designed - the through route bypasses the outskirts of the cities it serves, traffic that wishes to head into town needs to exit and take a spur route, and traffic just passing through doesn't enter the downtown area and doesn't create any blight on the city. Alas, we didn't build things this way, and it'd generally be rather expensive to rebuild them this way.
one of the reasons the freeways were built b/c of traffic congestion on side streets. I-95 was built in the northeast b/c traffic on US-1 was horrible. People think the freeways created some traffic, there were traffic problems before the freeways.