I come across these articles sometimes, they always show it one sided, saying basically removing freeways in cities is always a good idea, but every time they point out highways that have been removed and show the benefits, they always tend to be incomplete spurs, and almost never through routes. I always hear stories about CA 480, or candidates that they want to remove like i-280 east of us 101, i-375 and detroit, and a few more in other cities, as being a good idea. these all tend to be spurs that end downtown or near it. I have heard a few through routes calling for their removal, i-70 through denver, i-81 in syracuse are a few. I feel like removing spurs in a lot of areas is an easy thing to do, and the data will make things look promising, but i don't see this applying to through routes as well. anyway, my question is, what do you all think? is my point at all valid?
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2017/01/the-highway-hit-list/514965/?utm_source=SFFB
I would say that arguments there are only to support the main goal, which is forcing people back to old cities and have things the way they were 50-100 years ago. New urbanism is not about engineering, it is about almost religious believes. People want good old times to return without realizing that life changed quite a bit, and good old times are gone not because of highways, but because things changed quite a bit...
This is a webinar by Dr. Eric Dumbaugh, an urban planner spearheading the removal of the I-10/Claybourne Ave freeway in New Orleans:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv2ajjO2avw
Eric's quote at 51:25 in the webinar pretty much sums up the manipulation when someone is proposing a freeway removal:
"All we're trying to do here is not figure out the "˜quote on quote' truth, but to come up with the most defensible volume for getting this thing torn down" .
He uses Machiavellian tactics to create 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).
Just today KCBS/AM (740) in San Francisco was doing a piece on the urbanists' push to remove I-980 in Oakland. They resurrected the old "rich folks traveling through and disrupting poor neighborhoods" argument (shades of Helen Leavitt!), stating that "boulevardizing" the "underutilized" (they obviously haven't been on that facility between 6:30-9:30 A.M or 3-7 P.M.) freeway would only add about 5-10 minutes to anyone traveling between Oakland and Walnut Creek. Finally, one of the advocates stated that I-980 had been part of the original "Southern Crossing" transbay bridge approach system -- and now that that project had been abandoned, I-980 was no longer needed! Seems these folks are reaching hard for teardown rationales!
Quote from: tradephoric on January 31, 2017, 02:25:35 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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv2ajjO2avw
Eric's quote at 51:25 in the webinar pretty much sums up the manipulation when someone is proposing a freeway removal:
"All we're trying to do here is not figure out the "˜quote on quote' truth, but to come up with the most defensible volume for getting this thing torn down" .
He uses Machiavellian tactics to create 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).
And all of those justifications are simply nonsense and BS, easily rebuked.
The Claiborne Elevated is the ONLY means for traffic from the Superdome and Smoothie King Center (read, Saints and Pelicans games) to effectively reach eastern NOLA and points east from there. If he thinks that a six-lane boulevard, even with "left turn bays" and long signal cycling can effectively handle nearly 120,000 vehicles per day, and even more than that on game days, then he really does have a serious issue.
And no, diverting that traffic up the Ponchatrain Expressway and on to a repurposed I-610 will not solve that problem, because the Ponchatrain is already maxxed out with traffic coming from the western suburbs of NOLA (Kenner, Metarie). And that's even before I-49 South is finished to Lafayette and adds Westbank/Algiers/Westwego/Luling/Boutte traffic.
Now, if the old Dixie Highway I-410 bypass which would have integrated I-310 and I-510 into a complete semiloop around NOLA had been built, then you could make a decent case for removing the Claiborne Elevated since there would be a secondary bypass to move people around Greater NOLA.
One of the most striking ironies, though? The Claiborne Elevated was a compromise alignment reached after the "Second Battle of New Orleans" over the original Riverfront Expressway; which would have avoided using Claiborne, but went through the far more wealthy and powerful neighborhoods.
Best solution for the Claiborne Elevated is to rebuild and retrofit it, and use the same CSS/Urban Design methods that Lafayette is now using for the I-49 Lafayette Connector project. Treme doesn't need CNU, they need to place a call to the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team and let them work on reviving that neighborhood WITH a better Claiborne Elevated in place.
I had a professor back in Graduate School who had a saying he used over and over, and it fits so many things in life.............."Figures don't lie, but liars figure!" In other words, people with agendas tend to shape facts to fit their desired conclusions. That doesn't mean that no freeway should ever be removed anywhere, but no claims by advocates should ever be taken at face value.
Quote from: tradephoric on January 31, 2017, 02:25:35 PM
Eric's quote at 51:25 in the webinar pretty much sums up the manipulation when someone is proposing a freeway removal:
"All we're trying to do here is not figure out the "˜quote on quote' truth, but to come up with the most defensible volume for getting this thing torn down" .
He uses Machiavellian tactics to create 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).
Has any of this been subject to impartial peer review?
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 31, 2017, 11:25:22 AM
I come across these articles sometimes, they always show it one sided, saying basically removing freeways in cities is always a good idea, but every time they point out highways that have been removed and show the benefits, they always tend to be incomplete spurs, and almost never through routes. I always hear stories about CA 480, or candidates that they want to remove like i-280 east of us 101, i-375 and detroit, and a few more in other cities, as being a good idea. these all tend to be spurs that end downtown or near it. I have heard a few through routes calling for their removal, i-70 through denver, i-81 in syracuse are a few. I feel like removing spurs in a lot of areas is an easy thing to do, and the data will make things look promising, but i don't see this applying to through routes as well. anyway, my question is, what do you all think? is my point at all valid?
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2017/01/the-highway-hit-list/514965/?utm_source=SFFB
I-83 in Baltimore is often on this list.
But the anti-highway industry is in this for the long haul. If they succeed in getting a lot of spur-type urban freeways removed, then they will go on to demanding that mainline freeways like I-70 be re-routed and the part they do not like removed and they will point to the removal of the spur freeways as "success stories." Note that
capping freeways to reduce impact is often a good idea, and I think it might be a winner in Denver, and it might also work with I-95 through Center City Philadelphia.
I-95 was re-routed onto the Capital Beltway in the 1970's because of anti-freeway opposition in D.C. and the Maryland suburbs of D.C., and because it was rationalized that once the regional Metrorail system was completed, "everyone will be riding Metro" (never mind that Metrorail had and has capacity constraints of its own, just like like the highway system and never mind that Metro cannot serve circumferential trips in most cases).
The re-routing of I-95 has not always worked out well, and it has made the Beltway more-vulnerable to serious traffic disruptions that it would otherwise have been, and it has routed a large amount of heavy-duty truck traffic through majority minority neighborhoods of Prince George's County, Maryland (not all suburban counties or municipalities are 100% white, though anti-highway activists often imply that as part of their sales pitch).
I-83 needs to connect somehow to i-395. I think this tactic is very effective in convincing residents in the cities it involves, but they never think about how misleading it is to conflate spurs with through routes.
I'm sure many of us can site examples of highways in their neck of the woods that have been brought up by groups wanting their removal.
Some people in the Philly area want better access to the river. They say the 8 lane (4 per direction) I-95 should be removed in its entirely between the Ben Franklin & Walt Whitman bridges. They claim that it gets the least amount of usage in that area. While that is correct, what they don't tell you is 90,000 vehicles a day us it in that area. As 140,000 or so vehicles use 95 north of the Ben Franklin bridge, the figures are clearly relative. They claim the traffic can use I-676 instead, which is an often jammed, 2 lane-per-direction highway. There's a 1 lane ramp to I-76 East...and no direct connection back to I-95. And going North, same thing - there's no direct connection to 95 from 76. And the ramp from 76 to 676 is a 1 lane hair-pin turn where the jersey barrier is nearly completely black from all the cars hitting it.
In the Trenton area, some people want to redo NJ 29 from a limited access highway to a city-street-grid type road, in order to get pedestrians better access to the river. NJDOT was on board at one point, although they aren't spending any money on it currently. It's also been noted that no funding has been set aside to do anything regarding access to the river once the road has been moved.
Quote from: silverback1065I feel like removing spurs in a lot of areas is an easy thing to do, and the data will make things look promising, but i don't see this applying to through routes as well. anyway, my question is, what do you all think? is my point at all valid?
It's a valid concern, but one that cannot be applied en masse to through route projects. Those will still need to be looked at in detail on a case-by-case basis. There are also some factors that most people don't consider need to be brought to the forefront, like lifecycle costs and the costs of replacement versus removal. This is the case with I-81 in Syracuse where the existing viaduct is seriously at the end of its life but replacing it to current (or even near current) standards would be both expensive and require additional right-of-way in an urban core environment. SO it becomes a question of whether it's cost- and benefit-effective to replace such facilities as-is.
There's also the case of alternatives and whether alternative routes could be improved as a replacement. This is where Anthony and I will forever disagree regarding the Claiborne in New Orleans (IMO, upgrading 610 would be far more cost effective than keeping/improving the Claiborne...he will forever disagree with me on that).
Quote from: kalvadoPeople want good old times to return without realizing that life changed quite a bit,
...a statement that sums up the recent national election quite well.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56In other words, people with agendas tend to shape facts to fit their desired conclusions.
Works both ways. The recent "fetish" in some areas with public-private partnerships, including and in particular US 460 in southeastern Virginia, is a good example of this on the pro-highway side.
Quote from: silverback1065I-83 needs to connect somehow to i-395.
No it doesn't. Not when you'd have to rip up half of downtown Baltimore to do so. Or put a bridge right on top of the harbor. And tunneling is out of the question due to existing rail tunnels.
I've been comparing historical satellite imagery of the demolished Park East Freeway in Milwaukee. It seems that since it was removed in the early 2000s, the right-of-way remained largely vacant. So far only two residential buildings were built on the right-of-way, as well as a soccer field.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 01, 2017, 10:31:01 AM
I'm sure many of us can site examples of highways in their neck of the woods that have been brought up by groups wanting their removal.
Some people in the Philly area want better access to the river. They say the 8 lane (4 per direction) I-95 should be removed in its entirely between the Ben Franklin & Walt Whitman bridges. They claim that it gets the least amount of usage in that area. While that is correct, what they don't tell you is 90,000 vehicles a day us it in that area. As 140,000 or so vehicles use 95 north of the Ben Franklin bridge, the figures are clearly relative. They claim the traffic can use I-676 instead, which is an often jammed, 2 lane-per-direction highway. There's a 1 lane ramp to I-76 East...and no direct connection back to I-95. And going North, same thing - there's no direct connection to 95 from 76. And the ramp from 76 to 676 is a 1 lane hair-pin turn where the jersey barrier is nearly completely black from all the cars hitting it.
According to PennDOT's 2014 Traffic Volume Map for Philadelphia County, published January 2016 (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_pdf_files/MAPS/Traffic/Traffic_Volume/County_Maps/Philadelphia_TV.pdf), the average daily traffic counts for I-95 in Central Philadelphia are:
- 120,000 vehicles/day between I-676 and Broad St. (stretch includes Penns Landing
bathtub)
- 162,000 vehicles/day between I-676 and Allegheny Ave.
- 156,000 vehicles/day between Broad St. and Enterprise Ave. (stretch includes Girard Point Bridge)
Excerpt from the article that is linked from the OP:
QuoteOf course, this is not to say that highways should stay: These roads never belonged in cities in the first place.
What a load of baloney! I'm not saying that highways in cities should never be removed or realigned, but most of the time, of course they belong there. Cities need highways and freeways, in addition to surface streets and arterials.
By no means am I against rerouting them or rebuilding them. A great example of this is the currently existing Interstate 93 tunnel in Boston, which I-93 was originally on a viaduct. I think that was a good idea, and the interstate still serves the city. But to say that the highways shouldn't exist in cities at all is nonsense.
I am also noticing a pattern in the Rust Belt. As the Rust Belt loses its industry, population, and prominence, it is losing some of its highways. I remember hearing about part of the Inner Loop in Rochester being downgraded, and now there are possibly plans to tear down or realign or rebuild the Scajaquada Expressway in Buffalo, and Interstate 81 in Syracuse.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 01, 2017, 10:31:01 AM
Some people in the Philly area want better access to the river. They say the 8 lane (4 per direction) I-95 should be removed in its entirely between the Ben Franklin & Walt Whitman bridges. They claim that it gets the least amount of usage in that area. While that is correct, what they don't tell you is 90,000 vehicles a day us it in that area. As 140,000 or so vehicles use 95 north of the Ben Franklin bridge, the figures are clearly relative. They claim the traffic can use I-676 instead, which is an often jammed, 2 lane-per-direction highway. There's a 1 lane ramp to I-76 East...and no direct connection back to I-95. And going North, same thing - there's no direct connection to 95 from 76. And the ramp from 76 to 676 is a 1 lane hair-pin turn where the jersey barrier is nearly completely black from all the cars hitting it.
Similar mantra in Albany NY regarding I-787 and river access. I usually point out at the other shore of Hudson, which is pretty much glorious nothing... Looks like people want to believe left shore is absolutely different from the right...
You can make statistics say anything you want and manipulate the models. That being said, these activists have a ton of political pull because they tend to have deep pockets.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 01, 2017, 12:09:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 01, 2017, 10:31:01 AM
I'm sure many of us can site examples of highways in their neck of the woods that have been brought up by groups wanting their removal.
Some people in the Philly area want better access to the river. They say the 8 lane (4 per direction) I-95 should be removed in its entirely between the Ben Franklin & Walt Whitman bridges. They claim that it gets the least amount of usage in that area. While that is correct, what they don't tell you is 90,000 vehicles a day us it in that area. As 140,000 or so vehicles use 95 north of the Ben Franklin bridge, the figures are clearly relative. They claim the traffic can use I-676 instead, which is an often jammed, 2 lane-per-direction highway. There's a 1 lane ramp to I-76 East...and no direct connection back to I-95. And going North, same thing - there's no direct connection to 95 from 76. And the ramp from 76 to 676 is a 1 lane hair-pin turn where the jersey barrier is nearly completely black from all the cars hitting it.
According to PennDOT's 2014 Traffic Volume Map for Philadelphia County, published January 2016 (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_pdf_files/MAPS/Traffic/Traffic_Volume/County_Maps/Philadelphia_TV.pdf), the average daily traffic counts for I-95 in Central Philadelphia are:
- 120,000 vehicles/day between I-676 and Broad St. (stretch includes Penns Landing bathtub)
- 162,000 vehicles/day between I-676 and Allegheny Ave.
- 156,000 vehicles/day between Broad St. and Enterprise Ave. (stretch includes Girard Point Bridge)
Still fits the anti-highway people's agenda though!
If they ever actually said "120,000 people use I-95 between 676 and Board", they would lose all credibility though.
Quote from: cl94 on February 01, 2017, 01:41:23 PM
You can make statistics say anything you want and manipulate the models. That being said, these activists have a ton of political pull because they tend to have deep pockets.
Although sometimes I think there is some good in what they want.
Cities - downtowns - are getting pretty old, things like water/sewer lines are often on borrowed time, and rebuild is pretty expensive. Maybe we need some mechanism for old cities to retire? Letting them die in a natural way is less painful than anything else - and road removal would just accelerate that. Once property values plunge, natural decay is less of a pain.... And greenfield development may be advantageous - after all US is still somewhere at the top of the list of countries by land area..
Although Detroit may tell a different story...
Something I forgot to mention in my earlier post, which has also been referenced in this thread:
The Rochester Inner Loop is a good example of "rightsizing" the infrastructure to the expected demand. Sure, some of the roadgeeks on this forum may lament it's destruction, but it was at the end of its life, and it was seriously overbuilt for its traffic volumes....much of which would meet LOS C (or better) on a 2-lane surface street. Rebuilding it as-is for the paltry level of traffic it received would have been wasteful, and so it was downgraded to something more appropriate.
Quote from: kalvadoCities - downtowns - are getting pretty old, things like water/sewer lines are often on borrowed time, and rebuild is pretty expensive.
Still less expensive per-capita than new greenfield development.
QuoteMaybe we need some mechanism for old cities to retire?
Are you suggesting that old cities should just die off? How much land do you want to burn and how much outer suburbia traffic do you want to generate in return?
Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2017, 02:00:37 PM
Something I forgot to mention in my earlier post, which has also been referenced in this thread:
The Rochester Inner Loop is a good example of "rightsizing" the infrastructure to the expected demand. Sure, some of the roadgeeks on this forum may lament it's destruction, but it was at the end of its life, and it was seriously overbuilt for its traffic volumes....much of which would meet LOS C (or better) on a 2-lane surface street. Rebuilding it as-is for the paltry level of traffic it received would have been wasteful, and so it was downgraded to something more appropriate.
Quote from: kalvadoCities - downtowns - are getting pretty old, things like water/sewer lines are often on borrowed time, and rebuild is pretty expensive.
Still less expensive per-capita than new greenfield development.
QuoteMaybe we need some mechanism for old cities to retire?
Are you suggesting that old cities should just die off? How much land do you want to burn and how much outer suburbia traffic do you want to generate in return?
Land - compared to about an acre of agricultural land per person loss of 0.1-0.05 acre of city land per person is not critical. As for development - it assumes existing infrastructure. When that infrastructure would need a
rebuild, greenfield will be winning by a factor of XX.
Many cities are where they are for reasons which no longer make too much sense. River ports, mine locations, crossroads... With high speed truck traffic, telecommute across the ocean and decrease of manufacturing many places just outlive their role.
Here is an aerial of Detroit in 1949 when the only freeway that existed was the Davison.
http://gigapan.com/gigapans/147450
^I stitched together some of the 1949 Detroit aerials near downtown to make an image overlay file in Google Earth. Hope this works.
https://www.mediafire.com/?x6e2mjalcvumqza
I think it's obvious that if you remove a freeway traffic will decrease...and that's not usually a good thing! People prefer freeways to 2-lane roads with lots of traffic signals. Remove the freeway and people will simply avoid the area...and take their business elsewhere.
Quote from: Terry Shea on February 01, 2017, 04:49:39 PM
I think it's obvious that if you remove a freeway traffic will decrease...and that's not usually a good thing! People prefer freeways to 2-lane roads with lots of traffic signals. Remove the freeway and people will simply avoid the area...and take their business elsewhere.
IF they can do that.
Somewhat special situation, maybe - but I-787 in Albany (I mentioned it before, city folks want to remove that "to get river access") is used by state employers to go to state government buildings. Whit is fairly special case...
Anyone who makes this argument I would just remind them what happened in Milwaukee with the park east spur. We were all told it was going to bring all this economic development and it was going to be so wonderful. They even said it was some of the most valuable land in the state. However it took more than a decade before we saw any development and if it wasn't for the new Bucks arena who knows when we would have seen any development.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 01, 2017, 03:53:30 AM
The Claiborne Elevated is the ONLY means for traffic from the Superdome and Smoothie King Center (read, Saints and Pelicans games) to effectively reach eastern NOLA and points east from there. If he thinks that a six-lane boulevard, even with "left turn bays" and long signal cycling can effectively handle nearly 120,000 vehicles per day, and even more than that on game days, then he really does have a serious issue.
And no, diverting that traffic up the Ponchatrain Expressway and on to a repurposed I-610 will not solve that problem, because the Ponchatrain is already maxxed out with traffic coming from the western suburbs of NOLA (Kenner, Metarie). And that's even before I-49 South is finished to Lafayette and adds Westbank/Algiers/Westwego/Luling/Boutte traffic.
All this, however, hinges on the premise that all that traffic needs to be handled. New Orleans was a vibrant city before it had any freeways, after all. The difference was that in those days people lived closer to where they worked because it wasn't so easy to cross town regularly, and people relied on streetcars and the like to get around rather than their own private vehicles.
Freeways helped create the spread out development patterns that are typical in most US cities today, if there is a desire to reverse that removing the freeways seems like a logical step towards doing so. And, not for nothing, there are valid reasons to want to do this: low density lifestyles with people taking long car trips to get where they need to go are inherently inefficient. The United States has higher energy usage per capita than most other countries in the world in part because of our inefficient development patterns.
Quote from: dvferyance on February 01, 2017, 06:58:47 PM
Anyone who makes this argument I would just remind them what happened in Milwaukee with the park east spur. We were all told it was going to bring all this economic development and it was going to be so wonderful. They even said it was some of the most valuable land in the state. However it took more than a decade before we saw any development and if it wasn't for the new Bucks arena who knows when we would have seen any development.
On the other hand, when New Haven removed two blocks of the CT 34 freeway, they had developers lined up and on board in the planning stages, and the buildings that now stand on these parcels were already designed and ready to be built before any shovels went in the ground removing the freeway.
But yes, this does not amount to the freeway removal bringing development. It's quite the opposite: demand for development bringing freeway removal because the freeway was in the way of where investors wanted to put buildings. What happened in New Haven could almost be thought of as reverse eminent domain.
Freeway removal advocates will point to this as a shining example of how quickly freeway removal can spur new development which benefits the economy, but that would be a blatant case of the
post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in action.
Determining the real net impact of freeway removal on the economy is difficult. Neighborhoods near removed freeways do tend to become more vibrant places, yes, but vibrant places near freeways which don't get removed also exist, so clearly the presence of a freeway does not preclude this. Meanwhile, the loss of the availability of the freeway to through traffic carries an economic cost in terms of lost mobility. One which is not seen by the local neighborhood or by any particular locale, but rather which is diffuse throughout the region - and therefore it itsn't noticeable, but that doesn't mean it doesn't nonetheless exist.
Quote from: tradephoric on February 01, 2017, 03:05:52 PM
Here is an aerial of Detroit in 1949 when the only freeway that existed was the Davison.
http://gigapan.com/gigapans/147450
If you look, the Detroit Industrial Expressway (I-94) also is there.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 01, 2017, 10:09:04 PMOn the other hand, when New Haven removed two blocks of the CT 34 freeway, they had developers lined up and on board in the planning stages, and the buildings that now stand on these parcels were already designed and ready to be built before any shovels went in the ground removing the freeway.
To be fair, the CT 34 freeway in that area was more of spur (or glorified on/off ramp) as opposed to a through-expressway (although such was originally planned way back when); so removing/downgrading it didn't translate into spilling traffic (including delivery vehicles) onto local streets.
Interesting that this thread just come up as there's one lone wolf trying to argue that I-77 in Canton, Ohio should be boulevardized between US62 and US30 because it cuts off neighborhoods, and lights would only add 'five minutes' to the commute for those taking I-77. Then tried to argue that traffic can take side streets if traffic backs up too much. Somehow not realizing that despite a lot of Cantonians using the road, there's a lot of through traffic whose main objective will be to stay on I-77, regardless of how bad traffic may be.
And if it can be boulevardized, they want it capped, for 2.8 miles long to be graded with the surrounding lane as a covered freeway.
Through it all, the constant harping of "it's only five minutes" is what I find most odd. Clearly they don't understand traffic (they claim they were an urban planner!?), nor do they understand that one light, one time, at 76k AADT can cause more traffic than you can clear at one light during peak times. And with the number of lights needed, if timing the lights perfectly, not everyone will get through the city, and those 'timed lights' will start bottlenecking traffic in waves, and each wave increasing the traffic.
I've seen some lists of "successful freeway removals" that cite I-40 in Oklahoma City...failing to note that it was simply realigned about seven blocks south.
I think a lot of freeway removal advocates like to point to the concept of "induced demand"–which is often the result of a highway drawing traffic that would otherwise be on another, more overburdened parallel route.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: February 03, 2017, 03:10:06 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 01, 2017, 10:09:04 PM
But yes, this does not amount to the freeway removal bringing development. It's quite the opposite: demand for development bringing freeway removal because the freeway was in the way of where investors wanted to put buildings. What happened in New Haven could almost be thought of as reverse eminent domain.
Freeway removal advocates will point to this as a shining example of how quickly freeway removal can spur new development which benefits the economy, but that would be a blatant case of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in action.
This is an example of the planning doctrine of "highest and best use". A given parcel of land should be developed to its highest and best use. In some cases, that will be commercial development. In others, it will be a freeway. It sounds like in New Haven, the land's highest use was for development, but on some parcels of land the need for transportation infrastructure (and its inherent economic benefits that it provides to the surrounding neighborhood) will outweigh the economic effects of other projects that could be built there.
If you can demonstrate that a given development is a higher and better use of the land than a freeway, then by all means remove the freeway. But, unless there is extremely high demand for real estate in an area, it's difficult to show that private use of the land serves a higher purpose than a freeway.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 03, 2017, 03:03:32 AM
I've seen some lists of "successful freeway removals" that cite I-40 in Oklahoma City...failing to note that it was simply realigned about seven blocks south.
A similar deception was cited in reference to the realignment of I-195 in Providence, RI.
In those 2 cases; such were wins-wins (hence, exceptions not the rule). Urban planners/developers got some prime real estate and motorists & truckers got a better/safer highway.
Quote from: Sykotyk on February 03, 2017, 01:36:40 AM
Interesting that this thread just come up as there's one lone wolf trying to argue that I-77 in Canton, Ohio should be boulevardized between US62 and US30 because it cuts off neighborhoods, and lights would only add 'five minutes' to the commute for those taking I-77. Then tried to argue that traffic can take side streets if traffic backs up too much. Somehow not realizing that despite a lot of Cantonians using the road, there's a lot of through traffic whose main objective will be to stay on I-77, regardless of how bad traffic may be.
And if it can be boulevardized, they want it capped, for 2.8 miles long to be graded with the surrounding lane as a covered freeway.
Through it all, the constant harping of "it's only five minutes" is what I find most odd. Clearly they don't understand traffic (they claim they were an urban planner!?), nor do they understand that one light, one time, at 76k AADT can cause more traffic than you can clear at one light during peak times. And with the number of lights needed, if timing the lights perfectly, not everyone will get through the city, and those 'timed lights' will start bottlenecking traffic in waves, and each wave increasing the traffic.
Good lord. Where are you encountering this guy?
The philosophies that underlie the push for freeway removal in cities, including the oft-cited "new urbanism", largely stem from a belief that enhanced socialization, including imbuing a "sense of place" regarding places of residence and commerce, is necessary and desirable to counteract forces seen as isolating people from one another (i.e., individual suburban housing, substitution of commuting for localized residence/employment centers). Prior to widespread car ownership, the principle of "bounded rationality" (one doesn't consider what isn't available) kept folks close to their jobs, with social circles overlapping commercial considerations (a la Robert Putnam's observations), creating a more full and often "vibrant" set of communal activities. In order to reintroduce some form of this bounded rationality to the socioeconomic arena, certain aspects of what exists currently within that arena must be excised; the concept of mobility -- and the things that are seen as promoting it, such as efficient means of "escape" (e.g., freeways), are high on the list of features to be deleted. A reinvigorated city is, to these social activists, expected to function as a gathering place -- the "beacon on the hill", so to speak -- from which the products of collective human activity flow. The concept of removing one's self from that environment is considered counterproductive -- even, in more ideological circles, verging on evil!
It's within these more ideological communities of thought that the notion of freeway removal has taken hold -- replacing means of egress with something thought to be more enticing to the prospect of staying put is considered to be an effectual means to achieving the end result of a more place-oriented general attitude. However, the notion that daily life contains commercial aspects as well as social ones is given short shrift; the viewpoint that those same means of egress may enable goods & services to be efficiently and effectively delivered within the urban area is often dismissed as superfluous or even contributing to materialism. Considering that in many instances urbanist (new and otherwise) and communitarian spheres of influence function as an overlapping "Venn diagram", lack of consideration for the commercial aspects of daily life shouldn't be surprising. The cost of freeway facility teardown as well as that of reconfiguring the local area to fit the idealized urbanist conceptualization also isn't afforded much consideration except for the general idea that in the long haul such activity is worth it.
Unfortunately, undertaking such a major project often involves parties whose interests are not necessarily parallel to those of the neighborhood/area at large -- including developers, retail franchisers, and the like who readily evolve (or devolve) any concepts of social justice that may be endemic to the original freeway-removal rationale into basic cookie-cutter gentrification (think of blocks of condos atop endless Starbucks, Noah's Bagels, and other businesses purportedly catering to the whims & tastes of urban dwellers). It often seems that enhanced socialization is fine as long as it takes place where profit can be made from the pass-through!
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 01, 2017, 10:06:17 AM
I-83 needs to connect somehow to i-395. I think this tactic is very effective in convincing residents in the cities it involves, but they never think about how misleading it is to conflate spurs with through routes.
The original plans for a connection between I-83 and I-95 included a terrible and terribly intrusive high or low bridge (there were plans for both) to carry I-95 over the Inner Harbor, leading to an interchange with I-83 in the Canton or Fells Point area of Baltimore City (one example can be seen in this (http://planning.baltimorecity.gov/sites/default/files/History%20of%20Baltimore.pdf) document (2.73 MB, .pdf) on physical page 20. When I-95 was re-routed south of the downtown area to cross the northwest branch of the Patapsco River in what became the Fort McHenry Tunnel, the path of I-83 was extended south and mostly east to connect with I-95 north of the toll plaza (parts of the ramps on I-95 can still be seen), a path that would have been quite damaging to the Canton area of the city.
Unless I-83 were to be built in bored tunnels (there are no plans and no funding for that), I do not see it ever connecting directly to I-95.
Quote from: Sykotyk on February 03, 2017, 01:36:40 AM
Through it all, the constant harping of "it's only five minutes" is what I find most odd. Clearly they don't understand traffic (they claim they were an urban planner!?), nor do they understand that one light, one time, at 76k AADT can cause more traffic than you can clear at one light during peak times. And with the number of lights needed, if timing the lights perfectly, not everyone will get through the city, and those 'timed lights' will start bottlenecking traffic in waves, and each wave increasing the traffic.
I am sure that the apologists for Breezwood and its evil kin in Pennsylvania rationalize them with similar claims.
What about the inevitable crashes that will happen where the freeway comes to a sudden end?
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/01/30/10-urban-freeways-that-need-to-come-down/
this is basically the type of article i mean when i ask the question of the thread.
2 things, why are these people so hell bent on removing i-70 in denver and i-980 in oakland? 70 looks like it doesn't even come close to downtown, going through what looks like a mostly train and industrial area, and i-980 looks to be a vital highway that would be insane to remove. 2 side questions are why was 70 elevated in the first place? and why is 980 signed east west?
also, where the hell would traffic go if the did remove i-70?
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 18, 2017, 06:39:17 PM
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/01/30/10-urban-freeways-that-need-to-come-down/
this is basically the type of article i mean when i ask the question of the thread.
2 things, why are these people so hell bent on removing i-70 in denver and i-980 in oakland? 70 looks like it doesn't even come close to downtown, going through what looks like a mostly train and industrial area, and i-980 looks to be a vital highway that would be insane to remove. 2 side questions are why was 70 elevated in the first place? and why is 980 signed east west?
also, where the hell would traffic go if the did remove i-70?
I am not from Denver, but I have relatively recent knowledge of the area, and have driven all of I-70 in Colorado both ways. There's no real bypass road to the north of the city that re-joins I-70, without building an entirely new freeway.
I suppose they could re-route onto the C-470 toll road south of town, but that may not work from a transportation perspective.
But the promoters of projects like this are generally not interested in transportation impacts - the freeway tear down is all they want.
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 18, 2017, 06:39:17 PM
why is 980 signed east west?
I-980 was a western extension of CA 24 for a couple of years prior to its re-designation as an Interstate, and CA 24 is signed east-west although largely SW-NE at its present western terminus. Also, 980 is perpendicular to I-880 (at least in the area of their interchange), which is signed N-S.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 18, 2017, 09:50:49 PM
But the promoters of projects like this are generally not interested in transportation impacts - the freeway tear down is all they want.
Bravo to CPZ for so succinctly delineating the absurdity of the "tear-down" crowd's rationales. :clap: Unfortunately, some well-meaning but misdirected folks have "morphed" urbanism from a particular developmental methodology to an alternative ideology (and we've all by now become inured to "alternative facts") that has condemned vehicular traffic, treating the driving public as recalcitrant smokers have been viewed in the past decades. And like with most ideologies, even Pyrrhic victories are sought and celebrated. All that is desired is to see those manifestations of modern civilization they deem inappropriate or even evil pushed out to the periphery so they don't have to think about it -- regardless of the costs, in both social and monetary terms, of implementing their viewpoints. It seems their greatest pleasure is derived from dancing on the graves of dead freeways! So sad.
Given the location of the proposed "teardown" in Denver on I-70, there were two alternatives. First, despite what CP said, there is a fairly easily used bypass on the north side of Denver: I-76 and I-270. Second, a few of the alternatives were to build a rerouted I-70 that would have paralleled the northeast-running railroads and CO 265 from just east of the Mousetrap (I-25/I-70) to I-270, then upgrade 270 back down to 70 East.
Lastly, Sparker's previous post suggests that he's not convinced about this "sense of place" bit. It's clear he thinks it's nonsense. My own experience, having lived in cities, suburbs, and rural areas, is that it *IS* real and is a valid pursuit, nevermind being better for the local economies. It's been proven that local, dense commercial nodes are far better for both local economies and local tax revenue than the big box stores that have to waste huge amounts of land on parking lots.
Quote from: froggie on February 19, 2017, 09:37:37 AM
Given the location of the proposed "teardown" in Denver on I-70, there were two alternatives. First, despite what CP said, there is a fairly easily used bypass on the north side of Denver: I-76 and I-270. Second, a few of the alternatives were to build a rerouted I-70 that would have paralleled the northeast-running railroads and CO 265 from just east of the Mousetrap (I-25/I-70) to I-270, then upgrade 270 back down to 70 East.
Lastly, Sparker's previous post suggests that he's not convinced about this "sense of place" bit. It's clear he thinks it's nonsense. My own experience, having lived in cities, suburbs, and rural areas, is that it *IS* real and is a valid pursuit, nevermind being better for the local economies. It's been proven that local, dense commercial nodes are far better for both local economies and local tax revenue than the big box stores that have to waste huge amounts of land on parking lots.
I love those "waste space on parking", "increase productivity per acre" type of argument.
Last time I checked, US is still in top 5 of countries by area, and in bottom 50 for population density.
Of course those metrics are important for municipalities which are neither able to expand nor build sustainable economy on the parcel they have. But that is chicken-and-egg type of argument, more people means more expenses - and oh, we need more people again to pay those taxes...
Quote from: froggie on February 19, 2017, 09:37:37 AM
Given the location of the proposed "teardown" in Denver on I-70, there were two alternatives. First, despite what CP said, there is a fairly easily used bypass on the north side of Denver: I-76 and I-270. Second, a few of the alternatives were to build a rerouted I-70 that would have paralleled the northeast-running railroads and CO 265 from just east of the Mousetrap (I-25/I-70) to I-270, then upgrade 270 back down to 70 East.
I disagree. That's not a complete bypass (E-470 and the Northwest Parkway probably would be (judging from the maps of what was built), but the two do not form a full 360° "circle" around Denver).
And the anti-freeway activists touting this proposal appear not to have taken into account the large amount of privately-owned warehouse, freight and freight intermodal infrastructure (and employment associated with same) that has located near I-70 (examples here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B047'05.3%22N+104%C2%B059'50.2%22W/@39.784795,-104.999462,501m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d39.784795!4d-104.997268?hl=en), here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B046'41.5%22N+104%C2%B056'05.4%22W/@39.778208,-104.9392117,1001m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d39.778208!4d-104.934829?hl=en) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B046'56.6%22N+104%C2%B051'56.4%22W/@39.78238,-104.8744361,2002m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d39.78238!4d-104.865676?hl=en)).
Beyond that, there is the dysfunction that seems to come from re-routing radial freeway routes onto circumferential or orbital freeways (Washington and Boston being the most well-known instances).
Quote from: froggie on February 19, 2017, 09:37:37 AM
Lastly, Sparker's previous post suggests that he's not convinced about this "sense of place" bit. It's clear he thinks it's nonsense. My own experience, having lived in cities, suburbs, and rural areas, is that it *IS* real and is a valid pursuit, nevermind being better for the local economies. It's been proven that local, dense commercial nodes are far better for both local economies and local tax revenue than the big box stores that have to waste huge amounts of land on parking lots.
Is there a "sense of place" around the Metrorail stations in the Maryland suburbs of D.C. (like there is near some of the stations in Arlington County, Virginia and even near the new stations at Tysons Corner). In general, no! In large part because employers appear to not be interested in locating in the Maryland suburbs of Washington when they can find better alternatives in Northern Virginia. Without employment, there's not much of a "sense of place" or "place" (consider much of Detroit, Michigan, a lesson that most Maryland politicians do not seem to have grasped).
Quote from: cpzilliacusI disagree. That's not a complete bypass (E-470 and the Northwest Parkway probably would be (judging from the maps of what was built), but the two do not form a full 360° "circle" around Denver).
Your earlier assessment was that there is no bypass road north of the city for I-70. That is simply not the case, nor is there a need for a bypass to be a full 360 loop.
QuoteIs there a "sense of place" around the Metrorail stations in the Maryland suburbs of D.C. (like there is near some of the stations in Arlington County, Virginia and even near the new stations at Tysons Corner). In general, no! In large part because employers appear to not be interested in locating in the Maryland suburbs of Washington when they can find better alternatives in Northern Virginia. Without employment, there's not much of a "sense of place" or "place" (consider much of Detroit, Michigan, a lesson that most Maryland politicians do not seem to have grasped).
I'll defer to you when it comes to the Maryland side of the DC region, but I full-fledged
disagree that you "need employment" in order to create a "place", at least not the type/magnitude of employment that you are inferring. Plenty of neighborhoods and locales across DC and northern Virginia that have that type of place but don't have major employment (citing Del Ray, Annandale, and Arlandria as a few examples inside the Beltway and outside of Arlington).
Quote from: froggie on February 19, 2017, 09:37:37 AM
Sparker's previous post suggests that he's not convinced about this "sense of place" bit. It's clear he thinks it's nonsense. My own experience, having lived in cities, suburbs, and rural areas, is that it *IS* real and is a valid pursuit, nevermind being better for the local economies. It's been proven that local, dense commercial nodes are far better for both local economies and local tax revenue than the big box stores that have to waste huge amounts of land on parking lots.
I do value a "sense of place" -- just not when applied in an exclusionary manner. I do personally prefer compact and readily accessible by
all means commercial areas with individual businesses rather than chain stores -- I'm a partner in such an independent business (vintage specialty audio) with a jaundiced eye toward "big box" retail outlets (largely because of their emphasis on convenience over quality), and my retail choices more often reflect that when searching for merchandise to purchase -- and we have a great such commercial area here in Willow Glen (San Jose). However, more fungible items occasionally lend themselves to a Costco or even Wal-Mart approach. But I certainly don't want to see small businesses -- and the neighborhoods they occupy -- displaced by these ubiquitous chains.
The subject matter of this thread deals with freeway tear-downs; the rationales for which are, to me often spurious and based upon concepts that I've previously characterized as exclusionary. A sense of place does not necessarily invoke psychological transporting to a magical land without cars, freeways, or any other artifacts of modernity and 21st century reality. While that may be an idealized situation to a few, reconstructing whole tracts within cities to satisfy those specific desires seems to be an ecological fallacy -- satisfying the part while ignoring the needs of the whole. Do note that even the most quaint businesses require reasonably efficient egress in & out of their area to receive and send goods (even service-oriented endeavors require parts, tools, etc.). And these businesses are more often than not dependent upon maintaining a customer base that's larger than a few square blocks; and if what they're selling is bigger than a breadbox, so to speak, some way of getting it home without resorting to UPS or FedEx becomes part of the commercial reality. If you're selling pizza, bagels, or coffee, no problem -- catering to the carless crowd is a piece of cake (they can eat
that on buses or light rail as well!) -- but try schlepping 70 pounds of vacuum-tube amplifier on the bus (which I have done when my car was in the shop and a customer wanted their repaired unit back in short order -- and an activity I'm in no hurry to repeat!), and shortly the fallacy of a viable commercial area without efficient automotive egress is driven home quickly.
In most urban areas where I've resided or visited extensively, the distribution networks are built up around the transportation systems that are "on the ground", including urban freeway segments. Disrupting an extant system simply so a few vocal folks can achieve their goal of being psychologically free of the presence of roadways and their accompanying structures seems to be hardly the best use of hard-to-come-by funding. Here in San Jose, we have a relatively new freeway (CA 87) running on bridges and berms right next to downtown, and the area immediately adjacent to it is being redeveloped for primarily walking and light-rail served usage (with some offsite parking facilities). I have yet to hear anyone involved in that development (and I know quite a few of them as acquaintances and/or customers of my business) whining about the fact that their street-borne customer base has to look at a freeway bridge a block or two away. And SJSU's main campus is only 7 blocks from CA 87; if there were to be any complaints raised, they would likely emanate from that quarter -- at least from their urban planning department. Freeways and enhanced urbanization need not be physically incompatible -- and I know my local situation may not pose the precise characteristics of other venues, but it
does illustrate that a "sense of place" can be inclusive rather than exclusive; the wholesale teardown approach of the more vehement activists seems unnecessary and ill-considered. More measured, cost-effective, and less disruptive methods are out there and available.
But then, John Norquist & company haven't been here to stir up the pot AFAIK. :-o
Quote from: froggie on February 19, 2017, 11:44:28 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacusI disagree. That's not a complete bypass (E-470 and the Northwest Parkway probably would be (judging from the maps of what was built), but the two do not form a full 360° "circle" around Denver).
Your earlier assessment was that there is no bypass road north of the city for I-70. That is simply not the case, nor is there a need for a bypass to be a full 360 loop.
Bypasses do not need to be 360° loops, but they tend to work better if they are 360° or at least 180°. Even I-695/MD-695 around Baltimore became a more useful bypass when the FSK Bridge and approaches were completed in the 1970's, especially for trucks hauling placarded loads, which were never allowed to use I-895 (I-95, with similar restrictions, did not open until 1985).
This Denver bypass is supposed to be about getting I-70 traffic onto a more circuitous routing (at least according to the author of the
Streetsblog piece). It does
not get traffic back to I-70 at or west of the current E-470 interchange in Golden, and adds over 20 miles of driving, potentially on arterial streets not engineered for that sort of traffic (where have we heard that before?). And at the risk of repeating myself, the impact on what would appear to be a pretty substantial set of activity centers (and employment) along the I-70 Corridor is entirely ignored.
Quote from: froggie on February 19, 2017, 11:44:28 AM
QuoteIs there a "sense of place" around the Metrorail stations in the Maryland suburbs of D.C. (like there is near some of the stations in Arlington County, Virginia and even near the new stations at Tysons Corner). In general, no! In large part because employers appear to not be interested in locating in the Maryland suburbs of Washington when they can find better alternatives in Northern Virginia. Without employment, there's not much of a "sense of place" or "place" (consider much of Detroit, Michigan, a lesson that most Maryland politicians do not seem to have grasped).
I'll defer to you when it comes to the Maryland side of the DC region, but I full-fledged disagree that you "need employment" in order to create a "place", at least not the type/magnitude of employment that you are inferring. Plenty of neighborhoods and locales across DC and northern Virginia that have that type of place but don't have major employment (citing Del Ray, Annandale, and Arlandria as a few examples inside the Beltway and outside of Arlington).
None of those have much in the way of employment (though Arlandria is not that far from Crystal City and Shirlington), and Annandale (by some definitions) includes Gallows Road south of U.S. 50, which means that the substantial amount of employment at and near INOVA Fairfax Hospital would be counted.
But more to the point, these places in Northern Virginia, in aggregate, have shorter commute times to work than most of the Maryland suburbs, including especially Prince George's County. Easy access to work (in other words, reliably short travel times) helps make a "sense of place."
Outside of metropolitan New York, long commute times as reported by ACS (which Montgomery County also suffers from) tends to stem directly from elected officials and activists chasing a chimera (in this case chasing an increase in transit patronage large enough to decongest the highway system, which is not likely to ever happen - not in Maryland and not in Colorado).
Returning to Denver, I do wonder where you think those employment centers along I-70 should go. Moving east of E-470 and Aurora (where there is plenty of vacant land) appears to be a non-starter because of the lack of water. I am sure that Safeway could find a place further out (they did in Prince George's County, moving their large warehouse operation from a transit-accessible location on Cabin Branch Drive (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B054'38.9%22N+76%C2%B054'14.7%22W/@38.910795,-76.9084527,1014m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.910795!4d-76.90407) to Leeland Road west of U.S. 301 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B051'38.8%22N+76%C2%B043'43.7%22W/@38.860768,-76.7375661,2029m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.860768!4d-76.728806) in Upper Marlboro, a place about 13 miles further out, with zero transit service, and were generously assisted in the move with Maryland state tax dollars, in spite of Glendening's claims about being in favor of transit and Smart Growth).
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 18, 2017, 06:39:17 PM
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/01/30/10-urban-freeways-that-need-to-come-down/
The same writer is promoting essentially the same thing for I-70 in Kansas City, Missouri.
Kansas City Will Take a Serious Look at Removing Downtown Highway (http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/02/17/kansas-city-will-take-a-serious-look-at-removing-downtown-highway-segment/)
QuoteRochester just wrapped up the conversion of part of its Inner Loop highway into a surface street, another highway removal is underway in New Haven, and freeway teardowns are in play in many other American cities.
QuoteNow you can add Kansas City to the list of places getting serious about removing a grade-separated highway to save money, improve walkability, and open up downtown land for development.
Toronto was considering tearing down the Gardiner Expressway back in 2015 but the city voted against it. The main argument is that the elevated expressway cuts the city's waterfront off from the rest of its downtown. But doesn't the massive rail yard/railroad tracks cutting through Toronto do the same thing? Here is an aerial just east of downtown Toronto... one is OK to demolish and one is not.
(https://i.imgur.com/2J65Qgb.jpg)
Some people want to remove 65 and 70 from downtown Indy. INDOT currently has 65 closed downtown for construction, traffic is now horrible downtown! i think that proves my point (of it being a bad idea) in this single instance.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 02, 2017, 08:30:51 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 01, 2017, 10:09:04 PMOn the other hand, when New Haven removed two blocks of the CT 34 freeway, they had developers lined up and on board in the planning stages, and the buildings that now stand on these parcels were already designed and ready to be built before any shovels went in the ground removing the freeway.
To be fair, the CT 34 freeway in that area was more of spur (or glorified on/off ramp) as opposed to a through-expressway (although such was originally planned way back when); so removing/downgrading it didn't translate into spilling traffic (including delivery vehicles) onto local streets.
This explains why the sign on I-95 mow says MLK. I was wondering about that.
I'd like to thank sparker for a deep post that spurs big picture thought and discussion. I'm mainly familiar with new urbanism via the crunchy-con version of it. See this link or the Frront Porch Republic.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/web-categories/new-urbanism/
I don't know much about it, but I know that I live too far from work. Is Putnam the BOWLING ALONE guy? I've been meaning to read that for years.
IMO, I think removing spurs can be good ideas, depending on where. through routes is insane. we didnt design our cities like europe.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 20, 2018, 01:12:08 PM
IMO, I think removing spurs can be good ideas, depending on where. through routes is insane. we didnt design our cities like europe.
Yeah it's one thing to tear down the I-375 spur in Detroit that is at the end of its useful life. While I-375 is reported to be 1.062 miles in length, only 0.3 miles of it is actually being converted to a surface street (it only will turn into a surface street south of Gratiot). In addition, MDOT is planing direct access from Gratiot onto I-375 hopefully making it easier to get onto the freeway. I can get behind the removal of I-375 because it just won't have that big of an impactful to traffic flow in the area... and anyone who claims it's going to lead to total gridlock downtown is blowing things way out of proportion.
On the other side, to all the urbanists who will claim victory when I-375 is torn down, you got to ask yourself how big a deal it really is. From a pedestrian standpoint i don't see how it will be much better.. you will go from having to cross a couple lanes of service drive traffic to crossing 8-10 lanes of boulevard. Short of being a drunk pedestrian wondering around aimlessly on I-375 it's really hard to get hit by through traffic traveling on I-375... that will no longer be the case if it's converted to a surface street.
If MDOT goes with this alternative for the I-75/I-375 interchange, it will make it a lot less likely for drivers on I-75 to make a wrong turn and end up on Gratiot (a nightmare scenario for any out of towners who thinks there is a 100% certainty that something bad will happen if they end up driving on Detroit's non-downtown surface streets).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crainsdetroit.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FI-375%2520alternative%2520interchange-01_i.jpg&hash=f518fe5be67c0506a3460cfabed74834268942e9)
I will say Gratiot/I-375 area is a little tricky for those not familiar with the area. Currently if you are traveling Gratiot away from downtown and don't take Brush Street to cut to the I-75 on-ramp off Madison, you are stuck traveling down Gratiot for quite a while past the freeway. Then you gotta backtrack and you may quickly find yourself lost in the pleasant side of Detroit. Or if you are traveling NB I-75 and don't take the right-side off ramp, you will end up on Gratiot (yes, you take the exit ramp to continue on I-75 whereas the straight "main" movement will take you to Gratiot).
Quote from: jon daly on July 20, 2018, 11:29:58 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 02, 2017, 08:30:51 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 01, 2017, 10:09:04 PMOn the other hand, when New Haven removed two blocks of the CT 34 freeway, they had developers lined up and on board in the planning stages, and the buildings that now stand on these parcels were already designed and ready to be built before any shovels went in the ground removing the freeway.
To be fair, the CT 34 freeway in that area was more of spur (or glorified on/off ramp) as opposed to a through-expressway (although such was originally planned way back when); so removing/downgrading it didn't translate into spilling traffic (including delivery vehicles) onto local streets.
This explains why the sign on I-95 mow says MLK. I was wondering about that.
I'd like to thank sparker for a deep post that spurs big picture thought and discussion. I'm mainly familiar with new urbanism via the crunchy-con version of it. See this link or the Frront Porch Republic.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/web-categories/new-urbanism/
I don't know much about it, but I know that I live too far from work. Is Putnam the BOWLING ALONE guy? I've been meaning to read that for years.
Thanks for the nice cite; much appreciated. Yes, Putnam
is "the Bowling Alone" guy; pretty much required reading in public policy classes for the last 30-odd years. Always found it based on reasonably accurate observations, although I have opined (in various papers rather than this forum) that it was short on context -- the shift in this country's labor patterns, including the shuttering of quite a few manufacturing facilities as well as the receding of unionized labor (these tend, in themselves, to function as something of a Venn diagram), resulting in dispersal of previously tight-knit working-class communities, some of whom bowled together in leagues, more often than not sponsored by employers or unions. My own dad was in one of those; the league, consisting of L.A. construction firms, contained both management and labor personnel. I don't know what happened to the league after he retired in 1977 (the bowling alley, in Glendale, CA, is long gone and replaced by a Disney complex); construction is one of those endeavors that, if the firm is on solid ground, tends to survive sociopolitical changes. But the fact remains that many of those leagues dissipated because the foundation for such did as well; underlying economic situations well beyond the control of the bowlers themselves -- individually or collectively -- largely caused the demise of that institution. Now, I realize that Putnam was simply using the league bowling situation as an allegory for general social malaise -- but, again, when
other similar situations are placed in context with regards to the myriad other contributing factors, both social and economic, losses such as the cited examples are largely unavoidable.
My dad, and (especially my mother's dad) belonged to fraternal orgainizations, but they weren't work related.
I joined one recently, but I haven't been active. I don't fraternize with co-workers outside the office.
A lot of this is because I'm in a specialized part of my industry and the opportunities within it aren't close to home. I used to live a mile from one job for almost a decade, but I got married, my wife had trouble selling her place so we moved there instead of staying at my place.
Where in not for the highways, I'd have had to suck it up and find something local. I'm not sure this would've been a bad thing, but I don't think I've figured out the answer to this question. I am getting to the point where we might be able to afford to move closer to work, so I can actually have a little more free time .