There isn't really too much criteria for this other than your personal opinion of the most pro and anti freeway states and/or cities. I'm not talking about the amount of freeways they have now but for pro freeway states and cities would be the ones building or advocating for the most new freeways and anti would be the ones rejecting and/or planning freeway removals. You can also factor in any freeway capacity expansions as well.
For the most anti freeway states, I'm putting my wagers on Oregon. I don't know enough about east coast states to know how pro-freeway they are. For the cities I'd say Portland(OR), San Francisco, and Vancouver.
I'd add Los Angeles to the list, but they seem to have a fair amount of expansion projects in the pipeline. Seattle is the same way with the SR-99 Tunnel.
For the most pro freeway states, I'd pick Utah, Washington, Arizona, Florida, Texas, and Oklahoma. Keep in mind, these are places I know am familiar with except for Washington. CalTrans seems to have a decent pro-freeway agenda at times though they could do better.
If you can compare all 50 states that is even better. These are just your own observations based on politics/attitudes towards new freeway projects. I know in Oklahoma it's almost underheard of for a freeway project to get canceled because of opposition. There was considerable opposition to the new EOC(future East Oklahoma City tollway) but it still went through.
For cities I'd say SLC, Houston, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Las Vegas, Tampa, and Central Valley cities in California. I'm generally referring to the entire metros.
I'm not sure about the most anti-freeway, but I can definitely say that North Carolina is pro-freeway and probably the most pro-Interstate in the nation, especially eastern NC. Hell, they gained 3 new future interstates (I-42, I-87, I-587) and a future extension of an existing one (I-795), all within a year.
Beat that, Texas! :bigass:
Quote from: webny99 on May 31, 2017, 09:12:02 AM
Another state with a unique situation is Iowa. I'm counting around 35 random freeway segments, but as far as long-distance corridors, they don't seem to be that excessive.
Iowa, as well as Wisconsin and other midwestern states to some extent, seems to be more focused on building 4-lane expressway sections where traffic doesn't have to stop. Because of this mentality, they haven't seen the need to make every corridor a full-fledged freeway.
Quote from: pianocello on May 31, 2017, 10:57:53 AM
Iowa, as well as Wisconsin and other midwestern states to some extent, seems to be more focused on building 4-lane expressway sections where traffic doesn't have to stop. Because of this mentality, they haven't seen the need to make every corridor a full-fledged freeway.
Utah follows a similar mentality as well. There are a few 4-lane or 6-lane expressways in the SLC area (like SR 154, 201, 85) but the plan is to turn them fully into freeways in the future when traffic volumes warrant it. In fact they've started replacing some of the busiest intersections on 154 with interchanges.
On the other hand, UDOT seems intent on building the West Davis freeway, despite strong opposition from NIMBYs and environmentalists. If it gets built, they better not do what they did with Legacy and put a strictly-enforced 55mph speed limit on it.
San Francisco is incredibly anti-freeway. The development of a freeway network was halted by the great "Freeway Revolt" in the 1950s. We also tore down the Embarcadero Freeway in the 1990s, the northern part of the Central Freeway in the 2000s, etc. I do have to admit, the former freeway spaces are really nice now, especially Hayes Valley and the waterfront. But getting across town to the GG Bridge is a constant exercise in frustration...
Washington (err, more precisely, WSDOT) is pro-freeway. In addition to numerous widening and interchange reconfiguration projects, there are several urban/suburban new-build freeway projects either in development or under construction, such as
- the 395 Spokane Freeway;
- the 167 Tacoma extension;
- the 509 southern extension; and
- the 99 Alaskan Way Tunnel
The freeway revolts started in the late 60s in Seattle. While the suburban freeways that were to enter Seattle were cut, the ones that steered clear of it, such as the 167, 16, 522 (east of the 405), 512 and 18 freeways, were all built (in some capacity). The last really huge project was the finishing of I-90 across Lake Washington in the early 90s. There was always some sort of bridge, but it was a really crappy, unsafe, substandard highway, unfit for an interstate designation. Not to mention that it hadn't yet connected to I-5 (the interchange with the 5 was built in the 60s, but sat unused for several decades -- the highway ended at Rainier Ave instead).
tl;dr -- while Seattle remains a relatively anti-freeway city, they are tolerant of improvements to infrastructure. The suburbs are straight-up pro-freeway.
Huntsville (and most of Alabama as well) seems to be rather pro-freeway. The city of Huntsville is looking to make most of Memorial Parkway a freeway, extend I-565 to the eastern city limits along US 72, and build the northern bypass as a freeway, along with constantly making noises about a southern bypass (that'll likely be a freeway). ALDOT is also building several new freeways in the Birmingham and Montgomery areas, with I-685 in Montgomery, and a couple of 3dis of I-22 in Birmingham. There have also been noises made about extending I-565 west to Decatur.
Pro: Texas, North Carolina, Arizona.
Con: San Francisco, Portland.
Washington State is somewhere in the middle. Yes, 99 tunnel, but that has less capacity than the viaduct it replaces. Yes, new 520 bridge is six lanes while the old was four lanes, but the new lanes are carpool and the old bridge was probably going to sink.
Quote from: kkt on May 31, 2017, 04:49:48 PM
Washington State is somewhere in the middle. Yes, 99 tunnel, but that has less capacity than the viaduct it replaces.
They could have
easily knocked down the vaiduct, filled in the Battery Street Tunnel, and called it a day. But they spent billions realigning the 99 with a tunnel, reconnected streets in South Lake Union, rebuilt entire stretches of roadway (99 south of the stadiums). Perhaps "pro-freeway" isn't the best term, but "anti freeway" certainly isn't correct either. Maybe "pro car"?
FWIW, the tunnel has less capacity than the viaduct because it doesn't serve downtown or Western Ave. That's a lot of who uses the present-day viaduct.
That's why I called them somewhere in the middle. But 99 is a heavily used through route and just knocking out the middle section would have caused serious traffic problems through the Seattle Center area. I mean even worse than it is anyway.
Within Arizona, Tucson is definitely anti-freeway. They only have two freeways and they always vote down road improvement bonds.
Interesting. I would have thought the lack of freeways in Tucson was due to negligence from the state government, not the local government.
Sort of like how Austin and San Antonio seem to get overlooked for mega project while TxDOT Dallas and Houston.
That'd actually be a good topic for a thread for states the neglect certain cities in favor of other ones within their state obviously. It would need to be worded better lol, but I do know of Texas that seems to do that.
So that isn't the case with Tucson? I really like Tucson for some reason. I'd like to see it have about a million people someday.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 31, 2017, 08:15:19 PM
Interesting. I would have thought the lack of freeways in Tucson was due to negligence from the state government, not the local government.
Sort of like how Austin and San Antonio seem to get overlooked for mega project while TxDOT Dallas and Houston.
That'd actually be a good topic for a thread for states the neglect certain cities in favor of other ones within their state obviously. It would need to be worded better lol, but I do know of Texas that seems to do that.
So that isn't the case with Tucson? I really like Tucson for some reason. I'd like to see it have about a million people someday.
Austin has always struck me as a bit schizophrenic when it comes to freeways and the building/expansion of such. They seem to put up a stink whenever something close to downtown (such as I-35 or the MoPac) is slated for enhancement -- but they seem to tolerate the toll facilities that have sprung up south and east of town (and out of the city's jurisdiction) -- at least to the point of not putting up much of a fight when these things (45, 130, Toll 183, etc.) are in the planning stages. Perhaps they're considering a particular aspect of academic urban transportation curricula seriously -- particularly the notion of making the driver bear the
full/real cost (actual and social) of automotive use -- which is more easily accomplished via a user-fee (read toll) system than a diffused fuel or other resource tax base.
Maybe this localized set of preferences goes at least partway to explaining why I-14 avoids Austin metro (besides the existence of the 25-mile existing freeway west of I-35) -- no red-blooded Texas road planner would realistically deploy a new Interstate through an area that would likely raise objections to its existence in their backyard. If an Austin-Houston Interstate-grade corridor does eventually materialize, it'll be interesting to see just how it ties in with the extant composite free/toll Austin network!
Don't be so sure about Florida being so pro-freeway, especially in the Tampa Bay Metro Area. The upgrade of Gandy Boulevard was stalled for decades before FDOT 7 finally decided to get off their asses and build the thing at least between I-275 and SR 697. They cancelled the proposal to extend the Veterans Expressway east of Dale Mabry Highway, and like many other NIMBYists, they think they've saved their communities from traffic jams and suburban sprawl. They didn't. SR 56 is still incomplete, Pasco CR 524 is still incomplete, the Suncoast Parkway is still incomplete, the proposed interchange for SR 54 and US 41 sucks balls, because it forces the same problems that people on SR 54 west of US 41 have now onto people who will drive on the proposed eastbound on-ramp and westbound off-ramp.
As for Tucson, they continuously vote down every road bond that would help build new freeways and improve existing freeways.
CT is the poster child of Freewayphobia. Generations come and go while every project is bogged down by EIS after EIS and NIMBY's rule the roost. CT 11, US 7 between Norwalk and Danbury, I-84 to Providence. All have either died or have essentially been slowed to the point of not even being a consideration. The only freeway portion to open since the turn of the century was the Brookfield Bypass portion of US 7. Otherwise, other than short links being completed in the late 80's and early 90's (I-691 west of Exit 4, I-384 to I-84, CT 9 stretches in East Berlin and Farmington, and I-291 from South Windsor to Manchester), the system has pretty much remained the same for the last 30 years.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 12, 2017, 12:59:58 AM
CT is the poster child of Freewayphobia. Generations come and go while every project is bogged down by EIS after EIS and NIMBY's rule the roost. CT 11, US 7 between Norwalk and Danbury, I-84 to Providence. All have either died or have essentially been slowed to the point of not even being a consideration. The only freeway portion to open since the turn of the century was the Brookfield Bypass portion of US 7. Otherwise, other than short links being completed in the late 80's and early 90's (I-691 west of Exit 4, I-384 to I-84, CT 9 stretches in East Berlin and Farmington, and I-291 from South Windsor to Manchester), the system has pretty much remained the same for the last 30 years.
It would be interesting to do a chart of miles of new freeway completed by year. Sudden spikes in 1938-41, a lull during wartime, then really taking off between 1958 and about 1971.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 31, 2017, 05:12:44 AM
For the most anti freeway states, I'm putting my wagers on Oregon. I don't know enough about east coast states to know how pro-freeway they are. For the cities I'd say Portland(OR), San Francisco, and Vancouver.
I could think of some eastern cities that are anti-freeway: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Washington, DC.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 31, 2017, 08:15:19 PM
Interesting. I would have thought the lack of freeways in Tucson was due to negligence from the state government, not the local government.
Sort of like how Austin and San Antonio seem to get overlooked for mega project while TxDOT Dallas and Houston.
That'd actually be a good topic for a thread for states the neglect certain cities in favor of other ones within their state obviously. It would need to be worded better lol, but I do know of Texas that seems to do that.
So that isn't the case with Tucson? I really like Tucson for some reason. I'd like to see it have about a million people someday.
having a million people in Tucson would be a problem if the water issues continue with Lake Mead.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on July 12, 2017, 12:50:17 AM
As for Tucson, they continuously vote down every road bond that would help build new freeways and improve existing freeways.
Is traffic flow in Tucson deteriorating? Or is just poor, but not getting worse? I feel like Tucson is playing it smart by not building freeways like Phoenix, instead opting for high-capacity arterial roads. This will become advantageous in the future, as these wide roads will have space to implement BRT lanes, and median width to support elevated metro lines (if that ever becomes necessary).
I think that the Chicago area is pretty anti-freeway. Look at the BS with the IL 53 extension, the Prairie Parkway, the Illiana, and of course, the crosstown
Quote from: inkyatari on July 12, 2017, 05:17:37 PM
I think that the Chicago area is pretty anti-freeway. Look at the BS with the IL 53 extension, the Prairie Parkway, the Illiana, and of course, the crosstown
I thought it was impressive Blago got the I-355 Will County extension thru!
But not just those, the Fox Valley/Fox River Expressway, too, from Plainfield to McHenry (and eventually Richmond and to meet the US 12 Freeway in Genoa City, WI) -- basically, the Prairie Parkway before the Prairie Parkway, or upgrading the Rt 59 and/or Randall Rd Corridor to Freeway
I would like to have seen the "Next" Leg of the I-355 Extension down to I-57, and possibly I-65, but that one never got very far off the planning stages, due to development in New Lenox that was already built up south of I-80 by the time the current South Extension opened -- no room to go further South. This route would have made more sense than the "current" Illiana idea, IMHO
On the plus side for Chicago Freeways, the aforementioned 355 Will County Extension got built, and the EOE is being built to where it will actually reach O'Hare! Now it will only be half-named wrong. The old Elgin O'Hare Expressway/Now IL 390, that went to neither Elgin nor O'Hare :P. And of course the O'Hare Western Bypass is being built, too
Quote from: jakeroot on July 12, 2017, 02:36:38 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on July 12, 2017, 12:50:17 AM
As for Tucson, they continuously vote down every road bond that would help build new freeways and improve existing freeways.
Is traffic flow in Tucson deteriorating? Or is just poor, but not getting worse? I feel like Tucson is playing it smart by not building freeways like Phoenix, instead opting for high-capacity arterial roads. This will become advantageous in the future, as these wide roads will have space to implement BRT lanes, and median width to support elevated metro lines (if that ever becomes necessary).
I honestly think it's getting better. I remember 15 years ago when rush hour traffic on the north side was horrendous, but the network of arterial roads has been built up nicely since then.
I drove for Uber for a few weeks, and picked up a lot of fares from the airport. I was generally impressed at how the roads tie the airport into pretty much every part of town, despite very few actual freeways.
Quote from: catsynth on May 31, 2017, 12:26:24 PM
San Francisco is incredibly anti-freeway. The development of a freeway network was halted by the great "Freeway Revolt" in the 1950s. We also tore down the Embarcadero Freeway in the 1990s, the northern part of the Central Freeway in the 2000s, etc. I do have to admit, the former freeway spaces are really nice now, especially Hayes Valley and the waterfront. But getting across town to the GG Bridge is a constant exercise in frustration...
I remember there was a map that showed that I-80 was also supposed to reach the Castro district at one point though but that was cancelled.
Quote from: bing101 on July 12, 2017, 11:21:01 PM
Quote from: catsynth on May 31, 2017, 12:26:24 PM
San Francisco is incredibly anti-freeway. The development of a freeway network was halted by the great "Freeway Revolt" in the 1950s. We also tore down the Embarcadero Freeway in the 1990s, the northern part of the Central Freeway in the 2000s, etc. I do have to admit, the former freeway spaces are really nice now, especially Hayes Valley and the waterfront. But getting across town to the GG Bridge is a constant exercise in frustration...
I remember there was a map that showed that I-80 was also supposed to reach the Castro district at one point though but that was cancelled.
A bunch more freeways in S.F. were planned. Embarcadero Freeway stretching all around the waterfront to the Golden Gate Bridge, a N-S freeway parallel to 19th Ave. and Park-Presidio Blvd., I-80 extending was along the south edge of Golden Gate Park to meet the Park-Presidio Blvd. freeway (I-80 mile numbers count from there), more other places. All shot down. The only new freeway that was finished since the late 1950s is I-280.
Quote from: roadiejay on July 12, 2017, 11:03:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 12, 2017, 02:36:38 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on July 12, 2017, 12:50:17 AM
As for Tucson, they continuously vote down every road bond that would help build new freeways and improve existing freeways.
Is traffic flow in Tucson deteriorating? Or is just poor, but not getting worse? I feel like Tucson is playing it smart by not building freeways like Phoenix, instead opting for high-capacity arterial roads. This will become advantageous in the future, as these wide roads will have space to implement BRT lanes, and median width to support elevated metro lines (if that ever becomes necessary).
I honestly think it's getting better. I remember 15 years ago when rush hour traffic on the north side was horrendous, but the network of arterial roads has been built up nicely since then.
I drove for Uber for a few weeks, and picked up a lot of fares from the airport. I was generally impressed at how the roads tie the airport into pretty much every part of town, despite very few actual freeways.
This is hardly scientific, but here's a map of typical traffic in Tucson vs Phoenix at 7:45 AM. Seems like Tucson's doing pretty good! It's nowhere near the size of Phoenix, of course. But that's kind of the point. There's very little reason for freeways. Things are just fine....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQ1E6P9Y.png&hash=f7456e65f78171d7dfff9dd2ea747451f6fee40e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUdFZPXu.png&hash=0f7ed48552736e11a13c5b14a504dc2b93c4523d)
Odd thing about the map. Google's "typical traffic" meter only goes back to 0600. Rush hour here in Seattle starts around 5!
san fran only needed what they built, plus filling the gap on us 101.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 13, 2017, 03:16:23 PM
Quote from: roadiejay on July 12, 2017, 11:03:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 12, 2017, 02:36:38 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on July 12, 2017, 12:50:17 AM
As for Tucson, they continuously vote down every road bond that would help build new freeways and improve existing freeways.
Is traffic flow in Tucson deteriorating? Or is just poor, but not getting worse? I feel like Tucson is playing it smart by not building freeways like Phoenix, instead opting for high-capacity arterial roads. This will become advantageous in the future, as these wide roads will have space to implement BRT lanes, and median width to support elevated metro lines (if that ever becomes necessary).
I honestly think it's getting better. I remember 15 years ago when rush hour traffic on the north side was horrendous, but the network of arterial roads has been built up nicely since then.
I drove for Uber for a few weeks, and picked up a lot of fares from the airport. I was generally impressed at how the roads tie the airport into pretty much every part of town, despite very few actual freeways.
This is hardly scientific, but here's a map of typical traffic in Tucson vs Phoenix at 7:45 AM. Seems like Tucson's doing pretty good! It's nowhere near the size of Phoenix, of course. But that's kind of the point. There's very little reason for freeways. Things are just fine....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQ1E6P9Y.png&hash=f7456e65f78171d7dfff9dd2ea747451f6fee40e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUdFZPXu.png&hash=0f7ed48552736e11a13c5b14a504dc2b93c4523d)
Odd thing about the map. Google's "typical traffic" meter only goes back to 0600. Rush hour here in Seattle starts around 5!
The 7:45 AM Tucson map looks better than if it was on a Sunday morning here.
I wonder how was the Red Mountain Freeway in Mesa before widening. There had to be a reason why ADOT prioritized it over the SanTan Freeway even though the map shows the Red Mountain in Mesa free-flowing at 7:45 AM.
Quote from: kkt on July 13, 2017, 05:59:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 13, 2017, 03:16:23 PM
This is hardly scientific, but here's a map of typical traffic in Tucson vs Phoenix at 7:45 AM. Seems like Tucson's doing pretty good! It's nowhere near the size of Phoenix, of course. But that's kind of the point. There's very little reason for freeways. Things are just fine....
http://i.imgur.com/Q1E6P9Y.png
Odd thing about the map. Google's "typical traffic" meter only goes back to 0600. Rush hour here in Seattle starts around 5!
The 7:45 AM Tucson map looks better than if it was on a Sunday morning here.
Not morning, but still...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTn6HV7D.png&hash=bc5c86847b3489e652723cff7f4ebf395e65dd3d)
Well, here's the Hartford Traffic on a Tuesday at 7:40 am
(https://i.imgur.com/1jiDD04.png)
Quote from: inkyatari on July 12, 2017, 05:17:37 PM
I think that the Chicago area is pretty anti-freeway. Look at the BS with the IL 53 extension, the Prairie Parkway, the Illiana, and of course, the crosstown
I would lean towards Chicagoland being a mixed bag - but anymore slightly anti-freeway. There are the numerous cancellations and/or dormant routes such as - and some have been mentioned before:
* I-494/Crosstown
* Extensions of Lake Shore Drive to the north and south
* South Suburban Expressway (I-355 southeast of I-80)
* Illiana Expressway (combination of a successful court challenge and change in governor, may be in the dormant category)
* Fox Valley Freeway
* Prairie Parkway (killed by a court challenge, possibly dormant?)
* US 41 freeway upgrades in Lake County
* IL 137/Amstutz Expressway extensions
* IL 53 in Lake County (trying to come back to life)
* IL 120 in Lake County (may be built as an arterial)
* Elgin O'Hare west to the Elgin Bypass (if built, will most likely be an arterial)
* Expressway for the IL 64/North Avenue corridor
* Evanston - Harvard Freeway
* Completion of the Palatine Road upgrades
The current upgrades on the tollways are what in my opinion keeps Chicagoland from being completely anti-freeway
Quote from: jakeroot on July 13, 2017, 03:16:23 PM
Quote from: roadiejay on July 12, 2017, 11:03:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 12, 2017, 02:36:38 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on July 12, 2017, 12:50:17 AM
As for Tucson, they continuously vote down every road bond that would help build new freeways and improve existing freeways.
Is traffic flow in Tucson deteriorating? Or is just poor, but not getting worse? I feel like Tucson is playing it smart by not building freeways like Phoenix, instead opting for high-capacity arterial roads. This will become advantageous in the future, as these wide roads will have space to implement BRT lanes, and median width to support elevated metro lines (if that ever becomes necessary).
I honestly think it's getting better. I remember 15 years ago when rush hour traffic on the north side was horrendous, but the network of arterial roads has been built up nicely since then.
I drove for Uber for a few weeks, and picked up a lot of fares from the airport. I was generally impressed at how the roads tie the airport into pretty much every part of town, despite very few actual freeways.
This is hardly scientific, but here's a map of typical traffic in Tucson vs Phoenix at 7:45 AM. Seems like Tucson's doing pretty good! It's nowhere near the size of Phoenix, of course. But that's kind of the point. There's very little reason for freeways. Things are just fine....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQ1E6P9Y.png&hash=f7456e65f78171d7dfff9dd2ea747451f6fee40e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUdFZPXu.png&hash=0f7ed48552736e11a13c5b14a504dc2b93c4523d)
Odd thing about the map. Google's "typical traffic" meter only goes back to 0600. Rush hour here in Seattle starts around 5!
Well, Google's pretty smart. So I'll allow its corroboration of my personal observations. ;)
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 12, 2017, 12:16:32 AM
Don't be so sure about Florida being so pro-freeway, especially in the Tampa Bay Metro Area. The upgrade of Gandy Boulevard was stalled for decades before FDOT 7 finally decided to get off their asses and build the thing at least between I-275 and SR 697. They cancelled the proposal to extend the Veterans Expressway east of Dale Mabry Highway, and like many other NIMBYists, they think they've saved their communities from traffic jams and suburban sprawl. They didn't. SR 56 is still incomplete, Pasco CR 524 is still incomplete, the Suncoast Parkway is still incomplete, the proposed interchange for SR 54 and US 41 sucks balls, because it forces the same problems that people on SR 54 west of US 41 have now onto people who will drive on the proposed eastbound on-ramp and westbound off-ramp.
Orlando killed the Central Expressway that would have linked the East-West and the Beachline (which would have lightened the load on Semoran Blvd) and they dragged out the final piece of the toll beltway around Orlando for 10 years, they're just now getting up to speed on the Wekiva Parkway section.
South Pasadena and Pasadena over the CA-710 gap that was supposed connect to I-710 in Los Angeles county. They are probably one of a few areas in Southern California that's anti-freeway
Plus the Beverly Hills Freeway CA-2 and that's because certain businesses and residents from Echo Park to Beverly Hills were against the move due to income reasons of the opposition.
These are example of anti-freeway sections of Los Angeles county.
The CA-170 extension from the CA-134 to sections of Western Los Angeles county was going to have the La Cinega Blvd become a freeway to I-105 possibly to I-405 as a bypass. I saw articles about this one time though.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-aa2-snapshot-failed-freeways-20141029-story.html
woah, they were seriously going to build an interstate straight through the heart of downtown? that's crazy! that's the only piece that shouldn't have been built
Quote from: DeaconG on July 14, 2017, 11:46:52 PM
Orlando killed the Central Expressway that would have linked the East-West and the Beachline (which would have lightened the load on Semoran Blvd)...
Any chance that road would've also linked the Orlando International Airport with the Orlando Executive Airport?
I recently stumbled upon this stupid anti-highway blog by some young lady from Los Angeles:
https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/5/16854828/los-angeles-freeways-pollution-solution
I like this one reply by Hans Laetz;
https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/5/16854828/los-angeles-freeways-pollution-solution#460088219
Quote"There's stupid, industrial grade stupid, and breathtaking stupid.
This transcends all.
I guess all those trucks using the freeways can be replaced by pollution-free Uber skateboards?"
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 29, 2018, 02:45:30 PM
I recently stumbled upon this stupid anti-highway blog by some young lady from Los Angeles:
https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/5/16854828/los-angeles-freeways-pollution-solution
I like this one reply by Hans Laetz;
https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/5/16854828/los-angeles-freeways-pollution-solution#460088219
Quote"There's stupid, industrial grade stupid, and breathtaking stupid.
This transcends all.
I guess all those trucks using the freeways can be replaced by pollution-free Uber skateboards?"
This same lady probably complains about gridlock on a daily basis. Hypocrite.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 29, 2018, 02:45:30 PM
I recently stumbled upon this stupid anti-highway blog by some young lady from Los Angeles:
https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/5/16854828/los-angeles-freeways-pollution-solution
I like this one reply by Hans Laetz;
https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/5/16854828/los-angeles-freeways-pollution-solution#460088219
Quote"There's stupid, industrial grade stupid, and breathtaking stupid.
This transcends all.
I guess all those trucks using the freeways can be replaced by pollution-free Uber skateboards?"
Sounds similar to one we have in Portland except its an activist group. Thread for it in Northwest: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21158.0
Link to group: https://nomorefreewayspdx.com/
Obviously, my vote has to be Portland. The recent transportation Oregon passed had 4 Portland area projects:
Interstate 205 widening to 6 lanes between MP 3-9 (its a rural area)
Interstate 5 Rose Quarter Project added an auxiliary lane (If it goes through). While I don't think the project goes far enough, I'm not against building it like the activist group is.
Interstate 205 extra auxiliary lane between MP 19-21
OR 217 extra auxiliary lane
southbound MP 2-6
Nortbound MP 4.5-6
All of these (except I-205) aren't capacity increase which is what we badly need OR express lanes projects. Instead, ODOT has Option 1 as tolling our busiest freeways (I-5/I-205) on ALL lanes to reduce congestion.
We also have freeway revolts galore here and whenever a new project comes up, it is almost guaranteed to be shut down by these activists.
Then again, ODOT is anti-roadway in my opinion except where there is no other option.
San Fran seems straight up anti-car. The city approved a plan to ban private cars, including Uber and Lyft, on busy Market Street.
Plan approved to ban private cars on San Francisco's busy Market Street
http://abc7news.com/traffic/plan-approved-to-ban-private-cars-on-sfs-busy-market-street/2268956/
Toronto was pretty anti-freeway...
The Spadina Expressway was only halfway built.
The Richview Expy, the 400 extension, Crosstown Expy, Scarborough Expy, and the East Metro Expy. were never built.
This is why Toronto has some large interchanges that seem unnecessary, because those interchanges were meant to connect to one of these cancelled freeways.
This was supposed to connect to Richview Expy:
(https://i.imgur.com/aiAclZv.png)
This stub of Highway 2A was supposed to connect to the Scarborough Expy:
(https://i.imgur.com/s01YlG7.png)
And these were cancelled:
(https://i.imgur.com/5UdovrD.png)
There's even a Wikipedia article dedicated to cancelled expressways in Toronto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancelled_expressways_in_Toronto
San Francisco Proper has to be the most Anti-freeway city in the country. plus population density is a factor here.
Dang San Francisco has the same number of 3 freeways as Vallejo, CA a nearby city though. Except Vallejo is only 1/8 the population size of San Francisco but and area is the same.
I-80, US-101 and I-280 (San Francisco)
I-80, I-780 and CA-37 Vallejo.
But in the case of San Francisco gentrification debates are also a factor here.
Quote from: tradephoric on January 29, 2018, 04:38:03 PM
San Fran seems straight up anti-car. The city approved a plan to ban private cars, including Uber and Lyft, on busy Market Street.
Plan approved to ban private cars on San Francisco's busy Market Street
http://abc7news.com/traffic/plan-approved-to-ban-private-cars-on-sfs-busy-market-street/2268956/
I don't think that's completely unprecedented. In Seattle, Vancouver (BC), and Portland, it's very common for roads to lose GP lanes in favor of bus or bike lanes. This could be viewed as anti-car. But the ideology is more pro-high-quality transit.
Seattle's 3rd Ave, the other main artery through Seattle that carries both north- and south-bound traffic besides 1st Ave, is basically bus-only during rush hour. Cars can use it for one-block at a time, to allow business access and provide Uber/Lyft/Taxi/Limo with drop-off points, but cars are still technically allowed to use it 24/7. With the Washington State Convention Center bus terminal going under construction in 2019, almost 600 more buses than usual will be using 3rd (more than 2500 use it today). The idea of a 24/7 ban on all traffic along 3rd is being considered, which would make 3rd bus-only. Discussions to ban traffic from Pike Place (upon which the market is located) have taken place, I believe, but have not yet come to fruition.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 29, 2018, 02:58:32 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 29, 2018, 02:45:30 PM
I recently stumbled upon this stupid anti-highway blog by some young lady from Los Angeles:
https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/5/16854828/los-angeles-freeways-pollution-solution
I like this one reply by Hans Laetz;
https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/5/16854828/los-angeles-freeways-pollution-solution#460088219
Quote"There's stupid, industrial grade stupid, and breathtaking stupid.
This transcends all.
I guess all those trucks using the freeways can be replaced by pollution-free Uber skateboards?"
This same lady probably complains about gridlock on a daily basis. Hypocrite.
Look -- there will always be a smattering of just-out-of-college urban dwellers who haven't yet gained enough experience with life, the surroundings in which they exist (and not just the immediate), the realities of existence in a quasi-market-based economy, and the fact that what they learned in HS civics class about how a bill becomes a law is merely an exercise in naivete'. If they haven't acquired a car yet (and haven't gone whining to Daddy about that situation), it's because they've self-selected into a particular mindset that begins thought processes with the phrase "We should......" or, at least as common "They should....."; these tend to start with an idealized situation and work backwards. They're living a relatively cloistered life defined by self-bounded rationalities -- and they view that lifestyle as universally "transportable" and applicable to the citizenry in general. They see facilities and means that promote mobility and broad choice of living situation as irrelevant and often disruptive to their routines (like having to share the streets with cars & trucks). And if they were journalism or English majors in college, they're certainly capable of sharing their views -- and do, with an eye toward the prize but lacking one for real research. Part of that I have to blame on my own early-baby-boomer generation -- particularly the ones who never ventured outside academia and are now the professors recycling the fervor of their own youth -- and who have foisted this ideology-over-reality idiom onto a new batch of wide-eyed believers.
I see the advent of less-and-non polluting cars hasn't fazed these folks much; now they're latching onto brake dust and other particle shedding as a sign that automotive travel is intrinsically poisonous (obviously they've never stepped in horse shit on the streets!). Add that to the endless citations about tearing down the Embarcadero Freeway in SF and the spurs in Milwaukee et. al. and how it didn't significantly affect the whole area -- again, lack of research -- and, more telling,
lack of context!!!. But context is the mortal enemy of ideology, so don't expect to see it pop up in op-ed pieces! In part, I blame Amazon and Ebay for much of the lack of interest in commercial reality -- all a person, including these ideologically-driven young folks, need to do is click on "enter" and miraculously something they want shows up at their apartment or condo doorstep (unless they have larcenous neighbors!). They see the feared and despised cars and trucks criss-crossing their neighborhoods, but they don't seem to comprehend that much of that traffic is for their particular benefit -- how would they get that package of assorted jams & nut butters except for the fact that before it was in their hands it was a
shipment aboard a truck or other delivery vehicle.
Oh well -- maybe Ms. Walker, in reading the more literate disagreeing replies to her article, might just have some second thoughts (an epiphany would likely be too much for which to ask) -- or at least, if she's intelligent (she
does write better than most screed authors), she can take the responses seriously and endeavor to do a bit more digging before coming to the ludicrous conclusions she elucidated.
Quote from: bing101 on January 29, 2018, 05:18:26 PM
San Francisco Proper has to be the most Anti-freeway city in the country. plus population density is a factor here.
Dang San Francisco has the same number of 3 freeways as Vallejo, CA a nearby city though. Except Vallejo is only 1/8 the population size of San Francisco but and area is the same.
I-80, US-101 and I-280 (San Francisco)
I-80, I-780 and CA-37 Vallejo.
But in the case of San Francisco gentrification debates are also a factor here.
Sure, but SF has a number of other ways to get around besides freeways...
I wouldn't say Detroit is anti-freeway, but the city closed down a block of Woodward Avenue between Jefferson and Larned in June 2017 for the Spirit of Detroit pedestrian plaza. It was originally meant to be a 90-day pilot program but it's now staying till at least April 2018. It sounds like the city's planning department wants to make the plaza permanent while city counsel is fighting it. Also, MDOT just recently approved plans to rip out I-375 and convert it to a Michigan style boulevard. Of course MDOT is also in the process of modernizing I-94 and widening I-75 through Oakland County so the freeways aren't going anywhere.
Quote from: tradephoric on January 29, 2018, 04:38:03 PM
San Fran seems straight up anti-car. The city approved a plan to ban private cars, including Uber and Lyft, on busy Market Street.
Plan approved to ban private cars on San Francisco's busy Market Street
http://abc7news.com/traffic/plan-approved-to-ban-private-cars-on-sfs-busy-market-street/2268956/
that road gets pretty bad traffic wise. the original freeway plan for SF was crazy. they should have just built a freeway for us 101, ca 1, and have i-80 terminate at us 101, 280 east of 101 should go away too.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 31, 2017, 07:48:41 PM
Within Arizona, Tucson is definitely anti-freeway. They only have two freeways and they always vote down road improvement bonds.
do you know what's going on with 44th st near the airport in pheonix? It looks like they tried to build a SPUI, then gave up. was this supposed to be a freeway?
The most pro freeway city/Metro area is Houston. 15 freeways in the city area with 12 active expansion and/or extension projects going on.
Quote from: Perfxion on January 30, 2018, 08:18:39 AM
The most pro freeway city/Metro area is Houston. 15 freeways in the city area with 12 active expansion and/or extension projects going on.
Disagree. You had a lot of pushback against 99 in Spring and Cypress, and 225 was canceled inside the loop. The plans to remove the Pierce are popular inside the loop, even if people in the northern suburbs eye them suspiciously. It's not the '60s-'80s anymore.
Quote from: Perfxion on January 30, 2018, 08:18:39 AM
The most pro freeway city/Metro area is Houston. 15 freeways in the city area with 12 active expansion and/or extension projects going on.
Forever under construction. My cousin lived in Houston for five years. He appreciated the vast network, but not the constant orange cones.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 30, 2018, 01:16:11 PM
Quote from: Perfxion on January 30, 2018, 08:18:39 AM
The most pro freeway city/Metro area is Houston. 15 freeways in the city area with 12 active expansion and/or extension projects going on.
Forever under construction. My cousin lived in Houston for five years. He appreciated the vast network, but not the constant orange cones.
Periodic reminder that Sun Belt "cities" are often really just megacounties in disguise, to include rural/undeveloped areas:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.585077,-95.4921538,3a,60y,239.79h,82.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCtBuXwftIRmdT4Q_VZ1l2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 29, 2018, 11:30:37 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on January 29, 2018, 04:38:03 PM
San Fran seems straight up anti-car. The city approved a plan to ban private cars, including Uber and Lyft, on busy Market Street.
Plan approved to ban private cars on San Francisco's busy Market Street
http://abc7news.com/traffic/plan-approved-to-ban-private-cars-on-sfs-busy-market-street/2268956/
that road gets pretty bad traffic wise. the original freeway plan for SF was crazy. they should have just built a freeway for us 101, ca 1, and have i-80 terminate at us 101, 280 east of 101 should go away too.
Looking at the map, I found it amazing that they basically have paralleled freeways, US-101 and I-280. I-280 north of the 101/280 interchange is basically a commuter spur, that you probably don't even really need. Just convert this stretch of I-280 into a surface boulveard (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/37.7352996,-122.4064462/4th+St+%26+King+St/@37.7559764,-122.4070204,14z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x808f7fd6c1fec7e5:0xd8bc412643fbe0c7!2m2!1d-122.3937049!2d37.7760608!3e0).
Then co-route 280 with 101, and you still have a freeway connection through the city without the needless second freeway right next door.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 29, 2018, 02:45:30 PM
I recently stumbled upon this stupid anti-highway blog by some young lady from Los Angeles:
https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/5/16854828/los-angeles-freeways-pollution-solution
I like this one reply by Hans Laetz;
https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/5/16854828/los-angeles-freeways-pollution-solution#460088219
Quote"There's stupid, industrial grade stupid, and breathtaking stupid.
This transcends all.
I guess all those trucks using the freeways can be replaced by pollution-free Uber skateboards?"
Wow its amazing that certain sections of Los Angeles are anti-freeway though. I tend to view the Los Angeles Area as the most pro-freeway city in the nation until there were stories about a Beverly Hills Freeway, the La Cinega Freeway, the 710 gap diffuse that idea that Los Angeles is Pro-Freeway.
LA should have at least built CA 90 and I-710.
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 30, 2018, 05:10:26 PM
LA should have at least built CA 90 and I-710.
After the 1992 riots, the CA 90 corridor -- with a precise route never adopted -- became a functionally dead issue (it would run E-W close to Slauson, near the center of the rioting; that street is only 3 1/2 -4 miles north of the I-105 alignment in any case). Probably not a good idea -- both in political and pure expenditure terms -- to plan or execute new freeways south of downtown. And the I-710 situation has been amply covered in other threads.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 30, 2018, 01:27:23 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 29, 2018, 11:30:37 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on January 29, 2018, 04:38:03 PM
San Fran seems straight up anti-car. The city approved a plan to ban private cars, including Uber and Lyft, on busy Market Street.
Plan approved to ban private cars on San Francisco's busy Market Street
http://abc7news.com/traffic/plan-approved-to-ban-private-cars-on-sfs-busy-market-street/2268956/
that road gets pretty bad traffic wise. the original freeway plan for SF was crazy. they should have just built a freeway for us 101, ca 1, and have i-80 terminate at us 101, 280 east of 101 should go away too.
Looking at the map, I found it amazing that they basically have paralleled freeways, US-101 and I-280. I-280 north of the 101/280 interchange is basically a commuter spur, that you probably don't even really need. Just convert this stretch of I-280 into a surface boulveard (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/37.7352996,-122.4064462/4th+St+%26+King+St/@37.7559764,-122.4070204,14z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x808f7fd6c1fec7e5:0xd8bc412643fbe0c7!2m2!1d-122.3937049!2d37.7760608!3e0).
Then co-route 280 with 101, and you still have a freeway connection through the city without the needless second freeway right next door.
But Wait I-280 was originally going to connect with CA-480 prior to 1989 but that fell apart though. It was going to get CA-480 to Doyle Drive aka Presidio Parkway as the original intent.
i'd also realign the us 101 stub to tie directly into van ness ave.
I been lurking in this forum long enough that I finally felt like I like to chime in...
Quote from: bing101 on January 29, 2018, 05:18:26 PM
San Francisco Proper has to be the most Anti-freeway city in the country. plus population density is a factor here.
Dang San Francisco has the same number of 3 freeways as Vallejo, CA a nearby city though. Except Vallejo is only 1/8 the population size of San Francisco but and area is the same.
I-80, US-101 and I-280 (San Francisco)
I-80, I-780 and CA-37 Vallejo.
But in the case of San Francisco gentrification debates are also a factor here.
SF is incredibly dense for its population. Jacksonville, FL has a slightly larger population but is 875 square miles large, compared to almost 49 for SF! So far less space for freeways, and likely none for new tunnels because many tunnels are already in use by the 5 streetcar routes that have been around for over a century!
I agree that the city I live in hates freeways. Sometimes I can get by that, sometimes not. I happen to live close to I-280 in the south part of the city, so I can go south easily, I can go east and northeast relatively easily. But to go west or past the Golden Gate Bridge? I need half an hour to go through Monterey Blvd, Sloat Blvd, 19th Ave and Park Presidio Blvd. There aren't really any good solutions to this though. Maybe a speed limit increase from 30 MPH to 35 MPH would help on 19th Avenue, traffic generally goes from 35-40 anyway. But faster traffic and higher capacity means non-existent street parking. It's already non-existent in most of the city but I live in an area where street parking isn't a matter of fitting my car into tight spaces or having to extend pass the curb cut. I'm too young to talk about the political implications of all this but I'm convinced the city need to improve its mass transit options, and I'll take what I can get!
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 30, 2018, 01:27:23 PM
Looking at the map, I found it amazing that they basically have paralleled freeways, US-101 and I-280. I-280 north of the 101/280 interchange is basically a commuter spur, that you probably don't even really need. Just convert this stretch of I-280 into a surface boulveard (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/37.7352996,-122.4064462/4th+St+%26+King+St/@37.7559764,-122.4070204,14z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x808f7fd6c1fec7e5:0xd8bc412643fbe0c7!2m2!1d-122.3937049!2d37.7760608!3e0).
Then co-route 280 with 101, and you still have a freeway connection through the city without the needless second freeway right next door.
It's not needless if it has 6-8 additional parallel lanes to and from downtown SF and a speed limit of 65 MPH. There are plenty of arterials to get from one end of the city to the other, but very few have speed limits of 45 MPH (San Jose Avenue aka the "Mission Freeway" portion, Veterans Blvd right before the Golden Gate Bridge on CA-1, Skyline Blvd on CA-35, that's all I can think of!). If I need to get to downtown SF, I'll just take BART. Yeah I drive a lot in the Bay Area but I avoid SF streets so I'm weird that way
One of the "unwritten agreements" in SF post the original 1965-era "freeway revolt" was that a "freeway boundary" was made consisting of the Alemany (now the E-W portion of I-280 across the south side of town) freeway, the northern section of the Lick/US 101 freeway between the I-280 and I-80 junctions, and I-80 itself. Of course, the Embarcadero and Central "stubs" remained within the "out of bounds" area; the former, of course, was downgraded from I-480 to CA 480 back in '65, eventually falling victim to the 1989 earthquake (although teardown plans were in place for some time previous to that but never acted upon), and the US 101 stub was truncated (again with the assistance of the aforementioned quake), with the present stub kept in place as an accessway to the Civic Center, with the remainder "boulevardized" or simply developed over. However, despite pressure from some quarters to cut back I-280 east of US 101, it's found a second life as access to the baseball stadium (and may get even more use if the Giants start winning again!). The tensions within SF politics regarding neighborhood privileges versus citywide needs have been ongoing for most of the last century and will probably continue into the foreseeable future; right now plans for development of the former SP yards south of the current Caltrain depot near the north end of I-280 have everyone in the immediate area on edge; more than a few folks are fearful of Google or other tech company coming in, outbidding everyone else, and building "complete" corporate campuses with offices as well as housing (and certainly not the type affordable to much of the denizens of the surrounding area). SF seems to perpetually on the knife-edge between egalitarian principles and gentrification; "boulevardizing" I-280 (which would be a bit difficult in any case as much of it is built on bents over a steep hillside -- or directly over the Caltrain commute line) isn't going to alter that dynamic.
Pro is North Carolina, anti is the DC metro! I-66....
Delaware is pretty pro-freeway, seeing as they've completed DE-1 as a toll road down the center of the state and DE-141 as another bypass of Wilmington in the last 20 years.
Tennessee is more on the anti-freeway side. I-26 is still incomplete, I-840 stopped and started for almost 20 years, and the proposed southern extension of I-81 lies in limbo due to Great Smokies preservation activists. I-640 in Knoxville took years to get out of planning thanks to NIMBY, even though traffic at the I-40/75 intersection was some of the worst in the US at that time.
Quote from: mrcmc888 on February 03, 2018, 02:02:35 PM
Delaware is pretty pro-freeway, seeing as they've completed DE-1 as a toll road down the center of the state and DE-141 as another bypass of Wilmington in the last 20 years.
Tennessee is more on the anti-freeway side. I-26 is still incomplete, I-840 stopped and started for almost 20 years, and the proposed southern extension of I-81 lies in limbo due to Great Smokies preservation activists. I-640 in Knoxville took years to get out of planning thanks to NIMBY, even though traffic at the I-40/75 intersection was some of the worst in the US at that time.
What southern I-81 extension is that? -- this is the first I've heard of it. But if it impacts the Great Smokies, then it sounds like a renumbering of the old "I-3" proposal for a Savannah-Knoxville freeway that was to track the "Dragon Tail" segment of US 129 just south of the Smoky Mountain park. If so, that proposal has been essentially dead for years!
Quote from: mrcmc888 on February 03, 2018, 02:02:35 PM
I-26 is still incomplete,
What part of I-26 is incomplete in TN?
Quote from: mrcmc888 on February 03, 2018, 02:02:35 PM
Delaware is pretty pro-freeway, seeing as they've completed DE-1 as a toll road down the center of the state and DE-141 as another bypass of Wilmington in the last 20 years.
Tennessee is more on the anti-freeway side. I-26 is still incomplete,
Huh? I-26 extends from the NC state line, almost all the way to the VA state line, and the short US 23 segment between US 11W and the VA state line is freeway. Especially since Virginia isn't doing anything on its side of the line, no really good reason to extend I-26 north of US11W.
Quote from: sparker on February 03, 2018, 04:11:20 PM
Quote from: mrcmc888 on February 03, 2018, 02:02:35 PM
Delaware is pretty pro-freeway, seeing as they've completed DE-1 as a toll road down the center of the state and DE-141 as another bypass of Wilmington in the last 20 years.
Tennessee is more on the anti-freeway side. I-26 is still incomplete, I-840 stopped and started for almost 20 years, and the proposed southern extension of I-81 lies in limbo due to Great Smokies preservation activists. I-640 in Knoxville took years to get out of planning thanks to NIMBY, even though traffic at the I-40/75 intersection was some of the worst in the US at that time.
What southern I-81 extension is that? -- this is the first I've heard of it. But if it impacts the Great Smokies, then it sounds like a renumbering of the old "I-3" proposal for a Savannah-Knoxville freeway that was to track the "Dragon Tail" segment of US 129 just south of the Smoky Mountain park. If so, that proposal has been essentially dead for years!
Yes, as far as I know it was the same proposal. The plan was to route I-81 on I-40 until Knoxville where it would then split and head south toward the Dragon. The highway seemed a little redundant to me anyways.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on February 03, 2018, 04:49:28 PM
Quote from: mrcmc888 on February 03, 2018, 02:02:35 PM
I-26 is still incomplete,
What part of I-26 is incomplete in TN?
Quote from: oscar on February 03, 2018, 04:53:08 PM
Quote from: mrcmc888 on February 03, 2018, 02:02:35 PM
Delaware is pretty pro-freeway, seeing as they've completed DE-1 as a toll road down the center of the state and DE-141 as another bypass of Wilmington in the last 20 years.
Tennessee is more on the anti-freeway side. I-26 is still incomplete,
Huh? I-26 extends from the NC state line, almost all the way to the VA state line, and the short US 23 segment between US 11W and the VA state line is freeway. Especially since Virginia isn't doing anything on its side of the line, no really good reason to extend I-26 north of US11W.
I thought I-26 was planned to head farther east toward I-75, but obviously not...the dead end in Kingsport makes a lot more sense now.
Michigan has elements of both. Metro Detroit mostly comes off as anti-freeway (I-275, M-53, M-59 cancellations; I-696 long delayed but eventually built) while Grand Rapids comes off as somewhat pro-freeway (M-6 being completed over three years ahead of the original schedule)
Quote from: ftballfan on February 03, 2018, 11:41:39 PM
Michigan has elements of both. Metro Detroit mostly comes off as anti-freeway (I-275, M-53, M-59 cancellations; I-696 long delayed but eventually built) while Grand Rapids comes off as somewhat pro-freeway (M-6 being completed over three years ahead of the original schedule)
and the potential I-375 road diet.
Quote from: ftballfan on February 03, 2018, 11:41:39 PM
Michigan has elements of both. Metro Detroit mostly comes off as anti-freeway (I-275, M-53, M-59 cancellations; I-696 long delayed but eventually built) while Grand Rapids comes off as somewhat pro-freeway (M-6 being completed over three years ahead of the original schedule)
that may be because m-6 doesn't go downtown, it's along the perimeter.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on January 30, 2018, 10:15:05 AM
Quote from: Perfxion on January 30, 2018, 08:18:39 AM
The most pro freeway city/Metro area is Houston. 15 freeways in the city area with 12 active expansion and/or extension projects going on.
Disagree. You had a lot of pushback against 99 in Spring and Cypress, and 225 was canceled inside the loop. The plans to remove the Pierce are popular inside the loop, even if people in the northern suburbs eye them suspiciously. It's not the '60s-'80s anymore.
True, but still, 99 is built from 59 west to 59. And they are about to do the next eastern expansion on it(even without the traffic for it). I-45 being moved and expanded on the east side of downtown is a good thing. The Pierce is a hot garbage that has to go. The second to the right lane seems to be the only through lane on the whole highway. The bottleneck seems to be everyday.
What about Newark, NJ? NJ 75 and then you have NJ 21 that should really be a freeway at its south end, but not so.
Even to get the proper I-280 full interchange with NJ 21 was like pulling teeth.
How about Philly? Cancelled freeways such as PA 90 and I-695, and may I remind you how long it took to complete I-676. Even with I-676 completed its still has that issue with a direct connection to the Ben Franklin Bridge due to local opposition.
Quote from: Perfxion on February 05, 2018, 08:42:40 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on January 30, 2018, 10:15:05 AM
Quote from: Perfxion on January 30, 2018, 08:18:39 AM
The most pro freeway city/Metro area is Houston. 15 freeways in the city area with 12 active expansion and/or extension projects going on.
Disagree. You had a lot of pushback against 99 in Spring and Cypress, and 225 was canceled inside the loop. The plans to remove the Pierce are popular inside the loop, even if people in the northern suburbs eye them suspiciously. It's not the '60s-'80s anymore.
True, but still, 99 is built from 59 west to 59. And they are about to do the next eastern expansion on it(even without the traffic for it). I-45 being moved and expanded on the east side of downtown is a good thing. The Pierce is a hot garbage that has to go. The second to the right lane seems to be the only through lane on the whole highway. The bottleneck seems to be everyday.
That's the truth.
Houston's got a lot of freeways, no doubt. However, that has less to do with their relative popularity, and more to do with the particular mix of powerful interests that guide Houston's development.
And I'm not saying it's the energy companies who push the freeways through - at this stage, many who I've talked to would like a robust (read: rail-based) mass transit system to help attract high-caliber STEM talent who are drawn more to the East and West Coasts. It's suburban tract-housing developers (in memory of their patron saint Bob Lanier), along with auto dealers (who control a good chunk of local politics) who want infrastructure to cater to the single-family detached, three car household, and they don't want to change that for anything. And they've got plenty of friends in Austin, and a few in DC too.
To put it another way - there's no way the Texas Bullet Train would have gotten as far as it has if it weren't former Bush Administration officials, along with energy company allies, pushing the project through. They're the only ones with the juice to push past the above interests.
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 29, 2018, 11:32:19 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 31, 2017, 07:48:41 PM
Within Arizona, Tucson is definitely anti-freeway. They only have two freeways and they always vote down road improvement bonds.
do you know what's going on with 44th st near the airport in pheonix? It looks like they tried to build a SPUI, then gave up. was this supposed to be a freeway?
Current 44th St near Sky Harbor was once part of AZ 153. A connection was once planned from the half SPUI at University Dr to I-10 at 40th St.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 05, 2018, 07:23:06 PM
What about Newark, NJ? NJ 75 and then you have NJ 21 that should really be a freeway at its south end, but not so.
That and the southern extension of NJ 17 to the New Jersey Turnpike.
I know, it's not a true freeway. But it's still an unfinished section of the road.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 29, 2018, 02:58:32 PM
This same lady probably complains about gridlock on a daily basis. Hypocrite.
Speaking of which;
https://imgflip.com/i/194qsf
Wisconsin's probably a mix of both. We seem to convert a lot of roads into four-lane expressways, like US 12 between somewhere south of Baraboo and Wisconsin Dells (including the Baraboo bypass that was just completed last year), US 41 north of the interchange with 141, US 10 between Appleton and Marshfield, and WIS 29. We've also liked to expand our freeways throughout the state as well, with all the construction along I-41. Just a few years ago they finally designated it as an interstate.
The Milwaukee area is a different story, because state politicians have just delayed construction on the Zoo Interchange due to a lack of funding. In the 60s and 70s there was a lot of controversy regarding several planned freeways, resulting in them not being built. They actually built some of the Park Freeway downtown east of I-43, but they eventually demolished it and there's currently no trace of the former freeway ever being built. I actually saw an old map of Wisconsin circa 2001 that had an inset of downtown Milwaukee showing the freeway when it was still there. Here's a link if you want to read more about it:
http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/milwaukee/park.html
What about NYC? Sure it has expressways and parkways galore, but look at Manhattan! It killed both I-78 and I-495 and to cross the borough is awful using congested streets. Then in Brooklyn and Queens you have both the cancelled Bushwick and the Clearview that would have extended I-78 into the Bronx. Oh, yes the Westway project where the former Miller's Westside highway had to be converted to an arterial due to the city not being able to replace the old viaduct. So only the FDR is the only N-S freeway to run the whole length almost with it being closed to trucks.