What would be the worst place for a freeway removal (and conversion to surface street) by environmental groups?
For Boston, I think that it would be I-93 just south of I-90. (The part north of I-90 is already tunneled, and environmental groups would see no benefit in removing the Zakim Bridge; the concept of grade separation typically doesn't exist on bridges.)
Quote from: 1 on December 05, 2019, 07:06:03 AM
What would be the worst place for a freeway removal (and conversion to surface street) by environmental groups?
For Boston, I think that it would be I-93 just south of I-90. (The part north of I-90 is already tunneled, and environmental groups would see no benefit in removing the Zakim Bridge; the concept of grade separation typically doesn't exist on bridges.)
Either that or the Pike Extension. People are already used to the Ted Williams Tunnel. Killing access to it and sending Boston back to the Dark Ages (despite the Extension's dark history) would cause a revolution.
For Chicago, I'd say just about every expressway we have is crucial. Hell, we even need more of them! I think the fact that the IL-53 extension is essentially dead at this point takes the cake. Lake County is a traffic nightmare and there don't appear to be any substantial plans now to improve that.
In terms of existing expressways, possibly the short US-41 section north of Dundee Rd. I could see them wanting that modified since there's the Botanic Gardens right next to the highway and for other reasons I'm sure. And speaking of US-41, Lake Shore Drive too, just because it's a lakefront expressway.
For Fresno putting CA 99 on a road diet would be a disaster. What little remains of the former surface route of US 99 was massively overwhelmed by the 1940s. CA 41 and CA 180 probably could pick up a lot of slack bypassing downtown but they would see a ton of freight traffic that usually sticks to 99. CA 41 being thrown back onto Blackstone Avenue would be the most realistic as it is a high capacity six lane arterial. Former CA 180 on Kings Canyon Road slogs even today with the modern freeway, I couldn't fathom how much worse it would be as a through route. Clovis would be a lot less livable if CA 168 was a on surface alignment still like Shaw Avenue and Tollhouse Road.
Probably the worst thing you could do to the Salt Lake area is kill the I-15/80 concurrency. There's no way SR 201, I-215 and the connections between them, I-15, and I-80 could handle the nearly 300,000 cars that drive that segment daily. In addition, there is a ton of entering and exiting traffic on that section, and killing it would almost certainly cause some awful traffic on surface roads like 3rd West, State Street, or 7th East.
The second-worst thing would be removing I-15 south of the I-215 interchange. The big issue here is the lack of any easily accessible freeway alternates (Bangerter and Mountain View are too far west), and the existing surface roads in the area like State, 7th East, and especially Redwood are overwhelmed as it is now.
84 in Hartford
The Southeast and Southwest Freeways in Washington, D.C.
The RE/T groups have actually suggested this.
Getting rid of I-65/I-70 between the splits in Indianapolis was a HORRIBLE idea.
In Denver, there was discussion of removing I-70 from its current corridor and routing it on I-270/I-76 when the central I-70 project began. CDOT found that routing traffic farther out wouldn't serve the traffic from I-70 to downtown, but some neighborhood groups kept pushing it.
The stupid "8664" proposal in Louisville that won't die.
Tucson would be an AWFUL mess without I-10.
In Saint Louis it would have to be I-70. It is an important route to some of the larger suburbs such as O'Fallon & St Charles, and is the main route to/from Kansas City. It is also a major crossing point across the Missouri River. I-70 in Kansas City, I-70 might be the best freeway removal option for that city (that or I-670).
Question: What would be the worst leg of Kansas City's Alphabet Loop to remove?
Well, we know that for Atlanta it isn't I-85 between GA 400 and I-75. Been there, done that. :biggrin:
Limiting this exercise only to segments that I could plausibly see someone actually seriously suggesting, the Downtown Connector between I-20 and the 75/85 north split seems like the obvious choice. (Something like I-75 in Cobb County would likely be far worse, but nobody would ever suggest that.)
I-40 or I-85 in North Carolina. Both major interstates that go through major cities. without them, traffic would be a lot worse on county roads.
For Philadelphia, the removal of I-95 between I-676/US 30 & I-76; such was actually pondered/discussed a few years ago. Thankfully, such an initiative has since been ditched in favor of the current capping-over proposal.
Harrisburg: I-83 John Harris bridge over the Susquehanna. I've seen what happens when there is an accident on 83 and everyone diverts.
For Chicago, Lake Shore Drive. People are already targeting it since it's due for a 21st century upgrade to reduce its lane capacity for more park space.
Quote from: Rothman on December 05, 2019, 09:09:45 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 05, 2019, 07:06:03 AM
What would be the worst place for a freeway removal (and conversion to surface street) by environmental groups?
For Boston, I think that it would be I-93 just south of I-90. (The part north of I-90 is already tunneled, and environmental groups would see no benefit in removing the Zakim Bridge; the concept of grade separation typically doesn't exist on bridges.)
Either that or the Pike Extension. People are already used to the Ted Williams Tunnel. Killing access to it and sending Boston back to the Dark Ages (despite the Extension's dark history) would cause a revolution.
Technically not an expressway (due to the insanely low clearances), but there have been ongoing discussions about converting Storrow Drive to a slow-speed at grade boulevard. Which would only serve to dump even more traffic onto the Pike Extension.
I'm not sure about Madison since there aren't very many freeways and none of them have a reason to be removed. For Milwaukee, I think the I-894 bypass would be the worst because it would force thru traffic into the Marquette interchange. Not to mention that I-94 on either side of the interchange is not built to accommodate 100k VPD, and it already handles way more than that.
There's been the occasional rumbling from the usual suspects about removing I-880 between I-280 and US 101, primarily because it goes through an old/historic neighborhood (Rose Park district) partially in a trench. However, it's the only way to get from the northeast area commercial/employment area (Berryessa, Milpitas) to the southwest mostly residential part of the developed region (Los Gatos, Saratoga, etc.) without a detour on the perennially congested I-280 section south of downtown San Jose. Removing 880 would create a local traffic nightmare that would be devastating. Also -- if the 880/101 interchange were not to be rebuilt, its substandard ramps & loops could never handle the SB commute traffic off I-880. A bad idea that needs to be shouted down before it grows legs! :pan:
I think for Oakland, CA I-980 could be worst freeway removal, probably proposed by the same people sparker is referring to. Others may chime in but I believe I-980 allows one to bypass the MacArthur maze to get on I-880 southbound or I-580 southbound.
Groups have discussed moving I-5 through Seattle to I-405, on the other side of Lake Washington (ergo, through Bellevue). I hate the freeway barging through the city as much as the next chap, but there are fundamental issues with removing that much roadway. For example, all of the other roads that were built to connect to it, the businesses that rely on it, etc. I'd rather work towards making it less "obvious" through lidding, instead of outright removal.
I (and many others) look at cities like Vancouver or Christchurch, where there are no motorways chugging through town, as to how density and liveability can be achieved without freeways. But for those cities that did look to freeways in the 50s to 80s, the rest of the city (and indeed metro area) have been slowly modified to respond to this new infrastructure. Seattle was lovely without I-5, I'm sure. But the number of obstacles involved with removing a freeway, at least an important cross-country one such as this, are just too many in number to actually consider removal as a serious option.
Quote from: Techknow on December 06, 2019, 08:55:47 PM
I think for Oakland, CA I-980 could be worst freeway removal, probably proposed by the same people sparker is referring to. Others may chime in but I believe I-980 allows one to bypass the MacArthur maze to get on I-880 southbound or I-580 southbound.
Since there's no access from NB 880 to EB 580 (and thus to CA 24) and vice-versa, removing I-980 would essentially throw the proverbial monkey wrench in the regional mobility scenario. But then the groups promoting removal(s) appear to have functionally if not actually declared war on the driving public, so reducing the ability to efficiently get from point A to point B is considered a victory to them! On a related note, there
is a group calling themselves "War on Cars" that's reaching out for members/associates -- of course, they have a website that, like pretty much all such endeavors, assumes anyone accessing that site is a potential recruit for their "cause". IMO -- another example of a methodological approach to an issue that has "morphed" into an ideology. :eyebrow:
For Minneapolis, the obvious answer is I-94 between the downtowns, but there are enough viable alternatives involving 35W/E, 494/694, and MN 36 to ease the pain a bit. I'm tempted to go with 494 between 169 and 35E, which would make getting from the western suburbs to the downtowns and airport incredibly painful.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 07, 2019, 06:20:53 AM
For Minneapolis, the obvious answer is I-94 between the downtowns, but there are enough viable alternatives involving 35W/E, 494/694, and MN 36 to ease the pain a bit. I'm tempted to go with 494 between 169 and 35E, which would make getting from the western suburbs to the downtowns and airport incredibly painful.
The twin cities are tough for this question because of their near-perfect grid system. That's probably why they have fewer traffic issues than other metro areas of similar size.
Quote from: thspfc on December 07, 2019, 11:31:40 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 07, 2019, 06:20:53 AM
For Minneapolis, the obvious answer is I-94 between the downtowns, but there are enough viable alternatives involving 35W/E, 494/694, and MN 36 to ease the pain a bit. I'm tempted to go with 494 between 169 and 35E, which would make getting from the western suburbs to the downtowns and airport incredibly painful.
The twin cities are tough for this question because of their near-perfect grid system. That's probably why they have fewer traffic issues than other metro areas of similar size.
I was thinking I-94 in the area of the tunnel.
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2019, 02:20:34 PM
The Southeast and Southwest Freeways in Washington, D.C.
The RE/T groups have actually suggested this.
They got part of their way, with part of the Southeast Freeway east of the 11th St. Bridges converted to Southeast Boulevard.
Oddly enough, not much crowing about that "freeway removal". Maybe because it caused little pain to motorists, with a decent bypass over the 11th St. Bridges and part of DC 295.
Quote from: oscar on December 07, 2019, 11:49:09 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2019, 02:20:34 PM
The Southeast and Southwest Freeways in Washington, D.C. The RE/T groups have actually suggested this.
They got part of their way, with part of the Southeast Freeway east of the 11th St. Bridges converted to Southeast Boulevard.
Oddly enough, not much crowing about that "freeway removal". Maybe because it caused little pain to motorists, with a decent bypass over the 11th St. Bridges and part of DC 295.
That was a little used stub of the I-295 East Leg of the Inner Loop that was only built to Pennsylvania Avenue.
Its conversion was part of the same project that replaced and expanded the 11th Street bridges, upgraded the interchange with the I-695 Southeast Freeway, and completed and upgraded the interchange with I-295/DC-295.
How about 401 in Toronto? At best it would force displaced traffic to pay tolls to use 407 or worse it would cause total gridlock in the city.
For Chattanooga, Tennessee, removing any part of I-75 from the Georgia line to the I-24 interchange to the interchange with TN 153 would probably be the worst scenario.
Also extremely detrimental would be removing I-24 just west of the interchange with I-75, as well as the US 27 freeway in downtown Chattanooga from the I-24 interchange to past the Tennessee River, among others.
Quote from: Eth on December 05, 2019, 09:13:09 PM
Well, we know that for Atlanta it isn't I-85 between GA 400 and I-75. Been there, done that. :biggrin:
Limiting this exercise only to segments that I could plausibly see someone actually seriously suggesting, the Downtown Connector between I-20 and the 75/85 north split seems like the obvious choice. (Something like I-75 in Cobb County would likely be far worse, but nobody would ever suggest that.)
It would also likely be very detrimental removing any part of the northern section of I-285 in between Smyrna (just southwest of the interchange with I-75), and the northeast interchange with I-85 (Spaghetti Junction).
Here in Houston it would be a huge mistake to get rid of any of the interstate routings. They are already so ingrained into the makeup of the city. Could you imagine rerouting I 10 and putting a boulevard in that stretch that's 26 lanes wide
Quote from: achilles765 on May 31, 2021, 08:01:44 AM
Here in Houston it would be a huge mistake to get rid of any of the interstate routings. They are already so ingrained into the makeup of the city. Could you imagine rerouting I 10 and putting a boulevard in that stretch that's 26 lanes wide
Aren't they actively planning to remove I-45 on the west side of Downtown, assuming the expansion of the I-69 segment of the loop is ever cleared from environmental hurdles.
For Hampton Roads, it's obviously the bridge-tunnels.
But not counting those... I-264 east of I-64
It's probably one of the only interstate-grade routes in the region that lacks any redundancy and carries significant amounts of traffic.
Quote from: kphoger on December 05, 2019, 08:07:07 PM
Question: What would be the worst leg of Kansas City's Alphabet Loop to remove?
I'd say it's a tie between the southern and eastern legs. You need those two just for the thing to function at all. The western leg might be considered of questionable value, but, with the upcoming direct freeway connection to US 169/the Broadway Bridge, it's still going to serve a purpose. The northern leg is obviously atrocious and either a good candidate for removal, or in need of a drastic overhaul.
Cincinnati: Brent Spence Bridge obviously, and the city already had a taste of what it's like without it. If that doesn't count, then I-71/75 between I-275 and the bridge.
Columbus: They're in a similar situation as KC, where you can remove two of the 4 downtown loop segments. I'll need an AADT map to check the two that most affects traffic.
Quote from: 1 on December 05, 2019, 07:06:03 AM
What would be the worst place for a freeway removal (and conversion to surface street) by environmental groups?
If I understand the question correctly, we're looking for places where the conversion would not necessarily be terrible if done by some other type of group (such as a DOT or planning organization)? In other words, we're studying the motivation behind the conversion, rather than its actual effect on the city?
Quote from: jakeroot on December 07, 2019, 04:30:35 AM
I (and many others) look at cities like Vancouver or Christchurch, where there are no motorways chugging through town, as to how density and liveability can be achieved without freeways. But for those cities that did look to freeways in the 50s to 80s, the rest of the city (and indeed metro area) have been slowly modified to respond to this new infrastructure. Seattle was lovely without I-5, I'm sure. But the number of obstacles involved with removing a freeway, at least an important cross-country one such as this, are just too many in number to actually consider removal as a serious option.
Vancouver is a horrible example. Vancouver routinely ranks in the top 3 for worst commute in North America, for almost 10 years it had the worst traffic in North America, if not the world. The only viable way to not have a freeway downtown is to have extensive, grade separated transit. In order for cities to not be gridlocked, even with transit, you must have a grade separated roadway to get cars and trucks into and out of the city, without clogging residential streets or relying on froads (which are worse in my opinion than freeways).
Saying that, every through freeway removal from a city would be the worst possible freeway removal, as it will convert existing infrastructure into a clogged mess, with a few exceptions.
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 31, 2021, 10:34:20 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 07, 2019, 04:30:35 AM
I (and many others) look at cities like Vancouver or Christchurch, where there are no motorways chugging through town, as to how density and liveability can be achieved without freeways. But for those cities that did look to freeways in the 50s to 80s, the rest of the city (and indeed metro area) have been slowly modified to respond to this new infrastructure. Seattle was lovely without I-5, I'm sure. But the number of obstacles involved with removing a freeway, at least an important cross-country one such as this, are just too many in number to actually consider removal as a serious option.
The only viable way to not have a freeway downtown is to have extensive, grade separated transit.
Not sure if 3 Skytrain lines is considered extensive, but from the one time I been in Vancouver, they were an efficient way to get around.
The SkyTrain is okay, but was not built in anticipation of future growth (especially the tower clusters it spawned). The Canada Line is pathetically short and was overcapacity immediately after opening; the Millennium and Expo lines are better but they do get crowded. Thankfully, the automated system means that headways can get low enough to handle some of the load, but it's still not that great.
And there are quite a few major corridors that don't have SkyTrain service, and will need to wait a few decades for construction.
Quote from: Truvelo on December 07, 2019, 02:12:00 PM
How about 401 in Toronto? At best it would force displaced traffic to pay tolls to use 407 or worse it would cause total gridlock in the city.
Absolutely would be catastrophic.
The reason why the 401 got so wide is due to the absence of any other east-west expressway, as all of Toronto's municipal expressways got cancelled after the cancellation of the Spadina Expressway. It is the ONLY east-west freeway that goes from Mississauga to Durham Region. It is also probably the only freeway that carries a significant amount of truck traffic.
Quote from: Bruce on May 31, 2021, 06:16:52 PM
And there are quite a few major corridors that don't have SkyTrain service, and will need to wait a few decades for construction.
Like the Millennium line extension west to UBC? Really hoping this one gets completed even if it'll take decades, the 99 B-line along Broadway is the busiest bus line in the US and Canada combined.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 05, 2019, 09:15:57 AM
For Chicago, I'd say just about every expressway we have is crucial. Hell, we even need more of them! I think the fact that the IL-53 extension is essentially dead at this point takes the cake. Lake County is a traffic nightmare and there don't appear to be any substantial plans now to improve that.
In terms of existing expressways, possibly the short US-41 section north of Dundee Rd. I could see them wanting that modified since there's the Botanic Gardens right next to the highway and for other reasons I'm sure. And speaking of US-41, Lake Shore Drive too, just because it's a lakefront expressway.
For L.A., the same argument applies in that every freeway is crucial, especially now that the I-710 extension is dead. Pasadena to Alhambra is absolute driving hell and that much-needed link's delay is just going to make things worse.
As for the worst section of freeway to remove, it would be I-10 from Santa Monica to San Bernardino, although a combination of other routes (I-210, CA 60, CA 91, I-15, I-215) will do just as good.
Not in Boston proper, but imagine removing MA 128.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 07, 2019, 06:20:53 AM
For Minneapolis, the obvious answer is I-94 between the downtowns, but there are enough viable alternatives involving 35W/E, 494/694, and MN 36 to ease the pain a bit. I'm tempted to go with 494 between 169 and 35E, which would make getting from the western suburbs to the downtowns and airport incredibly painful.
I'm going with the removal of the Wakota Bridge on I-494 for the Twin Cities. You would either have to drive up to downtown St. Paul or down to Hastings to cross the Mississippi.
Aside for US 30 in NW Portland, basically pick one for the Portland Metro Area, and it'll end up being a Bad Idea. It doesn't stop groups like No More Freeways PDX from pitching a fit, however.
I would say the entire downtown loop in Nashville. The loop intertwines I-24, I-40, and I-65 around the downtown periphery.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 06, 2019, 04:08:55 PM
For Philadelphia, the removal of I-95 between I-676/US 30 & I-76; such was actually pondered/discussed a few years ago. Thankfully, such an initiative has since been ditched in favor of the current capping-over proposal.
I would argue that the removal of the Schuylkill (I76) between Vine Street and City Avenue, or I95 from Allegheny to the Vine would be far more catastrophic. Philly simply has no redundancy unless you take SEPTA regional rail into account (and that's not up to the task).
For Denver, it has to be I-25. There are decent enough arterials that run east/west, but most of the major streets that go north/south are pretty residential in nature despite being main streets.
Chris
Any freeway removal is unacceptable. :banghead:
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 01, 2021, 02:23:31 PM
Any freeway removal is unacceptable. :banghead:
Not a fan of many removals, but there are select scenarios where a freeway removal is a good idea.
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 01, 2021, 02:23:31 PM
Any freeway removal is unacceptable. :banghead:
Even ones encircling a rust belt city's downtown that three people use per day?
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 01, 2021, 02:32:38 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 01, 2021, 02:23:31 PM
Any freeway removal is unacceptable. :banghead:
Even ones encircling a rust belt city's downtown that three people use per day?
Or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2937893,-76.6392473,1064m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)?
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 01, 2021, 02:32:38 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 01, 2021, 02:23:31 PM
Any freeway removal is unacceptable. :banghead:
Even ones encircling a rust belt city's downtown that three people use per day?
I would consider that especially unacceptable as it is contrary to what should be the goal, namely re-industrializing the Rustbelt.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 01, 2021, 02:35:19 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 01, 2021, 02:32:38 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 01, 2021, 02:23:31 PM
Any freeway removal is unacceptable. :banghead:
Even ones encircling a rust belt city's downtown that three people use per day?
Or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2937893,-76.6392473,1064m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)?
Again, I consider removing that one particularly bad, as it would be key to finishing I-70 into Baltimore as designed.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 01, 2021, 02:35:19 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 01, 2021, 02:32:38 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 01, 2021, 02:23:31 PM
Any freeway removal is unacceptable. :banghead:
Even ones encircling a rust belt city's downtown that three people use per day?
Or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2937893,-76.6392473,1064m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)?
How is that any different from US 1 in Newburyport, MA?
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 01, 2021, 02:37:12 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 01, 2021, 02:35:19 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 01, 2021, 02:32:38 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 01, 2021, 02:23:31 PM
Any freeway removal is unacceptable. :banghead:
Even ones encircling a rust belt city's downtown that three people use per day?
Or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2937893,-76.6392473,1064m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)?
Again, I consider removing that one particularly bad, as it would be key to finishing I-70 into Baltimore as designed.
Oh no
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 01, 2021, 02:37:12 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 01, 2021, 02:35:19 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 01, 2021, 02:32:38 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 01, 2021, 02:23:31 PM
Any freeway removal is unacceptable. :banghead:
Even ones encircling a rust belt city's downtown that three people use per day?
Or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2937893,-76.6392473,1064m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)?
Again, I consider removing that one particularly bad, as it would be key to finishing I-70 into Baltimore as designed.
Actually, it was supposed to be a part of I-170. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_170_(Maryland)
If the possibility of the freeway being finished one day were greater than 0%, I'd agree. But that is not the case so might as well remove it imo.
It's not harming anything. The grid above it has very few gaps. What's the point of removing it, since it's already there?
Quote from: 1 on June 01, 2021, 03:07:01 PM
It's not harming anything. The grid above it has very few gaps. What's the point of removing it, since it's already there?
It won't be removed. But it won't be extended.
The endpoint was never finished (Gwynns Falls Expressway) where I-70 ends at I-95. (ghost ramps at I-95 still there)
Therefore it will remain as is.
Quote from: 1 on June 01, 2021, 02:38:06 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 01, 2021, 02:35:19 PM
Or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2937893,-76.6392473,1064m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)?
How is that any different from US 1 in Newburyport, MA?
Several reasons from what I can tell:
-US 1 in Newburyport appears to be fully built out as originally proposed
-Continues directly into US 1's continuing alignment to the north (including the bridge over the Merrimack River)
-Doesn't terminate at the same streets on both sides
-Goes across the entirety of Downtown Newburyport as opposed to a few blocks west of Downtown Baltimore
Quote from: stevashe on June 01, 2021, 02:58:58 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 01, 2021, 02:37:12 PM
Again, I consider removing that one particularly bad, as it would be key to finishing I-70 into Baltimore as designed.
Actually, it was supposed to be a part of I-170. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_170_(Maryland)
If the possibility of the freeway being finished one day were greater than 0%, I'd agree. But that is not the case so might as well remove it imo.
Agreed - hypothetically it'd be great to have I-70 & I-170 fully built out, but I don't see that ever happening.
Quote from: 1 on June 01, 2021, 03:07:01 PM
It's not harming anything. The grid above it has very few gaps. What's the point of removing it, since it's already there?
Probably no point this very second, but once the bridges on that segment reach the point of requiring extensive repairs and/or replacement, Baltimore DOT might be motivated to remove if they feel the improvements aren't worth the cost. I believe they already removed some ghost ramps & stubs at the west end within the past decade (with additional parking for the West Baltimore MARC station added at the same time).
For Seattle, the worst part would be removing I-5 - specifically, the part between UW and downtown. There's no other freeway connection there (except for the sort-of-freeway SR 99, but that's well west and empties onto local streets), and there're really only three parallel surface roads which're already at capacity with local traffic. Plus, you've got the SR 520 Lake Washington Bridge emptying into that freeway without any remotely-reasonable local alternative.
Removing either of the bridges would also be pretty bad, but traffic has managed before with one of them closed. I-5 south of downtown might be bad too, but there you've got SR 99 as a great alternative feeding into more freeway.
Not sure of the worst one for Detroit. I-75, 94 and 96 all are very busy. We could do without I-375 though and MDOT agrees
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 31, 2021, 10:34:20 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 07, 2019, 04:30:35 AM
I (and many others) look at cities like Vancouver or Christchurch, where there are no motorways chugging through town, as to how density and liveability can be achieved without freeways. But for those cities that did look to freeways in the 50s to 80s, the rest of the city (and indeed metro area) have been slowly modified to respond to this new infrastructure. Seattle was lovely without I-5, I'm sure. But the number of obstacles involved with removing a freeway, at least an important cross-country one such as this, are just too many in number to actually consider removal as a serious option.
Vancouver is a horrible example. Vancouver routinely ranks in the top 3 for worst commute in North America, for almost 10 years it had the worst traffic in North America, if not the world. The only viable way to not have a freeway downtown is to have extensive, grade separated transit. In order for cities to not be gridlocked, even with transit, you must have a grade separated roadway to get cars and trucks into and out of the city, without clogging residential streets or relying on froads (which are worse in my opinion than freeways).
I don't understand the logic of your conclusion. If Vancouver's lack of a serious freeway network was responsible for their traffic woes, it stands to reason cities like Los Angeles or Atlanta should have incredibly good traffic flow ... but they don't, at all.
The problem seems to be lack of demand where it's desired: LA or Atlanta have serious traffic flow because demand continues to outstrip lane capacity. In Vancouver, you have similar levels of demand (maybe the most, but not by a big margin), particularly from suburban areas like Surrey, Coquitlam, or Delta, but with
substantially less lane miles of freeway. In essence, they have created similar demand for roadway capacity as most North American metro areas, but with much less lane mileage.
Taking into account Vancouver's excellent non-car transit network (bus + SkyTrain + SeaBus + cable cars (soon) et al), you have to give it up to them: pretty crappy traffic, but not way worse, and with a lot less roadway capacity and a lot more non-car options.
For the record: traffic congestion in Vancouver is certainly apparent, but this whole "worst in North America" business doesn't sit with me. It's never struck me as any worse than Seattle.
LA and Atlanta are also a lot larger than Vancouver. Though it's worth noting that Vancouver isn't the only Canadian city to have more congestion than similarly sized cities in the US.
Freeway removals are unnecessary.
Quote from: In_Correct on June 03, 2021, 12:52:39 AM
Freeway removals are unnecessary.
That is a knee-jerk reaction to myriad of scenarios that could otherwise prove beneficial. I thought why would you want to remove a freeway after spending the money until I understood that there may be a scenario or two. I do not buy into the greener pastures theory.
I think for Chicago getting rid of I-90/I-94 from the merge to downtown on the north side would be the worst removal, more so than Lake Shore Drive. LSD is still critical, just that the Kennedy Expy is more critical.
In Austin I-35, which they are desparately trying to remove two decks to bury.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 03, 2021, 07:32:50 AM
Quote from: In_Correct on June 03, 2021, 12:52:39 AM
Freeway removals are unnecessary.
That is a knee-jerk reaction to myriad of scenarios that could otherwise prove beneficial. I thought why would you want to remove a freeway after spending the money until I understood that there may be a scenario or two. I do not buy into the greener pastures theory.
Many of these same cities are attempting to defund police as well.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 03, 2021, 09:03:02 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 03, 2021, 07:32:50 AM
Quote from: In_Correct on June 03, 2021, 12:52:39 AM
Freeway removals are unnecessary.
That is a knee-jerk reaction to myriad of scenarios that could otherwise prove beneficial. I thought why would you want to remove a freeway after spending the money until I understood that there may be a scenario or two. I do not buy into the greener pastures theory.
Many of these same cities are attempting to defund police as well.
(https://www.orcity.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery500/public/imageattachments/publicworks/page/3219/shutterstock_85479841.jpg?itok=jobG4eeE)
Removing the Cross Bronx would probably be the worst for NYC and the northeast in general.
Quote from: dkblake on June 03, 2021, 12:10:37 PM
Removing the Cross Bronx would probably be the worst for NYC and the northeast in general.
Lots of people think that it shouldn't have ever been built but at this point it's too important to remove.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 03, 2021, 09:03:02 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 03, 2021, 07:32:50 AM
Quote from: In_Correct on June 03, 2021, 12:52:39 AM
Freeway removals are unnecessary.
That is a knee-jerk reaction to myriad of scenarios that could otherwise prove beneficial. I thought why would you want to remove a freeway after spending the money until I understood that there may be a scenario or two. I do not buy into the greener pastures theory.
Many of these same cities are attempting to defund police as well.
Are you trying to get the thread locked? Randomly injecting irrelevant politics into a discussion about infrastructure is pretty childish behavior.
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 01, 2021, 02:37:12 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 01, 2021, 02:35:19 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 01, 2021, 02:32:38 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 01, 2021, 02:23:31 PM
Any freeway removal is unacceptable. :banghead:
Even ones encircling a rust belt city’s downtown that three people use per day?
Or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2937893,-76.6392473,1064m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)?
Again, I consider removing that one particularly bad, as it would be key to finishing I-70 into Baltimore as designed.
That's the same mentality that hoarders use to justify keeping random stuff in their house. Baltimore doesn't want nor does it need the original freeway plans for the area. You have to look at the world through a practical and pragmatic perspective, not a roadgeek perspective.
Plus, with the other rust belt response, the rust belt will not need its vestigial freeways when it revitalizes. Those freeways served a different time and a different purpose in an area with a different character than it has today, all for something that was, in hindsight, headed toward collapse, but nobody could've seen it coming.
Rust belt towns that are revitalizing are doing so by opening up downtown, refurbishing historic structures, and more, and part of that process is freeway removal. They have to adapt because the industrial ways of old aren't viable anymore. It's long gone and likely will not be coming back in the way it existed in the past. The way it was done simply isn't profitable anymore. Manufacturing in America today isn't the same as manufacturing in the 40s-80s for a reason.
The urban decay/miserable looks and grittiness brought on by those things, in combination with the pollution and decaying industry is part of why the core of those cities declined. Tourism and local visitors don't see the city and bring it money by car, they want to stop downtown, shop, eat, and walk in a park. If people want to rent out a new apartment made out of an old building, they don't want a freeway tearing through and making noise right by them. If everything is done by car in downtown, you don't get that. If freeways can't be removed, their presence should be reduced by a highway lid.
Imagine for a moment you're starting a business and you want the life and pull a downtown can give for one. You're trying to capitalize on what could be a revitalization of a decaying rust belt city. Now, imagine if the downtown nearest to you was like how Houston was in the 1970s, where two-thirds of the downtown was made out of parking lots. Is that somewhere you'd want your business? In order for the life to come back, those things have to change.
Quote from: vdeane on June 02, 2021, 09:14:21 PM
LA and Atlanta are also a lot larger than Vancouver. Though it's worth noting that Vancouver isn't the only Canadian city to have more congestion than similarly sized cities in the US.
Winnipeg is another example, at least for its size.
Quote from: index on June 03, 2021, 12:41:50 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 03, 2021, 09:03:02 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 03, 2021, 07:32:50 AM
Quote from: In_Correct on June 03, 2021, 12:52:39 AM
Freeway removals are unnecessary.
That is a knee-jerk reaction to myriad of scenarios that could otherwise prove beneficial. I thought why would you want to remove a freeway after spending the money until I understood that there may be a scenario or two. I do not buy into the greener pastures theory.
Many of these same cities are attempting to defund police as well.
Are you trying to get the thread locked? Randomly injecting irrelevant politics into a discussion about infrastructure is pretty childish behavior.
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 01, 2021, 02:37:12 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 01, 2021, 02:35:19 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 01, 2021, 02:32:38 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 01, 2021, 02:23:31 PM
Any freeway removal is unacceptable. :banghead:
Even ones encircling a rust belt city's downtown that three people use per day?
Or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2937893,-76.6392473,1064m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)?
Again, I consider removing that one particularly bad, as it would be key to finishing I-70 into Baltimore as designed.
That's the same mentality that hoarders use to justify keeping random stuff in their house. Baltimore doesn't want nor does it need the original freeway plans for the area. You have to look at the world through a practical and pragmatic perspective, not a roadgeek perspective.
Plus, with the other rust belt response, the rust belt will not need its vestigial freeways when it revitalizes. Those freeways served a different time and a different purpose in an area with a different character than it has today, all for something that was, in hindsight, headed toward collapse, but nobody could've seen it coming.
Rust belt towns that are revitalizing are doing so by opening up downtown, refurbishing historic structures, and more, and part of that process is freeway removal. They have to adapt because the industrial ways of old aren't viable anymore. It's long gone and likely will not be coming back in the way it existed in the past. The way it was done simply isn't profitable anymore. Manufacturing in America today isn't the same as manufacturing in the 40s-80s for a reason.
The urban decay/miserable looks and grittiness brought on by those things, in combination with the pollution and decaying industry is part of why the core of those cities declined. Tourism and local visitors don't see the city and bring it money by car, they want to stop downtown, shop, eat, and walk in a park. If people want to rent out a new apartment made out of an old building, they don't want a freeway tearing through and making noise right by them. If everything is done by car in downtown, you don't get that. If freeways can't be removed, their presence should be reduced by a highway lid.
Imagine for a moment you're starting a business and you want the life and pull a downtown can give for one. You're trying to capitalize on what could be a revitalization of a decaying rust belt city. Now, imagine if the downtown nearest to you was like how Houston was in the 1970s, where two-thirds of the downtown was made out of parking lots. Is that somewhere you'd want your business? In order for the life to come back, those things have to change.
Nope you have it completely wrong. Rustbelt areas do not "revitalize" by having hipsters move into these "downtown" areas of "eat, shop, etc" while tearing down your heavy infrastructure. All that ever does is put a facade on a city of ruins. That "revitalization" garbage never brings back the good paying industrial jobs that supported middle class families, it brings in low wage service jobs that cater to tourists or a handful of new comers to town. And more importantly it never produces the manufacturing base that we badly need.
No, the solution for Baltimore and other Rustbelt towns is to keep the freeways, because that kind of heavy transportation infrastructure is vital to manufacturing and real industry. Re-industrialization, not "revitalization" is the goal.
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 03, 2021, 01:14:34 PM
Quote from: index on June 03, 2021, 12:41:50 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 03, 2021, 09:03:02 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 03, 2021, 07:32:50 AM
Quote from: In_Correct on June 03, 2021, 12:52:39 AM
Freeway removals are unnecessary.
That is a knee-jerk reaction to myriad of scenarios that could otherwise prove beneficial. I thought why would you want to remove a freeway after spending the money until I understood that there may be a scenario or two. I do not buy into the greener pastures theory.
Many of these same cities are attempting to defund police as well.
Are you trying to get the thread locked? Randomly injecting irrelevant politics into a discussion about infrastructure is pretty childish behavior.
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 01, 2021, 02:37:12 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 01, 2021, 02:35:19 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 01, 2021, 02:32:38 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 01, 2021, 02:23:31 PM
Any freeway removal is unacceptable. :banghead:
Even ones encircling a rust belt city's downtown that three people use per day?
Or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2937893,-76.6392473,1064m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)?
Again, I consider removing that one particularly bad, as it would be key to finishing I-70 into Baltimore as designed.
That's the same mentality that hoarders use to justify keeping random stuff in their house. Baltimore doesn't want nor does it need the original freeway plans for the area. You have to look at the world through a practical and pragmatic perspective, not a roadgeek perspective.
Plus, with the other rust belt response, the rust belt will not need its vestigial freeways when it revitalizes. Those freeways served a different time and a different purpose in an area with a different character than it has today, all for something that was, in hindsight, headed toward collapse, but nobody could've seen it coming.
Rust belt towns that are revitalizing are doing so by opening up downtown, refurbishing historic structures, and more, and part of that process is freeway removal. They have to adapt because the industrial ways of old aren't viable anymore. It's long gone and likely will not be coming back in the way it existed in the past. The way it was done simply isn't profitable anymore. Manufacturing in America today isn't the same as manufacturing in the 40s-80s for a reason.
The urban decay/miserable looks and grittiness brought on by those things, in combination with the pollution and decaying industry is part of why the core of those cities declined. Tourism and local visitors don't see the city and bring it money by car, they want to stop downtown, shop, eat, and walk in a park. If people want to rent out a new apartment made out of an old building, they don't want a freeway tearing through and making noise right by them. If everything is done by car in downtown, you don't get that. If freeways can't be removed, their presence should be reduced by a highway lid.
Imagine for a moment you're starting a business and you want the life and pull a downtown can give for one. You're trying to capitalize on what could be a revitalization of a decaying rust belt city. Now, imagine if the downtown nearest to you was like how Houston was in the 1970s, where two-thirds of the downtown was made out of parking lots. Is that somewhere you'd want your business? In order for the life to come back, those things have to change.
Nope you have it completely wrong. Rustbelt areas do not "revitalize" by having hipsters move into these "downtown" areas of "eat, shop, etc" while tearing down your heavy infrastructure. All that ever does is put a facade on a city of ruins. That "revitalization" garbage never brings back the good paying industrial jobs that supported middle class families, it brings in low wage service jobs that cater to tourists or a handful of new comers to town. And more importantly it never produces the manufacturing base that we badly need.
No, the solution for Baltimore and other Rustbelt towns is to keep the freeways, because that kind of heavy transportation infrastructure is vital to manufacturing and real industry. Re-industrialization, not "revitalization" is the goal.
I agree with you to a point. The problem is that since some other countries can produce and manufacture goods at a fraction of the cost we cannot expect to revive the manufacturing industry. Those service jobs are a starting point to a new economy.
Re-industrialization isn't going to happen.
Look at all the office buildings near I-95/MA 128 from Waltham to Woburn (many are even visible from the highway). Those are the types of businesses that are useful now.
Pittsburgh was revitalized by attracting growing industries and focusing less on propping up dying or obsolete ones.
Quote from: 1 on June 03, 2021, 01:25:50 PM
Re-industrialization isn't going to happen.
Look at all the office buildings near I-95/MA 128 from Waltham to Woburn (many are even visible from the highway). Those are the types of businesses that are useful now.
Re-industrialization can happen, if it does or not depends a great deal on policy. One of those policies is keeping the appropriate infrastructure in place.
I question the "useful now" idea. Perhaps in the sense that under the existing framework they are economically viable sure, but I would trade them in a heartbeat for re-industrialization.
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 01:28:05 PM
Pittsburgh was revitalized by attracting growing industries and focusing less on propping up dying or obsolete ones.
Yes, and it was similar in Rochester too in the wake of Kodak's collapse.
Quote from: 1 on June 03, 2021, 01:25:50 PM
Look at all the office buildings near I-95/MA 128 from Waltham to Woburn (many are even visible from the highway). Those are the types of businesses that are useful now.
Equally important here, I think, is the fact that these businesses are along the beltway route versus downtown, which seems to be an ongoing trend in many
cities metro areas ever since most beltways were built (which also helps explain why beltways tend to be so congested - originally intended as bypasses, they wound up becoming victims of their own success by propping up the suburbs along their routes).
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 03, 2021, 01:29:03 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 03, 2021, 01:25:50 PM
Re-industrialization isn't going to happen.
Look at all the office buildings near I-95/MA 128 from Waltham to Woburn (many are even visible from the highway). Those are the types of businesses that are useful now.
Re-industrialization can happen, if it does or not depends a great deal on policy. One of those policies is keeping the appropriate infrastructure in place.
I question the "useful now" idea. Perhaps in the sense that under the existing framework they are economically viable sure, but I would trade them in a heartbeat for re-industrialization.
If your idea of cutting off trade, or adding even more hefty tarrifs on other countries that you mentioned in another thread works in your favor first...
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 01:28:05 PM
Pittsburgh was revitalized by attracting growing industries and focusing less on propping up dying or obsolete ones.
I agree that heavy industries are not going to be the way of the future here in the US. On the other hand we need to allow our industries to compete with those in the rest of the world. We need to require products we import to have to abide by similar environmental contingencies. We need to insure that they do not use slave or child labor. We need to insure that imported product are safe and as described or there being real consequences. We need to insure that the governments' fiscal input into the product's export cost is similar to those our government provides to US manufacturers. (Tax breaks, subsidies, infrastructure costs , etc.)
There needs to be a level playing field. The only real difference should be the cost of labor ( primarily salaries and benefits) between developed countries and less developed ones. I am not suggesting all of the heavy industry will or even should return to the USA. On the other hand, the trade imbalance cannot carry on forever either.
Quote from: bwana39 on June 03, 2021, 01:42:37 PM
On the other hand, the trade imbalance cannot carry on forever either.
We can have a disadvantage in one thing if we have greater advantages in other things.
Thread split, please?
Quote from: bwana39 on June 03, 2021, 01:42:37 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 01:28:05 PM
Pittsburgh was revitalized by attracting growing industries and focusing less on propping up dying or obsolete ones.
I agree that heavy industries are not going to be the way of the future here in the US. On the other hand we need to allow our industries to compete with those in the rest of the world. We need to require products we import to have to abide by similar environmental contingencies. We need to insure that they do not use slave or child labor. We need to insure that imported product are safe and as described or there being real consequences. We need to insure that the governments' fiscal input into the product's export cost is similar to those our government provides to US manufacturers. (Tax breaks, subsidies, infrastructure costs , etc.)
There needs to be a level playing field. The only real difference should be the cost of labor ( primarily salaries and benefits) between developed countries and less developed ones. I am not suggesting all of the heavy industry will or even should return to the USA. On the other hand, the trade imbalance cannot carry on forever either.
I would also like to stop importing from countries that use slave and child labor.
In Toronto, the waterfront of Toronto used to be completely industrial. However, as industry declined, the waterfront was revitalized as somewhere desirable to live, and I'd say that it's rather successful. Parking lots, industrial wasteland, large railway yards, has now turned into condo buildings, parks, businesses, and also the new Entertainment district where the CN Tower, Rogers Centre, etc now stand. These things all give Toronto's character today as we know it and are major job creators, and attractions (for Torontoians and tourists alike) that inject money into the local economy.
Here is a comparison, 1970 vs today.
(https://i.redd.it/q66jwzua5r701.jpg)
(https://totimes.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/torontowaterfront-2-859x639.jpg)
It's simply the fact that heavy industry and related are no longer suitable in high-income economies, because developing nations elsewhere can do it for way cheaper.
Honestly, the trade imbalance and the resulting shift to low-wage jobs is one reason why, were I in charge, free trade deals would only be allowed between countries with comparable levels of development.
Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2021, 01:31:13 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 01:28:05 PM
Pittsburgh was revitalized by attracting growing industries and focusing less on propping up dying or obsolete ones.
Yes, and it was similar in Rochester too in the wake of Kodak's collapse.
Except Rochester hasn't bounced back anywhere close to Pittsburgh's success.
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 07:06:11 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2021, 01:31:13 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 01:28:05 PM
Pittsburgh was revitalized by attracting growing industries and focusing less on propping up dying or obsolete ones.
Yes, and it was similar in Rochester too in the wake of Kodak's collapse.
Except Rochester hasn't bounced back anywhere close to Pittsburgh's success.
Wasn't Rochester the hottest housing market in the country pre-COVID?
Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2021, 07:44:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 07:06:11 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2021, 01:31:13 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 01:28:05 PM
Pittsburgh was revitalized by attracting growing industries and focusing less on propping up dying or obsolete ones.
Yes, and it was similar in Rochester too in the wake of Kodak's collapse.
Except Rochester hasn't bounced back anywhere close to Pittsburgh's success.
Wasn't Rochester the hottest housing market in the country pre-COVID?
If it's from this news article (https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2019/06/13/rochester-ny-hottest-real-estate-market-realtor-com/1442637001/), it's a poorly-done study: only looking at views and sales times on one website instead of aggregating multiple sources.
Pretty sure the Pacific Northwest has several markets that were (and still are) far busier.
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 07:06:11 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2021, 01:31:13 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 01:28:05 PM
Pittsburgh was revitalized by attracting growing industries and focusing less on propping up dying or obsolete ones.
Yes, and it was similar in Rochester too in the wake of Kodak's collapse.
Except Rochester hasn't bounced back anywhere close to Pittsburgh's success.
Haha. This is aaroads, not city data :D
Sure, the improvement might not have been as dramatic, but that's because Pittsburgh was much worse at its worst. Also, citation needed regarding Pittsburgh. Last I knew, it wasn't exactly a boomtown. Considering that losing Kodak could have easily been apocalyptic for the Rochester region, I suspect Rochester is just as good an example of the point as Pittsburgh.
Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2021, 07:44:45 PM
Wasn't Rochester the hottest housing market in the country pre-COVID?
At least among them, yes, and it's only gotten hotter since then. In the past ~6 months, houses have been selling unbelievably fast for this region, often above asking price, which is unheard of historically.
It isn't a matter of the size of the comeback, but the actual comeback.
Rochester's still treading water at best. Pandemic housing sales are just a temporary phenomenon and are not reflective of the health of Rochester's overall economy.
https://time.com/pittsburgh/
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 11:22:32 PM
https://time.com/pittsburgh/
I'm waiting for Angelo71 to find this link.
I'm kinda mixed about Hennepin-122. It was downgraded from a freeway to an expressway about 10 years back when they built the LRT to St. Paul.
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 11:22:32 PM
It isn't a matter of the size of the comeback, but the actual comeback.
Two different situations. One a transition, one a comeback. I think your original statement applies to both, but it's probably not a distinction worth arguing over.
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 11:22:32 PM
Pandemic housing sales are just a temporary phenomenon and are not reflective of the health of Rochester's overall economy.
Even relative to other places, but we'll see... :meh:
Quote from: DJ Particle on June 03, 2021, 11:39:45 PM
I'm kinda mixed about Hennepin-122. It was downgraded from a freeway to an expressway about 10 years back when they built the LRT to St. Paul.
Is that Washington Ave? Assuming you're thinking of the part between I-35W and the Mississippi River (beyond both ends are a surface street), it looks like a 4 lane to 2 lane downgrade to me to fit the LRT tracks in, not really freeway to expressway, as it barely counted as a freeway in the first place.
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 11:22:32 PM
It isn't a matter of the size of the comeback, but the actual comeback.
Rochester's still treading water at best. Pandemic housing sales are just a temporary phenomenon and are not reflective of the health of Rochester's overall economy.
https://time.com/pittsburgh/
I'd hardly call what was going on in
2019 "pandemic housing sales". And while the stats behind the "hottest in the nation" thing may be flawed (I think a local news station ran with that story too, in addition to the D&C), it was definitely hot - the house next door to my parents, a MAJOR fixer-upper where the family didn't even have time to clean our their mom's stuff due to job relocation, sold for well above (between $116k and $160k, I think) its asking price (somewhere around $90k) to house flippers who then sold it for more than double what they originally paid (well into the $300,000s - just before the pandemic), at a price that had previously been unheard of in the neighborhood (where houses had been selling in the low $200,000s and were in the $100,000s most of my life).
Plus, while NYS appears to be racing to bring its workforce back into the office and continue on as if telecommuting never happened, that isn't the case everywhere - in fact, some employers are now mandating it to save on office space. And many people have discovered that they like not having to pay over $1000/month for a closet. While we can't know exactly what the new equilibrium will be, I think it's safe to say that it won't be the old one.
Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2021, 08:35:12 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 07:06:11 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2021, 01:31:13 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 01:28:05 PM
Pittsburgh was revitalized by attracting growing industries and focusing less on propping up dying or obsolete ones.
Yes, and it was similar in Rochester too in the wake of Kodak's collapse.
Except Rochester hasn't bounced back anywhere close to Pittsburgh's success.
Haha. This is aaroads, not city data :D
Sure, the improvement might not have been as dramatic, but that's because Pittsburgh was much worse at its worst. Also, citation needed regarding Pittsburgh. Last I knew, it wasn't exactly a boomtown. Considering that losing Kodak could have easily been apocalyptic for the Rochester region, I suspect Rochester is just as good an example of the point as Pittsburgh.
Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2021, 07:44:45 PM
Wasn't Rochester the hottest housing market in the country pre-COVID?
At least among them, yes, and it's only gotten hotter since then. In the past ~6 months, houses have been selling unbelievably fast for this region, often above asking price, which is unheard of historically.
They also lost PIT as a hub as well when AA bought out US.
Can CA-13 Warren Freeway be acceptable for freeway removal in Oakland?
Likewise can CA-90 Marina Freeway be acceptable for removal too in the Los Angeles area.
I-380 and I-238 can be considered for freeway removal but that's overshadowed by the rumored southern crossing.
Quote from: vdeane on June 04, 2021, 12:48:39 PM
the house next door to my parents...sold for well above...its asking price (somewhere around $90k)
:-o :-o
I didn't
know homes still came that cheap.
edit: awful English
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2021, 05:49:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 04, 2021, 12:48:39 PM
the house next door to my parents...sold for well above...its asking price (somewhere around $90k)
:-o :-o
I didn't homes still came that cheap.
Yeah lol, I thought it was a typo
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2021, 05:49:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 04, 2021, 12:48:39 PM
the house next door to my parents...sold for well above...its asking price (somewhere around $90k)
:-o :-o
I didn't homes still came that cheap.
Base home prices pre-pandemic were probably quite a bit cheaper around Rochester than major cities (even $300k is considered high there). That ~$90k would be cheap by the standards of the neighborhood, but given that it hadn't seen more than the most basic maintenance in a very long time and was sold as-is, cash only on very short notice without even cleaning out the stuff, we were more surprised at what it actually sold for than the list price.
Quote from: vdeane on June 04, 2021, 08:55:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2021, 05:49:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 04, 2021, 12:48:39 PM
the house next door to my parents...sold for well above...its asking price (somewhere around $90k)
:-o :-o
I didn't homes still came that cheap.
Base home prices pre-pandemic were probably quite a bit cheaper around Rochester than major cities (even $300k is considered high there). That ~$90k would be cheap even by the standards of the neighborhood, but given that it hadn't seen more than the most basic maintenance in a very long time and was sold as-is, cash only on very short notice without even cleaning out the stuff, we were more surprised at what it actually sold for than the list price.
Yeah, I wasn't shocked at all by a house being listed for ~$90k, but it is important context you provide. Most suburban areas would be
at least in the low- to mid-$100k range, but there's plenty of homes that would go for less than that in the inner city.
To echo your point, I thought $300k was very expensive when I was younger. Not so much now, obviously, but there are still plenty of decent areas where you can get a home for less than that. Even newly constructed homes were selling in the mid-$200k range as recently as 2018-19 (I used to drive past two such neighborhoods on my commute, but those have been largely sold out/complete for a year or two now).
$300K is the standard for a cookie-cutter 30+ year-old house in the exurbs here. Any lower and you're looking at some very dilapidated homes in even worse areas.
The median home price in King County is $725,000.
(https://i.imgur.com/nuXL4Us.jpg)
I-80, Vacaville to Fairfield, CA would be the worst places to remove freeway because that section has to carry both Sacramento area and Bay Area commuters at the same time.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2021, 05:49:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 04, 2021, 12:48:39 PM
the house next door to my parents...sold for well above...its asking price (somewhere around $90k)
:-o :-o
I didn't homes still came that cheap.
Yes, but it depends on where you are. Here, in Joliet, Illinois, you can find a decent 3-bed/2-bath house (~2,200 SF) in the range of $140k-$220k, and we're still building a lot of new houses, unlike most of Chicagoland, much less the State of Illinois (only nine counties in the state grew last decade: Will, Kendall, DuPage (barely), Kane, Grundy, Champaign, Williamson, Monore, and McLean).
Quote from: Brandon on June 06, 2021, 10:34:42 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2021, 05:49:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 04, 2021, 12:48:39 PM
the house next door to my parents...sold for well above...its asking price (somewhere around $90k)
:-o :-o
I didn't homes still came that cheap.
Yes, but it depends on where you are. Here, in Joliet, Illinois, you can find a decent 3-bed/2-bath house (~2,200 SF) in the range of $140k-$220k, and we're still building a lot of new houses, unlike most of Chicagoland, much less the State of Illinois (only nine counties in the state grew last decade: Will, Kendall, DuPage (barely), Kane, Grundy, Champaign, Williamson, Monore, and McLean).
What, in your opinion, seems to keep the prices of homes down? Is there not a huge draw to Joliet? Too long of a commute to Chicago?
$140k to $220k is certainly not free, but still well below even the cheapest of homes in suburban WA (as Bruce's map above shows quite well). You have to really get out into the boonies to find something for $140k, or perhaps a very rundown home in a very rundown part of town in a very rundown city (I'm think Tacoma's Eastside and, ten years ago, Tacoma's Hilltop area, where I can still remember seeing a home for under $100k within the last ten years).
Quote from: jakeroot on June 06, 2021, 01:51:16 PM
What, in your opinion, seems to keep the prices of homes down?
I know this wasn't directed at me, but my answer for Upstate NY (and the Rust Belt in general) would be very slow population growth rates - or even population decline - and the fact that the area is generally not seen as desirable, as evidenced by more people moving out than moving in. Over the last 4-5 decades, if there's been any growth, it's usually the result of natural growth outweighing the net loss due to migration.
Of course, that's starting to change a bit now, but that's certainly been the case since the decline of the Rust Belt began in the 1970's-80's.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 06, 2021, 01:51:16 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 06, 2021, 10:34:42 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2021, 05:49:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 04, 2021, 12:48:39 PM
the house next door to my parents...sold for well above...its asking price (somewhere around $90k)
:-o :-o
I didn't homes still came that cheap.
Yes, but it depends on where you are. Here, in Joliet, Illinois, you can find a decent 3-bed/2-bath house (~2,200 SF) in the range of $140k-$220k, and we're still building a lot of new houses, unlike most of Chicagoland, much less the State of Illinois (only nine counties in the state grew last decade: Will, Kendall, DuPage (barely), Kane, Grundy, Champaign, Williamson, Monore, and McLean).
What, in your opinion, seems to keep the prices of homes down? Is there not a huge draw to Joliet? Too long of a commute to Chicago?
$140k to $220k is certainly not free, but still well below even the cheapest of homes in suburban WA (as Bruce's map above shows quite well). You have to really get out into the boonies to find something for $140k, or perhaps a very rundown home in a very rundown part of town in a very rundown city (I'm think Tacoma's Eastside and, ten years ago, Tacoma's Hilltop area, where I can still remember seeing a home for under $100k within the last ten years).
What helps keep prices down? There's quite a bit of inexpensive new construction of average homes instead of McMansions. New housing starts came to a standstill after the 2008 crash; however, they built back up quickly enough and a lot of new homes were being built again by 2014 or so. When it costs about the same to buy a new house as it does to buy a used house, then prices stay much lower. There's a lot more competition. That said, houses do go for over list price, and they do go quickly.
CA-242 the entire route given that it's a short freeway from I-680 to CA-4 in Concord, CA it is useful offset jams on I-680 at Rush hour.
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 04, 2021, 12:07:05 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on June 03, 2021, 11:39:45 PM
I'm kinda mixed about Hennepin-122. It was downgraded from a freeway to an expressway about 10 years back when they built the LRT to St. Paul.
Is that Washington Ave? Assuming you're thinking of the part between I-35W and the Mississippi River (beyond both ends are a surface street), it looks like a 4 lane to 2 lane downgrade to me to fit the LRT tracks in, not really freeway to expressway, as it barely counted as a freeway in the first place.
On the Dinkytown side, the right lane was usually clogged with parked vehicles anyway so the traffic flow capacity was basically the same as it is now.
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2021, 02:06:33 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 06, 2021, 01:51:16 PM
What, in your opinion, seems to keep the prices of homes down?
I know this wasn't directed at me, but my answer for Upstate NY (and the Rust Belt in general) would be very slow population growth rates - or even population decline - and the fact that the area is generally not seen as desirable, as evidenced by more people moving out than moving in. Over the last 4-5 decades, if there's been any growth, it's usually the result of natural growth outweighing the net loss due to migration.
Of course, that's starting to change a bit now, but that's certainly been the case since the decline of the Rust Belt began in the 1970's-80's.
To add: Rochester didn't feel the housing boom of the 2000s that eventually led to the Great Recession (and, conversely, didn't feel the foreclosure crisis, either).
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 04, 2021, 12:07:05 AM
Is that Washington Ave? Assuming you're thinking of the part between I-35W and the Mississippi River (beyond both ends are a surface street), it looks like a 4 lane to 2 lane downgrade to me to fit the LRT tracks in, not really freeway to expressway, as it barely counted as a freeway in the first place.
Ah...I always figured it was a freeway for that short distance given that originally there were no surface intersections between the Metrodome and the East Bank...just a few interchanges (35W, Cedar Ave, E River Road). When the LRT moved in, they put in 2 signalized intersections.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 31, 2021, 08:12:31 AM
Quote from: achilles765 on May 31, 2021, 08:01:44 AM
Here in Houston it would be a huge mistake to get rid of any of the interstate routings. They are already so ingrained into the makeup of the city. Could you imagine rerouting I 10 and putting a boulevard in that stretch that's 26 lanes wide
Aren't they actively planning to remove I-45 on the west side of Downtown, assuming the expansion of the I-69 segment of the loop is ever cleared from environmental hurdles.
Yeah and it's a terrible idea. Technically what they are doing is rerouting IH 45 along Ih 10 and then running alongside IH 69. They aren't even technically getting rid of the current route because the plan is to label it "the downtown connector."
It's a stupid idea to get rid of it totally because that means traffic heading to the med center or the southwest now would have to go all the way around downtown and around the east side instead of just a direct route. And means there'd only be one freeway through downtown.
One of the things I've always liked about Houston's freeway system is that we don't have many multiplexed routes. None of that nonsense like in San Antonio where every major route multiplexes at some point. Or Beaumont with its interstate 10/US 90/US 69/US 96/US 287 insanity.
If this plan is built as planned there will be a stretch here that will be Interstate 10/Interstate 45/Interstate 69/US 90/US 59/SH 288
I think if there's a fundamental rethinking of Houston - to make the whole city a lot less car-oriented - then a freeway removal would make sense
Quote from: andrepoiy on June 08, 2021, 02:53:15 PM
I think if there's a fundamental rethinking of Houston - to make the whole city a lot less car-oriented - then a freeway removal would make sense
True, Houston is still very car-oriented, but it's making strides in the mass transit sector. We have three light rail lines, a substantial bus network, HOV lanes, an underground walkway around downtown, and a park-and-ride system for carpooling. Sadly, a subway wouldn't make sense given the city's capacity for flooding.
I would say the worst freeway to remove in Houston would be I-69/I-59 thru downtown, especially considering the I-45 rerouting.
A subway doesn't have to be underground, it could very well be overground or elevated.
Quote from: andrepoiy on June 08, 2021, 02:53:15 PM
I think if there's a fundamental rethinking of Houston - to make the whole city a lot less car-oriented - then a freeway removal would make sense
Perhaps... but let's get there first. Prematurely removing freeways with a goal in mind that may never play out... bad idea. Houston is certainly car-oriented at the present.
Quote from: CoreySamson on June 08, 2021, 03:53:40 PM
Quote from: andrepoiy on June 08, 2021, 02:53:15 PM
I think if there's a fundamental rethinking of Houston - to make the whole city a lot less car-oriented - then a freeway removal would make sense
True, Houston is still very car-oriented, but it's making strides in the mass transit sector. We have three light rail lines, a substantial bus network, HOV lanes, an underground walkway around downtown, and a park-and-ride system for carpooling. Sadly, a subway wouldn't make sense given the city's capacity for flooding.
I would say the worst freeway to remove in Houston would be I-69/I-59 thru downtown, especially considering the I-45 rerouting.
Houston would be one of those cities that I could see have an S-bahn/RER like suburban rail system if the city/metro area is less freeway centric, though I think the I-10 Katy Fwy expansion might've killed that, as I heard there was ROW for a double-tracked rail line next to the freeway before the expansion. Still, taking a train from IAH to downtown would be a nice to have.
Quote from: CoreySamson on June 08, 2021, 03:53:40 PM
Quote from: andrepoiy on June 08, 2021, 02:53:15 PM
I think if there's a fundamental rethinking of Houston - to make the whole city a lot less car-oriented - then a freeway removal would make sense
True, Houston is still very car-oriented, but it's making strides in the mass transit sector. We have three light rail lines, a substantial bus network, HOV lanes, an underground walkway around downtown, and a park-and-ride system for carpooling. Sadly, a subway wouldn't make sense given the city's capacity for flooding.
I would say the worst freeway to remove in Houston would be I-69/I-59 thru downtown, especially considering the I-45 rerouting.
I live in the east end and I will tell you, that light rail line is awesome. but there's also a bus line literally a block from my house that runs every 15 minutes too, so I generally use that but late at night the train runs later.
I actually have managed to live here without a car for the last five years and have rarely had it be an issue. But damn is it going to feel good to have one again later this month.