Can Removing Highways Fix America's Cities? https://nyti.ms/3uqohkX
I recently read an article released this morning on how there's a movement across America removing downtown freeways. They use the same lies freeway advocates use. They cite examples across the country of spurs that were never really used in the first place then pretend that this route was actually a through route. They spend a ton of time on the inner loop removal as well, then site examples across the country of alleged "removal studies". Some listed are absurd and not even seriously being considered. One I know for sure isn't true. 65/70 in Indianapolis is literally being rebuilt as we speak, we are feeling the traffic nightmare with it closed now. 75/85 in Atlanta, are you serious?! Are any of these removal plans serious? Another I saw was i-10 in new Orleans, that is dead too.
one of the most annoying things about freeway removal people are they tout how some have been removed to much success, but don't tell you those were largely superfluous spurs or remnants of a corridor never fully built. Inner Loop may be gone, but 490 still goes through downtown to service downtown.
There's a list of highway removal projects they want in the middle of the article, some of them are just plain comical. Imagine getting around in Austin without I-35, Seattle without I-5, or Atlanta without I-75. And no, I don't think you can shove all those people onto a city bypass, trains (if a city even have one, and you need more than 2 lines that runs on 15 minute headways for that to work too) or local streets, especially on a larger scale project on a busier freeway in a larger city than Rochester, which is what the article used as their example.
Also note to NYT: if you really want to show images of before/after cities with highways, don't cut 8 of the city images off the edges. Especially on the bottom where there aren't even labels. I could tell the bottom left is Louisville, but what about the other three?
(https://i.imgur.com/4IqGhOJ.jpg?1)
All of their examples seem to be smaller cities that really never needed downtown freeways to begin with, but they use this logic and try to apply it to large and mid size cities. Rochester and Syracuse would benefit from freeway removal because they never really needed a downtown freeway to begin with they are smaller cities. But who's insane enough to think removing 75/85 from Atlanta, 35 from Austin and many more of their examples?! Also NY 198 is barely a freeway and it doesn't even go through downtown Buffalo.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 27, 2021, 11:01:30 AM
Rochester and Syracuse would benefit from freeway removal because they never really needed a downtown freeway to begin with they are smaller cities. But who's insane enough to think removing 75/85 from Atlanta, 35 from Austin and many more of their examples?!
To be fair, you can't really put Rochester and Syracuse in the same bucket here. Rochester can do without the Inner Loop, it was missing some key ramps and had basically no through traffic anyways.
I-81, on the other hand, is more comparable to your other examples (I-75/I-85 and I-35) than it is to the Inner Loop, especially when you factor in through traffic, truck traffic, and the alternate routes available.
I-980 Oakland and CA-103 Terminal Island Freeway I never heard of these two actually being considered for freeway removal by CalTrans
In the case of I-980 its used as an alternate route to I-880 for port traffic.
CA-103 is used for port traffic too.
American cities would have been a lot better off had highways not been built right through them. That being said, removing some freeways has been great for development, even if they are just "superfluous spurs" but it is unlikely at this point that additional removal of through freeways would work.
It's just too bad they can't turn back time to when better ideas could have been considered instead.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 27, 2021, 01:22:59 PM
American cities would have been a lot better off had highways not been built right through them. That being said, removing some freeways has been great for development, even if they are just "superfluous spurs" but it is unlikely at this point that additional removal of through freeways would work.
It's just too bad they can't turn back time to when better ideas could have been considered instead.
Honestly thinking, cities need to be reinvented. Highway removal is just another cargo cult.
Historically, cities were centers of craft/industry and trade. With lots of automation in manufacturing- and a lot of shift overseas; and transformation of goods flow, cities must change. Collecting people in the area so they can happily walk, sing and drink coffee in mom and pop shops is as good as economic landscape. News flash: coffee shops cannot be the only business to support a city.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 27, 2021, 01:22:59 PM
American cities would have been a lot better off had highways not been built right through them. That being said, removing some freeways has been great for development, even if they are just "superfluous spurs" but it is unlikely at this point that additional removal of through freeways would work.
It's just too bad they can't turn back time to when better ideas could have been considered instead.
In a way we made these freeways become necessary in downtown. When the car took prominence in America, we basically gave up on any other form of transportation in most American cities. We have only 1 reasonable choice to get downtown in most metro areas that is convenient and reliable. In a lot of American cities with downtown freeways that is your only good choice for getting around town efficiently. I live in the Indy metro area and our mass transit options are embarrassing. I wish there were more options but there aren't, hence why I didn't support the removal of 65/70 here. Indy used to have a very nice light rail system (probably not the correct term by today's standards), as soon as cars took hold, it all died. :(
Meanwhile here in Toronto, we are complaining about the lack of good suburb-to-suburb transit since suburb-to-downtown is relatively advanced for North America. (We have both commuter rail and subways that serve the suburb-to-downtown market, with the commuter rail for those who can pay up or live too far from the subway station)
The reason being that some of our suburban cities (notable example being Mississauga) also have A LOT of employment, and the only viable way to get there for now is car, unless you live downtown in which you get a nice reverse commute lol
Even if we magically had comparable mass transit to Europe, I think it would fail because America LOVES it's cars. Fine by me I like to drive too, but I would like to have more choices available for all.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 27, 2021, 06:43:21 AM
then site examples across the country of alleged "removal studies". Some listed are absurd and not even seriously being considered. One I know for sure isn't true. 65/70 in Indianapolis is literally being rebuilt as we speak, we are feeling the traffic nightmare with it closed now. 75/85 in Atlanta, are you serious?! Are any of these removal plans serious? Another I saw was i-10 in new Orleans, that is dead too.
I think their idea of "proposed" is "someone in Urbanist advocacy circles mentioned wanting to do this once" rather than actual official proposals.
Quote from: kalvado on May 27, 2021, 01:33:59 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 27, 2021, 01:22:59 PM
American cities would have been a lot better off had highways not been built right through them. That being said, removing some freeways has been great for development, even if they are just "superfluous spurs" but it is unlikely at this point that additional removal of through freeways would work.
It's just too bad they can't turn back time to when better ideas could have been considered instead.
Honestly thinking, cities need to be reinvented. Highway removal is just another cargo cult.
Historically, cities were centers of craft/industry and trade. With lots of automation in manufacturing- and a lot of shift overseas; and transformation of goods flow, cities must change. Collecting people in the area so they can happily walk, sing and drink coffee in mom and pop shops is as good as economic landscape. News flash: coffee shops cannot be the only business to support a city.
True too I can see some cities doing this as you suggested prior to the COVID-19 shutdown.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 27, 2021, 01:51:32 PM
Even if we magically had comparable mass transit to Europe, I think it would fail because America LOVES it's cars. Fine by me I like to drive too, but I would like to have more choices available for all.
A lot of problems with just getting transit.
Yes, cars are loved - but transit works well in San Fransisco or New York, for example.
I suspect a lot of transit problems come from considering it a tax-funded welfare rather than a business acting as organic part of the city like grocery stores or utilities.
Quote from: kalvado on May 27, 2021, 03:45:32 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 27, 2021, 01:51:32 PM
Even if we magically had comparable mass transit to Europe, I think it would fail because America LOVES it's cars. Fine by me I like to drive too, but I would like to have more choices available for all.
A lot of problems with just getting transit.
Yes, cars are loved - but transit works well in San Fransisco or New York, for example.
I suspect a lot of transit problems come from considering it a tax-funded welfare rather than a business acting as organic part of the city like grocery stores or utilities.
I can see college towns such as Davis and Berkeley saying we need more Transit and bike access.
Quote from: bing101 on May 27, 2021, 04:43:07 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 27, 2021, 03:45:32 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 27, 2021, 01:51:32 PM
Even if we magically had comparable mass transit to Europe, I think it would fail because America LOVES it's cars. Fine by me I like to drive too, but I would like to have more choices available for all.
A lot of problems with just getting transit.
Yes, cars are loved - but transit works well in San Fransisco or New York, for example.
I suspect a lot of transit problems come from considering it a tax-funded welfare rather than a business acting as organic part of the city like grocery stores or utilities.
I can see college towns such as Davis and Berkeley saying we need more Transit and bike access.
That is easy to say - but simple question is "who foots the bill?"
So far, US transit runs on public money, fares being smaller part of it. And transit operations are not taxed to provide that pool of public money , unlike standard road driving.
At the end of the day, transit ends up running at pleasure of politicians who can send a slice of general fund to the agency rather than passengers who contribute only that much - and agencies are often seemingly not interested in actually serving passengers. That is unlike businesses, where customer satisfaction (in a form of $$ paid) is the primary goal.
With roads, driver influence is stronger as there is a good correlation of voters and drivers being overlapping groups in most areas. That may be partially true for transit riders in NYC, but likely not in a regular college town, where students are still only a fraction of population.
My gut feeling is that if transit has to fight for fare dollars, they may start doing better things.
Atlanta? Maybe if I-285 was 30 lanes wide...
Quote from: vdeane on May 27, 2021, 02:34:53 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 27, 2021, 06:43:21 AM
then site examples across the country of alleged "removal studies". Some listed are absurd and not even seriously being considered. One I know for sure isn't true. 65/70 in Indianapolis is literally being rebuilt as we speak, we are feeling the traffic nightmare with it closed now. 75/85 in Atlanta, are you serious?! Are any of these removal plans serious? Another I saw was i-10 in new Orleans, that is dead too.
I think their idea of "proposed" is "someone in Urbanist advocacy circles mentioned wanting to do this once" rather than actual official proposals.
And I-64 Louisville isn't even on the NYT article's list. Pretty sure the 8664 organization is more known than at least half of the highway removal proposals listed.
So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?
Quote from: bluecountry on May 27, 2021, 08:50:30 PM
So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?
Bad faith arguments have no home here. Try again.
Pixel 5
Oftentimes people writing these types of articles and holding these types of viewpoints are backing it up with the old "look at western Europe" argument. Anytime I hear anyone compare western tiny European countries, (generally the Netherlands, Switzerland, or God forbid Luxembourg), I laugh, because saying that a giant country of 330 million people should be modeled after a minnow-sized nation of 15 million is the equivalent of saying that a road through a desolate forest with an AADT of 30 should be designed the same as an urban highway with an AADT of 100,000. Our country is so huge in terms of both size and population and our economy is so well connected that cars are a necessity for most, and that's not going to change. Not to mention that cars are just nice compared to public transportation. Privacy. Independence. No relying on somebody else. Choice. Many other reasons.
Quote from: SkyPesos on May 27, 2021, 08:26:31 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 27, 2021, 02:34:53 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 27, 2021, 06:43:21 AM
then site examples across the country of alleged "removal studies". Some listed are absurd and not even seriously being considered. One I know for sure isn't true. 65/70 in Indianapolis is literally being rebuilt as we speak, we are feeling the traffic nightmare with it closed now. 75/85 in Atlanta, are you serious?! Are any of these removal plans serious? Another I saw was i-10 in new Orleans, that is dead too.
I think their idea of "proposed" is "someone in Urbanist advocacy circles mentioned wanting to do this once" rather than actual official proposals.
And I-64 Louisville isn't even on the NYT article's list. Pretty sure the 8664 organization is more known than at least half of the highway removal proposals listed.
There are some inner city highways that should be done away with. I-64 between I-65 and its western I-264 junction in Louisville is a good example. The western and northern links of the Kansas City loop can go. OH-2 in Cleveland. Youngstown's downtown loop is unnecessary.
Quote from: bluecountry on May 27, 2021, 08:50:30 PM
So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?
Do you believe highway removal after 50 years would magically restore community, bring back jobs into the rust belt, and restore good old times?
I heavily doubt so.
Quote from: kalvado on May 27, 2021, 09:05:39 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on May 27, 2021, 08:50:30 PM
So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?
Do you believe highway removal after 50 years would magically restore community, bring back jobs into the rust belt, and restore good old times?
I heavily doubt so.
Yeah, the people who were affected by the highway don't even live there anymore. It sucks that communities were destroyed for highways in the 60s and 70s, but we need to get over it and focus on now.
Quote from: bluecountry on May 27, 2021, 08:50:30 PM
So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?
The residents of the mostly-black Treme neighborhood of New Orleans would like to have a word with you regarding tearing down the I-10 bridge that was built after Claiborne Ave's neutral grounds (median for the rest of us not from New Orleans) were clear-cut.
https://nextcity.org/features/view/a-divided-neighborhood-comes-together-under-an-elevated-expressway
NB: New Orleans was where one of the first visible efforts to STOP planned freeways was undertaken. In that case, they were trying to stop I-310, which was supposed to run along the Mississippi River banks in front of the French Quarter.
I-5 in Seattle is not being studied for removal, just for lidding and reconfiguration in the long-term. The NY Times must have misinterpreted the CNU report, but I can't find the exact page.
Highway removals are a good way of undoing the horrible wrongs of mid-century planning, particularly in communities of color. It also helps reduce the maintenance and repair load on state DOTs, especially as many early freeways are literally crumbling and will need billions for replacements. Redirecting those billions to fixing bottlenecks and improving intra-city routes, along with adequately funding real mass transit solutions (e.g. high frequency, limited stop buses, grade-separated rail, and anything but vaporware like hyperloop) would yield huge benefits at the cost of some minor inconvenience while traffic adjusts to the new normal.
Quote from: Bruce on May 27, 2021, 09:47:43 PM
I-5 in Seattle is not being studied for removal, just for lidding and reconfiguration in the long-term. The NY Times must have misinterpreted the CNU report, but I can't find the exact page.
Highway removals are a good way of undoing the horrible wrongs of mid-century planning, particularly in communities of color. It also helps reduce the maintenance and repair load on state DOTs, especially as many early freeways are literally crumbling and will need billions for replacements. Redirecting those billions to fixing bottlenecks and improving intra-city routes, along with adequately funding real mass transit solutions (e.g. high frequency, limited stop buses, grade-separated rail, and anything but vaporware like hyperloop) would yield huge benefits at the cost of some minor inconvenience while traffic adjusts to the new normal.
[emoji848] which dot is investing in mass transit as an alternative?
Pixel 5
In Toronto, the Gardiner Expressway has been an issue because it is literally crumbling.
Thus, in the end, it came down to 3 options:
1) Removal (and replace with boulevard)
2) Maintain
3) Hybrid Option, which would be to rebuild it and route the eastern end a bit differently. Also the most expensive option.
In the end, option 3 was chosen, and it's interesting because all the downtown city councillors voted for removal while all the suburban councillors voted for the hybrid option.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 27, 2021, 08:52:06 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on May 27, 2021, 08:50:30 PM
So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?
Bad faith arguments have no home here. Try again.
Doesn't stop a number of posters here from the pro-freeway/anti-transit side from making such arguments (see below), though I believe you at least mentioned such in your OP.
Quote from: thspfc on May 27, 2021, 09:07:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 27, 2021, 09:05:39 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on May 27, 2021, 08:50:30 PM
So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?
Do you believe highway removal after 50 years would magically restore community, bring back jobs into the rust belt, and restore good old times?
I heavily doubt so.
Yeah, the people who were affected by the highway don't even live there anymore. It sucks that communities were destroyed for highways in the 60s and 70s, but we need to get over it and focus on now.
This is patently false. Along the vast majority of urban freeways, you have those who did not have their homes directly taken but live immediately adjacent to the freeway and thus were directly impacted by both construction and remain impacted by its presence. Your comment is the same sort of "bad faith argument" silverback alluded to.
Quote from: bing101 on May 27, 2021, 12:05:55 PM
I-980 Oakland and CA-103 Terminal Island Freeway I never heard of these two actually being considered for freeway removal by CalTrans
California Highways, State Route 103 (https://cahighways.org/ROUTE103.html). Scroll down to the "Status" section. Only the section north of the PCH is being considered for lane reduction.
Quote from: froggie on May 28, 2021, 12:10:38 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 27, 2021, 08:52:06 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on May 27, 2021, 08:50:30 PM
So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?
Bad faith arguments have no home here. Try again.
Doesn't stop a number of posters here from the pro-freeway/anti-transit side from making such arguments (see below), though I believe you at least mentioned such in your OP.
Quote from: thspfc on May 27, 2021, 09:07:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 27, 2021, 09:05:39 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on May 27, 2021, 08:50:30 PM
So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?
Do you believe highway removal after 50 years would magically restore community, bring back jobs into the rust belt, and restore good old times?
I heavily doubt so.
Yeah, the people who were affected by the highway don't even live there anymore. It sucks that communities were destroyed for highways in the 60s and 70s, but we need to get over it and focus on now.
This is patently false. Along the vast majority of urban freeways, you have those who did not have their homes directly taken but live immediately adjacent to the freeway and thus were directly impacted by both construction and remain impacted by its presence. Your comment is the same sort of "bad faith argument" silverback alluded to.
Syracuse is an interesting one. Yes, the viaduct was a disaster for the old black community. However, other actions were taken and the community simply isn't there along the viaduct, having been obliterated by hospitals, a psychiatric center and new apartment towers. When the viaduct comes down, there will be a wide boulevard lined with large medical facilities, mostly.
Although the community grid is going to happen and is set -- any idea that the plans will change at this point is fantasy -- I really doubt any hopes that the removal of the viaduct will promote a feeling of community will be realized. Heck, my wife and I were just commenting that people may actually miss the shade the viaduct provides as they wait for the lights on Almond. :D
We'll see.
Yep, clearly if ONE neighborhood managed to work around a freeway that tore right through, then ALL urban freeways are good!
Whew!! Glad we solved that one.
As usual, this argument along with many others devolves to an extremist bipolar tennis match.
Remove all inner city freeways! Here is the two examples where it worked, so apply it unilaterally.
Keep all inner city freeways! Here are two other examples why it's necessary, so apply it unilaterally.
As usual, the truth is somewhere in between of the extremes.
Yes, some removals are probably a good idea, for several reasons...restoring neighborhoods, cheaper than rebuilding, etc. And yes, some removals would be disasters.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on May 28, 2021, 08:19:22 AM
As usual, this argument along with many others devolves to an extremist bipolar tennis match.
Remove all inner city freeways! Here is the two examples where it worked, so apply it unilaterally.
Keep all inner city freeways! Here are two other examples why it's necessary, so apply it unilaterally.
As usual, the truth is somewhere in between of the extremes.
Yes, some removals are probably a good idea, for several reasons...restoring neighborhoods, cheaper than rebuilding, etc. And yes, some removals would be disasters.
I agree. I believe this is where I am on this issue. I just get annoyed by bad faith arguments on this topic.
Quote from: froggie on May 28, 2021, 12:10:38 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 27, 2021, 08:52:06 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on May 27, 2021, 08:50:30 PM
So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?
Bad faith arguments have no home here. Try again.
Doesn't stop a number of posters here from the pro-freeway/anti-transit side from making such arguments (see below), though I believe you at least mentioned such in your OP.
Quote from: thspfc on May 27, 2021, 09:07:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 27, 2021, 09:05:39 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on May 27, 2021, 08:50:30 PM
So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?
Do you believe highway removal after 50 years would magically restore community, bring back jobs into the rust belt, and restore good old times?
I heavily doubt so.
Yeah, the people who were affected by the highway don't even live there anymore. It sucks that communities were destroyed for highways in the 60s and 70s, but we need to get over it and focus on now.
This is patently false. Along the vast majority of urban freeways, you have those who did not have their homes directly taken but live immediately adjacent to the freeway and thus were directly impacted by both construction and remain impacted by its presence. Your comment is the same sort of "bad faith argument" silverback alluded to.
If we're talking about 50+ years old construction.... Homes which were affected are at least 50 year old, most likely more than that. Kids who saw highway built are retiring.
Heck, average home ownership span in US is 8 years, people move often enough.
If we're arguing on community level.. Even if area is transformed, would those few who were affected by original construction still stay there? Gentrification is a real thing.
In general, surely it's better to be wealthy and healthy than poor and ill - and I doubt freeway removal would cure old illness.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 28, 2021, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on May 28, 2021, 08:19:22 AM
As usual, this argument along with many others devolves to an extremist bipolar tennis match.
Remove all inner city freeways! Here is the two examples where it worked, so apply it unilaterally.
Keep all inner city freeways! Here are two other examples why it's necessary, so apply it unilaterally.
As usual, the truth is somewhere in between of the extremes.
Yes, some removals are probably a good idea, for several reasons...restoring neighborhoods, cheaper than rebuilding, etc. And yes, some removals would be disasters.
I agree. I believe this is where I am on this issue. I just get annoyed by bad faith arguments on this topic.
Then why do you continue to make them?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 28, 2021, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 28, 2021, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on May 28, 2021, 08:19:22 AM
As usual, this argument along with many others devolves to an extremist bipolar tennis match.
Remove all inner city freeways! Here is the two examples where it worked, so apply it unilaterally.
Keep all inner city freeways! Here are two other examples why it's necessary, so apply it unilaterally.
As usual, the truth is somewhere in between of the extremes.
Yes, some removals are probably a good idea, for several reasons...restoring neighborhoods, cheaper than rebuilding, etc. And yes, some removals would be disasters.
I agree. I believe this is where I am on this issue. I just get annoyed by bad faith arguments on this topic.
Then why do you continue to make them?
explain. I didn't provide an argument, just pointed out inaccuracies in the article.
Basically for every freeway built in the U.S. there were people negatively affected and others still being negatively affected: People lost their homes they lived in for decades. Local roads/streets were cut off by the freeway so it takes longer to go the other side of where the freeway now is. There is noise and pollution along the freeway route. Since the freeway has been built there has been massive development pricing local people out of the market...
So why only concern for inner city blacks who were adversely affected?
And of course the result of freeway removal will be gentrification and most inner city blacks currently living in these neighborhoods will be forced to move since they can no longer afford to live there [unless they live in public housing or are well off]. And the substantial increase in traffic on surface arterial streets will have negative effects.
So except for a few instances of low traffic and very substantial costs to rebuild a falling apart freeway I think freeway removal is a poor idea.
Quote from: PastTense on May 28, 2021, 03:17:10 PM
Basically for every freeway built in the U.S. there were people negatively affected and others still being negatively affected: People lost their homes they lived in for decades. Local roads/streets were cut off by the freeway so it takes longer to go the other side of where the freeway now is. There is noise and pollution along the freeway route. Since the freeway has been built there has been massive development pricing local people out of the market...
So why only concern for inner city blacks who were adversely affected?
And of course the result of freeway removal will be gentrification and most inner city blacks currently living in these neighborhoods will be forced to move since they can no longer afford to live there [unless they live in public housing or are well off]. And the substantial increase in traffic on surface arterial streets will have negative effects.
So except for a few instances of low traffic and very substantial costs to rebuild a falling apart freeway I think freeway removal is a poor idea.
Not only highway, any change would affect someone else. Forest cut, farm shuttered, meadow paved over; view from the window ruined, noise, construction dust, property value, habitat, fish, contamination...
Problem is that doing nothing going forward is not the option. Actually, it is an option actively pushed, and immediate result is high cost and low availability of resources.
Recognizing someone paid higher price for that road is great, some fair accommodation is a great idea. It's not about the removal of the bright side in hope that the damage is aomwhoq undone, it is about minimizing negative consequences while keeping benefit.
I don't know how to do it that long after construction
Unfortunately doing good things is not something US politicians are proficient with. Sending B-52s is the preferred method of solving issues. Bulldozers are less efficient, but still, they produce some of the similar effects as B-52s cannot be used at home.
lots of people lose businesses and homes and land any time a new terrain interstate, or any road for that matter is built I-69 is a recent example near me.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on May 28, 2021, 08:19:22 AM
As usual, this argument along with many others devolves to an extremist bipolar tennis match.
Remove all inner city freeways! Here is the two examples where it worked, so apply it unilaterally.
Keep all inner city freeways! Here are two other examples why it's necessary, so apply it unilaterally.
As usual, the truth is somewhere in between of the extremes.
Yes, some removals are probably a good idea, for several reasons...restoring neighborhoods, cheaper than rebuilding, etc. And yes, some removals would be disasters.
I think, at the very least, if they are not Interstate standard, they should either lose Interstate system designation (with the route designation being moved onto a standard route if one exists, or a new standard route built if one does not exist), or at least some low-cost effort be done to allow them to partly comply, such as restriping a 3-lane no-shoulder road to a 2 lane with standard shoulders, or closing some ramps if closely-spaced ramps do not meet standards.
Interstate System users going from point A to point C should not have to be inconvenienced by point B just because B is geographically between A and C.
Quote from: ran4sh on May 28, 2021, 06:04:18 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on May 28, 2021, 08:19:22 AM
As usual, this argument along with many others devolves to an extremist bipolar tennis match.
Remove all inner city freeways! Here is the two examples where it worked, so apply it unilaterally.
Keep all inner city freeways! Here are two other examples why it's necessary, so apply it unilaterally.
As usual, the truth is somewhere in between of the extremes.
Yes, some removals are probably a good idea, for several reasons...restoring neighborhoods, cheaper than rebuilding, etc. And yes, some removals would be disasters.
I think, at the very least, if they are not Interstate standard, they should either lose Interstate system designation (with the route designation being moved onto a standard route if one exists, or a new standard route built if one does not exist), or at least some low-cost effort be done to allow them to partly comply, such as restriping a 3-lane no-shoulder road to a 2 lane with standard shoulders, or closing some ramps if closely-spaced ramps do not meet standards.
Interstate System users going from point A to point C should not have to be inconvenienced by point B just because B is geographically between A and C.
If there's an urban 6 lane interstate on an elevated viaduct with narrow shoulders carrying heavy traffic volumes, I think the benefits of providing a full shoulder are less than the impact caused to traffic now being crammed into 2 lanes each way.
I wouldn't want to go back to 6 lanes with decent shoulder space from the current 8 lanes with no shoulder space on the Brent Spence Bridge.
People seem to think that I-475 and I-675 around flint and Saginaw respectively is overkill. But think of Flint and Saginaw without them. I-75 wouldn't be able to handle the traffic on its own.
So, we have a thread about the credibility of a NYT story, and we aren't allowed to discuss the credibility of the NYT? Figures...
Thinking back to when I-70N and I-70S were planned to end in Baltimore and Washington, respectively; neither freeway ever made it to its terminus, although at least there was more effort on I-70N to get it done, and it probably would've been completed by now if it weren't for that big city park and those environmentalists working like mad to save the park from destruction. The US 40 freeway (old I-170) would be a perfect candidate for full removal, even though the western stub end has been the only section to actually be removed so far.
As for Chicago, trying to remove the Dan Ryan and Kennedy Expressways would be a nonstarter, mainly because they've become the most vital highway in the area, and it would be far too expensive to do anything to them based on their width (8-12 lanes, counting both local and express).
Quote from: hbelkins on May 28, 2021, 07:56:44 PM
So, we have a thread about the credibility of a NYT story, and we aren't allowed to discuss the credibility of the NYT? Figures...
We aren't allowed to discuss the credibility of the NYT because there is no credibility to discuss.
Also, I don't think your signature is going to fly . . .
I don't think there is any official proposal being explored to remove I-94 on St. Paul's west side either, but every year that goes by the push to lid it or make some other alterations gets a little louder; back in 2017 the city issued a formal apology for the destruction of that largely black neighborhood. As you might expect given it traverses the state's two largest cities, that's one cat that probably can't be put back in the bag.
We had discussed the I-35 Duluth community group at one point when that cane up; a lid covering 35 between downtown and Canal Park would definitely be a good service, and would fit right in with the lids just to the northeast anyway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2021, 07:19:37 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 28, 2021, 06:04:18 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on May 28, 2021, 08:19:22 AM
As usual, this argument along with many others devolves to an extremist bipolar tennis match.
Remove all inner city freeways! Here is the two examples where it worked, so apply it unilaterally.
Keep all inner city freeways! Here are two other examples why it's necessary, so apply it unilaterally.
As usual, the truth is somewhere in between of the extremes.
Yes, some removals are probably a good idea, for several reasons...restoring neighborhoods, cheaper than rebuilding, etc. And yes, some removals would be disasters.
I think, at the very least, if they are not Interstate standard, they should either lose Interstate system designation (with the route designation being moved onto a standard route if one exists, or a new standard route built if one does not exist), or at least some low-cost effort be done to allow them to partly comply, such as restriping a 3-lane no-shoulder road to a 2 lane with standard shoulders, or closing some ramps if closely-spaced ramps do not meet standards.
Interstate System users going from point A to point C should not have to be inconvenienced by point B just because B is geographically between A and C.
If there's an urban 6 lane interstate on an elevated viaduct with narrow shoulders carrying heavy traffic volumes, I think the benefits of providing a full shoulder are less than the impact caused to traffic now being crammed into 2 lanes each way.
GPS navigation is a thing... if congestion increases because a lane was taken away then that will result in some traffic taking alternative routes, or in the case of local traffic, making the trip at a different time.
Quote from: ran4sh on May 28, 2021, 10:54:17 PM
GPS navigation is a thing... if congestion increases because a lane was taken away then that will result in some traffic taking alternative routes, or in the case of local traffic, making the trip at a different time.
...and still would have an even more congested interstate then before... you are not going to divert an entire lane's worth of traffic.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 28, 2021, 07:56:44 PM
So, we have a thread about the credibility of a NYT story, and we aren't allowed to discuss the credibility of the NYT? Figures...
That's called an ad hominem logical fallacy.
Quote from: Rothman on May 29, 2021, 10:10:08 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 28, 2021, 07:56:44 PM
So, we have a thread about the credibility of a NYT story, and we aren't allowed to discuss the credibility of the NYT? Figures...
That's called an ad hominem logical fallacy.
Somewhat unrelated, but "logical fallacies" annoy me because they try to discredit everything that is not 100% proven fact as 100% false. Like if I say that a news source is 95% accurate (there is not a single American news source that is, but theoretically), then the logical fallacies would say that there's still a 5% chance that a particular article is not accurate, and therefore it can't be trusted.
Quote from: thspfc on May 29, 2021, 11:38:45 AMLike if I say that a news source is 95% accurate (there is not a single American news source that is, but theoretically), then the logical fallacies would say that there's still a 5% chance that a particular article is not accurate, and therefore it can't be trusted.
The New York Times is one of them, as are most others with a paywall.
Quote from: 1 on May 29, 2021, 12:21:10 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 29, 2021, 11:38:45 AMLike if I say that a news source is 95% accurate (there is not a single American news source that is, but theoretically), then the logical fallacies would say that there's still a 5% chance that a particular article is not accurate, and therefore it can't be trusted.
The New York Times is one of them, as are most others with a paywall.
You think that the NYT is accurate?
Do you realize how biased it is?
A "news" source whose signature piece is the 1619 project is not 95% accurate.
The 1619 Project is controversial, but not blatantly false unlike the article in the OP or many of FOX/Breitbart/OANN's articles.
There does seem to be something in common with both the article in the OP and the 1619 Project, though: it's looking back at the past, not news. The people at the New York Times are primarily focused on news, and you need historians for reanalyzing the past.
Quote from: 1 on May 29, 2021, 12:55:26 PM
The 1619 Project is controversial, but not blatantly false unlike the article in the OP or many of FOX/Breitbart/OANN's articles.
There does seem to be something in common with both the article in the OP and the 1619 Project, though: it's looking back at the past, not news. The people at the New York Times are primarily focused on news, and you need historians for reanalyzing the past.
The claim that the United States was founded on racism and slavery rather than the desire to be independent from Britain's government is blatantly false.
The 1619 project is biased but not straight-up lies.
Quote from: 1 on May 29, 2021, 12:55:26 PM
The 1619 Project is controversial, but not blatantly false unlike the article in the OP or many of FOX/Breitbart/OANN's articles.
Every news media is bias and have had blatantly false stories... on both sides.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 29, 2021, 01:34:21 PM
Every news media is bias and have had blatantly false stories... on both sides.
The biased ones on the left include HuffPost, Vox, and Daily Kos, and even then, they're mostly biased by what they choose to cover more than accuracy issues. The New York Times is not like any of the three mentioned above.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 29, 2021, 01:34:21 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 29, 2021, 12:55:26 PM
The 1619 Project is controversial, but not blatantly false unlike the article in the OP or many of FOX/Breitbart/OANN's articles.
Every news media is bias and have had blatantly false stories... on both sides.
Absolutely. The right wing media isn't as well known, but it is just as and in some cases even more biased than the mainstream left wing media. Everyone is biased.
Quote from: thspfc on May 29, 2021, 01:45:27 PM
mainstream left wing media
Most mainstream media is not left wing.
The only mainstream left wing media is MSNBC, if you don't count the three semi-mainstream ones I mentioned above and Buzzfeed (which is user-generated instead of being a traditional news source).
Quote from: 1 on May 29, 2021, 01:45:09 PM
The biased ones on the left include HuffPost, Vox, and Daily Kos, and even then, they're mostly biased by what they choose to cover more than accuracy issues. The New York Times is not like any of the three mentioned above.
You mean like how the Times chooses to write article after article about police brutality towards blacks, but there's not a peep from them about black-on-black violence, black-on-white violence, or really any other type of violence besides police vs blacks?
The issue is more with police attitudes towards blacks in general. Arrests are much more common than being shot (for anyone), and there's a clear racial bias with police arrests. However, since many of those happen every day, only the more major events make the national news.
Quote from: 1 on May 29, 2021, 01:59:37 PM
The issue is more with police attitudes towards blacks in general. Arrests are much more common than being shot (for anyone), and there's a clear racial bias with police arrests. However, since many of those happen every day, only the more major events make the national news.
And what about black-on-black violence, which kills many more people than police?
Quote from: thspfc on May 29, 2021, 02:06:18 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 29, 2021, 01:59:37 PM
The issue is more with police attitudes towards blacks in general. Arrests are much more common than being shot (for anyone), and there's a clear racial bias with police arrests. However, since many of those happen every day, only the more major events make the national news.
And what about black-on-black violence, which kills many more people than police?
Most killings are within a small area (such as a neighborhood), and the victim is also quite likely to be someone the perpetrator knows. This means that both the perpetrator and the victim are often both the same race and/or ethnicity. This isn't noteworthy.
Quote from: 1 on May 29, 2021, 02:13:56 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 29, 2021, 02:06:18 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 29, 2021, 01:59:37 PM
The issue is more with police attitudes towards blacks in general. Arrests are much more common than being shot (for anyone), and there's a clear racial bias with police arrests. However, since many of those happen every day, only the more major events make the national news.
And what about black-on-black violence, which kills many more people than police?
Most killings are within a small area (such as a neighborhood), and the victim is also quite likely to be someone the perpetrator knows. This means that both the perpetrator and the victim are often both the same race and/or ethnicity. This isn't noteworthy.
It's only "not noteworthy" because it doesn't help push the NYT's narrative.
Posts were already removed from this thread for getting off-topic into the political discussion of whether certain media outlets are biased or not. So in place of a hint being taken, thread's over.