AARoads Forum

[This article is by syndicated columnist Neal Peirce, who is reliably anti-highway, anti-auto and anti-mobility.   I do not agree with what he has written here (or with most of the other stuff that he writes), but members of this forum might be interested anyway.]

City Freeway Teardowns: More on Their Way? (http://citiwire.net/columns/city-freeway-teardowns-more-on-their-way/)

QuotePHILADELPHIA – Will the 20th century's urban freeway legacy – interstate roads cutting huge swaths through American cities – be reversed in the 21st?

QuoteIncreasingly bold urbanists are looking to reclaim lost city land by demolishing segments of the interstates and other massive limited access super-roads.

QuoteOne reason's obvious: to restore livability to downtowns and neighborhoods that were deeply scarred by massive highways plunging through them. But there's another key motive: belief that demolitions will trigger dramatic flows of new private investment and increased real estate value as the scourged city acres are redeveloped.

Someone suggested getting rid of the upper deck in Austin.  Yeah, get rid of part of the freeway on the most congested road in town.

Reminds me of a thread I saw about I-94 in Detroit in another forum, some suggested to tear it down as well as the I-75 gap in downtown Detroit. http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthread.php?12398-I-94-Expansion-Project-(Roadway-to-Detroit-s-Future)

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 12, 2012, 10:24:05 AM
[This article is by syndicated columnist Neal Peirce, who is reliably anti-highway, anti-auto and anti-mobility.   I do not agree with what he has written here (or with most of the other stuff that he writes), but members of this forum might be interested anyway.]

Anti-mobility? Most anti-auto urbanists tend to be  pro-transit, pro-cycling, etc. He's against those as well? What about horses or jetpacks?

As for the issue of tearing down freeways, it is true that urban freeway development in many cities destroyed neighborhoods and led to the massive growth of the suburbs. The damage is already done in many cases however, and all that traffic has to go somewhere. There are a few examples though of places where IMO removing/relocating the freeway would help development. Freeways along waterfronts are an excellent example. Just look at the Embarcadero Fwy. in San Francisco. Relocating or burying I-95 through downtown Philly would be another good example IMO. I-35 through Austin would not be a good one to remove since it doesn't really seem to be cutting the city off from a resource.

Let's see:
-Transit: you're setting your schedule to someone else's, and are limited in the stuff you can take with you
-Cycling: range is limited by lower speed, can't do in bad weather, even more limited in what you can take with you

I'd hardly call that "mobility".  Looks like the anti-auto urbanists are against grocery shopping too.

The I-480 teardown was successful only because I-480 was never finished; it was just a stub freeway that went nowhere.

Besides, some of us aren't suited to an urbanist lifestyle.  I don't like having to share space with other people; I'd be driven crazy outside of the suburbs!

Hell yeah. 86 64.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 12, 2012, 10:24:05 AM
[This article is by syndicated columnist Neal Peirce, who is reliably anti-highway, anti-auto and anti-mobility.   I do not agree with what he has written here (or with most of the other stuff that he writes), but members of this forum might be interested anyway.]

City Freeway Teardowns: More on Their Way? (http://citiwire.net/columns/city-freeway-teardowns-more-on-their-way/)

QuotePHILADELPHIA – Will the 20th century's urban freeway legacy – interstate roads cutting huge swaths through American cities – be reversed in the 21st?

QuoteIncreasingly bold urbanists are looking to reclaim lost city land by demolishing segments of the interstates and other massive limited access super-roads.

QuoteOne reason's obvious: to restore livability to downtowns and neighborhoods that were deeply scarred by massive highways plunging through them. But there's another key motive: belief that demolitions will trigger dramatic flows of new private investment and increased real estate value as the scourged city acres are redeveloped.

Freeways wiping out waterfront access and public parks in urban spaces were generally not a good idea.  I'm glad the riverfront freeway in Portland is a park, I'm glad the Embarcadero Freeway is gone, I'm glad the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle will be a tunnel.  Those were pretty easy choices -- the sites were prime urban space, the freeways did not serve huge amounts of traffic, the structures were unsafe.

There are other places were freeways cut through urban areas and set up a blockade between halves of the city.  Overpasses or underpasses every 1 mile are just not adequate when the freeway cuts through an urban grid with streets every 1/10 mile.

All that said, the most obvious candidates for freeway removal have already been done.  When the freeway serves a lot of traffic on a through route, a new route would have to be found for the freeway.  I don't see the desire to convert a different piece of land to freeway use and build the road again unless it's structurally unsound.

One of the more obvious problems I see with the "tear down the freeways" argument is the financial one: If cities and states are strapped for money as it is, how are they supposed to pay for these projects? I suppose there's a legitimate question to be asked about how you decide at what point it becomes more reasonable to make major repairs to a road (say, an elevated highway needing major structural rehabilitation) versus tearing it down and using the land for another purpose, perhaps one that generates tax revenue. But it's probably a non-starter to demand that the developers who covetously eye the highway right-of-way should pay for the road's demolition as a sort of proffer or the like.

Quote from: deanej on March 12, 2012, 11:35:55 AM
Let's see:
-Transit: you're setting your schedule to someone else's, and are limited in the stuff you can take with you
-Cycling: range is limited by lower speed, can't do in bad weather, even more limited in what you can take with you

I'd hardly call that "mobility".  Looks like the anti-auto urbanists are against grocery shopping too.

The I-480 teardown was successful only because I-480 was never finished; it was just a stub freeway that went nowhere.

Besides, some of us aren't suited to an urbanist lifestyle.  I don't like having to share space with other people; I'd be driven crazy outside of the suburbs!

I have no problem fitting groceries in a backpack when I bike to the store, and plenty of utility bikes have baskets and other cargo carriers. Sure a bike isn't good for a large grocery trip, but stopping by on the way home from work to pick up a few things for dinner is fully doable on a bike.

And a transit system absolutely does provide mobility. Whenever I visit a city with good transit options like New York, Washington DC, or London, I have no issues getting around the city whenever and wherever I want without a car. There's hardly a need to plan around a schedule when the trains come every few minutes.

I'm not an anti-auto urbanist. I live in the suburbs and hate the idea of living in a city. Cars make perfect sense for the suburban and rural environments. But realistically, they're a terrible method of transportation in a high-density, urban area.

I'm going to agree with realjd. When I'm in the city, I do my grocery shopping on foot (two Shaw's stores and a Whole Foods within a couple blocks), and I see people with grocery bags on the subway all the time. The main difference, as he said, is that you have to shop in smaller increments. You can easily carry a day or two's stuff with you at once, so rather than shopping every week or two like you would out in the suburbs, you just have to go every day or two (which isn't that big of a difference since I know most people end up running down to the store for random things throughout the week anyway).

Also, I feel like I can comfortably get anywhere I need to go on Boston's transit system. If I decide to go downtown for something, I can be on a train in under 10 minutes. If a train doesn't run there there's a bus route that does. The only things that would complicate travel are late hours (unfortunately Boston's transit does not run 24/7 like some cities') and some really far distances, because while commuter rail might extend remarkably far out from the city, there aren't always bus connections from farther out stations, and the trains don't run anywhere near as often as subway trains.

All in all I don't mind not having a car. It's never been a real issue for me since moving into the city. Thus while I like roads (obviously), I don't regularly make use of them in the city, and can easily get by without them.

I commented on similar in another thread.  The majority of 'success stories' of highway removal in other areas fall into one of the following categories:

1.  Original highway segments in question weren't built to begin with as originally planned (Ex. pieces of I-70, 83 & 170 in Baltimore).

2.  Highway segments in question were either relocated (like I-195 in Providence) and/or replaced with an equal or better highway alternative (Big Dig I-93 in Boston).

3.  Highway segments were structurally condemned and permanently closed (NY's West-Side Highway & SF's Embarcadero Freeway).

That said, I-95 in Philly does NOT fall in ANY the above-three categories.  The best option would be to cover the remaining open section of the bathtub piece between Exits 21 & 22 (Columbus Blvd. & I-676).

What these visionaries can't seem to comprehend is that stretch of I-95 serves as a vital artery for the region linking Center City, South & Northeast Philly, the Sports Complex, the Packer & Tioga Marine terminals, the Airport as well as Bucks & Delaware Counties.  The only reason why it was built the way in its current configuaration was due to the fact that tunneling the entire road even back in the 1960s & 1970s was viewed as cost-prohibitive and placing the I-95 corridor between Independence Mall and Broad Street was essentially a non-strater.

Former City Planner Ed Bacon (father of actor Kevin Bacon) stated it best a few years ago prior to his death; it was GREED not I-95 that ruined Penns Landing.

To some degree mode flexibility is real. People will take whatever is most convenient and makes the most sense. That said, there are some things which only cars can effectively accomplish - and there are some things which only transit can accomplish.

Using the grocery example, I don't even need transit. The store is a block and a half away, I just walk. But, while this is fine and dandy shopping for just myself, it wouldn't work as well if I were shopping for a whole family. Which is just as well, my area is dominated by apartments and most of the residents here aren't in the mode of currently raising kids. You move elsewhere for that.

Transit makes possible densities which highways alone cannot serve (there would be no Manhattan as we know it without the subway and commuter rail lines), and also allows you to go out drinking without concern of having a designated driver.


Back to urban freeways, though, the problem from the neighborhood perspective is the urban renewal mindset of the postwar era. Of course they destroy the neighborhoods they go through - they were designed to! We've of course since learned that haphazardly demolishing parts of slums to build freeways or housing projects tends to ensure their continued existence rather than make them go away. And indeed, removing a freeway can have a positive effect on the neighborhood it goes through, but in a way fighting for that is making the same mistake all over again: just as you can't make slums go away by demolishing tenements, you can't make traffic demand go away by demolishing freeways.
Which is fine, though, because you don't need to remove a freeway to minimalize its detrimental effect. Note, for instance, that I-71 in Cincinnati, despite running directly along the waterfront, does not isolate the city from it - because it is built such that it is easy and unintimidating to cross. I-95's problem in Philly isn't that it's there, it's that there are few opportunities to cross it.

The other thing that surface boulevard advocates miss is that the freeway is safer both for cars and for pedestrians. With intersections come cars crossing paths with each other and with people. Given the opportunity for two objects to attempt to occupy the same space at the same time, probability indicates that sometimes it will happen. I for one would rather walk under a six lane elevated freeway than cross an eight lane boulevard. The new West Side Highway in Manhattan certainly has a more pleasant atmosphere to it than a dingy elevated freeway, but anyone who calls it pedestrian friendly has clearly never attempted to cross it as one.

As for the money argument, it's valid if you're talking about ripping up a perfectly good highway, but when a highway is old and decrepit the argument can be made that simply tearing it down is cheaper than rebuilding it. Of course, then you still have to spend money reinventing the land it once stood on. And you can't just say "alternatives exist" without looking at traffic counts.

Quote from: kkt on March 12, 2012, 12:45:23 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 12, 2012, 10:24:05 AM
[This article is by syndicated columnist Neal Peirce, who is reliably anti-highway, anti-auto and anti-mobility.   I do not agree with what he has written here (or with most of the other stuff that he writes), but members of this forum might be interested anyway.]

City Freeway Teardowns: More on Their Way? (http://citiwire.net/columns/city-freeway-teardowns-more-on-their-way/)

QuotePHILADELPHIA – Will the 20th century's urban freeway legacy – interstate roads cutting huge swaths through American cities – be reversed in the 21st?

QuoteIncreasingly bold urbanists are looking to reclaim lost city land by demolishing segments of the interstates and other massive limited access super-roads.

QuoteOne reason's obvious: to restore livability to downtowns and neighborhoods that were deeply scarred by massive highways plunging through them. But there's another key motive: belief that demolitions will trigger dramatic flows of new private investment and increased real estate value as the scourged city acres are redeveloped.

Freeways wiping out waterfront access and public parks in urban spaces were generally not a good idea.  I'm glad the riverfront freeway in Portland is a park,

I need to address this one. Harbor Drive was removed not because of anti-freeway sentiment, but because I-5 on the Willamette's eastbank got built. Harbor Drive was rendered redundant, and Front Avenue/Naito Parkway more than took up the slack on the westside.

With that said. Anti-freeway types ARE calling for the removal of SW Naito Parkway from SW Barbur Blvd to the Ross Island Bridge and for the removal of I-5 on the eastbank. I can see some rationale for SW Naito Parkway; the rationale for I-5 (restoring public access to the river) is complete and utter BS. Before the freeway was built, the eastbank was rail, docks and industrial warehouses, right up to the waterline. There never was 'public access' to the river on the eastside, not in terms of parks like now (and the Eastbank Esplanade is 100% more access than there used to be).

I don't remember this being discussed earlier; apologies if it has already been discussed.  On December 6, a public meeting was held regarding the proposed I-10 teardown in New Orleans (http://www.cnu.org/cnu-salons/2011/12/future-claiborne-avenue-new-orleans):

Quote
On December 6, more than 120 New Orleans residents attended "Local Street Networks and the Future of Claiborne Avenue."  This event presented research and reflections from both local and national experts that helped residents understand the potential impact of an I-10 freeway removal.  Since the City of New Orleans received TIGER II funds ten months ago for a transportation study on the Claiborne Corridor but has yet to release a request for proposal, this event helped spark renewed interest in removing I-10 from New Orleans' urban fabric.  CNU and the Claiborne Corridor Improvement Coalition issued a preliminary study last year that discussed alternative visions for the corridor, particularly an urban boulevard option in lieu of the elevated highway.  Before the City releases its request for proposals to conduct the federal study, the Coalition's event sought to educate residents on a potential highway removal project favoring a boulevard conversion effort ....

Here's the "Local Street Networks and the Future of Claiborne Avenue" (http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org/files/eric_dumbaugh_-_presentation_in_nola_12.6.11.pdf) presentation that was made at the meeting.

Two "successes" set forth in the presentation are the Riverfront Parkway in Chattanooga and San Francisco's Central Freeway.

Also, here is the City of New Orleans Request For Proposals (http://bayoutremecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/RFP-for-Livable-Neighborhoods-Revitalized-Corridors1.pdf).

There's a comment in the main body of the article about highways not paying taxes or creating economic opportunities.  Parkland and bodies of water don't pay taxes either, perhaps we should sell all the parkland and fill in the bodies of water for more developable ground.  Just think how much more accessible cities like Memphis or Louisville would be without that pesky river funneling access to one or two points and the economic opportunities all the open land could create.

Quote from: Revive 755 on March 12, 2012, 10:43:12 PM
There's a comment in the main body of the article about highways not paying taxes or creating economic opportunities.  Parkland and bodies of water don't pay taxes either, perhaps we should sell all the parkland and fill in the bodies of water for more developable ground.  Just think how much more accessible cities like Memphis or Louisville would be without that pesky river funneling access to one or two points and the economic opportunities all the open land could create.

Memphis is fucked due to the New Madrid Fault.  It's not a matter of if, but when.  It's a major tragedy waiting to happen.

you have to drink or you die.

Quote from: Revive 755 on March 12, 2012, 10:43:12 PM
There's a comment in the main body of the article about highways not paying taxes or creating economic opportunities.  Parkland and bodies of water don't pay taxes either, perhaps we should sell all the parkland and fill in the bodies of water for more developable ground.  Just think how much more accessible cities like Memphis or Louisville would be without that pesky river funneling access to one or two points and the economic opportunities all the open land could create.

I know you're being sarcastic, but I'll address this anyway. Waterways are scenic. Waterfront real estate sells for more. Waterfront restaurant and shopping districts are a draw for both tourists and locals. More people downtown benefits non-waterfront businesses as well. They don't directly pay taxes but they do have the potential to stimulate the local economy.

Freeways do none of those things. They're necessary, but it makes no sense to completely cut off a city from its waterfront by putting a freeway in the way.

When the freeways were being planned in the 1950s, the waterfronts weren't considered "scenic", they were generally declining port and industrial areas, and were a cheap place to build. For example, San Francisco's Embarcadero area was a skid row, and there was a ton of other redevelopment prior to removing the freeway.

In reality, there's zero chance of roads like I-95 in Philadelphia being removed - they are too critical to the local economy. However, in my opinion, politicians tend not to discourage this type of anti-highway talk, because if it gets strong enough they can finagle a "big dig" type project.

That's what Portland's kind of hoping for for the I-5 loop. I think Seattle's going to have a lot of attention paid its way on how it handles its Big Dig; after Boston's results, if Seattle can't pull it off...

Quote from: Grzrd on March 12, 2012, 10:34:57 PM
Here's the "Local Street Networks and the Future of Claiborne Avenue" (http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org/files/eric_dumbaugh_-_presentation_in_nola_12.6.11.pdf) presentation that was made at the meeting.

Two "successes" set forth in the presentation are the Riverfront Parkway in Chattanooga and San Francisco's Central Freeway.

I had a chuckle at the claim of "no traffic jams" after removing the Central Freeway. The replacement, Octavia Blvd, is gridlocked for most of the day. The neighbors who successfully had the freeway removed are now complaining about all the traffic congestion.

We have experience with demolishing a freeway here in Milwaukee and the benefits and complications thereof.
In 2003, the Park East Freeway was demolished in downtown Milwaukee and replaced with an at-grade boulevard (W. McKinley Ave).  The Park East was an underused stub end freeway that was never completed as originally intended (for the best, IMHO). While the removal freed up a lot of good land ripe for development, to date only one building has been constructed in the former r/w (a hotel on the west bank of the Milwaukee River between McKinley & Juneau Streets).

http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=43.04721,-87.91467&z=17&t=S (http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=43.04721,-87.91467&z=17&t=S)
(aerials are from 2011)

Now there has been a lot of new development in blocks adjacent to the former freeway corridor, so some of the promises of eliminating the Park East have come to pass, but there are entire city blocks that sit vacant, save for some piles of rubble-ized concrete.
So what's been the hold up?
In short it's been a bureaucratic clusterfuck, with some parcels owned by the city, others by the county.  And because these are/were publicly owned lands, everyone gets to have their 2 cents about who they can be sold to and what they can do with it.  Then just when it looked there was momentum towards getting some stuff built, the economy tanks and projects get shit-canned.

I get the impression that if even only some of the land had just been put up for sale on the open market, there would be more buildings on the old r/w today.  The Park East Corridor certainly missed out on the mid-00's condo boom here in Milwaukee.

Despite the red tape and slow pace of development, in this case, removal of a freeway was the right decision.  Long term, the future is much brighter.  We'll have some new construction this year at the east end of the corridor. It's good for the city to have this much land downtown they can dangle in front of a developer (it was the only way Milwaukee even had a shot at getting Kohl's to relocate it's HQ from the suburbs).  There are very minimal traffic problems without the freeway and it probably saved $100 million in the reconstruction of the Marquette Interchange.  But like the Embarcedero, the Park East was a dead end freeway in a once blighted neighborhood on the rebound and was useless the minute its continuation was abandoned.  So in that respect it's a bad model for removing a freeway that actually goes somewhere.  But I do think Milwaukee can provide some lessons to other cities on how to handle the real estate if they do remove a chunk of freeway.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 13, 2012, 06:09:56 PM

Out of curiousity, was the former-Park East highway an Interstate spur or intended to be one?  In a nutshell, its history sounds a bit like SF's Embarcadero (pre-earthquake) or even the former-I-170 in Baltimore; highways that were never fully connected as originally planned.

IIRC, there were plans to do a Big Dig plan for NYC's old West Side Highway (called the Westway) back in the early-to-mid 1980s before Boston's Big Dig funding was approved (via a Congressional override) and was backed by then-Gov. Mario Cuomo, the father of the current-NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo.  However, those plans were killed off in 1985 due to the $4 billion estimated price tag; which was about TWICE the then-price of Boston's Big Dig... little did anyone know what ultimately happened pricewise to Boston's project ($15-16 billion).

Quote from: realjd on March 13, 2012, 08:45:50 AMWaterways are scenic. Waterfront real estate sells for more. Waterfront restaurant and shopping districts are a draw for both tourists and locals. More people downtown benefits non-waterfront businesses as well. They don't directly pay taxes but they do have the potential to stimulate the local economy.

Freeways do none of those things. They're necessary, but it makes no sense to completely cut off a city from its waterfront by putting a freeway in the way.

So where would you have placed I-95 in Central Philadelphia if tunneling it Big Dig style was already rejected back in the 60s due to cost?  As I stated earlier, placing it betweeen Independence Mall (6th St.) and Broad Street (PA 611) is a non-starter.  Placing it between its current location and 5th Street would have it litterally rip through the Old City Historic District and many of its landmarks.

One has to remember when that stretch of I-95 was built, most of the waterfront area was either industrial or a wasteland.

Had the Foxwoods Casino south of Penns Landing been built as planned (which was heavily backed by former-Gov. Rendell); that stretch of I-95 would certainly see more traffic.

As far as the New Orleans project is concerned; I only have one word... Katrina.

^^

The Park East was built to full late-1960s/early-1970s interstate standards, but from what I am aware of, was never intended to receive an I-route number.  It was WI 145 for its existence.  A major part of the planned Park West freeway (west of I-43) was already bid and contracted, less than a week before its scheduled start of construction, when a lawsuit was ruled on preventing the work.

Also, the Park East was originally planned to loop around the north and east sides of downtown Milwaukee, connecting with present-day I-794 at its Lincoln Memorial Drive interchange.  The 'ghost' stubs of its connection are easily visible in aerial images.  If you have ever seen the movie The Blues Brothers, one of the interchange's four stubs (which has since been rerouted and connected to Lincoln Memorial Dr) is what the Illinois Nazis' car flies off of in that big final chase.

IMHO, for the effect that that had on the area's freeway system and the need, at great additional cost, to re-engineer parts of it since then to handle the traffic that was expected to use the Park West and Stadium North out to 67th/Fond du Lac Ave (the present-day end of the WI 145 freeway on the city's northwest side), it should have been built.

Anyways, one big factor in the current moribund pace of redevelopment of the Park East ROW is that the Milwaukee County Board has placed such onerous 'social justice' related restrictions on whatever the land would be used for that it has stifled any potential interest in it.  Remove those restrictions and I have no doubt that it will have no problem at all selling to developers with very nice, worthy building proposals.

Mike

Quote from: NE2 on March 12, 2012, 12:31:02 PM
Hell yeah. 86 64.

If "8664" wasn't already a stupid idea -- and make no mistake, the bunch that came up with that idea has a severe case of cranio-rectal inversion, it will certainly go nowhere fast now that they're saying tolls on the new bridges may stay in effect long after construction costs are paid off.

The Sherman Minton Bridge closure should have been a major wake-up call to any feces-for-brains people who still seriously support "8664."

Quote from: hbelkins on March 13, 2012, 10:14:23 PM

Quote from: NE2 on March 12, 2012, 12:31:02 PM
Hell yeah. 86 64.

If "8664" wasn't already a stupid idea -- and make no mistake, the bunch that came up with that idea has a severe case of cranio-rectal inversion, it will certainly go nowhere fast now that they're saying tolls on the new bridges may stay in effect long after construction costs are paid off.

The Sherman Minton Bridge closure should have been a major wake-up call to any feces-for-brains people who still seriously support "8664."

It did, now it seems they're willing to concede tolls to get the much needed bridges built in Louisville.

Quote from: bugo on March 13, 2012, 12:33:06 AM

Quote from: Revive 755 on March 12, 2012, 10:43:12 PM
There's a comment in the main body of the article about highways not paying taxes or creating economic opportunities.  Parkland and bodies of water don't pay taxes either, perhaps we should sell all the parkland and fill in the bodies of water for more developable ground.  Just think how much more accessible cities like Memphis or Louisville would be without that pesky river funneling access to one or two points and the economic opportunities all the open land could create.

Memphis is fucked due to the New Madrid Fault.  It's not a matter of if, but when.  It's a major tragedy waiting to happen.

Memphis didn't exist 200 years ago.  Memphis better got some good airports when that fault finally does do the big one.

The airports in Memphis will be toast as well.  I don't think everyone realizes how bad the destruction will be.  I certainly wouldn't want to live anywhere near there.

Quote from: flowmotion on March 13, 2012, 04:59:47 PM

Quote from: Grzrd on March 12, 2012, 10:34:57 PM
Here's the "Local Street Networks and the Future of Claiborne Avenue" (http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org/files/eric_dumbaugh_-_presentation_in_nola_12.6.11.pdf) presentation that was made at the meeting.

Two "successes" set forth in the presentation are the Riverfront Parkway in Chattanooga and San Francisco's Central Freeway.

I had a chuckle at the claim of "no traffic jams" after removing the Central Freeway. The replacement, Octavia Blvd, is gridlocked for most of the day. The neighbors who successfully had the freeway removed are now complaining about all the traffic congestion.

Three thoughts on the above:

1. One ought to be careful of what they wish for.

2. Sometimes people just don't know what they have assetwise until it's gone.

3. Sounds like they're suffering from Buyer's Remorse.

The above is the prime reason why I am completely opposed to any proposed removal, even a small segment, of I-95 in Philadelphia.  I'm also sure residences along the west side of Front Street wouldn't be too thrilled of having high-rise condos sprout up in front of them where I-95 is now should the highway be taken out.

What these folks, the freeway-teardown folks, forget is that not only does automobile traffic use these roads, but truck traffic does as well.  They seem to think the traffic will magically move to public transit once the freeway is gone.  It's very wrong.  Through traffic and truck traffic still needs to get from point A to point B.  And these center city folks who want the teardowns seem to forget that these trucks can bring good to their markets quickly and cheaply with the freeways.  Without them, the good take longer, and they will be more expensive.

Austin dumped their eloborate plan in 1985 figuring "don't build it and they won't come" and now we have traffic problems.  Does that ever work?

---

Post Merge: March 15, 2012, 06:10:05 PM

---

In Duluth they developed the industrial waterfront area in the early 80s, and made the new freeway part of it

Quote from: texaskdog on March 14, 2012, 08:27:17 AM
Austin dumped their eloborate plan in 1985 figuring "don't build it and they won't come" and now we have traffic problems.  Does that ever work?

35 and Mopac would still be a mess today.

.

.

.

Ah, the old "I use my real name" statement.  This place is really going downhill.

Quote from: kharvey10 on March 14, 2012, 02:07:26 AM

It did, now it seems they're willing to concede tolls to get the much needed bridges built in Louisville.

There are no "much needed bridgeS in Louisville. Only the East End bridge to complete the I-265 loop is needed. The new downtown bridge is a colossal waste.

Quote from: PHLBOS on March 13, 2012, 07:06:16 PM
So where would you have placed I-95 in Central Philadelphia if tunneling it Big Dig style was already rejected back in the 60s due to cost?  As I stated earlier, placing it betweeen Independence Mall (6th St.) and Broad Street (PA 611) is a non-starter.  Placing it between its current location and 5th Street would have it litterally rip through the Old City Historic District and many of its landmarks.

One has to remember when that stretch of I-95 was built, most of the waterfront area was either industrial or a wasteland.

I'm not saying they made the wrong choice back when it was built, only that given today's sensibilities, cutting a city center off from its waterfront (usually) doesn't make sense from an economic or from an aesthetic perspective.

As for where else I-95 could go, I'm not very familiar with Philadelphia personally. I can speculate only from looking at a map. Assuming I was building it from scratch, my first thought would have been to route it east across the Walt Whitman Bridge, north where I-676 is now, then continuing north across the river on a new bridge to reconnect to where I-95 currently is. Or to route it along the west edge of the FDR Golf Club (as seen on Google Maps) and along the current I-76 routing, then east along I-676 north of downtown to where I-95 currently is.

That's just speculation though since I'm not familiar with local traffic patterns, road states, or anything like that. Is there a lot of through traffic on that stretch of I-95 or is it mostly people heading to/from downtown? Eliminating a stretch of freeway seems like it would result in much less impact if it mostly carried downtown O/D traffic as opposed to people needing to get across downtown.

Quote from: Brandon on March 14, 2012, 08:16:12 AM
What these folks, the freeway-teardown folks, forget is that not only does automobile traffic use these roads, but truck traffic does as well.  They seem to think the traffic will magically move to public transit once the freeway is gone.  It's very wrong.  Through traffic and truck traffic still needs to get from point A to point B.  And these center city folks who want the teardowns seem to forget that these trucks can bring good to their markets quickly and cheaply with the freeways.  Without them, the good take longer, and they will be more expensive.

There's no reason that through trucks need to be routed through the immediate downtown area of most cities.

Quote from: texaskdog on March 14, 2012, 08:27:17 AM
Austin dumped their eloborate plan in 1985 figuring "don't build it and they won't come" and now we have traffic problems.  Does that ever work?

No.

Quote from: Brandon on March 14, 2012, 08:16:12 AM
What these folks, the freeway-teardown folks, forget is that not only does automobile traffic use these roads, but truck traffic does as well.  They seem to think the traffic will magically move to public transit once the freeway is gone.  It's very wrong.  Through traffic and truck traffic still needs to get from point A to point B.  And these center city folks who want the teardowns seem to forget that these trucks can bring good to their markets quickly and cheaply with the freeways.  Without them, the good take longer, and they will be more expensive.

Extremely important point that the anti-highway industry (including the tear-down people) prefer to ignore.

Even the things they buy at their neighborhood Whole Foods come in a vehicle that rolls down the road on rubber tires.

Quote from: realjd on March 14, 2012, 10:30:21 AMI'm not saying they made the wrong choice back when it was built, only that given today's sensibilities, cutting a city center off from its waterfront (usually) doesn't make sense from an economic or from an aesthetic perspective.

As for where else I-95 could go, I'm not very familiar with Philadelphia personally. I can speculate only from looking at a map. Assuming I was building it from scratch, my first thought would have been to route it east across the Walt Whitman Bridge, north where I-676 is now, then continuing north across the river on a new bridge to reconnect to where I-95 currently is. Or to route it along the west edge of the FDR Golf Club (as seen on Google Maps) and along the current I-76 routing, then east along I-676 north of downtown to where I-95 currently is.

While I will give you kudos for thinking outside the box with the above; here are some site specific issues:

1.  The Delaware River is about a mile wide (with most bridge crossings roughly 1.5 to 2 miles long) in the immediate Center City area AND the land that abuts the east side of the river is NEW JERSEY (Camden & Gloucester City).  Your suggested re-routing would needlessly involve crossing state lines TWICE for someone heading from the airport to Northeast Philly (as an example).  Not to mention that EVERY Delaware River bridge crossing in the immediate area is tolled; $5 westbound for the 3 DRPA bridges and $2 for the 2-lane Tacony-Palmyra Bridge.  If the Delaware River was as narrow as the Schuylkill River (which is only roughly 800 feet wide) and there was no state boundary to contend with; then that option would have some validity.

2.  Your second idea essentially involves utilizing the existing 4-lane Vine Expressway (I-676), 4-lane Schuylkill Expressway (I-76) and the 4-lane Platt Bridge (PA 291).  In comparison, I-95 ranges from 6 to 8 lanes.  This option has been discussed and backed by the Get Rid of I-95 crowd but the primary problem with this alternative is that those roads (most of them older than I-95 BTW) are grossly undersized to be the primary artery: 10 to 12 currently available expressway lanes for all corridors going down to only 4.

The only way this option COULD work would be to widen EVERY 4-lane segment to either 8 to 10 lanes BEFORE removing/rerouting I-95.  IMHO, one would sooner see Former-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi becoming a conservative Republican than the widening of those expressways & bridges.  It's worth noting that the I-676 Vine Expressway, particularly the newer eastern end (from PA 611 to I-95, that opened in 1991), is actually a downsized expressway compared to what it originally planned to be.

This happens often in Louisville. Let's hear it for the WONDERFUL idea that is "8664."

To quote Bugs Bunny: "What maroons."

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Floose_pics%2Flouisville_waterfront.jpg&hash=cc8dcaf9bb71e3a85b1aaac3958317e9349817cf)

(OK, so the pic looked normal before I uploaded it but for some reason on the web server it's rotated. But still, this is what that valuable Louisville waterfront looks like several times a year. This particular flood closed the lower levels of the Galt House parking garage.)

Quote from: PHLBOS on March 14, 2012, 01:19:32 PM

Quote from: realjd on March 14, 2012, 10:30:21 AMI'm not saying they made the wrong choice back when it was built, only that given today's sensibilities, cutting a city center off from its waterfront (usually) doesn't make sense from an economic or from an aesthetic perspective.

As for where else I-95 could go, I'm not very familiar with Philadelphia personally. I can speculate only from looking at a map. Assuming I was building it from scratch, my first thought would have been to route it east across the Walt Whitman Bridge, north where I-676 is now, then continuing north across the river on a new bridge to reconnect to where I-95 currently is. Or to route it along the west edge of the FDR Golf Club (as seen on Google Maps) and along the current I-76 routing, then east along I-676 north of downtown to where I-95 currently is.

While I will give you kudos for thinking outside the box with the above; here are some site specific issues:

1.  The Delaware River is about a mile wide (with most bridge crossings roughly 1.5 to 2 miles long) in the immediate Center City area AND the land that abuts the east side of the river is NEW JERSEY (Camden & Gloucester City).  Your suggested re-routing would needlessly involve crossing state lines TWICE for someone heading from the airport to Northeast Philly (as an example).  Not to mention that EVERY Delaware River bridge crossing in the immediate area is tolled; $5 westbound for the 3 DRPA bridges and $2 for the 2-lane Tacony-Palmyra Bridge.  If the Delaware River was as narrow as the Schuylkill River (which is only roughly 800 feet wide) and there was no state boundary to contend with; then that option would have some validity.

2.  Your second idea essentially involves utilizing the existing 4-lane Vine Expressway (I-676), 4-lane Schuylkill Expressway (I-76) and the 4-lane Platt Bridge (PA 291).  In comparison, I-95 ranges from 6 to 8 lanes.  This option has been discussed and backed by the Get Rid of I-95 crowd but the primary problem with this alternative is that those roads (most of them older than I-95 BTW) are grossly undersized to be the primary artery: 10 to 12 currently available expressway lanes for all corridors going down to only 4.

The only way this option COULD work would be to widen EVERY 4-lane segment to either 8 to 10 lanes BEFORE removing/rerouting I-95.  IMHO, one would sooner see Former-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi becoming a conservative Republican than the widening of those expressways & bridges.  It's worth noting that the I-676 Vine Expressway, particularly the newer eastern end (from PA 611 to I-95, that opened in 1991), is actually a downsized expressway compared to what it originally planned to be.

Like I said, I'm not overly familiar with Philadelphia :)

I fail to see why crossing the state line twice though is a concern. It may be a hassle from a coordination perspective if the PA and NJ DOTs don't get along particularly well, but for your example of the person going from the airport to the NE suburbs, it shouldn't matter provided the tolls went away. It doesn't add much distance. Besides, bridges are cool!

As for the narrow 4-lane roads and bridges, yes, they'd clearly need to be updated. But I'm not proposing any of this solutions that have an actual chance of happening, just hypothetical alternatives.

That's why I asked though about how much of the downtown I-95 traffic is O/D for downtown and how much is through traffic. If most of the traffic is O/D, the traffic increase on other downtown freeways would be smaller than if the majority of traffic were through traffic not stopping downtown.

This is getting into dangerous fictional highway territory. Hopefully this thread doesn't get sent to that black hole!

Quote from: realjd on March 14, 2012, 10:30:21 AM

Quote from: PHLBOS on March 13, 2012, 07:06:16 PM
So where would you have placed I-95 in Central Philadelphia if tunneling it Big Dig style was already rejected back in the 60s due to cost?  As I stated earlier, placing it betweeen Independence Mall (6th St.) and Broad Street (PA 611) is a non-starter.  Placing it between its current location and 5th Street would have it litterally rip through the Old City Historic District and many of its landmarks.

One has to remember when that stretch of I-95 was built, most of the waterfront area was either industrial or a wasteland.

I'm not saying they made the wrong choice back when it was built, only that given today's sensibilities, cutting a city center off from its waterfront (usually) doesn't make sense from an economic or from an aesthetic perspective.

As for where else I-95 could go, I'm not very familiar with Philadelphia personally. I can speculate only from looking at a map. Assuming I was building it from scratch, my first thought would have been to route it east across the Walt Whitman Bridge, north where I-676 is now, then continuing north across the river on a new bridge to reconnect to where I-95 currently is. Or to route it along the west edge of the FDR Golf Club (as seen on Google Maps) and along the current I-76 routing, then east along I-676 north of downtown to where I-95 currently is.

That's just speculation though since I'm not familiar with local traffic patterns, road states, or anything like that. Is there a lot of through traffic on that stretch of I-95 or is it mostly people heading to/from downtown? Eliminating a stretch of freeway seems like it would result in much less impact if it mostly carried downtown O/D traffic as opposed to people needing to get across downtown.

I-95 should have never been built through Philadelphia or Pennsylvania at all.  The New Jersey Turnpike should be I-95 all the way to the Delaware border.  Maybe the road in Pennsylvania should have been built, but it shouldn't have been I-95 past the point that the new I-95 in NJ was cancelled.

There has been some rumblings about tearing down the Inner Dispersal Loop (I-244/444) in Tulsa, but thankfully the movement doesn't have much momentum.  OTA ignored the NIMBYs when they built the Creek Turnpike through south Tulsa.  Thankfully the weenies don't have much power around here.

I'm as big of a roadgeek as the next guy, but I fully support tearing down the I-10 over Claiborne Ave.  Through-traffic doesn't need it, it's ugly, and hinders development.  Some roads just ain't right.

Quote from: realjd on March 14, 2012, 01:54:57 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on March 14, 2012, 01:19:32 PM

Quote from: realjd on March 14, 2012, 10:30:21 AMI'm not saying they made the wrong choice back when it was built, only that given today's sensibilities, cutting a city center off from its waterfront (usually) doesn't make sense from an economic or from an aesthetic perspective.

As for where else I-95 could go, I'm not very familiar with Philadelphia personally. I can speculate only from looking at a map. Assuming I was building it from scratch, my first thought would have been to route it east across the Walt Whitman Bridge, north where I-676 is now, then continuing north across the river on a new bridge to reconnect to where I-95 currently is. Or to route it along the west edge of the FDR Golf Club (as seen on Google Maps) and along the current I-76 routing, then east along I-676 north of downtown to where I-95 currently is.

While I will give you kudos for thinking outside the box with the above; here are some site specific issues:

1.  The Delaware River is about a mile wide (with most bridge crossings roughly 1.5 to 2 miles long) in the immediate Center City area AND the land that abuts the east side of the river is NEW JERSEY (Camden & Gloucester City).  Your suggested re-routing would needlessly involve crossing state lines TWICE for someone heading from the airport to Northeast Philly (as an example).  Not to mention that EVERY Delaware River bridge crossing in the immediate area is tolled; $5 westbound for the 3 DRPA bridges and $2 for the 2-lane Tacony-Palmyra Bridge.  If the Delaware River was as narrow as the Schuylkill River (which is only roughly 800 feet wide) and there was no state boundary to contend with; then that option would have some validity.

In addition to the cost of constructing two large  and expensive river crossings (probably 8 lanes, high enough to allow ocean shipping to pass or in tunnels), I assert that the city fathers of Camden (and probably New Jersey's state officials) would raise the issue of environmental justice (http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/), since Camden is notoriously poor and majority-minority.   Philadelphia's urban problems are relatively minor when compared to Camden.

Quote2.  Your second idea essentially involves utilizing the existing 4-lane Vine Expressway (I-676), 4-lane Schuylkill Expressway (I-76) and the 4-lane Platt Bridge (PA 291).  In comparison, I-95 ranges from 6 to 8 lanes.  This option has been discussed and backed by the Get Rid of I-95 crowd but the primary problem with this alternative is that those roads (most of them older than I-95 BTW) are grossly undersized to be the primary artery: 10 to 12 currently available expressway lanes for all corridors going down to only 4.

Agreed. 

QuoteThe only way this option COULD work would be to widen EVERY 4-lane segment to either 8 to 10 lanes BEFORE removing/rerouting I-95.  IMHO, one would sooner see Former-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi becoming a conservative Republican than the widening of those expressways & bridges.  It's worth noting that the I-676 Vine Expressway, particularly the newer eastern end (from PA 611 to I-95, that opened in 1991), is actually a downsized expressway compared to what it originally planned to be.

There's also the matter of any tear-down proposal needing approval of both PennDOT and the U.S. Department of Transportation.  I don't think that's going to happen (regardless of what Neal Peirce says), especially when those agencies and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission are spending a lot of money to close the "missing link" of I-95.

Quote from: realjd on March 14, 2012, 01:54:57 PM
I fail to see why crossing the state line twice though is a concern. It may be a hassle from a coordination perspective if the PA and NJ DOTs don't get along particularly well, but for your example of the person going from the airport to the NE suburbs, it shouldn't matter provided the tolls went away. It doesn't add much distance. Besides, bridges are cool!

:-D

I wonder what DRPA would think about ending tolls on the Delaware crossings (which are currently $5 per round trip, not quite as exorbitant as NYC metro, but still quite a racket) at the same time as it builds a new one (possibly two).

You'd be just as likely to see space elevators carry traffic from one side of center city to the other.  How's THAT for a fictional highway? :)

Seriously, though, your ideas may make sense in some other parts of the country, but there are some realities particular to the northeast, and to the Philly metro, that make some ideas a lot less possible there.

Quote from: bugo on March 14, 2012, 02:03:53 PMI-95 should have never been built through Philadelphia or Pennsylvania at all.  The New Jersey Turnpike should be I-95 all the way to the Delaware border.  Maybe the road in Pennsylvania should have been built, but it shouldn't have been I-95 past the point that the new I-95 in NJ was cancelled.

Even if the Delaware Expressway (the street name for I-95 in PA) never received the I-95 designation or even ANY Interstate designation for that matter; southeastern PA STILL would have needed some type of highway that connected Downtown Philly to the 2 adjacent counties (Bucks & Delaware), links the city to the airport, the Sports Complex, the Tioga & Packer Marine Port Terminals, South & Northeast Philly.

Furthermore, even if I-95 in Somerset County, NJ WAS built, would through-traffic from there to Delaware State and points further south head into PA via the Delaware Expressway?  Unless they were making a stop in either Philly, Bucks and/or Delaware County, probably not; they would likely use I-295 to get to Delaware State and points further south.

The through-traffic I was referring to is more of a regional/localized venue as opposed to long-distance.  That said, would traffic on I-95 in PA increase once the Turnpike interchange is built; yes, but the increase will likely involve traffic that is O&D-ing in southeastern PA (though not necessarily Philly).

Quote from: realjd on March 14, 2012, 01:54:57 PMI fail to see why crossing the state line twice though is a concern. It may be a hassle from a coordination perspective if the PA and NJ DOTs don't get along particularly well, but for your example of the person going from the airport to the NE suburbs, it shouldn't matter provided the tolls went away. It doesn't add much distance. Besides, bridges are cool!

We'd sooner see Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad convert to Judiasm than elimination of tolls on all the DRPA bridges and/or the disbanding of the DRPA.

BTW the distance added by crossing the Delaware TWICE is roughly 4 miles.  For a longer trip, 4 miles isn't too big a deal; but for more shorter trips, that extra distance can be a deal-breaker.

I also recall hearing chatter a few years ago from some wanting to remove the Rochester, NY Inner Loop freeway.  Any more on that one?

Mike

Quote from: PHLBOS on March 14, 2012, 06:34:06 PM
BTW the distance added by crossing the Delaware TWICE is roughly 4 miles.  For a longer trip, 4 miles isn't too big a deal; but for more shorter trips, that extra distance can be a deal-breaker.

Sounds like induced demand :)

Quote from: mgk920 on March 14, 2012, 07:24:35 PM
I also recall hearing chatter a few years ago from some wanting to remove the Rochester, NY Inner Loop freeway.  Any more on that one?

Mike

There was a TIGER grant proposal floating around the internet for boulevarding the east half (not including I-490).  As much as I dislike the idea, it is kind of hard to justify keeping a freeway with an ADT around 6000.

Quote from: realjd on March 14, 2012, 10:33:05 AM

Quote from: Brandon on March 14, 2012, 08:16:12 AM
What these folks, the freeway-teardown folks, forget is that not only does automobile traffic use these roads, but truck traffic does as well.  They seem to think the traffic will magically move to public transit once the freeway is gone.  It's very wrong.  Through traffic and truck traffic still needs to get from point A to point B.  And these center city folks who want the teardowns seem to forget that these trucks can bring good to their markets quickly and cheaply with the freeways.  Without them, the good take longer, and they will be more expensive.

There's no reason that through trucks need to be routed through the immediate downtown area of most cities.

They have to get to the downtown area.

Quote from: Brandon on March 14, 2012, 09:06:34 PM

Quote from: realjd on March 14, 2012, 10:33:05 AM
There's no reason that through trucks need to be routed through the immediate downtown area of most cities.

They have to get to the downtown area.

Through trucks don't have to get to the downtown area. That's what makes them through trucks.

Montréal could (and will probably) lose the Bonaventure Expressway in a matter of a few years.

Quote from: NE2 on March 14, 2012, 09:15:02 PM

Quote from: Brandon on March 14, 2012, 09:06:34 PM

Quote from: realjd on March 14, 2012, 10:33:05 AM
There's no reason that through trucks need to be routed through the immediate downtown area of most cities.

They have to get to the downtown area.

Through trucks don't have to get to the downtown area. That's what makes them through trucks.

OK, you propose how a truck gets to downtown, cheaply, using less fuel and less time, if all that exist are surface streets within a city.

I'm waiting.

And no, using a train doesn't count as the truck still has to get from the railyard to downtown.

Through trucks -- or through passenger traffic for that matter -- by definition don't have to get downtown.  Through traffic is traffic that is, for example, passing through Atlanta on it's way from Tampa to Nashville.

However, there is a somewhat valid point to be made in that shunting all traffic onto a beltway can cause problems in that (a) a beltway is by definition longer in mileage, and (b) a beltway by definition has less capacity than a beltway and a freeway through the city combined (unless you double the # of lanes on the beltway).

Quote from: Brandon on March 15, 2012, 07:18:27 AM

Quote from: NE2 on March 14, 2012, 09:15:02 PM

Quote from: Brandon on March 14, 2012, 09:06:34 PM

Quote from: realjd on March 14, 2012, 10:33:05 AM
There's no reason that through trucks need to be routed through the immediate downtown area of most cities.

They have to get to the downtown area.

Through trucks don't have to get to the downtown area. That's what makes them through trucks.

OK, you propose how a truck gets to downtown, cheaply, using less fuel and less time, if all that exist are surface streets within a city.

I'm waiting.

And no, using a train doesn't count as the truck still has to get from the railyard to downtown.

Who is saying that there would be only surface streets and no freeways in a city? We're talking about removing specific portions of freeways. In the hypothetical Philadelphia example where we remove that portion of I-95, there is still plenty of freeway access to downtown. And just because a freeway doesn't cross a downtown area itself doesn't mean that there aren't freeways leading to downtown. See Columbia, SC for a good example of what I mean.

Quote from: Revive 755 on March 14, 2012, 08:17:04 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on March 14, 2012, 07:24:35 PM
I also recall hearing chatter a few years ago from some wanting to remove the Rochester, NY Inner Loop freeway.  Any more on that one?

Mike

There was a TIGER grant proposal floating around the internet for boulevarding the east half (not including I-490).  As much as I dislike the idea, it is kind of hard to justify keeping a freeway with an ADT around 6000.

It's something that keeps coming up but it always fizzles out, probably because NYSDOT won't maintain a road after a downgrade (NY 590's downgrade was conditional on the town of Irondequoit maintaining it) and the city is broke.  But the reason traffic counts are so low is not because the freeway isn't needed, but because the eastern I-490 interchange is missing the movements that traffic coming to/from that part of downtown needs.  They should complete the interchange and make it a super-2.  The idea that a four-lane boulevard is easier to cross than a sunken freeway is ludicrous (and who wants to stop at all those lights?).

In Philadelphia, I-95 isn't really much of a through route now, although that may change when the Turnpike connection is built. Most of the through traffic in the area takes I-295, the Del Mem Br and the NJTP.

Unlike Louisville, where through east-west traffic uses I-64.

Quote from: realjd on March 15, 2012, 09:16:50 AMWho is saying that there would be only surface streets and no freeways in a city? We're talking about removing specific portions of freeways. In the hypothetical Philadelphia example where we remove that portion of I-95, there is still plenty of freeway access to downtown. And just because a freeway doesn't cross a downtown area itself doesn't mean that there aren't freeways leading to downtown. See Columbia, SC for a good example of what I mean.

Since you yourself earlier stated that you've never been to Philly and were only looking at a map or two; your observations only focused on freeways as a heavy line on a map but NOT the actual size of the roads and/or site logistics.

That said and as I stated earlier (and I've lived in the Philly area for nearly 22 years BTW), the majority of freeways in Philadelphia are 4-laners which are grossly undersized for such a large populated city/metropolitan region.  If one goes to any other major metropolitan area in the northeast; the highways are at least 6 lanes wide.  Heck, even Boston's old elevated Central Artery (which was replaced with a mostly 8-lane O'Neill Tunnel via the Big Dig) was a 6-laner and it was already overcrowded shortly after it opened in 1959.

I also believe that most of NYC's highways are also 6-laners as well.

For some reason, PennDOT seems to have a love affair w/4-laners even in big cities/metropolitan regions and it shows with many of their roadways in and around Philly.

Quote from: hbelkins on March 15, 2012, 11:46:56 AM
Most of the through traffic in the area takes I-295, the Del Mem Br and the NJTP.

why not just sign that as I-95?  if Penna cannot be bothered to upgrade their infrastructure, why should they get a major x5 corridor?

Quote from: PHLBOS on March 15, 2012, 12:52:28 PM

Quote from: realjd on March 15, 2012, 09:16:50 AMWho is saying that there would be only surface streets and no freeways in a city? We're talking about removing specific portions of freeways. In the hypothetical Philadelphia example where we remove that portion of I-95, there is still plenty of freeway access to downtown. And just because a freeway doesn't cross a downtown area itself doesn't mean that there aren't freeways leading to downtown. See Columbia, SC for a good example of what I mean.

Since you yourself earlier stated that you've never been to Philly and were only looking at a map or two; your observations only focused on freeways as a heavy line on a map but NOT the actual size of the roads and/or site logistics.

That said and as I stated earlier (and I've lived in the Philly area for nearly 22 years BTW), the majority of freeways in Philadelphia are 4-laners which are grossly undersized for such a large populated city/metropolitan region.  If one goes to any other major metropolitan area in the northeast; the highways are at least 6 lanes wide.  Heck, even Boston's old elevated Central Artery (which was replaced with a mostly 8-lane O'Neill Tunnel via the Big Dig) was a 6-laner and it was already overcrowded shortly after it opened in 1959.

I also believe that most of NYC's highways are also 6-laners as well.

For some reason, PennDOT seems to have a love affair w/4-laners even in big cities/metropolitan regions and it shows with many of their roadways in and around Philly.

I get that. I'm not seriously in favor of removing that stretch of highway. It's purely a thought experiment.

Quote from: PHLBOS on March 15, 2012, 12:52:28 PM
For some reason, PennDOT seems to have a love affair w/4-laners even in big cities/metropolitan regions and it shows with many of their roadways in and around Philly.

Mainly because they thought more would be built.
http://www.phillyroads.com/history/expwy-map_1966/
http://www.phillyroads.com/history/expwy-map_1974/

Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 15, 2012, 12:54:02 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on March 15, 2012, 11:46:56 AM
Most of the through traffic in the area takes I-295, the Del Mem Br and the NJTP.

why not just sign that as I-95?  if Penna cannot be bothered to upgrade their infrastructure, why should they get a major x5 corridor?

If NJ can't be bothered to build their section of I-95, why should they get a major x5 corridor?

Quote from: deanej on March 16, 2012, 10:34:52 AM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 15, 2012, 12:54:02 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on March 15, 2012, 11:46:56 AM
Most of the through traffic in the area takes I-295, the Del Mem Br and the NJTP.

why not just sign that as I-95?  if Penna cannot be bothered to upgrade their infrastructure, why should they get a major x5 corridor?

If NJ can't be bothered to build their section of I-95, why should they get a major x5 corridor?

they did build a perfectly good corridor, though.  it's a matter of choosing between a continuous and a discontinuous I-95 - I'd choose the continuous on practical grounds.

The whole broken I-95 situation is delicate to be sure...

I agree that the turnpike is the practical thru route, but I also see where PA is coming from in that they shouldn't have to lose I-95 through no fault of their own.  After all, they built their part.  The reason I-95 is broken is NJ didn't build theirs.  They didn't have much incentive to do so considering the potential loss of turnpike traffic to PA.

I see the new PA turnpike interchange as going above and beyond to work around NJ's inaction and justify having I-95 signed in PA.  It would steal back some gas tax and toll revenue from NJ, not to mention get more people off the trains, all of which I-95 was supposed to do had NJ done their part.

Considering how much time and money has gone toward planning and studies for that interchange, it would take a pretty serious 180 of decades of policy, and a conscious decision to walk away from a huge investment, to tear down I-95 in center city, as there would be no point in continuing with the interchange if they did.  I-95 would probably have to move to the turnpike after all.

Quote from: MrDisco99 on March 16, 2012, 04:25:23 PM
Considering how much time and money has gone toward planning and studies for that interchange, it would take a pretty serious 180 of decades of policy, and a conscious decision to walk away from a huge investment, to tear down I-95 in center city, as there would be no point in continuing with the interchange if they did.  I-95 would probably have to move to the turnpike after all.

Because NYC-Philly traffic will no longer use the new interchange if I-95 is removed beyond the part it's using. Wait...

There is no easy way to get from NYC to Philly. Sad thing is there is that they are like less than 70 miles apart. And the issue is 10 to 15 miles of highway. Jersey has screwed it up big time.

As for mass transit, try to put that in Houston. When it takes 90 mins to 2 hours to go from Baytown(one town over south east) to The Woodlands (one town over North west) on the freeway system. No Mass transit is going to help.

Quote from: NE2 on March 16, 2012, 06:12:10 PM

Quote from: MrDisco99 on March 16, 2012, 04:25:23 PM
Considering how much time and money has gone toward planning and studies for that interchange, it would take a pretty serious 180 of decades of policy, and a conscious decision to walk away from a huge investment, to tear down I-95 in center city, as there would be no point in continuing with the interchange if they did.  I-95 would probably have to move to the turnpike after all.

Because NYC-Philly traffic will no longer use the new interchange if I-95 is removed beyond the part it's using. Wait...

You forgot to read the previous paragraphs.

NYC-Philly traffic is going to get to Philly whether they tear down I-95 or not, or whether they build the interchange or not.

The interchange is not just to make the NYC-Philly drive easier, but more importantly, to finish I-95 as a thru route that actually serves Philly.  If the part that actually goes through the city is torn down, leaving just stubs with no workaround, then it wouldn't make a very good thru route, would it?

The reason people clamor for the turnpike to be signed I-95 is because it's the only useful thru route in the area, despite it completely ignoring the fifth largest city in the country.  If the current I-95 is destroyed as a thru route by tearing down the "thru" part, then I'd have to agree with them.  And thus, the interchange would be pointless... well, except to serve people going to Philly who were going to do so anyway.

OK, so there wouldn't be a through route through Philly. Big deal. There's none through DC currently.

Quote from: NE2 on March 16, 2012, 09:11:20 PM
OK, so there wouldn't be a through route through Philly. Big deal. There's none through DC currently.

There will be in about a year when the 11th Street Bridge and interchange completion project is finished.

As far a cutting out a chunk of I-95 in downtown Philadelphia, that makes about as much sense as cutting out a chunk of I-95 in downtown Baltimore.  After all, the I-695 beltway provides two different ways to bypass I-95, so using the "logic" why not cut out a chunk of I-95?

The thing is I-95 is built almost the entire length through urban counties. There is no clean way to build a major highway on the east coast that doesn't go through a major city or 12. The only way is by-passes that end up with more traffic than through routes(Baltimore). Or you have areas where traffic is so congested that it takes 3.5 hours to get through "rush hour"(Fairfield County, CT). Removing a chunk of I-95 from Philly or D/C is just a pointless practice since people do drive through those areas. It would be like getting rid of the Stack in Austin(I-35), the elevated in Houston (I-45), or The Alexander Hamilton Bridge in NYC(I-95).

Quote from: NE2 on March 16, 2012, 09:11:20 PM
OK, so there wouldn't be a through route through Philly. Big deal. There's none through DC currently.

Exactly.  And they gave up trying to get I-95 signed thru DC decades ago and just signed the beltway instead.

PA has been actively working on finishing I-95 as a route through Philly for a while now.  They're not going to just give it up to NJ because some postmodernists are getting uppity.

Quote from: Beltway on March 16, 2012, 10:10:52 PM
There will be in about a year when the 11th Street Bridge and interchange completion project is finished.

Sort of... it's only good for non-commercial traffic in MD.

Quote from: Beltway on March 16, 2012, 10:10:52 PM
As far a cutting out a chunk of I-95 in downtown Philadelphia, that makes about as much sense as cutting out a chunk of I-95 in downtown Baltimore.  After all, the I-695 beltway provides two different ways to bypass I-95, so using the "logic" why not cut out a chunk of I-95?

Don't give them any ideas.  It took them forever to finish what's there now.  Of course we could turn the Harbor Tunnel Thruway back into a parking lot.

Quote from: MrDisco99 on March 16, 2012, 11:40:11 PM

Quote from: Beltway on March 16, 2012, 10:10:52 PM
There will be in about a year when the 11th Street Bridge and interchange completion project is finished.

Sort of... it's only good for non-commercial traffic in MD.

I-395, I-695 and DC-295 will carry commercial traffic thru D.C. between VA and MD.  Commercial traffic could follow US-50 and I-95/I-495 to access MD northerly and easterly places.

I-95 also comes a lot closer to DC (technically passing through when crossing the Potomac, so yes, I-95 *is* signed through DC, all 1/10 mile of it) than the NJTP does to Philly.

Quote from: Perfxion on March 16, 2012, 06:36:26 PM
There is no easy way to get from NYC to Philly. Sad thing is there is that they are like less than 70 miles apart. And the issue is 10 to 15 miles of highway. Jersey has screwed it up big time.

New York City to Philadelphia are 78 straight-line miles apart, likely at or close to 90 when driving, though.

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on March 15, 2012, 10:59:23 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on March 15, 2012, 12:52:28 PM
For some reason, PennDOT seems to have a love affair w/4-laners even in big cities/metropolitan regions and it shows with many of their roadways in and around Philly.

Mainly because they thought more would be built.
http://www.phillyroads.com/history/expwy-map_1966/
http://www.phillyroads.com/history/expwy-map_1974/

I'm well aware of those proposed highways that never get built BUT, even after all that happened; both the eastern end of the Vine Expressway (I-676) and the southern end of the Blue Route (I-476 between MacDade Blvd. & PA 3) were STILL scaled down from 6-laners down to 4-laners when they were opened in 1991.

Like Philly, Boston ALSO had some planned highways (from its 1948 Master Plan) that never got built.  The original Central Artery and Southeast Expressway (in its original configuration) were also built (in the 50s) under the presumption that other highways (Inner Belt & Southwest Expressway) would later follow (little did they know).

Where Greater Boston differs from Greater Philly was that BOTH facilities (the Artery & Expressway) were 6-lanes wide from the get-go.

Just read a similar story over the weekend on this subject.  Apologies if it was posted earlier in this thread.

http://grist.org/infrastructure/off-ramp-how-demolishing-freeways-is-reviving-american-cities/

Interview with Norquist:
http://americancity.org/buzz/entry/3410/ (http://americancity.org/buzz/entry/3410/)

Little causal oversimplification with Detroit there?

There's been talk of removing portions of I-81 through downtown Syracuse and rerouting I-81 over I-481. Many feel that I-81 through Syracuse has split the city in half and the western side of the elevated freeway has suffered because of it. I don't think there's been as much talk over the past couple of months though, perhaps because I-81 was shut down due to a train derailment (on an adjacent railroad) and downtown was a mess, especially with traffic trying to get to an SU football game at the Carrier Dome.

Quote from: Revive 755 on March 26, 2012, 08:58:07 PM
Interview with Norquist:
http://americancity.org/buzz/entry/3410/ (http://americancity.org/buzz/entry/3410/)

Little causal oversimplification with Detroit there?

Oversimplification?  The man just proved he is a complete idiot.  Detroit's problems have very little to do with the freeways, and lot to do with civic leadership that failed (Young, Kilpatrick, etc), the 1967 riot, economics of the automobile industry, gangs, and drugs.  His "analysis" doesn't explain why workplaces have moved out of town.

After what happened with Hurricane Katrina, I'll go out on a limb and say that the long-discussed proposal to remove part of I-10 in New Orleans (along Claiborne Avenue) is likely gaining traction by now.

What happened with Katrina???  NOTHING happened...it was the levees failing in the Ninth Ward that caused the majority of the damage and destruction.  In fact, without the Claiborne Elevated, evacuating those people would have been complicated by a magnitude.

There is siimply NO justification for removing the Claiborne Elevated....especially when other means of redeveloping the Treme neighborhood while keeping the structure are available. This is just Norquist spouting his "kill the freeways" nonsense.

And, he better not bring his butt anywhere near Shreveport or Lafayette, either.


Anthony

I think what happens here with these freeway teardown incidents is that people think if the freeway is removed the traffic will be gone too.  Well, the traffic is here and it has to go somewhere.  The traffic isn't going anywhere.  Wasn't that the reason the freeways were built to begin with because traffic on local streets was unbearable.  People have convenient memories.

Quote from: doofy103 on April 09, 2012, 12:27:22 PM
Wasn't that the reason the freeways were built to begin with because traffic on local streets was unbearable.

Unbearable for motorists, maybe. Unbearable for inner-city residents? Probably not.

Anyway, most traffic would go to I-610. Duh.

Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 19, 2012, 12:02:54 PM
Just read a similar story over the weekend on this subject.  Apologies if it was posted earlier in this thread.

http://grist.org/infrastructure/off-ramp-how-demolishing-freeways-is-reviving-american-cities/

If one would have visited the section which had the freeway torn down, it doesn't look any better - no one's buying up that real-estate.

Norquist is a guy who doesn't give a damn whether there is a need for roads or not.  He thinks transit will solve all the problems - yet he does not realize that old habits die hard.

Quote from: NE2 on April 09, 2012, 12:46:49 PM

Quote from: doofy103 on April 09, 2012, 12:27:22 PM
Wasn't that the reason the freeways were built to begin with because traffic on local streets was unbearable.

Unbearable for motorists, maybe. Unbearable for inner-city residents? Probably not.

Anyway, most traffic would go to I-610. Duh.

Does that include most traffic going to downtown NOLA or the French Quarter or the Superdome?? Or..traffic from Algiers or the  Westbank going eastbound??

That traffic isn't going anywhere but on the surface streets...and no light rail will mitigate that.


Anthony

Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 09, 2012, 04:29:56 PM
Does that include most traffic going to downtown NOLA or the French Quarter or the Superdome?? Or..traffic from Algiers or the  Westbank going eastbound??

Yes. That traffic can also use I-610. Trucks would probably be required to, while cars could use surface streets or I-610 depending on traffic. Or if you're actually going downtown, you could perhaps park at the fairgrounds and transfer to a streetcar extension.

QuoteThere is siimply NO justification for removing the Claiborne Elevated....especially when other means of redeveloping the Treme neighborhood while keeping the structure are available. This is just Norquist spouting his "kill the freeways" nonsense.

On this one, I would disagree with you.  Building I-10 over Claiborne completely ruined that section of town...long before Katrina came and ruined the rest of town.

And in this case, there is a workaround.  It would require redoing both of the I-10/610 junctions and the movements between 10 West and the Westbank, but it's technically feasible.

QuoteHe thinks transit will solve all the problems - yet he does not realize that old habits die hard.

But they're dying.  Slowly.  High gas prices and changing demographics have a part in that.

Quote from: Master son on April 09, 2012, 02:55:52 PM

Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 19, 2012, 12:02:54 PM
Just read a similar story over the weekend on this subject.  Apologies if it was posted earlier in this thread.

http://grist.org/infrastructure/off-ramp-how-demolishing-freeways-is-reviving-american-cities/

If one would have visited the section which had the freeway torn down, it doesn't look any better - no one's buying up that real-estate.

Norquist is a guy who doesn't give a damn whether there is a need for roads or not.  He thinks transit will solve all the problems - yet he does not realize that old habits die hard.

One of the big problems in the Milwaukee (Park East) case is that the ultra-PC local government powers-that-be placed such onerous 'SOCIAL JUSTICE!!!  :angry: ' restrictions on the land that it is uneconomical for anyone to try to develop it.  Thankfully, there is a strong push to relax things with regards to that.

Also, as for New Orleans, I agree that it is imperative for city accesses that are entirely above sea level to be maintained.  Without them, emergency services are much more problematic.

Mike

I-10 and I-610 should probably be swapped regardless.  But the transit people rely on the induced demand narrative to justify everything.  Here's the fact: most induced demand is just unhappy people giving up on trips because the traffic is too bad.

Most of the change is from young urbanists who want to live in a big city so they can pretend they're still in college.  It will shift back when these people grow up, move to the suburbs, start families, and realize that they need cars.  You can't take home enough groceries to feed a family without a car, even if you go to the store every day.  You can't ferry the kids to their bazillion activities.  And you probably won't be able to go to work either, as the larger housing is out in the suburbs.

Quote from: deanej on April 10, 2012, 12:03:59 PM
I-10 and I-610 should probably be swapped regardless.  But the transit people rely on the induced demand narrative to justify everything.  Here's the fact: most induced demand is just unhappy people giving up on trips because the traffic is too bad.

Most of the change is from young urbanists who want to live in a big city so they can pretend they're still in college.  It will shift back when these people grow up, move to the suburbs, start families, and realize that they need cars.  You can't take home enough groceries to feed a family without a car, even if you go to the store every day.  You can't ferry the kids to their bazillion activities.  And you probably won't be able to go to work either, as the larger housing is out in the suburbs.

Good argument there. But in the scenario where the Claiborne section is removed, I-10 would most likely take over I-610.

QuoteBut the transit people rely on the induced demand narrative to justify everything.  Here's the fact: most induced demand is just unhappy people giving up on trips because the traffic is too bad.

Partly the case, but not fully.  It's been documented numerous times that when you reduce highway capacity on a long-term scale, some of the traffic shifts to other times, some shifts to other routes.  Yes, a percentage of it will go away, but it's not "most" as you suggest.

QuoteYou can't take home enough groceries to feed a family without a car, even if you go to the store every day.

I'm calling shenanigans on this one.  A decent cargo bike will cover this (without having to go to the store every day), plus I've personally biked with grocery bags in my hands.

QuoteYou can't ferry the kids to their bazillion activities.

Not true.  I know several folks in DC that ferry their kids via bike.

QuoteAnd you probably won't be able to go to work either, as the larger housing is out in the suburbs.

A) not all the larger housing is in the burbs.
B) the ongoing trend for decades in this country has been smaller households.  Smaller households = you don't need as much space.
C) these people are also living in the city because they're working in the city, so there are plenty of ways to get to work.

During the 7 weeks I was recently at the Pentagon, I car-commuted all of twice.  Biked about half the time.  And as a result, I only had to fill the gas tank once (most of that usage from when my other half was down for a week).

Quote from: froggie on April 11, 2012, 11:31:25 AM

QuoteBut the transit people rely on the induced demand narrative to justify everything.  Here's the fact: most induced demand is just unhappy people giving up on trips because the traffic is too bad.

Partly the case, but not fully.  It's been documented numerous times that when you reduce highway capacity on a long-term scale, some of the traffic shifts to other times, some shifts to other routes.  Yes, a percentage of it will go away, but it's not "most" as you suggest.

Much of what is called "induced" demand for highway capacity is more-properly called latent demand, especially when  roads are severely congested.

And some persons and groups that loudly objected to the construction (or even the study) of the InterCounty Connector are now harrumphing about the (supposed) lack of traffic on the toll road, even though they cited "induced" demand (ad nauseum) as a reason not to build it. 

Quote

QuoteYou can't take home enough groceries to feed a family without a car, even if you go to the store every day.

I'm calling shenanigans on this one.  A decent cargo bike will cover this (without having to go to the store every day), plus I've personally biked with grocery bags in my hands.

That depends on where people live, how they live and many other factors. I certainly believe you  can get along just fine with a bike, but other people cannot.

Quote

QuoteYou can't ferry the kids to their bazillion activities.

Not true.  I know several folks in DC that ferry their kids via bike.

It depends on what the kids are doing and where they are doing it.

Quote

QuoteAnd you probably won't be able to go to work either, as the larger housing is out in the suburbs.

A) not all the larger housing is in the burbs.

Absolutely correct.

QuoteB) the ongoing trend for decades in this country has been smaller households.  Smaller households = you don't need as much space.

Though not everyone wants (or needs) to downsize.

QuoteC) these people are also living in the city because they're working in the city, so there are plenty of ways to get to work.

During the 7 weeks I was recently at the Pentagon, I car-commuted all of twice.  Biked about half the time.  And as a result, I only had to fill the gas tank once (most of that usage from when my other half was down for a week).

The Department of Defense, in spite of the apparently large parking lots around the Pentagon, has long encouraged (with sticks and with carrots) its workforce to use modes of transportation other than the single-occupant vehicle.  The Pentagon also enjoys its very own Metrorail station and what may be the largest transit bus station in the Washington metropolitan area and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Quote from: mgk920 on April 09, 2012, 09:00:08 PM

Also, as for New Orleans, I agree that it is imperative for city accesses that are entirely above sea level to be maintained.  Without them, emergency services are much more problematic.

Mike

Know your facts before you speak.  The entire city is NOT below sea level, only about half.  But, I'm sure in Wisconsin you got your information from the mainstream media which loves to sensationalize things, accuracy be damned.  Studies have shown only 17% of the traffic on the proposed tear down section (Superdome to St. Bernard Ave.) is thru-traffic heading to the east.  The French Quarter and Downtown area had NO FLOODING after Katrina...a 500 year storm..., so emergency services are not a reason to keep this awful structure. 

The Quarter didn't flood, but parts of downtown did get about a foot of water....especially on Canal St. and the area around North Claiborne.

I will go on record and also say there's no justification for taking down I-10 in the North Claiborne median.

Quote from: froggie on April 11, 2012, 11:31:25 AM

QuoteYou can't take home enough groceries to feed a family without a car, even if you go to the store every day.

I'm calling shenanigans on this one.  A decent cargo bike will cover this (without having to go to the store every day), plus I've personally biked with grocery bags in my hands.

Now try a 40 pound bag of cat litter with cans and groceries (two bags with a gallon of milk).  Cargo bikes won't do it.

Quote from: Brandon on April 11, 2012, 09:11:18 PM

Now try a 40 pound bag of cat litter with cans and groceries (two bags with a gallon of milk).  Cargo bikes won't do it.

that is a sign of Bicycle Jesus telling you to toilet-train your cat.

Quote from: Brandon on April 11, 2012, 09:11:18 PM

Quote from: froggie on April 11, 2012, 11:31:25 AM

QuoteYou can't take home enough groceries to feed a family without a car, even if you go to the store every day.

I'm calling shenanigans on this one.  A decent cargo bike will cover this (without having to go to the store every day), plus I've personally biked with grocery bags in my hands.

Now try a 40 pound bag of cat litter with cans and groceries (two bags with a gallon of milk).  Cargo bikes won't do it.

Try that they know they have a cargo bike and won't try carry all your suggestions at once, in the first place.

Quote from: Brandon on April 11, 2012, 09:11:18 PM
Now try a 40 pound bag of cat litter with cans and groceries (two bags with a gallon of milk).  Cargo bikes won't do it.

A cargo bike isn't just a bike with a milk basket strapped on. Go GIS it. They're more than capable of carrying that load.

More realistically, the people I know who do this regularly have small cargo trailers they hook up to their regular bikes.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2012, 09:13:34 PM

Quote from: Brandon on April 11, 2012, 09:11:18 PM

Now try a 40 pound bag of cat litter with cans and groceries (two bags with a gallon of milk).  Cargo bikes won't do it.

that is a sign of Bicycle Jesus telling you to toilet-train your cat.

Bicycle Jesus says...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-6cPeRtFXoP4%2FTrFu4bH9lQI%2FAAAAAAAAAUc%2Fhh69hnFsfTM%2Fs1600%2Fchristonabike.jpg&hash=c4de0e593e3a747f5a0f87f89bd5b75f650c9767)

Plan your grocery trips carefully!  Elevated highways are the devil's work!

Do you think my perceptions are skewed by spending my entire life in Rochester?  Rochester effectively ceased to exist as in independent city when Kodak downsized and today is essentially dead; it's pretty much all wealthier people in older homes commuting to the suburbs and gang-infested slums.  Most people commute suburb-to-suburb.  However, our bus system (only form of mass transit) still goes to/from downtown because "not enough people ride it to change the route" (if not enough people are riding it, doesn't that mean the routes need to be changed?).

Quote from: Brandon on April 11, 2012, 09:11:18 PM

Quote from: froggie on April 11, 2012, 11:31:25 AM

QuoteYou can't take home enough groceries to feed a family without a car, even if you go to the store every day.

I'm calling shenanigans on this one.  A decent cargo bike will cover this (without having to go to the store every day), plus I've personally biked with grocery bags in my hands.

Now try a 40 pound bag of cat litter with cans and groceries (two bags with a gallon of milk).  Cargo bikes won't do it.

It can be done.  You need to plan your trips and accept somewhat less convenience in your life.  When I was little, some of the time we had no car and my mom would often be bicycling with me on the back of her seat and two bags of groceries in a basket on the front.  (We didn't have a cat...)  Buy groceries every day or two; that also gets you fresher produce.  Once at least one of the children is old enough to bicycle on their own with a basket of groceries on their bike, it gets easier.  Think of all the time you don't have to spend on the stationary bike at the gym  :D

Also, back then, some grocery stores delivered, and in cities there was likely to be a small grocery store every couple of blocks.

I'm not arguing for tearing down any particular urban freeway, only pointing out that cars are not the only possible way to run a city.

If you're buying groceries every day -- or even every week -- I can't fathom any reason you'd need a Costco-sized bag of cat litter.

(Personally, I do buy cat litter 40 lbs at a time -- 2 20-lb jugs.  But that's because Target is the only place here that carries my preferred type at a reasonable price, and I hate driving there.  Those two jugs last my one cat about a month.  If I didn't have a car, I'd just suck it up and buy regular litter closer, more often, and in far more maneuverable quantities.)

First of all, living without a car is possible, including grocery shopping.  Proof?  Well, people do it, don't they?  And all over the world.

Secondly, who takes the freeway to go grocery shopping?  A very small percentage of shoppers, I'd say.  Freeways mainly serve longer-distance commuters and travellers than local streets.  Being able to run errands without a car is a separate issue from being able to commute to work without a car; having a cargo bike won't help you get across town for work, and having a commuter rail line won't help you transport garden mulch.

This issue of not hitting freeways for errands and grocery shopping is not including Houston. The only city besides LA where driving for 40 mins at highway speed and still not leaving the city limits. People in a lot of these teardowns with urban renewal don't think about the fact not everyone works downtown. And not every highway is burbs to downtown. Some work on North side but live on the south side of town. Some work on the east side, but live Northwest area.  Not all travelers are by passing the city.


The only time freeways should be discontinued is issues like the old westside highway which was a dangerous hot mess.

I think Stemmons(I-35E) from the 183 split/merge to downtown Dallas and the I-35E should be torn down.  But hear me out.  From the 183 split, I think if the highway followed the west shore of the Trinity it would be able to move I-35E thru traffic much better than going through downtown.  This would eliminate the weird downtown Mixmaster and create a more traditional one with I-30 on the west shore of the Trinity.  Access to downtown from I-35E would then be from one of the 4 bridges that cross the Trinity.  This would benefit Woodall Rodgers especially allowing more natural movement to its ramps that intersect with US75/I-45 on the other side of downtown.  Just from experience I think a lot of the downtown Dallas traffic is created from the movement to the various highway choices, which at the mixmaster is very complicated.  Moving one of these freeways would allow some far less complicated links.  One of these will be rebuilt in the near future and that is I-35E.  The bridge over the Trinity, the mixmaster, and the highway itself from downtown north. Beyond the traffic relief, you also open up the future park front/water front to downtown.

I would also contend that this would also kill the insatiable appetite for the Trinity Tollway.  The premise of that is to move Traffic from I-45 in south Dallas and across to 183/I-35 while bypassing Stemmons and the mixmaster.  This would be the opportunity.  I-45 could also ride the west shore/levee and merge with I-35E to the west.  Then there is your downtown bypass.  You could even toll the link from I-45 to I-35E if you want. 

Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2012, 02:11:42 PMSecondly, who takes the freeway to go grocery shopping?  A very small percentage of shoppers, I'd say.

I do. The closest grocery store to me is about three miles away via the Interstate. The next closest one's five miles on normal highways.

Quote from: Darkchylde on April 13, 2012, 12:15:48 AM

Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2012, 02:11:42 PMSecondly, who takes the freeway to go grocery shopping?  A very small percentage of shoppers, I'd say.

I do. The closest grocery store to me is about three miles away via the Interstate. The next closest one's five miles on normal highways.

Well, yes, obviously some people do.  But I'd say very few do.  And I'd also say that those who do are on the freeway for only a short while (such as yourself) and wouldn't be terribly inconvenienced by the addition of a few stoplights along their route.

I too use a short section of interstate when I go grocery shopping.  It doesn't matter much on the way to the store, but on the way home, using 1 mile of interstate to avoid 10 traffic lights around a shopping mall is a life saver.  Especially in the summer with frozen foods melting away.  But even in winter, when frozen food melting isn't an issue, I use the interstate.  Both of my vehicles are manual transmissions, so avoiding the stop and go of signals is always nice.  I always opt for less clutch work.  Especially through intersections and signals I've seen thousands of times.

Quote from: brownpelican on April 11, 2012, 03:09:39 PM
The Quarter didn't flood, but parts of downtown did get about a foot of water....especially on Canal St. and the area around North Claiborne.

I will go on record and also say there's no justification for taking down I-10 in the North Claiborne median.

Only 17% of the traffic on the I-10 from Calliope to St. Bernard Ave. is N.O. East and Slidell traffic.  I don't see what the big deal is about a few extra minutes by descending to the ground level at St. Bernard Ave.  It's not the city's problem that some folks who live all the way across the lake will have a slightly longer commute time.  If they want to live over there, then work over there.  Otherwise they'll have to deal with it.  The city shouldn't have to have a blighted corridor just to benefit people who don't even live there.  It's not like we're talking about a thru-route.  This isn't like proposing we tear down the I-75/85 in downtown Atlanta.  The good news is there is significant support for a tear down on both the citizens and government level.  

I think in 5-10 years we'll have a beautifully restored Claiborne Ave. with 6 lanes with live oak trees on the neutral ground.

Time is time.  5 minutes you don't have to sit in traffic is 5 minutes you can have for your family, friends, hobbies, etc.  The viaduct adds usable minutes to thousands of lives.

Quote from: Darkchylde on April 13, 2012, 12:15:48 AM

Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2012, 02:11:42 PMSecondly, who takes the freeway to go grocery shopping?  A very small percentage of shoppers, I'd say.

I do. The closest grocery store to me is about three miles away via the Interstate. The next closest one's five miles on normal highways.

I would venture to say that this situation indicates one of two things:  (1) living in an extremely rural area, or (2) planning failure.  In Wichita, for example, the norm is to have at least one full-service supermarket per square-mile area that has been subdivided primarily for residential housing.  Most people living in the adjoining subdivisions don't actually go to their nearest supermarket on foot and provision for parking is typically generous, but as a rule it is reasonably accessible by foot and even more so by bicycle.  My neighborhood supermarket is only fifteen minutes' walk away and although we typically do major shops by car, I have often walked there to pick up odd items while getting my daily exercise in.

In my experience, foot access to supermarkets is not really what separates us from allegedly more walkable western Europe.  Rather, it is access (either by foot or by some form of reasonably frequent public transport) to more diversified retail--i.e., the kinds of shops which sell general merchandise such as clothing, household goods, electrical appliances, etc. and which in Europe tend to be clustered in city centers, and in the US in big-box complexes and enclosed shopping malls which are designed for easy access from the freeway.

Years ago I backpacked in several continental European countries and found myself in Vienna when I had to replace a pair of flipflops.  I went out and bought a new pair, of reasonable quality at a reasonable price, from a shopping mall in the Favoriten Bezirk which was only ten minutes' walk from where I was staying at the time.  I couldn't do the same in Wichita--it is a ten-minute drive from where I live to the nearest shop where I could look for flipflops.  My hair was also getting long and starting to hang into my eyes, so I went looking for a barbershop where I could get myself a proper Bürstenfrisur.  I found one fifteen minutes' walk away; in Wichita this would have been five minutes' drive at the very minimum.

Quote from: bugo on April 17, 2012, 01:09:13 AM
Time is time.  5 minutes you don't have to sit in traffic is 5 minutes you can have for your family, friends, hobbies, etc.  The viaduct adds usable minutes to thousands of lives.

That's not New Orleans' problem.  Even more "thousands of lives" in the city have to deal with the blight that this ugly substandard elevated hunk of concrete creates.  Besides that's completely retarded to think saving 5 minutes of time >>> a ridiculously blighted, dark (little sunlight), loud, dungeon-like area.  We're taking our city back because this is a worthless highway.  If you want to do it your way then let's build an elevated highway down Canal Street to the river.  It'll save us 5 minutes to get to the foot of Canal St, right?  RIGHT?!

This is NOT a thru-route!  Level the ****er. But you know what, at the end of the day, the road will probably come down and Northshore people will have to accept it.  Why?  Because majority rules!

Quote from: lamsalfl on April 17, 2012, 05:31:54 PMBecause majority rules!

here, let's have you and two wolves decide what's for lunch.

Actually the majority argument is used by proponents of fucking up cities so large numbers of suburbanites can get to other places faster.

Quote from: lamsalfl on April 17, 2012, 05:31:54 PM
This is NOT a thru-route!

I'm sure someone going from I-10 east of New Orleans across the Crescent City Connection would disagree with you.

QuoteBut you know what, at the end of the day, the road will probably come down and Northshore people will have to accept it.  Why?  Because majority rules!

[sarcasm]I'm sure the majority of people in the New Orleans metro are going to get a fair vote on the issue.[/sarcasm] I'm seeing a metro population of 1.2 million, while the city has 344,000 (and I-10 gets an ADT varying from 80,000 to 109,000).

If you want to restore Claibourne that badly, just Big Dig I-10 and pray that you don't get another Katrina.

Quote from: Revive 755 on April 17, 2012, 08:00:24 PM

Quote from: lamsalfl on April 17, 2012, 05:31:54 PM
This is NOT a thru-route!

I'm sure someone going from I-10 east of New Orleans across the Crescent City Connection would disagree with you.

That person also has an alternative that would only add a few minutes to travel time. If North Shore to Westbank travel is so critical, why not focus on something like trying to extend I-510 across the river rather than cling to an expressway that adds far less to the city than it detracts from it?

Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 17, 2012, 09:30:57 PM

Quote from: Revive 755 on April 17, 2012, 08:00:24 PM

Quote from: lamsalfl on April 17, 2012, 05:31:54 PM
This is NOT a thru-route!

I'm sure someone going from I-10 east of New Orleans across the Crescent City Connection would disagree with you.

That person also has an alternative that would only add a few minutes to travel time. If North Shore to Westbank travel is so critical, why not focus on something like trying to extend I-510 across the river rather than cling to an expressway that adds far less to the city than it detracts from it?

He said from NO East to the Westbank, say Algiers.  The current Claibourne Expressway is better for that than say some asinine surface boulevard.  Otherwise, go ahead and plow a bypass through the Lower Ninth before tearing down the Claibourne.

Or take I-610 west to I-10 east (Pontchartrain Expwy) which would lead into the Crescent City Connection.

And one more thing...
New Orleans has had a love/hate relationship with its freeways since they've been built.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/neworleans.cfm (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/neworleans.cfm)

I hope they don't treardown more freeways

Seriously, who wants to stop at lights every 2ft on surface boulevards?

Quote from: deanej on April 18, 2012, 11:42:57 AM
Seriously, who wants to stop at lights every 2ft on surface boulevards?

Its just a few extra minutes to your drive, come on!  :-P

Its a few minutes non rush hour, but during rush hour with a couple blocking the box and the whole thing derails for 30 to an hour. Adding an hour for 10 stop lights doesn't help traffic move. Besides not everyone is going from suburbs to downtown. Some are going through downtown to work on the other side. Why replace freeways with non freeways. And btw, if you don't build a mass transportation at the same time, you just add grid lock the system.

Sometimes these people need to fully play Sim City and not just pause and think the problem stops.

Quote from: Alex on April 18, 2012, 12:34:30 PM

Quote from: deanej on April 18, 2012, 11:42:57 AM
Seriously, who wants to stop at lights every 2ft on surface boulevards?

Its just a few extra minutes to your drive, come on!  :-P

I've had enough of your trolling this forum

Quote from: Steve on April 19, 2012, 12:16:41 AM

Quote from: Alex on April 18, 2012, 12:34:30 PM

Quote from: deanej on April 18, 2012, 11:42:57 AM
Seriously, who wants to stop at lights every 2ft on surface boulevards?

Its just a few extra minutes to your drive, come on!  :-P

I've had enough of your trolling this forum

LOL!  :-D  :-D  :-D  :-D  :spin:  :colorful: :rofl:

QuoteIf you want to restore Claibourne that badly, just Big Dig I-10 and pray that you don't get another Katrina.

QuoteHe said from NO East to the Westbank, say Algiers.  The current Claibourne Expressway is better for that than say some asinine surface boulevard.  Otherwise, go ahead and plow a bypass through the Lower Ninth before tearing down the Claibourne.

I have cited several times on this forum what could be done to allow for Claibourne to be restored.  For simplicity, here it is again:

- Rebuild both I-10/610 junctions.
- Add a 3rd lane each way on the connection between I-10 West and the Crescent City Connector.

It's technically feasible and would still provide an all-freeway route to/from the bridge.

Secondly, surface boulevards are not all that bad.  Timing the signals to allow for steady progression of traffic neatly solves the problem of "stopping every 2ft on surface boulevards".

Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2012, 08:01:16 AMTiming the signals to allow for steady progression of traffic neatly solves the problem of "stopping every 2ft on surface boulevards".

explain most boulevards and arterials in practice, then.  Mira Mesa Blvd here in San Diego has supposedly expertly timed lights, and while the speed limit ranges from 40-55mph, I challenge anyone to drive its length (5.6mi, give or take a tenth) in less than 15 minutes.

Quote from: Alex on April 18, 2012, 12:34:30 PM

Quote from: deanej on April 18, 2012, 11:42:57 AM
Seriously, who wants to stop at lights every 2ft on surface boulevards?

Its just a few extra minutes to your drive, come on!  :-P

I mind the sitting doing nothing more than anything else.  Especially since the 97 Accord has a first model hydrolic clutch that doesn't like to be held down.

Quoteexplain most boulevards and arterials in practice, then.

I'd argue that most boulevards and arterials are not properly timed.  There's also the situation where they may be timed, but traffic (for whatever reason) is going much faster than the speed they're timed at.  Portland Ave in Minneapolis, for example, has a 35 MPH speed limit, signals timed at 37 MPH, but drivers tend to go 45-50, even though it means they'll be hitting the next red light.  This on a city street, mind you.

Bottom line:  drivers don't give a $#!+.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 19, 2012, 10:42:18 AM
explain most boulevards and arterials in practice, then.  Mira Mesa Blvd here in San Diego has supposedly expertly timed lights, and while the speed limit ranges from 40-55mph, I challenge anyone to drive its length (5.6mi, give or take a tenth) in less than 15 minutes.

I'm not a civil engineer, but here's my understanding of it. Timed lights where they cycle in sequence so people don't have to stop really only works on sets of one-way streets. When they time a road like Mira Mesa Blvd., they're optimizing not just for through traffic but for other traffic coming onto and off of the road. The goal is to minimize delays across the entire system. What make a smooth ride for traffic driving the entire length can potentially cause nasty traffic in surrounding areas.

Quote from: Grzrd on March 29, 2011, 01:42:54 PM
Possible scenario:
I-10 above Claiborne torn down and "boulevardized";
I-610 changed to I-10;
Current I-10 from current western I-10/I-610 interchange to Claiborne re-designated as I-49 instead of an I-x10.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 29, 2011, 02:11:47 PM
One of so many reasons why this "Claiborne Boulevard" concept is a horrible idea. Have I-49 start north by going due south...yeah, right.
Anthony

above quotes from Exit numbers on Future I-49 Corridor (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2742.50) thread.

Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2012, 08:01:16 AM
I have cited several times on this forum what could be done to allow for Claibourne to be restored.  For simplicity, here it is again:
- Rebuild both I-10/610 junctions.
- Add a 3rd lane each way on the connection between I-10 West and the Crescent City Connector.
It's technically feasible and would still provide an all-freeway route to/from the bridge.

One ripple effect of the I-10 teardown would be the possibility of creating an I-49 New Orleans "fishhook" (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=29.94419556205567~-90.06187438964845&lvl=12&dir=0&sty=r&where1=New%20Orleans%2C%20LA&form=LMLTCC) to be a cousin of the I-64 Norfolk "fishhook" (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=36.84549492132873~-76.2926712036133&lvl=12&dir=0&sty=r&where1=Norfolk%2C%20VA&form=LMLTCC).  Great care would have to be taken with the I-49 signage in order to not confuse the tourists.  :-D

Quote from: deanej on April 19, 2012, 11:44:42 AM

Quote from: Alex on April 18, 2012, 12:34:30 PM

Quote from: deanej on April 18, 2012, 11:42:57 AM
Seriously, who wants to stop at lights every 2ft on surface boulevards?

Its just a few extra minutes to your drive, come on!  :-P

I mind the sitting doing nothing more than anything else.  Especially since the 97 Accord has a first model hydrolic clutch that doesn't like to be held down.

Not to channel Click and Clack here, but that's why your transmission has a neutral position. Not sitting with the clutch pedal depressed will also make your throwout bearing last longer.

Quote from: deanej on April 19, 2012, 11:44:42 AM

I mind the sitting doing nothing more than anything else.  Especially since the 97 Accord has a first model hydrolic clutch that doesn't like to be held down.

if I'm coming up to a light, the first thing I do is take the car out of gear and coast to a stop.

Quote from: realjd on April 19, 2012, 12:54:48 PMThe goal is to minimize delays across the entire system.

more freeways, then.

Regarding synchronizing lights, 19th Avenue in San Francisco used to (maybe it still does, I dunno) have it's signals timed for 30 MPH (I believe the speed limit was 30 also at the time) and going northbound it worked pretty well as long as you could maintain 30 MPH.  Apparently timing lights for a certain speed only works in one direction because trying to go southbound on 19th Avenue was a stop-and-go fest.  It didn't matter how fast you were going, you were guaranteed to miss every other light.

They're also trying to sync the lights on Santa Clara County expressways (Lawrence, Central, Montague, San Tomas) but I seem to have the same problems I saw on 19th Avenue (good one direction, horrible the other).  Is that the nature of timed or synced signals?

Could it be a rush-hour thing, where the direction of travel is good for the direction that most of the traffic is heading? For instance, most people go south on such and such highway in the evening, so the traffic lights work well for that direction, but not for the northbound, and vice versa in the morning.

No. It's exceptionally difficult to have free-flowing traffic in both directions with synced signals. These work best on one-way grids.

Google tells me that it is only about 3-4 miles from I-610 to Downtown New Orleans. I count four major roads, Broad, Galvez, Claiborne, and Rampart. Each road has about 2 lanes in each direction, and considering only 300,000 people live in New Orleans, what exactly is doom-and-gloom concern about? It isn't like you can't take another parallel road, considering there are four of them within about 1.5 miles.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 19, 2012, 10:42:18 AM

Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2012, 08:01:16 AMTiming the signals to allow for steady progression of traffic neatly solves the problem of "stopping every 2ft on surface boulevards".

explain most boulevards and arterials in practice, then.  Mira Mesa Blvd here in San Diego has supposedly expertly timed lights, and while the speed limit ranges from 40-55mph, I challenge anyone to drive its length (5.6mi, give or take a tenth) in less than 15 minutes.

That's probably because they have protected left turn signals at every intersection.  If done right, a boulevard should look like Telegraph or Eight Mile around Detroit.  No left turns - go to the U-turn area, two cycles per intersection for the signals.  It makes the timing easier and faster.

Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2012, 08:01:16 AM
Secondly, surface boulevards are not all that bad.  Timing the signals to allow for steady progression of traffic neatly solves the problem of "stopping every 2ft on surface boulevards".

The coordination usually comes at the expense of long waits on the cross streets.  If the jurisdiction in question does not use lead/lag or Dallas left turn phasing, the coordination may only work for one direction in a peak hour.

An at-grade boulevard replacing the Claiborne would also have a few six point intersections east of St Bernard Avenue; those things almost always run poorly.

Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2012, 11:50:18 AM

Quoteexplain most boulevards and arterials in practice, then.

I'd argue that most boulevards and arterials are not properly timed.  There's also the situation where they may be timed, but traffic (for whatever reason) is going much faster than the speed they're timed at.  Portland Ave in Minneapolis, for example, has a 35 MPH speed limit, signals timed at 37 MPH, but drivers tend to go 45-50, even though it means they'll be hitting the next red light.  This on a city street, mind you.

Bottom line:  drivers don't give a $#!+.

Actually, drivers do give a shit.  Drivers, as it has been noted by quite a few engineers, will drive a road at what the road feels safe at, not an arbitrarily posted speed limit.  If the road feels safe at 45, then the road should either be posted at 45 or made to feel safe at 35.  With actuated signals prevalent, we've taught drivers that it doesn't matter how fast or slow they go, they may not make the next signal.  We've also taught them, with four-way stop signs at every intersection in some areas, that they might as well speed between them to make up for lost time.

Quote from: Bickendan on April 19, 2012, 04:51:26 PM
No. It's exceptionally difficult to have free-flowing traffic in both directions with synced signals. These work best on one-way grids.

I've seen it done on NY 332.  I even treat the road as a freeway because it's so rare to get a light red.  But it must suck for cross traffic - come at the wrong time, and you'll sit at a red for two minutes just to get ten seconds of green time.

Quote from: deanej on April 20, 2012, 11:40:53 AM

I've seen it done on NY 332.  I even treat the road as a freeway because it's so rare to get a light red.  But it must suck for cross traffic - come at the wrong time, and you'll sit at a red for two minutes just to get ten seconds of green time.

sounds like a road that might be converted to RIRO with U-turns for Michigan left and Michigan straight.

Quote from: realjd on April 19, 2012, 12:54:48 PM
I'm not a civil engineer, but here's my understanding of it. Timed lights where they cycle in sequence so people don't have to stop really only works on sets of one-way streets. When they time a road like Mira Mesa Blvd., they're optimizing not just for through traffic but for other traffic coming onto and off of the road. The goal is to minimize delays across the entire system. What make a smooth ride for traffic driving the entire length can potentially cause nasty traffic in surrounding areas.

Precisely.  We have a serious, ingraned habit of thinking along these lines:
I got a bunch of red lights in a row.  OR...
My line of traffic got a green light, and right away the next light turned red.  OR...
I can never make it through this section without hitting a red light.  THEREFORE...
The stoplights are not timed well.

In short, we assume that how the timing affects our one movement is a good guage of how well the system is designed.  It never occurs to us that optimizing traffic flow does not equal optimizing every movement of said traffic.

I usually wait a few days, let the posts build up and then check back in.  Looks like there is some serious opposition to my opinion.  I just think I know a little bit more about this area since I've lived here my whole life, have seen the traffic flow thousands of times, etc.  That's cool, you're all welcome to your own opinions.

Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2012, 11:50:18 AM
Portland Ave in Minneapolis, for example, has a 35 MPH speed limit, signals timed at 37 MPH, but drivers tend to go 45-50, even though it means they'll be hitting the next red light.  This on a city street, mind you.

Having lived in Minneapolis, my take is this is because almost none of the thoroughfares there have timed lights, and the local yokels haven't been trained properly. (For example, drive down Lake St. and watch the lights turn red just as you drive up to them.)

On the other hand, I can name numerous streets in San Francisco where drivers lug along at say 29MPH to hit the 30MPH timed lights. In fact, downtown Mpls drivers do this too.

FM1960 in Houston is supposed to be timed at 45 MPH, but either the road is clear and everyone is doing 60MPH hitting all red lights, or gridlock traffic(more of the norm) and everyone is hitting every red doing 5 to 10 MPH. Personally, if a road is a freeway, keep it a freeway. Not every major road needs to be a freeway, but freeway roads are needed.

I know I'm late here but I can't imagine them getting rid of freeways anywhere. Sure you get the nature back a bit or you make it more low profile but then you've just got a diaper load of more issues. Freeways are still the present and the future. In LA anyways...

Quote from: flowmotion on April 21, 2012, 06:12:21 AM
On the other hand, I can name numerous streets in San Francisco where drivers lug along at say 29MPH to hit the 30MPH timed lights. In fact, downtown Mpls drivers do this too.

IIRC, the most notable of those streets in SF is Great Highway's 35 MPH or so light timing, though it's on a stretch with no cross streets, just crosswalks at where the street junctions would've been.

Quote from: Zmapper on April 19, 2012, 05:25:58 PM
Google tells me that it is only about 3-4 miles from I-610 to Downtown New Orleans. I count four major roads, Broad, Galvez, Claiborne, and Rampart. Each road has about 2 lanes in each direction, and considering only 300,000 people live in New Orleans, what exactly is doom-and-gloom concern about? It isn't like you can't take another parallel road, considering there are four of them within about 1.5 miles.

And they all go through not-so-desirable neighborhoods with ridiculously high murder and other crime rates. Do you REALLY want to drive on those streets? Through those neighborhoods?

US 71 in Kansas City is a perfect example of why we shouldn't be tearing down freeways.  While a freeway wasn't torn down, a proper one wasn't built and now there's a deadly stretch of road in the middle of a perfectly safe freeway.  The neighborhood it goes through is split in two even more than it would be if a full freeway had been built, and the noise and exhaust gases that cars sitting at lights emit are polluting these neighborhoods.  Serves them right.  It would be karma if every last one of them got cancer from exhaust gas.  They have blood on their hands from all the fatal accidents on this stretch of highway.

Quote from: brownpelican on April 26, 2012, 01:01:04 AM

Quote from: Zmapper on April 19, 2012, 05:25:58 PM
Google tells me that it is only about 3-4 miles from I-610 to Downtown New Orleans. I count four major roads, Broad, Galvez, Claiborne, and Rampart. Each road has about 2 lanes in each direction, and considering only 300,000 people live in New Orleans, what exactly is doom-and-gloom concern about? It isn't like you can't take another parallel road, considering there are four of them within about 1.5 miles.

And they all go through not-so-desirable neighborhoods with ridiculously high murder and other crime rates. Do you REALLY want to drive on those streets? Through those neighborhoods?

Transportation dollars should NEVER be used for the sole purpose of pandering to racists who don't want to drive through the area with the other-colored people. From a sole capacity standpoint, the Claiborne could come down without drastic traffic effects.

Perhaps with traffic travelling at more appropriate speeds, people might be more inclined to shop at the businesses of those in the neighborhood. Perhaps with people stopping at those businesses, the employer would have to hire more people to deal with the new demand. Perhaps with more people employed legally, the desire to acquire funds through other, more illegal means would go down. Perhaps with more people receiving an employment paycheck instead of a welfare check, the government of New Orleans and Louisiana could be able to deal with other, more pressing needs.

Now, do YOU want to be paying for their welfare or would you like the now-unnecessary funds back as a tax break? You tell me.

Quote from: brownpelican on April 26, 2012, 01:01:04 AM

Quote from: Zmapper on April 19, 2012, 05:25:58 PM
Google tells me that it is only about 3-4 miles from I-610 to Downtown New Orleans. I count four major roads, Broad, Galvez, Claiborne, and Rampart. Each road has about 2 lanes in each direction, and considering only 300,000 people live in New Orleans, what exactly is doom-and-gloom concern about? It isn't like you can't take another parallel road, considering there are four of them within about 1.5 miles.

And they all go through not-so-desirable neighborhoods with ridiculously high murder and other crime rates. Do you REALLY want to drive on those streets? Through those neighborhoods?

No ghetto in the United States is so bad that driving down a major through street is dangerous.

Quote from: Zmapper on April 26, 2012, 07:55:53 AM

Quote from: brownpelican on April 26, 2012, 01:01:04 AM

Quote from: Zmapper on April 19, 2012, 05:25:58 PM
Google tells me that it is only about 3-4 miles from I-610 to Downtown New Orleans. I count four major roads, Broad, Galvez, Claiborne, and Rampart. Each road has about 2 lanes in each direction, and considering only 300,000 people live in New Orleans, what exactly is doom-and-gloom concern about? It isn't like you can't take another parallel road, considering there are four of them within about 1.5 miles.

And they all go through not-so-desirable neighborhoods with ridiculously high murder and other crime rates. Do you REALLY want to drive on those streets? Through those neighborhoods?

Transportation dollars should NEVER be used for the sole purpose of pandering to racists who don't want to drive through the area with the other-colored people. From a sole capacity standpoint, the Claiborne could come down without drastic traffic effects.

He's talking about dangerous neighborhoods, not race.  You're the one who brought up race, therefore if anybody is racist it is you.  Dangerous neighborhoods can be made up of many different races.  Nice to see you believe that all bad neighborhoods are black and all black neighborhoods are bad.

Quote
Perhaps with traffic travelling at more appropriate speeds, people might be more inclined to shop at the businesses of those in the neighborhood. Perhaps with people stopping at those businesses, the employer would have to hire more people to deal with the new demand. Perhaps with more people employed legally, the desire to acquire funds through other, more illegal means would go down. Perhaps with more people receiving an employment paycheck instead of a welfare check, the government of New Orleans and Louisiana could be able to deal with other, more pressing needs.

What is an "appropriate speed?"  If we all drove at your "appropriate speeds," it would take a week to get across the country and the roads would be a clogged mess.  And fresh goods would never make it across the country.

Quote from: realjd on April 26, 2012, 08:41:19 AM

Quote from: brownpelican on April 26, 2012, 01:01:04 AM

Quote from: Zmapper on April 19, 2012, 05:25:58 PM
Google tells me that it is only about 3-4 miles from I-610 to Downtown New Orleans. I count four major roads, Broad, Galvez, Claiborne, and Rampart. Each road has about 2 lanes in each direction, and considering only 300,000 people live in New Orleans, what exactly is doom-and-gloom concern about? It isn't like you can't take another parallel road, considering there are four of them within about 1.5 miles.

And they all go through not-so-desirable neighborhoods with ridiculously high murder and other crime rates. Do you REALLY want to drive on those streets? Through those neighborhoods?

No ghetto in the United States is so bad that driving down a major through street is dangerous.

Have you ever driven through East Saint Louis at night?  I ddin't think so.

Quote from: realjd on April 26, 2012, 08:41:19 AM
No ghetto in the United States is so bad that driving down a major through street is dangerous.

The neighborhoods change at night; I dare you to drive through 'em at night. And by night, I mean at 3 AM.

Quote from: Zmapper on April 26, 2012, 07:55:53 AM

Quote from: brownpelican on April 26, 2012, 01:01:04 AM

Quote from: Zmapper on April 19, 2012, 05:25:58 PM
Google tells me that it is only about 3-4 miles from I-610 to Downtown New Orleans. I count four major roads, Broad, Galvez, Claiborne, and Rampart. Each road has about 2 lanes in each direction, and considering only 300,000 people live in New Orleans, what exactly is doom-and-gloom concern about? It isn't like you can't take another parallel road, considering there are four of them within about 1.5 miles.

And they all go through not-so-desirable neighborhoods with ridiculously high murder and other crime rates. Do you REALLY want to drive on those streets? Through those neighborhoods?

Transportation dollars should NEVER be used for the sole purpose of pandering to racists who don't want to drive through the area with the other-colored people. From a sole capacity standpoint, the Claiborne could come down without drastic traffic effects.

Perhaps with traffic travelling at more appropriate speeds, people might be more inclined to shop at the businesses of those in the neighborhood. Perhaps with people stopping at those businesses, the employer would have to hire more people to deal with the new demand. Perhaps with more people employed legally, the desire to acquire funds through other, more illegal means would go down. Perhaps with more people receiving an employment paycheck instead of a welfare check, the government of New Orleans and Louisiana could be able to deal with other, more pressing needs.

Now, do YOU want to be paying for their welfare or would you like the now-unnecessary funds back as a tax break? You tell me.

First off...I'm Black, and I respect the people of Treme, but I oppose the removal of the Claiborne Elevated. And, I am a citizen of the state of Louisiana. Please don't attempt to patronize us.

Claiborne Ave. still exists there as a surface arterial along with I-10, and is easily accessible from all corners, so that's not an issue for businesses.

The reason why I-10 was built there was NOT to "destroy" Treme, but as a compromise after the original Riverfront Expressway proposal was axed due to severe opposition from other neighborhoods. It serves as the main access to downtown NOLA, the Superdome, the French Quarter, and, with its connections with the Westbank Expressway via the Crescent City Connection, the WB communities of Algers, Gretna, Marrero, and others. In other words, it's npt just about Treme here.

Also, plenty of Black folk iin NOLA live east of the Industrial Canal, and use the Claiborne to commute downtown. I guess they're racist, too?

Job creation within a neighborhood is affected by a combination of things, not just "travelling at more appropriate speeds". If a business has what people demand at an affordable price, then they will attract customers regardless of whether an Interstate is nearby.  In fact, better to have a high-capacity facility nearby so that more people can access that business.

Plus, there's nothing that says that Treme couldn't be revived without keeping the Claiborne intact. Alexandria sure hasn't been hurt with I-49 being elevated passing through the middle of their city.


Anthony

Quote from: bugo on April 26, 2012, 08:55:05 AM
Have you ever driven through East Saint Louis at night?  I ddin't think so.

No, but I do know a number of people who have frequented East St. Louis's various adult establishments late into the night without issue. Said adult entertainment venues wouldn't exist if the roads leading to them from nicer parts of town were that dangerous. One of them was mugged though when he tried to walk across the street from one of them to a gas station to buy some smokes.

Quote from: F350 on April 26, 2012, 09:10:07 AM

Quote from: realjd on April 26, 2012, 08:41:19 AM
No ghetto in the United States is so bad that driving down a major through street is dangerous.

The neighborhoods change at night; I dare you to drive through 'em at night. And by night, I mean at 3 AM.

I'm not talking about driving through back roads, or going for a stroll. I'm talking about driving through on a major through street or highway.

Quote from: bugo on April 26, 2012, 08:55:05 AM

Have you ever driven through East Saint Louis at night?  I ddin't think so.

or even some parts of regular St. Louis.  I was once scouring for signs, and within 10 minutes or so of each other, I saw - first, a guy sitting on a lawn chair in the middle of the street, openly dealing drugs, and second, a guy blowing a four-way stop at over 80-90mph, heading straight that way.

oh, and no old signs.  bugger.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 26, 2012, 11:14:05 AM

Quote from: bugo on April 26, 2012, 08:55:05 AM

Have you ever driven through East Saint Louis at night?  I ddin't think so.

or even some parts of regular St. Louis.  I was once scouring for signs, and within 10 minutes or so of each other, I saw - first, a guy sitting on a lawn chair in the middle of the street, openly dealing drugs, and second, a guy blowing a four-way stop at over 80-90mph, heading straight that way.

oh, and no old signs.  bugger.

East Saint Louis:  We're talking about, say, Route 15 or Route 3.  These are the thoroughfares.  Those would be pretty safe at any time.  Venture off the main roads after dark, though, and you're in a different world.  I used to make deliveries in ESL.

Saint Louis:  I once had a layover at about 4:00 AM back when the Greyhound station was at 13th & Cass.  I stepped out to the street to see where I could get some breakfast, and a homeless man asked me what I was doing there at that time of day.  He offered to personally escort me to White Castle, keeping the folks on the corners away, if I would buy him breakfast.  But that's a totally different situation than simply driving down a road that's busy enough to be a viable alternative to a freeway.

I'm just waiting for everyone's innercity/urban slum photos as evidence that we're all not racist.   :sleep:

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on April 26, 2012, 08:49:08 PM
I'm just waiting for everyone's innercity/urban slum photos as evidence that we're all not racist.   :sleep:

So, a picture of any rough neighborhood that is predominantly Mexican, Korean, or Vietnamese would also fit the bill, right?  Or are all those people black too?

Quote from: kphoger on April 26, 2012, 09:00:03 PM

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on April 26, 2012, 08:49:08 PM
I'm just waiting for everyone's innercity/urban slum photos as evidence that we're all not racist.   :sleep:

So, a picture of any rough neighborhood that is predominantly Mexican, Korean, or Vietnamese would also fit the bill, right?  Or are all those people black too?

Are you black?

Quote from: kphoger on April 26, 2012, 09:00:03 PM

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on April 26, 2012, 08:49:08 PM
I'm just waiting for everyone's innercity/urban slum photos as evidence that we're all not racist.   :sleep:

So, a picture of any rough neighborhood that is predominantly Mexican, Korean, or Vietnamese would also fit the bill, right?  Or are all those people black too?

What about white ghettos?  There are more poor whites than all other races combined.

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on April 26, 2012, 09:24:53 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 26, 2012, 09:00:03 PM

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on April 26, 2012, 08:49:08 PM
I'm just waiting for everyone's innercity/urban slum photos as evidence that we're all not racist.   :sleep:

So, a picture of any rough neighborhood that is predominantly Mexican, Korean, or Vietnamese would also fit the bill, right?  Or are all those people black too?

Are you black?

Nope, white.  Shoot, my youngest son's hair is practically clear!  My father's parents were born in Germany and Holland; my mom was adopted, so I don't know her blood line; by adoption, she's mainly English and Irish, being distantly related to both Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr (there's a history lesson for ya!).

My wife is mainly Polish and Swedish.  Blonde as blonde gets, pretty much.

Quote from: bugo on April 26, 2012, 10:34:33 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 26, 2012, 09:00:03 PM

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on April 26, 2012, 08:49:08 PM
I'm just waiting for everyone's innercity/urban slum photos as evidence that we're all not racist.   :sleep:

So, a picture of any rough neighborhood that is predominantly Mexican, Korean, or Vietnamese would also fit the bill, right?  Or are all those people black too?

What about white ghettos?  There are more poor whites than all other races combined.

Considering that whites are a > 50% majority, it's stands to reason that there are more whites in any statistical category than all minorities combined.

A sort of "white ghetto" would be the stereotypical "trailer-trash" mobile home park. While the MHPs around here are clean, and nobody is sitting in the street dealing drugs or has 10 non-functional cars in the front yard, you do want to keep an eye out after sundown.

What I find interesting is that Five Points, also called "Harlem of the West" for the predominant skin color in both locations, cleaned up a ton. Before about the mid 90s, no white person admittedly wanted to be in that neighborhood after night. RTD built light rail to Five Points in 1994, and after that the drug and gang presence left the area. While most suburban dwellers still hold previous views about the neighborhood, surprisingly the neighborhood still retains the positive parts of its character with the druggies pushed out elsewhere.

The new "druggie and gansta hood" is now... Montbello, a 50s suburb halfway to the airport! It too shows signs of neglect and divestment. Montbello happens to border an active industrial district and the former Stapleton Airport, so perhaps it has just always been a working class community.

Quote from: Zmapper on April 26, 2012, 11:40:15 PM
A sort of "white ghetto" would be the stereotypical "trailer-trash" mobile home park. While the MHPs around here are clean, and nobody is sitting in the street dealing drugs or has 10 non-functional cars in the front yard, you do want to keep an eye out after sundown.

But, typically, MHPs wouldn't be a top alternate route for a freeway teardown...

Quote from: bugo on April 26, 2012, 02:16:32 AM
US 71 in Kansas City is a perfect example of why we shouldn't be tearing down freeways.  While a freeway wasn't torn down, a proper one wasn't built and now there's a deadly stretch of road in the middle of a perfectly safe freeway.  The neighborhood it goes through is split in two even more than it would be if a full freeway had been built, and the noise and exhaust gases that cars sitting at lights emit are polluting these neighborhoods.  Serves them right.  It would be karma if every last one of them got cancer from exhaust gas.  They have blood on their hands from all the fatal accidents on this stretch of highway.

To be fair, if it was up to those neighbors, none of the US71 freeway would have been built (or it would be entirely torn down), rather than just omitting their small section. In return for their adamance, they got the worst of all worlds: a six-lane divided highway with high traffic figures and very few amenities to counter. Essentially the FU treatment.

Many other 'highway revolts' around the country had far better outcomes, and this is nothing like the New Orleans situation where there's a perfectly serviceable freeway a short distance away that could still serve downtown-bound traffic.

Quote from: realjd on April 26, 2012, 08:41:19 AM

Quote from: brownpelican on April 26, 2012, 01:01:04 AM

Quote from: Zmapper on April 19, 2012, 05:25:58 PM
Google tells me that it is only about 3-4 miles from I-610 to Downtown New Orleans. I count four major roads, Broad, Galvez, Claiborne, and Rampart. Each road has about 2 lanes in each direction, and considering only 300,000 people live in New Orleans, what exactly is doom-and-gloom concern about? It isn't like you can't take another parallel road, considering there are four of them within about 1.5 miles.

And they all go through not-so-desirable neighborhoods with ridiculously high murder and other crime rates. Do you REALLY want to drive on those streets? Through those neighborhoods?

No ghetto in the United States is so bad that driving down a major through street is dangerous.

Ever been to Chicago?

For the Claiborne Elevated (yes, I'm a Louisiana citizen too), why not take I-10 and shift it onto I-610? Once you do that, you remove the Claiborne Elevated, designate the current I-10 stretch from the 610 split to the Dome as US 90 Business (I-49 future), and leave it at that? Not much through traffic takes 10, mostly 610, from what I recall. Traffic heading from Texas to MS takes I-10 then I-12, then I-10 again. Traffic from Metairie and Houma to Slidell takes I-10 and I-610, then back onto I-10.
The only major intersections you would need along Claiborne Avenue are at Tulane, Orleans, Esplanade, and St. Bernard. The whole US 71 in KC situation is unique because it's in the middle of a freeway... this would be extending I-49 to the 10/610 split, and adding slip ramps from 49 south (actually going north) to 610 east. Nobody's advocating the complete removal of I-10 between the two 610 ends, just the removal of the Claiborne elevated section. Just my 2 cents!

Quote from: realjd on April 26, 2012, 08:41:19 AM

Quote from: brownpelican on April 26, 2012, 01:01:04 AM

Quote from: Zmapper on April 19, 2012, 05:25:58 PM
Google tells me that it is only about 3-4 miles from I-610 to Downtown New Orleans. I count four major roads, Broad, Galvez, Claiborne, and Rampart. Each road has about 2 lanes in each direction, and considering only 300,000 people live in New Orleans, what exactly is doom-and-gloom concern about? It isn't like you can't take another parallel road, considering there are four of them within about 1.5 miles.

And they all go through not-so-desirable neighborhoods with ridiculously high murder and other crime rates. Do you REALLY want to drive on those streets? Through those neighborhoods?

No ghetto in the United States is so bad that driving down a major through street is dangerous.

Driving might not be but stopping at a traffic signal can be.  From the spray and hassle kids (try to not pay them off and see what happens) to the occasional police chases and random gunfire.

Quote from: Brandon on April 28, 2012, 07:09:46 AM

Ever been to Chicago?

of course.  even got out and snapped photos.

as I was driving in an '89 Escort, they figured I was too poor to afford drugs and/or a mugging.

Quote from: Brandon on April 28, 2012, 07:09:46 AM

Quote from: realjd on April 26, 2012, 08:41:19 AM

Quote from: brownpelican on April 26, 2012, 01:01:04 AM

Quote from: Zmapper on April 19, 2012, 05:25:58 PM
Google tells me that it is only about 3-4 miles from I-610 to Downtown New Orleans. I count four major roads, Broad, Galvez, Claiborne, and Rampart. Each road has about 2 lanes in each direction, and considering only 300,000 people live in New Orleans, what exactly is doom-and-gloom concern about? It isn't like you can't take another parallel road, considering there are four of them within about 1.5 miles.

And they all go through not-so-desirable neighborhoods with ridiculously high murder and other crime rates. Do you REALLY want to drive on those streets? Through those neighborhoods?

No ghetto in the United States is so bad that driving down a major through street is dangerous.

Ever been to Chicago?

Yes. I like the blues clubs on the southside of town.

I'm black too and I didn't just say that about those neighborhoods to start up something. I was just telling it like it is.

For the record, I-10 didn't destroy Treme. The city destroyed parts of it with the 60s urban renewal projects....in the area of Louis Armstrong Park. The neighborhood itself - bordered by St. Louis Street, North Broad, Esplinade Avenue and North Rampart Street - aren't doing badly. Heck, many whites have moved into Treme below I-10.

It's also worth mentioning that the Iberville Projects are on both sides of I-10 just off Orleans Avenue.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 14, 2012, 11:50:31 AM

Quote from: Brandon on March 14, 2012, 08:16:12 AM
What these folks, the freeway-teardown folks, forget is that not only does automobile traffic use these roads, but truck traffic does as well.  They seem to think the traffic will magically move to public transit once the freeway is gone.  It's very wrong.  Through traffic and truck traffic still needs to get from point A to point B.  And these center city folks who want the teardowns seem to forget that these trucks can bring good to their markets quickly and cheaply with the freeways.  Without them, the good take longer, and they will be more expensive.

Extremely important point that the anti-highway industry (including the tear-down people) prefer to ignore.

Even the things they buy at their neighborhood Whole Foods come in a vehicle that rolls down the road on rubber tires.

I agree 100% with you here.

Trucks can and will make deliveries during non-rush hours.

Quote from: brownpelican on April 30, 2012, 06:29:08 PM
I'm black too and I didn't just say that about those neighborhoods to start up something. I was just telling it like it is.

For the record, I-10 didn't destroy Treme. The city destroyed parts of it with the 60s urban renewal projects....in the area of Louis Armstrong Park. The neighborhood itself - bordered by St. Louis Street, North Broad, Esplinade Avenue and North Rampart Street - aren't doing badly. Heck, many whites have moved into Treme below I-10.

It's also worth mentioning that the Iberville Projects are on both sides of I-10 just off Orleans Avenue.

Plus, freeways are in other areas and obviously have not destroyed the neighborhoods.

Quote from: NE2 on May 01, 2012, 12:42:46 AM
Trucks can and will make deliveries during non-rush hours.

So you like the sound of Jake brakes, heavy diesel engines, and heavy trailers at 2 am?

It's not just rush hour when they use these roads for deliveries.  Many of them do make the trip at off-peak time, but safely using freeways instead of surface roads.

Quote from: NE2 on May 01, 2012, 12:42:46 AM
Trucks can and will make deliveries during non-rush hours.

I believe Branson had/has such a restriction.  I'm not exactly sure of the details, but my wife (who grew up there) has told me that trucks are supposed to make their deliveries overnight.  Thinking back, I've hardly ever seen an 18-wheeler during the day anywhere in Branson.

I dust-off the subject by mentionning then I spotted that article
http://americancity.org/daily/entry/urban-freeways-ready-to-go via the Skyscraperpage forum
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=25

One blogger wondered if some freeway removals could be the answer to Detroit's problems? http://beyondtheculdesac.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/is-freeway-demolition-the-answer-to-detroits-problems/

Why would removing a freeway be a solution if the freeway didn't cause the problem in the first place?  Detroit's problem isn't freeways... it's that the American auto industry is dead.

Quote from: deanej on September 09, 2012, 11:53:45 AM
Why would removing a freeway be a solution if the freeway didn't cause the problem in the first place?  Detroit's problem isn't freeways... it's that the American auto industry is dead.

It's not dead (there's clearly plenty of demand).  But to a large extent, the legacy auto manufacturers have lost the ability to build something that North American drivers want to purchase.

Quote from: deanej on September 09, 2012, 11:53:45 AM
Why would removing a freeway be a solution if the freeway didn't cause the problem in the first place?  Detroit's problem isn't freeways... it's that the American unionized auto industry is dead.

Fixed it for ya.

The American auto industry is still thriving, but in other states.

Quote from: Zmapper on September 09, 2012, 01:40:10 PM

Quote from: deanej on September 09, 2012, 11:53:45 AM
Why would removing a freeway be a solution if the freeway didn't cause the problem in the first place?  Detroit's problem isn't freeways... it's that the American unionized auto industry is dead.

Fixed it for ya.

The American auto industry is still thriving, but in other states.

Actually, it is still thriving in Detroit.  It's been more and more automated, requiring fewer workers.  The problems in Detroit transcend the auto industry, and are a part of the local and regional governments.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 09, 2012, 01:37:54 PM

Quote from: deanej on September 09, 2012, 11:53:45 AM
Why would removing a freeway be a solution if the freeway didn't cause the problem in the first place?  Detroit's problem isn't freeways... it's that the American auto industry is dead.

It's not dead (there's clearly plenty of demand).  But to a large extent, the legacy auto manufacturers have lost the ability to build something that North American drivers want to purchase.

The American Auto industry is largely prohibited from building cars Americans want to buy.

Everytime I go into any dealership and ask for a rear wheel drive V-8, it just goes quickly downhill from there.

I agree that the problems facing Detroit (City of) are mainly created by governments at all levels, especially the sheer incompetence of both the city and state governments.  As for the 'legacy' auto industry, a lot of federal government meddling has royally screwed it up (especially 'CAFE' rules), in addition to incompetent management from a few decades ago.

Anyways, I don't see a need nor purpose to removing any freeways from Detroit - IMHO, they might even do well in filling in a couple of the remaining gaps in their network.

Mike

Any city with less than half the land area covered by freeways is doing something wrong.

Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on September 09, 2012, 10:08:20 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 09, 2012, 01:37:54 PM

Quote from: deanej on September 09, 2012, 11:53:45 AM
Why would removing a freeway be a solution if the freeway didn't cause the problem in the first place?  Detroit's problem isn't freeways... it's that the American auto industry is dead.

It's not dead (there's clearly plenty of demand).  But to a large extent, the legacy auto manufacturers have lost the ability to build something that North American drivers want to purchase.

The American Auto industry is largely prohibited from building cars Americans want to buy.

Everytime I go into any dealership and ask for a rear wheel drive V-8, it just goes quickly downhill from there.

Ever been to a Chrysler (300) or Dodge (Charger, Challenger) dealer?  They are RWD and V-8.

Quote from: Zmapper on September 09, 2012, 01:40:10 PM

Quote from: deanej on September 09, 2012, 11:53:45 AM
Why would removing a freeway be a solution if the freeway didn't cause the problem in the first place?  Detroit's problem isn't freeways... it's that the American unionized auto industry is dead.

Fixed it for ya.

The American auto industry is still thriving, but in other states.

The transportation industry that is dead is the unionized urban mass transit industry, in spite of billions upon billions upon billions of dollars of capital and operating subsidies - and most of those dollars are diverted from highway users (in the form of motor fuel tax revenues and tolls).

Though things like the old 480 expressway were good, reasonable candidates for removal, ripping out huge through-routes like I-95 in Philly is just plain stupid! :ded:

Quote from: Zmapper on September 09, 2012, 01:40:10 PM

Quote from: deanej on September 09, 2012, 11:53:45 AM
Why would removing a freeway be a solution if the freeway didn't cause the problem in the first place?  Detroit's problem isn't freeways... it's that the American unionized auto industry is dead.

Fixed it for ya.

The American auto industry is still thriving, but in other states.

And those plants in other state that you're talking about are for Japanese companies like Honda.  Ford/GM/Chrysler have some brand problems relating to the fact that they don't produce cars that Americans actually want like Honda/Toyota/etc. do.

Quote from: NE2 on September 10, 2012, 04:58:38 AM
Any city with less than half the land area covered by freeways is doing something wrong.

I was promised buildings on top of freeways, and freeways on top of buildings.

I-95 does have a building on top of it in NYC. Does that count?

As for the greater topic at hand, hard to come up with any logical spots where removing a freeway will help with anything except aftermarket/shop sales of t-stats, radiators, and batteries from cars overheating from being in stand-still gridlock traffic.

Reviving this old thread instead of starting a new one to share this.

Highways destroyed Black neighborhoods like mine. Can we undo the damage now? Tremé was a place of massive oaks, thriving shops and joyous community. The Claiborne Expressway erased all that. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/08/13/new-orleans-claiborne-highway-infrastructure/)

QuoteA favorite errand of mine when I was a child was to go to Joe Dave's meat market. Joe Dave had one hand full of fingers. The other was full of nubs. He'd lost his fingers to either a cleaver or a bone saw, I've forgotten which one. I just remember thinking that whatever he did must have hurt. I would sit at his long butcher-block counter and watch intently as he steadied the meat with his nubby hand and sliced very carefully with the other. The only thing I didn't like about Joe Dave's was the stench of raw meat. I can still smell that smell every time I think of his market. It was a small price to pay to watch a master at work, warmed by the sunlight pouring through his North Claiborne Avenue storefront.

QuoteThere were many masters on North Claiborne, and Black New Orleanians were the beneficiaries of their talents. There were doctors, lawyers, retailers, insurance agents, teachers, musicians, restaurateurs and other small-business owners. The avenue stretched across the Tremé and 7th Ward neighborhoods, and in the Jim Crow era, it served as the social and financial center of the Black community.