Everytime I hear more news about Detroit and their bankruptcy, I thonk of the rust belt cities, their declining population and their freeway systems. If the freeway systems of Major East Coast/Ohio Valley/Midwest were being considered for the first time today. Which EXISTING freways would not even be considered as needed.
Most urban freeways. They've done too much to fuck up the cities.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on July 19, 2013, 09:36:58 PM
Everytime I hear more news about Detroit and their bankruptcy, I thonk of the rust belt cities, their declining population and their freeway systems. If the freeway systems of Major East Coast/Ohio Valley/Midwest were being considered for the first time today. Which EXISTING freways would not even be considered as needed.
Pretty much any 3-Digit Interstate near Flint or Detroit for sure. There are several bypass and spur routes that probably never needed to be constructed for the sake of saving money. I-275 is fine since it's long; it bypasses downtown Detroit (reminds me of I-294 in the Chicago Suburbs), and it cuts down on city traffic already coming from eastbound/southbound I-94, I-96, and I-75. I-375 and I-696 possibly would not have been considered. 375 really only serves the purpose of temporarily relieving minor traffic from U.S. Route 12 and isn't very necessary. Michigan Route 10 heading north and Michigan Route 102 heading west already relieve westbound I-94 traffic entering downtown Detroit, making 696 useless. 475 is a very short bypass and lacks much purpose either given Michigan Route 54, which basically serves as a non-interstate bypass of downtown Flint.
Quote from: paleocon121171 on July 19, 2013, 10:09:53 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on July 19, 2013, 09:36:58 PM
Everytime I hear more news about Detroit and their bankruptcy, I thonk of the rust belt cities, their declining population and their freeway systems. If the freeway systems of Major East Coast/Ohio Valley/Midwest were being considered for the first time today. Which EXISTING freways would not even be considered as needed.
Pretty much any 3-Digit Interstate near Flint or Detroit for sure. There are several bypass and spur routes that probably never needed to be constructed for the sake of saving money. I-275 is fine since it's long; it bypasses downtown Detroit (reminds me of I-294 in the Chicago Suburbs), and it cuts down on city traffic already coming from eastbound/southbound I-94, I-96, and I-75. I-375 and I-696 possibly would not have been considered. 375 really only serves the purpose of temporarily relieving minor traffic from U.S. Route 12 and isn't very necessary. M-10 heading north and M-102 heading west already relieve westbound I-94 traffic entering downtown Detroit, making 696 useless. 475 is a very short bypass and lacks much purpose either given M-54, which basically serves as a non-interstate bypass of downtown Flint.
I-375 exists because FHWA's predecessor had Michigan move I-75 further inland away from the Detroit River; the southern end of the Chrysler Freeway was already in progress and became I-375. It doesn't have anything to do with US 12 which ends 2/3 of a mile west of I-375 on the opposite side of the Financial District.
I-696 is in the suburbs and heavily trafficked; assuming the cities would come together now to agree on a routing, it would still be needed, Detroit's decline or not.
Concur with NE2. Given today's NEPA and environmental justice laws, most urban freeways PERIOD would likely not be considered.
I don't know that they'd not be considered at all; however, you'd probably see a lot more built below grade and/or in tunnels, where possible, which is what we're seeing in many of the reconstruction projects for existing elevated freeways today (but not all of them).
However, those options (especially tunnels) are far more expensive. Part of the reason they routed the urban freeways the way they did was because the land was cheap, socio-economic issues weren't a factor (unless the route was planned thorugh a high-value/wealthy area), and "environmental justice" issues also weren't a factor.
But not just "environmental justice". Cost considerations would be another factor in why we'd have a lot fewer of them considered.
Design standards have also become more strict and more strictly enforced--for this reason alone many urban freeways are now unbuildable in their original configurations.
The Oak Street Connector (CT 34) in New Haven. They're planning to rip it down over the next few years, so they clearly wouldn't build it in the first place.
In New York City, it seems that the Sheridan Expressway (I-895) doesn't serve much of a purpose. If they had built it up to I-95 near the Bronx-Westchester border, then it might have been a useful shortcut, but as is it doesn't seem to accomplish all that much.
What about the MD 43 freeway that got demoted to arterial?
I believe the part crossing I-95 was meant for the Outer Beltway, which would cross I-795 at that huge interchange at the mall, and feeding into US 29.
No, the Outer Beltway was a separate animal entirely from MD 43.
Quote from: NE2 on July 19, 2013, 09:53:51 PM
Most urban freeways. They've done too much to fuck up the cities.
Jane Jacobs was one of the bigger critics of '60s freeways and other atrocities of urban planning of that era. However, I'm convinced that even Jane Jacobs could not fully understand how the urban environment can adapt to the freeway. Take a closer look at most urban areas today (outside the 5 boroughs of NYC); most revitalization/gentrification would not have happened if not for the "easy" access that a nearby freeway provides.
Having said that, there would likely be fewer attempts at building freeways in urban areas (and those attempts would mostly be state-funded; no Interstate shield involved). Not only that, but in all likelihood South Dakota would not have I-90 through the center of the state, and I-70 from Topeka to Denver would also not be built. Not enough traffic benefit for all that NEPA cost.
In short, our traffic patterns would be...significantly different.
Quote from: bulldog1979 on July 19, 2013, 11:46:24 PM
I-696 is in the suburbs and heavily trafficked; assuming the cities would come together now to agree on a routing, it would still be needed, Detroit's decline or not.
If M-DOT knew then what they know now, I-696 probably would have been just numbered as the east-west continuation of I-275, giving Metro Detroit a full singe-route loop around the city.
The only freeway I could see Detroit being without is the M-10/Lodge Freeway. But then again, that freeway was pretty much the only freeway serving the Northwest suburbs before I-96 & I-275 were completed in the late 70s.
Meanwhile, SR-59 (The MLK Freeway nee Innerbelt) in Downtown Akron would be a shoe-in for a freeway that should never have been built.
Quote from: brad2971 on July 20, 2013, 11:12:37 AM
Take a closer look at most urban areas today (outside the 5 boroughs of NYC); most revitalization/gentrification would not have happened if not for the "easy" access that a nearby freeway provides.
Not sure this is true. Definitely not in Seattle, where recent revitalization was focused on Ballard and Interbay (on the same north-south arterial, far west of I-5) and Columbia City and the rest of the Rainier Valley (somewhat closer to I-5 on the east though access over the hill is tricky, revitalized thanks to access to the new light rail).
When I started this thread, I was thinking about places like Youngstown, Rochester and Niagara Falls and their existing freeways that are no longer needed due to population loss. Erie is now 30% larger than Youngstown, but compare their respective freeway systems
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on July 20, 2013, 12:25:51 PM
When I started this thread, I was thinking about places like Youngstown, Rochester and Niagara Falls and their existing freeways that are no longer needed due to population loss. Erie is now 30% larger than Youngstown, but compare their respective freeway systems
If that's the case, then YES, those particular communities would've tried to build freeways inside the urban core. Mainly for reasons of "economic development."
Quote from: brad2971 on July 20, 2013, 11:12:37 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 19, 2013, 09:53:51 PM
Most urban freeways. They've done too much to fuck up the cities.
Jane Jacobs was one of the bigger critics of '60s freeways and other atrocities of urban planning of that era. However, I'm convinced that even Jane Jacobs could not fully understand how the urban environment can adapt to the freeway. Take a closer look at most urban areas today (outside the 5 boroughs of NYC); most revitalization/gentrification would not have happened if not for the "easy" access that a nearby freeway provides.
Having said that, there would likely be fewer attempts at building freeways in urban areas (and those attempts would mostly be state-funded; no Interstate shield involved). Not only that, but in all likelihood South Dakota would not have I-90 through the center of the state, and I-70 from Topeka to Denver would also not be built. Not enough traffic benefit for all that NEPA cost.
In short, our traffic patterns would be...significantly different.
I have to agree with NE 2, but freeways do mess up ( I will not swear) cities as they tend to divide neighborhoods. Orlando is living proof with I-4. You think that the industrial area just happens to stop at I-4 by coincidence south of Downtown? Also you think that its also a chance that I-4 separates the Parramore Section from Downtown as well? To the west of I-4 you have neighborhoods and to the east you have either the Downtown area or industry.
If I-4 were not there the Downtown area would be much different as well as the Holden Heights neighborhood south of Parramore would maybe have been expanded further to the east as no doubt Interstate 4 caused the development of the industrial west of Division Avenue along with the CSX corridor (originally ACL) that had industry along its path already.
Quote from: froggie on July 20, 2013, 03:56:55 AM
Given today's NEPA and environmental justice laws, most urban freeways PERIOD would likely not be considered.
There is also an attitude among a fair number of state highway agencies that if a city does not want a freeway, why should they go to the trouble to try and get it through preliminary engineering and the NEPA process.
Quote from: lordsutch on July 20, 2013, 07:20:49 AM
I don't know that they'd not be considered at all; however, you'd probably see a lot more built below grade and/or in tunnels, where possible, which is what we're seeing in many of the reconstruction projects for existing elevated freeways today (but not all of them).
Even though it became a "dead end" freeway, the part of I-395 in the Third Street Tunnel in the District of Columbia under the National Mall does not disrupt its surroundings at all now as it crosses under the National Mall west of the U.S. Capitol (though it did when it was constructed as a cut-and-cover project).
Cost too I suspect Construction has outstripped inflation and that leads to cps point with high costs and lack of public support a lot of highways would not have been built. IKE did not like the idea of freeways slashing through urban areas.
But that having been said we did build them and I cant help but thinking at least one never built project would have helped one urban area: The Crosstown on Chicagos west side. It might have diverted some traffic and development from the Tri-State
IMHO, Lake Shore Drive (US 41) in Chicago would be laughed out of the room if it were to be proposed today.
Mike
Urban waterfront freeways in particular likely wouldn't be built now as cities realize the value of waterfront property.
Much of the urban damage caused by the first-generation freeways were because we were Doing It Wrong. As ODOT rebuilds Columbus's Innerbelt, they're trying their best to correct the mistakes of the past. That is, aside from completely tearing the freeways out. Very few people here are asking for such drastic action.
All of them. If the EPA had existed in 1955, the interstate system would have never been built. If the EPA had existed in 1930, the massive land reclamation and hydro / irrigation projects that make life possible in places like southern California, would have never been built.
Draw your own conclusions as to what part of the country NOW favors NIMBYism and BANANAism the most.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on July 20, 2013, 12:25:51 PM
When I started this thread, I was thinking about places like Youngstown, Rochester and Niagara Falls and their existing freeways that are no longer needed due to population loss. Erie is now 30% larger than Youngstown, but compare their respective freeway systems
There's an interesting wikipedia article on US cities formerly over 100,000 population. Youngstown leads the list in both percentage and total number lost.
I think the more relevant question would be: What freeways are today unnecessary because of population or industrial base loss?
Surely, there are a few in the rust belt, particularly in Ohio, that might qualify. But many declining industrial cities–Allentown, Reading, and Pittsburgh come to mind–probably wouldn't qualify because their freeway systems were not developed that extensively to begin with.
That said, I have a suspicion that population, economic activity, and vehicular traffic aren't as directly linked as you might assume. Even though Detroit might be on the rocks financially, has that resulted nearly empty "ghost freeways" that were once teeming with traffic? My guess is no, and instead, you probably have a disproportionately high percentage of people traveling by car (older cars at that) and taking more circuitous routes as they work at lower-paying jobs, shop at lower-end stores, live in low-end housing.
Are there any such "ghost freeways" in an urban setting? The only ones I can think of are rural, such as I-180 in Illinois, sections of the Mon-Fayette Expressway, and other such cart before the horse economic development boondoggles.
Quote from: SP Cook on July 20, 2013, 03:58:49 PM
All of them. If the EPA had existed in 1955, the interstate system would have never been built. If the EPA had existed in 1930, the massive land reclamation and hydro / irrigation projects that make life possible in places like southern California, would have never been built.
I agree with you.
Though it's
not just the USEPA (and the NEPA (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/) law and related regulations) that make the projects much more difficult and expensive to plan for and implement. Consider, for example, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/sec404.cfm), which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has primary responsibility for enforcing. There's also Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/4f/), which makes it difficult and expensive to use parkland for federal-aid transportation projects.
Then there are state and local laws that impose more obstacles.
But I also believe all of those can be dealt with under the leadership of elected officials (especially state governors).
But since about 1970, a lot of political careers have been made out of opposing highway improvements (and other needed large-scale projects like airports, dams (and aqueducts), power plants (and transmission lines). And many opposed to such projects have great faith a stagnant future for the United States.
Quote from: SP Cook on July 20, 2013, 03:58:49 PM
Draw your own conclusions as to what part of the country NOW favors NIMBYism and BANANAism the most.
Large areas of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts come to mind first.
Quote from: briantroutman on July 20, 2013, 07:33:33 PM
Are there any such "ghost freeways" in an urban setting? The only ones I can think of are rural, such as I-180 in Illinois, sections of the Mon-Fayette Expressway, and other such cart before the horse economic development boondoggles.
But history teaches some of us that if a project is held until the residential population (especially) grows out to a highway corridor (even one where the right-of-way is in reservation or owned by a government agency), then at least some of those residents will be NIMBYs that don't want the highway constructed.
Quote from: SP Cook on July 20, 2013, 03:58:49 PM
All of them. If the EPA had existed in 1955, the interstate system would have never been built. If the EPA had existed in 1930, the massive land reclamation and hydro / irrigation projects that make life possible in places like southern California, would have never been built.
Draw your own conclusions as to what part of the country NOW favors NIMBYism and BANANAism the most.
Unfortunately, you're probably right. We wouldn't have developed as much as a civilized nation with the current regulatory policies of the EPA in place back in the early 1900's. Route 66 would have been fought at every turn (pun intended). On a different note, the EPA has more legislative influence than one might think, and every smoking ban in the last 20 years can be attributed to their controversial (and highly disputable) early-1990's study into the harmful, deadly effects of secondhand smoke. I could definitely see them finding a way to prevent one of the greatest achievements of the mid-20th century from being fulfilled.
Quote from: mgk920 on July 20, 2013, 02:49:27 PM
IMHO, Lake Shore Drive (US 41) in Chicago would be laughed out of the room if it were to be proposed today.
Mike
Yet, ironically, it is the very existence of LSD that keeps development (with the exception of Lake Point Tower) in check and serves as the boundary for development versus parkland.
Quote from: briantroutman on July 20, 2013, 07:33:33 PM
Are there any such "ghost freeways" in an urban setting? The only ones I can think of are rural, such as I-180 in Illinois, sections of the Mon-Fayette Expressway, and other such cart before the horse economic development boondoggles.
The Amstutz Expressway in Waukegan, IL perhaps?
IN 912/Cline Avenue might count since the bridge has been removed.
The Indiana Toll Road sometimes seems like it would count between US 41 and I-80/I-94, but I haven't been on it during rush hour yet.
Some I thought of:
1. Conland-Whitehead highway in Hartford, CT: Was supposed to be I-484 to connect I-84 and I-91; never did, now it ends in a traffic circle.
2. CT 8 north of I-84: Became a dead end when MA refused to build its section of expressway. South of I-84 is useful, though
3. Vine St. Expressway in Philly.
4. RI 10 expressway: duplicates I-95.
5. I-384, US 6 Willimantic bypass, CT 695, US 6 Johnston expressway: all part of killed off I-84 to Providence.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 21, 2013, 01:33:46 AM
CT 695: part of killed off I-84 to Providence.
Part of the original Connecticut Turnpike. Apparently there were plans for a continuation diagonally across RI towards Boston.
Quotemost revitalization/gentrification would not have happened if not for the "easy" access that a nearby freeway provides.
Kacie already mentioned Seattle. There's also areas of both Minneapolis, DC, and Norfolk that put the lie to this argument.
QuoteMuch of the urban damage caused by the first-generation freeways were because we were Doing It Wrong.
Agreed, but they did it that way because it was A) cheap, and B) the "path of least resistance". To have done it right from the get-go would've considerably increased the cost, with results being a longer time to completion and/or cancellations due to cost.
QuoteWe wouldn't have developed as much as a civilized nation with the current regulatory policies of the EPA in place back in the early 1900's.
I think it's a moreso a case where we would have developed in a different fashion than we wound up in.
Quote from: paleocon121171 on July 20, 2013, 10:51:07 PM
Unfortunately, you're probably right. We wouldn't have developed as much as a civilized nation with the current regulatory policies of the EPA in place back in the early 1900's. Route 66 would have been fought at every turn (pun intended).
I don't know about that. Two lane highways like US-66's earliest form don't have very much environmental impact because the ROW is so narrow (and 1920s-era highway design often took the path of least resistance, curving around things that modern highways would plow under). Even these days you scarcely see opposition to a new two-lane road unless it goes through a sensitive area like a park or does something like provide logging access to a new part of a virgin forest.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 21, 2013, 04:06:08 AM
Even these days you scarcely see opposition to a new two-lane road...
I don't think this is true. I have seen cases where simple two-lane roads were opposed out of the purest form NIMBYism–simply because they might bring "other people" to someone's corner of the world. In one instance in my hometown, the local township simply wanted to restore about 1/10 mile of local road that had been a gravel lane up until the '60s but had since reverted to nature. This was proposed in part so that an isolated nursing home would have a second exit route in case of emergency. And yet scores of homes anywhere near the proposed extension had professionally printed signs staked in their lawns: "SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD - NO NEW ROAD". As if the road
their homes sat on was ordained by the Almighty as a Justified Level of Development, but 500 ft. of new asphalt nearby would catapult their Utopia on an irreversible course straight to Hell.
Two lane roads or other non-grade separated arterials sometimes get a pass from the "smart growth" crowd because they are seen as at least being a lesser evil than a true freeway. And even then, they'll only acquiesce to such construction only to serve the most dire traffic needs–places that, 50 years ago, would have been guaranteed a new freeway.
US 66 might not be fought at every turn today only because much of its length lies in rural midwestern and western locales where access to roads of any kind is seen as a harbinger of economic development. But anywhere even remotely suburban or urban, I don't doubt for a second that a simple US route would today be fought by politicians and regulators at all levels.
Had Nixon created the EPA before Ike created the Interstates, we might have a system more like France: minimal urban freeways and tolled rural freeways with lots of bridges and tunnels. In other words, we'd come closer to paying the external cost of fast driving.
GA I-675 was to be connected to GA 400 to be another continuous freeway across the Atlanta Perimeter.
Quote from: froggie on July 21, 2013, 03:50:57 AM
Quotemost revitalization/gentrification would not have happened if not for the "easy" access that a nearby freeway provides.
Kacie already mentioned Seattle. There's also areas of both Minneapolis, DC, and Norfolk that put the lie to this argument.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'd meant my original message to be longer. I can think of two revitalized Seattle neighborhoods that are right on the freeway -- Northgate and South Lake Union -- though they happen to be off two of the most congested interchanges, and their revitalization is also more likely tied to public transportation. Lake City is about as far from I-5 as the neighborhoods I originally mentioned, but with far easier access, and no major plans to improve transit, so that revitalization you might be able to link to the freeway. But largely speaking, I'd consider I-5 to be irrelevant at best to revitalization in and around Seattle.
For Toronto, the elevated Gardiner Expressway come in mind. For Montreal, Ville-Marie(A-720), Bonaventure (A-10) woudn't be built it all today.
Quote from: NE2 on July 21, 2013, 05:39:50 AMHad Nixon created the EPA before Ike created the Interstates, we might have a system more like France: minimal urban freeways and tolled rural freeways with lots of bridges and tunnels. In other words, we'd come closer to paying the external cost of fast driving.
As a counterfactual, I would say that outcome is distantly possible, but highly improbable given what was known of the negative externalities of automobility in the early days of freeway development.
The EPA from the start was primarily a regulator of point-source pollution, and it took a long time for awareness to develop that automobiles deserved its attention. The first indicator was open crankcase ventilation, which was found to be an important contributor of noxious pollution in the Los Angeles basin in the early 1960's, and that took quite a while to snowball into a realization that auto emissions in general required broad-spectrum regulation at the state and national level. In the 1950's it would have been politically premature to object to a freeway on the basis of pollution rather than planning-related considerations such as access and loss of light.
Immediately after World War II, the US had a housing shortage, and a real estate lobby (entrenched since the 1920's) which pushed the idea that the best solution to this problem was for the private sector to build sitcom suburbs for the middle class and the upwardly mobile working class, with government intervention being largely limited to assistance through subsidies and favorable tax treatment. (The latter extended not just to private housing--where the mortgage interest deduction applies--but also to commercial development. Accelerated depreciation of commercial real estate, enacted by Congress in 1954, has been identified as a driver of suburbanization.) Women, minorities, and the poor were largely locked out of the power structure at the time, and some authors such as Dolores Hayden have argued persuasively that their participation in the political process, if it had been allowed to happen, would have favored different types of residential building development, including ones (such as multifamily housing, remodelling rather than new-build, etc.) which favor dwelling in the city center and relying largely on public transit.
In the 1950's the problem of urban freeway development was everywhere seen primarily in terms of city planning. The US was far from alone in being oblivious to the problems of point-source pollution--in London, for example, it took the "Great Smoke" of 1952 ("Oops, we just lost 20,000 people in that") to drive restrictions on coal burning. But in western Europe the conditions and institutional norms faced by urban planners were very different. In 1947 Britain attempted to nationalize the right to develop land, and both Britain and France had very heavy public-sector involvement in housing development that dated from well before World War II. (British local authorities had the "corporation houses," while France had the "habitations à bon marché"; these were the nuclei for council housing and HLMs respectively.) Both countries had baby booms, but these were far smaller as a percentage of the pre-World War II population than in the US. Public-sector housing providers were large and influential and private-sector real estate lobbies had very little leverage. It was considered responsible planning to have freeways as lines on a map, and responsible budgeting to ensure that lines were all they were. Automakers, housebuilders, and highway contractors had much less space than their US counterparts to set up the one-hand-washes-the-other relationships that promote freeway development.
Motorization in the US was also much higher, both in absolute and per capita terms, so although the western European countries started to catch up in the 1950's, they were never anywhere near US levels of per capita car ownership, and in many cases still aren't. That adds to the pressure for freeway development of some kind, though not necessarily in dense urban areas, and this effect was inevitably stronger in the US than elsewhere.
So, to try to condense what is really a book-length argument, I would say a 1950's EPA would have said "Cars not known to be an environmental problem" or "Planning issues not in our remit"; and we already know it was Truman, not Ike, who affronted the real-estate interests by refusing to push the MacDonald-Fairbanks urban highway plan in the late 1940's, and he did that for budgetary reasons only, not because he had a strong opinion on either freeways or the basic concept of the sitcom suburb. (Ike definitely didn't like freeways in urban cores, but I observe he mourned them without investing much effort in stopping them.)
Another possible scenario, assuming we had somehow been able to postpone freeway development to a more modern period of enhanced awareness of auto pollution and other negative externalities of driving, is Spain: very high levels of public investment both in roads and in other forms of transport, such as urban public transit, interurban passenger rail, bicycles, etc., resulting in dense freeway networks both in rural areas and large cities which, however, do not penetrate the old urban cores except in tunnel. Spain has had very high private-sector housing demand and activity driven largely by a private-sector real-estate lobby which had gotten out of hand (similar to the US in the postwar years). If we followed the Spanish pattern, chances are you ("you" in this case being a generic middle-class person) would be in your own house (illegally built, maybe) with keys to your vehicle within reach, only the vehicle would be smaller and far less likely to be a pickup truck or minivan.
But this development is driven partly by Spain's starvation of transportation infrastructure during the Franco years (he was interested only in building things, such as dams, factories, hotels for out-of-country tourists, etc., which could be used to pull in hard currency from abroad), an artificial condition which it is hard to imagine ever developing spontaneously in the US.
NJ 139: No other freeway in this region is built in a flood-prone trench and decked over with its own business route.
NJ 495: It's similar to the NYC expressways trenched beneath the streets, but something about the exposed rock faces and dozen overpasses is just so unlike anything NJ would normally do.
Pulaski Skyway: Who builds 5 mile bridges across a bunch of nothing? If the answer were NJDOT, we'd have already replaced it and built a few more good freeways as well.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 21, 2013, 01:33:46 AM
Some I thought of:
3. Vine St. Expressway in Philly.
Add I-95 through Center City & Penns Landing to that list.
Boston: the original Central Artery.
I-95 through Wilmington, Delaware. I'd like to see the part between the I-495 junction and the Brandywine River bridge replaced with an urban parkway. The area between Adams and Jackson would be a park, with a few public facilities - like a new Wilmington High - on it. The rest could become I-195, and US 202 would follow DE 141 (with Tyler McConnell widened.)
I doubt that they'd ever try to route I-40 through Overton Park, and I don't think there's any viable alternative routing into Memphis to be considered. Same thing with I-70 in Baltimore.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on July 19, 2013, 09:36:58 PM
Which EXISTING freways would not even be considered as needed.
The Florida Avenue Expressway in New Orleans is still officially on the books as planned, but given the events of 2005 and the fact that its proposed route serves the areas which suffered the most devastation and subsequent population loss, I doubt it will see the light of day any time soon.
Also, I question whether I-510 would be constructed were it still in the planning stages today, and/or not funded with federal interstate construction dollars.
The Earhart Expressway is underutilized and thus has questionable utility from a planning perspective, but this has more to do with inadequate connections to other roadways rather than genuine lack of traffic demand. I am sure LaDOTD is aware of this.
The problem with this sort of speculation is that many of the urban areas would not exist as they do without freeways. There would be no suburbs, and the cities would be denser, more high-rises, like New York City (which really lacks the required freeways for a city of that size, even with great public transportation) or London.
It is likely that public transportation would have continued to grow, as while the price of gas would have been as cheap as it had been, the efficient storage of busses and cars would have prevented the massive expansion of road use, and demand would have likely stayed low.
Quote from: Henry on July 22, 2013, 10:10:43 AM
I doubt that they'd ever try to route I-40 through Overton Park, and I don't think there's any viable alternative routing into Memphis to be considered. Same thing with I-70 in Baltimore.
I-40 could easily have been buried under North Parkway as cut-and-cover (it didn't even need to go under the park); they just didn't want to spend the money. And now they've ended up rebuilding two interchanges under traffic to fix the problem (and they're still not done), which probably will end up costing as much incrementally as just building it underground in the first place.
That said the north loop ended up underutilized anyway, because the suburban growth north of the Wolf River stalled out in the 70s in favor of moving east, so the loss of midtown I-40 isn't too bad, particularly since what eventually was built, including the parkway section, does 80% of what building the whole thing would've done.
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on July 22, 2013, 01:37:58 PM
The Earhart Expressway is underutilized and thus has questionable utility from a planning perspective, but this has more to do with inadequate connections to other roadways rather than genuine lack of traffic demand. I am sure LaDOTD is aware of this.
Indeed, once LaDOTD adds the proposed connections to Airline to the west and Causeway in the middle, Earhart will be pretty useful. Some sort of direct connectivity to Claiborne/Jefferson Highway at the parish line to/from the west would really help make it useful to people in Carrollton - as-is, if you're going to try to get on Earhart to go to the airport or shop somewhere in Jefferson Parish you might as well just go the extra few blocks to I-10, particularly since you can't turn left onto Earhart at Carrollton.
Quote from: lordsutch on July 22, 2013, 03:54:48 PM
particularly since you can't turn left onto Earhart at Carrollton.
Is the Michigan Left setup really that bad?
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 22, 2013, 03:36:48 PM
The problem with this sort of speculation is that many of the urban areas would not exist as they do without freeways...
Exactly. Are we imagining that freeways were never developed across the country, or that the city in question was an island where freeways somehow never materialized? In either case, it would be difficult to imagine that cities would have grown in the same ways as they have.
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 22, 2013, 03:36:48 PM
There would be no suburbs, and the cities would be denser...
I disagree with this somewhat, though. Suburbanization predated the Interstate System and the growth of freeways–these factors just accelerated an existing trend. Going back to the turn of the century, most large cities had so-called streetcar suburbs that enabled people to move tree-lined bedroom communities away from the urban core. And even without the enticement of Interstates, many people were already commuting by car on local arterials, and urban street networks were a tangle of cars in gridlock, horns honking, and traffic officers frantically waving on motorists by hand. In the popular culture,
Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House–probably the archetype of American suburbanization–dates back to 1948.
So I'm confident that we'd still have suburbs even without freeways, but they likely wouldn't be as large, as numerous, or as distant. (Like people commuting to NYC from Stroudsburg.)
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 22, 2013, 03:36:48 PM
The problem with this sort of speculation is that many of the urban areas would not exist as they do without freeways. There would be no suburbs, and the cities would be denser, more high-rises, like New York City (which really lacks the required freeways for a city of that size, even with great public transportation) or London.
Where are the high-rises in London? there's not that many and those that are residential are typically social housing. You might get 4-storey apartment blocks, but not that much that is high.
And London sprawled in the 20s and 30s, with 'Metroland', aided by the railways. Miles of endless, dense, suburbia. The Green Belt (also around other UK cities) hemmed it in since the war, with new towns (Hemel, Harlow, Hatfield, Crawley, Bracknell, Milton Keynes, Stevenage, etc) providing a place for relatively low-density housing.
Quote from: NE2 on July 22, 2013, 04:10:37 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on July 22, 2013, 03:54:48 PM
particularly since you can't turn left onto Earhart at Carrollton.
Is the Michigan Left setup really that bad?
Not for the amount of traffic involved, particularly when turning left from Carrollton. The only direction that is really set up to accommodate "Michigan left" turns specifically is WB Earhart to NB Carrollton, and that is only since an extended turn lane was added during the Earhart Boulevard resurfacing/reconstruction. In point of fact, IIRC you actually cannot make a U-turn at the first crossover on Carrollton north of Earhart (Oleander Street).
I was really hoping that the Earhart reconstruction would add actual direct left turn lanes here for once, since they are so obviously needed. Oh well, one can dream.
Michigan lefts in Michigan (and Jefferson Parish, for that matter) are purpose built, designed to work a certain way, and (I assume) therefore do their job as intended without much hassle. In NOLA, Michigan lefts are essentially the only legal turning movement possible due to poor intersection design and consequent left turn restrictions, and thus are nearly always clusterf***s of some sort or another. They are not designed to be Michigan-type lefts, and thus turning movements follow this pattern by default due to the above reasons. It's the typical New Orleans "bon temps rouler" mentality at work. On the other hand, it makes life here more interesting.
Quote from: lordsutch on July 22, 2013, 03:54:48 PM
Indeed, once LaDOTD adds the proposed connections to Airline to the west and Causeway in the middle, Earhart will be pretty useful. Some sort of direct connectivity to Claiborne/Jefferson Highway at the parish line to/from the west would really help make it useful to people in Carrollton - as-is, if you're going to try to get on Earhart to go to the airport or shop somewhere in Jefferson Parish you might as well just go the extra few blocks to I-10, particularly since you can't turn left onto Earhart at Carrollton.
When I was but a wee roads scholar, I must have drawn up at least twenty or so plans for an Earhart Expressway extension, curving north just west of the parish line and then east via Airline Highway, to meet I-10 at interchange 232. This is the only viable way I see, along with adding connector ramps to Jefferson/Claiborne at Monticello, to render Earhart more useable.
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on July 22, 2013, 08:49:02 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 22, 2013, 04:10:37 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on July 22, 2013, 03:54:48 PM
particularly since you can't turn left onto Earhart at Carrollton.
Is the Michigan Left setup really that bad?
Not for the amount of traffic involved, particularly when turning left from Carrollton. The only direction that is really set up to accommodate "Michigan left" turns specifically is WB Earhart to NB Carrollton, and that is only since an extended turn lane was added during the Earhart Boulevard resurfacing/reconstruction. In point of fact, IIRC you actually cannot make a U-turn at the first crossover on Carrollton north of Earhart (Oleander Street).
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=29.96064,-90.11439&spn=0.001264,0.001772&gl=us&t=k&z=20
Turn right into the leftmost lane on Earhart, which becomes U-turn only. The only thing that might be suboptimal is the lack of traffic light at that U-turn.
Quote from: NE2 on July 22, 2013, 09:22:15 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=29.96064,-90.11439&spn=0.001264,0.001772&gl=us&t=k&z=20
Turn right into the leftmost lane on Earhart, which becomes U-turn only. The only thing that might be suboptimal is the lack of traffic light at that U-turn.
Admittedly the setup has been improved a bit since I lived in NOLA five years ago, but you're probably still looking at sitting through 2-3 light cycles to make this movement. Plus if I read the pavement markings right you're competing with the downriver Earhart -> back Carrollton movement which also uses the new U-turn lane rather than having its own protected left. Plus if it's like all the other "Michigan lefts" in NOLA, it isn't signed, so good luck figuring it out if you're not already familiar with NOLA's predilection for forbidding cross-neutral-ground lefts most anywhere you'd actually want to turn left.
Really it's just easier to go straight to I-10 and just not bother with Earhart, or rat run the neighborhoods between Claiborne and Earhart (although I'd put that on the "inadvisable" list for tourists or anyone who wants their car to still have a functioning suspension). Hell, taking Leake & River Road would usually get you to the Huey Long faster than futzing with getting over to Earhart.
Presumably they left out the left turn bays on Carrollton so nobody'd be too disappointed when they remove them again whenever they decide to extend the Carrollton streetcar line back to City Park. I can't say anyone would particularly miss the two palm trees otherwise...
Regarding speculation on what cities and metropolitan areas might have become had the urban freeways not materialized, Vancouver, BC provides a case-study that's pretty close.
Quote from: froggie on July 23, 2013, 02:08:13 AM
Regarding speculation on what cities and metropolitan areas might have become had the urban freeways not materialized, Vancouver, BC provides a case-study that's pretty close.
Vancouver came to mind when I tried to think of
any large city in North America that didn't have a freeway system. But I bristle when anyone tries to compare anything in Canada with a counterpart in the US.
It's like how Bill Cosby said that he doesn't consider a person who has only one child to truly be a parent because "there are too many things left out". Canada looks and feels a lot like the US, but there are too many factors left out to draw a solid comparison. They don't have the kind of racial diversity we have–and all of the attendant "white flight"–or comparable urban crime levels that draw people out of cities. Yes, I know that Vancouver has an extremely high Asian population and a large number of foreign-born residents, but I don't think their situation comes anywhere near the both overt and latent racial tensions our American cities have seen. And I don't think that Canadians have quite the same sense of individualism, desire for independence, and distaste for social structures that have lead so many Americans to seek their own 0.7 acres of soil.
So Vancouver might provide some hints, but I think an American city with no freeways would look very different.
Quote from: briantroutman on July 23, 2013, 03:18:14 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 23, 2013, 02:08:13 AM
Regarding speculation on what cities and metropolitan areas might have become had the urban freeways not materialized, Vancouver, BC provides a case-study that's pretty close.
Vancouver came to mind when I tried to think of any large city in North America that didn't have a freeway system. But I bristle when anyone tries to compare anything in Canada with a counterpart in the US.
It's like how Bill Cosby said that he doesn't consider a person who has only one child to truly be a parent because "there are too many things left out". Canada looks and feels a lot like the US, but there are too many factors left out to draw a solid comparison. They don't have the kind of racial diversity we have–and all of the attendant "white flight"–or comparable urban crime levels that draw people out of cities. Yes, I know that Vancouver has an extremely high Asian population and a large number of foreign-born residents, but I don't think their situation comes anywhere near the both overt and latent racial tensions our American cities have seen. And I don't think that Canadians have quite the same sense of individualism, desire for independence, and distaste for social structures that have lead so many Americans to seek their own 0.7 acres of soil.
So Vancouver might provide some hints, but I think an American city with no freeways would look very different.
Your post raises an interesting question in my mind in that some of the urban freeways were intentionally routed through blighted neighborhoods, near areas planned for "urban renewal," or just plain through ghettoes. In some cases the routing of the urban freeways were the impetus for later "urban renewal" projects. Then you have the areas where an urban freeway was built and "renewal" was carried out but failed because the area was too cut off. One wonders, if the urban freeways hadn't been built, what might have become of some of those neighborhoods–would they have declined further into the ghetto or would they have improved? (Of course there are a ton of other variables that preclude an easy answer to the question. For example, where an urban freeway was rammed through a poor black neighborhood prior to 1968, there's no way to know whether the neighborhood would have burned in the race riots following Martin Luther King being shot that year.)
The question the OP raises does pose a bit of a conundrum, though, because it raises something of a chicken-or-egg problem. That is, the question asks what existing urban freeways wouldn't be considered now. That question presupposes that we know not only about pollution or traffic flow issues but also about societal effects of urban freeways (slashing through neighborhoods or forming sort of a wall across the city because of limited roads crossing the freeway). But if urban freeways hadn't been built, it's not necessarily clear that the societal effects would have become understood to the degree they are (because there wouldn't have been urban freeways to allow for a study of the question).
Quote from: briantroutman on July 22, 2013, 05:14:49 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 22, 2013, 03:36:48 PM
There would be no suburbs, and the cities would be denser...
I disagree with this somewhat, though. Suburbanization predated the Interstate System and the growth of freeways–these factors just accelerated an existing trend. Going back to the turn of the century, most large cities had so-called streetcar suburbs that enabled people to move tree-lined bedroom communities away from the urban core. And even without the enticement of Interstates, many people were already commuting by car on local arterials, and urban street networks were a tangle of cars in gridlock, horns honking, and traffic officers frantically waving on motorists by hand. In the popular culture, Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House–probably the archetype of American suburbanization–dates back to 1948.
So I'm confident that we'd still have suburbs even without freeways, but they likely wouldn't be as large, as numerous, or as distant. (Like people commuting to NYC from Stroudsburg.)
Exactly. People were using the rail lines for suburbanization well before the freeways came about. One of the earliest was Riverside, Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside,_IL). Riverside was meant to be a bedroom community for Chicago and connected it Chicago via rail. Other Chicago suburbs grew up the same way, along the rail lines first, then expanded to the freeways and tollways. Today, you can see the rail lines and Metra stations in the downtowns of these suburbs.
Quote from: Brandon on July 23, 2013, 10:58:16 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on July 22, 2013, 05:14:49 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 22, 2013, 03:36:48 PM
There would be no suburbs, and the cities would be denser...
I disagree with this somewhat, though. Suburbanization predated the Interstate System and the growth of freewaysthese factors just accelerated an existing trend. Going back to the turn of the century, most large cities had so-called streetcar suburbs that enabled people to move tree-lined bedroom communities away from the urban core. And even without the enticement of Interstates, many people were already commuting by car on local arterials, and urban street networks were a tangle of cars in gridlock, horns honking, and traffic officers frantically waving on motorists by hand. In the popular culture, Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream Houseprobably the archetype of American suburbanizationdates back to 1948.
So I'm confident that we'd still have suburbs even without freeways, but they likely wouldn't be as large, as numerous, or as distant. (Like people commuting to NYC from Stroudsburg.)
Exactly. People were using the rail lines for suburbanization well before the freeways came about. One of the earliest was Riverside, Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside,_IL). Riverside was meant to be a bedroom community for Chicago and connected it Chicago via rail. Other Chicago suburbs grew up the same way, along the rail lines first, then expanded to the freeways and tollways. Today, you can see the rail lines and Metra stations in the downtowns of these suburbs.
I agree with that assessment! Even without the freeways, suburban areas would still come in one way or another.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 23, 2013, 09:43:27 AM
One wonders, if the urban freeways hadn't been built, what might have become of some of those neighborhoods...
We do have some suggestions as to what would happen.
Several artistic, bohemian, or otherwise offbeat areas owe their existence to freeways that were never built. A few that come to mind are SoHo in Manhattan, South Street in Philadelphia, and Haight-Ashbury here in San Francisco. In each case, an urban freeway was proposed through the area, real estate values plummeted, and all of the workaday bus drivers and sanitation workers moved out, taking their Lifebuoy soap and middle class values with them. And who would live in a neighborhood that was getting bulldozed tomorrow? Ne'er-do-wells who live as if tomorrow is never going to come. So would-be poets and artists moved in, started throwing psychedelic paint on the walls while on acid trips and getting busted by Joe Friday. Krausmeier's Bakery skipped town and was replaced by a head shop. And the rest is history.
Quote from: briantroutman on July 22, 2013, 05:14:49 PMSuburbanization predated the Interstate System and the growth of freeways–these factors just accelerated an existing trend. Going back to the turn of the century, most large cities had so-called streetcar suburbs that enabled people to move tree-lined bedroom communities away from the urban core.
A distinction which gets to the idea of using large European cities as prototypes for American cities without urban freeways is that, unlike the case in Europe where a large share of turn-of-the-century public transit (including trams) was under municipal ownership, American streetcar lines tended to be privately owned, and streetcar tycoons were often real-estate developers. C.T. Yerkes was particularly notorious for this form of vertical integration.
Quote from: briantroutman on July 23, 2013, 01:26:53 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 23, 2013, 09:43:27 AM
One wonders, if the urban freeways hadn't been built, what might have become of some of those neighborhoods...
We do have some suggestions as to what would happen.
Several artistic, bohemian, or otherwise offbeat areas owe their existence to freeways that were never built. A few that come to mind are SoHo in Manhattan, South Street in Philadelphia, and Haight-Ashbury here in San Francisco. In each case, an urban freeway was proposed through the area, real estate values plummeted, and all of the workaday bus drivers and sanitation workers moved out, taking their Lifebuoy soap and middle class values with them. And who would live in a neighborhood that was getting bulldozed tomorrow? Ne'er-do-wells who live as if tomorrow is never going to come. So would-be poets and artists moved in, started throwing psychedelic paint on the walls while on acid trips and getting busted by Joe Friday. Krausmeier's Bakery skipped town and was replaced by a head shop. And the rest is history.
Right, but all of that is based on the given that the city plans showed the road would be built. Take away that premise and it's a fundamentally different question because you don't have the supposition that the neighborhood is about to be bulldozed.
(Next time I see her I'll have to ask my mother what it was like in Bay Ridge during the Verrazano Bridge construction. I don't think I've ever asked about it. She grew up a few blocks west of where the 92 Street exit on I-278 is now.)
Quote from: NE2 on July 21, 2013, 05:39:50 AM
Had Nixon created the EPA before Ike created the Interstates, we might have a system more like France: minimal urban freeways and tolled rural freeways with lots of bridges and tunnels. In other words, we'd come closer to paying the external cost of fast driving.
These were somewhat similar to my thoughts when reading the thread title. The freeways would still exist but mostly tolled if built today. Look at Texas as an example. Almost all of the new urban freeways built in the last 13 years have been tollways.
Quote from: thisdj78 on July 23, 2013, 03:19:54 PM
Look at Texas as an example. Almost all of the new urban freeways built in the last 13 years have been tollways.
That's less because of externalities and more because Texas. In France, most intercity freeways are tolled, while Texas continues to build free I-69.
Turnpikes were the trend just before the interstate system. Many of those turnpikes in the east were simply grandfathered.
Given the fact that there are some idiots in Louisville who want to get rid of existing I-64 between I-65 and the Sherman Minton Bridge, I'd nominate that route.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 23, 2013, 04:07:17 PM
Given the fact that there are some idiots in Louisville who want to keep existing I-64 between I-65 and the Sherman Minton Bridge, I'd nominate that route.
Fixed again.
As much as I like the MN 62 crosstown as a traffic reliever, I doubt it would stand a chance for even being considered for a freeway upgrade in todays world.
One of the N-S freeways west of Minneapolis (I-494, U.S. 169, and MN 100) could be nixed from the plan, too. 169 and 100 each get a lot more traffic, so I would ditch 494 west of 169 (and I do realize 494 came first).
I-35E wouldn't stand a chance in southern St. Paul (they had a heck of a time getting that built anyway).
MN 36 wouldn't be a full freeway anywhere.
MN 77 north of I-494 and south of I-35E would go, too.
In Peoria, IL, I bet we would see I-74 on modern I-474. Modern I-74 wouldn't be built today.
My point is that the current location of people or businesses would be much different than they are in our world. As a result, there would be some places where there would be no people, so a freeway would be fine, and others where there would be tons more people making a freeway futile or not cost effective. Or are we simply looking back to when they were built, and how our modern sensibilities wouldn't have allowed them in those locations at that time?
If it is the latter, I know that I-5 through Portland, along the west bank wouldn't have built. The would have gone with Moses' original idea of placing the freeway between the existing lanes of 99E, or routed it directly down Harbor Dr., so a new freeway wouldn't have been built. Or, eve following the route of I-405 through the city, but as a full tunnel, instead of just sunken. I could however see a modern Portland actually building more East-West routes, to ensure proper traffic flow around the city.
In Seattle, I could see them just using the Alaskan Way viaduct, or building it all subterranean, or again just following I-405. Then again, much of the route North of Seattle was/is along Railroad Right of way, so there weren't people nearby to complain, and there wouldn't be in any instance we are discussing.
Columbus's 104 freeway could probably be built today, but people would (and do) question why it's needed. Actually, there's a decent chance I-70 would be routed that way if it wasn't already downtown.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 23, 2013, 04:07:17 PM
Given the fact that there are some idiots in Louisville who want to get rid of existing I-64 between I-65 and the Sherman Minton Bridge, I'd nominate that route.
Is that why they're building another bridge in that area? The proposed bridge looks like the only halfway decent re-route of I-64.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 23, 2013, 01:56:02 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on July 22, 2013, 05:14:49 PMSuburbanization predated the Interstate System and the growth of freeways–these factors just accelerated an existing trend. Going back to the turn of the century, most large cities had so-called streetcar suburbs that enabled people to move tree-lined bedroom communities away from the urban core.
A distinction which gets to the idea of using large European cities as prototypes for American cities without urban freeways is that, unlike the case in Europe where a large share of turn-of-the-century public transit (including trams) was under municipal ownership, American streetcar lines tended to be privately owned, and streetcar tycoons were often real-estate developers. C.T. Yerkes was particularly notorious for this form of vertical integration.
The typical pattern was the real estate developer built the streetcar line to sell the houses. The streetcar line lost money, but made the houses more valuable. A couple of years after all the houses had been sold, the streetcar would (surprise!) go bankrupt. Then the citizens of the subdivisions would demand their city take it over and operate it.
I-890 in Schenectady NY. Little traffic. Exit 1 to Exit 7 seems pretty useless to me. The whole elevated section through downtown and all of its six lanes seem like a waste to me. That maze of ramps near GE could all be eliminated. I think that land could be better utilized for parks, river access and possible SCCC expansion.
I think Baltimore is a great example of pretty much every scenario discussed:
1. What happens when an interstate is built,
2. What happens when it isn't,
3. What happens when it is partially built.
In every case, the interstates alone weren't the main thing to make or break a neighborhood. Honestly, we give them too much credit. Public policy plays a huge role, too.
I do not believe that the Jones Falls Expressway (I-83 south of I-695) would be built today. At the time, it was considered advantageous to built it over a river because few houses needed to be taken. (Also, it was heavily polluted at the time.) However, it cuts Baltimore off from its inner waterfront. There's some beautiful rapids and scenic parts that aren't accessible to the general public because of the JFX.
In all of the areas where plans were cancelled, development happened anyway to the extent that it could have been. The Urban-Rural Demarcation Line (URDL) enacted in 1967 in Baltimore County, influenced growth beyond into the surrounding counties and York County, PA. I currently commute over an hour to work every day from northern Harford County, and I'm not the only one. I use a mix of driving and public transit. With more limited access highways here, I'm sure population would grow more, but compared to what was here even in the past 20 years, it's grown tremendously.
In places where interstates were partially built (the JFX and I-70), results varied due to public policy. Federal Hill and Fells Point grew due to programs that encouraged low home ownership cost in exchange for agreeing to renovate the property. Franklin-Mulberry had nothing of the sort. Even Rosemont, which was saved from I-70, declined due to drug usage overtaking the neighborhood. Interestingly, the most blighted areas of Baltimore also have the worst access overall - less public transit and less highways.
Quote from: NE2 on July 23, 2013, 04:42:25 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 23, 2013, 04:07:17 PM
Given the fact that there are some idiots in Louisville who want to keep existing I-64 between I-65 and the Sherman Minton Bridge, I'd nominate that route.
Fixed again.
You have never given a logical reason for wanting to tear down the interstate or how you would provide for the displaced traffic besides making it go out of its way on either 264 or 265.
Quote from: vdeane on July 23, 2013, 08:14:50 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 23, 2013, 04:07:17 PM
Given the fact that there are some idiots in Louisville who want to get rid of existing I-64 between I-65 and the Sherman Minton Bridge, I'd nominate that route.
Is that why they're building another bridge in that area? The proposed bridge looks like the only halfway decent re-route of I-64.
No. Building the east end bridge and closing the gap between I-265 in Indiana and I-265 in Kentucky has long been a goal and has long been on the books. I object to the building of the second downtown bridge as not necessary. The idea to remove the I-64 freeway is a pipe dream being floated by a handful of fools in Louisville and has never been given serious consideration, and it will never happen.
The closure of the Sherman Minton Bridge and the resulting traffic nightmares were a pretty good indicator of what will happen if the I-64 freeway is ever eliminated. Whenever I'm in Louisville, I see what a mess I-64 along the river is. Turning that into a surface route with traffic lights would be a disaster.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 24, 2013, 04:07:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 23, 2013, 04:42:25 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 23, 2013, 04:07:17 PM
Given the fact that there are some idiots in Louisville who want to keep existing I-64 between I-65 and the Sherman Minton Bridge, I'd nominate that route.
Fixed again.
You have never given a logical reason for wanting to tear down the interstate or how you would provide for the displaced traffic besides making it go out of its way on either 264 or 265.
265 is not out of the way. Thanks for playing.
Quote from: NE2 on July 24, 2013, 04:41:39 PM
265 is not out of the way. Thanks for playing.
Sure it is. Look at a map.
And if you're going to make it a through route, you'd have to redesign the cloverleaf at I-64 and I-265/KY 841; else you're funneling all eastbound traffic onto a one-lane loop ramp with a couple of nasty weaves involved. That exit is bad enough at rush hour as it is; put through traffic on it and it would be a cluster foxtrot.
And you're still not giving a logical reason for removing the freeway and screwing up Louisville traffic worse than it already is.
If you're talking about local traffic bound for downtown Louisville, that's getting off on surface roads anyway. I-64 through traffic is better off using I-265 whether or not 64 is 86ed downtown.
[edit]Oops - I read that as the 65/265 interchange. So add a flyover at I-265 and I-64. The money saved by not building elevated connections to the 86ed part of 64 could have been used.
Quote from: NE2 on July 24, 2013, 06:40:54 PM
I-64 through traffic is better off using I-265 whether or not 64 is 86ed downtown.
Only if both of the following conditions are met:
1) 265 is actually finished
2) there is congestion on the freeway downtown
Otherwise the route through downtown is shorter and thus faster.
What this does reflect, though, is the misguided attitude that the mainline of a long distance freeway should be aimed directly at the center of a city and that any "bypass" should be built as a beltway rather than designed to tie smoothly into the through route on either side. This combination of design decisions encourages long distance traffic to go straight through downtown because it's shorter. Look, as an alternative, how the Ohio and Pennsylvania Turnpikes handle cities: they directly bypass them in a straight line and force traffic bound for them to take a spur route. This allows traffic just passing through to bypass the city without having to take a longer route in order to do so and is because of this a wiser method of planning.
Unfortunately the majority of interstates were not built this way, so in most cases we for better or for worse are forced to accept that we must either handle through traffic passing through downtown, or make its trip longer and less convenient by forcing it onto a beltway route that is half a circumference rather than a diameter, which math teaches us will be π/2 (or about 1.57) times longer.
Quote from: COLORADOrk on July 24, 2013, 05:18:23 AM
I-890 in Schenectady NY. Little traffic. Exit 1 to Exit 7 seems pretty useless to me. The whole elevated section through downtown and all of its six lanes seem like a waste to me. That maze of ramps near GE could all be eliminated. I think that land could be better utilized for parks, river access and possible SCCC expansion.
It seemed to be pretty well traveled to me when I was on it a few years ago near rush hour. NYSDOT also built NY 890 (relatively) recently to extend it. The GE ramps wouldn't be built today though.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 24, 2013, 07:47:03 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 24, 2013, 06:40:54 PM
I-64 through traffic is better off using I-265 whether or not 64 is 86ed downtown.
Only if both of the following conditions are met:
1) 265 is actually finished
2) there is congestion on the freeway downtown
Otherwise the route through downtown is shorter and thus faster.
Shorter by about 5 miles (21 vs. 26). If I-64 is 55 mph and I-265 is 65 mph, that's essentially the same amount of time.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 24, 2013, 07:47:03 PM
What this does reflect, though, is the misguided attitude that the mainline of a long distance freeway should be aimed directly at the center of a city and that any "bypass" should be built as a beltway rather than designed to tie smoothly into the through route on either side. This combination of design decisions encourages long distance traffic to go straight through downtown because it's shorter. Look, as an alternative, how the Ohio and Pennsylvania Turnpikes handle cities: they directly bypass them in a straight line and force traffic bound for them to take a spur route. This allows traffic just passing through to bypass the city without having to take a longer route in order to do so and is because of this a wiser method of planning.
Unfortunately the majority of interstates were not built this way, so in most cases we for better or for worse are forced to accept that we must either handle through traffic passing through downtown, or make its trip longer and less convenient by forcing it onto a beltway route that is half a circumference rather than a diameter, which math teaches us will be π/2 (or about 1.57) times longer.
Well-said. But there would still likely be radial freeways for commuters. The Interstate program's timing and funding made it too tempting for states to make Interstate highways and commuter highways one and the same.
Quote from: NE2 on July 24, 2013, 08:08:43 PM
Shorter by about 5 miles (21 vs. 26).
That's it? Huh. Looking at it on a map it seems like the difference should be greater than that. 1.24 times the distance is a lot less than 1.57 times the distance, but then 265 on the north side isn't a neat semicircle, it's rather squashed.
Perhaps the fact that it involves a couple of conspicuously sudden turns while 64 is straight-ish makes it appear to add more distance than it actually does.
At any rate, I've never been to Louisville so I can't comment on the aesthetic effect 64 has on downtown. I tend to believe such effects are exaggerated, but I get the sense that I do not perceive such structures to be barriers nearly as much as most other people do. I am actually fond of the visual effect of being under an elevated structure (be it freeway, rail, aqueduct, or whatever).
Between I-65 and the Sherman Minton Bridge, I-64 runs along the river and not through the center of town. Only that section near the Galt House Hotel has any worthwhile land that could be reclaimed if the freeway was demolished. West of the 9th Street exit, the route runs through the slums of Louisville's west end.
Speed limit on 265/841 north of I-64 is, I believe, 55 mph, and it's also 55 mph in Indiana, IIRC.
I've been to Louisville's riverfront under I-64. It's quite nice.
The nicest thing about Louisville is seeing it in the rear view mirror.
QuoteThe nicest thing about Louisville is seeing it in the rear view mirror.
Not that HB is biased or anything...
QuoteAs much as I like the MN 62 crosstown as a traffic reliever, I doubt it would stand a chance for even being considered for a freeway upgrade in todays world.
Parts of it might have still been built...I could see from cedar over to 55 in a different world as part of an "airport ring road".
QuoteOne of the N-S freeways west of Minneapolis (I-494, U.S. 169, and MN 100) could be nixed from the plan, too. 169 and 100 each get a lot more traffic, so I would ditch 494 west of 169 (and I do realize 494 came first).
Of these, 494 would actually be the easiest to build today, as much of it follows a high voltage power line corridor. It should be noted that 100 predates virtually all Twin Cities suburban development...most of it was originally built in the 1930s.
QuoteI-35E wouldn't stand a chance in southern St. Paul (they had a heck of a time getting that built anyway).
Concur. 35E north of downtown St. Paul would probably be the same case, and especially 94 between the downtowns.
QuoteMN 36 wouldn't be a full freeway anywhere.
36 probably would be. It was a 4-lane road through Roseville back when Roseville was a cornfield township in the 1930s.
QuoteMN 77 north of I-494 and south of I-35E would go, too.
The hardest part of 77 would've been between 494 and 13, not north of 494 or south of 35E. Western Eagan and Apple Valley basically owe their current existance to 77 being built. Had 77 not been built, would've been a lot less development in that area...thus would've theoretically been easier to shoehorn a freeway in those SUBurban areas today.
Quote from: vdeane on July 24, 2013, 07:52:32 PM
Quote from: COLORADOrk on July 24, 2013, 05:18:23 AM
I-890 in Schenectady NY. Little traffic. Exit 1 to Exit 7 seems pretty useless to me. The whole elevated section through downtown and all of its six lanes seem like a waste to me. That maze of ramps near GE could all be eliminated. I think that land could be better utilized for parks, river access and possible SCCC expansion.
It seemed to be pretty well traveled to me when I was on it a few years ago near rush hour. NYSDOT also built NY 890 (relatively) recently to extend it. The GE ramps wouldn't be built today though.
True, considering that GE's presence in Schenectady isn't quite what it was when I-890 was built. There's also the really long frontage road going eastbound between Exit 2 and Erie Boulevard, plus a traffic circle that's a pain to navigate sometimes. East of the GE property, I-890 goes (in part) through a steep hollow between the Hamilton Hill and Mount Pleasant neighborhoods which I believe separated the neighborhoods even before interstates. I still think that a modern day I-890 would've been constructed, but probably as a spur from Erie Blvd. and the GE property east to its current end, sans viaduct and ramp system. IMO, I-890 east/southeast of downtown Schenectady is useful in getting people in, out and around town, since the other main corridors around town don't have the design capacity to do such things.
Quote from: Laura Bianca on July 24, 2013, 08:15:37 AM
I think Baltimore is a great example of pretty much every scenario discussed:
1. What happens when an interstate is built,
2. What happens when it isn't,
3. What happens when it is partially built.
In every case, the interstates alone weren't the main thing to make or break a neighborhood. Honestly, we give them too much credit. Public policy plays a huge role, too.
I think this is correct.
Quote from: Laura Bianca on July 24, 2013, 08:15:37 AM
I do not believe that the Jones Falls Expressway (I-83 south of I-695) would be built today. At the time, it was considered advantageous to built it over a river because few houses needed to be taken. (Also, it was heavily polluted at the time.) However, it cuts Baltimore off from its inner waterfront. There's some beautiful rapids and scenic parts that aren't accessible to the general public because of the JFX.
Had it been proposed today, the JFX would have to comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which (IMO) would have been difficult with the design of the freeway. I don't know its history well enough to know for certain, but if any of the Jones Falls stream valley was parkland before the construction of the JFX, then Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act would also have applied.
Quote from: Laura Bianca on July 24, 2013, 08:15:37 AM
In all of the areas where plans were cancelled, development happened anyway to the extent that it could have been. The Urban-Rural Demarcation Line (URDL) enacted in 1967 in Baltimore County, influenced growth beyond into the surrounding counties and York County, PA. I currently commute over an hour to work every day from northern Harford County, and I'm not the only one. I use a mix of driving and public transit. With more limited access highways here, I'm sure population would grow more, but compared to what was here even in the past 20 years, it's grown tremendously.
The Baltimore County URDL, like its counterpart in Montgomery County [Md.], the Agricultural Reserve, has contributed to so-called "leapfrog" growth and development in places
beyond the areas designated as largely off-limits to new home construction. It's especially apparent if you cross the border from Baltimore County to York County, Pa., which has become a
de-facto suburb of Baltimore and other points to the south.
Quote from: Laura Bianca on July 24, 2013, 08:15:37 AM
In places where interstates were partially built (the JFX and I-70), results varied due to public policy. Federal Hill and Fells Point grew due to programs that encouraged low home ownership cost in exchange for agreeing to renovate the property. Franklin-Mulberry had nothing of the sort. Even Rosemont, which was saved from I-70, declined due to drug usage overtaking the neighborhood. Interestingly, the most blighted areas of Baltimore also have the worst access overall - less public transit and less highways.
Yeah, the Corner (written by David Simon and Ed Burns) about the corner of West Lexington Street and Monroe Street in Baltimore discusses these issues to some extent (including the "orphaned" part of I-70 that was once signed as I-170).
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 20, 2013, 04:34:42 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on July 20, 2013, 12:25:51 PM
When I started this thread, I was thinking about places like Youngstown, Rochester and Niagara Falls and their existing freeways that are no longer needed due to population loss. Erie is now 30% larger than Youngstown, but compare their respective freeway systems
There's an interesting wikipedia article on US cities formerly over 100,000 population. Youngstown leads the list in both percentage and total number lost.
I read the article. Most of these are Rust Belt cities, but one of them stood out to me. What happened to Macon, Georgia?
Quote from: froggie on July 26, 2013, 05:33:09 AM
QuoteThe nicest thing about Louisville is seeing it in the rear view mirror.
Not that HB is biased or anything...
Actually, I like Jefferson County along and outside the I-264 ring. My family went to Louisville a lot when I was a kid. We shopped on Shelbyville Road and Preston Street/Highway. We went to the state fair every year. And my dad's artificial limb shop was in Louisville so we went there anytime he needed work on his leg.
I don't like being stuck in downtown Louisville for conferences because it's not auto-friendly. The parking garages fill up fast and most all the restaurants that are in walking distance of the main downtown conference hotels are too expensive, and it costs me to eat there. (My per diem allows $15 for dinner and it's hard to eat for less than that, and I usually try to make money when I travel by eating cheap.)
I hate Louisville traffic on the interstates. On surface streets, I'd much rather drive in Louisville than in Lexington.
I also don't like Louisville's politics. This is the city that sent John Yarmuth to Congress, after all.
The elitist attitudes exhibited by Louisville leaders and residents disgusts me. They act like Kentucky would be lucky to exist if not for them and their city.
The college basketball team there actually plays very little of a role in my dislike for the city and its culture.
Tearing down the I-64 freeway would make traffic even worse and give me cause to dislike the place even more.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2013, 08:40:03 AM
Quote from: Laura Bianca on July 24, 2013, 08:15:37 AM
I do not believe that the Jones Falls Expressway (I-83 south of I-695) would be built today. At the time, it was considered advantageous to built it over a river because few houses needed to be taken. (Also, it was heavily polluted at the time.) However, it cuts Baltimore off from its inner waterfront. There's some beautiful rapids and scenic parts that aren't accessible to the general public because of the JFX.
Had it been proposed today, the JFX would have to comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which (IMO) would have been difficult with the design of the freeway. I don't know its history well enough to know for certain, but if any of the Jones Falls stream valley was parkland before the construction of the JFX, then Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act would also have applied.
What happens when a highway is proposed and in response, an opposed muni subsequently designates parkland in its path as a way to block the highway from being built (a 'mis-use' of the '4(f)' law, IMHO)? Does that section still apply in those cases?
QuoteQuote from: Laura Bianca on July 24, 2013, 08:15:37 AM
In all of the areas where plans were cancelled, development happened anyway to the extent that it could have been. The Urban-Rural Demarcation Line (URDL) enacted in 1967 in Baltimore County, influenced growth beyond into the surrounding counties and York County, PA. I currently commute over an hour to work every day from northern Harford County, and I'm not the only one. I use a mix of driving and public transit. With more limited access highways here, I'm sure population would grow more, but compared to what was here even in the past 20 years, it's grown tremendously.
The Baltimore County URDL, like its counterpart in Montgomery County [Md.], the Agricultural Reserve, has contributed to so-called "leapfrog" growth and development in places beyond the areas designated as largely off-limits to new home construction. It's especially apparent if you cross the border from Baltimore County to York County, Pa., which has become a de-facto suburb of Baltimore and other points to the south.
IMHO, these 'greenbelts' are a farce that only serves to drive the inevitable development that much farther 'out'.
Quote from: froggie on July 26, 2013, 06:51:56 AMQuoteI-35E wouldn't stand a chance in southern St. Paul (they had a heck of a time getting that built anyway).
Concur. 35E north of downtown St. Paul would probably be the same case, and especially 94 between the downtowns.
The resulting traffic zoo on University would be having he locals demanding that *something* be done, IMHO.
Mike
As somebody said, virtually all of them. Between the greenie weenies. NIMBY Nazis, anti-white racists (I'm looking at you, Bruce Watkins Drive) and anti-car crowd, it would be nearly impossible to get urban freeways built.
Post Merge: July 28, 2013, 09:51:27 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 19, 2013, 09:53:51 PM
Most urban freeways. They've done too much to fuck up the cities.
They've also done a lot to improve the lives of commuters. If I-44 (Skelly Drive) had never been built, it would take me over an hour to get to work. It only takes about 20 minutes via Skelly.
Post Merge: July 28, 2013, 09:51:21 AM
Quote from: paleocon121171 on July 20, 2013, 10:51:07 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 20, 2013, 03:58:49 PM
All of them. If the EPA had existed in 1955, the interstate system would have never been built. If the EPA had existed in 1930, the massive land reclamation and hydro / irrigation projects that make life possible in places like southern California, would have never been built.
Draw your own conclusions as to what part of the country NOW favors NIMBYism and BANANAism the most.
Unfortunately, you're probably right. We wouldn't have developed as much as a civilized nation with the current regulatory policies of the EPA in place back in the early 1900's. Route 66 would have been fought at every turn (pun intended). On a different note, the EPA has more legislative influence than one might think, and every smoking ban in the last 20 years can be attributed to their controversial (and highly disputable) early-1990's study into the harmful, deadly effects of secondhand smoke. I could definitely see them finding a way to prevent one of the greatest achievements of the mid-20th century from being fulfilled.
Sometimes the EPA goes overboard, but I'm very glad that governments have passed smoking bans. I'm sensitive to tobacco smoke and it makes my clothes stink. Why can't smokers step outside to smoke?
Post Merge: July 28, 2013, 09:51:12 AM
To anybody who says "but you don't have a highway running through your neighborhood" I live less than 400 feet from a major Interstate highway. The noise isn't that bad, and I've grown used to it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 21, 2013, 04:06:08 AM
I don't know about that. Two lane highways like US-66's earliest form don't have very much environmental impact because the ROW is so narrow (and 1920s-era highway design often took the path of least resistance, curving around things that modern highways would plow under). Even these days you scarcely see opposition to a new two-lane road unless it goes through a sensitive area like a park or does something like provide logging access to a new part of a virgin forest.
You must not have heard of the whole Newport Road two lane upgrade/realignment controversy north of Iowa City, Iowa.
QuoteThe college basketball team there actually plays very little of a role in my dislike for the city and its culture.
I was referring more to your rural/urban bias than to a certain university...
QuoteThe resulting traffic zoo on University would be having he locals demanding that *something* be done, IMHO.
Not necessarily. First off, you'd have a lot less traffic between the two cities period of I-94 wasn't built. Second, MN 36 would suddenly open itself up as an alternative route. Third, I don't think it's a case that I-94 wouldn't have been built period...it just wouldn't have taken the route it follows now. More likely, it would've been routed further north next to the BNSF railyards.
QuoteThey've also done a lot to improve the lives of commuters.
...at the expense of those who remain living next to the freeway. Furthermore, given the level of congestion that most urban freeways have had even right after their construction (but especially within the past 20 years), one could make the argument that they no longer "improve the lives of commuters"...
QuoteIf I-44 (Skelly Drive) had never been built, it would take me over an hour to get to work. It only takes about 20 minutes via Skelly.
If I-44 had never been built, Tulsa likely would've developed somewhat differently, and it's very likely you wouldn't be living where you currently are.
QuoteTo anybody who says "but you don't have a highway running through your neighborhood" I live less than 400 feet from a major Interstate highway. The noise isn't that bad, and I've grown used to it.
It's not just the noise. A lot of it is the concentration of particulates...
Quote from: mgk920 on July 27, 2013, 10:27:59 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2013, 08:40:03 AM
Quote from: Laura Bianca on July 24, 2013, 08:15:37 AM
I do not believe that the Jones Falls Expressway (I-83 south of I-695) would be built today. At the time, it was considered advantageous to built it over a river because few houses needed to be taken. (Also, it was heavily polluted at the time.) However, it cuts Baltimore off from its inner waterfront. There's some beautiful rapids and scenic parts that aren't accessible to the general public because of the JFX.
Had it been proposed today, the JFX would have to comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which (IMO) would have been difficult with the design of the freeway. I don't know its history well enough to know for certain, but if any of the Jones Falls stream valley was parkland before the construction of the JFX, then Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act would also have applied.
What happens when a highway is proposed and in response, an opposed muni subsequently designates parkland in its path as a way to block the highway from being built (a 'mis-use' of the '4(f)' law, IMHO)? Does that section still apply in those cases?
I don't know the answer to that.
I do know that part of the proposed Washington Outer Beltway (later renamed the Rockville Facility) in Montgomery County, Maryland was converted to a little used park called Matthew Henson State Park to prevent its use for any transportation purpose. This was done under the leadership (if you want to call it that) of the late state Sen. Idamae Garrott (D-19), who never met a highway project she didn't want to see cancelled.
Quote from: mgk920 on July 27, 2013, 10:27:59 AM
QuoteQuote from: Laura Bianca on July 24, 2013, 08:15:37 AM
In all of the areas where plans were cancelled, development happened anyway to the extent that it could have been. The Urban-Rural Demarcation Line (URDL) enacted in 1967 in Baltimore County, influenced growth beyond into the surrounding counties and York County, PA. I currently commute over an hour to work every day from northern Harford County, and I'm not the only one. I use a mix of driving and public transit. With more limited access highways here, I'm sure population would grow more, but compared to what was here even in the past 20 years, it's grown tremendously.
The Baltimore County URDL, like its counterpart in Montgomery County [Md.], the Agricultural Reserve, has contributed to so-called "leapfrog" growth and development in places beyond the areas designated as largely off-limits to new home construction. It's especially apparent if you cross the border from Baltimore County to York County, Pa., which has become a de-facto suburb of Baltimore and other points to the south.
IMHO, these 'greenbelts' are a farce that only serves to drive the inevitable development that much farther 'out'.
"Leapfrog" development. Which is why most such boundaries (
especially in small states like Maryland)
do not work (and the much-acclaimed one in Portland, Oregon has caused much of the growth to move north across the Columbia River into Washington state, where the Portland UGB is irrelevant and ignored). Even in Los Angeles, much denounced by the Smart Growth industry, has a
de-facto urban growth boundary to its north in the Los Padres and Angeles National Forests. But in spite of that (and thanks in part to the construction of Ca. 14 (Antelope Valley Freeway), growth has leapfrogged the national forest land into the Mojave Desert.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 28, 2013, 03:13:30 AM
Even in Los Angeles, much denounced by the Smart Growth industry, has a de-facto urban growth boundary to its north in the Los Padres and Angeles National Forests.
Which is caused even without that land being national forest by the fact that it's very mountainous. Can't make urban out of mountains.
Quote from: froggie on July 28, 2013, 01:08:12 AM
QuoteThe college basketball team there actually plays very little of a role in my dislike for the city and its culture.
I was referring more to your rural/urban bias than to a certain university...
Yep. I don't like crowds and I don't like traffic jams. Two things that are inherent in bigger cities. I get frustrated on Friday afternoons in the little town of 2,500 where I work because traffic often backs up on KY 15.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 28, 2013, 10:31:49 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 28, 2013, 03:13:30 AM
Even in Los Angeles, much denounced by the Smart Growth industry, has a de-facto urban growth boundary to its north in the Los Padres and Angeles National Forests.
Which is caused even without that land being national forest by the fact that it's very mountainous. Can't make urban out of mountains.
Not so sure about that (in Maryland, such proposals would be
summarily dismissed by those that approve development, but not so in California).
I am not an architect (and I don't know how they do it or even how they get building approvals), but there are plenty of homes within the corporate limits of the City of Los Angeles, as well as other parts of Southern California that are built on so-called "steep slopes." Consider a lot of the development in the Hollywood Hills near the Hollywood sign. And there's plenty of steep slope development in Pasadena overlooking the Rose Bowl.