8 Monster Interchanges That Blight American Cities

[bing101]

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/07/01/8-monster-interchanges-that-blight-american-cities/


What do you think of this though? I thought some of the criteria is questionable.

[triplemultiplex]

I'm sure this will initiate a worthwhile discussion.  Same as every article of this nature.

[Brandon]

I'd say the criteria are questionable, IMHO.  The Circle Interchange, for example, is barely a blight as it sits within a mere four square blocks and never has a ramp rise much above the level of the streets around it.  The Stevenson-Ryan interchange just to the south is a much bigger "blight" as it rises high above the level of the streets and takes up far more land.

[jeffandnicole]

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/07/01/8-monster-interchanges-that-blight-american-cities/

What do you think of this though? I thought some of the criteria is questionable.

Considering the criteria is along the lines of "Anything with cars on it", I'm surprised they only named 8.

Personally, any interchange with stubs would be blight to me.  Rarely if ever can you take an uncompleted stub and make it look somewhat presentable.

[Zeffy]

Is this really considered blight though? Last time I checked, massive highway ramps do not actually encourage crime in cities, unlike say, vacant buildings.

[formulanone]

But despite their massive scale and the huge sums we spend on them, highway interchanges in American cities can seem invisible. After all, no one ever goes to hang out by the interchange.

Underlined part right near the beginning negates the point of the article. Nice job selling it to the audience.

Then there's the usual "well, a few people hate it", but a million others' lives are made a bit easier...nobody explains that land owners made money off it, it directly created employment, helped reduce commute times, reduced accidents and injuries, lowered transportation delivery times, and the increased efficiency payout to commuters who could sleep in that extra 30-60 minutes, get some exercise, go use that time with their families, or do whatever they felt like.

But hey, just another way to show that looks are everything. Nothing is allowed to be elegant if it doesn't have a brand name in America.

[froggie]

Last time I checked, massive highway ramps do not actually encourage crime in cities, unlike say, vacant buildings.

To oversimplify (because the reality is pretty complex), yes massive highway ramps can encourage crime in cities, both directly and (moreso) indirectly.  The general trend is that such ramps (especially those above grade and not below) create dead/shadow zones (easier for petty crimes to take place).  And in residential areas, the highways and the noise and pollution they create lower property values, which in turn makes them less desirable to live in, which in turn tends to bring forth the less savory elements of society.

and the increased efficiency payout to commuters who could sleep in that extra 30-60 minutes, get some exercise, go use that time with their families, or do whatever they felt like.

I have always been of the belief that living closer to one's workplace is a much more efficient way to do this than spending multimillions (up to billions in some cases) of dollars on freeway and interchange upgrades.  Which is why we need to improve our suburbs and cities so that they are actual PLACES instead of bedrooms and traffic sewers.

As for your point about exercise, that's a good argument for bike commuting.

[Brandon]

I have always been of the belief that living closer to one's workplace is a much more efficient way to do this than spending multimillions (up to billions in some cases) of dollars on freeway and interchange upgrades.  Which is why we need to improve our suburbs and cities so that they are actual PLACES instead of bedrooms and traffic sewers.

It is far easier to change one's workplace location, and far more likely to happen than changing one's domicile, especially in this housing market.  Why should a person spend far more in taxes, food, water supply, etc, etc just to live close to a workplace?  It would be far better to remove these workplaces from places such as the Loop and get them out to where people actually live.

[froggie]

Last time I checked, there were still plenty (millions) living within 10 miles of the loop...

As for "spending far more in taxes, food, water supply, etc etc", you know that isn't always the case.  And with transportation being the 2nd largest household expense, one would save a fair bit on that large expense by living closer.

Or, given what you mentioned in your first sentence, if you can't move closer to where you work, find a job closer to where you live.  Accomplishes much the same thing from a transportation and traffic perspective.

[PHLBOS]

Froggie,

One thing to keep in mind that there are many instances where the real estate (mortgages/rent) closer to the major cities are exponentially higher than those in the suburbs; many that work in said-cities live further out because they simply can not afford to live near or in the city.

I know for a fact that many commute to NYC (via Amtrak, NJ Transit or by car) for work that live as away as the Trenton, NJ because of the real estate costs near/at NYC.

A friend of my brother's works in Boston but lives as far out as Oxford (near I-395) because the real estate costs inside of I-495 are still absolutely outrageous even after the housing bubble bursted several years ago.

I won't even bother to discuss that many of the city school systems aren't the most desirable ones (among public schools) to send one's kids to.

An attempt to steer the topic back on course

One needs to realize that highways through cities and their interchanges aren't just used by commuters heading to/from their jobs.  Trucking carrying cargo, supplies, goods and services along with busses (a common form of mass transit) utilize these highways as well. 

How does that ritzy downtown restaurant that a city resident frequents get all its food items, furniture, etc.?  Chances are it came from delivery trucks that use these highways as a means of delivering goods & services in a safe & timely manner.  In short, these highways & their interchanges serve as instruments of commerce.

And before one says, let's just bury the highways like what was done w/I-93 in Boston, one needs to keep in mind that there are consequences for such actions; besides the enormous associated cost as the Big Dig proved.  Such consequences typically involve restricting certain vehicles and/or cargo for using the underground highways.  If one needs to transport certain materials/chemicals to a facility that's actually located in the City of Boston, for example; they are not allowed to use the I-93 and I-90 tunnels.  Such vehicles have to use narrower surface streets as a means of getting to/from their city-located destination.

[Mergingtraffic]

Ugh where do I begin...

Ramming highways through the middle of American cities was undoubtedly one of the worst mistakes of the 20th century — demolishing urban habitat, dividing neighborhoods, and erecting structures that suck the life out of places.

But they also bring people TO & FROM cities.

What could be worse than a highway through the middle of town? How about when two highways intersect, with all their assorted high-speed ramps carving out huge chunks of land to move cars.

So would you rather have stoplights at every corner making side streets gridlock!?! That's why they were built in the first place b/c of traffic congestion in the 30s  and 40s.  Where is the traffic supposed to go now that it's here!? It won't just evaporate.

But despite their massive scale and the huge sums we spend on them, highway interchanges in American cities can seem invisible. After all, no one ever goes to hang out by the interchange.

Just like nobody goes to hang out at the mass transit station (bus station, train station unless they're using it.

So, to give you a good look, we put together this list of some of the most enormous interchanges in U.S. cities. Just imagine what cities could do with all this space…

Take up the same amount of space with a bus depot!?

These anti-highway people think the removal of roads is the answer to everything.  People forget why the interstates were built to begin with, some cities were already suffering from massive traffic before the expressways.  The way interstates were built weren't perfect but tearing them down won't magically bring back the "good 'ole days."

[agentsteel53]

I know for a fact that many commute to NYC (via Amtrak, NJ Transit or by car) for work that live as away as the Trenton, NJ because of the real estate costs near/at NYC.

I've heard a Scranton-NYC commute is becoming appallingly popular.
Post Merge: July 03, 2014, 12:05:31 AM


what is going on in this render?  what is the "checkerboard" paving at lower right intended to convey?

[TheStranger]

what is going on in this render?  what is the "checkerboard" paving at lower right intended to convey?

I think that is very simply...identification of where the road surface turns to concrete (instead of asphalt) due to using an overpass.

[Occidental Tourist]

There's this gem regarding the 110/105 interchange in LA: It includes nine miles of cloverleaf loops . . .

Huh?!

And this one about the 5/163 interchange in San Diego: But good luck getting to the Art and Space Museum on foot from downtown.

Actually, it's easy.  You just go up Park Blvd.

[hbelkins]

According to the idiots who wrote that, Spaghetti Junction in Louisville is south of downtown.

Downtown Jeffersonville, Ind., maybe.

People who fail basic geography are definitely not going to succeed at highway engineering.

[Duke87]

As for "spending far more in taxes, food, water supply, etc etc", you know that isn't always the case.  And with transportation being the 2nd largest household expense, one would save a fair bit on that large expense by living closer.

One thing to keep in mind that there are many instances where the real estate (mortgages/rent) closer to the major cities are exponentially higher than those in the suburbs; many that work in said-cities live further out because they simply can not afford to live near or in the city.

This is a valid truth: the only thing that is particularly more expensive about living in the suburbs is extra transportation costs for commuting if you work in the city. To counter this, real estate is likely to be cheaper, taxes might be lower, and lots of other things may be cheaper as well. Not to mention the generally lower crime, better schools, and better government services that suburbs have compared to cities.

That said, the reason why you see this in the US and not so much in other parts of the world is that transportation is cheap here. If you doubled the price of gas (as places like Europe did decades ago), the sprawl machine would stop and people would make it a much more serious goal to live close to where they work.



As for the original subject of "8 Monster Interchanges That Blight American Cities", like all of these sorts of listicles, there are no criteria. It's 8 randomly selected urban interchanges that the author felt like sharing. The discussion is not meant to be about specific cases, it is meant to make a broad brush statement that all urban freeway interchanges are blight to some degree and argue that all of them ought to be rethought.

Now, it is not inherently a bad conversation to have as to how one can make transportation infrastructure more friendly to the communities along it...  a rational, balanced conversation, mind you. Sadly these conversations tend to pit people who think it is their god-given right to drive everywhere without impediment against people who think cars are the work of Satan. Hence why these topics tend to be good for eating popcorn to.

[flowmotion]

As for the original subject of "8 Monster Interchanges That Blight American Cities", like all of these sorts of listicles, there are no criteria. It's 8 randomly selected urban interchanges that the author felt like sharing. The discussion is not meant to be about specific cases, it is meant to make a broad brush statement that all urban freeway interchanges are blight to some degree and argue that all of them ought to be rethought.

The unstated criteria for inclusion on the list appears to be some form of community opposition, either past or present.

I would say that Louisville is a very unfortunate situation, but planners probably could not have forseen than an industrial riverfront area could be turned into an amenity in the post-industrial economy. And San Diego Baldwin Park just makes me angry. Planners should have never been allowed to build a freeway through the park just because the land was easier to obtain.

[PHLBOS]

If you doubled the price of gas

Which indeed has already happened over the last decade.  It didn't seem all that long ago (late 2008-early 2009), that the average price at the pump was about $1.75-$1.80 a gallon.

the sprawl machine would stop and people would make it a much more serious goal to live close to where they work.

Not only would the sprawl machine stop, prices of everything else would increase as well (higher fuel costs=higher transport costs), unemployment would ultimately increase and we would be in a recession; kind of like where we actually are today despite what the press & Wall St. say.

[Pete from Boston]

I know for a fact that many commute to NYC (via Amtrak, NJ Transit or by car) for work that live as away as the Trenton, NJ because of the real estate costs near/at NYC.

I've heard a Scranton-NYC commute is becoming appallingly popular.

Ten years ago I visited Steamtown NHS and talked with one of the guides about how realistic reopening the Lackawanna Cutoff to Scranton was.  He told me commuter buses ran regularly to NY in the morning, full to capacity. 

[Alex4897]

That article (and from the impression I'm getting, the whole blog) seems to be a tool to push the anti-mobility propaganda down peoples throats.  The adjectives they use to describe the actions of the various transportation agencies show how biased they are.

[bugo]

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/07/01/8-monster-interchanges-that-blight-american-cities/

What do you think of this though? I thought some of the criteria is questionable.

Considering the criteria is along the lines of "Anything with cars on it", I'm surprised they only named 8.

Personally, any interchange with stubs would be blight to me.  Rarely if ever can you take an uncompleted stub and make it look somewhat presentable.

I think stubs make an an interchange MORE beautiful.  They make one wonder why the stub is there, why the ramp wasn't built, where it would have gone.

[keithvh]

And this one about the 5/163 interchange in San Diego: But good luck getting to the Art and Space Museum on foot from downtown.

Actually, it's easy.  You just go up Park Blvd.

Yeah, that one made NO sense.  My first visit to San Diego was last summer, I found it simple and easy (if long) to walk from Petco downtown to the zoo.

Actually, the interchange seemed to fit with the environment pretty well.

On another note, as a native Detroiter I don't find the 75/375 interchange that bad.  What is bad is 375 itself.  The road was never really needed, just needed a traffic-light controlled boulevard.

They are right on 90/5 in Seattle and 64/65/71 in Louisville.  Both disasters IMHO.  Portland Oregon, the 405/5/84 mess just north and east of downtown qualifies too.

[Tom958]

Now I want to know more about the Circle Interchange project.   

[hbelkins]

They are right on 90/5 in Seattle and 64/65/71 in Louisville.

Where could they have run I-64? If had been south of the current location, it really would have plowed through parts of town. I don't recall there being a whole lot along the route where it was built. The Louisville riverfront ain't that great. I see it at least once a year.

[ET21]

How is the Circle a "monster"?