How interstates gutted American cities article

[Sykotyk]

Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.

Yeah labor used to be free, too.  Damn progressives ruining everything...

+1

[Sykotyk]

There's a lot about new urbanism that pisses me off as an engineer.

Can you give a bit more details? I mean, I can see a few drawbacks - like job availability and mobility of labor, but would be interesting to have engineering perspective as well.

The things that annoy me about new urbanism is this idea that all problems that affected the city can be blamed on road design and having interstates in the downtown area of cities.  As we have said before, blaming this on roads and their design is short sited and not correct.  Their solution really annoys me, which usually "tear down the interstate and replace it with a boulevard"  Doing this is asinine.  Basically this would create a shitty congested mess with signals, more pollution, and make things more dangerous (pedestrian/cyclist conflicts with cars).  I don't think there's anything wrong with the design of our roads, but requirements should be changed.  I think every road in a city should be required to have a sidewalk or multi-use path on at least one side of the road (obviously not on divided highways and interstates).  New urbanists keep talking about mass transit being what we need, but the problem is it never is profitable and often under utilized for most cities in America.  Some of the things they call for I agree with, like: mixed use development, bringing back the street grid, 20 min communities, and beautification projects.  Road diets make sense in a lot of areas too. 

Some very poorly designed roads (and railroads, for that matter) have divided up cities and one side of the obstruction or the other became the 'bad' area that anyone with the means escaped from. There's a reason the "wrong side of the tracks" is a still valid analogy. Rivers used to do this on their own (East St. Louis to St. Louis, for example), but the man-made ones especially.

Throw in the fact that poorer neighborhood NIMBYism failed where the wealthy NIMBYism succeeded in stopping road projects they didn't want. It gave wealthier neighborhoods even more drawing power, while the poor neighborhoods sliced and diced with large Earthen dams separating the land or sunken highways with only a few bridges spaced out suddenly left certain areas 'stuck' especially with the poorer among us more dependent on foot traffic and mass transit to get around their neighborhoods and towns compared to the wealthier that only cared that a faster moving road could get you to and fro with ease, no matter how far out of downtown they lived.

As for interstates downtown... why does through traffic need to traverse a downtown urban center? Why does I-279 & I-376 need to squeeze right around Point Park in Pittsburgh? Or I-90, I-77, and OH-2 need to wrap around downtown Cleveland? None, really.  Bypasses aren't efficient, generally, unless the through route is so abhorrent that taking the extra miles is worth it.

If I-70 road 10 miles south of it's current route from Terre-Haute to Wheeling, WV.... would it be beneficial to through traffic? And beneficial to the cities to avoid the excess people with no intention of stopping? And then simply have a spur on either side heading to downtown to dump you into the street grid around the urban core? With a full circle bypass of the city to the north, east, and west and the through route to the south with various spurs coming in from the ring road toward downtown but ending?

Routing through traffic through the urban core of a city would be akin to running high power transmission lines down a city street. It would be idiotic. Same goes for traffic and people.

[silverback1065]

There's a lot about new urbanism that pisses me off as an engineer.

Can you give a bit more details? I mean, I can see a few drawbacks - like job availability and mobility of labor, but would be interesting to have engineering perspective as well.

The things that annoy me about new urbanism is this idea that all problems that affected the city can be blamed on road design and having interstates in the downtown area of cities.  As we have said before, blaming this on roads and their design is short sited and not correct.  Their solution really annoys me, which usually "tear down the interstate and replace it with a boulevard"  Doing this is asinine.  Basically this would create a shitty congested mess with signals, more pollution, and make things more dangerous (pedestrian/cyclist conflicts with cars).  I don't think there's anything wrong with the design of our roads, but requirements should be changed.  I think every road in a city should be required to have a sidewalk or multi-use path on at least one side of the road (obviously not on divided highways and interstates).  New urbanists keep talking about mass transit being what we need, but the problem is it never is profitable and often under utilized for most cities in America.  Some of the things they call for I agree with, like: mixed use development, bringing back the street grid, 20 min communities, and beautification projects.  Road diets make sense in a lot of areas too. 

Some very poorly designed roads (and railroads, for that matter) have divided up cities and one side of the obstruction or the other became the 'bad' area that anyone with the means escaped from. There's a reason the "wrong side of the tracks" is a still valid analogy. Rivers used to do this on their own (East St. Louis to St. Louis, for example), but the man-made ones especially.

Throw in the fact that poorer neighborhood NIMBYism failed where the wealthy NIMBYism succeeded in stopping road projects they didn't want. It gave wealthier neighborhoods even more drawing power, while the poor neighborhoods sliced and diced with large Earthen dams separating the land or sunken highways with only a few bridges spaced out suddenly left certain areas 'stuck' especially with the poorer among us more dependent on foot traffic and mass transit to get around their neighborhoods and towns compared to the wealthier that only cared that a faster moving road could get you to and fro with ease, no matter how far out of downtown they lived.

As for interstates downtown... why does through traffic need to traverse a downtown urban center? Why does I-279 & I-376 need to squeeze right around Point Park in Pittsburgh? Or I-90, I-77, and OH-2 need to wrap around downtown Cleveland? None, really.  Bypasses aren't efficient, generally, unless the through route is so abhorrent that taking the extra miles is worth it.

If I-70 road 10 miles south of it's current route from Terre-Haute to Wheeling, WV.... would it be beneficial to through traffic? And beneficial to the cities to avoid the excess people with no intention of stopping? And then simply have a spur on either side heading to downtown to dump you into the street grid around the urban core? With a full circle bypass of the city to the north, east, and west and the through route to the south with various spurs coming in from the ring road toward downtown but ending?

Routing through traffic through the urban core of a city would be akin to running high power transmission lines down a city street. It would be idiotic. Same goes for traffic and people.

I disagree, the highways going downtown aren't for through traffic it's for local traffic, look at cities with beltways, the beltway is the bypass for through traffic, the interstates going in are for fast efficient travel to downtown. Highways to downtown are necessary, but not all, look at i-375 in Detroit, or i-579 in Pittsburgh, i-10 in NO is useless, (route it onto 610) those are good examples of highways not being needed. And as I said before, why does KC need all of those highways around their downtown? What I'm saying in a nutshell is a lot of these highways to downtown are necessary, but you can argue, and I'd agree in a lot of cases that it's a bit overboard. Building them depressed is also better than elevated, 93 in Boston is a good example of an awful elevated freeway.

[silverback1065]

There's a lot about new urbanism that pisses me off as an engineer.

Can you give a bit more details? I mean, I can see a few drawbacks - like job availability and mobility of labor, but would be interesting to have engineering perspective as well.

The things that annoy me about new urbanism is this idea that all problems that affected the city can be blamed on road design and having interstates in the downtown area of cities.  As we have said before, blaming this on roads and their design is short sited and not correct.  Their solution really annoys me, which usually "tear down the interstate and replace it with a boulevard"  Doing this is asinine.  Basically this would create a shitty congested mess with signals, more pollution, and make things more dangerous (pedestrian/cyclist conflicts with cars).  I don't think there's anything wrong with the design of our roads, but requirements should be changed.  I think every road in a city should be required to have a sidewalk or multi-use path on at least one side of the road (obviously not on divided highways and interstates).  New urbanists keep talking about mass transit being what we need, but the problem is it never is profitable and often under utilized for most cities in America.  Some of the things they call for I agree with, like: mixed use development, bringing back the street grid, 20 min communities, and beautification projects.  Road diets make sense in a lot of areas too. 

Some very poorly designed roads (and railroads, for that matter) have divided up cities and one side of the obstruction or the other became the 'bad' area that anyone with the means escaped from. There's a reason the "wrong side of the tracks" is a still valid analogy. Rivers used to do this on their own (East St. Louis to St. Louis, for example), but the man-made ones especially.

Throw in the fact that poorer neighborhood NIMBYism failed where the wealthy NIMBYism succeeded in stopping road projects they didn't want. It gave wealthier neighborhoods even more drawing power, while the poor neighborhoods sliced and diced with large Earthen dams separating the land or sunken highways with only a few bridges spaced out suddenly left certain areas 'stuck' especially with the poorer among us more dependent on foot traffic and mass transit to get around their neighborhoods and towns compared to the wealthier that only cared that a faster moving road could get you to and fro with ease, no matter how far out of downtown they lived.

As for interstates downtown... why does through traffic need to traverse a downtown urban center? Why does I-279 & I-376 need to squeeze right around Point Park in Pittsburgh? Or I-90, I-77, and OH-2 need to wrap around downtown Cleveland? None, really.  Bypasses aren't efficient, generally, unless the through route is so abhorrent that taking the extra miles is worth it.

If I-70 road 10 miles south of it's current route from Terre-Haute to Wheeling, WV.... would it be beneficial to through traffic? And beneficial to the cities to avoid the excess people with no intention of stopping? And then simply have a spur on either side heading to downtown to dump you into the street grid around the urban core? With a full circle bypass of the city to the north, east, and west and the through route to the south with various spurs coming in from the ring road toward downtown but ending?

Routing through traffic through the urban core of a city would be akin to running high power transmission lines down a city street. It would be idiotic. Same goes for traffic and people.

I disagree, the highways going downtown aren't for through traffic it's for local traffic, look at cities with beltways, the beltway is the bypass for through traffic, the interstates going in are for fast efficient travel to downtown. Highways to downtown are necessary, but not all, look at i-375 in Detroit, or i-579 in Pittsburgh, i-10 in NO is useless, (route it onto 610) those are good examples of highways not being needed. And as I said before, why does KC need all of those highways around their downtown? What I'm saying in a nutshell is a lot of these highways to downtown are necessary, but you can argue, and I'd agree in a lot of cases that it's a bit overboard. Building them depressed is also better than elevated, 93 in Boston is a good example of an awful elevated freeway.

I do agree with your idea of separating communities is an issue. And this has been solved in interesting ways, park caps over interstates, depressing the highway, tunneling it, and providing better pedestrian access (ped bridges) all help.

[Sykotyk]

There's a lot about new urbanism that pisses me off as an engineer.

Can you give a bit more details? I mean, I can see a few drawbacks - like job availability and mobility of labor, but would be interesting to have engineering perspective as well.

The things that annoy me about new urbanism is this idea that all problems that affected the city can be blamed on road design and having interstates in the downtown area of cities.  As we have said before, blaming this on roads and their design is short sited and not correct.  Their solution really annoys me, which usually "tear down the interstate and replace it with a boulevard"  Doing this is asinine.  Basically this would create a shitty congested mess with signals, more pollution, and make things more dangerous (pedestrian/cyclist conflicts with cars).  I don't think there's anything wrong with the design of our roads, but requirements should be changed.  I think every road in a city should be required to have a sidewalk or multi-use path on at least one side of the road (obviously not on divided highways and interstates).  New urbanists keep talking about mass transit being what we need, but the problem is it never is profitable and often under utilized for most cities in America.  Some of the things they call for I agree with, like: mixed use development, bringing back the street grid, 20 min communities, and beautification projects.  Road diets make sense in a lot of areas too. 

Some very poorly designed roads (and railroads, for that matter) have divided up cities and one side of the obstruction or the other became the 'bad' area that anyone with the means escaped from. There's a reason the "wrong side of the tracks" is a still valid analogy. Rivers used to do this on their own (East St. Louis to St. Louis, for example), but the man-made ones especially.

Throw in the fact that poorer neighborhood NIMBYism failed where the wealthy NIMBYism succeeded in stopping road projects they didn't want. It gave wealthier neighborhoods even more drawing power, while the poor neighborhoods sliced and diced with large Earthen dams separating the land or sunken highways with only a few bridges spaced out suddenly left certain areas 'stuck' especially with the poorer among us more dependent on foot traffic and mass transit to get around their neighborhoods and towns compared to the wealthier that only cared that a faster moving road could get you to and fro with ease, no matter how far out of downtown they lived.

As for interstates downtown... why does through traffic need to traverse a downtown urban center? Why does I-279 & I-376 need to squeeze right around Point Park in Pittsburgh? Or I-90, I-77, and OH-2 need to wrap around downtown Cleveland? None, really.  Bypasses aren't efficient, generally, unless the through route is so abhorrent that taking the extra miles is worth it.

If I-70 road 10 miles south of it's current route from Terre-Haute to Wheeling, WV.... would it be beneficial to through traffic? And beneficial to the cities to avoid the excess people with no intention of stopping? And then simply have a spur on either side heading to downtown to dump you into the street grid around the urban core? With a full circle bypass of the city to the north, east, and west and the through route to the south with various spurs coming in from the ring road toward downtown but ending?

Routing through traffic through the urban core of a city would be akin to running high power transmission lines down a city street. It would be idiotic. Same goes for traffic and people.

I disagree, the highways going downtown aren't for through traffic it's for local traffic, look at cities with beltways, the beltway is the bypass for through traffic, the interstates going in are for fast efficient travel to downtown. Highways to downtown are necessary, but not all, look at i-375 in Detroit, or i-579 in Pittsburgh, i-10 in NO is useless, (route it onto 610) those are good examples of highways not being needed. And as I said before, why does KC need all of those highways around their downtown? What I'm saying in a nutshell is a lot of these highways to downtown are necessary, but you can argue, and I'd agree in a lot of cases that it's a bit overboard. Building them depressed is also better than elevated, 93 in Boston is a good example of an awful elevated freeway.

Where did I say highways going downtown was the problem? The problem was through traffic going through downtown. Spurs going into town and dumping you into the urban center would be utilized by those going to the urban center.

Those going 'through' the metro area would utility the through route. And don't tell me the labeled bypass is used by interstate travelers in the volume you think. Unfortunately, dumb people who are taking I-76 to I-70 from Philadelphia to Kansas City aren't going to get off the road they think will take them to Kansas City. I knew a guy who drove that route regularly. And for over two years that I knew him, never realized that he drove through downtown St. Louis every trip. Why? Because he was taking I-70 to Kansas City. So, why get off it? He assumed the bypass would be extra miles taking extra time (he never hit St. Louis during rush hour to worry about routing himself around it). It wasn't until I pointed it out to him (I was on the phone with him when he was going across the bridge by the Gateway Arch that I realized he was still on I-70). He was amazed how the through route was a different route than I-70, which he felt should have been by default the shortest route.

So, the amount of people who aren't map enthusiasts or regular drivers to assume they feel comfortable getting off the road they want to be on to go extra miles to 'avoid' something is foreign to them. Even with the advent of GPS, if they know their destination is on one route, they're going to stay on that route until they get there. Regardless.

That's why throughroutes should take the shortest and least congested route to segregate the through and local traffic onto different roads referenced by different designations.

[kalvado]

Some very poorly designed roads (and railroads, for that matter) have divided up cities and one side of the obstruction or the other became the 'bad' area that anyone with the means escaped from. There's a reason the "wrong side of the tracks" is a still valid analogy. Rivers used to do this on their own (East St. Louis to
St. Louis, for example), but the man-made ones especially.

If people are free to move around, a small advantage of one area (uphill/downhill, closer/further from river etc) would eventually develop into significant gap. Dividers may make this process more apparent, but it will exist no matter what.

As for interstates downtown... why does through traffic need to traverse a downtown urban center? Why does I-279 & I-376 need to squeeze right around Point Park in Pittsburgh? Or I-90, I-77, and OH-2 need to wrap around downtown Cleveland? None, really.  Bypasses aren't efficient, generally, unless the through route is so abhorrent that taking the extra miles is worth it.

Historically, settlements often grew up around roads and their intersections. So established traffic corridors would often head to city center, because city was built near the road. To make things worse, any bypass has significant chance of getting absorbed by the growing city. Or city would grow around that bypass, if you will. 
And pretty often you cannot select random line on a map and convert it into a road. Terrain - like hills around river valleys, not to mention imminent domain can of worms for any new construction - limit your options. That old corridor likely uses most convenient path and leads to the city - well, to the old city center which grew around that corridor

[Pete from Boston]

Same old well-plowed ground.  People moved from crowded dark elite-landlord owned city apartments and tiny houses to beautiful, safe, green homes in new suburbs, with modern highways allowing them to do so and still work in the core city.  If they wished.  How dare they.  For the ELITE know what is best for all, often while not taking their own advice.

Thank God for interstates, suburbs, the car culture, and choice.  In other words freedom.

I don't know about you, but I'm an American.  No limits ever applied to me.

[kkt]

Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.

What?

Are you talking about the Homestead Act?  I guess land is free if it was stolen from someone else...

Or before money was invented?

[Max Rockatansky]

Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.

What?

Are you talking about the Homestead Act?  I guess land is free if it was stolen from someone else...

Or before money was invented?

We had a whole rant about the Homestead act a couple posts later and the five year improvement stipulation.  Given there was a similar statement about 80s cartoons being the ruination of the animated world I think it's just one of those things people say when they have disdain for something but don't articulate why.

[Sykotyk]

Some very poorly designed roads (and railroads, for that matter) have divided up cities and one side of the obstruction or the other became the 'bad' area that anyone with the means escaped from. There's a reason the "wrong side of the tracks" is a still valid analogy. Rivers used to do this on their own (East St. Louis to
St. Louis, for example), but the man-made ones especially.

If people are free to move around, a small advantage of one area (uphill/downhill, closer/further from river etc) would eventually develop into significant gap. Dividers may make this process more apparent, but it will exist no matter what.

It's easy to think that 'moving' is free. Sure, we have the freedom to live where we want. But, it's not without cost. Which is the problem for poorer people wanting a better life. Cheap apartment complexes don't exist in nicer neighborhoods Renting? Better have good credit. Or, 'be white' as was a well known discriminatory practice.

Secondly, actually taking your worldly possessions and moving them from one town to another really needs a vehicle. If you don't already have one, that's another expense. Having rent overlap is another. Turning on utilities may require deposits if not the same company.

Poor people don't move because they want to, they move because they have to. Because the overriding cost is high compared to their income.

As for interstates downtown... why does through traffic need to traverse a downtown urban center? Why does I-279 & I-376 need to squeeze right around Point Park in Pittsburgh? Or I-90, I-77, and OH-2 need to wrap around downtown Cleveland? None, really.  Bypasses aren't efficient, generally, unless the through route is so abhorrent that taking the extra miles is worth it.

Historically, settlements often grew up around roads and their intersections. So established traffic corridors would often head to city center, because city was built near the road. To make things worse, any bypass has significant chance of getting absorbed by the growing city. Or city would grow around that bypass, if you will. 

Actually, roads went town to town. No matter how 'out of alignment' that route would be. State Routes and U.S. routes were an attempt to piece those hodge podge of town-to-town roads together into some type of a network. Jetmore KS didn't exist because US283 and KS 156 meet there. US283 and KS 156 meet there because Jetmore is there. (It being the county seat and the biggest governing area).

As for modern roads with bypasses around towns, that's the curse of sprawl. Without limited access, the business want to be where the people can see them. And if it's driving by town at 50mph, then that's where their tall, well-lit signs and manicured storefronts will be. The townsfolk can just drive out from the center of town.

And pretty often you cannot select random line on a map and convert it into a road. Terrain - like hills around river valleys, not to mention imminent domain can of worms for any new construction - limit your options. That old corridor likely uses most convenient path and leads to the city - well, to the old city center which grew around that corridor

In some respects, yes. But, usually at a time when everyone lived in the city already did the elevated railroads come in that split up areas. Highways, especially by the time the interstates were conceived, were placed into urban areas already experiencing sprawl.

[kalvado]

It's easy to think that 'moving' is free. Sure, we have the freedom to live where we want. But, it's not without cost. Which is the problem for poorer people wanting a better life. Cheap apartment complexes don't exist in nicer neighborhoods Renting? Better have good credit. Or, 'be white' as was a well known discriminatory practice.
Secondly, actually taking your worldly possessions and moving them from one town to another really needs a vehicle. If you don't already have one, that's another expense. Having rent overlap is another. Turning on utilities may require deposits if not the same company.

Poor people don't move because they want to, they move because they have to. Because the overriding cost is high compared to their income.

Result is the same - good neighborhood grows rich, poor grows the other way. What I am saying is that same process would happen without highways.

Actually, roads went town to town.

Probably chicken and egg. Yet, historic road goes to old town center in either case.

However, an interesting point: flatter areas have more choice. I wouldn't be surprised if Jetmore is there because there was a trading post or tavern over there. Could go 10 miles either way. Here in NY we're more limited with valleys, rivers and mountains. If you look at the topographic map, you can pretty much tell where bigger cities and major transportation corridors would land.

[Duke87]

In a perfect world, increased density within urban centers would allow for housing stock to rise and meet demand, keeping costs lower than they are now.

Housing in the suburbs aught to be more expensive (which it would be without the massive subsidies for services to sustain it), given that it's cost-prohibitive for a business or government to adequately cover them.

The trouble is figuring out how to limit horizontal growth without also limiting vertical growth. In theory you'd think it should be easy, in reality once there is a mindset of having strict land use regulations, they tend to get used for status quo preservation across the board. So you end up with zoning rules that prevent increased density in urban areas as well as outward growth, and everyone's prices go up.

Also, I wouldn't be so quick to deride suburbs although it is best to 1) keep them medium density rather than low density, 2) keep the street networks continuous, enough with the gratuitous cul-de-sacs already.

The reason why is that, if you can enter the market, owning your own home is a lot better for your long term finances than renting is. But, owning your own home means there needs to be single family homes to buy. It is certainly possible to own a condo or apartment, but this is more administratively difficult to manage. In practice, ownership rates are lower in higher density areas, so lower density areas are needed to give people a place to own.

[Ned Weasel]

The things that annoy me about new urbanism is this idea that all problems that affected the city can be blamed on road design and having interstates in the downtown area of cities.  As we have said before, blaming this on roads and their design is short sited and not correct.

First of all, New Urbanism doesn't blame all of the city's problem on roads.  It also considers separation of uses to be a large part of the problem.

Their solution really annoys me, which usually "tear down the interstate and replace it with a boulevard"  Doing this is asinine.  Basically this would create a shitty congested mess with signals, more pollution, and make things more dangerous (pedestrian/cyclist conflicts with cars).

One of the problems with urban freeways of questionable value is that they take up space that could be put to more productive use.  Often it's not just the space for the freeway mainline that's the problem; rather, the space required for interchanges is a large problem.  If a surface-level boulevard with at-grade intersections can serve the same traffic needs as an underutilized freeway, then it frees space that can be used for tax-generating development or parkland by eliminating the need to use land for interchange ramps. 

I don't think there's anything wrong with the design of our roads, but requirements should be changed.  I think every road in a city should be required to have a sidewalk or multi-use path on at least one side of the road (obviously not on divided highways and interstates).

Decent walkability requires much more than just putting sidewalks along roads.  Intersections still pose tremendous challenges.  For one, intersections with wide turning radii hurt walkability because they allow motorists to make turns at relatively high speeds rather than slowing down to speeds that are safer for when pedestrian and car traffic mix.  Lane widths are also a problem, as wider lanes allow motorists to feel more comfortable driving faster, which makes the road less safe for pedestrians to cross at unprotected crossings (crosswalks not controlled by a signal or a stop sign).

Now, I agree that full segregation of pedestrian and bicycle traffic from motor vehicle traffic would have an obvious safety benefit.  But the CIAM ideal is too expensive to realize in today's economic climate, it's unrealistic in today's political climate (for better or worse), and the question of whether it would truly function well to serve urban vitality has long been a matter of debate.

New urbanists keep talking about mass transit being what we need, but the problem is it never is profitable and often under utilized for most cities in America.  Some of the things they call for I agree with, like: mixed use development, bringing back the street grid, 20 min communities, and beautification projects.  Road diets make sense in a lot of areas too.  New urbanists hate the fact that America is car centric, I don't see this as a problem, what I advocate is to multiple choices for transportation in a city.  If you want to walk, bike, drive, take the bus/subway, you have the right to do so and every major city should offer these choices. 

New Urbanists also advocate for multiple transportation choices in a city.  Really.

As a personal note, I'm not 100% convinced that New Urbanism should be the last word on urban design.  But many of its ideas are logical, and it shouldn't be dismissed just because some people think free-flowing automobile traffic is always ideal.  Also, I wish there was a message board out there that catered to urbanism geeks as well as this board caters to roadgeeks.

[kalvado]

One of the problems with urban freeways of questionable value is that they take up space that could be put to more productive use.  Often it's not just the space for the freeway mainline that's the problem; rather, the space required for interchanges is a large problem.  If a surface-level boulevard with at-grade intersections can serve the same traffic needs as an underutilized freeway, then it frees space that can be used for tax-generating development or parkland by eliminating the need to use land for interchange ramps. 

And this is really a problem I have hard time seeing as a problem outside few restricted areas like Manhattan - and i am not sure that is a real problem even there.
Last time I checked, US is somewhere in top 5 countries for total land area. What is the reason to squeeze more tax generating property into old borders of the old city which were drawn hundreds years ago? Are there any situations, where business was planning for a new development, but had to go to a different country for land use regions? Taxes - any time. Subsidies - sure, with lengthy negotiations. Land parcel? Maybe for 10000th Starbucks.... 
I can see the reason for denser population centers to cut commute mileage, but once this is brought to "just for the sake of it!" point, I am completely lost.

[silverback1065]

The things that annoy me about new urbanism is this idea that all problems that affected the city can be blamed on road design and having interstates in the downtown area of cities.  As we have said before, blaming this on roads and their design is short sited and not correct.

First of all, New Urbanism doesn't blame all of the city's problem on roads.  It also considers separation of uses to be a large part of the problem.

Their solution really annoys me, which usually "tear down the interstate and replace it with a boulevard"  Doing this is asinine.  Basically this would create a shitty congested mess with signals, more pollution, and make things more dangerous (pedestrian/cyclist conflicts with cars).

One of the problems with urban freeways of questionable value is that they take up space that could be put to more productive use.  Often it's not just the space for the freeway mainline that's the problem; rather, the space required for interchanges is a large problem.  If a surface-level boulevard with at-grade intersections can serve the same traffic needs as an underutilized freeway, then it frees space that can be used for tax-generating development or parkland by eliminating the need to use land for interchange ramps. 

I don't think there's anything wrong with the design of our roads, but requirements should be changed.  I think every road in a city should be required to have a sidewalk or multi-use path on at least one side of the road (obviously not on divided highways and interstates).

Decent walkability requires much more than just putting sidewalks along roads.  Intersections still pose tremendous challenges.  For one, intersections with wide turning radii hurt walkability because they allow motorists to make turns at relatively high speeds rather than slowing down to speeds that are safer for when pedestrian and car traffic mix.  Lane widths are also a problem, as wider lanes allow motorists to feel more comfortable driving faster, which makes the road less safe for pedestrians to cross at unprotected crossings (crosswalks not controlled by a signal or a stop sign).

Now, I agree that full segregation of pedestrian and bicycle traffic from motor vehicle traffic would have an obvious safety benefit.  But the CIAM ideal is too expensive to realize in today's economic climate, it's unrealistic in today's political climate (for better or worse), and the question of whether it would truly function well to serve urban vitality has long been a matter of debate.

New urbanists keep talking about mass transit being what we need, but the problem is it never is profitable and often under utilized for most cities in America.  Some of the things they call for I agree with, like: mixed use development, bringing back the street grid, 20 min communities, and beautification projects.  Road diets make sense in a lot of areas too.  New urbanists hate the fact that America is car centric, I don't see this as a problem, what I advocate is to multiple choices for transportation in a city.  If you want to walk, bike, drive, take the bus/subway, you have the right to do so and every major city should offer these choices. 

New Urbanists also advocate for multiple transportation choices in a city.  Really.

As a personal note, I'm not 100% convinced that New Urbanism should be the last word on urban design.  But many of its ideas are logical, and it shouldn't be dismissed just because some people think free-flowing automobile traffic is always ideal.  Also, I wish there was a message board out there that catered to urbanism geeks as well as this board caters to roadgeeks.

I do agree with your points, but I will say this to clarify what I was trying to say: I was referring to calls for getting rid of highways through downtown that generate a ton of traffic, removing those is asinine, you're referring to very low volume interstates like i-375 in Detroit, replacing the low volume interstates with at grade boulevards would be a good idea.  Most of the complaining I hear regarding new urbanism is about roads, which is why I made that comment.  Another huge problem is that our zoning laws suck.

[silverback1065]

how can zoning laws be changed to better address the problem of sprawl?

[Bruce]

how can zoning laws be changed to better address the problem of sprawl?

Upzone the hell out of existing urban areas that have good access to non-car modes. Pretty simple in theory, but in practice an absolute pain to force through coalitions of NIMBYs and other groups.

In the suburbs, restricted development areas (e.g. urban growth boundaries) can help preserve productive farmlands and forestlands and not give in to sprawl.

[kalvado]

how can zoning laws be changed to better address the problem of sprawl?

Upzone the hell out of existing urban areas that have good access to non-car modes. Pretty simple in theory, but in practice an absolute pain to force through coalitions of NIMBYs and other groups.

Interesting what happens next.. And it is somewhat predictable. No money for new public transportation, buses and trains are overfilled.

[hbelkins]

how can zoning laws be changed to better address the problem of sprawl?

That assumes "sprawl" is a problem. I don't consider it to be such, and in fact I think the use of the word "sprawl" is one of those with a negative connotation that is used intentionally.

I don't think that development of vacant land is a problem.

But as how to change them, then it's simple. The appropriate legislative body passes the appropriate law/ordinance. I saw this done in Clark County, Ky., several years ago to require houses in rural areas to be on 10-acre lots throughout most of the county. This makes me glad I live in a mainly rural county where there is no countywide zoning.

[silverback1065]

I dont think sprawl is bad I actually hate the word, I just think denser development is best. But you are a person who likes spread out and rural areas, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that each type of area has it's pros and cons that people like

[empirestate]

how can zoning laws be changed to better address the problem of sprawl?

That assumes "sprawl" is a problem. I don't consider it to be such, and in fact I think the use of the word "sprawl" is one of those with a negative connotation that is used intentionally.

I think, by definition, "sprawl" is a problem; the term only connotes undesirability, like "scourge" or "nuisance". So the question isn't whether sprawl is a problem, it's whether something is, in fact, sprawl. In other words, you wouldn't look at a development and say, "That's sprawl, but it's not a problem." Rather, you'd look at it and say, "That isn't a problem, so it isn't sprawl." And of course, someone else might say, "Yes it is," but that's another issue.

[silverback1065]

how can zoning laws be changed to better address the problem of sprawl?

That assumes "sprawl" is a problem. I don't consider it to be such, and in fact I think the use of the word "sprawl" is one of those with a negative connotation that is used intentionally.

I think, by definition, "sprawl" is a problem; the term only connotes undesirability, like "scourge" or "nuisance". So the question isn't whether sprawl is a problem, it's whether something is, in fact, sprawl. In other words, you wouldn't look at a development and say, "That's sprawl, but it's not a problem." Rather, you'd look at it and say, "That isn't a problem, so it isn't sprawl." And of course, someone else might say, "Yes it is," but that's another issue.

If it's a problem you often hear the term "blight"

[kalvado]

how can zoning laws be changed to better address the problem of sprawl?

That assumes "sprawl" is a problem. I don't consider it to be such, and in fact I think the use of the word "sprawl" is one of those with a negative connotation that is used intentionally.

I think, by definition, "sprawl" is a problem; the term only connotes undesirability, like "scourge" or "nuisance". So the question isn't whether sprawl is a problem, it's whether something is, in fact, sprawl. In other words, you wouldn't look at a development and say, "That's sprawl, but it's not a problem." Rather, you'd look at it and say, "That isn't a problem, so it isn't sprawl." And of course, someone else might say, "Yes it is," but that's another issue.

So lets talk about city expansion, as opposed to urban congestion, overpopulation and crowding..

[Rick Powell]

Yesterday's sprawl is tomorrow's gentrified neighborhood.  Westchester, IL used to be a rural outpost west of Chicago that was served by the predecessor to the CTA until the early 1950's, when it was abandoned due to lack of patronage. If they'd held on for about 10 more years, infill would've completely surrounded the line.

[kkt]

Sometimes... however a lot of the 1950s-1970s sprawl is turning quickly into low-income neighborhoods.  Not dense enough to be served well by transit, gas prices heading up over the course of decades, too far from employment, houses built cheaply and not to last, every little errand requires driving.  The cities are the gentrifying neighborhoods.