[NSR]: Are freeways doomed?

teabow1 · Post by **teabow1** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:29 am

This Salon article, "Are Freeways Doomed" suggests that there is a rising wave of freeway removals from city centres.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/are_freeways_doomed/

It includes a link to a very interesting video documenting the effects of the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.

http://www.streetfilms.org/lessons-from-san-francisco/

Is America's over-infatuation with car culture going to decrease, finally? I hope so, but I'm not holding my breath for it.

neotrotsky · Post by **neotrotsky** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:55 am

The freeway system is not going anywhere. It's a part of the interstate network for the most part and thus part of the national defense system. Also, I doubt this claim that freeways are "past their prime" living in Phoenix. Go to LA, Chicago, Atlanta, New Jersey, etc... you'll see that they still are overtaxed to do what they do.

And, like in Phoenix, many freeways are designed as part of a city, thus can't just be "plucked" out. One may not like them, and many may think they serve no purpose simply because they don't drive on them. But, Freeways in every major city are critical for the transport of goods across the country. By surface street I can get from my house in Mesa to downtown Phoenix in about 40 minutes. During the 5 hours of so of rush hour per day/evening, this beats freeway traffic by a half hour on the P200e. But, on any other time, traveling on the freeway by car gets me from Mesa to Phoenix in 18 minutes.

When you're talking about transporting an 18-wheeler full of material across a city, this could mean the difference of a couple hundred bucks to tens of thousands of dollars in sales per day per truck depending on the goods for a company by cutting down cross town commute. Even if the average traffic on inner city freeways reduced by 75%, they would still be critical to the functioning of a city. Hell, if you reduce traffic by that much I would imagine that they could become MORE critical due to reduced congestion for commercial traffic

neotrotsky · Post by **neotrotsky** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:56 am

This inability to edit any post or comment on a post is REALLY getting old! I'm about ready to take up programming to fix it.

teabow1 · Post by **teabow1** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:00 am

Well, neotrotsky, there are lots of examples in that Salon article that shows the removal of freeways from city centres including San Francisco, New York City, and New Orleans among others.

The article is specifically talking about removal of freeways from city centres, not the removal of the entire interstate freeway system. Outside of cities, freeways are not so bad, but when they start "gerrymandering" urban areas and the nearby outskirts, that's a problem. Many urban neighbourhoods have seen socio-economic decline in large part due to freeways dividing the neighbourhoods.

charlie55 · Post by **charlie55** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:41 am

They cite the Sheridan Expressway? What a laugh.

First of all, the Bronx isn't exactly a "city center".

Secondly, pull up a map of the Bronx and take a look at that road. Runs for a grand total of about a mile or so. Hardly a freeway.

NYC proper has never had freeways through its heart. Both of the major arteries, the (once-elevated) West Side Highway, and the FDR drive skirt the edges of the city along the Hudson and East Rivers, respectively.

Yet another example of the literati knowing not whereof they speak.

teabow1 · Post by **teabow1** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:54 am

Wow folks. Quick to jump to conclusions too....

From the video link I posted, here's a transcript of another New York freeway that was taken down:

Sam Schwartz: [05:31] Sometimes the greatest opportunities occur during tragedies. It’s unfortunate, but we had a tragedy in New York in which a highway collapsed, fell to the ground, it wasn’t an earthquake, but in December 1973 the West Side Highway came tumbling to the ground. As a result of that, we learned that we could manage the traffic, that traffic either diverts, changes its time, or actually shrinks by going to other modes of transportation. When the Embarcadero collapsed as a result of an earthquake, there were people in San Francisco that used New York as an example. We had our earthquake due to neglect. But they used it as an example where New York City was not rebuilding its elevated structure. In fact New York took its elevated structure down entirely and built a boulevard at grade. And the Embarcadero found many of the same things happening, that there was actually a reduction in total traffic volume that was travelling the Embarcadero as people travelled around.

Sam Schwartz was New York City's Traffic Commissioner a while back.

teabow1 · Post by **teabow1** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:55 am

And Embarcadero certainly was a freeway that divided and also ran the outskirts of SF.

charlie55 · Post by **charlie55** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:05 am

That the West Side Highway was changed from an elevated structure to ground-level does not alter the fact that it exists - it was not eradicated, so it does not serve as a valid example of "removing a freeway from a city center".

I'm not arguing about what's happening in any other city - just New York. I lived and worked there for 38 years. Citing the Sheridan Expressway, in all of its 5 to 6 thousand foot majesty is one hell of a stretch.

It's true that Robert Moses had, at one time, planned an elevated highway through a portion of lower Manhattan, but that never saw the light of day.

Dooglas · Post by **Dooglas** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:58 am

What has happened already is a different question that what will happen in the future. There is no question that freeways routed throught the center of cities in the 60s and 70s resulted in ugly areas that were not at all people friendly. We have long since gone to the idea of "ring-roads" around metro areas at various distances rather than slices through the center. It is certainly only a matter of time before some of the intrusive freeways through the hearts of some cities are removed and replaced with alternate roadways, tunnels, or whatever. That is a different discussion than the future if the Interstate highway system, which is bound to be with us for a long time.

neotrotsky · Post by **neotrotsky** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:42 am

New York is NOT like other cities, so it's views on freeways don't apply. LA, Phoenix, Houston and other cities designed with freeways in mind definitely live and breathe off their freeways. The idea that they will be obsolete is short-sighted and not well researched. Try to get around Orange County at any decent speed without getting on the freeway, or see how long it takes to get from one side of Phoenix to the other without the use of freeways. Yes, it can be done, but logistically, the freeway network is made to fit in cities planned for it.

And, I've hardly seen a article from Salon that I didn't find multiple issue with, especially when it comes to subjects like engineering or development.

LunaP · Post by **LunaP** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:15 pm

neotrotsky wrote:New York is NOT like other cities, so it's views on freeways don't apply. LA, Phoenix, Houston and other cities designed with freeways in mind definitely live and breathe off their freeways. The idea that they will be obsolete is short-sighted and not well researched. Try to get around Orange County at any decent speed without getting on the freeway, or see how long it takes to get from one side of Phoenix to the other without the use of freeways. Yes, it can be done, but logistically, the freeway network is made to fit in cities planned for it.

And, I've hardly seen a article from Salon that I didn't find multiple issue with, especially when it comes to subjects like engineering or development.

YEAH I CAN QUOTE AGAIN!!1!!1

Ahem

My only 2 cents is to say that I agree... Richmond, compared to the few other cities I have been to, is small, ESPECIALLY for a state capital. If you want to cross the city, or get to any of the neighboring areas crammed up against the city proper, you still can't do it in any timely manner without using I64, I95, I295, Chippenham Parkway or Route 288.

If 3 years from now somebody were to decide to move I64/I95 (they are the same interstate going through the city proper, mind you) out of the city... well... we'd have a riot on our hands. And Id be considering joining them.

It would also be stupid because it'd cost the state millions of dollars to do something entirely counterproductive to traffic flow. Also, around here, they have spent a decent amount of money fixing up the interstates- they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

Silver Streak · Post by **Silver Streak** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:17 pm

Urban freeways are a blight, and I personally would not live in a city or metropolitan area where using freeways was necessary to easily get around.

I feel very fortunate to live in the metropolitan Baltimore/Washington area where it is just as easy (and more pleasant) to get just about anywhere on surface streets and roads. I scoot all over the area without ever feeling obliged to get on a freeway... not afraid to do so, just prefer the surface street experience.

Yeah... Washington, DC, ranks at or near the top in traffic congestion, but most of the congestion is on the Beltway, the freeway surrounding the city and its major feeders.

teabow1 · Post by **teabow1** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:48 pm

neotrotsky wrote:New York is NOT like other cities, so it's views on freeways don't apply. LA, Phoenix, Houston and other cities designed with freeways in mind definitely live and breathe off their freeways. The idea that they will be obsolete is short-sighted and not well researched. Try to get around Orange County at any decent speed without getting on the freeway, or see how long it takes to get from one side of Phoenix to the other without the use of freeways. Yes, it can be done, but logistically, the freeway network is made to fit in cities planned for it.

And, I've hardly seen a article from Salon that I didn't find multiple issue with, especially when it comes to subjects like engineering or development.

Just to state what should be corrected:

L.A. was not built for the freeway. Before the freeway dominated L.A., L.A. was full of streetcars (trolleys) that criss-crossed the entire area. G.M. came in to buy out these streetcar companies under the guise that they will continue to run them but they didn't. They made the streetcar companies obsolete and then brought in buses, cars, and lobbied for the movement towards freeway building. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mo ... conspiracy ) Many decades later, L.A. is slowly going back to the idea of better public transportation, building metros and surface railways. All the while, this didn't need to have happened had G.M. and the car industry not meddled. When I left L.A. (more accurately Ventura Country) around 1993, the L.A. Metro Rail just had only opened for a couple of years. I found it very ironic back then that car-dependent L.A. found that it was unfeasible to continue with being so auto-dependent. And yet, a few decades ago, L.A. had a great public transit system!

I don't know about the history of Phoenix or Houston to common, but I don't doubt that the auto industry had a hand in making these cities more dependent on cars.

Let's imagine something bigger than what our lived constraints are. In other words, just because L.A. now is very freeway dependent does not make it the default way to continue. After all, history shows us that L.A. was in fact NOT auto dependent and NOT freeway dependent up until around the mid-1930s to the 1950s.

Vancouver is a current day example of how a city can thrive without being freeway dependent. In the city of Vancouver, there are not freeways that run into the city. None. In the whole of Metro Vancouver (2.1 million people) there are very few freeways, especially when compared to metropolitans in the United States. I don't remember when but decades ago, Vancouver's city council put into legislation that no freeway can pass through the city.

Post by **ericalm** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:49 pm

neotrotsky wrote:New York is NOT like other cities, so it's views on freeways don't apply. LA, Phoenix, Houston and other cities designed with freeways in mind definitely live and breathe off their freeways. The idea that they will be obsolete is short-sighted and not well researched. Try to get around Orange County at any decent speed without getting on the freeway, or see how long it takes to get from one side of Phoenix to the other without the use of freeways. Yes, it can be done, but logistically, the freeway network is made to fit in cities planned for it.

And, I've hardly seen a article from Salon that I didn't find multiple issue with, especially when it comes to subjects like engineering or development.

This freeway system isn't doomed, but aside from the headline, that's not really what the article states. (Headlines are usually not written by the writer of an article. Sadly, online, it's all about getting hits.) The article's talking about urban areas reducing or eliminating freeways from the city centers. Many cities can do this; others cannot. Phoenix, Los Angeles, Orange County (not really an urban area) are all poor candidates for this. Cities with downtown or central areas with high population densities on the other hand may be in a better position to do this. For the most part, it sounds like they're talking about removing sections of freeways that intersect or divide neighborhoods.

We'll still need freeways and still have them.

As essential as freeways are to Los Angeles and the surrounding regions, I can easily cross the entire metropolitan area off-freeway, often in the same time it takes on the congested freeway. Carmageddon (closure of the 405 fwy) a few months ago helped a lot of people realize they're simply driving too much. My wife and I had a car (and scooter) free weekend, and have since had a few others.

New urbanist movements and modern planning in many cities have resulted in the rerouting of freeways to help revitalize areas. That's a good thing. Fewer urban freeways is also a good thing. Fewer cars on the road, more walkable areas, more public spaces, all good things.

Post by **ericalm** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:41 pm

LunaP wrote:My only 2 cents is to say that I agree... Richmond, compared to the few other cities I have been to, is small, ESPECIALLY for a state capital.

My wife and I were talking about this recently. State capitals are rarely the largest cities in a state or region. For some reason that's interesting to me, as most capitals have been the seats of the states for over 150 years. At some point, Sacramento (fourth largest metro area in CA, but quite a bit behind the top three) probably seemed like a wise choice. It was the western end of the Pony Express, the first Transcontinental Railroad ended there, it was a hoppin' hub of commerce amidst the state's rich agricultural areas.

The Wikipedia entry for US Capitals shows which are/aren't their state's largest city. Most aren't.

Tying that in to this discussion, looking at the state capitals of many states shows how cities, commerce and transportation has changed over that time.

teabow1 wrote:L.A. was not built for the freeway. Before the freeway dominated L.A., L.A. was full of streetcars (trolleys) that criss-crossed the entire area. G.M. came in to buy out these streetcar companies under the guise that they will continue to run them but they didn't. They made the streetcar companies obsolete and then brought in buses, cars, and lobbied for the movement towards freeway building. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mo ... conspiracy ) Many decades later, L.A. is slowly going back to the idea of better public transportation, building metros and surface railways. All the while, this didn't need to have happened had G.M. and the car industry not meddled. When I left L.A. (more accurately Ventura Country) around 1993, the L.A. Metro Rail just had only opened for a couple of years. I found it very ironic back then that car-dependent L.A. found that it was unfeasible to continue with being so auto-dependent. And yet, a few decades ago, L.A. had a great public transit system!

It's apparent living in LA that the city was not planned for the freeways that it now has. As many freeways as we have, some areas are over-served and others under. The freeway system wasn't built with urban planning in mind as much as around the existing geography.

Let's imagine something bigger than what our lived constraints are. In other words, just because L.A. now is very freeway dependent does not make it the default way to continue. After all, history shows us that L.A. was in fact NOT auto dependent and NOT freeway dependent up until around the mid-1930s to the 1950s.

easy · Post by **easy** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:45 am

most state capitals are kinda centered in the state if you see one thats not it will be centered to the most populated cities. I'm just glad I only use the south east interstates. Except for Utah there so bland and ugly and how does the mile markers and exit numbers wrk in Ca.

Howardr · Post by **Howardr** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:01 pm

I don't know about the big cities, although, like many, I despise driving on freeways. What I hate to see are the little towns that have died or are dying because the interstates by-pass them. It saddens me to drive through those little towns along I-10, like Willcox, Deming, Lordsburg, etc, etc. I see those amazing old motor hotels, closed and shuttered, all because "we" are in too much of a hurry to slow down.

My $.02

Howard

TVB · Post by **TVB** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:28 pm

ericalm wrote:State capitals are rarely the largest cities in a state or region. For some reason that's interesting to me, as most capitals have been the seats of the states for over 150 years.

In many cases, this was deliberate, to avoid giving the largest city the added status of also being the capital, and for a more neutral geographic position. It's the same reason the federal capital was moved out of New York and then from Philadelphia to the more Southern swamps of Maryland. Likewise, the capital of Michigan was originally Detroit, but they moved it to the one-horse township of Lansing in the palm of the mitten for geographic reasons; it's one of the larger cities in the state only because it's the capital, not the other way around.

Dooglas · Post by **Dooglas** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:32 pm

On the other hand, the first capital of Oregon was Oregon City

. Makes sense to me!

Southerner · Post by **Southerner** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:00 pm

Don't know much about freeways but I CAN tell you that having an interstate at least close to a small town has a great influence on its growth or lack thereof. You guys in the big cities are suffering from an embarassment of riches by comparison.

My town has a long-term ringroad plan but who knows when it will ever be completed. The best thing to happen to its languishing downtown area was when they reversed their policy against allowing residential use in the downtown business area. Rail of any kind as public transport would not be feasible here. Even the bus system we have struggles to remain afloat. It uses a lot of federal funding since the only users are mostly lower-income.

Keys · Post by **Keys** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:24 am

Same deal here...no such thing as mass-transit. You drive, ride or walk and that's it. To get to metro areas (Phoenix, Flagstaff, Prescott) requires the use of the interstate freeway system. Well, not really, I guess. To Phx by way of I-17 takes an hour...by way of 89A through Prescott, Wickenburg, etc., takes about 3 hours on a scooter. Add another half-hour for a back-road trip to Flagstaff or Prescott.

--Keys

theflash784 · Post by **theflash784** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:58 am

Like LA, Ca., the Motor City has suffered because the auto companies have prevented any decent mass transportion from forming. Detroit and the metro area are filled with freeways and while our rush hours are not as bad as those on the east coast or in LA, we do have share of backed up roads. I grew up and worked in Troy Mi which has I-75 running through it. We have three large curves in the freeway which causes many accidents when the weather is bad. The car companies would get people on the transportion boards so they could stall or ruin any plans for setting up a mass transit system. The People Mover in Detroit was suppose to run along Woodward Ave so us in the suburbs could ride down to Detroit and back. When it was finally built, it just went in a circle along down town Detroit. Our bus systems are a joke. The only way to get around is to drive a car on the freeways.

Southerner · Post by **Southerner** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:55 pm

MARTA don't sound so bad now.

KABarash · Post by **KABarash** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:09 pm

easy wrote:most state capitals are kinda centered in the state if you see one thats not it will be centered to the most populated cities. .

Neither is true here in Pa. If you look for the geographical center of the state you get Bellefonte, a small forgotten city near State College, where highways have been built up just to assist people get to football games.
Harrisburg, the state capital is an 'arm-pit' there is however a "Capital Beltway" that really consists of three highways that sort of ring the city with three 'tentacles' that draw traffic into this nightmare.
I will avoid this as much as I can as during the 'rush hour' times of day the traffic practically stands still at the merges as no one wants the other guy to go in front of them!! Don't blame it on the highways, although most of them were designed years ago without the thought to the traffic volume we have these days, but importantly they weren't designed for tha attitude of the drivers!!! In one instance I will regularly see a mile plus long back up simply caused by the drivers trying to avoid the backup itself!

When it comes to mass transit, we have virtually NOTHING around here. There's buses in Lancaster, and to and from the outlying areas but the routes mainly lead to the center city and then out to somewhere else. Not like one can grab the bus to the Mall, one has to go there then out again to the Mall....... In Harrisburg there's nothing end of story one has to drive.
Sure there's the train and both Harrisburg and Lancaster are on the main line that leads through DC, Philadelphia, New York &etc. But we're still tied to the highways!!
A co-worker's wife once asked me why didn't I take the train to work the office in just two blocks from the station. But however, on the other end, the distance I would have had to go to the train station was the same as I would to the office itself.

Southerner · Post by **Southerner** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:13 pm

The rule does, however, apply in Alabama. Mongomery is the capital and is far from the largest city. Birmingham has that honor, followed by Mobile on the Gulf and Huntsville, the Rocket City, in the north.

I guess everybody knows that Montgomery has buses.

easy · Post by **easy** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:55 pm

yeah pa and fl dont follow that. That is one pretty state in the fall. With all the hard wood there whole mtn's look like there on fire when the trees trn.

BootScootin'FireFighter · Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 am

this is a great thread, and I am very interested in the topic of urban planning and movement of the masses. Allow me to add my $.02

neotrotsky wrote:The freeway system is not going anywhere. It's a part of the interstate network for the most part and thus part of the national defense system.

You're absolutely right. It's not going away by any means and that is what it was initially planned for, a national defense system. Many cities and outlying areas, especially vast reaches of the nation benefit greatly from the mass movements that the interstates provide. However, as the article points out, reconfiguring some unsightly and less functional mega freeways are benefitting communities as a whole and eliminating the decay and blight that have plagued those areas. What you saw in NY on the West Side Hwy and in SF on the Embarcadero have not created the nightmare-ish traffic that people were afraid would happen. They were less used spurs off of the system that are now vibrant neighborhoods and parks. I think in the very near future we can add the (WA-99) Alaska Way Viaduct in downtown Seattle to the list of success stories. Obviously this will not be practical for the Santa Monica Freeway, Cross Bronx Expressway, I-10 in Phoenix, I-15 in Las Vegas, or I-75/85 in Atlanta.

charlie55 wrote:Secondly, pull up a map of the Bronx and take a look at that road. Runs for a grand total of about a mile or so. Hardly a freeway.

As with the other demolished freeways, the Sheridan is a small stretch, with the only purpose of shortening the trip for drivers connecting from the Cross Bronx and the Bruckner. There are alternates, such as Bronx River Parkway or Major Deegan.

charlie55 wrote:It's true that Robert Moses had, at one time, planned an elevated highway through a portion of lower Manhattan, but that never saw the light of day.

Robert Moses was a racist prick. He intentionally designed the state parkways on Long Island with the intention of getting affluent NYers out to Long Island beaches in personal vehicles. He didn't want the poor minorities from the inner city to have easy access to the beaches by way of buses, why the overpasses are less then 9' clearance. (I was born and raised on Eastern LI).

Dooglas wrote:We have long since gone to the idea of "ring-roads" around metro areas at various distances rather than slices through the center.

Hard to imagine, but the original freeway plan for the Washington metropolitan area had I-95 slicing straight through predominately black neighborhoods in Northeast, then connecting to what is currently I-295/395 downtown and continuing on to Virginia. After much heated opposition that plan floundered and I-95 now follows the Capital Beltway clockwise around the city in Maryland.

Silver Streak wrote:Yeah... Washington, DC, ranks at or near the top in traffic congestion, but most of the congestion is on the Beltway, the freeway surrounding the city and its major feeders.

Unfortunately, most of the traffic woes in this area are due to the type of jobs that it mostly entails. The majority of the employment here is "white collar", 9-5 Monday - Friday. Everyone seems to be getting on and off of the feeder freeways (66, 395, 295, 270, and US 50) at the same time to get home to the outer suburbs. The people who complain the most about the traffic inside the Beltway are the ones driving to and from Prince William, Fairfax, and Montgomery Counties. The National Capital Region doesn't have a large manufacturing or distribution base of employment, which would have people on the commute at oddball hours. Our transit system is very vast, accessible, and well planned. Unfortunately, just as the highways are at capacity during peak times, so is the Metro system. I believe I once read that over 1/3 of commuters in the entire metro area utilize transit, the highest in the nation after New York.

I think these are small steps in the right direction. European and Asian cities aren't designed with mega freeways cutting apart downtown areas. We definitely are driving too much, with vehicles that are way too big.

Just my $.02 cents.

neotrotsky · Post by **neotrotsky** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:56 am

BootScootin'FireFighter wrote:this is a great thread, and I am very interested in the topic of urban planning and movement of the masses. Allow me to add my $.02

neotrotsky wrote:The freeway system is not going anywhere. It's a part of the interstate network for the most part and thus part of the national defense system.
You're absolutely right. It's not going away by any means and that is what it was initially planned for, a national defense system. Many cities and outlying areas, especially vast reaches of the nation benefit greatly from the mass movements that the interstates provide. However, as the article points out, reconfiguring some unsightly and less functional mega freeways are benefitting communities as a whole and eliminating the decay and blight that have plagued those areas. What you saw in NY on the West Side Hwy and in SF on the Embarcadero have not created the nightmare-ish traffic that people were afraid would happen. They were less used spurs off of the system that are now vibrant neighborhoods and parks. I think in the very near future we can add the (WA-99) Alaska Way Viaduct in downtown Seattle to the list of success stories. Obviously this will not be practical for the Santa Monica Freeway, Cross Bronx Expressway, I-10 in Phoenix, I-15 in Las Vegas, or I-75/85 in Atlanta.

charlie55 wrote:Secondly, pull up a map of the Bronx and take a look at that road. Runs for a grand total of about a mile or so. Hardly a freeway.
As with the other demolished freeways, the Sheridan is a small stretch, with the only purpose of shortening the trip for drivers connecting from the Cross Bronx and the Bruckner. There are alternates, such as Bronx River Parkway or Major Deegan.

charlie55 wrote:It's true that Robert Moses had, at one time, planned an elevated highway through a portion of lower Manhattan, but that never saw the light of day.
Robert Moses was a racist prick. He intentionally designed the state parkways on Long Island with the intention of getting affluent NYers out to Long Island beaches in personal vehicles. He didn't want the poor minorities from the inner city to have easy access to the beaches by way of buses, why the overpasses are less then 9' clearance. (I was born and raised on Eastern LI).

Dooglas wrote:We have long since gone to the idea of "ring-roads" around metro areas at various distances rather than slices through the center.

Hard to imagine, but the original freeway plan for the Washington metropolitan area had I-95 slicing straight through predominately black neighborhoods in Northeast, then connecting to what is currently I-295/395 downtown and continuing on to Virginia. After much heated opposition that plan floundered and I-95 now follows the Capital Beltway clockwise around the city in Maryland.

Silver Streak wrote:Yeah... Washington, DC, ranks at or near the top in traffic congestion, but most of the congestion is on the Beltway, the freeway surrounding the city and its major feeders.
Unfortunately, most of the traffic woes in this area are due to the type of jobs that it mostly entails. The majority of the employment here is "white collar", 9-5 Monday - Friday. Everyone seems to be getting on and off of the feeder freeways (66, 395, 295, 270, and US 50) at the same time to get home to the outer suburbs. The people who complain the most about the traffic inside the Beltway are the ones driving to and from Prince William, Fairfax, and Montgomery Counties. The National Capital Region doesn't have a large manufacturing or distribution base of employment, which would have people on the commute at oddball hours. Our transit system is very vast, accessible, and well planned. Unfortunately, just as the highways are at capacity during peak times, so is the Metro system. I believe I once read that over 1/3 of commuters in the entire metro area utilize transit, the highest in the nation after New York.

I think these are small steps in the right direction. European and Asian cities aren't designed with mega freeways cutting apart downtown areas. We definitely are driving too much, with vehicles that are way too big.

Just my $.02 cents.

What he said!!! Well put, in every way (speaking as someone who still longs for Brooklyn...)

Southerner · Post by **Southerner** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:42 pm

I agree with it as well, although, to be fair, I think the European and Asian cities are for the most part much older than ours, even ancient, and their traffic routes were solidified a long time ago.

charlie55 · Post by **charlie55** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:36 pm

neotrotsky wrote:
BootScootin'FireFighter wrote:this is a great thread, and I am very interested in the topic of urban planning and movement of the masses. Allow me to add my $.02

neotrotsky wrote:The freeway system is not going anywhere. It's a part of the interstate network for the most part and thus part of the national defense system.
You're absolutely right. It's not going away by any means and that is what it was initially planned for, a national defense system. Many cities and outlying areas, especially vast reaches of the nation benefit greatly from the mass movements that the interstates provide. However, as the article points out, reconfiguring some unsightly and less functional mega freeways are benefitting communities as a whole and eliminating the decay and blight that have plagued those areas. What you saw in NY on the West Side Hwy and in SF on the Embarcadero have not created the nightmare-ish traffic that people were afraid would happen. They were less used spurs off of the system that are now vibrant neighborhoods and parks. I think in the very near future we can add the (WA-99) Alaska Way Viaduct in downtown Seattle to the list of success stories. Obviously this will not be practical for the Santa Monica Freeway, Cross Bronx Expressway, I-10 in Phoenix, I-15 in Las Vegas, or I-75/85 in Atlanta.

charlie55 wrote:Secondly, pull up a map of the Bronx and take a look at that road. Runs for a grand total of about a mile or so. Hardly a freeway.
As with the other demolished freeways, the Sheridan is a small stretch, with the only purpose of shortening the trip for drivers connecting from the Cross Bronx and the Bruckner. There are alternates, such as Bronx River Parkway or Major Deegan.

charlie55 wrote:It's true that Robert Moses had, at one time, planned an elevated highway through a portion of lower Manhattan, but that never saw the light of day.
Robert Moses was a racist prick. He intentionally designed the state parkways on Long Island with the intention of getting affluent NYers out to Long Island beaches in personal vehicles. He didn't want the poor minorities from the inner city to have easy access to the beaches by way of buses, why the overpasses are less then 9' clearance. (I was born and raised on Eastern LI).

Dooglas wrote:We have long since gone to the idea of "ring-roads" around metro areas at various distances rather than slices through the center.

Hard to imagine, but the original freeway plan for the Washington metropolitan area had I-95 slicing straight through predominately black neighborhoods in Northeast, then connecting to what is currently I-295/395 downtown and continuing on to Virginia. After much heated opposition that plan floundered and I-95 now follows the Capital Beltway clockwise around the city in Maryland.

Silver Streak wrote:Yeah... Washington, DC, ranks at or near the top in traffic congestion, but most of the congestion is on the Beltway, the freeway surrounding the city and its major feeders.
Unfortunately, most of the traffic woes in this area are due to the type of jobs that it mostly entails. The majority of the employment here is "white collar", 9-5 Monday - Friday. Everyone seems to be getting on and off of the feeder freeways (66, 395, 295, 270, and US 50) at the same time to get home to the outer suburbs. The people who complain the most about the traffic inside the Beltway are the ones driving to and from Prince William, Fairfax, and Montgomery Counties. The National Capital Region doesn't have a large manufacturing or distribution base of employment, which would have people on the commute at oddball hours. Our transit system is very vast, accessible, and well planned. Unfortunately, just as the highways are at capacity during peak times, so is the Metro system. I believe I once read that over 1/3 of commuters in the entire metro area utilize transit, the highest in the nation after New York.

I think these are small steps in the right direction. European and Asian cities aren't designed with mega freeways cutting apart downtown areas. We definitely are driving too much, with vehicles that are way too big.

Just my $.02 cents.
What he said!!! Well put, in every way (speaking as someone who still longs for Brooklyn...)

A few points:

- I still say that calling the Sheridan a freeway is a gross over-reach. But I guess we can just write that off as a matter of semantics.

- I hope that you didn't think that I was defending Bob Moses. Just stating a fact. His name is mud in my wife's family as they were all displaced (at eminent domain bargain-basement prices) by the Brooklyn approach to the Verrazano bridge. As an aside, BSFF, I could never get over the number of mamalukes who'd spend 6 hours sitting on the Southern State Parkway just to spend an hour on the beach.

- I, too, find myself longing to return to Brooklyn and "the city". I find it amazing that I could negotiate my way through Manhattan, with all of it's congestion, in a matter of minutes, while driving a couple of miles here in the green hell of suburbia seems to take an eternity. Nature gives me the creeps - I guess that concrete, asphalt, glass, and steel comprise my natural habitat.

Modern Buddy

[NSR]: Are freeways doomed?

[NSR]: Are freeways doomed?

Are freeways dead?