HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2019, 2:39 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
Is It Time To Take Highways Out Of Cities?

Is It Time To Take Highways Out Of Cities?


Nov 21, 2019

By Adam Millsap

Read More: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammil...-out-of-cities

Study: http://www.eh.net/eha/wp-content/upl.../Kitschens.pdf

Quote:
.....

In a new study, economists Carl Kitchens, Taylor Jaworski, and Sergey Nigai estimate the value of different portions of the interstate highway system and find that many portions have large economic benefits. To calculate the value of highways they use a structural economic model to estimate the decline in income that would occur if portions of the interstate highway system were removed.

- They estimate that removing I-70, which runs east to west from Maryland to Utah, would lower total income in Colorado, Kansas, and Missouri by 5%. Removing I-95 from the eastern seaboard would cause a 15% drop in total income in Maine and a nearly 5% loss in Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. On a per mile basis, they value I-78, which connects New York’s port to New Jersey and Pennsylvania, at $294 million per year. These are big numbers that reinforce the notion that the highway system has played an important role in America’s economic growth.

- After World War II, many cities developed urban plans that included extensive highway systems as well as expansions of mass transit such as passenger rail and bus lines. However, the highways in city plans were more modest, two lanes each way with 45 to 50 miles-per-hour speed limits than the highways that bisect America’s cities today. These municipal plans, however, were never fully implemented. Many city officials chose to conserve local revenues and relinquish primary responsibility for large-scale investment to state highway departments, which prioritized faster inter-state travel and as a result built the larger system we see today.

- It’s important to note that many city officials were initially in favor of a highway system. They thought highways would reverse the urban decay and population loss that had already begun by bringing suburban residents downtown to shop and work, and that this positive effect would outweigh any negative effects such as more migration from the city. Unfortunately for Dayton and other cities, those supporters were wrong. Economist Nathaniel Baum-Snow estimates that on average the construction of one interstate highway through a central city caused an 18% drop in that city’s population between 1950 and 1990.

.....



__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2019, 3:02 PM
Double L's Avatar
Double L Double L is offline
Houston:Considered Good
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 4,846
There are people who like to drive cars. We may not like driving cars but there are people who do like driving cars. We don’t handle this by taking away access to roads that get you across long distances. Cities should have all options available. So you can drive across town if you want, take the train across town if you want, walk and bike in your own neighborhood if you want.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2019, 4:47 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,782
Yes, it is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2019, 4:49 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
No, it’s not

See: Singapore, which has the highways and high density coexisting peacefully
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2019, 4:52 PM
Sam Hill's Avatar
Sam Hill Sam Hill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Denver
Posts: 872
I hate to be a nerd but...

When I got to the second sentence of the second paragraph in the quote, I had to read it over and over again to try and figure out what the author was trying to say. The word "than" just comes out of nowhere and it's like you're suddenly transported to a different sentence. I wondered how on earth someone who writes for Forbes could write this poorly so I clicked on the link...

The em-dashes are missing from your quote. One got turned into a comma and the other is just gone. You should stick those dashes back in there. I know it's not easy to make en-dashes or em-dashes outside of word processing software, so maybe just put a space before and after a hyphen - like I do. (A double hyphen is another option I notice a lot of people use.)

Sorry.

--------

As for the topic at hand, I feel like the damage is already done in terms of ripping apart neighborhoods to make way for freeways. At this point, the transportation networks of most American cities are so dependent on those big freeways, that we're now stuck with them. Removing them would benefit the economies of certain neighborhoods but damage the economy of the greater region - and the latter would far outweigh the former.

Denver is currently putting a chunk of I-70 underground - a section that is currently all viaduct with a street that runs underneath it (it always reminds me of that Blues Brothers chase scene). It's hideous, imposing and divides the neighborhood in two. A section of the new highway will be capped with a park that IMO will help stitch the neighborhood back together. I suppose putting them (at least partially) underground could be considered a "solution," but man is it expensive.

This cheesy video does a good job of explaining CDOT's whole decision making process for why/how to do an expansion:

Video Link


Flyover animation of the finished product:

Video Link

Last edited by Sam Hill; Nov 28, 2019 at 6:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2019, 5:00 PM
Sam Hill's Avatar
Sam Hill Sam Hill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Denver
Posts: 872
nm

Last edited by Sam Hill; Nov 28, 2019 at 5:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2019, 6:15 PM
Double L's Avatar
Double L Double L is offline
Houston:Considered Good
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 4,846
As a point of bragging, Houston is burying large parts of its downtown loop with a park above it, while other parts of the downtown loop will be transformed from a highway to regular avenues.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2019, 6:38 PM
dubu's Avatar
dubu dubu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: bend oregon
Posts: 1,449
if a big area of portland wasnt on a grid and they didnt start putting light rail in almost 35 years ago freeways would have been put in and messed up the neighborhoods.

i guess we learned that wont really do much after the city keeps growing. the only way for a city to work good is have half the city drive and the other half ride trains and buses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2019, 8:06 PM
mousquet's Avatar
mousquet mousquet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Greater Paris, France
Posts: 4,556
This is highly controversial and related to one's personal ideals, views and ideology.
As for myself, it doesn't bother me to use Paris's mass transit system because I was born in there. It's simply natural when you've always been used to it.

However, people who live in real remote suburbs or in rural areas don't have any subway or RER trains at all in their neighborhoods and have been complaining about the fact that cities are turning less and less accessible to them, because they don't have anything but cars to commute.
That is a serious issue. That's why we need to find some balanced solution, so cities remain open to cars somehow. Besides, having some (not too many, though) cars in the streetscape is actually cool. Especially when it's good looking vehicles. I like pretty cars. They are cool products of industry. There's nothing wrong about them when you're free from any political bias.

Sure, the socialists would literally ban cars from cities, but it's a rude and downright tyrannical attitude. No one is entitled to enforce their own lifestyle upon other people. It's just stupidly rude.
So the most convenient would be good manners. People in dense areas should use their mass transit system. Others have nothing but cars.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2019, 8:36 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double L View Post
There are people who like to drive cars. We may not like driving cars but there are people who do like driving cars. We don’t handle this by taking away access to roads that get you across long distances. Cities should have all options available. So you can drive across town if you want, take the train across town if you want, walk and bike in your own neighborhood if you want.
Highways should take you from city to city, not from one side of town to the other. The problem isn’t the main Interstates with two-digit designations ending in 0 or 5, but with the ones that cut right through town.

Chicago’s I-94, for instance, should reduce and turn into a surface road somewhere between O’Hare and Irving Park. On the South Side it should do so at maybe Bronzeville. And no one should be driving from Wisconsin to Indiana on I-94... that’s what I-294 is for.

Houston isn’t a “traditional” city (I’ve tried to be civil), so I don’t think it’s what this thread is about.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2019, 9:25 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by mousquet View Post
Sure, the socialists would literally ban cars from cities, but it's a rude and downright tyrannical attitude. No one is entitled to enforce their own lifestyle upon other people. It's just stupidly rude.
So the most convenient would be good manners. People in dense areas should use their mass transit system. Others have nothing but cars.
Removing highways from cities is extremely pro-capitalism.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2019, 10:21 PM
llamaorama llamaorama is online now
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,204
I had an idea.

Instead of building tolled express lanes inside of freeways, do the opposite and make exits tolled. That way intercity traffic is not disrupted, but sprawl inducing local traffic is inhibited. Exits would be free at certain points in middle ring suburbs and again in rural areas,
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2019, 10:22 PM
Double L's Avatar
Double L Double L is offline
Houston:Considered Good
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Highways should take you from city to city, not from one side of town to the other. The problem isn’t the main Interstates with two-digit designations ending in 0 or 5, but with the ones that cut right through town.

Chicago’s I-94, for instance, should reduce and turn into a surface road somewhere between O’Hare and Irving Park. On the South Side it should do so at maybe Bronzeville. And no one should be driving from Wisconsin to Indiana on I-94... that’s what I-294 is for.

Houston isn’t a “traditional” city (I’ve tried to be civil), so I don’t think it’s what this thread is about.
Well I didn’t say anything about Houston.

Highways are roads without stoplights. That is why they were invented and that is why you need them to get across cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2019, 12:52 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double L View Post
Well I didn’t say anything about Houston.

Highways are roads without stoplights. That is why they were invented and that is why you need them to get across cities.
But you don’t really need them to get across urban cities.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2019, 1:02 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Interstates city to city-ok(obviously)
Interstates leading to a downtown from outside-ok in most circumstances
Extra interstates(loops around downtown etc.)-not needed
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2019, 1:26 AM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
But you don’t really need them to get across urban cities.
Yes you do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2019, 1:26 AM
Double L's Avatar
Double L Double L is offline
Houston:Considered Good
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
But you don’t really need them to get across urban cities.
And not everyone wants to live in an urban city and that’s ok.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2019, 1:37 AM
dubu's Avatar
dubu dubu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: bend oregon
Posts: 1,449
i think dont have the freeway circle the downtown. just have the freeway circle the metro area. then have one freeway go close to downtown or through it (if there is commuter rail and many train lines that would work)

Last edited by dubu; Nov 29, 2019 at 2:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2019, 2:19 AM
RCDC's Avatar
RCDC RCDC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: DC, an eruptive vent of wealth
Posts: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double L View Post
And not everyone wants to live in an urban city and that’s ok.
What about those who do?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2019, 2:36 AM
Sam Hill's Avatar
Sam Hill Sam Hill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Denver
Posts: 872
The problem for many metropolises - and even for many cities in the core of those metropolises - is that they were largely planned and built around freeways and the automobile. They're stuck with those freeways now because it's the heart and soul of their transportation systems and they don't have the density to support alternative transit options. Removing their freeways would cause parts of town that were once minutes away to become hours away and it would be economically stifling.

So I guess it depends on the city. Some could possibly do without; some could do with less; and I know it's blasphemous but some would actually be better off with more.

Politics also plays a role. It's more feasible to change zoning, increase density, and add or remove transportation options in some cities than others. There are vast, automobile-dependent parts of my town that will never change. If their local government(s) even tried, it would be "off with their heads!"
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:23 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.