Is It Time To Take Highways Out Of Cities?

[M II A II R II K]

I guess highways that venture into old urban cores ain’t so bad if they didn’t destroy existing old neighbourhoods, such as having them elevated or run through natural trenches like vallies, although they would increase traffic volumes on the local streets.

[Double L]

Originally Posted by RCDC

What about those who do?

They can choose to live in an urban environment. Plenty of cities with urban environments have highways.

[dubu]

a future city wont have a insane amount of subways and freeways because there will be flying cars. that will totally change cities. maybe in 20-40 years.

Originally Posted by Double L

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.

but i thought intra-urban highways were the best. why would you brag about burying them? they're such assets. why wouldn't everyone just want them all out in the open and right outside their front doors, spewing noise, trash, and pollution right into their windows? after all, that's where all the urban wealthy live--right next to the ol' highway. all those poor minorities WISH they could get their hands on that prime highway-adjacent real estate.

[S Car Go]

Originally Posted by 10023

But you don’t really need them to get across urban cities.

You don't even need a car or bike or horse at all!

Originally Posted by S Car Go

You don't even need a car or bike or horse at all!

and cars are just like both of those things! for example, tens of thousands of people are still killed by cyclists every year in the US, and children that grew up next to horse freeways (before cars were invented, of course) were far more likely to develop asthma and other respiratory conditions just like poor kids that grow up in neighborhoods obliterated by highways today!

[wwmiv]

Getting rid of highways is stupid. Selectively cutting and capping highways is the smart way to go.

[10023]

Originally Posted by JManc

Yes you do.

There is no limited access highway across Manhattan, or London (after the spurs of the M4, M40 etc become surface roads), etc.

There is no reason why Atlanta or Chicago should have a major interstate brushing past downtown skyscrapers except for planning mistakes.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by 10023

But you don’t really need them to get across urban cities.

If one drives a car, its a hell of a lot quicker than taking the regular neighborhood roads, thats for sure. In NJ, the Turnpike and Parkway are quick ways to traverse swathes of urban areas. Even with traffic, like take a bad day traffic wise, its still quicker than taking the local roads that all have traffic lights. In NYC for example, as much as a bitch about the BQE or Belt Parkway or Cross Bronx... still quicker than the side roads, believe me, I've tried. The lights, the no turn on right, the pain of making a left on a road without traffic light left-arrow turn only.

I can imagine for a city like Dallas or Houston, highways are the best way. Even in Los Angeles, with all the traffic, still quicker than the local roads "in general", maybe some exceptions, but "in general", it holds water.

Now naturally, if one walks, and is in a city that has a good subway or rail, of course, but 99% of American cities or Americans lifestyles don't meet this criteria, so highway it is!

[wwmiv]

A list of highways that should be sunk and/or capped like Boston’s Big Dig & Dallas’s allude Warren:

Austin: I-35 downtown between the double decker split and the river
Chicago: I-90/94 between Jane Byrne and Grand
St. Louis: I-44 downtown between Walnut and Cass
Kansas City: I-670 downtown between Wyandotte and Locust & I-35 downtown between Broadway & Grand

Others?

[10023]

Originally Posted by chris08876

If one drives a car, its a hell of a lot quicker than taking the regular neighborhood roads, thats for sure. In NJ, the Turnpike and Parkway are quick ways to traverse swathes of urban areas. Even with traffic, like take a bad day traffic wise, its still quicker than taking the local roads that all have traffic lights. In NYC for example, as much as a bitch about the BQE or Belt Parkway or Cross Bronx... still quicker than the side roads, believe me, I've tried. The lights, the no turn on right, the pain of making a left on a road without traffic light left-arrow turn only.

I can imagine for a city like Dallas or Houston, highways are the best way. Even in Los Angeles, with all the traffic, still quicker than the local roads "in general", maybe some exceptions, but "in general", it holds water.

Now naturally, if one walks, and is in a city that has a good subway or rail, of course, but 99% of American cities or Americans lifestyles don't meet this criteria, so highway it is!

New Jersey is not what I’m talking about.

I am talking about freeways that were built right into the CBD, like the Kennedy or Eisenhower in Chicago, as is the article in the OP.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

A list of highways that should be sunk and/or capped like Boston’s Big Dig & Dallas’s allude Warren:

Austin: I-35 downtown between the double decker split and the river
Chicago: I-90/94 between Jane Byrne and Grand
St. Louis: I-44 downtown between Walnut and Cass
Kansas City: I-670 downtown between Wyandotte and Locust & I-35 downtown between Broadway & Grand

Others?

Nashville: I-24/65 between 12th and Church which separates The Gulch and Midtown... of course, the notoriously cheap ass TDOT would probably never go for such a thing, instead selecting to fund pointless four lane highways through bumblefuck county.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by 10023

New Jersey is not what I’m talking about.

I am talking about freeways that were built right into the CBD, like the Kennedy or Eisenhower in Chicago, as is the article in the OP.

So do I dare ask HOW you'd cut 90/94 and 290, 10023? Especially when ILDOT is in the middle of a massive reconstruction of the Circle/Jane Byrne Interchange? Especially also given that 90/94 is a ridiculously important cross-country interstate with massive truck traffic as well? I can understand capping more of it (ie: more than the section currently more or less covered between Grand and Fulton), but still...

As for 290, it would be harder to cover up, especially with the L Train, but it could possibly work at least out to perhaps Racine.

Either way, you can't just make these interstates surface roads. You'd be looking at gridlock literally 24/7/365!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[dktshb]

SF is pretty much freeway free. I think they could remove the stretch of 280 that goes from the 101 to Caltrain.

[10023]

Originally Posted by glowrock

So do I dare ask HOW you'd cut 90/94 and 290, 10023? Especially when ILDOT is in the middle of a massive reconstruction of the Circle/Jane Byrne Interchange? Especially also given that 90/94 is a ridiculously important cross-country interstate with massive truck traffic as well? I can understand capping more of it (ie: more than the section currently more or less covered between Grand and Fulton), but still...

As for 290, it would be harder to cover up, especially with the L Train, but it could possibly work at least out to perhaps Racine.

Either way, you can't just make these interstates surface roads. You'd be looking at gridlock literally 24/7/365!

Aaron (Glowrock)

I’m not concerned with the logistics or the cost. I know it will never practically happen. I am making the point that these freeways should never have been built in the first place.

But I think you’re ultimately wrong about the gridlock. We know that increasing road capacity induces demand, and that reducing road capacity does the opposite. You would see traffic divert elsewhere, spread over Chicago’s many, many major arterial surface roads. It might even have the benefit of reviving some of the retail districts along said arterials if that Kennedy traffic was spread between Cicero, Western, Ashland etc.

And the traffic that isn’t going to or from downtown, and instead going from one end of the metro (or beyond) to the other, would be shifted to I-294 where it belongs. Though in a perfect world, Chicago would have a ring road closer in than the Tri-State but still nowhere near downtown. Like if the Edens just continued south roughly down Cicero Ave until it hit Midway, then turned eastward to meet up with the Skyway.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by 10023

I’m not concerned with the logistics or the cost. I know it will never practically happen. I am making the point that these freeways should never have been built in the first place.

But I think you’re ultimately wrong about the gridlock. We know that increasing road capacity induces demand, and that reducing road capacity does the opposite. You would see traffic divert elsewhere, spread over Chicago’s many, many major arterial surface roads. It might even have the benefit of reviving some of the retail districts along said arterials if that Kennedy traffic was spread between Cicero, Western, Ashland etc.

And the traffic that isn’t going to or from downtown, and instead going from one end of the metro (or beyond) to the other, would be shifted to I-294 where it belongs. Though in a perfect world, Chicago would have a ring road closer in than the Tri-State but still nowhere near downtown. Like if the Edens just continued south roughly down Cicero Ave until it hit Midway, then turned eastward.

100% agree

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

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

No this would be a complete nightmare in almost all American cities, they are not built dense enough to not have major highways for moving people and goods around the region.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by chris08876

If one drives a car, its a hell of a lot quicker than taking the regular neighborhood roads, thats for sure. In NJ, the Turnpike and Parkway are quick ways to traverse swathes of urban areas. Even with traffic, like take a bad day traffic wise, its still quicker than taking the local roads that all have traffic lights. In NYC for example, as much as a bitch about the BQE or Belt Parkway or Cross Bronx... still quicker than the side roads, believe me, I've tried. The lights, the no turn on right, the pain of making a left on a road without traffic light left-arrow turn only.

I can imagine for a city like Dallas or Houston, highways are the best way. Even in Los Angeles, with all the traffic, still quicker than the local roads "in general", maybe some exceptions, but "in general", it holds water.

Now naturally, if one walks, and is in a city that has a good subway or rail, of course, but 99% of American cities or Americans lifestyles don't meet this criteria, so highway it is!

Dallas, Houston, and L.A. are some of the worst urban planning examples on Earth. Not sure why you would use them to make a case for keeping highways in cities.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

A list of highways that should be sunk and/or capped like Boston’s Big Dig & Dallas’s allude Warren:

Austin: I-35 downtown between the double decker split and the river
Chicago: I-90/94 between Jane Byrne and Grand
St. Louis: I-44 downtown between Walnut and Cass
Kansas City: I-670 downtown between Wyandotte and Locust & I-35 downtown between Broadway & Grand

Others?

Sacramento with I-5 through downtown and it's actually already sunken but needs capping. Oakland with 980, which will probibly be replaced at some point by an avenue or something.

Originally Posted by dktshb

SF is pretty much freeway free. I think they could remove the stretch of 280 that goes from the 101 to Caltrain.

I think they are looking to have it terminate at Caesar Chavez.

[dubu]

after hundreds of years highways add up to be a lot of money. but also subways do too and the less of those the better. its all about elevated rail and buildings that are close together with no streets between them. like having four five story buildings in a block without parking.