Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy
My main reason I prefer expressways without access roads is they tend to be more scenic. Highways with access roads don't look as nice, more to the point they look cluttered. There are ways, such as leaving some space between neighborhoods and the expressway where trees and other landscaping areas can be placed to separate the two. I can't think of any specific examples, however I have seen areas like that. Of course if the neighborhood is already existing or there is limited space, that is where you get the sound walls which detract from the scenery. Having said that, Mopac still looks nicer because the trees from the neighborhoods line the sides for the most part.
|
I just got back from Missouri. Their urban freeways are built more like Mopac, with extra wide right of ways that are mostly wooded - true parkways. Definitely more scenic, and I think they perform better traffic wise. The downside is that neighborhoods either side are even more separated than here. The less frequent entrances, exits and bridges across the freeways make the surrounding areas less bike and pedestrian friendly, more disconnected and as a result more auto dependent.
The alternative to the two is a sort of hybrid that TxDOT briefly floated about 25 years ago that they referred to as 'backage' roads. Instead of highway service roads lining the freeway, urban arterials within a 1/4 mile or so of the freeways would parallel the freeways and connect to entrances, exits and bridges across the freeway. These 'backage' roads would be lined with commercial uses and could be made much more pedestrian and bike friendly with wide tree lined sidewalks and protected bikeways. Continuous trails could also be built along the freeway right of ways within the wooded parkway sections. I wish that idea was not attacked and denigrated is typical Texas conservative reactionary style.
Threaded Mode