I think the article misses the point a little. We do need urban freeways coming into and out of the city but we don't need them crossing or transiting the city. The reason for that is that most of what we city dwellers eat and buy has to be brought into the city for us . . . on freeways mostly (in some places, sometimes by rail). And when we want to leave the city, for recreation or whatever purposes, the idea of having to do so on mile after mile of unlimited access suburban surface streets to get to the country is off-putting.
On the other hand, freeways intended more to carry people "just passing through" should not--they should go around. Most freeways should end a few miles inside the city line (if not at it). City neighborhoods should not be cut off from one another by freeways, even if those are elevated (providing dark cavernous spaces underneath that too often become homeless encampments or good rain-free places for hookers to congregate).
__________________
Rusiya delenda est
|