Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanwatcher
Lets hope it is something like Ikea which can pull in more than local customers.I think there is some understanding that New Orleans can be the major cultural and economic city in the region.
|
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tennis1400
BTW the whole statement of their being no residents around the Claiborne Expressway is actually the whole point of why people want to tear it down. Two miles through the heart of the city and hardly any residents. The thing is an eyesore and should be dismantled. I fail to see what the whole study that I never heard of is trying to prove by this anyway. Ive never heard of a neighborhood actually wanting to have an overpass there. Ive heard neighborhoods wanting to put it somewhere else of course.
|
I don't want to start this back up, but here you go.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34724768/I...es-New-Orleans
A few problems I find with this study are:
1. The traffic data that they use is cherry picked to promote their argument
2. There should be a more detailed Level Of Service analysis, not just saying some streets handled higher volumes in the past, so they can again.
3. They've already stated that it isn't an engineering study, yet they tackle engineering issues and offer solutions.
4. Alternative 1 (page 35) states "The diagonal path of the freeway through this street network will create challenges
in terms of efficient intersection design and urban redevelopment along the edges of the corridor." <- functionality whether it be vehicular or pedestrian dies with this statement.
5. Alternative 2 (page 35) plans to dump I-10 traffic onto S. Miro and S. Galvez with Broad and Rampart serving as relievers. <- That opens up an entirely new book of challenges and costs.
6. The examples they use from other cities are nothing like this situation and they fail to provide any data or traffic counts from these examples.
On the other hand, the pictures are pretty and the vision is one that would look nice in the area. It just isn't feasible in the manner that they present it. Half of the drawings in those pictures wouldn't get past the MUTCD and the adjustments required would result in an area more disconnected than it is now. It is possible to tear down the expressway, but if you buy into the argument that it will be cheaper than rebuilding and will result in some magical urban paradise then you just bought into a lie. This a perfect example of why urban planners shouldn't try to be engineers and vice planner. Just because you can plan it and make it look good does not mean that it will work. Plus, most people in favor of this are only focusing on one area and not looking at the bigger picture at hand. Ok, enough of that as I'm sure nobody wants to read an engineer rant at 3 am.
BTW: Claiming that it needs to be torn down because there are no residences in that section is the exact opposite of what was being promoted. Even then the section will be surrounded by the CBD, cemetaries, and possible Iberville development to the river; the LCRC, LSU hospital, and greenway to the lake. Little room to do anything big unless it's built on one of those properties. Most major development would have to occur downriver from Orleans and thats even more of a challenge. It doesn't help that the people in the area are against it. The new sidewalks, fencing, and trees under the expressway also show that all it takes is a little effort.