Is It Time To Take Highways Out Of Cities?

[craigs]

Originally Posted by TWAK

Sacramento with I-5 through downtown and it's actually already sunken but needs capping.

Agreed. The 5 really cuts off Old Sacramento and the riverfront from downtown, and it wouldn't take much to stitch the two together. Even a couple contiguous blocks of freeway cap would change that dynamic for the better.

Oakland with 980, which will probibly be replaced at some point by an avenue or something.

980's ridiculously wide right of way is being considered for the eastern portal of an eventual second BART crossing. There would be some road component to any redesign, but it wouldn't be freeway. Probably along the lines of Octavia Blvd. in SF.

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

I thought that was rejected?

[TexasPlaya]

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 to meet up with the Skyway.

Why wouldn't they? The freeways were taking people into the cores, this is before much of America's cores were hollowed out.

[glowrock]

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 to meet up with the Skyway.

Jesus H Christ, 10023! You really think Chicago's arterial roads (most of which are simply 2 lane roads that many drivers consider 4 lane roads without lane markings!) could handle even 25% of the traffic count on the Dan Ryan/Kennedy as well as the Eisenhower? Are you insane?

If, and it's a huge IF, Chicago had a ring road much closer than 294 it might be feasible to reroute 90/94 and 290, but without said ring road it will never, ever happen.

As for gridlock, we DON'T all know that increasing roadways increases traffic count, we certainly don't all know that the corollary is also true, that reducing lanes, in fact, reduces overall traffic counts. Have you ever tried to drive on one of Chicago's major arterials (especially the east-west ones) during rush hour? I don't care if it's Irving Park, Belmont, Fullerton, North, Division, Chicago, Roosevelt or any of the numbered streets towards the south side, they're all traffic-choked during much of the day. As for north-south roads, literally only Ashland and Western are wide enough to handle any major traffic, and these are two streets where BRT should be implemented, quite frankly.

So anyhow, just my $.02 here.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[S Car Go]

Originally Posted by 10023

I’m not concerned with the logistics or the cost.

So you don't want to be realistic?

Okay, so following your lead, should we mine the moon for its precious cheese?

[10023]

Originally Posted by S Car Go

So you don't want to be realistic?

Okay, so following your lead, should we mine the moon for its precious cheese?

You miss the point.

These freeways wouldn’t be missed if they had never been built so close to downtown.

Glowrock, yes, that’s what I think. The “through traffic” would take the ring road (it is insane that traffic from the northern suburbs or Wisconsin to Indiana drives right into downtown and then out again), much of the traffic into the central area itself would use other transit modalities (namely trains) and the remainder would shift to arterials.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Jesus H Christ, 10023!

Are you insane?

Rhetorical question, correct?

[authentiCLE]

Originally Posted by glowrock

As for gridlock, we DON'T all know that increasing roadways increases traffic count, we certainly don't all know that the corollary is also true, that reducing lanes, in fact, reduces overall traffic counts.
...

You know now. He's right, and it's true of other transit options too. You increase capacity and ease of use, you'll get more usage. It's why increasing bus/train frequency increases overall ridership. People that wouldn't have ridden before, will now consider it.

Increasing lane miles doesn't alleviate traffic problems. You'd think decades of reality would make this obvious but here we are. People are willfully ignorant.

[S Car Go]

Originally Posted by 10023

You miss the point.

These freeways wouldn’t be missed if they had never been built so close to downtown.

Big if. Because they HAVE been built.

If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas, though.

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by Double L

And not everyone wants to live in an urban city and that’s ok.

Exactly. Now let's look at it from the point of view of a person who wants to live in an urban city...why should our urban centers be divided by Interstates and highways that make driving in from the suburbs more convenient?

[M II A II R II K]

There could have been more 2 lane elevated highways dispersed and spread out more throughout a city which could provide the same service but have less of a physical impact that a huge trunk route of wider highways would have. And provide more extensive inner city coverage too.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

There could have been more 2 lane elevated highways dispersed and spread out more throughout a city which could provide the same service but have less of a physical impact that a huge trunk route of wider highways would have. And provide more extensive inner city coverage too.

Austin appeared to have realized this when they built the double decker elevated stretch of I-35 near downtown, but for some reason they opted not to extend the portion all the way through town.

[azliam]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Austin appeared to have realized this when they built the double decker elevated stretch of I-35 near downtown, but for some reason they opted not to extend the portion all the way through town.

Why Was I-35 Designed As A Double-Decker Through Central Austin?

https://www.kut.org/post/why-was-i-3...central-austin

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by 10023

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.

Umm, London is the main city of commerce on an island (not even continental Europe) the size of Minnesota. Manhattan is an island surrounded by a peninsula, other islands, obviously water and even another state. Both developed long before freeways became the norm, even Manhattan. Atlanta is inland and with Chicago you may have a grievance, especially with how it developed but it's still not a fair comparison overall.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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.

Especially with DFW's tradition of placing all of it's amenities in every single (non-)descript suburb. Sports teams and corporate HQ's all over the map.

[SFBruin]

I mean, you can't completely remove highways from cities, but it is probably time that we made most of them toll roads and stopped building anything over 10 lanes.

[Sun Belt]

Some Sun Belt Common Sense for the Gang:

Q] Is It Time To Take Highways Out Of Cities?

A] No!* -- Some of the worst congested cities [Los Angeles] have a lack of freeway lanes per capita. True story, gang.

* Some cities can eliminate some sections of some freeways/highways -- which I'm in support of. However, a lot of this depends on the physical location of many cities. It might make sense in San Francisco, it certainly does not make sense in Las Vegas.

A] The Manhattan example provided by El Jefe, aka Señor 10023 is kind of - sort of silly because NY is an outlier of every single other g'dam city in the Solar System.
B] Freeway caps do work in central locations -- Hey Yo Boston and other cities -- I was a frequent visitor to BigDig.com -- however that was before most of the Gang were born.
C] Cities are becoming more congested, not less. Right Seattle? More congestion, not less, no matter how many cool carless apartments you build.
D] Public transit numbers continue to decline - because the bus sucks. People would rather pay more for ride share than wait for a bus - along a road - that they have to walk to - in the dark - in the elements [aside from SoCal, where the weather is the bombshack 90% of the time :-) ]
E] Ride Share, #s continue to climb, just wait for automation and public assistance municipal programs to spread - it will, it's coming.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I mean, you can't completely remove highways from cities, but it is probably time that we made most of them toll roads and stopped building anything over 10 lanes.

Make roads tollroads (especially over $1) and see a rebellion like never before from people in general.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by authentiCLE

You know now. He's right, and it's true of other transit options too. You increase capacity and ease of use, you'll get more usage. It's why increasing bus/train frequency increases overall ridership. People that wouldn't have ridden before, will now consider it.

Increasing lane miles doesn't alleviate traffic problems. You'd think decades of reality would make this obvious but here we are. People are willfully ignorant.

Wow, condescending much? You're forgetting that a hell of a lot of the traffic going along the Kennedy/Ryan and Eisenhower are through-traffic, in other words traffic that is independent of increased transit options and frequency.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Wow, condescending much? You're forgetting that a hell of a lot of the traffic going along the Kennedy/Ryan and Eisenhower are through-traffic, in other words traffic that is independent of increased transit options and frequency.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Take Note: there weren't any stats provided with his post.

Adding lanes does actually alleviate congestion. Decreasing lanes Increases congestion.

The use tax dollars to create road diets [decrease lanes], to then use later on as a reason to increase taxes [again] to alleviate traffic congestion that was created from the previous round of tax increases. What a great game to play! -- if you're on the right Know-It-All side!!!

[The North One]

It was time to remove highways from city cores 30+ years ago. Now it's just embarrassingly overdue.