Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967
For a major north-south interstate? Not. Going. To. Happen. 
A route for thru traffic must exist, unless you want to create even worse environmental problems, let alone logistical ones. That much more stop-and-go traffic which will mean *much* more exhaust than we get from vehicles moving at freeway speed. Gridlocked automobiles create twice the NOx contaminants and six times the carbon contaminants per mile as those operating at freeway speed. 
Think about that. Taking out I-5 and having thru traffic stop-and-go would be the environmental equivalent of doubling the automobiles on the roads during rush hours for nitrogen oxide and sextupling them for carbon monoxide.
"Successful" freeway removals cited earlier were not demolitions of thru routes, they were removals of stubs/spurs and glorified offramps, like San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway, which was only an offramp for Broadway from the Bay Bridge.
I suppose it would have been interesting had Interstate 5 been routed around Sacramento and closer to the bay area...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkin...57622139053795
...but Sacramento didn't want to miss out on the Interstate, and no other city did either.
Nope, Sacramento will ultimately have to do what Boston did, cost and all. And decking I-5 from Capitol Ave to R Street is still chump change compared to tunnelling from north of Capitol to Richards Blvd. |
I'm not saying a western I-5 bypass around West Sacramento is going to happen. Unfortunately, there are a lot of shortsighted people around here so I don't have much hope. Rather that I think it's the best solution for our situation. CalTrans even studied and proposed it, and you know what a bunch of crazy dreamers they are.
As far a downtown tunnel. After the Boston Tunnel mess I think people are going to think twice. Also I believe being so close to the river it might pose some problems.
But that is beside the point. A tunnel doesn't really solve much at all and it will not add developable land to the core. It's one of those stupid costly ideas that came from the Fargo administration. You know the same one who didn't want high-rises built along the riverfront.
You presume to know want would happen if I-5 were to be re-routed and the current downtown section turned into a surface street. But you do not know.
The traffic and environmental nightmare you envision is what we have today!
You go on and on about the environmental impacts and traffic congestion this would cause so let's look at those.
A western bypass could be built with 'best practices' to make the freeway as environmentally friendly as possible- catch and remediation system for freeway runoff, viaduct/causeway sections that lift the roadbed above wetlands and farmland, fencing that keeps birds from flying into traffic, very limited access so that commercial development would be discouraged, if not by-law banned, etc.
BTW the traffic and environmental nightmare you envision is what we have today!
If a section of the downtown freeway were to be replaced by a wide surface boulevard then the traffic that is now funneled into a few ramps would be redistributed over the larger area as it's tied into the grid's arterials. Sophisticated traffic signaling would ease congestion during rush-hour. My question to you is do you prefer stop and go traffic on a freeway during rush hour over stop and go traffic on a surface street?
We are only talking about a few, but very important blocks. And besides people are always much better at adapting than the tear-their-hair-out, beat their chest doomsayers give them credit for.
But the real environmental advantage here would be all the land freed up for infill development and how it would increase downtown Sacramento's value 100%. That means more people living downtown. That means less people commuting. More people using public transit. Less pollution and congestion.
Your other points re. examples of freeway removable elsewhere where already make by me earlier.
Prev
Linear Mode
