Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which urban freeway in Pittsburgh has been demolished recently? Granted, I haven't been there for two years.
.
Perhaps I was mistaken about that one. I've never been there at all but could have sworn that was one of the places it happened. Now I can't find anything on the 'net about it.
My interest in urban planning stems from seeing the destruction the interstate haighways did to Indianapolis while I was a kid. I see the same now in Denver, disconnected neighborhoods and lowered values. There is talk in Denver of undergrounding a section of I-70 that is now a raised viaduct.
I would have rather they removed the highways and use the money to bulk up lanes in the ring highways and expand mass transit. There are a number of projects Boston badly needs. Highways into the city make sense but right through downtown make no sense at all.
Would the increased capacity on 495 just mean more use?
Would the increased capacity on 495 just mean more use?
I was thinking I-95, which accesses the urban edge. My assumption is that few need to take a highway going through Boston, mass transit can take care of most transportation needs going into the city core especially if improved.
I was thinking I-95, which accesses the urban edge. My assumption is that few need to take a highway going through Boston, mass transit can take care of most transportation needs going into the city core especially if improved.
Could very well have been the better option. I didn't realize 95 was the inner ring, I thought it went right through Boston. Forgot about 93.
The new transportation bill MAP-21 includes a "Transportation Alternatives" program, under which the following activity is eligible for federal funding: Planning, designing, or constructing boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of former Interstate System routes or other divided highways.
When I read this I kind of wondered what lobby got that in the bill. Regardless, now that its there, hopefully it benefits some communities like Louisville.
As far as Pittsburgh, I know they recently (2009) removed the I-279 designation of a road that still exists as I-376. They also had some some major construction around I-579 (Cross-town expressway) relating to the new hockey stadium, but I think it's still there as a highway, just more exits.
What do you think about Louisville's plan to expand its downtown freeways? What say you on the topic of freeways in urban areas?
Hi HandsUpThumbsDown--
I'm in full support of Louisville expanding highway access downtown, although I think they could do better than Spaghetti Junction. They should take a clue from Cincinnati when they fixed Fort Washington Way a few years back. Dig a trench, which could be capped at a later date, when the money exists, to support low-rise or mixed-use development.
Reducing or demolishing highways in a cynical attempt to force people back into the cities via making it impossible for suburban commuters to get to the city in a reasonable amount of time is probably one of the most counter-productive ideas anyone's ever invented. It may work in Boston, or New York, or some other large city where moving the jobs to suburbs may be impractical (or rendered impossible because local government refuses to allow suburban development).
But it won't work in Louisville or any other midsized cities, especially when smaller towns on the fringe have no problem with inviting job creators to their backyards. There's a reason why Oldham County has seen 30%+ growth since the past Census. It's why the counties all surrounding Cincinnati have seen tremendous growth while the city proper continues to fall behind. This story is repeated all across the Midwest. The cities are only an hour apart, but face similar issues with regards to highway construction.
Me, I'm betting on Louisville to succeed more than Cincinnati if highway construction goes full speed ahead.
Reducing or demolishing highways in a cynical attempt to force people back into the cities via making it impossible for suburban commuters to get to the city in a reasonable amount of time is probably one of the most counter-productive ideas anyone's ever invented. It may work in Boston, or New York, or some other large city where moving the jobs to suburbs may be impractical (or rendered impossible because local government refuses to allow suburban development).
I don't think highway demolition occurs very often, but running it underground is an option. I do have a problem with increasing the number of highways or the size of the highways running into a given downtown. If congestion gets bad enough, the city should consider in investing in alternative transportation options (e.g. express buses, BRT, light rail, etc.).
By disallowing the amount of asphault running into downtown, I don't think you'd be stopping or making it impossible for suburban commuters to get downtown; you'd simply force them to make choices. In the meantime, residents of the city don't have to deal with new arteries or larger arteries breaking up the urban fabric.
I'm in full support of Louisville expanding highway access downtown, although I think they could do better than Spaghetti Junction. They should take a clue from Cincinnati when they fixed Fort Washington Way a few years back. Dig a trench, which could be capped at a later date, when the money exists, to support low-rise or mixed-use development..
Hi Hensleya:
Why low rise, and why not start at once? By digging the trench, there will certainly be one side of town that is severed from another ... and the economic consequences of this may (will probably) limit the cap-and-develop potential. If money exists to sever a community and acquire land via eminent domain for such a project, would it be to much to ask to have some sort of a plan to prevent the known effects of building said highway?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1
Reducing or demolishing highways in a cynical attempt to force people back into the cities via making it impossible for suburban commuters to get to the city in a reasonable amount of time is probably one of the most counter-productive ideas anyone's ever invented. )..
From the perspective of somone who lives in a city, I see it differently. A massive elevated structure here in Baltimore acts as a barrier, contraining economic devlopment, creating noise, while suburban commuters (who contribute little if anything to its upkeep, as we are an independent city and not part of a county), reap the benefit. What's unique about it is that it's a dead-end highway; it does not continue beyond downtown. the proposed removal would be less than a mile of it, only the part whose existance does the most damage (the elevated section downtown). Since the speed limit on the final section is low, the boulevard that is proposed to replace it would not increase travel time more than a few minutes. Certainly not any attempt to force people back into cities, which is a rather ludicrous notion that nobody is attempting.
If it were part of a major corridor, and continued south, I can see a much weaker case for its demolition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1
It may work in Boston, or New York, or some other large city where moving the jobs to suburbs may be impractical (or rendered impossible because local government refuses to allow suburban development)..
I'm not sure what local government refuses to allow development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1
Me, I'm betting on Louisville to succeed more than Cincinnati if highway construction goes full speed ahead.
Maybe so. There's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all solution.
I've only been to Louisville once, but I liked it a lot. It wasn't bad to bike around, either.
Truth is, expanding highway capacity is usually a very short-term solution to congestion.
By disallowing the amount of asphault running into downtown, I don't think you'd be stopping or making it impossible for suburban commuters to get downtown; you'd simply force them to make choices. In the meantime, residents of the city don't have to deal with new arteries or larger arteries breaking up the urban fabric.
Hi AJNEOA--
Use Cincinnati's example, just an hour up the road. I-71 and I-75 both within Hamilton County are snarled with traffic at rush hour. City planners there are spending all their money on streetcars which do zilch to alleviate congestion.
Meanwhile, suburban commuters are making a choice - the jobs are following them to the suburbs. This is especially true if you take I-75 north between Cincinnati and Dayton - there are business parks everywhere throughout West Chester, Fairfield, Mason, etc.
You'll see a similar gig in Louisville before long - I-71 towards La Grange will see significant development if it's too difficult to get into the city: it'll just be more practical to relocate the jobs to the suburbs, too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
