Urban highways destroy wealth
urbankchoze.blogspot.com
Urban highways destroy wealth
1–10 of 94 posts
Re: Urban highways destroy wealth
#2Original in French here: http://kchozeurbaine.blogspot.ca/2014/02/les-autoroutes-urba...
Re: Urban highways destroy wealth
#3TL;DR version:
- Urban highways cost more money than urban transit
- They divide cities logistically.
- Introduce pollution
- Are very unsightly to neighborhoods
- Steal traffic from roads in commercial zones and undermine regional commercial activity.
- Put emphasis on car-first neighborhoods and businesses (which give little ROI).
- Encourage urban sprawl and community inefficiency.
My take: These points are understood and expected from urban highways, but then again urban highways were meant to solve a different problem. The points are simply what the solution costs.
Re: Urban highways destroy wealth
#4TL;DR version: - Urban highways cost more money than urban transit - They divide cities logistically. - Introduce pollution - Are very unsightly to neighborhoods - Steal traffic from roads in commercial zones and undermine regional commercial activity. - Put emphasis on car-first neighborhoods and businesses (which give little ROI). - Encourage urban sprawl and community inefficiency. My take: These points are unders…
What problem were they meant to solve?
(That's a serious question. I'm interesting in hearing how other people view the purpose of an urban highway.)
Re: Urban highways destroy wealth
#5Having some trouble swallowing this paragraph:
"
The richest metropolitan areas in the US are San José, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Washington, Houston, New York, Portland, Hartford and Salt Lake City. Areas with relatively few urban highways are overrepresented in that list, with Houston being the one big exception.
"
When I need to get anywhere in New York, most of the time I am better off grabbing the west side highway or the FDR rather than going through the grid and hitting traffic lights and gridlock constantly. So that's two highways, one on either side of a 2.3 mile wide (at most) island and then 95 crosses it at the top.
San Francisco similarly has elevated 280 and 80, and 101 mostly on the ground with some lights slowing it. At least SF is much bigger than Manahattan for similar amount of highways to help his point.
I get the feeling he just isn't from the US and doesn't know anything about our cities, though, so that paragraph is just way off.
Re: Urban highways destroy wealth
#6TL;DR version: - Urban highways cost more money than urban transit - They divide cities logistically. - Introduce pollution - Are very unsightly to neighborhoods - Steal traffic from roads in commercial zones and undermine regional commercial activity. - Put emphasis on car-first neighborhoods and businesses (which give little ROI). - Encourage urban sprawl and community inefficiency. My take: These points are unders…
What problem were they meant to solve? (That's a serious question. I'm interesting in hearing how other people view the purpose of an urban highway.)
The problem of getting from one side of town to the other very quickly, without clogging up the "walkable neighborhoods" in the middle, with their narrow streets and wide sidewalks. The people going through get on the highway, out of the way of the people actually living in the town.
Re: Urban highways destroy wealth
#7TL;DR version: - Urban highways cost more money than urban transit - They divide cities logistically. - Introduce pollution - Are very unsightly to neighborhoods - Steal traffic from roads in commercial zones and undermine regional commercial activity. - Put emphasis on car-first neighborhoods and businesses (which give little ROI). - Encourage urban sprawl and community inefficiency. My take: These points are unders…
What problem were they meant to solve? (That's a serious question. I'm interesting in hearing how other people view the purpose of an urban highway.)
I'm not an expert but I'd imagine the biggest advantages are:
Faster travel within the city itself.
Easier to move in and out of the city.
Reducing rush hour traffic on local streets.
Re: Urban highways destroy wealth
#8Having some trouble swallowing this paragraph: " The richest metropolitan areas in the US are San José, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Washington, Houston, New York, Portland, Hartford and Salt Lake City. Areas with relatively few urban highways are overrepresented in that list, with Houston being the one big exception. " When I need to get anywhere in New York, most of the time I am better off grabbing the west sid…
When I think of major US cities that are under-served with urban highways, the one that immediately comes to mind is Baltimore (granted, I-95 goes thru, and I-83 (81?) dead-ends near downtown, but otherwise good luck).
For the ones he's mentioned DC's got big sections that aren't well served by highways, but there is still the beltway, the BW parkway/I295, I395, the southeast freeway. I don't know Hartford that well, but it's got two major interstates going thru.
I wonder what "relatively few" means, and what some examples of cities with "relatively many" highways would be.
Re: Urban highways destroy wealth
#9TL;DR version: - Urban highways cost more money than urban transit - They divide cities logistically. - Introduce pollution - Are very unsightly to neighborhoods - Steal traffic from roads in commercial zones and undermine regional commercial activity. - Put emphasis on car-first neighborhoods and businesses (which give little ROI). - Encourage urban sprawl and community inefficiency. My take: These points are unders…
What problem were they meant to solve? (That's a serious question. I'm interesting in hearing how other people view the purpose of an urban highway.)
I would think it's primarily moving people from point A to point B (or, possibly from point C to point D via some stretch in between A and B).
[Begin Rant]
This brings up the biggest problem I have with Bay Area public trasnportation. I live 11 miles from work, but it's impossible to get there via any reasonable public transportation-based route in less than 1 hour. On flat land, I can bike at least 50% faster than that, in normal clothes, without breaking a sweat.
The BART portion of my trip takes around 25 minutes. Once I get off BART, my choices are basically to take Muni or walk. Walking gets me there reliably in around 25-30 minutes. Muni theoretically gets me there in around 15 minutes, but that's in an ideal world where there are no delays on the line and I don't have to wait to transfer. I'd rather end the day $2.25 richer and get the little bit of exercise than save a whole 15 minutes. And, of course, the same goes for the trip home.
People who live in, say, the Outer Sunset and commute to SOMA or the Financial District have even worse options. Your Muni trip involves taking 2 or 3 buses, and there's no other reasonable way to make the commute than drive (and we know how miserable and expensive driving in SF is).
[End Rant]
Re: Urban highways destroy wealth
#10Having some trouble swallowing this paragraph: " The richest metropolitan areas in the US are San José, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Washington, Houston, New York, Portland, Hartford and Salt Lake City. Areas with relatively few urban highways are overrepresented in that list, with Houston being the one big exception. " When I need to get anywhere in New York, most of the time I am better off grabbing the west sid…
When I think of major US cities that are under-served with urban highways, the one that immediately comes to mind is Baltimore (granted, I-95 goes thru, and I-83 (81?) dead-ends near downtown, but otherwise good luck). For the ones he's mentioned DC's got big sections that aren't well served by highways, but there is still the beltway, the BW parkway/I295, I395, the southeast freeway. I don't know Hartford that well,…
[deleted]