Earlier quoted context omitted.
That only speaks to the inadequacy of the public transportation network where you live though, which is exacerbated by the construction of urban highways instead of a better mass transit network.
It's probably more that my situation doesn't match the topic under discussion. I live in an urban area, whereas many clients are in the rural areas surrounding it. Servicing those areas with mass transit would be prohibitively expensive: there is no mass traffic to service.
Urban highways destroy wealth
31–40 of 94 posts
Re: Urban highways destroy wealth
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
In the UK we have built bypasses for most towns and most of the traffic goes around them instead of through.
Re: Urban highways destroy wealth
#33Having 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…
With respect to San Jose, it's a crock. The only remotely "urban" area is downtown, and that is fully served with highways (880, 280/680, 87). Light rail is a joke, with routes having been chosen for political reasons rather than true demand, and it is useless for transporting goods. This article, like many on the topic, also take a one-dimensional view of highways -- as people movers. The flow of goods and services…
FWIW, the sentence quoted above says that cities with fewer urban motorways are overrepresented in that list of the richesty urban centres, it doesn't say every city listed meets that criteria.
The article also discusses goods and services in the case study it's looking at - comparison between the Montreal subway and highway built for the Expo. i.e. about how moving passengers onto underground subways leaves more space for movements of goods or services on the surface. A similar argument applies to any shift towards more space-efficient modes of transport for passengers.
Also, I don't quite see the argument on emergency services. Inner city highways/motorways are mostly for moving from the centre into and out of the suburbs. Emergency services need to go from any random point to the nearest hospital, which is a different thing. Sending hundreds of thousands of highly space inefficient cars into city centres (which have a fundamental limit on street space, and their capacity to handle traffic) is highly likely to increase congestion and make it more difficult, not less difficult, to move around on the surface streets from one point to another in the centre. You'd have to introduce some congestion charging system, or perhaps bus lanes, otherwise building the road is likely to make the situation worse.
Where highways really shine is in moving goods into and out of cities. If you have high-volume industry in the centre of a city, or for instance a port, you clearly need some way of getting the inputs and outputs into and out of the city. But there does seem to be a continuous, long standing trend of moving this kind of infrastructure out of city centres. Modern container ports and factories need greater economies of scale, and tend to be situated on the outskirts of, or outside, cities where land is cheaper. And Western economies are moving more towards services rather than manufacturing. A big part of this debate is about what a city is for, and how to reconcile that with changes in transport and industry.
Re: Urban highways destroy wealth
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
They were meant to get people from far out of the city into the city, fast, in a way that would only be accessible to professional-class whites, so that they could keep downtown jobs while moving their families to the suburbs and stop spending their property tax money on poor brown people.
...it has long been the prevailing opinion that American suburbs developed as a result of the increased use of the car, GI Bill funded home construction, and white flight from desegregated schools after the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. But in reality the trend had started several years before Brown.
In 1945, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists began advocating for "dispersal," or "defense through decentralization" as the only realistic defense against nuclear weapons, and the federal government realized this was an important strategic move. Most city planners agreed, and America adopted a completely new way of life, one that was different from anything that had come before, by directing all new construction "away from congested central areas to their outer fringes and suburbs in low-density continuous development," and "the prevention of the metropolitan core's further spread by directing new construction into small, widely spaced satellite towns."
Nuclear safety measures drove the beginning of the abandonment of our cities. After being told that "there is no doubt about it: if you live within a few miles of where one of these bombs strike, you'll die" and "We can always hope that man will never use such a weapon but we should also adopt the Boy Scout slogan: Be prepared," getting far enough out of the "target" city so that the blast might be survivable seemed wise. Those who could afford to left. Those who remained were generally less affluent, and minorities made up a disproportionate share of the poor.
A far worse development for minorities in America came in 1954, when the federal Atomic Energy Commission realized that with the advent of the vastly more powerful hydrogen bomb, "the present national dispersion policy is inadequate in view of existing thermonuclear weapons effects." But by then it was too late; the suburbs were growing, but offices were still by and large downtown. A new strategy was needed. President Dwight D. Eisenhower instead promoted a program of rapid evacuation to rural regions. As a civil defense official who served from 1953 to 1957 explained, the focus changed "from 'Duck and Cover' to 'Run Like Hell.'"
Cities across America ran nuclear attack drills, each involving tens of thousands of residents, practicing clearing hundreds of city blocks in the shortest possible time.^° It became clear that this would require massive new transportation arteries in and out of cities. The resulting National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 was the largest public works project in history. It created a system that provided easier access from the suburbs into cities as well as a way to more rapidly evacuate cities in case of nuclear war. The new freeways had to be built in a hurry and were naturally routed through the cheapest real estate, which usually meant plowing through richly tapestried and vibrant minority communities, displacing millions. Although poverty had been concentrated in these very neighborhoods, their destruction ripped apart the social fabric of America's uprooted minority communities for years, destroying social support networks and leading to a generation of urban refugee.
These accommodations for defense brought about an immense change in the fabric of America, altering everything from transportation to land development to race relations to modern energy use and the extraordinary public sums that are spent on building and maintaining roads— creating challenges and burdens that are with us today, all because of science and the bomb.
Otto's Book:
https://books.google.com/books/about/Fool_Me_Twice.html?id=6...
More quotes from the book:
Re: Urban highways destroy wealth
#35so what, i'm not supposed to have any good way to cut across the city and get to the airport? also in the world of automated cars we're about to enter i would think the amount of people you can transport via freeway would far outstrip rail, not to mention that there are obvious consumer preferences. I love rail, but i feel like we're about to see rail become far less pervasive with automated cars / busses etc coming…
Re: Urban highways destroy wealth
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were meant to get people from far out of the city into the city, fast, in a way that would only be accessible to professional-class whites, so that they could keep downtown jobs while moving their families to the suburbs and stop spending their property tax money on poor brown people.
It's hard to deny the racial aspect of government subsidies to produce the suburbs, but the government's official intent was not racial, but emergent and was strongly influenced by the threat of nuclear war. Shawn Otto of sciencedebate.org covers this in his book on politics and science, "Fool Me Twice" (apologies for the typos from my book-scanner): ...it has long been the prevailing opinion that American suburbs de…
Re: Urban highways destroy wealth
#37TL;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
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Urban highways solve a political problem. When you have voters that spend a hour or so a day stuck in traffic it's really easy to sell them the idea that a highway will reduce traffic congestion without them having to change anything about their daily routine (ie. take public transport, bicycle, walk) Since the highway will only reduce traffic congestion for a short time it's something you can sell to the voters agai…
When you have voters that spend a hour or so a day stuck in traffic it's really easy to sell them the idea that a highway will reduce traffic congestion without them having to change anything about their daily routine That's disingenuous. I commute by car exactly because public transport takes longer to most of my clients, even when including structural and incidental traffic jams. It's happened exactly three times i…
Your "reverse" commute to exburbs/rural areas is likely not impacted much by congestion. You actually have a good reason to use a car.
That unending column of cars you see always headed in the opposite direction on your commutes is the actual subject at hand here.
Re: Urban highways destroy wealth
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's probably more that my situation doesn't match the topic under discussion. I live in an urban area, whereas many clients are in the rural areas surrounding it. Servicing those areas with mass transit would be prohibitively expensive: there is no mass traffic to service.
Good mass transit that got cars off congested roads would speed your kind of journey just as much as building urban motorways, and be more effective overall.
There's nothing that can be done to stop this without extremely draconian laws or turning public roads into very expensive toll roads, without ripping the roads out as Portland did.
Re: Urban highways destroy wealth
#40TL;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…