Urban highways destroy wealth • Hacker News Board

Re: Urban highways destroy wealth

#91

Post by DrScump » Thu, Jan 14, 2016, 10:28 PM UTC

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #53

DrScump wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Significant portions of 87 and 280 ringing downtown San Jose are elevated. That doesn't spell critical infrastructure to me, in event of an earthquake.

They have far more earthquake-aware construction than earlier infrastructure. This isn't the Cypress structure we're talking about.

Re: Urban highways destroy wealth

#92

Post by DrScump » Thu, Jan 14, 2016, 10:32 PM UTC

titzer wrote: post #21

DrScump wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Trucks are big but are dwarfed by the number of single-occupant passenger cars. Other models that work well are freight trains and local trucks, without huge highways. Surface streets work fine for emergency services if they aren't clogged and hospitals are well distributed.

   if... hospitals are well distributed

But they aren't and never have been, so you have to deal with reality. Hospitals are getting fewer in number per capita, especially private hospitals.

The East Bay situation is worse. Eight large hospitals are located within one mile of the Hayward Fault.

Re: Urban highways destroy wealth

#93

Post by DrScump » Thu, Jan 14, 2016, 10:34 PM UTC

hkmurakami wrote: post #20

DrScump wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Excellent point. To that end it appears that 101 is much heavier on "move goods and services" than 280. (which makes sense because it is a much more direct route up and down the peninsula, whereas 280 is a much more pleasant drive.

Likewise, 880 more than 680.

880 wasn't even originally an Interstate, but it was absorbed into the system because so much freight moves on it.

Re: Urban highways destroy wealth

#94

Post by Grishnakh » Thu, Jan 14, 2016, 10:55 PM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #14

chad_oliver wrote: post #4

Earlier 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.

There's a slight problem with this analysis. While it may have made a lot of sense back in the 50s and 60s, if you look at things now, it doesn't. Go into downtown DC, NYC, SanFran, etc., and instead of a bunch of poor brown people, you'll find a bunch of rich white people, and the housing costs are astronomical. So you'll find a bunch of younger, professional, frequently single, and usually childless white people living there for the short commute, walkability, access to nice restaurants and nightlife, etc., but then when they have kids, that 400 square foot condo or apartment just isn't livable any more so they want to move out to where they can afford some more space.

If you really want to stop this phenomenon, the problem is with government and zoning AFAIC. You need to build a lot more housing (and good-sized housing too, not less than 500sf) to greatly increase the housing supply, which will then lower prices and get people to stay in the city. Lower housing prices would also keep poorer people from having to commute so much since they certainly can't afford inner-city prices either. With modern building technology, it really shouldn't be that hard to build bigger/taller buildings and make more space for everyone, but no one really wants to do that for some reason.