YouTube is watching us. Just posted:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AwKv3_WwD4o

“Why Los Angeles replaced its world-class transit with freeways”. Very well produced video.

I didn't say anything about suburbia.

We almost had our city torn apart by freeways in the 1960s:

https://www.texasfreeway.com/Austin/...962_medres.jpg

I suppose the "downtown loop" would have been created by I-35 on the east, the Riverside/First Street expwy on the south, Mopac on the west and the "Crosstown" expwy to the north (roughly 15th street).

Most of today's expressways border the whole of the urban core, with the exception of I-35 which runs right beside downtown and through the east side which many would consider part of the urban core. Hopefully dreams and visions to bury I-35 through downtown eventually materialize.

But urban doesn't exist in a void, the hordes from suburbia
still have to get into the urban bits for work. If the 'burbs lack adequate transit options (most do), urban freeways are still vital even in city centers. Only hope is for most companies to go remote and de-emphasize the need for commuting infrastructure; freeways.

Urban areas subsidize sprawl. Suburbia is essentially welfare dependent.

Yeah yeah, okay okay, Doesnt matter its not going away .

Suburban areas also largely supply the workforce in most urban areas so it's not as simplistic as one subsidizes the other. Also, many suburbanites don't use mass transit they ultimately pay for either but again, not that black and white.

San Francisco doesn't really need or want shade (call it "dappled sunlight" if you prefer). It's cold and windy and often foggy all summer. Today the high was 60 degrees and it's May. People crave the sun. That's why many public parks have few or no trees. But, again, the plane trees planted along major streets just don't thrive. That's obvious. What's not obvious is why the city still thinks they are suitable.

Californians hate eucalyptus because they drop gummy substances on the cars parked under them and because they are an invasive foreign species. So it's partly practical and partly obsessive environmentalism. But the problem is that coastal California has no suitable native species. The truly native trees tend to be stunted, gnarly species that look cool as isolated specimens but not lining streets.

What city is this you’re referring to?

As Wikipedia notes, the Santa Monica Freeway (the 10 between downtown and the Pacific) is one of the busiest freeways in the world. It is the only east-west freeway serving the millions of people who live between downtown and Santa Monica, including the entire Westside, more than half of South Los Angeles, and numerous adjoining cities. Los Angeles would cease to function if the 10 were summarily ripped out and replaced with just another east-west boulevard like Wilshire, Santa Monica, Olympic, Pico, Venice, etc.

The regional public transit agency has invested and continues to invest significantly in alternatives to driving generally, and on the Westside specifically. A light rail line from downtown to Santa Monica opened in 2012, spurring construction of thousands of new homes and offices. And Metro is currently extending a heavy rail subway line that currently runs from downtown to Koreatown westward through Beverly Hills, Century City, and Westwood into Brentwood. There are many other regional bus and rail projects planned or under construction that are due to open before 2028, and one of those is a light rail line, south of the 10, that is set to open this year. This is all necessary and good--there is no doubt that we need more and better public transit.

However, freeway removal only makes sense on lightly-used, redundant routes--and the Santa Monica Freeway is neither. Arguing for its removal in a metropolitan area with over six million cars in the year 2022 is either willful ignorance or just tilting at windmills.

It is curious to think which freeways in LA could be removed with seemingly a positive net impact. Top of mind would be the 90 (Marina del Rey) and maybe the 2 (Glendale Freeway). I'm not a huge fan of the 105 either, but since they built the Green Line as part of it...

That's Austin

What do you think would happen if it suddenly disappeared?

Most people in the world will never experience the luxury of complete door-to-door personal mobility in comfort and safety. Unimpeded freedom of movement is one of the fundamental freedoms that Americans get to enjoy that we take for granted.

That's a good question. Because I opened this thread to instigate discussion about possible removals, but people are fiercely opposing to remove any single inch of their freeways.

So it would be nice if SSPers could say which section of freeways they'd like to see removed. Or if they like all their freeways and would like to see more additions.

Imagine Toronto without the 401.
https://images.thestar.com/Ai0kDzOOe...ighway_401.jpg
Torstar

The 401 is not only the primary commuting highway, it is the primary East-West throughway connecting half of Canada's population and more than half of its economy. the portion through Toronto has regularly been ranked as the world's busiest freeway in terms of traffic volume.

The entire city would have developed in a completely different fashion. It would be very interesting to contemplate a huge streetcar suburb Greater Toronto Area (pop 7+ million)

it never looks like this (evacation due to gas leak, 2008):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._401_Color.jpg

Was the 401 inside Toronto when the freeway was built?

It was North of the developed section of the city. But it was in the agglomeration formerly known as Metro Toronto (which contained six separate boroughs, much like how New York city has Brooklyn, Manhattan, etc., except that these boroughs had more independence and separate mayors).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...21%2C_1958.jpg
wikipedia

wikipedia

Right... It was built through farmland. It's not really an "urban freeway".

I suppose not.