Downtown Freeway Loops

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Yuri

But that’s doable. 4 subway lines in São Paulo handle over 1 million people/daily. I don’t have the numbers, but I believe there are many other lines that busy in Europe and specially in Asia.

No other metro area in the world have so many kms of freeways as Los Angeles has, and as such, it should be the easiest place to find potential removals.

That would essentially dump thousands of pedestrians onto freeways offramps. And then what? How would that even work?

I get the sense that you haven't really thought any of this through. This is real life, not a city building game.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by craigs

The "only problem" with removing such a busy freeway is that the city simply cannot get that many additional people door to door on public transportation. You can build a subway line or three to handle 700,000 east- and westbound riders a day under Vermont, theoretically, but you also have to build out a massive and comprehensive network of other trains and buses to get those hundreds of thousands of people to the subway stations--and also to where they are going. I think people often fail to understand how large Los Angeles is.

It amazes me how many purported urbanists fundamentally don't understand how modern cities function.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by badrunner

That would essentially dump thousands of pedestrians onto freeways offramps. And then what? How would that even work?

I get the sense that you haven't really thought any of this through. This is real life, not a city building game.

Have you noticed there are some links missing on LA freeway system? The most obvious one is east of Pasadena, even making the map looking strange as something is clearly missing. I read somewhere this section was cancelled as consequence of freeway wars and somehow Los Angeles survived. And I guess the support to build this missing link is probably close to zero.

How are you so sure Los Angeles cannot cope with some removals here and there when in fact they haven’t built their system in it’s entirety and no doom was upon them?

If you go to YouTube, there are plenty of freeway removals, lane removals and everywhere the place became much better. No need to go far away as you openly racist and don’t like foreigners: nature removed a big freeway in San Francisco and everybody likes the city better today.

[badrunner]

Notice that you didn't even attempt to answer the question that was posed, which was not a rhetorical question. Instead you call me a racist... Your ideas are childish and completely unworkable in the real world. You are proposing that we make our transportation system less efficient than it is currently.

Try this on for size: I can get across town in LA a lot faster than I can in SP, despite SP being much more compact and better served by transit. Why is that?

[Justatravelinguy]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Have you noticed there are some links missing on LA freeway system? The most obvious one is east of Pasadena, even making the map looking strange as something is clearly missing. I read somewhere this section was cancelled as consequence of freeway wars and somehow Los Angeles survived. And I guess the support to build this missing link is probably close to zero.

How are you so sure Los Angeles cannot cope with some removals here and there when in fact they haven’t built their system in it’s entirety and no doom was upon them?

If you go to YouTube, there are plenty of freeway removals, lane removals and everywhere the place became much better. No need to go far away as you openly racist and don’t like foreigners: nature removed a big freeway in San Francisco and everybody likes the city better today.

LA and Sao Paulo built environments are the same as they are both immensely sprawling metros laced with an extensive freeway system, some rail which doesn’t go everywhere and several business centers surrounding their central cores making both cities autocentric and polycentric. The only difference is that Sao Paulo is much more dense which is why a large number of people use the Sao Paulo rail system. So, both need their freeway system and their rail lines to move people around. And unless they build out their rail system like what you’d find in London, Paris, Shanghai, and Beijing in which their rail lines service most parts of their respective metros, changing out certain freeways with rail lines or removing some freeways won’t help at all.

By the way, LA has/is building two rail lines (Orange line light rail and Heavy rail Purple line) that run parallel to the Santa Monica Freeway a couple miles to south and north of the freeway. The Orange Line currently runs and the Purple line will be open by 2026. Both are not expected to significantly reduce traffic on the Santa Monica Freeway. So no, replacing the freeway with a rail line is not the answer. Both are needed in a sprawly low density city like LA.

Also, any gaps in or none completion of any freeways in the LA areas is probably due to homeowners not wanting their houses and neighborhoods razed to accomodate the freeways path. That was done with the Santa Monica Freeway and it split up neighborhoods including historic ones such as Sugar Hill/West Adams. Angelinos fiercely defend the single family home nature of their city which is why you do not see high rise residential all over the city and metro the way you do in Sao Paulo.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Notice that you didn't even attempt to answer the question that was posed, which was not a rhetorical question. Instead you call me a racist... Your ideas are childish and completely unworkable in the real world. You are proposing that we make our transportation system less efficient than it is currently.

Try this on for size: I can get across town in LA a lot faster than I can in SP, despite SP being much more compact and better served by transit. Why is that?

Oh dear… every single time you quote a post of mine you make reference to my nationality in a forum where I never opened a thread to discuss urban issues of my country, only US issues and you’re still complaining I don’t take your questions seriously? Surely I won’t.

I mentioned São Paulo because I live here and therefore I’m more familiar with stuff here. But if you don’t care about São Paulo (which is actually a very autocentric city where cars got preference for decades), pick London or New York. The former doesn’t even have freeways and it’s not like the city collapsed.

You talked about crossing Los Angeles and São Paulo talking only anote drive times forgetting other very important stuff, like the water crisis in southwest US which is a direct result of this car culture. Or let’s do the opposite: if SP sprawled as LA, it would have 2,500 sqmi instead of the 1,000 sqmi today. All the rainforest direct north and south of the urban footprint would have to go away. I fail to see how SP and the world would be better if SP followed LA urban development patterns. SP has its own issues, but having way bigger transit share than LA is certainly is not one of them.

Nobody proposed Los Angeles should remove all their freeways overnight, but identify sections that should be removed and what could be built on their places. Isn’t that the purpose of this forum anyway?

[badrunner]

You must be reading a different thread because I never mentioned your nationality. You're the one who brought up SP as an example.

And again I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question I asked, so I will assume that you have no answer and it was just another one of your silly urbanist fantasies. I'm sure it all made perfect sense in your head. Like I said, this is real life, not a city building game.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Justatravelinguy

LA and Sao Paulo built environments are the same as they are both immensely sprawling metros laced with an extensive freeway system, some rail which doesn’t go everywhere and several business centers surrounding their central cores making both cities autocentric and polycentric. The only difference is that Sao Paulo is much more dense which is why a large number of people use the Sao Paulo rail system. So, both need their freeway system and their rail lines to move people around. And unless they build out their rail system like what you’d find in London, Paris, Shanghai, and Beijing in which their rail lines service most parts of their respective metros, changing out certain freeways with rail lines or removing some freeways won’t help at all.

By the way, LA has/is building two rail lines (Orange line light rail and Heavy rail Purple line) that run parallel to the Santa Monica Freeway a couple miles to south and north of the freeway. The Orange Line currently runs and the Purple line will be open by 2026. Both are not expected to significantly reduce traffic on the Santa Monica Freeway. So no, replacing the freeway with a rail line is not the answer. Both are needed in a sprawly low density city like LA.

Also, any gaps in or none completion of any freeways in the LA areas is probably due to homeowners not wanting their houses and neighborhoods razed to accomodate the freeways path. That was done with the Santa Monica Freeway and it split up neighborhoods including historic ones such as Sugar Hill/West Adams. Angelinos fiercely defend the single family home nature of their city which is why you do not see high rise residential all over the city and metro the way you do in Sao Paulo.

I completely agree with your LA vs SP analysis. Nothing to add.

I also believe most freeways, in the two cities, for the reasons you mentioned must stay forever. Marginal Tietê and Marginal Pinheiros destroyed the two rivers and stole São Paulo riverside. I don't like them, I hardly ever use them, but I understand they will stay forever regardless how much São Paulo expands its subway system.

As Los Angeles is much less dense, their freeways usually create less disturbances than the ones demolished in San Francisco, Rio de Janeiro and Boston downtowns.

Some removals or conversions into railway could help the city to densify and solve their housing price crisis. Los Angeles metro area ceased to grow and certainly the big distances (hard to keep cohesive) and big prices are factors. Californians love their SFH, but we're also seing plenty of highrise constructions in Downtown LA and in come corridors. Maybe the presence of more transit could speed up this process solving Los Angeles current (lack of) growth issues.

[mhays]

I'm also skeptical about tearing out freeways.

When Seattle considered replacing the two miles of SR99 through Downtown with surface streets (one new, others probably widened), I viewed that as the worst-case scenario. Some traffic would have shifted to transit, and some would have gone away entirely (people moving closer to work, factories leaving town, trips not taken...), but much of it would've remained. Did we want a downtown full of annoyed pass-through traffic, in a city shaped like a funnel? We got a tunnel plus some new street, and I'm very thankful.

I don't agree with the idea that a busy surface boulevard is inherently better than a freeway from a pedestrian perspective. Sometimes the freeway is easy to cross on foot if it's a ditch or elevated. Boulevards can be too wide, fast, and busy (a couple blocks of ours is problematic because it includes extra lanes for ferry queues).

Some lightly-used freeways and spurs can be removed with favorable impact. But removing a really busy one would be a shock to the system, even after some shift to transit and people moving closer to work, and even after eventual partial replacement with a boulevard.

[Yuri]

^^^^
I recently came across an interesting video about Seattle's removal. The author, even though doesn't like freeways, was critical about the project:

• Video Link

He pointed out several problems, including the façades of the buildings facing the new boulevard and the boulevard itself, too wide. He made a comparison with the neighbouring Portland, one of the cities to remove its central freeway arguing they did it better,

I don't think boulevards are big improvement either. They are not that pedestrian friendly and it's a nightmare to cross them. They often work as an urban barrier as well.

[JManc]

You can't spend tens of billions on transit at the expense of major freeways and hope the city densifies and if it does, most of us here will be long dead by the time that happens but in the meantime it will have an adverse impact on quality of life for nearby neighborhoods and businesses.

[Yuri]

There was very little attention outside Rio de Janeiro itself, but they did turn down the elevated expressay that had separated its Downtown from the Waterfront for decades. It was replaced by a buried freeway:


Wikipedia

The whole region got bike lanes, a charming new tram system that connects its entire Downtown and also got new landmark, Santiago Calatrava's Museu do Amanhã, today one of the most visited tourist attractions in Rio.

Here some sections of it today, from south to north:

https://www.google.com/maps/@-22.902...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@-22.902...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@-22.896...7i13312!8i6656

[Doady]

Equating efficiency with speed, and judging a transportation system based purely on speed is more childish than anything. Even subway or S-bahn trains need to stop occasionally to let passengers on/off, and those passengers need to walk to/from those stations. Even that walking alone might already be 10-20 minute, and the waiting might be 5 minutes, let alone the time actually spent on the train. And that's assuming there's only one train needed to complete the trip.

Expecting transit to be faster than the car is like expecting cycling to be faster than transit, or walking to be faster than cycling. That is more a silly fantasy than anything. The car-dependent city is going to have shorter commute times than the transit-dependent city. Not just LA vs. Sao Paulo, see also Dallas vs. Toronto, Oklahoma City vs. Ottawa, San Francisco vs. Atlanta.

Obsessing about speed and increasing speed is exactly why so many transit systems in the US fail to attract riders. Speed is not the reason why Orange County Transportation Authority buses have worse ridership than Societe de transport de Laval buses.

[badrunner]

Yes, after all, a city's transportation network isn't really about how fast and efficiently you can get to your destination. It's about the wonderful journey along the way - the leisurely minutes you'll spend while waiting for your ride, all the different seats that you get to settle into, the spontaneous social interactions you'll have along the way, and of course the best part - that last-mile walk in the dark to your destination. Don't let them fool you. Everybody I know secretly wants to live this way.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Yes, after all, a city's transportation network isn't really about how fast and efficiently you can get to your destination. It's about the wonderful journey along the way - the leisurely minutes you'll spend while waiting for your ride, all the different seats that you get to settle into, the spontaneous social interactions you'll have along the way, and of course the best part - that last-mile walk in the dark to your destination. Don't let them fool you. Everybody I know secretly wants to live this way.

That's a very one-sided view. I'm not convinced the average Angeleno loves the experience of driving everyday through their busy freeways. As I said, there is even a famous movie about the main character having meltdown while driving one. Usually, drivers all over the world complain the long hours they lose on traffic.

On my workplace, there are 14 people on same position that I am, same pay (which is very good, btw) and similar social backgrounds (although I'm the youngest of the crowd).

I'm the only one who don't own a car and the only one that use mass transit to get to the job. I pick bus or subway depending on my mood. 25 min from door to door. By far the shortest commute time there. The next one does it in 40 min.

There are plenty of factors on play. It's not all about individual transportation being faster. It depends. In any case, big cities need a big mass transit for the sake of their own drivers.

[badrunner]

Today I learned that the tragic events depicted in the movie Falling Down could have been entirely avoided if only that stupid freeway didn't exist. Surely D-FENS would have maintained his sanity a bit longer if he was taking public transit instead. Gosh that's such a great point Yuri. Why did no one else think of that?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Today I learned that the tragic events depicted in the movie Falling Down could have been entirely avoided if only that stupid freeway didn't exist. Surely D-FENS would have maintained his sanity a bit longer if he was taking public transit instead. Gosh that's such a great point Yuri. Why did no one else think of that?

What are you talking about? I said no word about mass transit being a leisure activity. It's just a way to move people efficiently from one point to another in big metropolises.

You're the one talking about orgasmic experiences while driving, invoking "freedom", "the American way" and cheesy stuff that seems to have being straight out of a redneck convention in some God-forgotten place.

If you think Los Angeles or Houston are the ultimate urban form, that's fine. Go enjoy your freeways. I prefer other urban patterns like London or Tokyo or my Downtown car free urban living. Most people that are into urban discussions are not in love with urban freeways either.

In any case, for your frustration, there are more urban freeway removals than urban freeway building. Even upgrades are rare in developed and middle-income countries these days.

[badrunner]

Today I learned that LA is the "the easiest place" to remove freeways and replace with subways because it has "so many kms of freeways." That's another brilliant point Yuri. Makes total sense. Gosh I finally get it now. Clearly you have a better understanding of how American cities function than anybody that lives here. We should rip out our world class road network and replace with subways. It totally worked in Cities:Skylines.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Yuri

What are you talking about? I said no word about mass transit being a leisure activity. It's just a way to move people efficiently from one point to another in big metropolises.

You're the one talking about orgasmic experiences while driving, invoking "freedom", "the American way" and cheesy stuff that seems to have being straight out of a redneck convention in some God-forgotten place.

If you think Los Angeles or Houston are the ultimate urban form, that's fine. Go enjoy your freeways. I prefer other urban patterns like London or Tokyo or my Downtown car free urban living. Most people that are into urban discussions are not in love with urban freeways either.

In any case, for your frustration, there are more urban freeway removals than urban freeway building. Even upgrades are rare in developed and middle-income countries these days.

But you've never been to Tokyo, or LA for that matter. In fact you haven't been much outside your country at all.

You're an open book and it's not hard to see your frustration boiling over, on a Saturday night. Cheers

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by badrunner

But you've never been to Tokyo, or LA for that matter. In fact you haven't been much outside your country at all.

You're an open book and it's not hard to see your frustration boiling over, on a Saturday night. Cheers

Gosh, you’re angry. Why don’t you open a thread about freeway building to vent a little bit and contribute to this forum for the first time?

You don’t know anything about me and your suggestion I haven’t been abroad and that’s somehow is makes me inferior is quite disgusting. You have a strange obsession with other people’s race, money and that’s very unhealthy. I hope you don’t have a gun because I’m afraid you can eventually harm people.