HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 12:56 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
This is what everyone is missing when they say, "We can't rip that highway down. The traffic would be nuts!"--why the hell is through traffic going through the middle of the city anyway? Divert that traffic away from the city and rip down the urban freeways, which shouldn't exist in a city center anyway, and all but commuter traffic will disappear.

In my wildest dreams American cities rip down their freeways and turn the ROWs into S-Bahn lines lined with dense development.
London: a 15 million people metropolis with no freeways. Only a ring road 25 km away from the city centre.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDipper 80 View Post
LA's downtown loop is absolutely massive, but the disruption is most pronounced on the north and west sides. Capping the 101 to better connect downtown with Chinatown doesn't look like it would be terribly difficult, but the 110 is such a tangle of ramps that I don't know what could realistically be done with it to make access to the westside better.
All four sections of Los Angeles loop are also sections of very long and important freeways. I imagine it would be very difficult to remove it. Maybe they could bury some sections of it, specially on the north, west and south sides.

Or as Biguc suggested, Los Angeles could get rid of the whole I-10, from Santa Monica to Downtown and convert it into a heavy railway system.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 2:01 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
This is what everyone is missing when they say, "We can't rip that highway down. The traffic would be nuts!"--why the hell is through traffic going through the middle of the city anyway? Divert that traffic away from the city and rip down the urban freeways, which shouldn't exist in a city center anyway, and all but commuter traffic will disappear.

In my wildest dreams American cities rip down their freeways and turn the ROWs into S-Bahn lines lined with dense development.
Exactly. Every urban freeway in America should be ripped out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 2:41 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Every urban freeway in America should be ripped out.
It's a nice idea, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

The cost of removal alone would likely make it a non-starter in many instances.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 2:58 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,497
Right, many (most?) urban freeways won't be removed, especially if they're vital interstate links.

Take the Cross-Bronx. It should have never been built. But it's I-95, the interstate connecting the Eastern seabord. And the Northeast Corridor is built out and massively NIMBY, so you're never gonna build a replacement freeway out in the burbs, where it should have been built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 3:00 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
It's a nice idea, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

The cost of removal alone would likely make it a non-starter in many instances.
But it should be the default position towards urban freeways in the United States in the 21st century. Whenever the opportunity presents itself, the default should be about how to get rid of the freeway. Instead, the default is typically still how to make traffic flow more efficiently, which is a fool's errand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 3:04 PM
homebucket homebucket is online now
A Man In Dandism
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,690
It seems like many of these downtown freeway loops also occur in landlocked downtowns. And since many of these are formed by connecting various other freeways to get around downtown, it doesn't make sense to build a looping network if half the side is water, because where would it connect to? I'm sure some of these commuters do take the offramps to work downtown, but I'm guessing the majority are working or trying to get elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 3:17 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
It seems like many of these downtown freeway loops also occur in landlocked downtowns. And since many of these are formed by connecting various other freeways to get around downtown, it doesn't make sense to build a looping network if half the side is water, because where would it connect to? I'm sure some of these commuters do take the offramps to work downtown, but I'm guessing the majority are working or trying to get elsewhere.
In most of them,we have this # shape, with Downtown trapped on the central square. They are designed just to pass through Downtown, part of north-south east-west connections.

People surely might use them having Downtown as a destin, but the design is not aimed to it therefore they could have been place elsewhere, much further away.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 3:25 PM
homebucket homebucket is online now
A Man In Dandism
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
London: a 15 million people metropolis with no freeways. Only a ring road 25 km away from the city centre.

All four sections of Los Angeles loop are also sections of very long and important freeways. I imagine it would be very difficult to remove it. Maybe they could bury some sections of it, specially on the north, west and south sides.

Or as Biguc suggested, Los Angeles could get rid of the whole I-10, from Santa Monica to Downtown and convert it into a heavy railway system.
I think best case scenario for DTLA is a freeway cap on the 101. Otherwise, I think all the remaining freeways in their current configurations are going to remain in place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 3:32 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
I think best case scenario for DTLA is a freeway cap on the 101. Otherwise, I think all the remaining freeways in their current configurations are going to remain in place.
But isn't it too important on the big picture? Looking at the map, it connects San Fernando Valley to both Orange County and Inland Empire and also, connects San Diego, Los Angeles, Central Valley, San Francisco and Sacramento.

I-10, on the other hand, could be fully removed as it's "only" an urban freeway. From East Los Angeles to Santa Monica. Get rid of it and put a railway in its place.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 3:38 PM
homebucket homebucket is online now
A Man In Dandism
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
But isn't it too important on the big picture? Looking at the map, it connects San Fernando Valley to both Orange County and Inland Empire and also, connects San Diego, Los Angeles, Central Valley, San Francisco and Sacramento.

I-10, on the other hand, could be fully removed as it's "only" an urban freeway. From East Los Angeles to Santa Monica. Get rid of it and put a railway in its place.
Yeah, with a cap it'll just have a park and public plazas on top and better connect DTLA to Chinatown. The freeway will still exist underneath.



https://la.curbed.com/2018/5/30/1740...freeway-photos
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 4:40 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
But isn't it too important on the big picture? Looking at the map, it connects San Fernando Valley to both Orange County and Inland Empire and also, connects San Diego, Los Angeles, Central Valley, San Francisco and Sacramento.

I-10, on the other hand, could be fully removed as it's "only" an urban freeway. From East Los Angeles to Santa Monica. Get rid of it and put a railway in its place.
Tell me you don't know anything about LA without telling me you don't know anything about LA

FYI I-10 goes from the Pacific (Santa Monica) to the Atlantic (Jacksonville, FL). It's not some small stub of a freeway. Also, the 10 is probably the freeway LA can least afford to remove. There already is rail that goes between Santa Monica and Downtown-- the Expo Line. And soon, we will have another rail line under Wilshire out to the West Side, stopping just short of SM. The 10 is a pretty necessary piece of Southern California's transportation network.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 4:43 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,717
LA without the 10? How would that work?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 4:44 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
But it should be the default position towards urban freeways in the United States in the 21st century. Whenever the opportunity presents itself, the default should be about how to get rid of the freeway. Instead, the default is typically still how to make traffic flow more efficiently, which is a fool's errand.
while i would agree that getting traffic to flow more efficiently on urban expressways is generally a fool's errand, i still don't see the city city of chicago spending tens of billions of dollars to rip out the ~75 miles of expressways within the city.

a far more reasonable and cost effective solution is to cap existing trenched expressways where it makes the most sense to help stitch the fabric of the city back together. the most prime example in chicago being the kennedy expressway trench through the west loop. it carries both I-94 and I-90, it ain't going anywhere anytime soon, but capping it with linear parkland (which the west loop sorely needs anyway) is a decent enough compromise in my opinion, even if it's insufficient in the eyes of the purists.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 4:46 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
Tell me you don't know anything about LA without telling me you don't know anything about LA
Right, I was thinking the same thing.

That's up there with "let's remove the Yamanote loop in Tokyo, given it wastes all this valuable land with an ugly elevated rail line". How about nope?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 4:46 PM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 11,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Right, many (most?) urban freeways won't be removed, especially if they're vital interstate links.

Take the Cross-Bronx. It should have never been built. But it's I-95, the interstate connecting the Eastern seabord. And the Northeast Corridor is built out and massively NIMBY, so you're never gonna build a replacement freeway out in the burbs, where it should have been built.
Yeah, that's a valid point. American cities are stuck with a lot of main highways routed through urban areas. Pretty much why I said ripping them all out was in my dreams.

But my point stands with respect to all these rinky-dink connectors and redundant urban highways that nobody seems to think they can do without. "But how will people drive from I-69 to I-fuckedmycity? They'll ransack the city streets!"

Or they'll just take another, further away highway that isn't inappropriately located directly next to where people live. These highways always connect somewhere else. The worst offending cities often have multiple rings of highways. There should be a rule: once you build a new ring highway, you get rid of the inside ring.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 4:47 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
Yeah, with a cap it'll just have a park and public plazas on top and better connect DTLA to Chinatown. The freeway will still exist underneath.



https://la.curbed.com/2018/5/30/1740...freeway-photos
That's beautiful. It add buildings around. I don't like wide boulevards and not even those sterile parks as they don't allow bigger trees in any case. It's better when the urban fabric is restored.


Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
Tell me you don't know anything about LA without telling me you don't know anything about LA

FYI I-10 goes from the Pacific (Santa Monica) to the Atlantic (Jacksonville, FL). It's not some small stub of a freeway. Also, the 10 is probably the freeway LA can least afford to remove. There already is rail that goes between Santa Monica and Downtown-- the Expo Line. And soon, we will have another rail line under Wilshire out to the West Side, stopping just short of SM. The 10 is a pretty necessary piece of Southern California's transportation network.
I imagine drivers love it. From an urbanism point of view, a railway would be way better. About the current rail, is it heavy? I hear Los Angeles have a massive problem with its long headways. It should have be much higher frequencies to make the system attractive.

About I-10, instead of going from Santa Monica to Jacksonville, it can goes from (East) Los Angeles to Jacksonville. It would still be a Pacific-Atlantic highway. It's not like it must end in the water. In Jacksonville, for instance, it starts far away from the beach.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Right, I was thinking the same thing.

That's up there with "let's remove the Yamanote loop in Tokyo, given it wastes all this valuable land with an ugly elevated rail line". How about nope?
Let's not compare a rail line that carries millions of passengers daily to a city full of freeways and virtually no mass transit.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 4:58 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,717
Rail will never replace the car in an area as massive as LA; drivers don't love it, they need it. Plus, the stretch going into Santa Monica feeds into fairly populated/ touristy areas. And you can get to LAX from there much quicker via the 405.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 5:13 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
Let's not compare a rail line that carries millions of passengers daily to a city full of freeways and virtually no mass transit.
LA freeways carry millions of people daily.

LA freeways are as essential to the city's daily functions as Tokyo's railways are to its daily functions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 5:16 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
LA freeways carry millions of people daily.

LA freeways are as essential to the city's daily functions as Tokyo's railways are to its daily functions.
As iheartted said above, it didn’t have to be this way and American cities would be better if they get every opportunity to remove urban freeways. It doesn’t need to happen overnight, but it would be a step on the right direction.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted May 12, 2022, 5:24 PM
dave8721 dave8721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Miami
Posts: 4,035
In Miami's case, these feeder ramps coming off I-95 are a scourge. To save drivers a couple of blocks of having to drive through the city, they created a massive dead zone that is cut off from the rest of Downtown. Think of all the valuable real estate that would be opened up.
https://www.google.com/maps/@25.7719.../data=!3m1!1e3

And it looks so beautiful underneath. Can't imagine why nothing ever gets built in that section of Downtown, they do provide shade for the homeless encampments:
https://www.google.com/maps/@25.7728...7i16384!8i8192
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:54 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.