Downtown Freeway Loops

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Yuri

I was map googling Dallas and to me the northern section of their loop seems completely useless: https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7852...8057323,14.58z . They've buried part of it, but if they completely get rid of it, it doesn't look like it would have a major impact.

Actually, Dallas has a proposal to remove I-345 between downtown and Deep Ellum. If they did that, then they would need to keep the Woodall Rodgers.
https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburne...ng-down-i-345/

Houston is planning to remove the Pierce Elevated that separates downtown from the Midtown and Montrose areas, but the other two sides of the loop would be doubled in width. notably the west side of downtown is where the rich folks live, so they would see a freeway removal while the poorer north and east sides of downtown would see an even larger barrier erected.

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

But the ceaseless wind still makes the life of most tree species precarious, especially the London Plane Tree (sycamore) that city planners for some reason favor. They plant them all over town and most look unhealthy if not frankly dead. Palms seem to do OK but are expensive and aren't exactly shade trees.

Plane trees are really the best urban trees if you can make them work. Big leaves provide lots of shade and dappled sunlight, the white mottled bark is beautiful. They tend to grow straight and at a consistent rate, and the roots don't mess up the pavements. They've been a staple of European landscape design for basically centuries.

The regular varieties of plane tree don't really work in Chicago unfortunately, the hard frosts can damage the bark and they don't like clay soils but there are some new varieties out there that are supposed to be better.

It's weird, for Northern California I always think of eucalyptus and not plane trees. I know Californians hate eucalyptus, but they're really quite beautiful and distinctive in the urban landscape.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Yuri

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.

But it is and not much we can do to undo it. LA was designed and built around the car unlike New York (where ihearted lives) which is densely populated and largely developed well before cars became widespread. LA is simply too massive and spread out for freeways to be supplanted by anything else.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

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.

L.A. has to develop alternatives to car transportation to continue growing. It's more critical to L.A. right now than probably any other metro area in the country.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

L.A. has to develop alternatives to car transportation to continue growing. It's more critical to L.A. right now than probably any other metro area in the country.

In LA proper (more specifically in more densely populated areas), for sure. They already have a pretty decent mass transit system as it is but they get so many commuters from suburbs and surrounding areas that mass transit is unfeasible on a wider scale and making cars/ freeways a necessity for the foreseeable future. Houston has the same dynamics; rail works in busier/ more dense parts of town but so many commute in from suburbs that the freeways aren't going away anytime soon. Just buried.

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

L.A. has to develop alternatives to car transportation to continue growing. It's more critical to L.A. right now than probably any other metro area in the country.

And it is. Subway (yes, heavy rail Yuri) extension under Wilshire out to Brentwood. Regional connector project downtown. Crenshaw Line connecting LAX to the Expo Line. These projects are all well underway, and will be complete by the 2028 olympics. There are many additional rail investments planned, and the Feds just announced they plan on funding the East San Fernando Valley rail project, thus leapfrogging that from being just a plan to a real construction project.

This doesn't mean we can tear down the freeways, though! I 100% support freeway caps, and I wish there could be some sort of federal push for more of that, where possible. Capping freeways would go a long way toward connecting communities that were torn apart, and offers opportunities for new park space in park-starved built out communities like much of LA.

But removing big stretches of freeway in a ~20 million person region built around the car just isn't practical. As you say, it's about developing alternatives.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by JManc

In LA proper (more specifically in more densely populated areas), for sure. They already have a pretty decent mass transit system as it is but they get so many commuters from suburbs and surrounding areas that mass transit is unfeasible on a wider scale and making cars/ freeways a necessity for the foreseeable future. Houston has the same dynamics; rail works in busier/ more dense parts of town but so many commute in from suburbs that the freeways aren't going away anytime soon. Just buried.

Why does having a lot of suburban commuters make mass transit less feasible? Lots of large cities (both in population and geography) make extensive use of mass transit for suburban commuters. Sydney and Melbourne, Paris with the RER, Tokyo, etc. all have huge suburban systems that actually carry a similar or even greater number of people than their urban systems. Seems like people just have trouble envisioning change when their perspective is overly rooted in the status quo.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by dave8721

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

This one in Miami is horrible, cutting right through one of the fastest growing districts in the US. Please, someone turn down this.

[Crawford]

South Florida is even more auto-oriented than LA. I'd describe it as transit-hostile.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

But removing big stretches of freeway in a ~20 million person region built around the car just isn't practical. As you say, it's about developing alternatives.

Before this gets distorted, I said freeways in urban areas.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by dave8721

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

The Scarface Cuban immigration camps were supposed to look like they were under those, however, the scenes were filmed in LA.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by Crawford

South Florida is even more auto-oriented than LA. I'd describe it as transit-hostile.

At least we have higher speed rail In addition to the high speed rail line.. commuter rail, heavy rail, and a people mover..........and unlike New York City, Miami's heavy rail serves the airport directly from downtown.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Why does having a lot of suburban commuters make mass transit less feasible? Lots of large cities (both in population and geography) make extensive use of mass transit for suburban commuters. Sydney and Melbourne, Paris with the RER, Tokyo, etc. all have huge suburban systems that actually carry a similar or even greater number of people than their urban systems. Seems like people just have trouble envisioning change when their perspective is overly rooted in the status quo.

Because the amount of resources and sheer scale of retooling a metro the size of LA to be more inline with Tokyo or Paris is staggering. Even Sydney and Melbourne which seem like American cities on the surface are still comparatively more dense and compact. I rode the RER all around Paris and I could not imagine something like that in the vast majority of major US cities. Perhaps New York, Chicago, the Bay Area or Boston and they already have something similar. They have densely populated suburbs that can support the upfront costs and ridership

[TWAK]

Here's Sacramento who also had a freeway revolt:



There is actually an expressway being built south and to the east of Elk Grove, but not a true freeway.
source
source

[jd3189]

In LA’s case, it’s also going to take a cultural shift to get people to be less reliant on cars. You wouldn’t have to get rid of all the freeways, just the ones going through major cities and towns. The I 10 is important to connect the southern parts of the US from coast to coast, but it does not need to terminate at Santa Monica. Route 66 already does that and it’s a more legendary road.

If the 10 didn’t exist for that stretch between Downtown LA and Santa Monica, the Westside would have better connectivity with the areas of the basin direct south of it. You could simply replace it with a boulevard or major arterial street that would parallel Wilshire Boulevard and take on the same traffic as the 10 currently. The 10 would then start either east of downtown LA or somewhere in the San Gabriel Valley.

I also agree with the sentiments about building more alternatives to freeways. In LA, there is potential to develop TODs around the various Metrolink stations throughout Southern California. Those areas would be able to absorb additional population growth and would give people an option to travel to LA or anywhere else in SoCal without dealing with shitty traffic. Those that still have to commute by car would also not have to deal with these potential additional drivers.

And as I mentioned before, this can only happen through cultural shift. People come to live in LA for the weather, Hollywood, etc. There is a car culture here, but even those diehard car fans dislike traffic. By developing a more robust public transportation system that parallels and competes with the existing freeway system, Angelenos will have more options on getting around. And since the metro is multi-nodal anyways, there should also be focus on spreading out jobs and building more TODs across the different major cities in SoCal such as Long Beach, Pasadena, Glendale, San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego, and the Orange County towns like Irvine and Anaheim.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

At least we have higher speed rail In addition to the high speed rail line.. commuter rail, heavy rail, and a people mover..........and unlike New York City, Miami's heavy rail serves the airport directly from downtown.

All three main NYC airports have existing or planned direct heavy rail connections to Manhattan. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Certainly Miami's airport isn't transit-oriented.

South Florida is openly hostile to transit. Over six million people, centralized among a relatively dense linear corridor, and one real rail line, with pathetic ridership, in a region with a huge lower income and foreign-born population and massive visitor counts. Huge roads, minimal pedestrian amenities, and public transit is viewed as this bizarre thing among the non-poor, even in downtown Miami. The main street, Brickell, is an unpleasant walk. Giant condo towers sitting on huge parking podiums. The only vaguely urban downtown blocks are around Flagler, very depressed-looking, and getting eviscerated for more Brickell-style development.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by jd3189

The I 10 is important to connect the southern parts of the US from coast to coast, but it does not need to terminate at Santa Monica. Route 66 already does that and it’s a more legendary road.

Isn't Rt. 66 pretty much Santa Monica Blvd which has lights? Also 10 feeds into the PCH along the coast.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by jd3189

In LA’s case, it’s also going to take a cultural shift to get people to be less reliant on cars. You wouldn’t have to get rid of all the freeways, just the ones going through major cities and towns. The I 10 is important to connect the southern parts of the US from coast to coast, but it does not need to terminate at Santa Monica. Route 66 already does that and it’s a more legendary road.

If the 10 didn’t exist for that stretch between Downtown LA and Santa Monica, the Westside would have better connectivity with the areas of the basin direct south of it. You could simply replace it with a boulevard or major arterial street that would parallel Wilshire Boulevard and take on the same traffic as the 10 currently. The 10 would then start either east of downtown LA or somewhere in the San Gabriel Valley.

I also agree with the sentiments about building more alternatives to freeways. In LA, there is potential to develop TODs around the various Metrolink stations throughout Southern California. Those areas would be able to absorb additional population growth and would give people an option to travel to LA or anywhere else in SoCal without dealing with shitty traffic. Those that still have to commute by car would also not have to deal with these potential additional drivers.

And as I mentioned before, this can only happen through cultural shift. People come to live in LA for the weather, Hollywood, etc. There is a car culture here, but even those diehard car fans dislike traffic. By developing a more robust public transportation system that parallels and competes with the existing freeway system, Angelenos will have more options on getting around. And since the metro is multi-nodal anyways, there should also be focus on spreading out jobs and building more TODs across the different major cities in SoCal such as Long Beach, Pasadena, Glendale, San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego, and the Orange County towns like Irvine and Anaheim.

It's like M1 that connects London to all those big northern English cities and it starts 25 km away from Central London.

About Los Angeles, as coastal Californians are very NIMBYs, I imagine that it would be some support to remove I-10 making more difficult for people from elsewhere to flock into their communities.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by Crawford

All three main NYC airports have existing or planned direct heavy rail connections to Manhattan. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Certainly Miami's airport isn't transit-oriented.

South Florida is openly hostile to transit. Over six million people, centralized among a relatively dense linear corridor, and one real rail line, with pathetic ridership, in a region with a huge lower income and foreign-born population and massive visitor counts. Huge roads, minimal pedestrian amenities, and public transit is viewed as this bizarre thing among the non-poor, even in downtown Miami. The main street, Brickell, is an unpleasant walk. Giant condo towers sitting on huge parking podiums. The only vaguely urban downtown blocks are around Flagler, very depressed-looking, and getting eviscerated for more Brickell-style development.

Miami Avenue is the main street in Brickell not Brickell Avenue:
https://goo.gl/maps/F1sv6qBRUdtYNavU8

Flagler is currently receiving a makeover. Also there will be a 2nd commuter line on the eastern rail line that Brightline runs on.

I'm not denying there isn't a lot of work to be done, just wanted to throw in that the metro is on a better path.

[plinko]

Originally Posted by TWAK

Here's Sacramento who also had a freeway revolt:

Oddly though, in the 2002 regional transportation plan, there were still plans for new freeways (along with a bunch of new transit lines). Watt Avenue and Hazel/Sierra College were supposed to be incrementally upgraded to full limited access and Grant Line was supposed to be built as a fully limited access highway as well. Thankfully they built the transit and none of the highways.

The removal of CA275 to the Tower Bridge has made a huge difference in how that area of West Sac feels and has developed. They need to get rid of the utterly useless CA160 as well.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Exactly. Every urban freeway in America should be ripped out.

Cars, suburbia, Freeways are NOT GOING AWAY they will never go away and they should not.

You need to learn to live with them in balance with your other urban goals.