What does /n/ think about freeway removals? I think it'

>>>/pol/101533224

Interesting.

The less freeways within a city the better

File: perimetral_f_208809.jpg (125KB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 900x506px

This whole thing went down here in Rio

trying to find good pics of how it looks now

File: 20160614_CO_POR_PRACA_MAUA_LV-1000.jpg (1MB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1333px

>>1031990
Best I could find. Anyway, there's a shitload of tunnels and cool thing now. I can't even look at it cause it gets my dick hard and makes me wanna play SimCity 4

>>1031989
this

I heard that Seoul once constructed a freeway on top of the river in the city center which now abolished

>>1032028
*removed

>>1031953
Fuck Gina Raimondo
ruining Providence's only chance at revival for the foreseeable future

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/11/reimagining-the-urban-freeway-holding-back-providence/508373/

File: Interstate_Highway_plan_October_1,_1970.jpg (1MB, 3088x2208px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3088x2208px

>>1031953
Personally, the highway system in the US is a monument to engineering, right up there with the rail roads if you ask me. So nah, I like my freeways.

>>1032035
freeways are good and all(though railroads are preferable), but they 100% do not belong in cities

Fuck no. Freeways are fine. Even Tokyo has them.

>>1031953
Inner city highways are a retard idea. Faux pro-car ideology which harms everyone involved, drivers included.
Townsfolk should try to put heavy traffic outside of the city and do that thing where city districts have mixed together zones so they'd need less commute and thus less traffic or something.
Whatever.

>>1032044
Or you can just have large park and rides outside the city so people who drive their cars will park them and switch to public transit. This is a common tendency in europe nowadays, and it works perfectly as a transitional stage to a more predominant use of public transit. You start by reducing car usage in the city, where public transit is usually more competitive and also cheaper to improve (because of higher densities and shorter trips), and when people have to park outside the city you'll have the perfect argument for improving suburban transport, which is more complicated (bc more nimbys) and expensive to improve.

File: viaducto_glories_barcelona.jpg (146KB, 639x426px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 639x426px

We got rid of this thing.... TO HAVE IT REPLACED WITH A SHITEXPENSIVE TUNNEL REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>1032044
One more thing (I'm >>1032063). The idea that you can reduce the actual need for transportation is pretty much a utopia, outside of not having ridiculously inefficient burger-style burbs. Most people nowadays change jobs rather frequently, and expensive rent won't allow people to always live in convenient places. However, at the same time this increased need for transportation justifies good public transit, since the economy of scale gets better. The perfect example is Switzerland, people there often travel very far on a regular basis, some people live and work in different regions. Of course this doesn't mean the same as it does in more vast countries, but it does mean travelling maybe 80 or 100km from your home to work. That's a lot, considering that living in a suburb usually means no more than 20km of distance to your workplace. This is only possible because of the extreme efficiency of the rail system, so people take maybe an hour and a half to get to work, but travel many times farther than burgers who take the same time just to get from the burbs into the city with rush hour traffic. I think this swiss type of model is clearly the future, since the idea of working your whole life at the same company, or even working in the city where you live is simply not an option anymore. One can ignore this trend like america does (and loads of other countries following suit) and have people lose valuable hours stuck in traffic because automobile infrastructure simply can't deal with these levels of mobility. They couldn't even handle the 1970's levels of mobility ffs. Or one can adapt the whole concept of mobility and consequent infrastructure priorities like some places in Europe and Asia are doing/have done.

>>1032064
Don't get it

Are you saying it looks good? Because it doesn't

>>1032063
Was rather talking about the in-city commute.
Surely some people would need to get to the city in the first place and whatever you mentioned would work great I guess.

>>1032069
90 minutes wasted on commute twice a day is still 90 minutes wasted on commute twice a day, no matter if it's crawling thru a 20 km stretch of a highway or doing 80 km in a nifty Swiss train.
[spoiler]I already spend more than 30 minutes on my commute (so an hour a day at least) and hate every fuckin minute of it.[/spoiler]

>>1032073
Why tear it down if you're going to build an expensive tunnel to replace it? It's a huge waste of money just to get rid of an eyesore. It doesn't look good, but I'd rather have that money go into something actually useful.

File: 6214903.jpg (529KB, 4000x2666px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 4000x2666px

>>1031992
it's really cool to drive down there

>>1032074
>90 minutes wasted on commute twice a day is still 90 minutes wasted on commute twice a day, no matter if it's crawling thru a 20 km stretch of a highway or doing 80 km in a nifty Swiss train.
Indeed, but that's not the point. People being able to travel 80km to go to work means that much more potential gets exploited. Someone who can be useful far away can now work there, otherwise he'd either have to move, which he may or may not want/be able to, or he'd have to get a shittier job where he doesn't add as much value.
Also at the same time it means that people commuting for 20km will do so in a fraction of the time that it would take a burger stuck in traffic.

btw I used to spend an hour and a half on my commute when I was a student to travel about 30km by public transit. It was soooo frustrating. Worst part was that less than 40 minutes of that I spent sitting in a comfy train being able to read, the rest was walking, subway to/from train station, and local bus which is slow as balls (but at least beats walking). Inefficient public transit is extremely frustrating.

File: thatfeelwhentfw.jpg (10KB, 223x226px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 223x226px

>>1032035
Fck off cagecuck

>>1031953
US Route 66. See what happened to all the small towns along that road when the Interstate system bypassed them.

And then there is local traffic that uses the freeways. Move that into town and instant gridlock. Not to mention the arterial road capacity that will have to be built to replace it. With no subsidy from the federal government.

>>1032044
how about inner city highway in Tokyo?

>>1032069
In Japan there're people living in cities like Utsunomiya or Shizuoka and commute to Tokyo to work everyday but is declining because the cost of commuting with shinkansen is high

>>1032074
The idea here is that with high speed public transport, your city can be much larger and thus contain far more people, and thus the city can have much more potential to grow

>>1032148
Generally the freeways being removed are supplemental Interstates or even just freeway-style state routes. They usually dead-end inside the city, so this is about intra-city (or at most intra-region) traffic, not cross-country truck traffic being diverted to local roads.

>>1032063
>Or you can just have large park and rides outside the city so people who drive their cars will park them and switch to public transit.
This is easier said then done. In the suburbs around here, for example, there is literally no room left to construct bigger car parks for park and ride schemes. Most train stations have some parking space but replacing them with garages to house more park&riders? That'll never happen. For me personally we drive to the station and then use on-street parking in the nearest neighborhood. There is definitely high demand for more park and ride though, at the station I park at people will park halfway into a swamp just to have access to the station.

>>1032178
>how about inner city highway in Tokyo?
All I know about Tokyo traffic is that it's fuckin abysmal.
>The idea here is that with high speed public transport, your city can be much larger and thus contain far more people, and thus the city can have much more potential to grow
Great idea, unless you actually need to go from place to place.
When is a city too big? Do we really want to go full MEGA CITY 1?

>>1032091
Well, my city is pretty well linked with various transport means (buses, trams, metro and urban/suburban trains - all of which can be accessed with a single ticket system, so it gives pretty decent options), but most of the time spent I waste stuck in traffic jams. Seriously, one of the worst congestion in [spoiler]Europe[/spoiler].
I take bike whenever I can, but winters are damn messy here so now I'm stuck.

Maybe a highway bypass would fix (some of) it, but they are doing it wrong.
Cheers.

>>1032274
You connect from high speed rail to local metro.
And nowadays tons of cities already have population of 20M+ and growing.

>>1032291
>tons of cities already have population of 20M+ and growing

3 cities, 14 metro areas (according to wikipedia) - not really tons... Anyway just because they exist doesn't mean they're particularly nice places to live for the majority of the inhabitants

>>1032274

>Do we really want to go full MEGA CITY 1?

SKY CITY

It will be like an ultra NY but you need a passport to enter and everyone hates you because you are a "grounder" and they, like your average New Yorker, forget that they rely on the rest of the world for everything.

>>1032329
most of them are though

>>1032183
>just freeway-style state routes.
>They usually dead-end inside the city

So, where does that traffic go? It's origin/destination is within the city, so I imagine it goes to surface streets.

In some cities where old industrial and port facilities are being gentrified and converted to residential or entertainment districts, freeway removal might work. But if you start by pulling the freeways out, business may leave as well. And if enough of it leaves, who is going to live in your city any longer?

>>1032329
it's nice because there's jobs there, unlike your faggy small town where you can only work as a farmer, at a factory or at walmart

in other words people don't have a fucking choice. everyone would rather live in a nice house with a nice garden, it's just not sustainable. deal with it.

>>1032437
Businesses left when these freeways were put in, because they make the neighborhoods around them horrible places to do anything.

Freeways are hideously expensive to build and maintain and generally don't cause enough economic development to recoup the cost.

>So, where does that traffic go? It's origin/destination is within the city, so I imagine it goes to surface streets.

Surface streets, transit, bike lanes, sidewalks.
Some trips get shifted to different times in the day, some shift to endpoints closer to the trip origin.

For travel inside a city, freeways are an unnecessary component of the transportation network. Their effect is to induce more traffic, more demand for parking, and inefficient land use patterns. For the same cost, you can even get better vehicular throughput on a series of low-speed surface avenues, with the added bonus of not destroying the neighborhood.

>>1032557
>Surface streets,
Pick one
>transit, bike lanes, sidewalks.
or the others. You shove a freeway worth of traffic through local streets and you can wave goodbye to safe pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

>Some trips get shifted to different times in the day
Really? How you you enforce this?

>For travel inside a city, freeways are an unnecessary component
Yeah. They are suggesting this for Seattle. My input is: start by shutting down most of the freeway on and off ramps and see where traffic goes. And then listen to people scream "No! Not my on-ramp!" Nobody likes I-5 except that using it for local traffic within the city has allowed the urban planners to neglect the local street grid for about 50 years. Shut it down (or block it off from local access) and see how many neighborhoods have to be flattened to replace its capacity.

>>1032035
I personally don't have much of a problem about the highway system in general, I just don't want them going through the cities themselves

>>1033134
Have you ever heard of the Braess' paradox?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess'_paradox
Adding a street can make traffic worse and removing one can make it better.