In most of Western cities there were lots of expressways and freeways planned after WWII but because of their spoiled democracy :bash: most of them were cancelled.
These cities were Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, London, Paris and much more.

Ile de France Expressway and Autoroute network
red : Motorway built
dark purple : deleted
green : renamed project
orange : plan Pompidou (freeway in the center of Paris) deleted
light purple : freeways built
brown : project approved.
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8673/162xr8.gif


Plan Pompidou in Paris
Double blue line : freeway. (6 at 8 lanes)
Dark blue line : avenue, boulevard without intersection or single way freeway for the Seine banks.
light blue line : avenue or boulevard with underground passage.
blue circle : interchange
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/5830/80hw0.jpg

The system was proposed in 60's and 70's and most of it was cancelled in 70's

Toronto Cancelled Expressways:
Plans in 1944:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/Toronto_Planning_Board_1943_master_plan.jpg
Plans in 1954:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/Metro_Toronto_1954_Transportation_plan.jpg
The results of the plans:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cb/Map_of_Toronto_Expwys.gif/800px-Map_of_Toronto_Expwys.gif
The comparison of the proposed but cancelled network of 1966 and today's
http://www.transittoronto.org/images/spare-0019-01.gif

This is how Spadina Expressway would have looked like in Toronto:
http://www.transittoronto.org/images/spare-0019-02.gif
http://www.transittoronto.org/images/spare-0019-04.jpg
http://www.transittoronto.org/images/spare-0019-05.gif

South Africa has quite a few.

The reasons are a little different from in Europe and were mostly economic. After the Second World War, the South African economy boomed massively reaching a peak in the late 1960s and this coincided with massive growth in traffic.

After that, political instability resulting from internal and external opposition to apartheid and the intervention of Soviet and Cuban troops in neighbouring countries caused an economic slowdown which prevented many schemes from being built. The most famous are the incomplete flyovers in Cape Town, where work was frozen in 1976:-

http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/irt/PublishingImages/IRTGallery/IRT_18_dec_09n.jpg

London has a lot of propose motorways...

AKA London Ringways...

I'm glad they didn't get built although I do think that some of it could have been completed...such as North Circular Motorway and a further ring outside the M25

This is a video about it all!
yUEHWhO_HdY

http://www.cbrd.co.uk/histories/ringways/map/img/large_government.gif

^^ This could have been a very immpresive network.
this is another map of the central London plans
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/London_Motorway_Box_1960s_Plan.png/800px-London_Motorway_Box_1960s_Plan.png

Extra post :bash2:

London has a lot of propose motorways...

AKA London Ringways...

I'm glad they didn't get built although I do think that some of it could have been completed...such as North Circular Motorway and a further ring outside the M25

This is a video about it all!
yUEHWhO_HdY

http://www.cbrd.co.uk/histories/ringways/map/img/large_government.gif

These would have been fantastic! Especially the south cross route as South London is such a mess. Also, on such a massively important route as the M25, duplication of roads is necessary (ie one motorway is not enough) in particular on the western side.

If they had been built in the 1960s, the inevitable whining and moaning would be long forgotten by now and no-one would remember what all the fuss was about.

^^ That's why I created the thread. To tell people that forcing governments to stop a big project is not useful. The problems of big constructions are short-term while their benefits are long-term

Boston's Cancelled Expressways
http://www.brorson.com/maps/BostonHighwayPlan_1965/BostonHighwayPlan_1965.jpg

^^ That's why I created the thread. To tell people that forcing governments to stop a big project is not useful. The problems of big constructions are short-term while their benefits are long-term

Very nuanced point of view you've got there....

EDIT: Also, some of those supposedly-canceled expressways in Boston were in fact built.

Those plans for Paris are so cool. IT would be a much better city (not that it is bad) had they got modern freeways right into the heart of the central areas.

When I was driving in Manhattan, I realized how bad cross traffic is because it lacks the two proposed crosstown links, namely the Lower Manhattan Expressway. With a sleek design and modern lighting, it would be a tremendous addition to Lower Manhattan and ease traffic from NJ to Brooklyn.

Robert Moses plan for NYC wont't be missed.And none of those cutting heavily urbanized areas.

Paris is so lefty. all they do is turning streets in sidewalks and building new tramways...

Maybe the next government helps a little bit

This is how Lower Manhattan Exp would have looked like
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/lower-manhattan/img9.gif

If we built all these freeways, Amelie Poulin would never exist as the Canal Saint Martin would be a freeway.
Between Amelie Poulin and freeways, I prefer the freeway. :D

No Paris plage.
I hate Paris plage, the bank of the Seine should be reserved to suburban commuter, not lounging on a an expensive beach where you can not swim.
Less urban conservatism. Honestly who care to protect a buch of ugly old buildings when there is a freeway next to it.
Paris would be a lot cheaper, a lot more housing and office space and more architectural possibility.
Less annoying tourists, they walk too slowly.

Unfortunately I am only half joking because when I see how conservative is the urban development in inner Paris, I wonder if freeways in the heart of the city would not be better than what we have today. :(

This is how Lower and mid Manhattan Exp would have looked like on google earth
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3651/3311102680_bf7110b18b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3597/3311101496_95930860ab.jpg

These would have been fantastic! Especially the south cross route as South London is such a mess. Also, on such a massively important route as the M25, duplication of roads is necessary (ie one motorway is not enough) in particular on the western side.

If they had been built in the 1960s, the inevitable whining and moaning would be long forgotten by now and no-one would remember what all the fuss was about.

The thing is that people look at city planning as a technical and theoretic exercise...When in reality its more about our human wants and needs...

A load of urban motorways may work in a more practical and efficient manner but so much of London would have been lost...

The ringways plan fitting in with a load of other plans such as demolishing the centre of Brixton and building several tower blocks instead...

Had all this been built people would see ugly concrete elevated motorways everywhere. And believe me, people would still moan about them being a nightmare to drive on.

Those plans for Paris are so cool. IT would be a much better city (not that it is bad) had they got modern freeways right into the heart of the central areas.

When I was driving in Manhattan, I realized how bad cross traffic is because it lacks the two proposed crosstown links, namely the Lower Manhattan Expressway. With a sleek design and modern lighting, it would be a tremendous addition to Lower Manhattan and ease traffic from NJ to Brooklyn.

It's a fucking city! I realize that you think everyone in the world should live in a free-standing house with a white-picket fence, but - news flash - there are people in the world who don't want that sort of lifestyle. And "there's nothing wrong with that." Do you know how many distinctive, lively neighborhoods would have been wiped out (and at astronomical eminent-domain costs to taxpayers) to accommodate traffic from New Jersey to Brooklyn that has other ways of getting from New Jersey to Brooklyn?

Like the utterly unnecessary South Street Expressway that was canceled in Philadelphia. Unnecessary because the Vine Street Expressway (which usually flows freely, 20 years after it was opened) serves the same purpose - connecting 76 and 95 a mile to the north of where South Street would have done. But there are people who regret it wasn't built because apparently all that matters to them is that as much as possible should be paved.

This is how Lower and mid Manhattan Exp would have looked like on google earth
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3651/3311102680_bf7110b18b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3597/3311101496_95930860ab.jpg

Have you ever been in New York? Do you know what that would have done to the city and do you care? And do New Yorkers have a right to a say in this? Or only Iranians and know-it-alls from Tilburg?

It's a fucking city! I realize that you think everyone in the world should live in a free-standing house with a white-picket fence, but - news flash - there are people in the world who don't want that sort of lifestyle. And "there's nothing wrong with that." Do you know how many distinctive, lively neighborhoods would have been wiped out (and at astronomical eminent-domain costs to taxpayers) to accommodate traffic from New Jersey to Brooklyn that has other ways of getting from New Jersey to Brooklyn?

Like the utterly unnecessary South Street Expressway that was canceled in Philadelphia. Unnecessary because the Vine Street Expressway (which usually flows freely, 20 years after it was opened) serves the same purpose - connecting 76 and 95 a mile to the north of where South Street would have done. But there are people who regret it wasn't built because apparently all that matters to them is that as much as possible should be paved.
...Although I submit that the express lanes of the Roosevelt Boulevard should be depressed and made into a freeway. The road as it exists today is a danger to everybody and absolutely suicidal for pedestrians.

When the Delaware Expressway (I-95 through Philadelphia) was first proposed, it was to be a freight trunk route along a highly industrially active waterfront. Now that such industrial activities are gone from most of it, closure from Oregon north to roughly Girard or Allegheny (and the Vine Street Expwy. link to it along with it) is very much merited, technically speaking. There's just this teeny issue of it being signed I-95, the principal road from Maine to Georgia; closure of this link will require relocation of this particular Interstate (I've suggested I-295/NJ Tpk in the past).

Very nuanced point of view you've got there....

EDIT: Also, some of those supposedly-canceled expressways in Boston were in fact built.

Yes they were built , but used for Transit instead of Highways...

This is how Lower and mid Manhattan Exp would have looked like on google earth
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3651/3311102680_bf7110b18b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3597/3311101496_95930860ab.jpg

That would have been devastating , thankgod that was stopped. Robert Moses was a good suburban man , but his Urban ideas lacked a soul and he didn't seem to care unlike some of the other great NY/NJ region designers of the 21st century.

Yes they were built , but used for Transit instead of Highways...



That would have been devastating , thankgod that was stopped. Robert Moses was a good suburban man , but his Urban ideas lacked a soul and he didn't seem to care unlike some of the other great NY/NJ region designers of the 21st century.

Re Boston: assuming that the roads shown in red on his map are the ones he thinks are canceled, they actually include the Mass. 2 freeway from the west end of Cambridge out past Concord, and a part of I-93 just north of downtown Boston. Roads that were in fact built (and at least 30 years ago).

Re Robert Moses: you're 100 percent right! Everyone who admires him unthinkingly (or condemns him unthinkingly, for that matter) should read The Power Broker, a biography of him that came out probably in the '80s. (I forget the author's name.) He did good in the '20s and '30s - and was ahead of his time in developing the parkways on Long Island and north of the city, but then he started to think be very inflexible about, say, the routing of the Cross-Bronx.

Jane Jacobs' The Death and Life of Great American Cities is a must-read as well. She was a leading opponent of his plans to lace Manhattan with freeways (and of soulless public housing and the like) - a leading proponent of human-scale urban life.

...Although I submit that the express lanes of the Roosevelt Boulevard should be depressed and made into a freeway. The road as it exists today is a danger to everybody and absolutely suicidal for pedestrians.

When the Delaware Expressway (I-95 through Philadelphia) was first proposed, it was to be a freight trunk route along a highly industrially active waterfront. Now that such industrial activities are gone from most of it, closure from Oregon north to roughly Girard or Allegheny (and the Vine Street Expwy. link to it along with it) is very much merited, technically speaking. There's just this teeny issue of it being signed I-95, the principal road from Maine to Georgia; closure of this link will require relocation of this particular Interstate (I've suggested I-295/NJ Tpk in the past).

Well, 95's there, so we don't save anything by tearing it down. And I don't think it or Vine is useless. (A second crosstown expressway parallel to Vine would not have come close to benefiting us enough to outweigh the neighborhoods destroyed. In fact, I'm not sure it would have had any benefit at all.) I'm not against all highways. Some are necessary. But just salivating over never-realized plans on the theory that all highways are good is a phase I was past about 30 years ago. And salivating over never-realized plans for communities you're not actually a part of is, well, a bit out of line.

A city is not meant to have a soul, that is for humans, and humans alone. A city is, most and foremost, a functional place.

This being said, my issues with the lack of connectivity for cross-town traffic don't have anything to do with the built-up environment of Manhattan. Indeed, it is because it is so dense that it requires more freeways to accommodate traffic! Currently, there is only one freeway crossing Manhattan up north near George Washington bridge. That is not enough.

I also think they should select one of the north-south avenues that don't carry subways to build a semi-buried expressway with exits and entrances to local lanes. Those traffic lights in most of Manhattan sucks and rarely I was able, within the prescribed speed limits, to cross more than 3 lights at once. Which means a mere drive to the Cloisters Museum, for instance, took me almost 1h40 from Staten Island where I was staying. Good N-S and crosstown freeways would speed up traffic, and could even be dynamically tolled.

London, Ontario freeway plans:

Nothing was built.

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/1690/402proposedroutes.jpg

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/9845/londonfreewayplan1968.jpg

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/8074/londonfreewayplan1959.jpg


With reference to the rest of the uncompleted freeway network in Toronto and southern Ontario:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Expressway-network-future.png/800px-Expressway-network-future.png

^^
The routes to Sudbury and North Bay are under construction.

I have heard some chatter in recent years about possibly developing a route (sometimes referred to as the 'Mid-Penn Expressway') from the Fort Erie area to ON 402 not far west of its interchange with ON 401 in the London area roughly following ON 3.

As for NYC, I'm also glad that the cross-Manhattan freeways were not built. Instead, I would love to see a deep-bored bypass tunnel drilled from the NJTP at about interchange 16E, under Manhattan to emerge and feed into the LIE (I-495) at about its interchange with the BQE (I-278), with the existing Lincoln and Midtown Tunnels to then become 'odd' three-digit interstate spurs off of it to handle traffic actually bound to and from Manhattan.

Mike

London has a lot of propose motorways...

AKA London Ringways...

I'm glad they didn't get built although I do think that some of it could have been completed...such as North Circular Motorway and a further ring outside the M25



Lol why are you glad they didn'tget built? London's road network is probably the most outdated and poorly planned of all large cities in the developed World. You know there is something ridiculously wrong with that city when you drive from central London to one of its main airports (Gatwick) OUTSIDE the rush hours and see how long it takes for that relatively short journey. In most European countries you could travel 200km in that same time span.

I thin they should make an inner M25 which would include the N. Circular Road and the S. Circular Road (which is a bad joke really as it doesn't even exist phisically) plus transform the Ring Road into a propper 2 or 3 lanes avenue and not a bunch of streets stitched together.
Not to mention other infrastructure abominations such as the Blackwall Tunnel which should have been replaced by either a new bridge or a wider tunnel a long time ago as it is the ONLY North-South connection for East London (Rotherhithe Tunnel and the Woolwich Ferry - two other bad jokes) don't count.

I still have trouble understanding why one of the World's wealthiest cities neglects its road infrastructure so much. Soon enough even Mumbai will have a better traffic than London.

Have you ever been in New York? Do you know what that would have done to the city and do you care? And do New Yorkers have a right to a say in this?
I am not saying they should have built those plans. Of course those plans would have cut the city's south and north. I am just shwing them. But instead they can build an underground double decker tunnel expressway under one of the existing avenues.

There should be a six-lane bored tunnel from the New Jersey Turnpike to the Long Island Expressway. Long Island has 7.5 million inhabitants but the only way to get out of it is via outdated New York Expressways.

Lol why are you glad they didn'tget built? London's road network is probably the most outdated and poorly planned of all large cities in the developed World. You know there is something ridiculously wrong with that city when you drive from central London to one of its main airports (Gatwick) OUTSIDE the rush hours and see how long it takes for that relatively short journey. In most European countries you could travel 200km in that same time span.

I thin they should make an inner M25 which would include the N. Circular Road and the S. Circular Road (which is a bad joke really as it doesn't even exist phisically) plus transform the Ring Road into a propper 2 or 3 lanes avenue and not a bunch of streets stitched together.
Not to mention other infrastructure abominations such as the Blackwall Tunnel which should have been replaced by either a new bridge or a wider tunnel a long time ago as it is the ONLY North-South connection for East London (Rotherhithe Tunnel and the Woolwich Ferry - two other bad jokes) don't count.

I still have trouble understanding why one of the World's wealthiest cities neglects its road infrastructure so much. Soon enough even Mumbai will have a better traffic than London.

The reason why a south circular road never got built was due to the fact that it would require removing loads of houses and cutting up neighbourhoods. All the roads leading to the south circular would just become jammed and then the south circular itself would be jammed as 1 motorway is not enough, so then you end up building more and more to accommodate cars.

I think London could widen a few roads and upgrade others. But really it needs to focus on the rail and tube. Getting people around a large city by car is not sustainable...If you look at cities with loads of urban freeways, their congestion is just as bad as London's. More roads means more cars...

I do agree that some new river crossings are needed in the east.

There should be a six-lane bored tunnel from the New Jersey Turnpike to the Long Island Expressway. Long Island has 7.5 million inhabitants but the only way to get out of it is via outdated New York Expressways.

That would get instantly rammed with cars! This is the thing with motorways is that really you need about 12 lanes for inner city routes...Tunnels are hard to expand.

This would have absolutely murdered Melbourne had it all been constructed...

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/605/fwyob0.jpg

I can't believe people are actually advocating building freeways right through the heart of Paris, London and New York. I'm sure Suburbanist is being payed off by some pro-car, big oil lobby group.

^^Yikes! That is asking for non livable city.

This was the Highway plan for Belgium in 1972. It only shows highways, no expressways,no freeways and no national roads that are sometimes up to highway standards to.

Sometimes the missing links like in the ringroad of Brussels can still be 2x2 or 2x3 roads, but are not up to highway standards.

The red ones are not constructed and probably never will be.

http://home.scarlet.be/~si650495/snelweg/gesch/be1972.png
http://home.scarlet.be/~si650495/snelweg/gesch/be1972.png

A city is not meant to have a soul, that is for humans, and humans alone. A city is, most and foremost, a functional place.

Therefore I argue that a sense of (humane) city space is a necessity for people which makes it functional to have no elevated motorways through densley populated areas. (a bit confusing, I know)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against motorways in cities as such, I just think that it's unacceptable by today's standards to demolish large areas in a densely populated city to build them.

Budapest 1940-2011:

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3870/dikt3.jpg

^^ of course Melbourne is not that dense but they can build for example F2, F5, F7 and F9

Now let's take a look to successful cities in making freeways and expressways

First of all Tehran, IR
Green=Expressways
Blue=Freeways
dotted = u/c
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/57744576.jpg
If you look carefully there is no expressway in the central heart of the city

Madrid, E
http://acm2.ohlconcesiones.com/ACM2_upload/ActividadesConcesiones/fichas/espana/Autopista_M-12/Mapa_Autopista_M-12_g.jpg
In both of the above they also have an excelent public transport system
Los Angeles
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Los_Angeles_Freeway_Map.png
In this case freeways go to heart of the city
Lisbon, P
http://www.portugalgolfe.com/images/course-location/lisbonsportsclub.gif
Ruhr Area, D
http://www.metropoleruhr.de/uploads/pics/MR_Autobahnen_03.png
Lille Metropole, F
http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/908/autoroutesamllh0.jpg

This is a nice german map
http://www.themt.de/images/xl/rab1940-000lg.png
Most of the autobahns in today's Poland teritory was cancelled

There should be a six-lane bored tunnel from the New Jersey Turnpike to the Long Island Expressway. Long Island has 7.5 million inhabitants but the only way to get out of it is via outdated New York Expressways.

It wouldn't work , mostly due to the Truck bomb fears that surround this region. So you won't see any more Highways built in the Urban Areas of the NYC region. You will see some highways being torn down. Theres also no space , at least underground , the Newer railway stations need to go 7 stories below to avoid the clutter of Manhattan's underground. Most people who live on LI , work on LI. They need to construct the Cross-Harbor Rail link which was defeated a few years ago due to NYC's fears of chemical freight trains passing through neighborhoods and loud passenger trains which is stupid in my opinion. The Tunnel would have taken thousands of trucks off the LI highways and thousands of Cars...

A load of urban motorways may work in a more practical and efficient manner but so much of London would have been lost...

I really don't agree. We're not talking of dynamiting the Tower of London, bulldozing Pudding Lane or razing St Pauls. The vast majority of the buildings that would need to be demolished are very ordinary late 19th Century/early 20th century structures that cover hundreds of square kilometres in London and exist in the millions in the UK. The number destroyed would be a tiny fraction of the total; I'm not advocating destroying incredibly rare gems.

The attitude has developed that every oldish building and street is of immense value, regardless of whether it's the commonest, most banal thing.

It wouldn't work , mostly due to the Truck bomb fears that surround this region.

Surely ordinary streets are more of a target for planting vehicle bombs than freeways? A vehicle can be much more easily parked on an ordinary street than on a freeway. I've never heard of a truck bomb being set off on a freeway, but many that have been set off on city streets, carparks etc.

That would get instantly rammed with cars! This is the thing with motorways is that really you need about 12 lanes for inner city routes...Tunnels are hard to expand.

Straw man argument. This is like saying: look - we build that new subway line and it is already packed with commuters! More subway brings more passengers, so we should not build subways.

It is also analogue to saying: "oh, new airports attract more planes! We build a new runway at (name your heavy-loaded airport) and the terminals are packed! Airlines starting flying more planes!".

Cars - and motorbike, and subway/air/train passengers for that matter - don't just pop up in spontaneous reproduction. If you build a highway and it becomes heavily used, that is a sign that there is a repressed demand for car lanes in a given area, so that when you provide new infrastructure, demand that was unmet now is met.

There isn't "unlimited demand" for any mode of transportation that has any cost. If you build 60 space ports across US and started flying stratosphere-able vehicles at US$ 200.000 per ride, that wouldn't mean millions of people queuing up to take a ride! Likewise, if you built an oversize marina for 200.000 luxury yachts in Prudhoe Bay, I doubt it would attract a countless jam of recreational vessels.

Indeed, at least in the case of US, infrastructure that is mostly idle or underused are commuter rail lines (like Front Runner in New Mexico, daily ridership 2.200) and, especially, slow-moving streetcar projects.

The argument that "highways attract cars" is moot, misguided and a fallacy. It is particular insidious because people who voice it are usually very biased in the sense of considering more people walking, more people packing a subway car STANDING FOR 30 MINUTES OR MORE, more people on scooters or bikes as positive, a sign of "life", wheres only those riding cars are singled out as "obnoxious" or "a threat".

I absolutely agree with Suburbanist. I've had the misfortune of travelling on London buses and underground trains that are crammed like cattle cars to the point where it is physically impossible to get off at the stop I wanted. Yet no-one says "what's the point of the London Underground, it just gets full up" or "If we run a bus, it will only get crammed, so really there is no point".

When people use this argument, they never seem to consider all the journeys transporting people and goods that are not made because the infrastructure has not been built and all the associated economic growth, leisure etc that is missed out on.

Straw man argument. This is like saying: look - we build that new subway line and it is already packed with commuters! More subway brings more passengers, so we should not build subways.


A 2 track subway line can carry so many more people that a 12 lane motorway...

But anyway, I made a map of where motorway could just about fit in, in and around London...

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?msid=215974363525272264143.0004acbce1f6a05d6518e&msa=0&ll=51.455718,0.070038&spn=0.587028,1.454315

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x48/poshbakerloo/LondonMotorways.jpg

Why would someone waste money on new urban motorways, when the age of car is nearing to its end? If you think price of oil can go anywhere but up, you're crazy.

Building new motorways in Manhattan and central Paris would result in riots and sabotages on a massive level, and rightfully so.

A 2 track subway line can carry so many more people that a 12 lane motorway...

But anyway, I made a map of where motorway could just about fit in, in and around London...

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?msid=215974363525272264143.0004acbce1f6a05d6518e&msa=0&ll=51.455718,0.070038&spn=0.587028,1.454315

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x48/poshbakerloo/LondonMotorways.jpg

That's a pretty radical proposal, I like it ;) The only big thing missing that I would like to see is a south circular motorway.

There should be a six-lane bored tunnel from the New Jersey Turnpike to the Long Island Expressway. Long Island has 7.5 million inhabitants but the only way to get out of it is via outdated New York Expressways.

Or improvements to the existing routes through the Bronx and Staten Island that Long Islanders in fact use to get to points beyond Manhattan. Those routes need work anyway.

I haven't been to Manhattan, but it looks as though a cross freeway could be fitted in relatively easily. This could be done by demolishing all the blocks between two parallel streets and excavating it out to put the freeway in a cutting. It looks as though there would be room for twelve lanes. The parallel streets would then be converted into frontage roads, and the north-south avenues go over the top on bridges.

Why would someone waste money on new urban motorways, when the age of car is nearing to its end? If you think price of oil can go anywhere but up, you're crazy.

- electric car

- 2nd generation biofuel car

- hydrogen-powered car

- APS/induction-feed car

- automated cars (that self-drive on isolated ROWs like highways)

The age of the internal combustion engine might be nearing an end, but not that of the concept of a personal, no operator required, infinite frequency and unit of use = 1/2/3/4 passengers vehicle. Maybe that will even evolve into large-scale deployment o Personal Rapid Transit.

A 2 track subway line can carry so many more people that a 12 lane motorway...

Does a subway line carry people door to door? Does it carry people door to door without intermediate stops or routing made to maximize ridership? Does it allow either travel with a wallet or with 200kg of stuff with the same comfort? Does it operate 24/7 without reduction on service level even 3am at Christmas day?

I haven't been to Manhattan, but it looks as though a cross freeway could be fitted in relatively easily. This could be done by demolishing all the blocks between two parallel streets and excavating it out to put the freeway in a cutting. It looks as though there would be room for twelve lanes. The parallel streets would then be converted into frontage roads, and the north-south avenues go over the top on bridges.

They should have done that in the 1970s, when the city was in decay and real estate in Lower Manhattan was dirty cheap. Indeed, they should have done with together with the project of the original WTC. Parts of Manhattan were like a war zone, very third World, Times Square was full of hookers, drug dealers, strip shows, illegal products... perfect opportunity missed: build a freeway, and tip off decadent and rotten areas.

I absolutely agree with Suburbanist. I've had the misfortune of travelling on London buses and underground trains that are crammed like cattle cars to the point where it is physically impossible to get off at the stop I wanted. Yet no-one says "what's the point of the London Underground, it just gets full up" or "If we run a bus, it will only get crammed, so really there is no point".

When people use this argument, they never seem to consider all the journeys transporting people and goods that are not made because the infrastructure has not been built and all the associated economic growth, leisure etc that is missed out on.

But there must be a tipping point at which so much stuff has been destroyed to accommodate cars that there's no place left for them to drive to and you end up with empty roads and empty parking lots. I'm not suggesting we're anywhere near that point now, but there are particular projects - and the cross-Manhattan expressways are among them in my opinion - that would in fact destroy more "economic growth, leisure, etc.," than they'd facilitate.


Why would someone waste money on new urban motorways, when the age of car is nearing to its end? If you think price of oil can go anywhere but up, you're crazy.

Building new motorways in Manhattan and central Paris would result in riots and sabotages on a massive level, and rightfully so.

I think you're mistaken about the age of the car ending. I used to be as big a proponent of transit as anyone, but for most journeys a car offers a degree of freedom that public transit can't. I didn't own a car from 1995, a year after I moved to Philadelphia, to 2008, and during that time I took trains to places like Washington, New York, and my parents', or commuter trains to the suburbs, but since I acquired a car, I haven't gone any place outside the city by train except once when I needed to go to the suburbs for a work thing and my car was snowed in. On that occasion, it was easier to walk to the train station (about ten minutes) and then a ten-minute walk from the station in the suburbs to my actual destination than it would have been to liberate my car. (We'd had record-setting snow, and my car was last in a row so the plow had pushed a big mound of snow right up to it.) In the city is another story - I haven't driven an inch since last Monday and that was a shopping trip to the suburbs.

So I know I wouldn't willingly give up my car and therefore am not going to be so hypocritical as to ask others to. Obviously the oil supply's not going to last forever (and gets us into all sorts of nasty foreign-policy issues) but I think it's more likely that we'll come up with different ways of fueling cars than that we'll just switch en masse to public transport, at least for inter-city trips. And since people will continue to have cars for inter-city trips, there will need to be some need to accommodate them within cities as well. But tearing down swaths of midtown Manhattan (I was looking closely at that mid-Manhattan expressway and imagining what it would be like on the the streets outside Penn Station and Madison Square Garden if they had a freeway literally across the street from them...) to make it easier to drive from New Jersey to Long Island is not the way to go.

And Suburbanist would have been more honest, frankly, if instead of "cities should be functional," he'd said "cities should be functional for outsiders using them, but don't need to be for their inhabitants." Because that seems to be what he really means.

Why would someone waste money on new urban motorways, when the age of car is nearing to its end? If you think price of oil can go anywhere but up, you're crazy.

That's like arguing that ships were going to become things of the past when the sailing ship started to become obsolete. Oil isn't the only thing road vehicles can run on, it's just the most economical/practical at the moment.

We don't know what it will be replaced with - battery powered cars, hydrogen powered, some sort of synthetic liquid fuel etc, but sooner or later it will happen.

I haven't been to Manhattan, but it looks as though a cross freeway could be fitted in relatively easily. This could be done by demolishing all the blocks between two parallel streets and excavating it out to put the freeway in a cutting. It looks as though there would be room for twelve lanes. The parallel streets would then be converted into frontage roads, and the north-south avenues go over the top on bridges.

Clearly you haven't been to Manhattan. For the mid-Manhattan expressway, you're talking casually about demolishing - no matter which corridor you choose - swaths in which many buildings reach to 40 or 50 floors. The economic opportunities and leisure travel you'd be facilitating surely don't offset the economic damage you'd be causing.

- electric car

- 2nd generation biofuel car

- hydrogen-powered car

- APS/induction-feed car

- automated cars (that self-drive on isolated ROWs like highways)

The age of the internal combustion engine might be nearing an end, but not that of the concept of a personal, no operator required, infinite frequency and unit of use = 1/2/3/4 passengers vehicle. Maybe that will even evolve into large-scale deployment o Personal Rapid Transit.



Does a subway line carry people door to door? Does it carry people door to door without intermediate stops or routing made to maximize ridership? Does it allow either travel with a wallet or with 200kg of stuff with the same comfort? Does it operate 24/7 without reduction on service level even 3am at Christmas day?

Its how people should commute in inner city areas. Building huge motorways through cities is not sustainable.

That's a pretty radical proposal, I like it ;) The only big thing missing that I would like to see is a south circular motorway.

I know, but I just can't bring myself to direct the wrecking ball at all them nice streets! Most of them proposals are based on existing roads or building through industrial land...

They should have done that in the 1970s, when the city was in decay and real estate in Lower Manhattan was dirty cheap. Indeed, they should have done with together with the project of the original WTC. Parts of Manhattan were like a war zone, very third World, Times Square was full of hookers, drug dealers, strip shows, illegal products... perfect opportunity missed: build a freeway, and tip off decadent and rotten areas.

You're proving my point....

And Suburbanist would have been more honest, frankly, if instead of "cities should be functional," he'd said "cities should be functional for outsiders using them, but don't need to be for their inhabitants." Because that seems to be what he really means.

Penn's Woods, my idea is more like: "I make my city accessible to you and tolerate some noise and shadows, and you make your city more accessible to me, so we both can comfortable live/work as far from the city where we work/live as we fancy."

It's the same reason I'm against large scale district/residential permit parking without replacement structures like NEARBY parking lots (underground or not): "I'll put up with some traffic in my street and build a garage if that is the case [or a parking lot underground], but when I go to your city, I want to have the same parking access as well".

Hungary 1940-2011*

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/325/buildplannedcancelled19.jpg

*the Yugoslavian and the Czechoslovakian state built up some sections from the 1940 Highway Plan

Were they planned as real motorways back in the 40s or just main roads?
And I noticed that many cancelled motorways are parallel to already built or planned motorways, so there is no need to build them.

Were they planned as real motorways back in the 40s or just main roads?

Yes, and real highways. Some parts were built in Budapest only: video from 1943 (http://filmhiradok.nava.hu/watch.php?id=5524).

And I noticed that many cancelled motorways are parallel to already built or planned motorways, so there is no need to build them.

Not parallel highways, only new track!

poshbakerloo
Look into the way the newest stretches of A100 in Berlin were built, might be suitable for South Circular - and don't tell me they are expensive, it is just the right of the drivers to have them, especially if a city has congestion charge like London. If the city cannot aford construction project despite all the charges, limitations, etc. it's mismanaged and NIMBY-governed (and that's my opinion not only concerning roads - we are talking of constructing half of the ring road and significant upgrading of another half, plus some radials - THAT much for such a large city?, but also public transport projects, or say airports).

And until a not-that-much-urban motorway ring outside M25 (one of your suggestions) is constructed, I won't give up the views drivers are simply opressed in the entire London Metro Area (including, as a matter of course, through traffic, that could and would make it say 40 km from centre or further if a proper rural motorway is built).

- electric car

- 2nd generation biofuel car

- hydrogen-powered car

- APS/induction-feed car

- automated cars (that self-drive on isolated ROWs like highways)

The age of the internal combustion engine might be nearing an end, but not that of the concept of a personal, no operator required, infinite frequency and unit of use = 1/2/3/4 passengers vehicle. Maybe that will even evolve into large-scale deployment o Personal Rapid Transit.



Does a subway line carry people door to door? Does it carry people door to door without intermediate stops or routing made to maximize ridership? Does it allow either travel with a wallet or with 200kg of stuff with the same comfort? Does it operate 24/7 without reduction on service level even 3am at Christmas day?

Everything you mentioned requires energy, and "oil" is just a synecdoche for fossil fuels. As the prices of fuel continue to rise, suburbs without a more efficient alternative to driving a car will be abandoned.

Driving door-to-door will become a luxury. Governments need to invest in efficient electric public transport. Supporting new urban motorways now is like supporting more waterways in the 19th century England.

For a lot of years, there was talk of completing the missing motorway link between Aspen Grove on HWY 97C where the motorway ends and becomes undivided 4 lane into Merritt and the Coldwater Road interchange on BC HWY 5 (Coquihalla Hwy) motorway. It was abandoned due to protests from the City (read WASTELAND) of Merritt. Their claims were that motorists would then simply bypass the city and head over to the Kelowna area. Which they do anyway, unless headed to Kamloops.

Everything you mentioned requires energy, and "oil" is just a synecdoche for fossil fuels. As the prices of fuel continue to rise, suburbs without a more efficient alternative to driving a car will be abandoned.

Nonsense American anti-suburb rhetoric. Europe had fuel prices that are the equivalent of $ 300 per barrel oil for years and nobody is abandoning his car, in fact mobility is growing at a steady rate. It's just some wishful thinking, not reality.

If someone says that a price of the oil (in not so much affluent, former communist country) of a say $ 1,7 per litre forces to abadon cars, I'll be laughing on the floor....

Yes, and real highways. Some parts were built in Budapest only: video from 1943 (http://filmhiradok.nava.hu/watch.php?id=5524).

The road in the video is just a 1+1 highway like those built in Italy during fascism. I wouldn't call it motorway, although Italians often claim to have build the first motorway in the world in 1924. But in reality the first motorways opened in Germany in 1935 and we hadn't any motorway under 1958 when opened the first scection of A1 between Milan and Parma.

^^The question of what was the first motorway in the world is subject to considerable debate. There are certainly roads in the New York area opened as early as the '20s that are freeways today. (Note my careful phrasing of that sentence.)

The road in the video is just a 1+1 highway like those built in Italy during fascism. I wouldn't call it motorway, although Italians often claim to have build the first motorway in the world in 1924. But in reality the first motorways opened in Germany in 1935 and we hadn't any motorway under 1958 when opened the first scection of A1 between Milan and Parma.

3,5km 2x1, 5km 2x1+2x2 and 2km 2x2, and the expressway was full separated with interchanges (http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Ferihegyi+Rep%C3%BCl%C5%91t%C3%A9rre+vezet%C5%91+%C3%BAt&daddr=Ferihegyi+Rep%C3%BCl%C5%91t%C3%A9rre+vezet%C5%91+%C3%BAt&hl=hu&ie=UTF8&ll=47.449451,19.188995&spn=0.186895,0.308647&sll=47.465526,19.137797&sspn=0.023355,0.038581&geocode=FfJE1AIdv9gjAQ%3BFUST0wIdY6UlAQ&vpsrc=6&mapprev=1&mra=dme&mrsp=0&sz=15&t=h&z=12) (there is an road junction on the road already today, but now this is only a urban road).

A 2 track subway line can carry so many more people that a 12 lane motorway...

But anyway, I made a map of where motorway could just about fit in, in and around London...

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?msid=215974363525272264143.0004acbce1f6a05d6518e&msa=0&ll=51.455718,0.070038&spn=0.587028,1.454315

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x48/poshbakerloo/LondonMotorways.jpg

The system is not strong in the south.

Also we have to consider these motorways are not a solution for the growing number of commuters also they have an important role in a possible emergency evacuation

The one and only advantage of a dictatorship is that there are no close-minded environmentalists to cancel the projects! :tiasd:

I am not saying they should have built those plans. Of course those plans would have cut the city's south and north. I am just shwing them. But instead they can build an underground double decker tunnel expressway under one of the existing avenues.

The one and only advantage of a dictatorship is that there are no close-minded environmentalists to cancel the projects! :tiasd:


I'm not clear: do you think all plans should be built (as the title you chose for this thread suggest), or only certain ones? And describing people who care about their communities as "closed-minded environmentalists" is a bit dismissive, don't you think? It might even be described as "closed-minded."

You are right that not all of them should be built because some are obvieosly extra but tnot building anything because it causes destruction is wrong. Building anything will cause destruction.
By writing close-minded enveronmentalists I didnэt mean to insult the environmentalists. I wanted to devide them by the radicalism of their ideas to open-minded environmentalists and close-minded radical environmentalists.

Planned expressways for Lyon, late 60s (overkill).

http://metropoles.revues.org/docannexe/image/462/img-3-small640.jpg

And what was actually built. I've added the planned sections (COL and TOP) in red dots.
We will also get the A89 in a couple years, and maybe the A45.

http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/8278/lyon2.png

^^ Nice plan. The system today is also quite sophisticated. Do you know about France's numbering system in that time?

You are right that not all of them should be built because some are obvieosly extra but tnot building anything because it causes destruction is wrong. Building anything will cause destruction.
By writing close-minded enveronmentalists I didnэt mean to insult the environmentalists. I wanted to devide them by the radicalism of their ideas to open-minded environmentalists and close-minded radical environmentalists.

Well, that's all right then. :cheers:

@Nima Farid : It hasn't changed. The inner expressways were part of an urban project called LYX, back in the 60s, and thus would have got this different, Lyon specific, numbering (LYx, Bx, Cx).

Other than that, it's the regular French system :
Ax : Autoroute (highway/freeway/motorway/expressway)
Nx : Nationale (transnational road)
Dx : Departementale, local road, whatever its size

The system is not strong in the south.

South London is very hard for motorway building. There aren't many large roads to upgrade. Most of what I proposed where upgraded of existing roads...

Only a few where new roads but they were only built in areas which didn't involve much demolition.

Well, 95's there, so we don't save anything by tearing it down. And I don't think it or Vine is useless. (A second crosstown expressway parallel to Vine would not have come close to benefiting us enough to outweigh the neighborhoods destroyed. In fact, I'm not sure it would have had any benefit at all.) I'm not against all highways. Some are necessary. But just salivating over never-realized plans on the theory that all highways are good is a phase I was past about 30 years ago. And salivating over never-realized plans for communities you're not actually a part of is, well, a bit out of line.
I never said it was useless; what I said was that the road has now outlived its raison d'être. But that is an issue for another thread...
There should be a six-lane bored tunnel from the New Jersey Turnpike to the Long Island Expressway. Long Island has 7.5 million inhabitants but the only way to get out of it is via outdated New York Expressways.
And how do you propose to pay for it? Especially in this post-Big Dig era?
Everything you mentioned requires energy, and "oil" is just a synecdoche for fossil fuels. As the prices of fuel continue to rise, suburbs without a more efficient alternative to driving a car will be abandoned.

Driving door-to-door will become a luxury. Governments need to invest in efficient electric public transport. Supporting new urban motorways now is like supporting more waterways in the 19th century England.
Bingo. It's not in fossil fuels but in the greater concept of energy where the greatest growth in the 21st century will lie.

And I have pointed out before--and Suburbanist refuses to believe--that especially in the United States the transition will not be smooth.

A lesson from History:
In Ontarion Canada in 1960's The provincial government built lots of expressways. One of the most important corridors is called 401. It was supposed to connect Québec Autoroute 20 towards Montréal to I-75 in Detroit. They built all of it except one little section in Windsor (Canadian side of Detroit).
http://www.sfns.on.ca/img/WindsorMap.jpg
As you can see in the map there is no direct expressway access to USA. It was cancelled because people opposed it because they said there will be a lot of traffic flowing in the city.

But recently people wanted the government to start building the expressway again because there is a lot of traffic passing the residental areas. Eventually the expresway will be open in 2013.
The lesson: The traffic volume people are now complaining about is the same traffic volume that was supposed to use the expressway. So, never oppose any developement because of its short-term results. Look at the long-term results and think again.

South London is very hard for motorway building. There aren't many large roads to upgrade. Most of what I proposed where upgraded of existing roads...

Only a few where new roads but they were only built in areas which didn't involve much demolition.
At least you could have tought about connecting Guildford Motorway to M4.
And for The south Circullar motorway you could have used A298-A238-A24-A205 corridor.

At least you could have tought about connecting Guildford Motorway to M4.
And for The south Circullar motorway you could have used A298-A238-A24-A205 corridor.

Joining the Guildford Motorway to the M4 would involve digging up a lot of Richmond Park...which is one of the historic royal parks, with a lot of listed buildings etc. Although I do see what you mean...

Can digging tunnels under the park with TBMs (Tunnel Boaring machines) be a solution?

I never said it was useless; what I said was that the road has now outlived its raison d'être. But that is an issue for another thread...

And how do you propose to pay for it? Especially in this post-Big Dig era?

Bingo. It's not in fossil fuels but in the greater concept of energy where the greatest growth in the 21st century will lie.

And I have pointed out before--and Suburbanist refuses to believe--that especially in the United States the transition will not be smooth.

The Big Dig has put an end to any large scale Urban Highway project in the Northeast. The problems that have also come with that project have scared anyone from pursuing anymore Big Dig type projects , with the exception of Transit. There are alot of highways that will be covered or ripped up....those projects are cheap. As for the outsiders telling or even suggesting what we residents of the Northeast should do with our highways , we don't like outside input. We tend to rely on inside input and people who have lived in this region. Outsiders and transplants often get booed and laughed at city hall meetings....

^^ Why don't they accept large-scale projects? It will also create lots of jobs as USA is in an economic crisis.

Can digging tunnels under the park with TBMs (Tunnel Boaring machines) be a solution?

It would be, but who will pay for it? As soon as you start to tunnel, the £££ rises up a lot!

The Big Dig has put an end to any large scale Urban Highway project in the Northeast. The problems that have also come with that project have scared anyone from pursuing anymore Big Dig type projects , with the exception of Transit. There are alot of highways that will be covered or ripped up....those projects are cheap. As for the outsiders telling or even suggesting what we residents of the Northeast should do with our highways , we don't like outside input. We tend to rely on inside input and people who have lived in this region. Outsiders and transplants often get booed and laughed at city hall meetings....
Which is what my critique was driving at...^^ Why don't they accept large-scale projects? It will also create lots of jobs as USA is in an economic crisis.
The pseudoeconomics politicians have latched on to at the moment... "austerity".

^^ You can bypass the Royal Park and the Golf club via A306-A205 corridor. Because this system would bring a lot of lockec traffic to local streets

A possible future map of Paris Freeway Network: (Inspired by Poshbakerloo's London map)
Link (http://maps.google.com/maps?msid=215847166265667792891.0004accd8560743d932a1&msa=0&ll=48.856132,2.36618&spn=0.117237,0.338173&t=m&z=12&vpsrc=6)
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/58899821.jpg

And how do you propose to pay for it? Especially in this post-Big Dig era?

I'm sorry for being ambitious. Of course any plan that includes a tunnel will never work in the U.S. There are many tunnels in the world, I don't see why this suddenly can't work in the U.S. I don't like this "we can't!" attitude. If we had this attitude 40, 50 years ago we wouldn't have any bridges or tunnels or Interstate Highway system. I feel really bad for you guys that a tunnel is so "out of the box" that it's considered impossible. There are numerous tunnels in Europe that have a length of 5 - 6 miles.

Toronto and Ontarion map
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215847166265667792891.0004accdcba7f7c4e2a07&msa=0&ll=43.752249,-79.376221&spn=0.53864,1.352692
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215847166265667792891.0004accdcba7f7c4e2a07&msa=0&ll=43.512705,-79.552002&spn=1.081572,2.705383
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/58900880.jpg
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/58900873.jpg

I'm sorry for being ambitious. Of course any plan that includes a tunnel will never work in the U.S. There are many tunnels in the world, I don't see why this suddenly can't work in the U.S. I don't like this "we can't!" attitude. If we had this attitude 40, 50 years ago we wouldn't have any bridges or tunnels or Interstate Highway system. I feel really bad for you guys that a tunnel is so "out of the box" that it's considered impossible. There are numerous tunnels in Europe that have a length of 5 - 6 miles.

I think they think they are developed enough and demand won't grow and any further spending is useless and will cause problems such as bankrupcy

There are many tunnels in the world, I don't see why this suddenly can't work in the U.S.
The engineers can do it. The point made by the previous poster is about funding. The tunnels under discussion here are multi-billion projects, in an age where budget austerity is the buzz word.

When it comes to austerity, there is of course the perennial question where the cuts ought to be made. Luckily, we're no longer in the 1970s where every type of road construction was blocked at one stage, partially as a result of the oil crises. But I'm not surprised at all that projects in the hundreds-of-millions-per-kilometer league get questioned for their merit. As far as that is concerned, new 12-lane tunnels in NY may indeed be overambitious in the sense that tax payers do not want to pay for them and prefer traffic jams instead.

No more updates?

Stockholm road plan from 1960 (with pre-1962 road numbers). I assume black lines mean motorway and/or other high quality road. Many of these have since been cancelled.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Stockholmsringen_1960.jpg

Some maps can be a bit suggestive as they can be an accumulation of routes that were at one time planned. That doesn't necessarily mean all of them were planned to be constructed.

I think they think they are developed enough and demand won't grow and any further spending is useless and will cause problems such as bankrupcy

Far from it , we have over 300+ Projects in the Coastal Northeastern US that need to be built in this region , unfortunately we tend to fight in the NYC Region which sees many useful Trans-Hudson projects killed. Like the 8 Billion $$ ARC Rail project , that was killed last year , NY/NYC would not pay anything even though it would have enhanced regional travel and allow for at 12 more regional Rail projects to proceed.... NYC/NY then offered a solution which won't do any , NJT , and the PA will likely block it. Theres another mega project in trouble the New Tappan Zee Bridge / I-287 Upgrade / Rail corridor that's in trouble hopefully that doesn't get canceled. Both projects were /are very popular but politicians don't really seem to care. There doing the small unpopular projects at the moment , which don't really put anyone to work and are questionable in there nature. Hopefully things start picking up in this region , because our infrastructure is starting to collapse or is way over capacity. Theres also a problem of cancelling one project to fund others which happens alot in this region , so the smaller projects get done but the more important larger ones don't. The ARC was killed to fund smaller Road and Rail projects around NJ.... The Tappan Zee Bridge project is at 16 Billion $ , killing that would fund most of the projects in New York state but would be political suicide. Then there's also the broken funding issues that plaque the Northeast , which is amplified by the raiding of the Transportation Trust fund....

The engineers can do it. The point made by the previous poster is about funding. The tunnels under discussion here are multi-billion projects, in an age where budget austerity is the buzz word.

When it comes to austerity, there is of course the perennial question where the cuts ought to be made. Luckily, we're no longer in the 1970s where every type of road construction was blocked at one stage, partially as a result of the oil crises. But I'm not surprised at all that projects in the hundreds-of-millions-per-kilometer league get questioned for their merit. As far as that is concerned, new 12-lane tunnels in NY may indeed be overambitious in the sense that tax payers do not want to pay for them and prefer traffic jams instead.

I know nothing about engineering, so don't understand this as a challenge, just a question: is a twelve-lane tunnel under Manhattan feasible? There's a hell of a lot of stuff (subways, water, power...) there already - the complexity of the underground city in Manhattan is a frequent topic of gee-how-about-that TV shows.

That said, if the issue is making it possible to get from Long Island to the mainland, midtown Manhattan's not the only option. Improvements to the George Washington Bridge/Cross-Bronx Expressway/Throgs Neck Bridge corridor and the route across Staten Island would surely be less expensive and less disruptive.

As far as getting into Manhattan itself is concerned: now that I think of it, there was a controversy a year or so ago: the rail lines between New Jersey and Manhattan are saturated and someone (Amtrak, the feds, the Port Authority...?) did in fact want to build an additional rail tunnel. The governor of New Jersey balked at the expense, to considerable backlash from a portion of the public. I don't know what the end result of that was; someone like Nexis probably does.

(EDIT: I see Nexis posted while I was writing this, so I don't know yet what he said.)

I didn't propose a 12-lane tunnel under Manhattan. That's about impossible to bore, the diameter would be incredible. A six-lane tunnel is feasible, it has been done before. They recently completed a six mile expressway tunnel in Tokyo. I don't understand the funding issues. Where have the NYC region motorists paid tolls and taxes for in the past 40 years? No major projects have been executed since the mid-1970's.

^^Someone proposed a 12-lane tunnel. Which can happen on forums with multiple participants. :-)

And don't get me started on our national allergy to taxes and government spending.

I didn't propose a 12-lane tunnel under Manhattan. That's about impossible to bore, the diameter would be incredible. A six-lane tunnel is feasible, it has been done before. They recently completed a six mile expressway tunnel in Tokyo. I don't understand the funding issues. Where have the NYC region motorists paid tolls and taxes for in the past 40 years? No major projects have been executed since the mid-1970's.

The Tolls in this region are split for Rail / Road projects due to the anti-Tax movement..... But most of the projects are small between 50-600 Million , the big projects need Federal funding and that could take up to a decade.

I didn't propose a 12-lane tunnel under Manhattan. That's about impossible to bore, the diameter would be incredible. A six-lane tunnel is feasible, it has been done before. They recently completed a six mile expressway tunnel in Tokyo. I don't understand the funding issues. Where have the NYC region motorists paid tolls and taxes for in the past 40 years? No major projects have been executed since the mid-1970's.
You run the risk that a six-lane tunnel would be congested from its opening onwards. Not sure whether that is something that anybody should thrive for. And as Penn's Woods remarked, it may just be more sensible to seek relief via routes that bypass Manhattan, such as upgrades to I-278, I-678 and I-295. At last on the transit routes from Long Island to regions North, West and South of New York. My thought as a non-engineer would be that you can build a tunnel below Manhattan with all the subway tunnels and other stuff under it, but it would probably be a deep tunnel and then still require a lot of work that you do not require for tunnels underneath a river or a mountain (let alone tunnels under farmland, our Dutch national hobby). Accordingly, a tunnel underneath Manhattan would be an exercise that is much more expensive than your everyday tunnel.

As to tolls and taxes paid over the last 40 years: a shame as it is, the income from tolls and road taxes has gone elsewhere and you cannot spend the same dollar twice. New roads require new funds. And in days of budget austerity, those new funds can only come via cuts in other budgets (e.g. healthcare) or via new taxes or tolls.

A new tunnel underpassing Manhattan (Long Island - New Jersey) would be a tolled link of course. An upgrade of the existing expressways is not reasonably possible without probably even higher cost. It's impossible to improve the Trans-Manhattan Expressway (I-95) and its interchanges without incredible cost and destruction of property. The same can be said about the Gowanus Expressway and the BQE. You'll end up tunneling anyway.

It's not like a five or six mile bored tunnel is that extraordinary or out of the box. Many countries have urban tunnels like that. Stockholm is going to build the Förbifart, or bypass, that would run through tunnels for 17 kilometers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6rbifart_Stockholm

I don't say it has to be constructed next year. Before all planning is done you're a decade further anyway.

Toll at this type of routes is a tricky thing. A route like Sydney's Cross City Tunnel is heavily underused because of toll, maintaining the congestion and exhaust fumes in town and meaning that the investors will most likely not recover their investment. If NY/NJ/Federal authorities were to create this type of toll route, it would be a bad assumption that they will recover their investment via tolling. The tax payer will take a substantial part of the hit.

That being said, a Long Island - New Jersey tunnel following the I-95 corridor is probably much more sensible than the originally planned Cross-Manhattan route. In doing this, you would eliminate as much Manhattan as you could, and most certainly the area where the ground is full of tunnels, electricity lines, etc. That is also the reason why Stockholm's Förbifart is kind-of feasible. It's proposed route goes under water much more than underneath residential areas.

It's possible to go quite deep with a bored tunnel with this length. There are subsea tunnels in Norway that are less than 8 kilometers long that are deeper than 200 meters below sea level. There's plenty of opportunity to go below most of Manhattan's subterranean infrastructure due to the length of such a tunnel. This would not be possible with a short tunnel.

There are several differences with Sydney and New York. First of all, the Sydney Cross City Tunnel is short, and bypasses only a limited number of traffic lights, with plenty of alternate surface streets available. In New York, the potential for such a tunnel is much bigger, you have 7.5 million people on Long Island on one side and northern New Jersey with 6 or 7 million people on the other side. It's not only shorter, it's also much faster than using the trans-Manhattan routes via the existing tunnels, or the alternate routes via the GWB or BQE. These alternate routes already have tolls at some point, so you will have to pay any way. It also would give direct access to the area's highest capacity routes; the 8-lane Long Island Expressway and the 12-lane New Jersey Turnpike.

In addition to the real potential to replace the antiquated elevated structure on the Gowanus Expressway (I-278) in Brooklyn, NYC with a tunnel, I would continue that tunnel northward on a fairly straight track under Brooklyn from where I-278 makes that turn at the Prospect Expressway to emerge and connect with the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (I-278) about where it crosses Flushing and Kent Aves. This would allow I-278 through traffic to bypass the very congested parts of the BQE in the area of downtown Brooklyn, allowing the worst part in the middle (the cantilevered section) to be abandoned, while retaining 'spur' access between I-278 and downtown Brooklyn from each end.

Also, IMHO, I would think that a, I-495 Manhattan bypass tunnel would work very well with a one-way eastbound car toll in the $25-30 range, in today's money, considering the tolls charged by the existing bridges and tunnels and the much improved utility that such a bypass tunnel would provide.

Mike

^^There have been proposals to that effect. I remember reading something in the New York Times about a year ago.

It was discussed at AARoads: http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3545.0

Also, IMHO, I would think that a, I-495 Manhattan bypass tunnel would work very well with a one-way eastbound car toll in the $25-30 range, in today's money, considering the tolls charged by the existing bridges and tunnels and the much improved utility that such a bypass tunnel would provide.


Yep. If you want to leave Long Island for New Jersey today, you will have to pay tolls at either the RFK / GWB bridge or the VNB and Goethals bridge, also running in the $ 15 - 20 range plus all congestion en-route.

The main problem in the New York City area are not the number of lanes per se, but the outdated alignment of many expressways and parkways, plus the low-capacity interchanges. The average daily traffic per lane in New York City is much lower than say, Houston or Los Angeles. This is even more pronounced when you consider that commercial vehicles are banned on many parkways and drives, which should theoretically lead to a higher capacity than on the expressways.

^^The last time I drove through (as opposed to "to") New York City - on my way to New England, following I-95 from central New Jersey all the way to Attleboro, Massachusetts, so the George Washington Bridge and Cross-Bronx Expressway - I had no congestion at all until I was in Connecticut. This was 2 or 3 o'clock on a Wednesday afternoon in early June.

^^ what if they build a bridge, partially suspended.

Helsinki proposed expressway/motorway network (1960's-1970's)
All of these should had been built by 1980, or that was what they thaught in 1970. A real shame they didn't - we had money to build this when environmental activists had ready appeared.

Blue: Built
Green: Approved
Pink: May possibly be built in a far future
Red: Cancelled

I'm sory about a so shitty paint-made picture, but the information is from a book that dates back to 1970 and I didn't find the plans online.

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg82/Kebab_dude8000/helsinkimways.jpg

IIn New York, the potential for such a tunnel is much bigger, you have 7.5 million people on Long Island on one side and northern New Jersey with 6 or 7 million people on the other side.
I am not familiar enough with New York to assess how those population numbers translate into actual commutes. It is of course a city in which the vast majority of people works either in their own borough or on Manhattan. Cross-city traffic will not make up a huge percentage of the drivers on New York's routes. But in absolute numbers, the combination of incidental cross-city traffic and people that do have a regular cross-city commute may add up to large enough volumes to justify a construction like this.

But unlike one or two previous posters suggested, I do not think that there is much merit in having a tunnel merely to serve transit traffic, i.e. from Long Island to places beyond Greater New York.

Helsinki proposed expressway/motorway network (1960's-1970's)
All of these should had been built by 1980, or that was what they thaught in 1970. A real shame they didn't - we had money to build this when environmental activists had ready appeared.

Blue: Built
Green: Approved
Pink: May possibly be built in a far future
Red: Cancelled

I'm sory about a so shitty paint-made picture, but the information is from a book that dates back to 1970 and I didn't find the plans online.

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg82/Kebab_dude8000/helsinkimways.jpg
So much cancelled

^^The last time I drove through (as opposed to "to") New York City - on my way to New England, following I-95 from central New Jersey all the way to Attleboro, Massachusetts, so the George Washington Bridge and Cross-Bronx Expressway - I had no congestion at all until I was in Connecticut. This was 2 or 3 o'clock on a Wednesday afternoon in early June.
You got lucky.. However the Cross-Bronx is one of the better East-West expressways. Try driving from Jersey using the Holland Tunnel at the same time, good luck having no congestion. Even once you are on Long Island from my experience you usually had congestion until the Cross Island Parkway on any of the freeways going East. The problem with going from NYC to Long Island or the opposite is all the traffic has to go onto I-278 which is really outdated and doesn't have enough capacity for the traffic. Directly from there you are limited to going way south to the Shore/Southern State Parkway, Long Island Island Expressway, or Grand Central Parkway. You have lets say 8 miles before you get more options and in one of the most urban areas in the country, its a mess daily. Tunneling all that needs to be improved is unrealistically expensive and lets not forget how the "Big Dig" in Boston went. In my opinion the only way to solve congestion in NYC is in the true New York fashion of going vertical. I can see I-495 being a double level expressway to at least Flushing with local lanes on the the bottom along dedicated truck lanes on each level. On I-278 I can even see it as triple level with one level dedicated to those commuting further with limited exits. It's not the perfect solution but it is most realistic, with technology now the roadways can have less noise impact and with some extra money less of an eyesore. I've been going to New York since I was 4 and they've constantly had construction on the the Expressways. If they can build a double level expressway in Dallas, why not New York?

Is there a way from Long Island to NJ that is not tolled?

^^You have to cross the Hudson River to get from New Jersey to New York (unless you go from New Jersey to Staten Island, New York, in which case you're crossing other waterways). Every bridge and tunnel crossing the Hudson (or the Staten Island waterways) south of Albany, 200 km north of New York City, has a toll, and until you get well north of the city they're among the highest tolls in the country.

Incidentally and as a point of history, there was no way to cross the Hudson in the New York area by train until about 1910. Until the Pennsylvania Railroad built the tunnels into Penn Station (now used by the national passenger system Amtrak and by New Jersey's commuter-rail system), all trains approaching New York from the west - meaning from most of the country - terminated at stations on the New Jersey side of the river and then you crossed by ferry. With competing (then-privately-owned) railroads having their own stations in New Jersey, and people wanting to get to different parts of New York, there must have been 20 or 30 ferry routes around 1900....

The Whole I-278 could be buried and widened to 12 lanes , as for building up we value our air rights in this region alot. Most of the Cut Freeways will get covered with Parks and Buildings over the next 2 decades , building a triple decker Freeway would not work....the NIMBYS would block that before it would even come up for a vote at City Hall. NYC's problem can be solved with more Rail Capacity and New Freight Tunnel for LI , since most of the congestion in NYC is by Trucks not cars. Not alot of people drive in this region , so it could be worse. Ridership on the Transit systems is at 15 Million out the 21 Million who live in this region , that went up by 750,000 this past decade. Its supposed to grow by another 800,000 this decade , there are some large Rail projects that could put a dent in the growing areas of this region that mostly use commute by car or bus but those are still on hold.....These combined projects could take 500,000 addition cars off the highways of NYC and Urban / Suburban Jersey. The reason why the Cross-Manhattan routes never got built is probably due to lack of Real Demand and promises of More Rail projects....

Everything you mentioned requires energy, and "oil" is just a synecdoche for fossil fuels. As the prices of fuel continue to rise, suburbs without a more efficient alternative to driving a car will be abandoned.
.

There are doomsday texts about "the inevitable abandonment of far-out neighborhoods due to oil crisis" since 1973. Almost 40 years of "let's not build more freeways because they will be soon useless"... mind you, many freeways built around that time have already been reconstructed.

There is enough coal and uranium out there to run a lot of cars on electricity. And 2nd generation biofuels with HIGH (rather than low) yield per energy input unit. Surely, it will make some agricultural prices rise, but so be it. Developed countries can afford that.

Ridership on the Transit systems is at 15 Million out the 21 Million who live in this region

It seems you have no idea how such numbers work. 15 million passengers is absolutely not the same as 15 out of 21 million people. Most people commute at least two times a day (two-way trips). Hence, about 7.5 million or less out of 21 million people are using transit, not 15 million.

These combined projects could take 500,000 addition cars off the highways of NYC and Urban / Suburban Jersey.

Another common misconception is that each transit traveler equals one less car on the road, which is absolutely not the case. Don't over-inflate such numbers.

It seems you have no idea how such numbers work. 15 million passengers is absolutely not the same as 15 out of 21 million people. Most people commute at least two times a day (two-way trips). Hence, about 7.5 million or less out of 21 million people are using transit, not 15 million.

Its 15 Million , they don't count the double trips....at least for monthly passes I asked NJT and the MTA. So it is 15 Million ,not every transit system counts the Double trips. They do that on some , but most count the one ways..... Technology has made this possible.

There is enough coal and uranium out there to run a lot of cars on electricity. And 2nd generation biofuels with HIGH (rather than low) yield per energy input unit.

And that's if we don't go through an energetic breakthrough. There is energy everywhere, from energy cords in the universe to the primordial energy that move subparticles inside atoms.
If we can harness that, if we can find a clean, abundant, free, new energy, there will be no reason for us to live like sardines in a concrete jungle.
But by then, hopefully our lives will be more meaningful than transporting our body in a metal box (train/car/bus) twice a day from a concrete box (house) to another concrete box (office).

Its 15 Million , they don't count the double trips....at least for monthly passes I asked NJT and the MTA. So it is 15 Million ,not every transit system counts the Double trips. They do that on some , but most count the one ways..... Technology has made this possible.

Don't you see 15 million is unrealistic? That is over 70% of the entire population, or maybe 90% of the student/working age population of the region who would use transit, leaving only 10% by car in the whole metropolitan area. Even downtown Manhattan doesn't have a 10% car share, not to mention the entire metropolitan/suburban area. Don't throw in numbers if you don't know what they mean.

Don't you see 15 million is unrealistic? That is over 70% of the entire population, or maybe 90% of the student/working age population of the region who would use transit, leaving only 10% by car in the whole metropolitan area. Even downtown Manhattan doesn't have a 10% car share, not to mention the entire metropolitan/suburban area. Don't throw in numbers if you don't know what they mean.

This also includes Students who go to School , they are allowed to use Transit for a discount. So you see the Transit grow by a Million during the School months and drop off in the Summer. How is 15 Million unrealistic? 60% of NYC uses Transit and 40% of the Suburbs use Transit , I know what the numbers mean.

60% of NYC uses Transit and 40% of the Suburbs use Transit , I know what the numbers mean.

Get a calculator and see if you can get to 15 million by taking 60% of 8 million and 40% of 10 million, assuming your percentages are right in the first place, because the others you posted are highly questionable.

Get a calculator and see if you can get to 15 million by taking 60% of 8 million and 40% of 10 million, assuming your percentages are right in the first place, because the others you posted are highly questionable.

They might be off by 1-2 million buts that's about it....

They might be off by 1-2 million buts that's about it....

Ah, right, the numbers are correct, but they may be off by a few million... :|

I hope NYC transportation planning is a bit more sophisticated than that.

The Whole I-278 could be buried and widened to 12 lanes , as for building up we value our air rights in this region alot. Most of the Cut Freeways will get covered with Parks and Buildings over the next 2 decades , building a triple decker Freeway would not work....the NIMBYS would block that before it would even come up for a vote at City Hall. NYC's problem can be solved with more Rail Capacity and New Freight Tunnel for LI , since most of the congestion in NYC is by Trucks not cars. Not alot of people drive in this region , so it could be worse. Ridership on the Transit systems is at 15 Million out the 21 Million who live in this region , that went up by 750,000 this past decade. Its supposed to grow by another 800,000 this decade , there are some large Rail projects that could put a dent in the growing areas of this region that mostly use commute by car or bus but those are still on hold.....These combined projects could take 500,000 addition cars off the highways of NYC and Urban / Suburban Jersey. The reason why the Cross-Manhattan routes never got built is probably due to lack of Real Demand and promises of More Rail projects....

I agree that NIMBYs would be the largest obstacle but burying the entire I-278? Thats a joke right? The cost would be so astronomical its hard to even put a figure on it. In fact I bet for the quarter of the cost of burying the whole I-278 you could add a second level to both 495 and 278 and still probably have money leftover. Fact is when New York was growing the elevated train tracks helped it grow, they weren't pretty but served a function to help a city and today are actually iconic, can you imagine Queens without a 7 train? Nowadays they also can easily make the elevated structures a lot nicer and maybe even iconic as well. Honestly is an old outdated highway with constant traffic jams and road surfaces like driving on the moon better than an elevated structure? Cars still make the majority of NYC congestion, trucks are a problem and they tear up the roads but I always see more cars than trucks. Even if by your logic trucks make up the largest congestion transit wouldn't solve that. Truck lanes for trucks that are traveling long distance would probably increase traffic flow. Separating commuting traffic and local traffic would probably do wonders as well. In fact people are commuting from other states, you think that will stop? The Cross-Manhattan routes never got built because of NIMBYs and its one of the few cases that I'm glad it didn't happen, Manhattan wasn't meant for it. But leaving Manhattan with the setup of sprawl should have adequate highways for people to use.

Although it would never happen, and for several reasons I wouldn't want it to happen, here is a proposal for mass Motorways for the Liverpool-Manchester metro area...

They are a mix of real life cancelled motorways but also my own ideas. A lot of it is upgraded existing road, or new roads through industrial areas...

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?msid=215974363525272264143.0004acdaa153c0342dcbe&msa=0&ll=53.520717,-2.459564&spn=0.560097,1.454315


http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x48/poshbakerloo/Liverpool-ManchesterMotorways.jpg

My London plan for anyone who missed it...
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x48/poshbakerloo/LondonMotorways.jpg

I'm sorry for being ambitious. Of course any plan that includes a tunnel will never work in the U.S. There are many tunnels in the world, I don't see why this suddenly can't work in the U.S. I don't like this "we can't!" attitude. If we had this attitude 40, 50 years ago we wouldn't have any bridges or tunnels or Interstate Highway system. I feel really bad for you guys that a tunnel is so "out of the box" that it's considered impossible. There are numerous tunnels in Europe that have a length of 5 - 6 miles.
The problem's not technicals. Even though I don't really agree with you, looking at some of the literature on Seattle's planned I-5 replacement (which would be a similar project, BTW)...I am thinking about the open hostility the Republican Tea Party has towards any sort of large government spending...

Incidentally and as a point of history, there was no way to cross the Hudson in the New York area by train until about 1910. Until the Pennsylvania Railroad built the tunnels into Penn Station... Noticed this and couldn't help but make a correction: the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad, predecessor to today's PATH, was the first permanent connection across the Hudson River, predating Penn Station and its tunnels by two years. Sure, you had to transfer at Hoboken from one train to another to reach Manhattan, and it didn't have the sort of radical effect on Midtown real-estate that Penn Station did, but it was the first.

Nice map for Manchester Liverpool Metro Motorway Network!

Autostradas and Superstrada's of Roma proposed based on vurrent wide roads and possible corridors
http://maps.google.com/maps/mm?hl=en
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/58954272.jpg

I agree that NIMBYs would be the largest obstacle but burying the entire I-278? Thats a joke right? The cost would be so astronomical its hard to even put a figure on it. In fact I bet for the quarter of the cost of burying the whole I-278 you could add a second level to both 495 and 278 and still probably have money leftover. Fact is when New York was growing the elevated train tracks helped it grow, they weren't pretty but served a function to help a city and today are actually iconic, can you imagine Queens without a 7 train? Nowadays they also can easily make the elevated structures a lot nicer and maybe even iconic as well. Honestly is an old outdated highway with constant traffic jams and road surfaces like driving on the moon better than an elevated structure? Cars still make the majority of NYC congestion, trucks are a problem and they tear up the roads but I always see more cars than trucks. Even if by your logic trucks make up the largest congestion transit wouldn't solve that. Truck lanes for trucks that are traveling long distance would probably increase traffic flow. Separating commuting traffic and local traffic would probably do wonders as well. In fact people are commuting from other states, you think that will stop? The Cross-Manhattan routes never got built because of NIMBYs and its one of the few cases that I'm glad it didn't happen, Manhattan wasn't meant for it. But leaving Manhattan with the setup of sprawl should have adequate highways for people to use.

No , there's a plan to bury it from the Gowanus to the Queens Border.....and the plan is very popular in Brooklyn. I beleave the cost is anywhere from 2-5 Billion $$.... The biggest congestion problem in NYC is the trucks who go from NJ to LI , through NYC , and so building a Freight tunnel to connect the 2 would really take alot of trucks off the highways but that was blocked by NYC due to Train Noise. The other Congestion is from Taxis and Buses , like ive said before most people do not drive into Manhattan or drive from LI to work in NJ....So there really isn't a demand for this. However ,LI could use a New Bridge to CT or Westchester.....across the LI Sound that would cut the congestion on the Cross-Bronx by a decent %. The pictures below are of a Typical Manhattan street.....mostly filled with Delivery Trucks , Taxis , Private Taxis and City Buses , personal cars are outnumbered. Most of these cars travel between the boroughs , NJ isn't a big destination for New Yorkers and we also like it like that....:lol:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4636583626_462704028f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/willemvanbergen/4636583626/)
Manhattan traffic with yellow cabs (http://www.flickr.com/photos/willemvanbergen/4636583626/) by Willem van Bergen (http://www.flickr.com/people/willemvanbergen/), on Flickr

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1027/1349775043_d0147cde0e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bris1969/1349775043/)
Traffic (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bris1969/1349775043/) by bris1969 (http://www.flickr.com/people/bris1969/), on Flickr

^^ Website address on garbage can! cool! :D

@ChrisZwolle
You can't compare European and American situation that easily. The average European commutes a shorter distance, more often uses public transport, and has a choice of using the car or not. The average American doesn't have that choice.

There isn't a anti-suburban rhetoric in Europe because the suburbs there are integrated and often self-contained parts of the city. Europeans live in the suburbs, Americans escape to them.

There are doomsday texts about "the inevitable abandonment of far-out neighborhoods due to oil crisis" since 1973. Almost 40 years of "let's not build more freeways because they will be soon useless"... mind you, many freeways built around that time have already been reconstructed.

There is enough coal and uranium out there to run a lot of cars on electricity. And 2nd generation biofuels with HIGH (rather than low) yield per energy input unit. Surely, it will make some agricultural prices rise, but so be it. Developed countries can afford that.

There is a big difference in cost of urban and non-urban motorways. The non-urban ones should be built where ever needed. The urban ones should not, because they're never wide enough. That money should be invested in subways, suburban rail, trams and trolleybuses.

You're right about the doomsday predictions starting in the '70s, as a result of the oil crisis. That crisis was political in nature. We're nearing problems that are not, and are much more difficult to solve. Peak oil already happened.

There isn't enough lithium for the batteries to make all cars electric. When food prices rise so do biofuel prices. Rich countries may be able to afford that, but poor countries wouldn't. Many countries are unstable as it is, including some large oil exporters. If they start collapsing, where do you think the refugees will go? Would oil exports from those countries stay the same?

Nuclear energy is a way out, but it's a herd sell to the voters. I won't even go into pollution and climate problems the increase in the use coal and petroleum form oil sands would bring.

Toulouse:
http://maps.google.com/maps/mm?hl=en
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/58959150.jpg

Welcome to the eighth page!!!

And a "Last page" has been added!

BTW, your links only give a overview of the US.

^^ I wanted to be more general. If you go to the first page you see that I talked about Toronto and Paris.

And that's if we don't go through an energetic breakthrough. There is energy everywhere, from energy cords in the universe to the primordial energy that move subparticles inside atoms.
If we can harness that, if we can find a clean, abundant, free, new energy, there will be no reason for us to live like sardines in a concrete jungle.
But by then, hopefully our lives will be more meaningful than transporting our body in a metal box (train/car/bus) twice a day from a concrete box (house) to another concrete box (office).

Some people actually like being around other people, and the opportunities that such concentrations of people provide. I don't understand this "everyone must live in suburbia!" crap (or the assumption that everyone would want to if they could) any more than the opposite.

Noticed this and couldn't help but make a correction: the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad, predecessor to today's PATH, was the first permanent connection across the Hudson River, predating Penn Station and its tunnels by two years. Sure, you had to transfer at Hoboken from one train to another to reach Manhattan, and it didn't have the sort of radical effect on Midtown real-estate that Penn Station did, but it was the first.

I wasn't thinking of the H&M since I consider that a transit system rather than a railroad, but you're right. But 1909 vs. 1911, we're still basically talking the same time period.

Autostradas and Superstrada's of Roma proposed based on vurrent wide roads and possible corridors
http://maps.google.com/maps/mm?hl=en
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/58954272.jpg
Part of the inner Rome's ring already exist. It was built in the 70s as elevated expressway and now there are plans to build it underground.

^^ I drew some parts of it based on that ring.

The 1960's was the most ambitious decade in the Netherlands in terms of motorway development. Many sections opened, and even many more began construction, leading to a motorway completion boom in the first half of the 1970's. Construction rate dropped considerably after the mid-1970's, due to the oil-crises, lack of money and the higher construction costs.

Below is a 1966 planning map. It's important to note that this was planned for the next 40 years, and not all routes indicated were actually planned as motorways, but as main roads. It was also projected the Netherlands would have 20 million people in the year 2000, while it was closer to 16 million in reality. The map shows a really high density of higher standard roads. Many of these weren't build. Especially of notability is the number of river crossings in the central parts, most of which weren't build, something that haunts the Netherlands to this day. It's also important to note that back in those days construction costs were considerably lower than today (even inflation-adjusted), comparable to what we saw in Spain in the early 2000's, when even low traffic volumes made a motorway profitable.

http://i.imgur.com/sPgFJ.png

^^ Very nice!
It looks like a very big city :D

Well, with 20 million people the population density would have been 500 - 600 inhabitants per km². Imagine an additional 4 million people compared with today. The western half of the country would've been mostly urbanized. It would be comparable with a whole Rotterdam - The Hague metropolitan area extra.

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg82/Kebab_dude8000/helsinkimways.jpg
So much cancelled

Yes. The environmental activists of the 70's and the first Oil Crisis hit really badly this projects; by 1973-1975 they thaught that new motorways won't be needed in 50 years. By the time they noted this was not true the opposition was so strong that most of the plans were forced to be abandoned.

Only the blue part of the left (Mallaskatu tunnel ramp, 1968-1970(?)) and the right one (Hakaniemi expressway-like bridge section with two interchanges, 1961), were actually constructed.

Actually, the inner west-east corridor was to be used as the corridor of the Central Tunnel, whichs plans were abolished in a votation because of The Greens, commies and SDP in 2008 (:bash::bash:). One day it took 49 minutes me to drive 2 kilometers in central Helsinki, and all they do is quit lanes :bash: Esplanadi and Mannerheim avenue used to be 2x3 back in the 90's...

Don't the Greens and environmentalists know that in traffic in central parts of the city the pollution is much more than a free flow traffic?

Don't the Greens and environmentalists know that in traffic in central parts of the city the pollution is much more than a free flow traffic?

:banana:

Those persons are the typical kind of person who are bad drivers and hates cars and motorbikes… at least in my area, Elche & Alicante (Spain).

I'm preparing a video about the inefficient designing for the low gas consumption of the vehicles in the motorways and the dual-carriageway'n'roundabouts (also known as "via parque" or "that shit") around my home.

Birmingham (UK) was the car centre for England...

Motorways pretty much went everywhere. The inner ring road was pretty much a motorway that ran through and around the city centre. Most of it was removed in the late 90s due to it being unpopular...

But here is an idea of what someone who was car crazed could do...

a lot of it is again upgraded existing roads...
The west midlands are pretty hard to design roads for as there are several centres all close together. There ends up being a lot of short motorways...

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?msid=215974363525272264143.0004aced92d2454f0098e&msa=0&ll=52.548801,-1.859436&spn=0.572865,1.454315

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x48/poshbakerloo/Birmingham-1.jpg

Building a new cross-town highway in Manhattan in the style that was proposed by Robert Moses is a non-starter. For one, there's the expense of demolishing whatever buildings are in the way. And then there's the negative impact on the community: noise, pollution, a reduction in land values, and the impact of having a massive, ugly elevated structure creating an artificial barrier that cuts a neighborhood in two. It would be one thing if we were talking about an underground highway, even a cut-and-cover one that was covered by parkland - I'd be all for that (I'm a big fan of what Boston did with the Big Dig, from a purely conceptual standpoint - the cost issues are another matter, of course). But there are too many existing obstacles at that depth for it to work.

There are a couple of I could realistically see getting done. One would be to improve the West Side Highway south of 59th by separating it into local lanes above ground and express lanes below - right now there are too many lights. That could be done at a shallow depth (I think, barring interference from tunnels, but even that's not a complete obstacle). The other is to do a tunnel from New Jersey to Long Island through Midtown - six or eight lanes would probably suffice, and it would have to be a deep bore. But it would only be able to have two interchanges on it - one for the West Side Highway, one for the FDR. Not only is there no room to build them in the center, but the street structure isn't set up to handle the traffic going in or out.

Other than that, the cross-town situation is likely going to stay the same, and to be honest it really isn't that bad - you can get across Midtown in about 15 minutes, and it's much better elsewhere. The uptown and downtown routes are mostly adequate as well - the lights on the avenues are synchronized for good traffic flow (I can routinely go 20 or 30 blocks without running into a red light), and the FDR and West Side Highway generally do pretty well outside of rush hour.

Yes, driving through Midtown sucks, but what can one really expect? New York isn't a city designed around the car - it's a walking and subway city. It makes little sense to spend lots of money ripping up the city to make it easier to drive through when there's already a far easier way of getting where you need to go. The coverage of the public transport is generally excellent (yes, the East Side is somewhat lacking, but that's in the process of being fixed), and there's really no need to use a car for general-purpose getting around. And when one does need a car, there are plenty of taxis, and now there are car-share programs that are perfect for that sort of thing.

...Although I submit that the express lanes of the Roosevelt Boulevard should be depressed and made into a freeway. The road as it exists today is a danger to everybody and absolutely suicidal for pedestrians.

If you're talking about Queens Boulevard, I would definitely agree. Unfortunately, there's a subway line under there, so I'm not sure how feasible it is.


The main problem in the New York City area are not the number of lanes per se, but the outdated alignment of many expressways and parkways, plus the low-capacity interchanges.

The interchanges are indeed a killer - it's very common to have backups on the highways simply because of people getting stuck behind the line of cars trying to get off. The I-95/I-87 interchange is horrible at any time of day. But I'm not really sure that can be fixed, since many of them are crowded in as it is.

Cars still make the majority of NYC congestion, trucks are a problem and they tear up the roads but I always see more cars than trucks. Even if by your logic trucks make up the largest congestion transit wouldn't solve that.

If you could solve the problem of trucks double-parked in traffic lanes for loading and unloading, you'd go a long way toward reducing the congestion on Manhattan streets. I'm not sure how you'd go about doing it, since deliveries do need to be made, but it would be a huge help.

If you could solve the problem of trucks double-parked in traffic lanes for loading and unloading, you'd go a long way toward reducing the congestion on Manhattan streets. I'm not sure how you'd go about doing it, since deliveries do need to be made, but it would be a huge help.
Well I guess I should have been specific but I was taking about the outer boroughs and into Long Island. I pretty much agree with what you said Manhattan is going to stay the way it is and I would be against anything cutting through Manhattan however leaving Manhattan is a different story, those highways outside the city center need extra capacity and updated free-er flowing interchanges and ramps.

Actually there is a way to improve cross-Manhattan traffic but I'd imagine it would be pretty expensive though not impossible. What if they were to were to build underground interchanges at the Holland Tunnel and bore a tunnel to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel in addition to adding some capacity to connect to the tunnel. The tunnel would be maybe 1.5 miles which isn't bad but I imagine that connecting to existing tunnels and anything related would be expensive. In addition you would have to add capacity to I-278 which would be expensive as well. The good thing is you would have uninterrupted highway going across lower Manhattan with no exits except maybe adding an exit near the batt-brooklyn tunnel but that wouldn't be necessary as you could take I-278 and connect to the Brooklyn Bridge to get to lower Manhattan. Another way is maybe adding an interchange around Liberty Park in Jersey and making a tunnel from there to connect with the Battery Tunnel or into lower Manhattan and back to Battery tunnel.

Building on what Chris already added (concerning the Netherlands) are these two maps I made for a course on economic and social history:


First there's a national comparison on the planned network on the left (I think this is from the 1968 Rijkswegenplan), the actual network in the middle and the routes that were dropped on the right.

http://i56.tinypic.com/2n66pz.jpg

This is a zoomed in view of the Randstad with an ephasis on axed plans. The thin, dotted lines are current motorways while the thick broken lines currently planned or at least potentially upgradeable highways.

The big black ones have been completely cancelled. This includes the planned A16 'stamweg' which was only supposed to intersect with other motorways.

http://i53.tinypic.com/qz54ig.gif

By the way I did these in 2008 so there's bound to be mistakes somewhere.

In the 1960s, there were also far-reaching plans for urban motorways within Amsterdam (the most prominent one being from a Mr. Jokinen) and other cities. I've never found maps and couldn't bother creating one on the basis of written information.

But I did find an impression of what residential areas would look like under the plan. So this is Nima-Farid's dream for towns throughout the World. Would you want to live there?

http://www.autosnelwegen.nl/asw/forum3/plan-Jokinen-1965.jpg
(this is the area concerned (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=nl&ll=52.357793,4.854573&spn=0.004823,0.013733&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.424342,79.013672&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=17))

But I did find an impression of what residential areas would look like under the plan. So this is Nima-Farid's dream for towns throughout the World. Would you want to live there?


That looks totally awesome if not for the style of the buildings. The Spui would also do well with some motorways out there, and so would an IJmuiden-Centraal Station expressway.

Brilliant.

Urban motorways or just spurs?

That looks totally awesome if not for the style of the buildings. The Spui would also do well with some motorways out there, and so would an IJmuiden-Centraal Station expressway.
No, it looks awesome if not for the presence of buildings. Irrespective of what those buildings look like. It completely ruins town. But then again, if you think motorways over the Spui, you clearly do not care about the town but only about the concrete.

An IJmuiden - Centraal Station expressway would actually not have ruined too much, as the area was more or less wasteland at the time when plans for such a road were made. Part of the 1960s redevelopment plans was also to move Central Station to an area South of the city centre.

No, it looks awesome if not for the presence of some many buildings. Irrespective of what those buildings look like. It completely ruins town. But then again, if you think motorways over the Spui, you clearly do not care about the town but only about the concrete.

You wrote like I was proposing to pave or build over ALL Amsterdam canals, I just needed one to provide easy access to downtown (plus better traffic flow in the streets of Oud Zuid and Joordan areas). Anyway: the worst problem of Amsterdam is not lack of freeways, but lack of affordable parking lots (underground or course). € 42 to park the car for a day... too much. Seriously, € 42 is far more than what I spend in fuel to go and come back from Tilburg to Amsterdam (125km each way).

Access to downtown does not mean "a freeway right through downtown". A freeway that more or less follows the current s100, as it was planned in the days, already forms an extremely good access to downtown. In other words, you have just confirmed that you only look at concrete for the sake of the concrete.

With respect to parking lots in Amsterdam, it is not a capacity problem but a pricing problem. Anything new they might build in town will be priced at EUR 42 per day too. It all boils down to the policy that day visitors are supposed to park at the edge of town and take a suburban train from there. Those edge-of-town parking lots are priced accordingly. Like the policy or not, the problem is not about a lack of adequate infrastructure.

....If you're talking about Queens Boulevard, I would definitely agree. Unfortunately, there's a subway line under there, so I'm not sure how feasible it is....

He's talking about Roosevelt Boulevard in Philadelphia. New York is not the world, you know. :-P

No, it looks awesome if not for the presence of buildings. Irrespective of what those buildings look like. It completely ruins town. But then again, if you think motorways over the Spui, you clearly do not care about the town but only about the concrete.

An IJmuiden - Centraal Station expressway would actually not have ruined too much, as the area was more or less wasteland at the time when plans for such a road were made. Part of the 1960s redevelopment plans was also to move Central Station to an area South of the city centre.

I'm rusty on Amsterdam: remind me where the Spui is?

Actually there is a way to improve cross-Manhattan traffic but I'd imagine it would be pretty expensive though not impossible. What if they were to were to build underground interchanges at the Holland Tunnel and bore a tunnel to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel in addition to adding some capacity to connect to the tunnel. The tunnel would be maybe 1.5 miles which isn't bad but I imagine that connecting to existing tunnels and anything related would be expensive. In addition you would have to add capacity to I-278 which would be expensive as well. The good thing is you would have uninterrupted highway going across lower Manhattan with no exits except maybe adding an exit near the batt-brooklyn tunnel but that wouldn't be necessary as you could take I-278 and connect to the Brooklyn Bridge to get to lower Manhattan. Another way is maybe adding an interchange around Liberty Park in Jersey and making a tunnel from there to connect with the Battery Tunnel or into lower Manhattan and back to Battery tunnel.

It wouldn't really be across Lower Manhattan though - the east side would be left out. In addition, I'm not sure either the Holland Tunnel or the Battery Tunnel could handle the extra capacity (unless we're talking about additional tubes, which I'm all in favor of, especially on the NY-NJ side). You can expand I-278 all you want, but the tunnels end up being choke points.

Plus, since it's pretty much just as easy to get from that part of Brooklyn to New Jersey by going over the Verazzano, I'm not too concerned about a new link there. A cross-Manhattan tunnel in the Midtown area would serve the East Side as well, connect Queens to New Jersey, and if you combined it with an upgrade to Route 17 in New Jersey, would give people a reason not to drive up to the GWB to get to northern Jersey and thus reduce congestion on the West Side Highway.


But I did find an impression of what residential areas would look like under the plan. So this is Nima-Farid's dream for towns throughout the World. Would you want to live there?

http://www.autosnelwegen.nl/asw/forum3/plan-Jokinen-1965.jpg
(this is the area concerned (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=nl&ll=52.357793,4.854573&spn=0.004823,0.013733&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.424342,79.013672&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=17))

Wow, that is hideous. Completely shutting out the waterfront from one side of the canal. What a disaster that would have been.

Anyway: the worst problem of Amsterdam is not lack of freeways, but lack of affordable parking lots (underground or course). € 42 to park the car for a day... too much. Seriously, € 42 is far more than what I spend in fuel to go and come back from Tilburg to Amsterdam (125km each way).

The solution to that is to make sure that there's lots of parking at train or bus stations on the outside of the city where people can leave their cars and take public transport the rest of the way. Cheaper to build them out there due to greater availability of land, and it doesn't lead to massive congestion in the city center.

my city Newcastle has NO motorways, but is host to the busiest dual carriageway in the country :(

The congestion was so bad they decided to slap a 50mph limit on it... which has done bugger all.

http://www.freefoto.com/images/807/10/807_10_9727---A1-Gateshead-and-Newcastle-Western-Bypass_web.jpg

Wow, that is hideous. Completely shutting out the waterfront from one side of the canal. What a disaster that would have been.

This is one of the more than 30 large canals in Amsterdam. It's not in the inner core of the city (from 16th-17th Century). It's not the oldest, or the more picturesque. Just yet-another-wide-canal-so-what in the city, could have been easily given a better use in one of its banks to a concrete maze of elevated lanes :cheers: It would be an addition to the area, I think, it would give it a modern appearance, they would build high(er) office towers behind the freeway overlooking it and the canal.

The solution to that is to make sure that there's lots of parking at train or bus stations on the outside of the city where people can leave their cars and take public transport the rest of the way. Cheaper to build them out there due to greater availability of land, and it doesn't lead to massive congestion in the city center.

Amsterdam has something like 14.000 park-and-ride spaces IIRC, and they could easily add more by stacking garages in stations near freeways. P+R costs less than € 10/day and return tickets on subway, tram or bus are free. There are three inconveniences, though, the first of those particularly serious:

- if you are staying late (say, you went for a long dinner, music concert in the Melkweg, a party, a date, whatever), there are no subways or trams running back to P+R. You need to take night buses, whose coverage of the city is limited. So if you might stay later than planned (main reason for some to take cars to Amsterdam instead of a train), you might need to add a taxi fare to the P+R.

- you can't easily get access to your car during your stay (I use my car as a sort-of depot if I'm doing different things in the city, instead of carrying bags all day around).

- at peak times, subways and trams and buses are packed with commuters and all the comfort I (or any driver) gave ourselves by driving instead of taking a national train from our original destinations to Amsterdam is lost travelling standing and stumbling upon people or up to 25 minutes 'till downtown.

The solution to that is to make sure that there's lots of parking at train or bus stations on the outside of the city where people can leave their cars and take public transport the rest of the way. Cheaper to build them out there due to greater availability of land, and it doesn't lead to massive congestion in the city center.

That's a popular idea, and implemented often. However, this mainly appeals to incidental visitors. The traffic P+R's reduce is so incredibly marginal compared to all traffic. Nearly all motorway exits in the Netherlands have a carpool parking or a P+R or both. I know of motorways that have P+R/carpool parking capacity along a 50 kilometer distance that is comparable to 10 minutes worth of traffic (about 2,200 parking spots). Near large cities P+R capacity is higher, but so are traffic volumes. It's a nice addition, but one shouldn't expect it to solve traffic or parking problems.

Most of the autobahns in today's Poland teritory was cancelled

2 of 5. Berlin-Wrocław-Gliwice highway is continuously dual carriageway road from Berlin. Only 70 km of this route doesn't fulfill the freeway standard. Szczecin-Gdansk freeway is planned in the other corridor, at the seaside (bigger potential traffic). Rest of them was really cancelled. Berlin-Warsaw freeway is done or U/C (openings in 2011 and 2012).

If someone says that a price of the oil (in not so much affluent, former communist country) of a say $ 1,7 per litre forces to abadon cars, I'll be laughing on the floor....

Yes, it's truth that many drivers abandoned their cars. I suppose that traffic on S86 was 25% lower than in 2010 (spring '11). In our country 5 PLN (ca. 1,7 USD) for 1 litre of fuel is a psychological barrier.

He's talking about Roosevelt Boulevard in Philadelphia. New York is not the world, you know. :-P

Roosevelt Boulevard will have a subway under it one day , it just needs funding. So burying a Freeway under there is out of the question.....

Just yet-another-wide-canal-so-what in the city, could have been easily given a better use in one of its banks to a concrete maze of elevated lanes. It would be an addition to the area, I think, it would give it a modern appearance, they would build high(er) office towers behind the freeway overlooking it and the canal.
While it is certainly not a pittoresque canal, the canal is part of the so-called "Staande Mastroute", the only waterway from Amsterdam to the South-West that has a high clearance. Not very apt for your concrete maze.

An addition to the area? Only if you get wet dreams when you see concrete. More office space is definitely not needed. Existing areas along existing freeways offer more office space than the city actually needs. And as residential area next to a freeway is bound to fail (people with actual experience in having freeways in the backyard never seem to have wet dreams of projects like these), building more freeways in Amsterdam only leads to more urban wasteland.

Roosevelt Boulevard will have a subway under it one day , it just needs funding. So burying a Freeway under there is out of the question.....
Not entirely true. The Boulevard is, above all else, wide. Like really really wide. Sinking the limited-access portion where the express lanes currently are is technically feasible and retains the median for other purposes. Where the Boulevard shrinks to its narrowest--I'm particularly thinking about the Cottman intersection here--and the existing infrastructure doesn't leave adequate median space, the fixed guideway line can simply be elevated over grade as the existing express lanes sink under it.

The broader point can be made: while expressways to the core of the city are a bad idea, there are particular cases in urbanized area where they are not, due to externalities such as clear (not oblique) safety hazards, existing easements, etc. A sub-point I may add is that there seems to be a region x distance from the city center where the built environment thins from urban to suburban density. Paris' Boulevard Périphérique is in that zone, which is why it works so well as a city border. As such, the innermost ring needs to be built at that gradation, where the City and suburbs meet in terms of density, and no other expressway allowed further into the city core beyond it.

Of course in the United States, we royally screwed that up, and are still paying the price.

But I did find an impression of what residential areas would look like under the plan. So this is Nima-Farid's dream for towns throughout the World. Would you want to live there?

http://www.autosnelwegen.nl/asw/forum3/plan-Jokinen-1965.jpg
(this is the area concerned (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=nl&ll=52.357793,4.854573&spn=0.004823,0.013733&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.424342,79.013672&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=17))
No.

But I did find an impression of what residential areas would look like under the plan. So this is Nima-Farid's dream for towns throughout the World. Would you want to live there?
It is not my dream to cover for example historical Manhattan buildings with wide areas filled with cars and why shouold I care about other cities? Don't they have their own residents? I saw articles about some cities and I found this disscusion intresting.

Interestingly, Japan appears to have few, if any, canceled expressways. It's truly amazing what they've built there for such a relatively small land area. All flat areas are urbanized and all non-urbanized areas are mountainous.

And in Iran I've never heard of a cancelled Freeway/Expressway project

That looks totally awesome if not for the style of the buildings. The Spui would also do well with some motorways out there, and so would an IJmuiden-Centraal Station expressway.

Brilliant.

Are you insane? Most of those buildings would have become vacant eyesores, home to squatters and drug addicts, if that concrete monstrosity had been built. No one wants to live next to such a noisy, dirty structure.

In most of Western cities there were lots of expressways and freeways planned after WWII but because of their spoiled democracy :bash: most of them were cancelled.
These cities were Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, London, Paris and much more.

You are a twisted little turd. DEMOCRACY is the most important component of any society- the right of the people to make their voices heard and have a say in their city, state, country.

There are good reasons why those freeways were cancelled- because they would have incontrovertibly destroyed those cities to make it easier for rich white people to get to and from the core.

The cities you listed are bustling, growing, and vibrant BECAUSE their citizens rejected these proposed ribbons of destruction.

They should have done that in the 1970s, when the city was in decay and real estate in Lower Manhattan was dirty cheap. Indeed, they should have done with together with the project of the original WTC. Parts of Manhattan were like a war zone, very third World, Times Square was full of hookers, drug dealers, strip shows, illegal products... perfect opportunity missed: build a freeway, and tip off decadent and rotten areas.

And constructing freeways through these "rotten areas" would have made them permanently so. Instead, Manhattan has seen a resurgence in development and revitalization that would have been impossible had your concrete ribbons of destruction been built.

Thank God you have no power.

There is enough coal and uranium out there to run a lot of cars on electricity. And 2nd generation biofuels with HIGH (rather than low) yield per energy input unit. Surely, it will make some agricultural prices rise, but so be it. Developed countries can afford that.

You are advocating for policies that will increase food prices in the U.S. when 1/6 of its people live in poverty. You are so fucking clueless it's not even funny.

Mining uranium and coal destroys the surface of the planet- the combustion of coal for energy is a main contributor to global warming and releases hundreds of toxins into the air that jeopardize public health. Uranium is RADIOACTIVE and there are limited quantities of it.

Jesus, do you consider REALITY at all when you come up with this crap? Are the concepts of practicality and environmental destruction completely foreign to you?

You are a twisted little turd. DEMOCRACY is the most important component of any society- the right of the people to make their voices heard and have a say in their city, state, country.

There are good reasons why those freeways were cancelled- because they would have incontrovertibly destroyed those cities to make it easier for rich white people to get to and from the core.

The cities you listed are bustling, growing, and vibrant BECAUSE their citizens rejected these proposed ribbons of destruction.

First of all I know democracy is one of the most important thing needed for a society. But this is different. Japan is a democracy, so is South Korea and even Turkey but why don't we hear about cancelled projects there? And if there is an expressway built in the middle of the city, people would have lots of problems in the first year but after lets say 10 years people get used to it and the expressway becoes part of their lives and their lives will be intrupted without it.

Are you insane? Most of those buildings would have become vacant eyesores, home to squatters and drug addicts, if that concrete monstrosity had been built. No one wants to live next to such a noisy, dirty structure.

That's just our western society. We allow it to get that way. There are many areas in Japan or Korea where expressways are within meters from buildings that are not vacant nor rundown.

And constructing freeways through these "rotten areas" would have made them permanently so. Instead, Manhattan has seen a resurgence in development and revitalization that would have been impossible had your concrete ribbons of destruction been built.

Well this is the fashionable view, but I don't believe it has much basis in reality. I believe it had two flaws: one, it wildly overstated the extent of the destruction, making out huge areas would have to be demolished and frightening people with ridiculous ideas that priceless historical districts were going to be bulldozed. Two, it grossly overstated the negative aspects of freeway construction (you'd be forgiven for thinking they were to be built out of pure plutonium, emitting radiation that would kill everything in sight) and completely ignoring their positive aspects.

Interestingly, Japan appears to have few, if any, canceled expressways. It's truly amazing what they've built there for such a relatively small land area. All flat areas are urbanized and all non-urbanized areas are mountainous.

I know one: Joban expressway. Due to the Fukushima thing :D.

Although not cancelled (Is still planned), a motorway that should being built now is A-22 between Siétamo and Huesca. They delayed that because of a dispute: Some people wanted it to go far from a castle, and other people wanted it to go far from his town, Tierz; and now due to financial crisis I believe it won't be completed until 2016, while the rest of the motorway to Lerida will be open next year!

I know one: Joban expressway. Due to the Fukushima thing :D.

Construction is halted because it runs within the 20 km-safety zone of the plant. (6 km actually). It's almost completed, and most certainly not canceled.

Motorways are for bypassing and long distance travel. NOT commuting around inner city areas.

Motorways are for bypassing and long distance travel. NOT commuting around inner city areas.

Well, you can't really compare Europe and the United States in that view. In the U.S. there are large amounts of jobs in inner city areas, much more than in Europe. European office centers are mostly outside the inner city area. It makes more sense in the U.S. to build motorways near the inner city than in Europe. And almost no European city actually has motorways in the inner city. They run near the outside borders of the inner city at best (BP in Paris or A100 in Berlin).

In the case of London, the nearest motorway to bypass the area (M25) is 20 - 25 kilometers from the inner city, which is much more than any other major city in Europe. Even a proposal to complete A406 as a full loop will not result in running through or near the inner city area. A406 is still a good 10 kilometers away from the inner city, which would make it comparable to the Boulevard Périphérique in Paris, or the M-30 in Madrid. Even the Amsterdam A10 is only 3 - 4km from the inner city, but passes mostly through 1950's and 1960's neighborhoods, not the historic center.

Construction is halted because it runs within the 20 km-safety zone of the plant. (6 km actually). It's almost completed, and most certainly not canceled.

I knew it runs too close to the plant. I think it won't be completed in a few thousands of years. But knowing how Japanese people are, I'm sure they will come up with a weird invention for remove radiation.

According to Japanese Wikipedia, it is planned to open the expressway in 2012.

In the Alicante-Elche Metropolitan Area we had cancelled Motorways… and necessary in nowadays…

http://img.skitch.com/20110917-b78q5kyj4ugtdt15e4adf8s4n5.jpg

The problem now days is this the most are built… but not as Motorways, and that's the point: This roads are Dual-Carriageways with 80Km/h speed limit and Roundabouts every 1,5~2km, so, if you drive on these roads probably the average speed is no more than 50~60km/h and you mileage (fuel consumption) it's worse than the Spanish Economical Polices…

This Dual-Carriageways design are called "Via Parque" (like park road…) but the people I know called this design "Esa ******" (that shit). I called it "Dual-Carriageways'n'roundabouts"
I understand there wasn't enough money for built all the motorways, but, the government could design Dual-carriageways without (or with few) roundabouts, because the people try to avoid this roads.

And in the N-340 and CV-855 the old road was faster than the actual… until the rush hour.

The CV-865 in a constant traffic jam in summer… people moving between Elche and Santa Pola and people from all Spain (in special from Madrid) to spend their beach vacations in Santa Pola, for that reason is needed a Motorway between Elche and Santa Pola, because has a lot of traffic all year… slow traffic in the mornings… In summer the traffic jams are longer than 5~6km and some times are 13km long (all the road!!). I read it has in some hour more than of 15000 vehicles at day of average. The protect of the future motorway at the beginning a Dual-Carriageway'n'roundabouts (in 1999) and the plan was to begin the construction in 2004, but in 2004 nothing happens, nowadays there is a rumor that says it would be a normal Motorway (Because the people don't want a Dual-Carriageway'n'roundabouts). In wikipedía names this motorway as EL-12, but I didn't find anything about that.

The same problem in the N-332 between Airport (N-338 Road) and Santa Pola. In summers the traffic jams to Santa Pola are longer than 10km. Nowadays there is a Tunnel (dual-carriageway) in El Altet and you don't need to stop in the Traffic Light, but I remember we it was necessary to cross and stop in there… in the summer days was a full traffic jam, one of the most famous and crowded in all Spain. http://www.elpais.com/articulo/Comunidad/Valenciana/variante/L/Altet/abre/atenuar/atascos/Semana/Santa/elpepiautval/19990327elpval_23/Tes

Here is the actual map…

http://img.skitch.com/20110917-qxu6whx3yttfauncd6qw3r51jx.jpg


The A-79 / CV-86 was built for reduce traffic in the old A-7 E-15, nowadays A-70 E-15… Well, the result was more traffic in A-70 E-15, few traffic in A-79/CV-86.

The people don't want to drive in there. This road need a minumun upgrade: Quit the most of the roundabouts (I count 4 are totally unnecessary :bash:) or upgrade to normal motorway.

Also is need to built the part of A-79 for enter to Via Parque Avenue in Alicante. CV-86 A-79 are part of Via Parque.

This maps show what roads I consider is needed to be built in the future (5~10 years)…

http://img.skitch.com/20110917-kj89mahpw3wf32qaea27c7hb1c.jpg

Is very urgent to build the EL-12 Motorway, the CV-865 has to much traffic and Traffic accidents.

Also build a new A-31. This road (not compliant with Motorway standars!!!) has too much traffic, to Traffic accidents, and can't be upgrade due this situation. The new one must to be a 3x3 lanes Motorway Between Elda, Petrer and Alicante, the rest until Almansa (Albacete) can be upgrade and with 2x2 lanes prepared for 3x3 (like A-7 E-15 Motorway between Murcia and Lorca (http://g.co/maps/dzecz))

The A-70 needs to be a 3x3 motorway, but, if the government quit the toll of the AP-7 between Elche and Campello it won't be necessary to make the A-70 3x3 lanes.

http://img.skitch.com/20110917-x9jcjjkh8eytd99ja76ccfs2tj.jpg

^^ It's A-79, not A-76. This one will run from Ponferrada to Ourense.

^^ It's A-79, not A-76. This one will run from Ponferrada to Ourense.

FIXED…!

Motorways are for bypassing and long distance travel. NOT commuting around inner city areas.

Perhaps that's true to a large extent in the UK, but I don't think it's true globally.

In South Africa, Johannesburg, Pretoria, Cape Town, Durban and Port Elizabeth all have freeway (motorway) access either right to, or almost right to the city centre. By far the busiest routes, for which freeways have been built, are primarily catering for commuter traffic in and around cities. Long-distance routes generally don't carry enough traffic to justify building freeways.

That's just our western society. We allow it to get that way. There are many areas in Japan or Korea where expressways are within meters from buildings that are not vacant nor rundown.

Well, that is because those nations have very little habitable area so people can't really move elsewhere. That is not the case in the United States.

Come on people. Has common sense gone out the window?

Well this is the fashionable view, but I don't believe it has much basis in reality. I believe it had two flaws: one, it wildly overstated the extent of the destruction, making out huge areas would have to be demolished and frightening people with ridiculous ideas that priceless historical districts were going to be bulldozed. Two, it grossly overstated the negative aspects of freeway construction (you'd be forgiven for thinking they were to be built out of pure plutonium, emitting radiation that would kill everything in sight) and completely ignoring their positive aspects.

In Manhattan, those freeways would have created large dead zones. No one wants to live next to a freeway in the U.S. Manhattan is a shining example of a bustling, vibrant commercial center not gashed by ribbons of destruction. So are Washington D.C. and San Francisco.

In Manhattan, those freeways would have created large dead zones. No one wants to live next to a freeway in the U.S. Manhattan is a shining example of a bustling, vibrant commercial center not gashed by ribbons of destruction. So are Washington D.C. and San Francisco.

What an exaggeration, and you are making ad hominem arguments.

The area around FDR is very populated.

What an exaggeration, and you are making ad hominem arguments.

The area around FDR is very populated.

Yes , but for most part , its poor people living along that side of Manhattan. The Highway killed the waterfront which attracts higher income people to that area. Highways in General Depress areas , and turn high / middle income areas into lower income or they increase the crime rate which is seen higher in New Jersey's highway suburbs then the Non-Highway suburbs. I love that the Europeans on this site think they no whats best for the US or even understand what goes on in this country. Of course who am I to say that , because we Americans do it to you guys all the time.

^^ What if they dig tunnels with TBM and with only 2-3 exits?

^^ What if they dig tunnels with TBM and with only 2-3 exits?

It wouldn't work due to the Depths you would have to go in Manhattan , which would be at least 8 stories like some of the New Rail links and water lines. So the Tunnel would just bypass Manhattan without any exits...

I'm not saying what is best or not. US Census Bureau is revealing data about what Americans actually do in the real world, not the fantasy land in which Northeastern US has returned to be a separate entity where pipe dreams of no-car-land realize.

I'm not saying what is best or not. US Census Bureau is revealing data about what Americans actually do in the real world, not the fantasy land in which Northeastern US has returned to be a separate entity where pipe dreams of no-car-land realize.

When where we every a separate Entity? Its more what the people want and as the baby boomers Generation gets old , there having an increasingly hard time getting around. Hench why Transit enhancements and expansions are being pushed more and more these days. Transit Developments tend to sell out faster then non Transit developments , so towns are starting change from an Auto-based town to a Transit based town. You can see that happening all over the US... I'm not saying we want a No-car land I said and others have said that there needs to be a balance which there isn't. Which has caused traffic to become nightmare in the growing areas....

I don't think we're talking of the USA specifically, but of urban freeways in general. Obviously not every proposed or possible urban freeway would be desireable, what I am against is the misguided orthodoxy that all urban freeways are bad.

Here's a case in point. In 1962 Settlers Way was cut through the inner Cape Town suburb of Observatory and in 1967 the freeway was completed to the city centre, cutting through Woodstock. That road is of immense benefit to commuters accessing the city.

The orthodox view is that Woodstock and Observatory should have decayed. In fact the opposite has happened.

No decay overlooking Settlers Way (http://maps.google.co.za/maps?saddr=Eastern+Blvd&daddr=-33.9249392,18.4280829+to:Adderley+St&hl=en&ll=-33.945563,18.469364&spn=0.000009,0.004823&sll=-33.927872,18.429158&sspn=0.014653,0.01929&geocode=FQ0v-v0dboYZAQ%3BFbVY-v0dsjAZASlPUEwbiF3MHTGtqN6TS9jsRg%3BFShj-v0dbx0ZAQ&vpsrc=0&mra=dpe&mrsp=1&sz=16&via=1&t=k&layer=c&cbll=-33.9456,18.469263&panoid=gapsQHzo8puDGyYOG6RXmQ&cbp=12,241.1,,0,2&z=18)

Woodstock looking fine next to Eastern Boulevard (http://maps.google.co.za/maps?saddr=Eastern+Blvd&daddr=-33.9249392,18.4280829+to:Adderley+St&hl=en&ll=-33.936796,18.452056&spn=0.000009,0.004823&sll=-33.927872,18.429158&sspn=0.014653,0.01929&geocode=FQ0v-v0dboYZAQ%3BFbVY-v0dsjAZASlPUEwbiF3MHTGtqN6TS9jsRg%3BFShj-v0dbx0ZAQ&vpsrc=6&mra=dpe&mrsp=1&sz=16&via=1&t=k&layer=c&cbll=-33.936796,18.452056&panoid=ByYT6DwXFRspa0kC16hXlA&cbp=12,297.09,,0,1.2&z=18)

New international conference centre from elevated freeway (http://maps.google.co.za/?ll=-33.916627,18.42978&spn=0.004652,0.006866&t=h&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=-33.916738,18.429947&panoid=lxzi0qZfnaFKwZnL-7VPuQ&cbp=12,270.87,,0,4.18)

It is not my dream to cover for example historical Manhattan buildings with wide areas filled with cars and why shouold I care about other cities? Don't they have their own residents? I saw articles about some cities and I found this disscusion intresting.

Except in your thread title, your first post, and your signature, your supporting the construction of canceled highways, not just opening the topic to a "should they or shouldn't they" discussion. Claiming to be neutral now is not credible.

And constructing freeways through these "rotten areas" would have made them permanently so. Instead, Manhattan has seen a resurgence in development and revitalization that would have been impossible had your concrete ribbons of destruction been built.

Thank God you have no power.

+1!

Hence my "um, you're proving my point," when Suburbanist brought up the state of Manhattan in the 70s versus now. Which, of course, he ignored.

:cheers:

Well this is the fashionable view, but I don't believe it has much basis in reality. I believe it had two flaws: one, it wildly overstated the extent of the destruction, making out huge areas would have to be demolished and frightening people with ridiculous ideas that priceless historical districts were going to be bulldozed. Two, it grossly overstated the negative aspects of freeway construction (you'd be forgiven for thinking they were to be built out of pure plutonium, emitting radiation that would kill everything in sight) and completely ignoring their positive aspects.

Another one who doesn't know New York.
Suburbanist was lamenting the fact that the Lower Manhattan and Mid-Manhattan expressways weren't built in the 70s, when it would have been easy, because the areas were blighted. Does that exaggerate the extent of the blight? Perhaps.
But what is utterly indisputable is that the hundreds of millions of dollars of development that have taken place directly in what would have been the path of the expressways could not have (because the expressways would have been there, just in case that's not clear). And the fact that it has taken place in spite of the lack of expressways....

It is possible to build skyscrapers on top of expressways, I believe the original plans for the Mid-Manhattan Expressway called for skyscrapers and buildings on top of it. They also did this at the Trans-Manhattan Expressway (I-95).

I'm thinking in particular of what SoHo and TriBeCa (yes, they're spelled that way) are like - the areas between Greenwich Village and downtown Manhattan that the Lower Manhattan Expressway would have run through. What's there now happened naturally, through market forces - i.e. people perceiving the areas as desirable and hip, and - while we can't know, of course - I think it's very unlikely that that would have happened with the expressway cutting a dent through the fabric of the city. Put more precisely, I think it's unlikely, with the expressway there, that those areas would have developed enough of a desirability factor for commercial developers to be interested in building on top of the freeway.

I believe what's on top of I-95 is public housing. Which is a completely different sort of thing (because the government can make it happen - or could, 50 years ago, pre-Reagan and pre-Tea Party - market forces or no). That's also a very different neighborhood. It's close to ten miles from midtown Manhattan and, um, not at the socioeconomic level we're talking about downtown.

And I still haven't had anyone remind me where the Spui in Amsterdam is.... (Yes, I could look it up myself.)

^^ I wonder why New yorkers oppose any kind of developement because it will "ruin bussinesses". The Interstate system ruined the bussinesses of small towns bypassed by the system. Building a designated busway in the streets will damage the bussinesses. So what?? The bussinesses will recover after a while.

Sigh.

I'm not talking about the individual businesses and whether they recover from an individual project a year after it's built, but about the way a whole neighborhood feels, and the way it evolves over time.

(And I'm not a New Yorker.)

The area that the Lower Manhattan Expressway would have run through has developed in a very different and far more lucrative way (restaurants, nightclubs, art galleries, shopping... and housing for the sort of people who like to and can afford to live near that stuff) than it most likely would have with a freeway running through it.

That said, do businesses that have to close for several months, or have reduced customer traffic for several months, while the street is torn up for a busway, always recover? I'm not convinced of that.

The Areas where the Freeways run are mostly poor and dangerous areas , but before the Freeways were built these areas were the place to live and very safe. Hopefully over the next few decades as this region grows we can go back to Pre-Freeway destruction in the form of covering the Cut Freeways with Parks and demolishing the stubs which would re-connect separated neighborhoods and heal the city. Developers these days hate developing near Freeways hench why those areas stay bad for a long time , they love transit though or wide boulevards.... The Suburban office parks in this region are dying because companies want to be closer to the Airport or Transit which Usually means a Urban area. Employees also tend to like the various eateries in the Urban areas and parks....making working easier....

^^ I know that in some cases the bussinesses will not recover like the Interstate highway example but these bussinesses and the people will get used to the system.

Lower Manhattan Exp. in my opinion is not the main case because the distances are shorter in the south and a shoreline Parkway can be cinstructed instead. I didn't mean only you. I was also talking to Nexis. (His post#201)

^^ I know that in some cases the bussinesses will not recover like the Interstate highway example but these bussinesses and the people will get used to the system.

Lower Manhattan Exp. in my opinion is not the main case because the distances are shorter in the south and a shoreline Parkway can be cinstructed instead. I didn't mean only you. I was also talking to Nexis. (His post#201)

We can't afford anymore decades that it takes to fully recover....this country can't handle any change that will disrupt things for more then 2 years....

It will not take that long to get used to it. 2-3 years at most. for example can you imagine LA without freeways?

It will not take that long to get used to it. 2-3 years at most. for example can you imagine LA without freeways?

Yes , I can...2-3 years is enough to close a business. Which many do , or struggle to survive.

But the traffic caused by destructing all these freeways will be disasterous. Imagine a night that you can't sleep because of the roaring caused by passing cas and trucks.

But the traffic caused by destructing all these freeways will be disasterous. Imagine a night that you can't sleep because of the roaring caused by passing cas and trucks.

Well who said all the Freeways had to , only a few....ie in the Downtown core. Downtowns should be Freeway-Less or Freeways should be underground not obstructing or destroying anything...

^^ I know buthaving to less freeway in downtown core is not that good. In the city I live (Shiraz, 1,500,000 pop.) the traffic is disastrous. Although we have a good public transport system (ie. Lots of bus routes with 15 min freq., busways, metro u/c) it may take 1 hour to travel 2-3 km in city center. every street is filled with cars, even small residental lanes.

It is possible to build skyscrapers on top of expressways, I believe the original plans for the Mid-Manhattan Expressway called for skyscrapers and buildings on top of it. They also did this at the Trans-Manhattan Expressway (I-95).
Probably won't happen post 9/11, the possibilities of a truck bomb would scare most people away from such a thing. It would be an ideal thing to do though.

You know this fear won't last forever especially after arab spring. people want freedom and democrocy (turkish style rather than western style). They suffered from violence enough. I think after 15 years everyone will forget such a fear and then this thing can be built!

The Areas where the Freeways run are mostly poor and dangerous areas , but before the Freeways were built these areas were the place to live and very safe.

The areas where most freeways were built were, mostly, areas that were already dilapidated, reservoirs of poverty or already on the process of decay. They did many a neighborhood a favor by accelerating its clearance because it was hopeless to recover it. Sometimes the whole social system built-up around a neighborhood is wracked, and disbanding the neighborhood with nw infrastructure serving other areas of the city is an awesome win-win way to achieve that.

Probably won't happen post 9/11, the possibilities of a truck bomb would scare most people away from such a thing. It would be an ideal thing to do though.

Truck bombing near the ground is more dangerous.

USA is not Pakistan, Iraq of Afghanistan that truck bombing is considered important. How many type of these bombings happened in the US?

The areas where most freeways were built were, mostly, areas that were already dilapidated, reservoirs of poverty or already on the process of decay. They did many a neighborhood a favor by accelerating its clearance because it was hopeless to recover it. Sometimes the whole social system built-up around a neighborhood is wracked, and disbanding the neighborhood with nw infrastructure serving other areas of the city is an awesome win-win way to achieve that.



Truck bombing near the ground is more dangerous.

No they weren't , they were some of the nicest areas of each city or middle class. After the Highway was built it became poor , they didn't do any favors.... You honestly need to study US Urban history more , because you know nothing about it...

USA is not Pakistan, Iraq of Afghanistan that truck bombing is considered important. How many type of these bombings happened in the US?

A Few dozen from 1960-1995....enough to cause Bollards to be put up at every Major Govt Building , Train station and Popular meeting place.

It is possible to build skyscrapers on top of expressways, I believe the original plans for the Mid-Manhattan Expressway called for skyscrapers and buildings on top of it. They also did this at the Trans-Manhattan Expressway (I-95).

There not really skyscrapers, but skanky apartment blocks that are undesirable...

There not really skyscrapers, but skanky apartment blocks that are undesirable...

I know, but it doesn't really matter what type of buildings there are, fact is there can be large towers on top of expressways. They could even cover the rest up too, so you won't see, hear or smell the expressway. Which means valuable real-estate development + good accessibility. There are many autoroutes in Paris where they've built covers over the motorways. An urban motorway can be much more than just a noisy concrete river.

Having a motorway in a tunnel also means that future expansion is pretty impossible...
...and inner city motorways always get too busy

Yep, but existing motorways in denser urban areas are almost impossible to widen anyway. Just look at Paris, or Japanese expressways. The Japanese simply build another expressway parallel to it. Koreans do that too.

USA is not Pakistan, Iraq of Afghanistan that truck bombing is considered important. How many type of these bombings happened in the US?

Oklahoma City (April 19, 1995) killed something like 170 people.
And the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 was a truck in the parking garage. Didn't do much damage though.

At the risk of having people scream "envirowhacko!" at me - but it's just a question - how's the air in an apartment building that sits directly above a highway?

At the risk of having people scream "envirowhacko!" at me - but it's just a question - how's the air in an apartment building that sits directly above a highway?

That depends how high that window is situated. If it is on the lower floors, just over the roadway, the air quality will not be very good, that's why you need to cover somewhat more than the building alone, or offices with internal air circulation so no windows can be opened (pretty common in tall towers anyway). There are a bunch of office buildings on top of motorways in Amsterdam and The Hague.

I don't know about skyscrapers or apartments, but the Galleria mall in Hatfield just north of London is built right on top of the A1(M) motorway. So even in the fairly conservative (development-wise) UK, such an idea isn't out of the question.

The areas where most freeways were built were, mostly, areas that were already dilapidated, reservoirs of poverty or already on the process of decay. They did many a neighborhood a favor by accelerating its clearance because it was hopeless to recover it. Sometimes the whole social system built-up around a neighborhood is wracked, and disbanding the neighborhood with nw infrastructure serving other areas of the city is an awesome win-win way to achieve that.
One place in the USA is now seeing just this scenario. In Sheverport, LA, I-49 is being extended northward from I-20 (an elaborate intechange, too!) to Kansas City and the first section in Shreveport was one of those inner-city places that NIMBYed that freeway to death in the 1960s and 1970s. A public housing 'commieblock-light' project was even built in the ROW. Fast-forward to now, the public housing failed and was removed, the neighborhood continued its decline and those neighbors who are left now WANT the freeway to be built. It is now waiting its turn for funding and the rest of I-49 farther north is in various stages of construction.

Mike

No they weren't , they were some of the nicest areas of each city or middle class. After the Highway was built it became poor , they didn't do any favors.... You honestly need to study US Urban history more , because you know nothing about it...
What?? Its a FACT that most urban freeways were built in poorer parts of town and it makes perfect sense why. Cheaper buildings and land means a cheaper highway, by the time Interstates began construction it was after the white flight so inner cities were cheap and it was easier to move poor people than people with money and education. Name me some cities where an Interstate was built through a "nice" area? Parkways are different story because the highway is tucked away in a heavily wooded area with what was low density.

No they weren't , they were some of the nicest areas of each city or middle class. After the Highway was built it became poor , they didn't do any favors.... You honestly need to study US Urban history more , because you know nothing about it...

Is there any concrete evidence that the freeway building was the main cause of the decline? Plenty of cities all over the world have suffered decay in the inner city as economic activity and the middle classes have left for the suburbs. Ie I'm unconvinced the decay wouldn't have happened anyway and the freeway link is spurious. Many of those cities have no significant urban freeways (I'm thinking of British cities for example) but have extensive impoverished inner cities.

What?? Its a FACT that most urban freeways were built in poorer parts of town and it makes perfect sense why. Cheaper buildings and land means a cheaper highway, by the time Interstates began construction it was after the white flight so inner cities were cheap and it was easier to move poor people than people with money and education. Name me some cities where an Interstate was built through a "nice" area? Parkways are different story because the highway is tucked away in a heavily wooded area with what was low density.

White Flight didn't hit these areas intill after the Freeways were built , there were plans for a massive network in NJ which would have cut through the older towns but those residents saw the Urban Damage and managed to stop and kill those projects. Its different in the Northeast then the rest of the country where they didn't care for destroying buildings....the Damage Urban Freeways have caused in this region is ridiculous...

I-78 through Newark , was a nice area intill the Freeway was built , then it declined.

I-280 through Newark , was also a nice part of the city intill the Freeway was built. Both Freeways were built in a cut style method thus dividing up those areas and bringing down the wealth and people started leaving.

I-80 through Paterson , cut off the Downtown and southern side of the city which were decent intill the Freeway was built never have recovered neither has Paterson which saw 2 busy Railways destoried by I-80

I-195 / 95 in Providence it caused blight and a slow in the Downtown growth , 195 has been moved but 95 still is a major blight. And the City Declined after the 2 freeways were put in , now that 195 has been moved the city is starting to rebound

Parkways were built through the nice areas and Freeways were built in nice areas which are now bad areas....

At most, freeways were enablers rather than cause of White flight and decay of central areas.

There were a lot of factors associated with that: an economy that shifted towards more and more offices instead of 5-digit employment massive factories, double-income households, the rise of homeownership as something inherently desirable (and thus the demise of renter) etc.

The only motorways that should be build in urban areas are the underground ones. They have long urban tunnels in Boston, Rome, Dublin and Stockholm and probably in other large cities in the developed world. Build elevated highways destroy the city. In Italy they did that in Rome and Genoa and now there are plans to tear down them and build tunnels. There is also a plan for a 15 km long tunnel below Milan with six underground interchanges, but I don't think they would ever realize it.

too bad nobody is from Genova. it has so great infrastructure.

At most, freeways were enablers rather than cause of White flight and decay of central areas.

There were a lot of factors associated with that: an economy that shifted towards more and more offices instead of 5-digit employment massive factories, double-income households, the rise of homeownership as something inherently desirable (and thus the demise of renter) etc.

Indeed, and I believe this is a perfectly natural process, unlike the political/ideological line that sees it as an inherently bad thing and sees the inner cities as virtuous and to be promoted and the suburbs as evil and to be discouraged.

Indeed, and I believe this is a perfectly natural process, unlike the political/ideological line that sees it as an inherently bad thing and sees the inner cities as virtuous and to be promoted and the suburbs as evil and to be discouraged.

Actually the Cities hate the Suburbs because they often get neglected by the state when it comes to funding , or the Suburbs hate the cities because they think too much funding goes to them. The Suburbs in the Northeast for the most part are old , so the Flight in this region wasn't as bad as say the south. We have had suburbs since the 1870s , Railroad Suburbs are some of the oldest suburbs in the US. There also the most popular suburbs today unlike there Auto Cousins.... Hench why only the Auto-suburbs get promoted as bad which they are , congested , have more crime and lower quality of life then there Railroad suburban cousins. Railroad Suburbs later spawned Parkway suburbs in the 1920s......which then spawned Interstate suburbs in the 1950s/60s. Parkway suburbs filled in the areas where the Railroad suburbs weren't established. Sadly alot of these suburbs were destoried when the Interstates were built , which is a shame because they were nice burbs. The Cities aren't promoted there bashed by just about everyone in the burbs.....but the City folk rarely bash the burbs..... I have to wonder where the Europeans read up on some of there US history?

And I say NO for the tunnel-mania that is spreading around cities. Look, even such transit- and bicycle- oriented city as Amsterdam has its orbital motorway not rural and not in tunnel (A10) , and nobody says it is not livable city. The same for Copenhagen. Tunnels are simply too expensive to dig them everywhere.

What I'm saying is not that we should never build tunnels, but we should not be going towards them at all cost, like in Stockholm.

If there is a neccesity to build a motorway inside an area like what is inside A10 in Amsterdam or A406 in London or Stockholm's ring that E4 is part of it , I could change mind a little bit.

And I'm not talking of the NY for example, don't know what is it like in US cities, but total prohibition of urban motorways (including those that are bypassing historical centres, like those I mentioned above) is an extensive overkill that affects the traffic situation adversely.

^^ Good explanation. We don't need to go though city centres we just need to bypass them in a very closed area

^^ Good explanation. We don't need to go though city centres we just need to bypass them in a very closed area

Having an urban motorway running around the immediate city centre would mean that it would be cut off from everywhere else, unless you drive. Oh, so why not make it elevated so people can walk under it? Everyone knows what happens under an elevated motorway in a city...

It also stops the expansion of the city centre. Birmingham (UK) has just removed part of it inner ring road due to it cutting off the city centre and so far has been better off without...

Congestion has also reduced in many areas around where it used to be...

Before...
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x48/poshbakerloo/Birmingham1999-1.jpg

After...
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x48/poshbakerloo/Birmingham2009-1.jpg

How about this?
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6158/6160434168_f53712a20a_b.jpg

People are very selective when it comes to "barriers".

^^What and where is that?

Okay, someone posted, some time back on this thread, a suggestion about building a freeway along the Spui in Amsterdam.

This Spui: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=52.369023,4.889731&spn=0.003655,0.00825&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6 ?

Really?

My one time in Amsterdam, I stayed in a hotel on the Singel.

How about this?
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6158/6160434168_f53712a20a_b.jpg

People are very selective when it comes to "barriers".

Indeed - that railway, and those like it in South London are every bit as ugly (I would say more so) than the worst elevated roads, and I speak from having seen them in the flesh - decayed-looking, covered in graffiti etc.

Yet the people who complain of freeways being barriers never, ever mention these railways.

I think these people just recycle clichés about freeways - they are barriers, they cause urban decay etc without actually thinking logically. For example, you will often hear people in Cape Town complain that the elevated freeway pictured below cuts off the city from the sea. Which is technically true, but totally irrelevant as the "sea" in question is an industrial container port and not the English-style seaside promenade that used to exist until the late 1930s. They could easily see this with their own eyes as they drive along the freeway, but the stupid cliché is so ingrained that it overrides their thinking.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6162/6167088922_333b90369c_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6179/6166552075_5cb2b1af0d_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6151/6167089700_59ab1b5986_b.jpg

How about this?
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6158/6160434168_f53712a20a_b.jpg

People are very selective when it comes to "barriers".

Railways are a lot older. You will find that when that route was first built it wouldn't have been built up around it. Urban freeways need loads to be demolished! Also a railway that size has a much much much high capacity than any 10 lane motorway!

I think elevated roadways are fine if done properly and planned properly as well. First off I think people have the 1960's image of elevated roadways. Nowadays they can build them to look nice and modern and even with some art on them. I think elevated roadways should be further away from residential areas so run them by commercial buildings or industrial areas. If they build a completely elevated road they can build parking or light rail underneath which in my opinion isn't a bad idea. At night keep them well lit and enforced and crime wouldn't be a big issue either. New ideas and innovations can make elevated roads the best thing for city centers, especially newer ones. Chris posted a good example, I would rather have a nice modern and clean elevated roadway hiding rail or parking underneath than something like that. The cutting off thing is not true for completely elevated roads, it is true for roads that are elevated by raised earth and you can't pass underneath except at a few select points. A car is nearly always a quick way to travel and can bring more life into downtown especially for cities like North America, if it is done right.

How about this?
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6158/6160434168_f53712a20a_b.jpg

People are very selective when it comes to "barriers".

Railways of that size are rare , and usually are old like 1890s.... They also have 3 or 4x the Capacity of Highways of the same size.

Also a railway that size has a much much much high capacity than any 10 lane motorway!

But railway capacity is not as efficiently used as with motorways. The peak - low difference is much greater during the day than urban motorways, which still operate at 80 - 90% at 1 pm. A 10-lane motorway transports 264,000 vehicles, or about 350,000 persons per day. Not many railways achieve that. Railways also produce much more noise than motorways.