Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
And here we thought the ford government was pro business...
|
|
|
- Thread starter Haljackey
- Start date
ARG1
Senior Member
What does this have anything to do with being pro business? The contractor and the government have a dispute over... something... and we don't really know what that is. The only thing I heard is that the contractor messed up properly making water drainage, and apparently the road is so flat that literal puddles could be made during rain, which if that's true is a huge problem and the government has every right to seek litigation.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
forgot my #sarcasm hashtag...
Northern Light
Superstar
@Admiral Beez posted an article from today's New York Times suggesting the phenomenon is much larger than you seem to think.
Can Removing Highways Fix America’s Cities?
Highways radically reshaped cities, destroying dense downtown neighborhoods. Now, some cities are starting to take them down.
www.nytimes.com
From said article:
darth_freeman
Active Member
Big surprise that a town of 200,000 people with a declining population didn't need it's own freeway loop downtown.
Northern Light
Superstar
All of the above, from: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Kindly, lets stop this misrepresentation that highway removal is about 1, 2, or 3 small cities............
innsertnamehere
Superstar
The list is actually 14 that are officially under study, with the remaining 19 being only "proposed" by various lobbying groups.@Admiral Beez posted an article from today's New York Times suggesting the phenomenon is much larger than you seem to think.
Can Removing Highways Fix America’s Cities?
Highways radically reshaped cities, destroying dense downtown neighborhoods. Now, some cities are starting to take them down.www.nytimes.com
From said article:
View attachment 323032
The list is as follows:
"Committed"
Detroit I375 - stub highway already discussed
New Haven Oak St Connector - stub highway with no real utility
Somerville, MA McGrath Highway - really an arterial road overpass, similarly stub like and little real utility
Syracuse NY, I81 - previously discussed, this is a more significant demolition but there is an alternate route a few km to the east.
"Under Study"
Arlington VA, Route 1 - stub highway running through an office district, an obvious removal. It's really only 1 interchange and an overpass, very small.
Austin TX, I-35 - This is being studied by TXDOT as a part of a widening study for I35. It is but one option of many, including widening the highway, the far more likely choice to be chosen. I would consider this extremely unlikely to actually be demolished.
Boston MA, Allston viaduct - this is an oversized off ramp that is overly complicated as it used to house toll booths before tolls were digitized. Not even a freeway, and makes complete sense to rebuild to a more rational size now that toll booths aren't needed.
Buffalo NY, Kensington Expressway - My understanding is that this isn't a super serious discussion yet, but the highway is a "stub" freeway into the downtown and doesn't have a huge amount of utility.
Buffalo NY, Scajaquada Expressway - This has already had several downgrades and features several at grade intersections and a whopping 30mph speed limit. It's really more of a large arterial road than a freeway. Similarly no serious discussions of actual demolition as far as I know.
Buffalo NY, Skyway - This is a stub expressway that runs to the south end of Buffalo and is severely overbuilt for the local traffic it serves. Happy to see it go.
Dallas TX, I375 - this is not a serious proposal supported by the government at all and as far as I can tell is simply a report prepared by lobbyists.
Kansas City MO - North Loop - Not sure why this is listed as planned at all. I see no official discussion on this one, only lobbying efforts.
Rochester NY - North Loop - stub highway with no purpose. Makes a lot of sense to remove.
Seattle WA, I-5 - Lol this is not a serious proposal and would never actually be demolished. Period.
So of those 14 I see 6 that are actual freeway demolitions that are actually serious and will actually happen. And of those, 1 is actually a substantial demolition.
Most of these so called "planned removals" are just local lobbying groups pushing to demolish key freeways in cities that would paralyze their economies and will never actually get off the ground (Demolish I-5 in Seattle? I-75 in Atlanta? LOL!). A good chunk of them aren't even actual freeway demolitions but are more so just interchange reconstructions or modifications to large arterial roads.
Last edited:
darth_freeman
Active Member
Toronto already effectively removed its less useful highways by not building them 60 years ago. As a result, today we only have the bare minimum.
The only reason those articles are published is because they can highlight "racism" that happened 70 years ago.
The only reason those articles are published is because they can highlight "racism" that happened 70 years ago.
sonysnob
New Member
Some of that is probably just the New York Times pandering to its audience.
Yes, there are some freeway removals happening in the US (and elsewhere). Those projects excite urbanists, so it would be in the best interest of a newspaper that is read by urbanists to write a story about it.
For the list of freeway removal proposals that were listed yesterday, most of them were located in rust belt areas where the infrastructure was built for cities with larger populations than they have today, so now that the time for infrastructure renewal has come around, they are looking at less expensive options.
The Buffalo Skyway is an obsolete piece of infrastructure that was built to solve a traffic problem that no longer exists, so its probably not shocking that it may not be replaced like for like. Despite the fact that removing the former Skyway constitutes an urbanists wet dream, that's not why it's being done. Same for Rochester.
But the Times article blatantly ignores the fact that in the US (and elsewhere), many areas are still building and widening urban freeways.
In LA, Metro is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to widen sections of Interstate 5 in southern Los Angeles County. This project is substantial and involved considerable property impacts, and construction is just wrapping up now. Obviously no one is talking about removing that freeway. And LA County has a particularly anti-freeway government. Metro is one of the more aggressive agencies in trying to divert trips onto their shiny new LRT cars.
Further to the north in Bakersfield, still in blue democratic California, a brand new urban freeway is being constructed as part of the west side highway extension, which could one day serve as an extension of Interstate 40.
Washington State (another blue democratic state) is currently in the planning process of extending its 167 Freeway through Suburban Tacoma. Amazingly, not mentioned in the Times article that lauds Portland for tearing down one of former three north-south freeways that were located within two square miles of each other.
Yes, there are some freeway removals happening in the US (and elsewhere). Those projects excite urbanists, so it would be in the best interest of a newspaper that is read by urbanists to write a story about it.
For the list of freeway removal proposals that were listed yesterday, most of them were located in rust belt areas where the infrastructure was built for cities with larger populations than they have today, so now that the time for infrastructure renewal has come around, they are looking at less expensive options.
The Buffalo Skyway is an obsolete piece of infrastructure that was built to solve a traffic problem that no longer exists, so its probably not shocking that it may not be replaced like for like. Despite the fact that removing the former Skyway constitutes an urbanists wet dream, that's not why it's being done. Same for Rochester.
But the Times article blatantly ignores the fact that in the US (and elsewhere), many areas are still building and widening urban freeways.
In LA, Metro is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to widen sections of Interstate 5 in southern Los Angeles County. This project is substantial and involved considerable property impacts, and construction is just wrapping up now. Obviously no one is talking about removing that freeway. And LA County has a particularly anti-freeway government. Metro is one of the more aggressive agencies in trying to divert trips onto their shiny new LRT cars.
Further to the north in Bakersfield, still in blue democratic California, a brand new urban freeway is being constructed as part of the west side highway extension, which could one day serve as an extension of Interstate 40.
Washington State (another blue democratic state) is currently in the planning process of extending its 167 Freeway through Suburban Tacoma. Amazingly, not mentioned in the Times article that lauds Portland for tearing down one of former three north-south freeways that were located within two square miles of each other.
darth_freeman
Active Member
The only highway I could see being removed is the Allen expressway. Except I'm sure the residents on the east side don't actually want that barrier removed so they can keep a buffer with the poorer areas west of it. Funny how that works.
Northern Light
Superstar
The Allen is a completely useless highway; worse than that, its a complete negative.
It takes you from from the 401 to place on Eglinton where there is no 'there'.
It causes traffic jams; its unslightly and divides communities and the Beltline.
****
The Gardiner east of Jarvis is low utility and we are wasting gobs of money keeping at least the Jarvis to Cherry part standing for another few decades.
****
While the 400-series highways are useful, as is the Gardiner from downtown west; both serve as material barriers to communities accessing other areas.
I wouldn't suggest wholesale removal for those, though I would like to see narrowing, and new crossing points, and aesthetic and noise mitigation measures.
Though if could ditch the western Gardiner (downtown to Humber) that would still be a wonderful thing.
sonysnob
New Member
The Gardiner Expressway carries approximately 110,000 vehicles per day between Jarvis and the DVP. Assuming a vehicle occupancy rate of approximately 1.2 persons per vehicle (a reasonable assumption), the Gardiner East moves about 132,000 people every day.
Source:
Compare that to the UPX which, during a record month in 2018, carried about 13,900 passengers per day for it's entire length. (Metrolinx provides monthly figures, and estimated that the line had approximately 417,000 trips for June, 2018, which was a record month. 417,000/30 days = 13,900). The UPX cost $456 million to construct. It serves a rather boutique demand, and is a market that should be fairly mature (ie. I wouldn't expect massive growth in ridership).
Source:
/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/gta/2018/08/20/metrolinx-wont-say-how-much-it-costs-to-operate-union-pearson-express-train/bwuptrain215.jpg)
www.thestar.com
Nobody bats an eye when we spend half a billion dollars to serve under 14,000 daily trips on the train, but god help us if we spend any money to serve the hundreds of thousands of people who use the expressways.
Source:
Compare that to the UPX which, during a record month in 2018, carried about 13,900 passengers per day for it's entire length. (Metrolinx provides monthly figures, and estimated that the line had approximately 417,000 trips for June, 2018, which was a record month. 417,000/30 days = 13,900). The UPX cost $456 million to construct. It serves a rather boutique demand, and is a market that should be fairly mature (ie. I wouldn't expect massive growth in ridership).
Source:
Despite record ridership, how much it costs to operate Union Pearson Express remains a secret
Metrolinx has published UP Express operating costs in the past but now says the airport train has been more closely integrated with the transit agency...
Nobody bats an eye when we spend half a billion dollars to serve under 14,000 daily trips on the train, but god help us if we spend any money to serve the hundreds of thousands of people who use the expressways.
sonysnob
New Member
This list is kind of bunk. I'm not going to go through them line by line, but for example, I-475 through Flint was just extensively reconstructed. There are no actual plans for it's removal.
Same with I-5 through Seattle. There are no actual plans to remove it. More than that, when they had the opportunity to remove the highway that parallels it, they chose not to.
In Austrailia, they are actively building new urban highways through Tunnels. Check out the NorthConnex and WestConnex projects in Sydney. For WestConnex they effectively built the equivalent of a tolled tunnel freeway spur from the Allen to the Gardiner.
WestConnex
WestConnex is Australia’s largest road infrastructure project and is a critical part of a broader plan to get Sydney, and Australia, moving again.
www.westconnex.com.au
ARG1
Senior Member
I think most of what you say makes sense, but Gardiner east of Jarvis is low utility and a waste of money? You mean the section whose primary purpose is to connect to the DVP, a highway that feeds off into North York as well as the 401 and 404, serving a large chunk of North York, Northern Scarborough, and Eastern York Region? Also the highway is used by 401 East and 404 GO busses, and if the intercity busses move to Union, they will most likely use it as well.
Gardiner East is extremely useful and important, no less than any other section of the Gardiner. "Low Utility" is the last thing I'd describe it.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
That's a dramatic overstatement, considering the amount we are spending on the Gardiner rebuild (nevermind ongoing expansion and maintenance of the 400-series highways).
I wouldn't say it is "useless", but most of the traffic is in/egress, not through - you can probably get away with a narrower through link and a better organized
system of ramps.
AoD
Last edited: