Can Removing Highways Fix America's Cities? Starring Rochester, Buffalo, and Syracuse

[Bill from NYC]

2 hours ago, LeviF said:

 

People get shot in really efficient lanes of travel.

Yeah, I would say that Baltimre needs more help in urban planning, no?

[frostbitmic]

On 5/30/2021 at 7:25 AM, Irv said:

At first I thought filling in the Inner Loop was idiotic. Now I don’t think so.  On another note, I think the biggest travesty is the dam, train track, and what’s left of the Inner Loop that runs directly over the Upper Falls.  Who agreed to that in the old days?  Also the Lower Falls is completely underutilized.   If I was Mayor that would be my first priority after the murders, drugs, corruption, and violence.  
 

 

What would the mayors husband do for fun then ?

[LeviF]

3 hours ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

Agree. As an employer, why wouldn’t you do that? That is the trade off for living where you want. Will be interested to see how the job market bears this out. 

The feds already do this. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

33 minutes ago, LeviF said:

The feds already do this. 

Yup.  Locality pay.  We gotta raise when we switched from Rock Island to Chicago a year ago... Our Wage Grade (Not GS) is based on local industry.  Funny... We were first based out of Chicago before 1979. In 1979, industry had higher wages in Quad Cities and Peoria (Deere, Moline & Caterpillar, Peoria) than Chicago... So when they moved to Rock Island as HQ, we got a raise then too.  Today, last year opposite when we moved back to Chicago... Got another raise for locality...

Edited June 2, 2021 by ExiledInIllinois

[DCOrange]

22 hours ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

interesting. I do find that employers now have a much huger market of employees to choose from due to remote working. I also wonder if wages may be impacted. For instance, why should your company pay the same salary for someone in NYC as someone working in Detroit? In non-remote times, there would be obvious differences in market pay. 
 

but getting back to the main topic, in my mind, I can see the death of your downtown business districts, and maybe your average-sized cities have scaled back and much more mixed use downtowns now. Zoning could be changed significantly too. No more sky scrapers— much more mixed use, walkable areas. 

Yeah, most of DC will likely be fine since the government insists on having everyone in DC still, but for example, there's a ton of offices across the bridge in Arlington where office workers like myself would generally be. These companies spend so much money to have their own buildings when it may not be fully necessary anymore. My partner's company for example had their lease expire during COVID and they're still deciding if they even want to rent an office building anymore. It'll be interesting to see how these sorts of decisions impact everything else. A much smaller anecdote, but there's a street by our offices in Arlington that's just lined with food trucks taking advantage of all the worker bees being in one area; I'm not sure what happens to those food trucks if there's no longer a centralized place for all the corporate offices.

[DCOrange]

19 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

The issue I have with the article is that all of the cities being studied have lost at least 35% of their population from the peak. If they are discussing shrinking cities they likely have a point but not growing cities.

I don't remember if it was mentioned in the article or if I read it elsewhere, but one thing I learned recently that was pretty fascinating is that a lot of studies have shown that highways don't actually improve traffic congestion at all. So theoretically, the point would apply to cities that aren't shrinking as well. But also, the article mentions Seattle, Dallas, Atlanta, Boston, etc. and I don't think those areas are shrinking.

Edited June 2, 2021 by DCOrange

[Orlando Buffalo]

59 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

I don't remember if it was mentioned in the article or if I read it elsewhere, but one thing I learned recently that was pretty fascinating is that a lot of studies have shown that highways don't actually improve traffic congestion at all. So theoretically, the point would apply to cities that aren't shrinking as well. But also, the article mentions Seattle, Dallas, Atlanta, Boston, etc. and I don't think those areas are shrinking.

That seems illogical unless people are going out of their way to get to the higher speed roads, which I guess is possible  In Orlando I rarely take I-4 because it is not the best way but if I need to go straight across town I always take the highways 

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 hour ago, DCOrange said:

I don't remember if it was mentioned in the article or if I read it elsewhere, but one thing I learned recently that was pretty fascinating is that a lot of studies have shown that highways don't actually improve traffic congestion at all. So theoretically, the point would apply to cities that aren't shrinking as well. But also, the article mentions Seattle, Dallas, Atlanta, Boston, etc. and I don't think those areas are shrinking.

I think it's road design, topography too. The way the roads bend and curve.  Some are bruuutal.

 

Think like "slack" on a really long train.

 

They are addressing those concerns with better modern design technology tools and planning.

[DCOrange]

19 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

That seems illogical unless people are going out of their way to get to the higher speed roads, which I guess is possible  In Orlando I rarely take I-4 because it is not the best way but if I need to go straight across town I always take the highways 

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/06/21/the-science-is-clear-more-highways-equals-more-traffic-why-are-dots-still-ignoring-it/#:~:text=They found that for every,lane capacity and traffic increases.

 

Just the first result that popped up but it mentions what I was talking about. Basically, studies have shown that more highways = more cars = same amount of traffic congestion (but with more cars). So you could argue it's a net positive if you're just trying to get more traffic into the city but it isn't really improving the flow of traffic the way urban planners used to think it would. They call this effect "induced demand".

[Seasons1992]

On 6/1/2021 at 4:07 PM, LeviF said:

 

People get shot in really efficient lanes of travel.

 

Dang, Levi.........😆

[Orlando Buffalo]

8 hours ago, DCOrange said:

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/06/21/the-science-is-clear-more-highways-equals-more-traffic-why-are-dots-still-ignoring-it/#:~:text=They found that for every,lane capacity and traffic increases.

 

Just the first result that popped up but it mentions what I was talking about. Basically, studies have shown that more highways = more cars = same amount of traffic congestion (but with more cars). So you could argue it's a net positive if you're just trying to get more traffic into the city but it isn't really improving the flow of traffic the way urban planners used to think it would. They call this effect "induced demand".

I understand it now, but I think they are trying to make a cause and effect relationship, which while related are likely more related to simply larger groups of people in the area. This relationship is true in my area but we are expanding it based on people already here. The numbers are clearly correct but I think the impetus wrong. Thanks for showing me this though, I had never given it any thought 

[ExiledInIllinois]

15 hours ago, DCOrange said:

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/06/21/the-science-is-clear-more-highways-equals-more-traffic-why-are-dots-still-ignoring-it/#:~:text=They found that for every,lane capacity and traffic increases.

 

Just the first result that popped up but it mentions what I was talking about. Basically, studies have shown that more highways = more cars = same amount of traffic congestion (but with more cars). So you could argue it's a net positive if you're just trying to get more traffic into the city but it isn't really improving the flow of traffic the way urban planners used to think it would. They call this effect "induced demand".

Make them really expensive toll roads. Cars will go elsewhere.   Like I-355 here.   I avoid that like the plague... BUT when I do decide to take a second mortgage out to pay my EZ/I-Pass account, it's the sweetest road on the planet!