CDZ Urban Highway Removal


So, with the trend of trying to "reclaim" dying cities, included in that is removing urban freeways. As a Commercial driver, I find the idea ludicrous on its face.

I find it an excellent idea. No reason to maintain infrastructure that is no longer needed. That is wht Detroit is such a mess.
So, where would commercial traffic go to access downtown directly? Give you an example. Here in Buffalo we have the Niagara Thruway (Interstate 190) which ain't going anywhere. The bones of contention are the Kensington Expressway (NY 33) and the Scajacquada Expressway (NY 198). For the purposes of this discussion we will limit ourselves to the 33 and 190 because they both directly link the NYS Thruway (Interstate 90). Would we want an increase of truck and motorcoach traffic along already dilapidated city streets and running through really lousy neighborhoods? And what of Greyhound and Trailways coaches that need to get Downtown to the Metropolitan Transportation Center to make connections? Do they either add minutes having to circle around to the 190 or again, get stuck on the city streets?
 
It is an interesting concept. The theory is that in the 50's and 60's the need to facilitate transportation to the suburbs and through cities was greater than the need to preserve densely populated, usually "Negro" neighborhoods. The land was bought up using imminent domain (in which, one might remind oneself, the property owner is compensated for the value of his property), highways were built and the neighborhoods were in a sense destroyed.

A similar "thing" took place where I live in Pittsburgh, when a large swath of the "Lower Hill District" was torn down to make way for a new domed sports stadium (the "Civic Arena"), home to the Pittsburgh Hornets (hockey), the Pittsburgh Rens (ABL Basketball), the Pittsburgh Triangles (tennis), and other eminently forgettable sports franchises. Eventually, the Penguins became the most prominent tenant, and the roof was so expensive to open that it was only done once every few years for maintenance.

The Civic Arena is now history and the Penguins' owners (who own the property) have been jockeying back and forth with the city and various other interest groups for years over what might be built there, and how it would benefit the local "community" - meaning the Black folks who don't live there anymore. Any residential content will consist of high end rentals with a few units reserved for subsidized tenants.

As with most of these situations, if the community had truly been thriving the highways (or whatever) would not have been built there, but memories fade and people who were still in diapers at the time "remember" how wonderful and vibrant the communities were.

Now they will complain about gentrification, and how Black folks can't afford to live in the refurbished areas, while the white tenants will complain that their rents are inflated because of the subsidized units in their buildings.
 
It is an interesting concept. The theory is that in the 50's and 60's the need to facilitate transportation to the suburbs and through cities was greater than the need to preserve densely populated, usually "Negro" neighborhoods. The land was bought up using imminent domain (in which, one might remind oneself, the property owner is compensated for the value of his property), highways were built and the neighborhoods were in a sense destroyed.

A similar "thing" took place where I live in Pittsburgh, when a large swath of the "Lower Hill District" was torn down to make way for a new domed sports stadium (the "Civic Arena"), home to the Pittsburgh Hornets (hockey), the Pittsburgh Rens (ABL Basketball), the Pittsburgh Triangles (tennis), and other eminently forgettable sports franchises. Eventually, the Penguins became the most prominent tenant, and the roof was so expensive to open that it was only done once every few years for maintenance.

The Civic Arena is now history and the Penguins' owners (who own the property) have been jockeying back and forth with the city and various other interest groups for years over what might be built there, and how it would benefit the local "community" - meaning the Black folks who don't live there anymore. Any residential content will consist of high end rentals with a few units reserved for subsidized tenants.

As with most of these situations, if the community had truly been thriving the highways (or whatever) would not have been built there, but memories fade and people who were still in diapers at the time "remember" how wonderful and vibrant the communities were.

Now they will complain about gentrification, and how Black folks can't afford to live in the refurbished areas, while the white tenants will complain that their rents are inflated because of the subsidized units in their buildings.
Or conversely, suburban residents will want to go into the "new" neighborhoods and displace minority homeowners. Gentrification all over again. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 

So, with the trend of trying to "reclaim" dying cities, included in that is removing urban freeways. As a Commercial driver, I find the idea ludicrous on its face.

I find it an excellent idea. No reason to maintain infrastructure that is no longer needed. That is wht Detroit is such a mess.
So, where would commercial traffic go to access downtown directly? Give you an example. Here in Buffalo we have the Niagara Thruway (Interstate 190) which ain't going anywhere. The bones of contention are the Kensington Expressway (NY 33) and the Scajacquada Expressway (NY 198). For the purposes of this discussion we will limit ourselves to the 33 and 190 because they both directly link the NYS Thruway (Interstate 90). Would we want an increase of truck and motorcoach traffic along already dilapidated city streets and running through really lousy neighborhoods? And what of Greyhound and Trailways coaches that need to get Downtown to the Metropolitan Transportation Center to make connections? Do they either add minutes having to circle around to the 190 or again, get stuck on the city streets?

My understanding is that Buffalo is replacing the skyway with a new inter-connector to free up the land below it. for park space.

There are two primary practical aspects to these type projects for me and one more existential one. First, there is the induced traffic problem we see time and time again---build more roads to alleviate congestion and those roads just become congested themselves. Clogging up traffic on urban feeder roads serves as a natural deterrence to sprawl. Take the pressure off, and the sprawl grows. Second, as I alluded to before, it a lot of places where the population is declining, there is no reason to keep maintaining the infrastructure that was built for a larger population. Redesign and a reduction in infrastructure, including roads, saves money and deters blight.

Existentially, I don't like the idea of plowing up more unpaved land to make paved land. Wildlife struggles enough as is.
 

So, with the trend of trying to "reclaim" dying cities, included in that is removing urban freeways. As a Commercial driver, I find the idea ludicrous on its face.

I find it an excellent idea. No reason to maintain infrastructure that is no longer needed. That is wht Detroit is such a mess.
So, where would commercial traffic go to access downtown directly? Give you an example. Here in Buffalo we have the Niagara Thruway (Interstate 190) which ain't going anywhere. The bones of contention are the Kensington Expressway (NY 33) and the Scajacquada Expressway (NY 198). For the purposes of this discussion we will limit ourselves to the 33 and 190 because they both directly link the NYS Thruway (Interstate 90). Would we want an increase of truck and motorcoach traffic along already dilapidated city streets and running through really lousy neighborhoods? And what of Greyhound and Trailways coaches that need to get Downtown to the Metropolitan Transportation Center to make connections? Do they either add minutes having to circle around to the 190 or again, get stuck on the city streets?

My understanding is that Buffalo is replacing the skyway with a new inter-connector to free up the land below it. for park space.

There are two primary practical aspects to these type projects for me and one more existential one. First, there is the induced traffic problem we see time and time again---build more roads to alleviate congestion and those roads just become congested themselves. Clogging up traffic on urban feeder roads serves as a natural deterrence to sprawl. Take the pressure off, and the sprawl grows. Second, as I alluded to before, it a lot of places where the population is declining, there is no reason to keep maintaining the infrastructure that was built for a larger population. Redesign and a reduction in infrastructure, including roads, saves money and deters blight.

Existentially, I don't like the idea of plowing up more unpaved land to make paved land. Wildlife struggles enough as is.
So the idea is to FORCE more people to live in an overcrowded, run down urban shithole like Buffalo rather than enjoy the freedom they have in the burbs? Also, the Skyway is off the table, hopefully for good. We don't need more traffic on the city streets.
 

So, with the trend of trying to "reclaim" dying cities, included in that is removing urban freeways. As a Commercial driver, I find the idea ludicrous on its face.

I find it an excellent idea. No reason to maintain infrastructure that is no longer needed. That is wht Detroit is such a mess.
So, where would commercial traffic go to access downtown directly? Give you an example. Here in Buffalo we have the Niagara Thruway (Interstate 190) which ain't going anywhere. The bones of contention are the Kensington Expressway (NY 33) and the Scajacquada Expressway (NY 198). For the purposes of this discussion we will limit ourselves to the 33 and 190 because they both directly link the NYS Thruway (Interstate 90). Would we want an increase of truck and motorcoach traffic along already dilapidated city streets and running through really lousy neighborhoods? And what of Greyhound and Trailways coaches that need to get Downtown to the Metropolitan Transportation Center to make connections? Do they either add minutes having to circle around to the 190 or again, get stuck on the city streets?

My understanding is that Buffalo is replacing the skyway with a new inter-connector to free up the land below it. for park space.

There are two primary practical aspects to these type projects for me and one more existential one. First, there is the induced traffic problem we see time and time again---build more roads to alleviate congestion and those roads just become congested themselves. Clogging up traffic on urban feeder roads serves as a natural deterrence to sprawl. Take the pressure off, and the sprawl grows. Second, as I alluded to before, it a lot of places where the population is declining, there is no reason to keep maintaining the infrastructure that was built for a larger population. Redesign and a reduction in infrastructure, including roads, saves money and deters blight.

Existentially, I don't like the idea of plowing up more unpaved land to make paved land. Wildlife struggles enough as is.
So the idea is to FORCE more people to live in an overcrowded, run down urban shithole like Buffalo rather than enjoy the freedom they have in the burbs? Also, the Skyway is off the table, hopefully for good. We don't need more traffic on the city streets.

No the idea is to force more people to renovate and better maintain existing housing stock reducing the need for more roads, utility lines, etc.
 

So, with the trend of trying to "reclaim" dying cities, included in that is removing urban freeways. As a Commercial driver, I find the idea ludicrous on its face.

I find it an excellent idea. No reason to maintain infrastructure that is no longer needed. That is wht Detroit is such a mess.
So, where would commercial traffic go to access downtown directly? Give you an example. Here in Buffalo we have the Niagara Thruway (Interstate 190) which ain't going anywhere. The bones of contention are the Kensington Expressway (NY 33) and the Scajacquada Expressway (NY 198). For the purposes of this discussion we will limit ourselves to the 33 and 190 because they both directly link the NYS Thruway (Interstate 90). Would we want an increase of truck and motorcoach traffic along already dilapidated city streets and running through really lousy neighborhoods? And what of Greyhound and Trailways coaches that need to get Downtown to the Metropolitan Transportation Center to make connections? Do they either add minutes having to circle around to the 190 or again, get stuck on the city streets?

My understanding is that Buffalo is replacing the skyway with a new inter-connector to free up the land below it. for park space.

There are two primary practical aspects to these type projects for me and one more existential one. First, there is the induced traffic problem we see time and time again---build more roads to alleviate congestion and those roads just become congested themselves. Clogging up traffic on urban feeder roads serves as a natural deterrence to sprawl. Take the pressure off, and the sprawl grows. Second, as I alluded to before, it a lot of places where the population is declining, there is no reason to keep maintaining the infrastructure that was built for a larger population. Redesign and a reduction in infrastructure, including roads, saves money and deters blight.

Existentially, I don't like the idea of plowing up more unpaved land to make paved land. Wildlife struggles enough as is.
So the idea is to FORCE more people to live in an overcrowded, run down urban shithole like Buffalo rather than enjoy the freedom they have in the burbs? Also, the Skyway is off the table, hopefully for good. We don't need more traffic on the city streets.

No the idea is to force more people to renovate and better maintain existing housing stock reducing the need for more roads, utility lines, etc.
Interesting, Thanks. seen some of the harm, have to think about the overall balance
 

Forum List

Back
Top