What's wrong with freeways?

[IronTiger]

Not too long ago I read a publication from the late 1960s that was about freeways, or more specifically, pro-freeway propaganda. It sure sounded good:

- It cleared up horribly congested surface streets.

- It raised the land value of area where it came in.

- It created parking underneath it in urban areas.

- It was pedestrian friendly, allowing pedestrians to cross safely instead of trying to cross dangerous surface streets.

 

But people don't see freeways that optimistic anymore, they are useful in all but fringe cases. However, the freeway is unfairly maligned in some cases, with rumors abounding, and I'm looking at a few of them, with Houston especially in mind for this:

 

"Freeways suck life out of downtown": This is a common argument, but this has been the case since the days of the rail, when the upper class moved out to the suburbs ("streetcar suburbs", like Montrose or the Heights). It may be a problem, but it has long existed since before freeway.

 

"They destroy the street grid": This is the case for many, many cities, but the thing about street grids, is that they're often meant to be guidelines, not absolutes. Houston's streets have often never connected, and sometimes the connections are destroyed by other factors (apartment complexes)

 

"They create pollution and noise": Highways do not create pollution and noise, cars do. When you have a busy surface street five lanes wide, you get much of the same problems as highways in this respect.

 

"They create visual blight": This one is popular because it's all relative. Sure, highways may be ugly--but so are the raised railroad viaducts in the Northeast, abandoned buildings, high voltage power lines, and a variety of other structures. Singling out highways is a ridiculous assertion.

 

"They destroy neighborhoods" / "They divide neighborhoods": Grouping these two together because it's pretty complicated. First off, getting an affected neighborhood isn't good news, as living near a freeway has a ton of problems. 

 

Freeways are held down by a weight by some people because in the 1960s when they were built  destroyed and cut through numerous African-American communities. This was not a (deliberately) racist plot, as freeways tended to go through the lowest land value they could at reasonably straight lines. Many white middle class homes also disappeared, too.

 

Neighborhoods change. They gentrify and deteriorate. Not having freeways isn't going to stop that. Look at Montrose or the Heights--both of have experienced rapid change in the last past 5 years. Homes are being demolished with townhomes replacing them, for instance.

 

"It's expensive": This is perhaps one of the better uses of tax dollars, a high-class transportation system that you and everyone else can use. So much of tax dollars are being used as things that benefit a small group of people (if not completely irrelevant wastes). Best of all, at least in the old days, a freeway was...free.

 

"Pedestrian friendliness is a joke!": This is in possible response to the "pedestrian friendliness" as above. I won't lie, the pedestrian overpasses over Interstate 10 are quite creepy-looking: narrow sidewalks in a rusting chain-link fence "cage" over a rumbling highway. The solution then is to just build better systems. Look at the gracefully integrated bridges in the US-59 rebuild, for instance. Of course, when frontage roads are involved, you have to cross two busy frontage roads and a dark, cavernous area. What would go on there is just build safer pedestrian crossing signals (zebra striping for crosswalks), wider sidewalks under the underpass, and better lighting. Having two smaller roads to cross is better than one big one (wide boulevards) anyway.

 

"It induces sprawl"/"They'll never permanently fix the traffic problem": This is related to the "life-sucking" part, and is often used for newer projects like the Katy Freeway rebuild. This is important to note that as long as an area keeps growing (like Houston), the traffic problem will only get worse. This is unfortunate, but unless cities start losing population (like in the Northeast), or we get to a post-automobile existence (many decades away), we won't solve it. Limiting sprawl ends up having disastrous long-term effects (see: San Francisco).

 

This is only to discuss freeways, advantages and disadvantages. Don't try to turn it into some mass transit argument, because those topics derail and get locked.

[livincinco]

I'd also add the major economic benefit that has been created by increased ease of movement of goods.

[ToryGattis]

There is a misconception that if the freeways weren't built, everybody would move into the core of the city.  Not true.  It just pushes the jobs out to areas where people want to live.  It would actually encourage even more sprawl.  People want to live in newer nicer areas with better schools and more affordable, newer, bigger homes.  If they can do that and still commute to jobs in the city, they will.  If they can't, then those jobs will move out to them.  If you want to see job growth explode in The Woodlands, Katy, and Sugar Land, just constrain the freeways to core of Houston.

[IronTiger]

There is a misconception that if the freeways weren't built, everybody would move into the core of the city.  Not true.  It just pushes the jobs out to areas where people want to live.  It would actually encourage even more sprawl.  People want to live in newer nicer areas with better schools and more affordable, newer, bigger homes.  If they can do that and still commute to jobs in the city, they will.  If they can't, then those jobs will move out to them.  If you want to see job growth explode in The Woodlands, Katy, and Sugar Land, just constrain the freeways to core of Houston.

Exactly. My point was that even generations before the freeways, the rich moved out to the countryside (enabled by trains). It was the poorest people that lived in the city core: the City Beautiful movement in the turn of the century (1900) was meant to address that.

[Slick Vik]

There is a misconception that if the freeways weren't built, everybody would move into the core of the city.  Not true.  It just pushes the jobs out to areas where people want to live.  It would actually encourage even more sprawl.  People want to live in newer nicer areas with better schools and more affordable, newer, bigger homes.  If they can do that and still commute to jobs in the city, they will.  If they can't, then those jobs will move out to them.  If you want to see job growth explode in The Woodlands, Katy, and Sugar Land, just constrain the freeways to core of Houston.

 

Doesn't seem to be the case in Europe.

 

Why are the schools better and houses more affordable far out? There are reasons behind all of this.

[Slick Vik]

 

Not too long ago I read a publication from the late 1960s that was about freeways, or more specifically, pro-freeway propaganda. It sure sounded good:

- It cleared up horribly congested surface streets.

- It raised the land value of area where it came in.

- It created parking underneath it in urban areas.

- It was pedestrian friendly, allowing pedestrians to cross safely instead of trying to cross dangerous surface streets.

 

But people don't see freeways that optimistic anymore, they are useful in all but fringe cases. However, the freeway is unfairly maligned in some cases, with rumors abounding, and I'm looking at a few of them, with Houston especially in mind for this:

 

"Freeways suck life out of downtown": This is a common argument, but this has been the case since the days of the rail, when the upper class moved out to the suburbs ("streetcar suburbs", like Montrose or the Heights). It may be a problem, but it has long existed since before freeway.

 

"They destroy the street grid": This is the case for many, many cities, but the thing about street grids, is that they're often meant to be guidelines, not absolutes. Houston's streets have often never connected, and sometimes the connections are destroyed by other factors (apartment complexes)

 

"They create pollution and noise": Highways do not create pollution and noise, cars do. When you have a busy surface street five lanes wide, you get much of the same problems as highways in this respect.

 

"They create visual blight": This one is popular because it's all relative. Sure, highways may be ugly--but so are the raised railroad viaducts in the Northeast, abandoned buildings, high voltage power lines, and a variety of other structures. Singling out highways is a ridiculous assertion.

 

"They destroy neighborhoods" / "They divide neighborhoods": Grouping these two together because it's pretty complicated. First off, getting an affected neighborhood isn't good news, as living near a freeway has a ton of problems. 

 

Freeways are held down by a weight by some people because in the 1960s when they were built  destroyed and cut through numerous African-American communities. This was not a (deliberately) racist plot, as freeways tended to go through the lowest land value they could at reasonably straight lines. Many white middle class homes also disappeared, too.

 

Neighborhoods change. They gentrify and deteriorate. Not having freeways isn't going to stop that. Look at Montrose or the Heights--both of have experienced rapid change in the last past 5 years. Homes are being demolished with townhomes replacing them, for instance.

 

"It's expensive": This is perhaps one of the better uses of tax dollars, a high-class transportation system that you and everyone else can use. So much of tax dollars are being used as things that benefit a small group of people (if not completely irrelevant wastes). Best of all, at least in the old days, a freeway was...free.

 

"Pedestrian friendliness is a joke!": This is in possible response to the "pedestrian friendliness" as above. I won't lie, the pedestrian overpasses over Interstate 10 are quite creepy-looking: narrow sidewalks in a rusting chain-link fence "cage" over a rumbling highway. The solution then is to just build better systems. Look at the gracefully integrated bridges in the US-59 rebuild, for instance. Of course, when frontage roads are involved, you have to cross two busy frontage roads and a dark, cavernous area. What would go on there is just build safer pedestrian crossing signals (zebra striping for crosswalks), wider sidewalks under the underpass, and better lighting. Having two smaller roads to cross is better than one big one (wide boulevards) anyway.

 

"It induces sprawl"/"They'll never permanently fix the traffic problem": This is related to the "life-sucking" part, and is often used for newer projects like the Katy Freeway rebuild. This is important to note that as long as an area keeps growing (like Houston), the traffic problem will only get worse. This is unfortunate, but unless cities start losing population (like in the Northeast), or we get to a post-automobile existence (many decades away), we won't solve it. Limiting sprawl ends up having disastrous long-term effects (see: San Francisco).

 

This is only to discuss freeways, advantages and disadvantages. Don't try to turn it into some mass transit argument, because those topics derail and get locked.

 

 

1. Freeways do destroy neighborhoods. In fact, they destroyed many throughout the country when they were built. Also, it was very deliberate to go through african-american neighborhoods. This was done because it could be done and they didn't have the voice to stop it at the time.

 

2. Freeways are expensive to build, but also to maintain. They have a limited lifespan and require massive amounts of money to do something when that span is over.

 

3. They do induce sprawl. This should be fairly intuitive. If you make avenues for people to go out, then that creates sprawl. In fact, freeways are probably the biggest cause of suburbanization.

 

4. Pedestrian friendliness is definitely a joke. I never see anyone crossing those bridges. It's a lot easier to cross any regular road than frontage roads of a freeway.

 

5. The areas underneath freeways are as desolate as any.

 

6. In areas where freeways were removed, there hasn't been any armageddon of thoroughfares as people predict. In fact, when our own pierce elevated was being rebuilt, it was no big deal.

 

I'm not against freeways, I just don't think they should go right through the centers of cities. Even Eisenhower didn't want them going through the centers of cities. Europe did it right, go around them. If our freeways stopped at 610, it would be great, we'd have a lively core of a city. But I'll compromise and say eliminate the pierce elevated and 59 between 288 and 10.

[ToryGattis]

Doesn't seem to be the case in Europe.

 

 

Europe and older east coast cities are a special case based on history.  I explain it at the 8 min mark in my TEDxHouston talk: http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2011/11/my-tedx-houston-talk-mostly-about.html

[Slick Vik]

Europe and older east coast cities are a special case based on history.  I explain it at the 8 min mark in my TEDxHouston talk: http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2011/11/my-tedx-houston-talk-mostly-about.html

 

The entire Europe is a special case? What about Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Australia?

[ToryGattis]

The entire Europe is a special case? What about Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Australia?

 

Anywhere the cities were substantial before WW2 and the rise of the automobile.

[IronTiger]

1. Freeways do destroy neighborhoods. In fact, they destroyed many throughout the country when they were built. Also, it was very deliberate to go through african-american neighborhoods. This was done because it could be done and they didn't have the voice to stop it at the time.

 

Neighborhoods, as much as we hate to admit it, aren't going to be the same place indefinitely. In a perfect world, once a neighborhood is built and established, we would want it to remain as crime-free as possible and have the same demographics. You can come back 10, 15, 20 years later, and it would still be the same...ranch homes with large oak trees, kids riding bikes. The problem is, neighborhoods don't last. I was recently looking at a Google Earth image of a neighborhood built in the 1950s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George_Place]St. George Place and realized that nearly every home had been rebuilt, many of which in the last 10 years. The neighborhood had been through a period of decline ("Galleria Ghetto") and was being redeveloped. No freeway cut through it, and it still changed.

As for racist accusations, it's easy to imagine such a thing in a more politically correct world like we have today, but the root of the matter was that they acquired based on land value. The fact that some of it were African-American communities was an unfortunate coincidence.

 

 

Freeways are expensive to build, but also to maintain. They have a limited lifespan and require massive amounts of money to do something when that span is over.

Freeways tend to have a truncated lifespan due to the fact that either its very busy and needs to be expanded, or tastes change and powers that be decide to tear it down. It's expensive to maintain only in the fact that there's so much of it to begin with.

 

 

They do induce sprawl. This should be fairly intuitive. If you make avenues for people to go out, then that creates sprawl. In fact, freeways are probably the biggest cause of suburbanization.

Common misconception. Avenues of any type that lead out to more desirable places will cause outflow and thus, sprawl. This "moving out to the countryside" has happened generations before, and freeways were just scapegoated for that.

 

 

Pedestrian friendliness is definitely a joke. I never see anyone crossing those bridges. It's a lot easier to cross any regular road than frontage roads of a freeway.

Well, just because you never see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I almost never see any people on certain sidewalks, but only because there's just not much pedestrian traffic in the area. There's a certain stigma about freeways, but it's all perception and not because it's inherently pedestrian unfriendly.

 

 

In areas where freeways were removed, there hasn't been any armageddon of thoroughfares as people predict. In fact, when our own pierce elevated was being rebuilt, it was no big deal.

It was construction. People simply used alternate routes and dealt with it. Most other freeway removal projects in cities were either outdated redundant stretches that weren't used very often or stubs that went nowhere. Freeway removal in the 1980s was hailed as a new wave of the future but they were fringe cases. Places outside the U.S. have entirely different traffic flow (having cities centuries older than ours) and can't be used for a good comparison.

 

 

I'm not against freeways, I just don't think they should go right through the centers of cities. Even Eisenhower didn't want them going through the centers of cities.

They didn't. Houston's core is some 150 blocks encircled in freeway, and the CBDs of most (if not all) cities in the Interstate highway system were saved (Boston's Central Artery was pre-Interstate highway system).

[IronTiger]

Also: I don't want this turn into a freeway removal thing, it's to look at why freeways are unfairly stigmatized.

[Slick Vik]

Anywhere the cities were substantial before WW2 and the rise of the automobile.

So...most of the world

[ToryGattis]

So...most of the world

 

Yes, but it doesn't make sense for Houston or most other U.S. Southern and Western cities.

[Slick Vik]

Neighborhoods, as much as we hate to admit it, aren't going to be the same place indefinitely. In a perfect world, once a neighborhood is built and established, we would want it to remain as crime-free as possible and have the same demographics. You can come back 10, 15, 20 years later, and it would still be the same...ranch homes with large oak trees, kids riding bikes. The problem is, neighborhoods don't last. I was recently looking at a Google Earth image of a neighborhood built in the 1950s ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George_Place]St. George Place and realized that nearly every home had been rebuilt, many of which in the last 10 years. The neighborhood had been through a period of decline ("Galleria Ghetto") and was being redeveloped. No freeway cut through it, and it still changed.

As for racist accusations, it's easy to imagine such a thing in a more politically correct world like we have today, but the root of the matter was that they acquired based on land value. The fact that some of it were African-American communities was an unfortunate coincidence.

Freeways tend to have a truncated lifespan due to the fact that either its very busy and needs to be expanded, or tastes change and powers that be decide to tear it down. It's expensive to maintain only in the fact that there's so much of it to begin with.

Common misconception. Avenues of any type that lead out to more desirable places will cause outflow and thus, sprawl. This "moving out to the countryside" has happened generations before, and freeways were just scapegoated for that.

Well, just because you never see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I almost never see any people on certain sidewalks, but only because there's just not much pedestrian traffic in the area. There's a certain stigma about freeways, but it's all perception and not because it's inherently pedestrian unfriendly.

It was construction. People simply used alternate routes and dealt with it. Most other freeway removal projects in cities were either outdated redundant stretches that weren't used very often or stubs that went nowhere. Freeway removal in the 1980s was hailed as a new wave of the future but they were fringe cases. Places outside the U.S. have entirely different traffic flow (having cities centuries older than ours) and can't be used for a good comparison.

They didn't. Houston's core is some 150 blocks encircled in freeway, and the CBDs of most (if not all) cities in the Interstate highway system were saved (Boston's Central Artery was pre-Interstate highway system).

1. Neighborhoods change, but putting a freeway through a neighborhood is not changing a neighborhood, it's destroying it.

2. Many black neighborhoods were destroyed around the country, and disproportionately so. To call it a coincidence is egregious denial.

3. Avenues do not cause the same level of sprawl as freeways. Take a look at a map of houston before and after freeways and tell me otherwise.

4. If the adjustment was made temporarily it could have been made permanently.

5. They did go through the heart of many cities all over the country. Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, in Texas alone. New Orleans, Louisville, Seattle, San Francisco, parts of New York, Chicago, Rochester, Syracuse, and many more.

[mfastx]

A certain amount of freeways/high capacity arterial roads is definitely necessary in any large city for obvious reasons. 

 

That being said, it's certainly possible to have a desirable, perfectly functioning city with less freeway miles per capita than Houston.  We have certainly invested more in our freeways than many other large cities. 

[IronTiger]

Neighborhoods change, but putting a freeway through a neighborhood is not changing a neighborhood, it's destroying it.

Again, neighborhoods aren't last to forever and it's certainly true the "functional lifespans" were cut short by freeways (there were many post-war neighborhoods in Houston that didn't last).

Many black neighborhoods were destroyed around the country, and disproportionately so. To call it a coincidence is egregious denial.

The black neighborhoods had lower land value, which was cheaper to acquire for freeways. Even then, freeways tended to run on pre-existing roads. Had that actually been the case with what you're claiming, roads like Elgin or Dowling would be freeways, unless you believe that would be less damaging.

Avenues do not cause the same level of sprawl as freeways. Take a look at a map of houston before and after freeways and tell me otherwise.

It's worth noting that freeways were built at the same time as air conditioning started to become popular, and of course, Houston and its suburbs grew like fire, fueled by the oil industry.

If the adjustment was made temporarily it could have been made permanently.

No, it couldn't. Remember the "leg breaking" analogy? Would you rather have a broken leg for a few months, or be crippled for the rest of your life?

They did go through the heart of many cities all over the country. Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, in Texas alone. New Orleans, Louisville, Seattle, San Francisco, parts of New York, Chicago, Rochester, Syracuse, and many more.

They went around the heart of cities, and if you look on a map, you'll find that for the most part, the "heart" of the city was spared. In a way, 10, 45, and 59 form a miniature "loop" around the city, avoiding it. If you were draw a straight line from the place where 45 splits off from 10 to roughly about Cullen Blvd, you'll see how damaging it really is, and why the Pierce Elevated saves downtown instead of destroying it.

A certain amount of freeways/high capacity arterial roads is definitely necessary in any large city for obvious reasons.

That being said, it's certainly possible to have a desirable, perfectly functioning city with less freeway miles per capita than Houston. We have certainly invested more in our freeways than many other large cities.

Houston also has more total area than other large cities.

[Montrose1100]

There is nothing wrong with freeways. Just the people who don't know how to drive on them.

[livincinco]

Doesn't seem to be the case in Europe.

 

Why are the schools better and houses more affordable far out? There are reasons behind all of this.

 

Actually, Europe sprawls plenty whether you want to admit it or not. 

 

Let's take Paris as an example - the population of the city of Paris has consistently declined for the last fifty years (population was 2.79 million in 1962 and was down to 2.13 million by 1999.  In the meantime, the amount of people in the Paris metro increased by 2 million people.   The land size of the metro doubled during that same period.  The difference, to Tory's point, is the starting point.  Paris was very dense in 1962 and has become progressively less dense over time.

 

http://www.demographia.com/db-paris-pc.htm

[Slick Vik]

Actually, Europe sprawls plenty whether you want to admit it or not. 

 

Let's take Paris as an example - the population of the city of Paris has consistently declined for the last fifty years (population was 2.79 million in 1962 and was down to 2.13 million by 1999.  In the meantime, the amount of people in the Paris metro increased by 2 million people.   The land size of the metro doubled during that same period.  The difference, to Tory's point, is the starting point.  Paris was very dense in 1962 and has become progressively less dense over time.

 

http://www.demographia.com/db-paris-pc.htm

 

It is still quite dense overall. And it doesn't have freeways going through it, which gives the city a lively, walkable feel.

[Slick Vik]

Again, neighborhoods aren't last to forever and it's certainly true the "functional lifespans" were cut short by freeways (there were many post-war neighborhoods in Houston that didn't last).

The black neighborhoods had lower land value, which was cheaper to acquire for freeways. Even then, freeways tended to run on pre-existing roads. Had that actually been the case with what you're claiming, roads like Elgin or Dowling would be freeways, unless you believe that would be less damaging.

It's worth noting that freeways were built at the same time as air conditioning started to become popular, and of course, Houston and its suburbs grew like fire, fueled by the oil industry.

No, it couldn't. Remember the "leg breaking" analogy? Would you rather have a broken leg for a few months, or be crippled for the rest of your life?

They went around the heart of cities, and if you look on a map, you'll find that for the most part, the "heart" of the city was spared. In a way, 10, 45, and 59 form a miniature "loop" around the city, avoiding it. If you were draw a straight line from the place where 45 splits off from 10 to roughly about Cullen Blvd, you'll see how damaging it really is, and why the Pierce Elevated saves downtown instead of destroying it.

Houston also has more total area than other large cities.

 

1. Cutting short the functional lifespans by putting freeways through them is wrong.

 

2. Again, there was a purpose behind destroying majority black neighborhoods. If you choose to ignore it, that is purely denial.

 

3. What does air conditioning have to do with suburbs?

 

4. Yes, the adjustment could be made permanently. It was here and has been done in other cities as well. Your analogy is irrelevant.

 

5. The heart of the city was not spared, 45 and 59 go right through downtown and create artificial borders. Get rid of them in downtown and watch what happens.

[livincinco]

It is still quite dense overall. And it doesn't have freeways going through it, which gives the city a lively, walkable feel.

 

It's also resulted in a 62% higher cost of living in the city in addition to an average 12% lower PPP which I would partially attribute to the lack of freeways as well.

 

The end result is a lively, walkable feel for some and greatly reduced economic opportunity for most.

[Slick Vik]

It's also resulted in a 62% higher cost of living in the city in addition to an average 12% lower PPP which I would partially attribute to the lack of freeways as well.

 

The end result is a lively, walkable feel for some and greatly reduced economic opportunity for most.

 

How is it walkable only for some? Even your "sprawling" areas in Europe are very walkable. Also it's very easy to get to city centers no matter where you are because heavy investment in public transportation.That's the difference between Europe and the US, Europe invested in rail and freeways with a plan for cities to be great, the US chose to invest only in freeways.

[livincinco]

How is it walkable only for some? Even your "sprawling" areas in Europe are very walkable. Also it's very easy to get to city centers no matter where you are because heavy investment in public transportation.That's the difference between Europe and the US, Europe invested in rail and freeways with a plan for cities to be great, the US chose to invest only in freeways.

 

Paris is rated as having the 11th worst commute in the world and scored considerably worse than Houston in the below rating.

 

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/top-10-cities-with-the-worst-commute-global-edition/8501

 

Additionally, on their 2012 congestion index- Tom Tom rated Paris at a 32% congestion level with Houston rated at a 22% congestion level. 

[Slick Vik]

Paris is rated as having the 11th worst commute in the world and scored considerably worse than Houston in the below rating.

 

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/top-10-cities-with-the-worst-commute-global-edition/8501

 

Additionally, on their 2012 congestion index- Tom Tom rated Paris at a 32% congestion level with Houston rated at a 22% congestion level. 

 

From your own article

 

In the IBM study, which polled 8,192 MOTORISTS in 20 international cities on five continents about their “global commuter pain,” traffic has gotten worse in the past three years, reported participants.

 

The big takeway from such a survey is that the above list is comprised of international cities that are vital to the global economy — and yet utterly inefficient as systems, with grueling commutes and a failing transportation (read: automobile) infrastructure that’s not keeping up with urban growth.

 

What’s so bad about Beijing and New Delhi, you ask? It’s actually a matter that gets to the core issue of urban planning: growth.

 

The cities experiencing extreme congestion are the ones developing the most rapidly. Thanks to economic booms, those cities haven’t had time to build out infrastructure the way cities with more gradual growth — New York, London, Los Angeles — have.

[IronTiger]

There was a purpose behind destroying majority black neighborhoods. If you choose to ignore it, that is purely denial.

You're accusing me of denial, yet the best you'll probably offer is just theory. (Your track record is denial isn't that good, too)

 

What does air conditioning have to do with suburbs?

The population growth of Houston and its suburbs (yes, Sugar Land and Cypress did exist before 1970) can be directly connected with the prevalence of climate control.

 

It was here and has been done in other cities as well. Your analogy is irrelevant.

Again, the freeway removal (starting back with Portland) are fringe cases. In nearly all cases of U.S.-based freeway removal projects, the freeway in question was pre-Interstate standards and had been functionally replaced, or a spur that essentially went nowhere. Your "it worked in X, it can work everywhere" argument is grossly naïve and has been (pardon the pun) thoroughly dismantled on previous threads.

 

The heart of the city was not spared, 45 and 59 go right through downtown and create artificial borders.

The heart of the city was spared entirely. In fact, if you look on Google Earth, there were houses downtown, and many of them even weren't touched at all by the freeway, they disappeared as land value skyrocketed and taller buildings took over.

 

How is it walkable only for some? Even your "sprawling" areas in Europe are very walkable.

The suburbs of south College Station are walkable, though sometimes evenings it can so quiet that Rush's "Subdivisions" is a rather apt fit. You could walk or bike over to the corner store or the H-E-B (and the fast foods that orbit around it) rather easily. Problem is, some people really don't like to walk or bike very much. This is very similar to the old saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" ("You can add sidewalks and bike lanes, but you can't make people walk"). [sidenote: this is a similar reason why people have a stigma about crossing freeway underpasses/overpasses]

Houston is an unusual case in that "sprawl" didn't result in total desolation of the city and people living there. While Houston could (and did) expand its borders, it was a successful enough city that people still live in the Loop. It's expensive to live there.

Compare that to Detroit or St. Louis. Detroit and St. Louis had become undesirable enough (mostly corruption) to live in the 1960s and 1970s that people moved out entirely. The freeways were the avenue for these push and pull factors--but were the main things keeping jobs from escaping as well. Change happened in urban America in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, but to blame them on freeways is nonsense. In most other parts of the nation, crime was getting out of control, corruption was destroying the middle class, and pollution was extremely heavy. And not just "a bit of smog in the morning" but "raw sewage pumped into waterways" (Houston also was guilty of this).

New York City in the 1970s, for instance was notoriously grimy and full of crime ("Welcome to Fear City"). Nobody wanted to live there, and many that didn't simply couldn't afford to.

tl;dr--Even without freeways, people would've moved out. And they did. Of course, history has proven that "those who can escape the city will", as was demonstrated nearly a century earlier by the romanticized streetcars.

[livincinco]

From your own article

 

In the IBM study, which polled 8,192 MOTORISTS in 20 international cities on five continents about their “global commuter pain,” traffic has gotten worse in the past three years, reported participants.

 

The big takeway from such a survey is that the above list is comprised of international cities that are vital to the global economy — and yet utterly inefficient as systems, with grueling commutes and a failing transportation (read: automobile) infrastructure that’s not keeping up with urban growth.

 

What’s so bad about Beijing and New Delhi, you ask? It’s actually a matter that gets to the core issue of urban planning: growth.

 

The cities experiencing extreme congestion are the ones developing the most rapidly. Thanks to economic booms, those cities haven’t had time to build out infrastructure the way cities with more gradual growth — New York, London, Los Angeles — have.

 

You just cited Paris as an example of efficient planning and said that it was "very easy to get to city centers" in European cities with Paris.  I pointed out that Paris, which has a well developed public transit system and no freeways, has some of the worst congestion in the world.  Houston scores considerably better.  I would also point out that New York, London, and Los Angeles, cities that are cited as examples of cities that have had the opportunity to build out infrastructure, all have worse congestion than Houston as well.

 

This would perhaps imply that freeways reduce congestion.

[Slick Vik]

You just cited Paris as an example of efficient planning and said that it was "very easy to get to city centers" in European cities with Paris.  I pointed out that Paris, which has a well developed public transit system and no freeways, has some of the worst congestion in the world.  Houston scores considerably better.  I would also point out that New York, London, and Los Angeles, cities that are cited as examples of cities that have had the opportunity to build out infrastructure, all have worse congestion than Houston as well.

 

This would perhaps imply that freeways reduce congestion.

 

You pointed out congestion only in relation to automobiles. Perhaps you've been in Houston too long but other cities have alternative ways to get to city centers besides automobiles.

[Slick Vik]

You're accusing me of denial, yet the best you'll probably offer is just theory. (Your track record is denial isn't that good, too)

 

The population growth of Houston and its suburbs (yes, Sugar Land and Cypress did exist before 1970) can be directly connected with the prevalence of climate control.

 

Again, the freeway removal (starting back with Portland) are fringe cases. In nearly all cases of U.S.-based freeway removal projects, the freeway in question was pre-Interstate standards and had been functionally replaced, or a spur that essentially went nowhere. Your "it worked in X, it can work everywhere" argument is grossly naïve and has been (pardon the pun) thoroughly dismantled on previous threads.

 

The heart of the city was spared entirely. In fact, if you look on Google Earth, there were houses downtown, and many of them even weren't touched at all by the freeway, they disappeared as land value skyrocketed and taller buildings took over.

 

The suburbs of south College Station are walkable, though sometimes evenings it can so quiet that Rush's "Subdivisions" is a rather apt fit. You could walk or bike over to the corner store or the H-E-B (and the fast foods that orbit around it) rather easily. Problem is, some people really don't like to walk or bike very much. This is very similar to the old saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" ("You can add sidewalks and bike lanes, but you can't make people walk"). [sidenote: this is a similar reason why people have a stigma about crossing freeway underpasses/overpasses]

Houston is an unusual case in that "sprawl" didn't result in total desolation of the city and people living there. While Houston could (and did) expand its borders, it was a successful enough city that people still live in the Loop. It's expensive to live there.

Compare that to Detroit or St. Louis. Detroit and St. Louis had become undesirable enough (mostly corruption) to live in the 1960s and 1970s that people moved out entirely. The freeways were the avenue for these push and pull factors--but were the main things keeping jobs from escaping as well. Change happened in urban America in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, but to blame them on freeways is nonsense. In most other parts of the nation, crime was getting out of control, corruption was destroying the middle class, and pollution was extremely heavy. And not just "a bit of smog in the morning" but "raw sewage pumped into waterways" (Houston also was guilty of this).

New York City in the 1970s, for instance was notoriously grimy and full of crime ("Welcome to Fear City"). Nobody wanted to live there, and many that didn't simply couldn't afford to.

tl;dr--Even without freeways, people would've moved out. And they did. Of course, history has proven that "those who can escape the city will", as was demonstrated nearly a century earlier by the romanticized streetcars.

 

1. Where's the connection between climate control and suburbanization? It's not as if it was restricted to new houses far from city centers.

 

2. I gave other examples of successful freeway removal internationally as well, such as Paris and Seoul. You debunked this idea only in your own mind because there are many more projects on the table domestically that should move forward soon or already in the process.

 

3. How was the heart of the city spared when there is a giant freeway splitting areas east and west of downtown? These are gargantuan physical and mental barriers. If there was no pierce elevated midtown would push into downtown and it would do wonders for the city. Same for 59, with eado popping up the way it is.

 

4. I agree white flight had a lot to do with people leaving the cities, but what gave them the avenue to do so? FREEWAYS.

 

And as far as black neighborhoods being destroyed, I'm not sure if you're just insensitive to their plight, but this really happened, and it devastated a lot of communities, whether you choose to admit it or not. It was not an "unfortunate coincidence."

 

5. During the first decade of Interstate highway construction, 335,000 homes were razed, forcing families to look elsewhere for housing . . .

“In many cases, the ‘urban blight’ targeted by the new road construction simply meant African-American communities—often thriving ones. A great body of work shows that urban freeways destroyed the hearts of African-American communities in the South Bronx, Nashville, Austin, Los Angeles, Durham, and nearly every medium to large American city . . .

 

“In Tennessee, plans for the construction of Interstate 40 were in fact redrawn to route the highway through the flourishing Jefferson Street corridor, home to roughly 80 percent of Nashville’s African-American-owned businesses. Not only did the construction of I-40 destroy this commercial district; it also demolished 650 homes and 27 apartment buildings while erecting physical barriers separating the city’s largest African-American universities: Fisk University, Tennessee A & I University, and Meharry Medical College.”

 

The Claiborne Expressway in New Orleans bifurcated that city’s culturally rich Tremé district.  Among the casualties were a popular Mardi Gras parade route lined with majestic oak trees and a thriving corridor of African-American businesses some called “the black people’s Canal Street”

 

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/running_freeways_through_citie.html

[Slick Vik]

In the final analysis, until the 1960s, the urban poor whose neighborhoods were slated for expressway corridors had few lobbyists in Congress to make an effective case for relocation funding.28

 

http://www.prrac.org/pdf/mohl.pdf

[Slick Vik]

In Detroit, freeways cut through centers of black, Latino and other ethnic neighborhoods. Black Bottom and Paradise Valley were focal points for African-Americans before they were demolished to make way for Lafayette Park and Interstate 75. In southwest Detroit, Michigan Avenue had a host of bars and clubs that were razed for I-75.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131004/METRO/310040053#ixzz2kedmAkmN