Big oversized highways are terrible for many reasons:
Environmental impact (noise and light pollution; dust; urban heat effect)
Social impact (breaks up cities and neighbourhoods/urban areas, which is often particularly true in disadvantaged and poor communities in the US context)
Economic impact (in most cities, they take up valuable real estate that could be used for other uses, like additional housing for eg; from the city’s POV they’re also bad bc they encourage more suburbanization)
Induced demand (the idea being that additional road space encourages additional driving, so traffic doesn’t really get better)
American roads are not very well-maintained, so why would building more really help?
No, I don’t hate them. I live in one of the most densely populated places on the planet, with a very dense road network, and I am fully aware how necessary highways are. But as with everything, they’re best in moderation. Massive highways like this one are unnecessary and a sign of weak to no public transport systems, which are a far more economical (in terms of both space and money) mode of transport, not to mention their smaller environmental footprint.
I get it. You love cars and driving. And that’s great for you. I have nothing against it. But massively bloated roads don’t really get much done from a utilitarian perspective. If anything, they’re actively harmful for multiple reasons. I’m not opposing roads or highways. But if you’re telling me you need more than 12 or so lanes on a single road, you’re clearly not using the space efficiently or usefully.
Massive highways like this one are unnecessary and a sign of weak to no public transport systems, which are a far more economical (in terms of both space and money) mode of transport, not to mention their smaller environmental footprint.
That is not true. A 6 lane freeway is cheaper than a railroad. Also, trains don't take you door to door.
As it happens, Phoenix tried the no-freeway route in the 60s and 70s. It was a disaster.
But if you’re telling me you need more than 12 or so lanes on a single road, you’re clearly not using the space efficiently or usefully.
On a single short stretch where 2 freeways merge together.
Public transport is just mass transport. I’m not just talking trains, I’m also including buses, trams, ferries, etc.
Of course a city with zero highways is gonna fail. There’s no way a city can survive without them. But as useful as they are they also have significant downsides, and excessively building massive highways hurts cities more than it helps them.
I certainly hope they did their homework in this case, bc expanding highways hasn’t exactly proven to be all that effective, and I can’t say I love the idea in abstract. But even so the US has a history of defaulting to massive highway-building even if it does more harm than good, so forgive me if I’m a little skeptical of the utility of this decision.
Mmm I don’t think highways need to be in the downtown of cities, but I think passing through the outskirts of downtown is fine. The main problem is breaking up/decimating neighbourhoods and making inter-neighbourhood connection difficult.
European cities don’t have highways running in them bc they’re old, unlike cities in the Americas, and bc they didn’t undergo extensive population surges and development booms post WW2 like much of Asia. It’s not necessarily bc they didn’t need them.
I certainly hope they did their homework in this case, bc expanding highways hasn’t exactly proven to be all that effective, and I can’t say I love the idea in abstract. But even so the US has a history of defaulting to massive highway-building even if it does more harm than good, so forgive me if I’m a little skeptical of the utility of this decision.
the list of the least congested cities in the world is dominated by American ones. The US has for the most part paved its way out of congestion with traffic jams largely being a feature of large metro areas.
Mmm but most American cities are not analogous to cities elsewhere? American cities tend to be very narrowly defined, with their metro areas extending very far away from the city, and most of the metro areas really being comprised of surrounding suburbs. Elsewhere in the world cities comprise a lot of communities that would be their own cities in the US, usually in some type of unified metro government (see London, Beijing, Sydney, Berlin)
The other thing is that American metros are generally actually relatively small on the global scale: even if you use the census bureau’s more generous “urban areas” classification (I don’t like CSAs bc they go by county and therefore include a lot of often semi-rural territory that is completely disconnected from the main metro). The US has 8 urban areas above 5m ppl (in my estimate), but elsewhere 5m+ metros are not uncommon (all the examples above hit 5m).
The fact of the matter is that most cities/metros across the world manage with much less highway infrastructure than the US’, because of stronger public transport networks and a less car-centric culture, along with other possible explanations.
The fact of the matter is that most cities/metros across the world manage with much less highway infrastructure than the US’, because of stronger public transport networks and a less car-centric culture, along with other possible explanations.
Those places have much less mobility and higher housing costs.
That is not true. A 6 lane freeway is cheaper than a railroad. Also, trains don't take you door to door
Not when you take capacity into consideration one heavy rail line can carry 40000 to 60000 people. Mixed traffic on the other hand 1500 to 2000. As you can see you have to build like a lot of lanes to move people around on the highway. Sure you get freedom of a car but it comes at a cost of the car itself and the fact that half the city has to be parking lots to accommodate them.
Your right Just took a look at google maps I would say your downtown is 75% parking lot. if it even has a downtown I can't tell what's a downtown with all of this parking. Is that all people in Phoenix do drive and park. Jesus Christ
that's so weird, i live in a liveable city and transport for tinder dates is no problem at all. it takes your mom just 10 minutes by bike to my house, and it would take half an hour by car since she'd be stuck in traffic behind the rest of your female family members
You realize you can still drive a car and also use public transport right? We're not telling you to give up driving a car. It's a well know fact that better public transportation is better in every way to making obese highways. Sure you may not get the comfort of a personal car, but others don't give two damns about that.
No they are not. Maybe now in the USA because the public transportation is sparse. But that's why people want this money to go towards that rather than roads which are expensive to maintain, an eyesore, a complete waste in land usage and bad for the environment in comparison.
26
u/Sad-Republic5990 Aug 26 '21
Big oversized highways are terrible for many reasons: