6 ms·

Having some trouble swallowing this paragraph: " The richest metropolitan areas in the US are San José, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Washington, Houston, New

by lnanek2 11y ago

Having some trouble swallowing this paragraph: " The richest metropolitan areas in the US are San José, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Washington, Houston, New York, Portland, Hartford and Salt Lake City. Areas with relatively few urban highways are overrepresented in that list, with Houston being the one big exception. " When I need to get anywhere in New York, most of the time I am better off grabbing the west side highway or the FDR rather than going through the grid and hitting traffic lights and gridlock constantly. So that's two highways, one on either side of a 2.3 mile wide (at most) island and then 95 crosses it at the top. San Francisco similarly has elevated 280 and 80, and 101 mostly on the ground with some lights slowing it. At least SF is much bigger than Manahattan for similar amount of highways to help his point. I get the feeling he just isn't from the US and doesn't know anything about our cities, though, so that paragraph is just way off.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
When I think of major US cities that are under-served with urban highways, the one that immediately comes to mind is Baltimore (granted, I-95 goes thru, and I-83 (81?) dead-ends near downtown, but otherwise good luck). For the ones he's mentioned DC's got big sections that aren't well served by highways, but there is still the beltway, the BW parkway/I295, I395, the southeast freeway. I don't know Hartford that well, but it's got two major interstates going thru. I wonder what "relatively few" means, and what some examples of cities with "relatively many" highways would be.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jdminhbg 11y ago
  > When I think of major US cities that are under-served with urban highways, the one that immediately comes to mind is Baltimore (granted, I-95 goes thru, and I-83 (81?) dead-ends near downtown, but otherwise good luck). I-83 ends downtown. There's also 695 (the beltway), 395 (from 95 to the stadiums/downtown), 895 (Harbor tunnel), and 195 (BWI airport connector). It's never felt underserved highway-wise to me, but I've never actually lived there, just visited a lot.
  - JackFr 11y ago
    I-70 -- Baltimore, MD to Cove Fort, UT
cauterized 11y ago
When you need to get anywhere in New York, you're better off hopping on the subway than sitting in traffic.
DrScump 11y ago
With respect to San Jose, it's a crock. The only remotely "urban" area is downtown, and that is fully served with highways (880, 280/680, 87). Light rail is a joke, with routes having been chosen for political reasons rather than true demand, and it is useless for transporting goods. This article, like many on the topic, also take a one-dimensional view of highways -- as people movers. The flow of goods and services (especially emergency services) is at least as important. Throughout the Bay Area, highways are critical infrastructure just to move goods and supplies, if nothing else. 880/17 in Oakland became a chokepoint after the 1989 earthquake took down the Cypress structure, for example, and that would have been even worse had 980 not been completed not long before.
- hkmurakami 11y ago
  Excellent point. To that end it appears that 101 is much heavier on "move goods and services" than 280. (which makes sense because it is a much more direct route up and down the peninsula, whereas 280 is a much more pleasant drive.
  - DrScump 11y ago
    Likewise, 880 more than 680. 880 wasn't even originally an Interstate, but it was absorbed into the system because so much freight moves on it.
- titzer 11y ago
  Trucks are big but are dwarfed by the number of single-occupant passenger cars. Other models that work well are freight trains and local trucks, without huge highways. Surface streets work fine for emergency services if they aren't clogged and hospitals are well distributed.
  - DrScump 11y ago
    if... hospitals are well distributed But they aren't and never have been, so you have to deal with reality. Hospitals are getting fewer in number per capita, especially private hospitals. The East Bay situation is worse. Eight large hospitals are located within one mile of the Hayward Fault.
hoorayimhelping 11y ago
>I am better off grabbing the west side highway or the FDR rather than going through the grid and hitting traffic lights and gridlock constantly And that's just Manhattan. There's also the BQE in Brooklyn and Queens, which doubly undermines the original point.

by lnanek2 11y ago

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago

When I think of major US cities that are under-served with urban highways, the one that immediately comes to mind is Baltimore (granted, I-95 goes thru, and I-83 (81?) dead-ends near downtown, but otherwise good luck). For the ones he's mentioned DC's got big sections that aren't well served by highways, but there is still the beltway, the BW parkway/I295, I395, the southeast freeway. I don't know Hartford that well, but it's got two major interstates going thru. I wonder what "relatively few" means, and what some examples of cities with "relatively many" highways would be.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jdminhbg 11y ago
> When I think of major US cities that are under-served with urban highways, the one that immediately comes to mind is Baltimore (granted, I-95 goes thru, and I-83 (81?) dead-ends near downtown, but otherwise good luck). I-83 ends downtown. There's also 695 (the beltway), 395 (from 95 to the stadiums/downtown), 895 (Harbor tunnel), and 195 (BWI airport connector). It's never felt underserved highway-wise to me, but I've never actually lived there, just visited a lot.
- JackFr 11y ago
  I-70 -- Baltimore, MD to Cove Fort, UT

cauterized 11y ago

When you need to get anywhere in New York, you're better off hopping on the subway than sitting in traffic.

DrScump 11y ago

With respect to San Jose, it's a crock. The only remotely "urban" area is downtown, and that is fully served with highways (880, 280/680, 87). Light rail is a joke, with routes having been chosen for political reasons rather than true demand, and it is useless for transporting goods. This article, like many on the topic, also take a one-dimensional view of highways -- as people movers. The flow of goods and services (especially emergency services) is at least as important. Throughout the Bay Area, highways are critical infrastructure just to move goods and supplies, if nothing else. 880/17 in Oakland became a chokepoint after the 1989 earthquake took down the Cypress structure, for example, and that would have been even worse had 980 not been completed not long before.

hkmurakami 11y ago
Excellent point. To that end it appears that 101 is much heavier on "move goods and services" than 280. (which makes sense because it is a much more direct route up and down the peninsula, whereas 280 is a much more pleasant drive.
- DrScump 11y ago
  Likewise, 880 more than 680. 880 wasn't even originally an Interstate, but it was absorbed into the system because so much freight moves on it.
titzer 11y ago
Trucks are big but are dwarfed by the number of single-occupant passenger cars. Other models that work well are freight trains and local trucks, without huge highways. Surface streets work fine for emergency services if they aren't clogged and hospitals are well distributed.
- DrScump 11y ago
  if... hospitals are well distributed But they aren't and never have been, so you have to deal with reality. Hospitals are getting fewer in number per capita, especially private hospitals. The East Bay situation is worse. Eight large hospitals are located within one mile of the Hayward Fault.

hoorayimhelping 11y ago

>I am better off grabbing the west side highway or the FDR rather than going through the grid and hitting traffic lights and gridlock constantly And that's just Manhattan. There's also the BQE in Brooklyn and Queens, which doubly undermines the original point.