Dismantling Downtown Freeways

[UptownSport]

Dismantling Downtown Freeways. Classic Urban MSP post-
So the thought is; Roads are there for people to aimlessly drive on with no other reason than to just to annoy you, personally?

The site has good information but some of you probably shouldn't be at liberty.

[talindsay]

Well, I'll agree with your initial statement - not the one about me listening but the one right after that. I see your point, one of the learnings from the moment was the way the system adapted to the bridge's absence, though I think it's important to keep in mind the tremendous local effect it had on Northeast, which became very difficult to get into and out of (sorry for the dangling preposition). I would counter though that redundancy - its very duplicative function - is what made the system resilient enough to avoid a real mess.

I agree with you about our car-centric society - we're allies on these issues - but the car isn't going to stop being primary means of individual transportation in the near future and so we can't simply disinvest from it. Also, I think we have to stop new construction at the fringes before we can consider reductions in central city capacity, if we expect people to continue coming in to the city to live and work. Removing highway capacity at the core while allowing unfettered growth at the fringes would certainly harm downtown's competitiveness.

And I wasn't calling "you" lazy, I was calling the argument lazy. But that was kind of a lazy thing for me to do too, no?

[mulad]

Can someone give an example of a specific trip that was strongly impacted by the bridge collapse (like, by more than 5 minutes)?

[RailBaronYarr]

Removing highway capacity at the core while allowing unfettered growth at the fringes would certainly harm downtown's competitiveness.

I think it's easy to make this argument, but who are we competing against? I think it's a lazy argument to compare Minneapolis to Portland, Denver, Seattle, and Chicago. We're also competing with Munich, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Marseilles, Manchester, and any other mid-to-large markets across the globe. Who, by and large, don't have freeway systems cutting through downtown and provide their metro residents a multitude of mobility options.

I also think it's a bit off in the sense that growth can occur in fringes.. if done right. Growth in the exurbs with complete auto-centric design with populations that work in downtown (or near, or past) and also come downtown to enjoy all the wonderful amenities is the problem. Towns on the fringe rely on the core city's economic strength, but shouldn't rely on it as the place for jobs, and furthermore shouldn't expect the core to accommodate other people to choose a single mode of transport in at the expense of their own residents' well-being.

[JMS9]

Build over them like they do in Boston. Not "Big Dig" but like in the Back Bay. Good portions of the Mass Pike (I-90) are simply built over, with several more parcels scheduled to be covered in the coming months with parks space and buildings. Also saw they are planning similar projects in Dallas and a few other cities. I think it is definitely doable in St. Paul, connecting the capital area to downtown.

[talindsay]

Removing highway capacity at the core while allowing unfettered growth at the fringes would certainly harm downtown's competitiveness.

I think it's easy to make this argument, but who are we competing against? I think it's a lazy argument to compare Minneapolis to Portland, Denver, Seattle, and Chicago. We're also competing with Munich, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Marseilles, Manchester, and any other mid-to-large markets across the globe. Who, by and large, don't have freeway systems cutting through downtown and provide their metro residents a multitude of mobility options.

I also think it's a bit off in the sense that growth can occur in fringes.. if done right. Growth in the exurbs with complete auto-centric design with populations that work in downtown (or near, or past) and also come downtown to enjoy all the wonderful amenities is the problem. Towns on the fringe rely on the core city's economic strength, but shouldn't rely on it as the place for jobs, and furthermore shouldn't expect the core to accommodate other people to choose a single mode of transport in at the expense of their own residents' well-being.

I don't mean it will hurt downtown in its ability to compete against Portland or Manchester. I mean it will hurt downtown because companies with many erstwhile commuters will be pressured to relocate out of downtown. If we make it hard to get in to downtown while allowing unfettered growth in the suburbs, we will get less focus downtown, not more. That probably will make us less competitive as a region, but that's not what I was thinking about.

[woofner]

But what about replacing the freeway with transit and an improved local street network, which would maintain the system's resiliency but make it more multimodal and allow downtown to outcompete the transit-poor suburbs? And again, I'm not saying that was a realistic outcome in 2007, I'm bemoaning the fact that there wasn't a leftist voice in the debate at the time to even suggest that. While I think Rybak and Oberstar did a good job responding to the collapse, my friends and I were questioning the need to replace the bridge at the time, and I think it's sad that our opinions had no political representation, even from the Green Party CM from the affected ward, who in response called for a moderate carrot-only increase in public transportation [edit: sorry for all the commas in that sentence].

[mattaudio]

Totally agree that the voice you suggest should have been present in the decisionmaking in 2007, but I'd contend that it's not necessarily "leftist." It would have been wise to take a conservative approach to see if building the bridge would return enough to government coffers in tax revenue that would otherwise not exist in order to justify building it.

[Didier]

Somewhat relevant to this discussion, here is a dissenting view to the car-free movement in Boston.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/colu ... story.html

[cowboyjones]

Somewhat relevant to this discussion, here is a dissenting view to the car-free movement in Boston.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/colu ... story.html

Urban Redevelopers could have some cars on hand that can be used by their tenants for a small insurance fee. Devote some of their limited parking space to those particular vehicles (only have a few of them), and It would be able to draw a higher price for a tenants, so Property Management Companies can benefit, and the tenants don't have to own a car or park it, but can still have access to a car. For that matter, groups of neighbors, even in low-density urban areas could form a similar agreement. Basically its a car sharing scheme that says, "walk or bike to go to work, get groceries, etc. but if you want a car or truck for a family vacation, renovate your home, 'shuttle elderly relatives', or even just to cruise for a little bit, don't worry about it."

[Didier]

I don't have a horse in this race, but you guys have to remember that a lot of people really like cars. Cars are not just uniform, emotionless objects that transport people.

[FISHMANPET]

I don't have a horse in this race, but you guys have to remember that a lot of people really like cars. Cars are not just uniform, emotionless objects that transport people.

There's also a lot of people that don't like cars. People are driving less, getting fewer drivers licenses, and buying fewer cars. The notion that cars = freedom that's been marketed at us for the last 60 years is starting to fall apart. At best my car is a thing that makes it easier for me to get groceries, and at worse it can be an albatross when I'm going out.

[trkaiser]

Can someone give an example of a specific trip that was strongly impacted by the bridge collapse (like, by more than 5 minutes)?

I can't believe so many of you are saying this! Having that bridge out of service made almost every trip I took longer by more than five minutes - anything involving Broadway, Central, Hennepin, University, 4th, 10th Avenue, Riverside, Washington, etc.

I live in Northeast, but it was clear it wasn't just NE-ers being affected by this, as people commuting anywhere north were funneled through the neighborhood. It was terrible every day. Life didn't cease to function, but it was a major deal every day. Remember all the intersections that were staffed with cops for months? It was very bad when the funding for some of those traffic cops started drying up (before the new bridge was done).

[Snelbian]

I don't have a horse in this race, but you guys have to remember that a lot of people really like cars. Cars are not just uniform, emotionless objects that transport people.

It would take a lot more than replacing a couple freeways with normal streets to make driving prohibitive for people who love cars. I mean, we're talking a fairly tiny reduction in the overwhelming preference currently given to people who love driving.

[nordeast homer]

Can someone give an example of a specific trip that was strongly impacted by the bridge collapse (like, by more than 5 minutes)?

I can't believe so many of you are saying this! Having that bridge out of service made almost every trip I took longer by more than five minutes - anything involving Broadway, Central, Hennepin, University, 4th, 10th Avenue, Riverside, Washington, etc.

I live in Northeast, but it was clear it wasn't just NE-ers being affected by this, as people commuting anywhere north were funneled through the neighborhood. It was terrible every day. Life didn't cease to function, but it was a major deal every day. Remember all the intersections that were staffed with cops for months? It was very bad when the funding for some of those traffic cops started drying up (before the new bridge was done).

You beat me to it. This was a daily nightmare that I don't ever care to relive. My commute went from 20 minutes to 45-60 minutes every day. One snow event in particular made my commute from Bloomington to NE over 3 hours. There was no good way to get in or out since I live just north of the bridge.

Tom made a point earlier in the thread that echoed my first thoughts when I came across this debate; if we were to dismantle the freeway system that we have we would regret it as we do with the loss of the extensive and impressive and effective streetcar system we had in this metro area. We are now spending billions to reclaim a tiny percentage of what we once had. Pure folly.

[tabletop]

The city has up until recently been working to repair all the damage done to the local streets caused by the extra traffic from the bridge collapse. I don't buy the argument that traffic magically disappears, it gets diverted. Other roads deal with the added stress of the displaced traffic, and unless we want to create more arterial one way streets through the city (which most of you don't want) and reapave them with 8" of concrete, we gotta work with what we got.

[mattaudio]

Traffic is not a liquid, it is a gas. It expands to fill whatever size conduit it is given.

[Mdcastle]

San Francisco has basically declared war on cars- they thought dismantling part of the Central Freeway would force people out of their cars and into transit. Big Surprise. The traffic didn't disappear and has gotten worse in the area (and I get to drive through it in two months).

[ECtransplant]

You can't reverse course on culture/lifestyle overnight. It will take time to make the USA give up its personal automobile addiction. In time, the country will be better off if the pedestrians can win the war on cars.

[Snelbian]

Is war that thing where you continue to fund your opponent at levels far and away above what you give your own side?