Comment 87874

By RobF (registered) | Posted April 16, 2013 at 05:03:20 in reply to Comment 87863

We don't really disagree. I said removals were minor reductions to each city's urban expressway system, not that the projects in question were insignificant.

In Boston's case, as you point out, the Big Dig made certain trips easier and induced demand, creating problems elsewhere. The other cities mentioned by Jason were also able to remove sections of highway from strategic, high value locations for similar reasons: other nearby routes existed that could absorb the traffic flow adequately.

Jason's post seemed to miss that. Given it was in response to a post by someone suggesting we revive a shelved perimeter road plan, the clarification seems warranted to me, though i suspect we differ little in our views about the value of waterfront expressway removal itself (and I'm certainly not interested in the shelved perimeter road that would have rolled thru the North End).

I think, if I follow the reasoning of the articles posted about this RTH we no longer have the traffic flow in the lower city to justify the road space available. As has been stated repeatedly by yourself, Jason and a few others is the need for an outright reduction in road capacity and other measures that would restructure industrial strength arterials into multi-use corridors in which mobility needs don't overwhelm other possibilities. I have found, however, observing planning debates in Toronto and Vancouver that what seems clearly desirable from an urbanist point of view ends up being less straightforward in practice.

Comment edited by RobF on 2013-04-16 05:45:52

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds