XPost: ba.transportation, alt.planning.urban, misc.transport.urban-transit   
   From: stang@iweb.net.au   
      
   George Conklin  wrote:   
   > "Scott Mace"  wrote...   
   > > "Robert Coté"  wrote...   
   > >   
   > > > Roadways are not under exclusive local control.  They are public   
   > > > amenities and subject to public regulation.  As long as localities   
   > > > accept regional, state anf federal funding they are not islands of   
   > > > autonomy.   
   > >   
   > > Such rationale were used to bulldoze neighborhoods in the 50s to blast   
   > > freeways through cities, discriminating with extreme prejudice all   
   > > residents in their way.   
   > >   
   >   
   >    The usual rant.  If roads bypassed downtowns, they were 'destroyed' by   
   > being bypassed.  If they went near downtowns, they were also condemned.   
      
   The people making the first argument are not usually those who make the   
   second, and the problems are unrelated. Both can be valid under some   
   circumstances, but it's not quite how you describe.   
      
   Roads that went through dense urban areas are often very destructive,   
   and have had a devastating effect on residents. However, it's   
   residential areas (not downtown areas) that are decimated, and it should   
   be noted that in some cities the residents were only too happy to see   
   their slums bulldozed!   
      
   I don't recall anyone seriously claiming that bypasses have completely   
   destroyed downtowns, but they've certainly had a strong negative effect   
   on some of the businesses that rely on passing trade, particularly in   
   the smaller towns. The problem can be even worse where shops are allowed   
   to open along the bypass.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)