XPost: ba.transportation, alt.planning.urban, misc.transport.urban-transit   
   From: tscn@adelph.net   
      
   In article <1gc73k1.1cx86t71msda12N%stang@iweb.net.au>,   
    stang@iweb.net.au (Aidan Stanger) wrote:   
      
   > 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 and 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!   
      
   You answer your own issue.  Freeways -saved- what could be salvaged from   
   those urban cores locked in a death spiral.   
      
   >   
   > I don't recall anyone seriously claiming that bypasses have completely   
   > destroyed downtowns,   
      
   Dozens of so called urbanists have made entire careers making this very   
   claim.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   "Allowed" to open?  Sure, the obsolete conventional downtown and it's   
   supporters would love to keep control of any potential competetion but   
   "allowed" smacks of central planning that brought us the urban failures   
   in the first place.  This goes back to the original thread topic and the   
   accusations of transport infrastructure being used to advance other   
   agendas.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)