XPost: ba.transportation, alt.planning.urban, misc.transport.urban-transit   
   From: tscn@adelph.net   
      
   In article <107oc1bggfslhdf@corp.supernews.com>,   
    "Baxter"  wrote:   
      
   > "Robert Coté"  wrote in message   
   > news:tscn-9C17A3.11132813042004@isp.ash.giganews.com...   
   > > In article <1gc73k1.1cx86t71msda12N%stang@iweb.net.au>,   
   > >  stang@iweb.net.au (Aidan Stanger) wrote:   
   > > >   
   > > > 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.   
   >   
   > Nope.  Simply relocated the problem(s).   
      
   Well.... yeah.  Exactly.  Freeways allowed cities to export their   
   problems and import (or retain) a class of captive productive sources of   
   revenue.  Thus saving them from the death spiral of all their   
   inefficiences catching up with them.  Good call Leroy.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)