XPost: ba.transportation, alt.planning.urban, misc.transport.urban-transit   
   From: stang@iweb.net.au   
      
   Robert Coté  wrote:   
   >  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.   
   >   
   'Tis not my own issue, I was responding to someone else's claim, and   
   unlike several other participants in this thread, I can see both sides.   
   However, your claim that "Freeways -saved- what could be salvaged from   
   those urban cores locked in a death spiral" is highly dubious. Just   
   because some of the urban areas were in a bad condition doesn't mean   
   they were in a death spiral. Urban renewal has also occurred in areas   
   without freeways. And don't make the mistake of assuming that just   
   because people in a few places couldn't wait to get out, that was the   
   case everywhere - many people fought against the freeways and lost.   
   > >   
   > > 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.   
      
   And are they right? Have any downtowns been completely destroyed by   
   bypasses?   
   >   
   > > 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.   
      
   Whether you like it or not, zoning is very common, and my comments   
   reflected that fact. Furthermore, many bypasses do not provide vehicular   
   access to the adjacent land, and those that don't are arguably more   
   effective (as there's less induced traffic). Only certain types of   
   bypass will allow such development.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)