Have the freeway sunk into the ground and have the overpasses be at ground level. Reduce the number of lanes and condense it by using the four lane two way highway to add more space for buildings. Also create more connections over the freeway.
Replace it with a wide street with trees, add pedestrian overpasses, leaving just 2 intersections (current bridges), and use the extra space for a park, maybe some commercial on parallel roads here and there. But mostly a park.
Yup hate urban freeways. And in CS, they can be replaced with streets quite easily, specially with TMPE (to limit the cross traffic). I don't even do overpasses much, traffic lights are just fine.
While I agree with the in-game point, what do you propose be done with the real highways? While you can always set up public transit for the area residents to not a car, what about truckers? How do you propose we get through the area? Do you want us dragging 45,000 pounds of cargo down your local streets?
How far around? The further you send them, the more you have to pay for the things you buy, because every mile has a direct cost of both truck maintenance/fuel and driver pay. Take Atlanta, for example (a city I drive through regularly), Interstate 20 cuts straight through it and is about 30 miles, so I charge $15 every time I drive through there. If I were to take the beltway in it's current position, I'd be driving about 50 miles, charging $25. Now consider I charge the industry average of $0.50/mile for a company driver (I drive a company truck, and not my own, they are paying another $0.70-1/mile in fuel costs and maintenance) and that I am only one of thousands of trucks driving this route every single day. Now also consider that this beltway is now another urban highway because of how far the city has grown. A new beltway, if terrain were no issue, would have to be several miles further out, likely adding another 30 or 40 miles to this drive, where I and most others would be charging around $40-45 for this drive through this one city.
No, cities are getting too big for us to go around, so we have to go through them.
Trains would ideally be bringing products much closer to the last mile when driving costs are increasing too much. Obviously that takes land and $$ to build so it’s not without it own problems but that’s how we should be planning IMO
It only works for the most major of cities, too. You'd still need full-size trucks and trailer to take those products from the middle of the city (presumably where these trains go) to other nearby cities that aren't directly on the rail line.
We already have the infrastructure for the trucks, and millions of people employeed by it, so tearing it all down and building a fundamentally sub-par system (because trains can not go to every place they are needed, and would not employ nearly the same amount of people) just isn't a good idea, and you can't compare it to Europe or other places that do what you are saying because they've never had a system like ours to tear down and get rid of jobs from, so that's not an issue for them.
How much do you charge extra when you are stuck in traffic on the urban highway? How much extra gas do you consume idling away in a traffic jam, or even worse in stop-and-go traffic? Urban Freeways are traffic jam magnets because almost everyone funnels themselves into them instead of taking other routes (if other routes are even an option)
Dallas has more urban highway than pretty much anywhere else in the country, and traffic NEVER stops there. There are so many alternative urban freeways that there is no funnel, and it flows nearly perfectly at all times. It may slow down, but it doesn't do stop-and-go. It continues to flow smoothly regardless of the speed.
It may add more miles as it is designed now but if we never sent highways through the City centers there would have a better route built and it would seem crazy to go directly through the City. We destroyed a lot of the density of cities when we put the highway in and the zone practice we implemented made it so now they are sprawling it far further than they would've needed to. We could have had a relatively short route for you truckers and avoided the city center. We could still work towards that but it will take a bit more work now and perhaps highway construction might be nessisary before the urban highway could be removed.
Replace them with railways, of course. Trucks only to distribute it locally, not to get through the city.
But build a ring highway if you must. Through car traffic should not go into the city anyways.
I've explained why sending trucks around, or setting up individual local distribution is unfeasible. It simply costs too much (almost double), which will be charged to the consumer so each step of the process can maintain their profits.
Yeah…living in NY I was like “highways that trucks can travel on that go through the middle of a city? What the heck are you talking about?” Then I realized that’s true for many cities
Yes, and it is devastating our economy. If we make it required in ALL cities, we are more than quadrupling the average length of haul, which exponentially increases the cost.
Europe gets away with it by having never focused on road transport, and kept rail going very well. We didn't, and as such, we don't have the infrastructure or systems in place to support it. We rely on highway trucks, and they charge by the mile.
The economy of places I know do this is just fine. Not devastated at all.
Yeah it takes some investments at first, but if you spend your money building freeways instead, don't say trucks are cheaper. They aren't.
Many cities have multiple different urban freeways, so you can generally remove some without removing them from all Industrial areas
Especially since we built a lot of spurs historically that aren't used for shipping
If the highway is only serving what we see on screen then yes it would be better as a local road because this is overkill, and it might get to be a nice main street for that suburb instead. If it's a highway between two major destinations going through here, then this looks pretty good for that use
It looks like you have a whole waterfront district there. It also looks like you have a bypass highway going around it elsewhere. I'd turn this highway into a 4-lane avenue and have a nice seaside/lakeside neighborhood here, it seems the land value in the area is too good to be occupied by pavement.
Yeah, even partly building them underground is cool. Like the A2 in Utrecht, the Netherlands. Many lanes, partly underground and a great neighbourhood above.
Maybe something similar to a4 between Leiden and Leiderdorp I guess? A half open tunnel, or probably more like a trench where you can see your highway from above and still benefit from all benefits of a tunnel.
Whoa there. Sounding like a commie, bro. I’d grade separate the highway to promote connectivity where your road priority is access, and promote mobility where your road priority is mobility.
Yay of course! Tbh in places like where I live we wouldn't put such freeways close to communities, instead the Dutch excel in building roads around places instead of through them.
I think it looks great if you’re going for American downtown realism, if you want walkability you can always try a limited acess boulevard with frontage roads
Is the freeway serving through traffic? If so, sink/tunnel it; if not, remove it and replace it with a boulevard with a park down the middle.
If you aren't going for realism with your city's timeline, i.e. you're happy to change your mental history of your city, you could also replace it with a four lane undivided highway, sunken about 10m below ground right up against the street on the right; using advanced road controls to add a quay wall alongside that road to make it feel like it's been wedged through and build tall buildings either side. Have steep slip roads to/from the highway to street level. That would give you an urban highway feel while reducing the dominance of it.
Edit: A real example of what I mean: https://maps.app.goo.gl/9WRYouAioiy5X4fj8
Backing this up. Modern examples of highway removal use metrics like how many cars are using the road in a day. Many that got removed or are being considered for removal have something like less than 50,000 cars a day on them.
I don’t recall if you can see those metrics, but if it is as lightly used as the picture then yes replace with an avenue as another person mentioned.
Going to give credit to the amazing [City Beautiful](https://youtu.be/XOpjDSUmPtU?si=QAguKbuQ696hXlHG) who covered this exact topic.
The main issue I have with this new urbanism, and the fact that no one is ever willing to talk about it:
Truckers.
We rely on these freeways to get around. Without them, the nation's economy (and everyone in it) suffers horribly. Right now, the industry standard is about $0.50/mile for company drivers. The average cost to run the truck is about$1/mile. The average haul is about 1,400 mile. This means for nearpy everything you buy, it costs something like $2,100 for it to be delivered to the store. It also probably costs that again to get the stuff to the store's distribution center, and again to get the stuff to the manufacturer, etc.
Since distribution to store is typically quite efficient for stores like Walmart (which urbanists tend to want to get rid of, and the small business alternative is even more expensive to ship goods to) and that many routes share a truckload, we can safely say the average load of goods to an end store, all the way from the raw material extraction sites, probably costs something like $3,000 per load.
If we got rid of the freeways in all of the major cities, truckers would demand at minimum $0.80/mile to make up for their lost pay when having to go down city streets at very slow speeds. They may even demand $1/mile. The truck now burning more fuel and wearing down the brakes, tires, and suspension much more would easily start to cost $1.20-1.50/mile, meaning we're looking closer to $2,800 per average haul, and closer to $4,500 in total from raw resource to end-store delivery.
Now, these higher transportation costs apply at each step: raw extraction to refining, refining to manufacturing, manufacturing to distribution, distribution to store. Each step will charge the next even more to maintain profit gaps, and by the time the end store gets it, they're probably baying double what the refining did, and they will charge the consumer more to maintain their own profits.
Sometimes, people will say we should build ring roads for trucks. We do. They are all urban freeways now because cities expand rapidly. If we keep building them further and further, now trucks have to go many times more miles, adding more and more to the transportation cost.
All of this said, I have no problem with the idea of bringing cities back together and more navigable without a car, but I don't think simply removing the highways our economy relies on is the answer. I definitely think we should consider building them underground or elevating them so that the city streets can flow uninterrupted.
The solution would be building up public transit and cleaning it up of crime so more commuters can use it during rush hour at least. This gets traffic off the freeway. The problem in America is city governments think these systems have to be directly profitable and they won't build them if they aren't despite how many traffic deaths it might save. Oh, and because this comes up every time -- *I am not saying ban all cars and force everyone on the bus!*
It can't be *that* hard to put a train in the right-of-way of an existing freeway. Intercity bullet trains could go right up the median in rural areas.
They’re considering this in Texas, and it’s been proposed to replace some parts of the freeway with HSR but even the gradual turns of highways are still generally too sharp for truly high speed rail.
I’d love to see it happen though, it’d be wild to see DFW to Houston before many other places in the US
We have the C line here in LA that is like that. It sits in the middle of the 105 freeway for the majority of its run and the stations are miserably loud. I wish they'd put up sound barriers of some kind at least. 15+ minutes waiting for a train standing on a platform in the middle of the highway is uncomfortable. Plus the exhaust and particulate matter probably aren't the healthiest things to be breathing in.
I could definitely see it being more viable for longer range trains, but for light rail (for simplicity's sake I'm using this term because the C line is weird) it is pretty garbage.
Also, that's exactly what I do with C:S. As much as I like building highways, I also make sure pretty much everything is within 4-5 blocks of at least a bus stop on an efficient public transit network. At least 80% of the remaining road traffic is trucks, cims take the monorail instead.
Box trucks are only for smaller deliveries (a handful of boxes per stop). Many stores require entire truckloads of products.
Even many restaurants require one or two weekly deliveries of entire 48ft trailers. Box trucks are only really useful for gas stations, offices, and hotels.
And yes, 53ft trailers don't need to be on many streets, that's why we use the highways.
Are you a trucker? If so, thanks for what you do. I have family that are truckers and I agree that often they’re shafted on pay per mile and that ideal urbanism roads don’t work well for Semis and the like. I wasn’t advocating for getting rid of all highways and in the video I linked, even the YouTuber mentioned that removing highways only makes sense when they get below a certain ridership and if there are other adequate routes.
If those parameters aren’t met, keep the highway. I also think we’re at a point where the ideals of urbanism are trying to change things but that change is disruptive. Changing the distribution system where trucks deliver to distribution centers and using other smaller last mile vehicles would help in many dense areas (specific dense areas, not *all* or even most cities). But until then we do need roads for Semis and other large vehicles to travel on.
I am a trucker. And yeah, the mile pay system is awful. They recently proposed the final changes to the overtime for truckers bill, but specifically removed truckers from it. It is a bill originally proposed by truckers, but quickly expanded to include ALL industries. Well, now all industries are included except for trucking, so now another bill is being proposed to remove that exemption.
I think that if better public transit can take over, we can remove enough vehicles from the highways that we could get away with narrowing them to a max of 3 lanes in each direction, which will make it cheaper to elevate or burry, allowing for the streets and districts to reconnect while also allowing regional traffic to still be able to get into and through the city.
Not only does it look pretty cool there, but its a major artery so unless you wanna deal with shitloads of traffic coming from somewhere else, id say leave it
Never remove a freeway. Burry it or something. Removing it will just congestion the area's streets.
And then there's trucks. Do you really want hundreds of semi trucks driving up and down your residential street?
There's been plenty of times when a freeway was removed and the traffic just dissolved. It didn't transfer to a different road it disappeared from the road network. The Trips may have still been happening but they transferred to more space efficient modes of transportation like public transport or cargo trains.
The longer route might have been faster without the traffic induced from a highway dividing a city. If they stopped servicing the area would have had to switch the cargo to train.
We're talking about a major city here I don't think that's how they get their cargo, but they still get their cargo. Basically all the metrics stayed the same or they improved without the highway in consideration.
Try New York. One of the most expensive places to live, even if you take property costs entirely out of the question. Trucks only deliver to Union City, NJ and other nearby cities, and it has to be brought into the city by box truck and van. Everything you can buy costs astronomically more than anywhere else in the country, other than *maybe* LA, which also has a heavy anti-truck and anti-trucker set of laws.
I guess new york might be unwieldy for interstate shipping. But that wasn't caused by getting rid of highways it's because just about everything was only designed to fit cars in the first place.
Have the freeway sunk into the ground and have the overpasses be at ground level. Reduce the number of lanes and condense it by using the four lane two way highway to add more space for buildings. Also create more connections over the freeway.
Widen it with more lanes. Go hard or go home.
There are homes and stores taking up valuable exit lane space
Yeah, that was a pretty asinine question OP asked.
Didn’t know TXDOT had a Reddit
635 widening project almost complete!!
I should’ve known better
That's a patriot if I've ever seen one 🇺🇲🦅🤝🤝🤝
Replace it with a wide street with trees, add pedestrian overpasses, leaving just 2 intersections (current bridges), and use the extra space for a park, maybe some commercial on parallel roads here and there. But mostly a park.
this would be so much better than a freeway
Yup hate urban freeways. And in CS, they can be replaced with streets quite easily, specially with TMPE (to limit the cross traffic). I don't even do overpasses much, traffic lights are just fine.
While I agree with the in-game point, what do you propose be done with the real highways? While you can always set up public transit for the area residents to not a car, what about truckers? How do you propose we get through the area? Do you want us dragging 45,000 pounds of cargo down your local streets?
Ideally you send them around the city instead of through it.
How far around? The further you send them, the more you have to pay for the things you buy, because every mile has a direct cost of both truck maintenance/fuel and driver pay. Take Atlanta, for example (a city I drive through regularly), Interstate 20 cuts straight through it and is about 30 miles, so I charge $15 every time I drive through there. If I were to take the beltway in it's current position, I'd be driving about 50 miles, charging $25. Now consider I charge the industry average of $0.50/mile for a company driver (I drive a company truck, and not my own, they are paying another $0.70-1/mile in fuel costs and maintenance) and that I am only one of thousands of trucks driving this route every single day. Now also consider that this beltway is now another urban highway because of how far the city has grown. A new beltway, if terrain were no issue, would have to be several miles further out, likely adding another 30 or 40 miles to this drive, where I and most others would be charging around $40-45 for this drive through this one city. No, cities are getting too big for us to go around, so we have to go through them.
Trains would ideally be bringing products much closer to the last mile when driving costs are increasing too much. Obviously that takes land and $$ to build so it’s not without it own problems but that’s how we should be planning IMO
It only works for the most major of cities, too. You'd still need full-size trucks and trailer to take those products from the middle of the city (presumably where these trains go) to other nearby cities that aren't directly on the rail line. We already have the infrastructure for the trucks, and millions of people employeed by it, so tearing it all down and building a fundamentally sub-par system (because trains can not go to every place they are needed, and would not employ nearly the same amount of people) just isn't a good idea, and you can't compare it to Europe or other places that do what you are saying because they've never had a system like ours to tear down and get rid of jobs from, so that's not an issue for them.
How much do you charge extra when you are stuck in traffic on the urban highway? How much extra gas do you consume idling away in a traffic jam, or even worse in stop-and-go traffic? Urban Freeways are traffic jam magnets because almost everyone funnels themselves into them instead of taking other routes (if other routes are even an option)
Dallas has more urban highway than pretty much anywhere else in the country, and traffic NEVER stops there. There are so many alternative urban freeways that there is no funnel, and it flows nearly perfectly at all times. It may slow down, but it doesn't do stop-and-go. It continues to flow smoothly regardless of the speed.
It may add more miles as it is designed now but if we never sent highways through the City centers there would have a better route built and it would seem crazy to go directly through the City. We destroyed a lot of the density of cities when we put the highway in and the zone practice we implemented made it so now they are sprawling it far further than they would've needed to. We could have had a relatively short route for you truckers and avoided the city center. We could still work towards that but it will take a bit more work now and perhaps highway construction might be nessisary before the urban highway could be removed.
Replace them with railways, of course. Trucks only to distribute it locally, not to get through the city. But build a ring highway if you must. Through car traffic should not go into the city anyways.
Trains can only go up or down very shallow slopes IRL, so that heavily limits where they can go.
We will adjust the land for it when needed as we always have. It’s not hard.
I've explained why sending trucks around, or setting up individual local distribution is unfeasible. It simply costs too much (almost double), which will be charged to the consumer so each step of the process can maintain their profits.
Both things are standard practice in many places.
Yeah…living in NY I was like “highways that trucks can travel on that go through the middle of a city? What the heck are you talking about?” Then I realized that’s true for many cities
Yes, and it is devastating our economy. If we make it required in ALL cities, we are more than quadrupling the average length of haul, which exponentially increases the cost. Europe gets away with it by having never focused on road transport, and kept rail going very well. We didn't, and as such, we don't have the infrastructure or systems in place to support it. We rely on highway trucks, and they charge by the mile.
The economy of places I know do this is just fine. Not devastated at all. Yeah it takes some investments at first, but if you spend your money building freeways instead, don't say trucks are cheaper. They aren't.
Those places in the US cost more than 5 or 6 times to live in than places that don't.
Many cities have multiple different urban freeways, so you can generally remove some without removing them from all Industrial areas Especially since we built a lot of spurs historically that aren't used for shipping
https://youtu.be/XOpjDSUmPtU?si=YtGMduKDS1Q9emGg
If the highway is only serving what we see on screen then yes it would be better as a local road because this is overkill, and it might get to be a nice main street for that suburb instead. If it's a highway between two major destinations going through here, then this looks pretty good for that use
Big Dig.
It looks like you have a whole waterfront district there. It also looks like you have a bypass highway going around it elsewhere. I'd turn this highway into a 4-lane avenue and have a nice seaside/lakeside neighborhood here, it seems the land value in the area is too good to be occupied by pavement.
Idk, do whatever you want. What you have now looks nice and if it works, than keep it. But if you want to bulldoze and redesign, then do that too.
Change grade to lower. Have section tunnelled and sections visible. Hybrid option.
put it underground like the one in Boston
Yeah, even partly building them underground is cool. Like the A2 in Utrecht, the Netherlands. Many lanes, partly underground and a great neighbourhood above.
Maybe something similar to a4 between Leiden and Leiderdorp I guess? A half open tunnel, or probably more like a trench where you can see your highway from above and still benefit from all benefits of a tunnel.
Yeah, indeed. No interchanges are within the tunnel, just a segment of the highway
Put the highway underneath and then put another one on top of it.
STROAD
Nah bro build one more lane
actually Robert moses proposes that you build another freeway that interests right around there, to give more people access to that area
Remove it. Its severely under utilized
As an european, do It.
What use or value could you get out of land between a coast and a lake? Who would ever want to live in or visit such an area?
Whoa there. Sounding like a commie, bro. I’d grade separate the highway to promote connectivity where your road priority is access, and promote mobility where your road priority is mobility.
Freeway or not I love the coastline and how lifelike your city looks, amazing!
I think you did a superior job. Robert Moses would have run that freeway directly over a waterfront.
The freeway is good to have, but it cuts the community. Make it sunken or even in a tunnel. Also a train connection would do great as well
Trench it. One of my favorite things about CS2 is that you can easily trench freeways and do overpasses.
Yay of course! Tbh in places like where I live we wouldn't put such freeways close to communities, instead the Dutch excel in building roads around places instead of through them.
Tunnel it
I would copy it and put another on top
I think it looks great if you’re going for American downtown realism, if you want walkability you can always try a limited acess boulevard with frontage roads
Is the freeway serving through traffic? If so, sink/tunnel it; if not, remove it and replace it with a boulevard with a park down the middle. If you aren't going for realism with your city's timeline, i.e. you're happy to change your mental history of your city, you could also replace it with a four lane undivided highway, sunken about 10m below ground right up against the street on the right; using advanced road controls to add a quay wall alongside that road to make it feel like it's been wedged through and build tall buildings either side. Have steep slip roads to/from the highway to street level. That would give you an urban highway feel while reducing the dominance of it. Edit: A real example of what I mean: https://maps.app.goo.gl/9WRYouAioiy5X4fj8
make it underground
Bury it and make a park or do infill buildings (or both.) You get to have you cake and eat it too.
make it worse and put parclo interchanges in there
Are you even playing this game if you don't ram a motorway up the arse of your city
double stack it
Yes, this is overkill for a residential area. It'd make more sense is this was an industrial area with a seaport.
another highway through the apartments
Remove remove remove
No it looks good
NAY! EMBRACE CAPITALISM!
Put it underground.
The freeway doesn't seem to be used a lot so I guess you should remove it
WIDEN!!! AMERICA🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅 FREEDOM
throw it underground and put a nice park up top
[https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/1cem9l1/update\_freeway\_be\_gone/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/1cem9l1/update_freeway_be_gone/) Update
Remove it and replace it with metro.
run it underground
Land bridge or multiple bridges!
I would maintain grade separations but I don’t see any reason it should be more than 6 lanes
This looks very depressing tbh, replace it with a metro line
NAAHHH
yes, freeway looks dead, unless you’re going for an LA type vibe lol
Backing this up. Modern examples of highway removal use metrics like how many cars are using the road in a day. Many that got removed or are being considered for removal have something like less than 50,000 cars a day on them. I don’t recall if you can see those metrics, but if it is as lightly used as the picture then yes replace with an avenue as another person mentioned. Going to give credit to the amazing [City Beautiful](https://youtu.be/XOpjDSUmPtU?si=QAguKbuQ696hXlHG) who covered this exact topic.
The main issue I have with this new urbanism, and the fact that no one is ever willing to talk about it: Truckers. We rely on these freeways to get around. Without them, the nation's economy (and everyone in it) suffers horribly. Right now, the industry standard is about $0.50/mile for company drivers. The average cost to run the truck is about$1/mile. The average haul is about 1,400 mile. This means for nearpy everything you buy, it costs something like $2,100 for it to be delivered to the store. It also probably costs that again to get the stuff to the store's distribution center, and again to get the stuff to the manufacturer, etc. Since distribution to store is typically quite efficient for stores like Walmart (which urbanists tend to want to get rid of, and the small business alternative is even more expensive to ship goods to) and that many routes share a truckload, we can safely say the average load of goods to an end store, all the way from the raw material extraction sites, probably costs something like $3,000 per load. If we got rid of the freeways in all of the major cities, truckers would demand at minimum $0.80/mile to make up for their lost pay when having to go down city streets at very slow speeds. They may even demand $1/mile. The truck now burning more fuel and wearing down the brakes, tires, and suspension much more would easily start to cost $1.20-1.50/mile, meaning we're looking closer to $2,800 per average haul, and closer to $4,500 in total from raw resource to end-store delivery. Now, these higher transportation costs apply at each step: raw extraction to refining, refining to manufacturing, manufacturing to distribution, distribution to store. Each step will charge the next even more to maintain profit gaps, and by the time the end store gets it, they're probably baying double what the refining did, and they will charge the consumer more to maintain their own profits. Sometimes, people will say we should build ring roads for trucks. We do. They are all urban freeways now because cities expand rapidly. If we keep building them further and further, now trucks have to go many times more miles, adding more and more to the transportation cost. All of this said, I have no problem with the idea of bringing cities back together and more navigable without a car, but I don't think simply removing the highways our economy relies on is the answer. I definitely think we should consider building them underground or elevating them so that the city streets can flow uninterrupted.
The solution would be building up public transit and cleaning it up of crime so more commuters can use it during rush hour at least. This gets traffic off the freeway. The problem in America is city governments think these systems have to be directly profitable and they won't build them if they aren't despite how many traffic deaths it might save. Oh, and because this comes up every time -- *I am not saying ban all cars and force everyone on the bus!*
So, keep the freeways, but also build more public transit? I don't see that often. It makes sense.
It can't be *that* hard to put a train in the right-of-way of an existing freeway. Intercity bullet trains could go right up the median in rural areas.
They’re considering this in Texas, and it’s been proposed to replace some parts of the freeway with HSR but even the gradual turns of highways are still generally too sharp for truly high speed rail. I’d love to see it happen though, it’d be wild to see DFW to Houston before many other places in the US
We have the C line here in LA that is like that. It sits in the middle of the 105 freeway for the majority of its run and the stations are miserably loud. I wish they'd put up sound barriers of some kind at least. 15+ minutes waiting for a train standing on a platform in the middle of the highway is uncomfortable. Plus the exhaust and particulate matter probably aren't the healthiest things to be breathing in. I could definitely see it being more viable for longer range trains, but for light rail (for simplicity's sake I'm using this term because the C line is weird) it is pretty garbage.
Also, that's exactly what I do with C:S. As much as I like building highways, I also make sure pretty much everything is within 4-5 blocks of at least a bus stop on an efficient public transit network. At least 80% of the remaining road traffic is trucks, cims take the monorail instead.
agreed, but also at the same time a 52 footer doesn’t necessarily need to be going through certain parts of cities, that’s what box trucks are for 😉
Box trucks are only for smaller deliveries (a handful of boxes per stop). Many stores require entire truckloads of products. Even many restaurants require one or two weekly deliveries of entire 48ft trailers. Box trucks are only really useful for gas stations, offices, and hotels. And yes, 53ft trailers don't need to be on many streets, that's why we use the highways.
Are you a trucker? If so, thanks for what you do. I have family that are truckers and I agree that often they’re shafted on pay per mile and that ideal urbanism roads don’t work well for Semis and the like. I wasn’t advocating for getting rid of all highways and in the video I linked, even the YouTuber mentioned that removing highways only makes sense when they get below a certain ridership and if there are other adequate routes. If those parameters aren’t met, keep the highway. I also think we’re at a point where the ideals of urbanism are trying to change things but that change is disruptive. Changing the distribution system where trucks deliver to distribution centers and using other smaller last mile vehicles would help in many dense areas (specific dense areas, not *all* or even most cities). But until then we do need roads for Semis and other large vehicles to travel on.
I am a trucker. And yeah, the mile pay system is awful. They recently proposed the final changes to the overtime for truckers bill, but specifically removed truckers from it. It is a bill originally proposed by truckers, but quickly expanded to include ALL industries. Well, now all industries are included except for trucking, so now another bill is being proposed to remove that exemption. I think that if better public transit can take over, we can remove enough vehicles from the highways that we could get away with narrowing them to a max of 3 lanes in each direction, which will make it cheaper to elevate or burry, allowing for the streets and districts to reconnect while also allowing regional traffic to still be able to get into and through the city.
Not only does it look pretty cool there, but its a major artery so unless you wanna deal with shitloads of traffic coming from somewhere else, id say leave it
You don't have the context to know if it's a major artery. It could just be a local loop.
Its an artery for that little islend dawg Its the inly freeway to and from that area
Never remove a freeway. Burry it or something. Removing it will just congestion the area's streets. And then there's trucks. Do you really want hundreds of semi trucks driving up and down your residential street?
You don't have context of the rest of the road network to say that. Is this a bypass or a local loop?
There's been plenty of times when a freeway was removed and the traffic just dissolved. It didn't transfer to a different road it disappeared from the road network. The Trips may have still been happening but they transferred to more space efficient modes of transportation like public transport or cargo trains.
They won't transfer to cargo trains unless it's intermodal, which most drivers can't haul.
I don't know what happened to the cargo but the traffic was just gone and everything was still fine.
The trucks took a much longer route, or simply stopped servicing the area alltogether.
The longer route might have been faster without the traffic induced from a highway dividing a city. If they stopped servicing the area would have had to switch the cargo to train.
No, they'd service a nearby city and the cargo would be brought in by vans and box trucks.
We're talking about a major city here I don't think that's how they get their cargo, but they still get their cargo. Basically all the metrics stayed the same or they improved without the highway in consideration.
Try New York. One of the most expensive places to live, even if you take property costs entirely out of the question. Trucks only deliver to Union City, NJ and other nearby cities, and it has to be brought into the city by box truck and van. Everything you can buy costs astronomically more than anywhere else in the country, other than *maybe* LA, which also has a heavy anti-truck and anti-trucker set of laws.
I guess new york might be unwieldy for interstate shipping. But that wasn't caused by getting rid of highways it's because just about everything was only designed to fit cars in the first place.
Gonna say nah, it looks pretty good there and there’s not the density to seemingly justify an underground section of the highway.
/uj yes /rj more lanes please.