^interesting tidbit of info there.

 

I don't think anyone will disagree with you that the level of overbuilding roads our state & nation has done is unsustainable.  What you haven't rectified is the job creation aspect that all this roadbuilding & maintaining has sustained.  I don't have the statistics but I'm sure it's readily available how many union workers are employed, making good wages, doing road & bridge projects, both new construction and maintenance.  Cutting the budgets for these types of projects will cut the employment of this sector directly by the same proportion.  Middle class jobs gone...?

Just slowly raise the gas taxes to the amount that it takes to pay for the highways and let the free market decide what vehicles are produced rather than the government with CAFE regulations. People will be free to choose how much of their income they want to devote to driving.

 

I always get nervous when someone proposes a solution by starting out saying "Just...." As if the solution is so simple. It's not. How many roads have we built that are not used as often as planned, or as they once were but aren't anymore? I can name many of them, starting with the West Shoreway. And you used "taxes" and "free market" as part of the same solution. I consider them oxymorons. If the free market should be at work here, then government should not be owning, financing and building roads. If the market determines there should be roads, then let the private sector own, finance and build them with no government involvement.

 

Think the private sector doesn't belong in owning and financing roads? They were, in the 1800s. This included Detroit Road through Lakewood which was a private plank road financed by tolls. Here is a tollbooth for the Detroit Plank Road Company at Warren Road in Lakewood.....

 

Of course, but I think privatizing the road system for the most part isn't really all that realistic, especially in a timeframe of less than 50 years. And there would be untold amounts of kicking and screaming by users -- much worse than an increase in taxes. Also, then you'd bring in both profit motive and it's dark side, profit need.

^interesting tidbit of info there.

 

I don't think anyone will disagree with you that the level of overbuilding roads our state & nation has done is unsustainable.  What you haven't rectified is the job creation aspect that all this roadbuilding & maintaining has sustained.  I don't have the statistics but I'm sure it's readily available how many union workers are employed, making good wages, doing road & bridge projects, both new construction and maintenance.  Cutting the budgets for these types of projects will cut the employment of this sector directly by the same proportion.  Middle class jobs gone...?

 

What impact did streetcars and, later, automobiles have on the horse and buggy industry? It was devastating. And yet the economy kept on growing. What are millennials spending their money on if they aren't spending it on cars? According to AAA, Clevelanders spend $10,000 per year on owning, driving and maintaining their cars. Some of that is spent locally, but much of it is not. What would the economic impact be locally? We'll find out.

 

Of course, but I think privatizing the road system for the most part isn't really all that realistic, especially in a timeframe of less than 50 years. And there would be untold amounts of kicking and screaming by users -- much worse than an increase in taxes. Also, then you'd bring in both profit motive and it's dark side, profit need.

 

And I don't think the roadway system can be privatized, at least not at the local level. Interstates? That's a different story because of their limited access.

I will say it again it is OBSOLETE and you think it is better to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a patch job of an obsolete bridge. 

 

It doesn't matter what I think, it matters what ODOT thinks.

 

One other thing worth noting here, and ties back to some of KJP's comments about major roads being shut down, and possibly the Main Avenue Bridge, in the near future due to lack of funding...  while I totally respect KJP's insight on transportation issues, I just don't see this ever happening.  Not because it doesn't make financial sense, but because our elected leaders will never go for it. 

 

Road work = jobs.  What candidate is going to successfully run on the platform that more roads need closed down and they are going to work toward that goal?  At the same time, the road building industry is a powerful lobby.  Labor unions, asphalt, concrete, steel & stone suppliers, equipment companies...  they will bankroll candidates who vow to support bigger road budgets.  Who's bankrolling candidates that say "shut it down, let it be overtaken by nature"?   

 

The very topic we are discussing, the Shoreway conversion, is being pitched very hard because local leaders want this construction project in their backyard, to show progress, to show jobs & economic activity.  Who wants a busted up broken down highway in their district with pi$$ed off commuters in their district?  Nobody.  So just like local leaders "found" money for the second Innerbelt bridge and "found" money to move forward with the 73rd interchange on the Shoreway, I'm sure they will find money to replace the Main Avenue bridge and whatever else is needed.

 

444 million at gold plated rates for a light rail line parallel to route 2, Transit actually creates more jobs than roads do. in addition it creates more jobs simply from the operation of transit line.

 

I am seeking to frame a Choice between the status Quo and the alternatives.

 

We have a public that wants better roads, better transit and more transportation choice. but is unwilling to give up anything to get it.

 

The Choice is this Would you give up the main avenue bridge to pay for an expansion of Transit system to Western Suburbs?  would you prefer this?

 

route 2 is a specil situation because the politicians have already agreed to downgrade the roadway, at the expense of the commuter losing the bridge may not be as big of a leap as you think.

http://www.noaca.org/CUYSR2PID91115.html

 

On June 8, 2012, The NOACA Governing Board approved the following regarding this project: Resolution No. 2012-029 Project Planning Review and Resolution No. 2012-030 Plan and TIP Amendment. The Project Planning Review (PPR) and Intergovernmental Review & Consultation (IGRC) processes for this project are now complete.

 

Title: Repairs to the Main Avenue Bridge in Cleveland

Sponsor: Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) District 12

Name: CUY SR-2-14.41

PID No.: 91115

Estimated Total Cost: $10,000,000

Proposed Source of Federal Funds: ODOT

 

History/Background: This project is included in ODOT District 12’s Major Bridge Program.

 

Current Conditions: SR-2, a six-lane facility, is functionally classified as an urban principal arterial freeway/expressway. The legal speed limit is 55 mph. The average daily traffic is 35,090 vehicles (NOACA Cuyahoga County Highway Traffic Counts, 2006 - 2009).

 

Proposed Project: This project involves structural steel repairs to the truss portion of the Main Avenue Bridge, over the Cuyahoga River, in Cleveland (location map). The estimated total construction cost is $10,000,000. Eighty percent ($8,000,000) of the construction cost will be funded from district’s Preservation (highways & bridges) Program. ODOT will fund the 20 percent ($2,000,000) non-federal share. The project’s estimated award date is December 1, 2013.

 

Staff Comment (Summary):

 

Short Range Planning: Project Development and Member Services Team

This project is consistent with NOACA’s Connections 2030 Goal #3 (Preserve and Improve the Efficiency of the Transportation System) and ODOT’s Access Ohio 2004 - 2030 Goal #4 (System Preservation).

Recommend committee and public review in order to obtain comments.

 

Intergovernmental Review and Consultation (IGRC):

 

If you are a representative of a governmental entity and would like to comment on this project, please email us.

 

City of University Heights:

"The City of University Heights supports this project."

 

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA):

"RTA supports this project as an improvement to the public roadway network as it aids all of us. RTA has no service on this street and bridge."

 

Cuyahoga County Department of Public Works:

"Cuyahoga County is supportive of the project. However, we would like ODOT to share their long range maintenance/replacement plan for this bridge."

 

Public Involvement:

 

NOACA encourages comments from the public on this proposed transportation improvement project. Please notify us if you would like to be added to our e-mail notification list for future updates.

 

Committee Review:

 

Regional Transportation Investment Subcommittee (RTIS)/Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC):

"No comments; recommended for amendment to NOACA's Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)."

Cuyahoga County Department of Public Works:

"Cuyahoga County is supportive of the project. However, we would like ODOT to share their long range maintenance/replacement plan for this bridge."

 

 

Interesting!! Sounds like ODOT doesn't have a long-term maintenance/replacement plan for the bridge. Perhaps it's because they can't afford to replace it, or because they can't justify the large expense based on the roadway's small traffic counts.

is it typical for ODOT to share such long range maintenance/replacement plans?  Would it matter if they said they planned to complete structural repairs in the next 2 yrs, then do a full replacement in 20 yrs?  I ask the question because we've seen so much in the way of moving targets for these projects with the Shoreway & Innerbelt, nothing ODOT says would surprise me...  whether it was "we've got the money" or "we don't have the money"

is it typical for ODOT to share such long range maintenance/replacement plans?  Would it matter if they said they planned to complete structural repairs in the next 2 yrs, then do a full replacement in 20 yrs?  I ask the question because we've seen so much in the way of moving targets for these projects with the Shoreway & Innerbelt, nothing ODOT says would surprise me...  whether it was "we've got the money" or "we don't have the money"

 

This would be the time to Stop waiting on God/ODOT to make decisions for the Future of our region and have our local officials take initiative on our transportation needs.

 

the Idea that we cannot get  a straight answer from ODOT on the bridge is unacceptable. 

 

If it has to be replaced, let us know, if it has to be repaired let us know.  if they have to shut it down for a Few months let us know  if they have no plans to replace the bridge Let us know

 

If we don't know we cannot plan.  This bridge because it is not an interstate but a state route seems to be treated alot differently than the Innerbelt bridge.

 

the Lack of facts about the condition of the bridge is harming the ability of the region to plan for the future.

 

 

is it typical for ODOT to share such long range maintenance/replacement plans?  Would it matter if they said they planned to complete structural repairs in the next 2 yrs, then do a full replacement in 20 yrs?  I ask the question because we've seen so much in the way of moving targets for these projects with the Shoreway & Innerbelt, nothing ODOT says would surprise me...  whether it was "we've got the money" or "we don't have the money"

 

Yes, it is. And 20 years is close enough that a sizeable expense like replacement of the Main Avenue would merit at least a reference in ODOT's reports to NOACA. And thus it would appear on NOACA's Long-Range Transportation Plan, which is updated every four years and was last updated in 2009, showing the region's anticipated transportation needs 25 years into the future. http://www.noaca.org/connect2030.html

 

The LRTP's only reference to the Main Avenue bridge was under Tier IV (meaning no money is budgeted for it) this:

"Lakefront/CBD/Shoreway: Identify transportation and access improvements along the lakefront from the west end of the Main Avenue Bridge to the Innerbelt Curve in Cleveland"

 

NOACA is updating their LRTP right now and should have a draft released for public input by March.

 

FYI, all major roadway and bridges are on a maintenance and replacement schedule. These schedules, like everything else, get more vague the farther into the future one looks. But all roads and bridge have a "lifespan." That includes things for subgrades, pavement surfaces, bridge decks, structural supports, and more. Depending on their frequency and type of use, or their maintenance schedules, these lifespans can vary widely. But highway engineering is a long and well-practiced profession, and these folks know that with routine maintenance some bridge structures can have their lifespans extended. Sadly, we are not maintaining many structures as we should in an attempt to "save" taxpayers' money. The fact that ODOT has not provided the county with, nor has NOACA published any scheduled maintenance/replacement info about this 73-year-old, 8,000-foot-long bridge is very curious.

Cleveland, shortly after Lakeview Terrace opened in 1937 but built before the Main Avenue-Shoreway bridge was built in 1938-39. Bulkley Boulevard (the West Shoreway's predecessor) is seen at lower-right....

 

 

The Case for a Highway Teardown in Dallas

 

by Angie Schmitt

 

IH-345 in Dallas looks like a perfect candidate for a highway teardown. The 39-year-old, 1.4-mile elevated highway is nearing the end of its useful life, and it’s taking up valuable real estate just outside downtown.

 

Dallas could be a richer city without IH-345, says Patrick Kennedy. Image: D Magazine

 

Patrick Kennedy at Network blog Walkable Dallas Fort Worth estimates the teardown would cost as little as $60 million, while leading to $4 billion in new investment and a surge in property tax revenue.

 

So why isn’t the Texas Department of Transportation investigating this alternative? Kennedy posed the question in a recent article for D Magazine. He certainly makes a good case. Here’s an excerpt he reprinted on his blog:

 

    Just as the system of freeways has shifted population outward, removing IH-345 from downtown would draw people into the city. It would reposition 245 acres so that it could be developed into walkable neighborhoods that could be home to 20,000 new downtown residents. Right now there is only $19 million in improvements on those 245 acres, and the city collects a mere $3 million per year in property tax revenue.

 

    By removing the highway, restitching the grid, and creating developable blocks, the city would see $4 billion in new investment within 15 years and generate $100 million a year in property tax revenue, based on our economic impact analysis. That’s enough in one year to implement the entire bike plan and build a new modern streetcar line from West End to Lower Greenville. Through land sales, TxDOT can generate some revenue to begin paying down its debt rather than adding to it.

OK...here's a big one for you all. Tear out ALL urban freeways inside circumferential highways and reconfigure the Interstate Highway System into the original vision Eisenhower had. Make the land available for light rail lines, bike paths, pedestrian trails and parkland. Put new development on some parcels and start to bring the property tax revenue lost when the roads were constructed. Make the remainder of the Interstate Highway System into toll roads. So there.

OK...here's a big one for you all. Tear out ALL urban freeways inside circumferential highways and reconfigure the Interstate Highway System into the original vision Eisenhower had. Make the land available for light rail lines, bike paths, pedestrian trails and parkland. Put new development on some parcels and start to bring the property tax revenue lost when the roads were constructed. Make the remainder of the Interstate Highway System into toll roads. So there.

 

Amen!  But will never happen.

 

The only cities in North America that I can think of with this sort of arrangement (no freeways rammed straight through their hearts) are New York City (well Manhattan anyway) and Vancouver BC.   

OK...here's a big one for you all. Tear out ALL urban freeways inside circumferential highways and reconfigure the Interstate Highway System into the original vision Eisenhower had. Make the land available for light rail lines, bike paths, pedestrian trails and parkland. Put new development on some parcels and start to bring the property tax revenue lost when the roads were constructed. Make the remainder of the Interstate Highway System into toll roads. So there.

 

Amen!  But will never happen.

 

The only cities in North America that I can think of with this sort of arrangement (no freeways rammed straight through their hearts) are New York City (well Manhattan anyway) and Vancouver BC.   

 

True, but fun to contemplate anyway! BTW, Pittsburgh is another city to consider...it has no circumferential loop road (tho interstates penetrate the heart).

The only cities in North America that I can think of with this sort of arrangement (no freeways rammed straight through their hearts) are New York City (well Manhattan anyway) and Vancouver BC.   

There's a few smaller cities that kept freeways out on the edges of town but that might be as much because they're smaller cities as anything else. Madison WI, Sante Fe NM and Tallahassee FL are the first to come to mind.

Huntington WV kept I-64 out. There were proposals to run it through town (and maybe another Interstate that never happened) but the city had them put it up on the hillside.

The only cities in North America that I can think of with this sort of arrangement (no freeways rammed straight through their hearts) are New York City (well Manhattan anyway) and Vancouver BC.   

 

There are some North American cities that are "light" on the miles of expressway in them, one of them being Toronto. It has only the QEW/Don Valley expressway through town. Windsor is also pretty light -- it has only a boulevard connecting the 401 to the Ambassador Bridge.

Huntington WV kept I-64 out. There were proposals to run it through town (and maybe another Interstate that never happened) but the city had them put it up on the hillside.

 

For better, I believe. The county library in downtown has some fantastic documents that showed the proposed routing alongside the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, which was close to being abandoned at that point. While it wouldn't have required the demolition of thousands of homes in the western part of the city, it would have removed a significant number. The biggest impact would have been through downtown and eastward through the industrial areas by the Chesapeake & Ohio facilities.

 

Instead, the highway snakes through some very hilly terrain on the hill above the city. There are very few vantages to actually see downtown or the city, and the interchanges are far removed from the city. It gives the impression that Huntington is smaller than it actually is. At one point, the city was nearing 100,000 and is now below 50,000. But because the roadway cuts through some hills and is shaded most of the day, and has some very long bridges across valleys, it's the source of a lot of winter accidents.

 

A part of the plan was built - Hal Greer Blvd/WV 10's routing at Cabell Huntington, which was just removed.

 

At least it wasn't as devastating as Charleston. It went through what was the "Red Light District" and the south side neighborhood, which eliminated over 1,000 residences.

 

I wrote a lengthy history many moons ago at Wikipedia, with some images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_64_in_West_Virginia

Oh, interesting about the Hal Greer Stretch. I remember some work there in the early/mid 2000s when I lived there, seemed like they straightened some things out. What did they do this time around?

SB Hal Greer Blvd. turned at Miller and went south on 15th only to rejoin Hal Greer at Washington. You can see the reminents in the aerial. NB always used Hal Greer.

http://goo.gl/maps/jhfkX

OK I remember that. That was the 2003ish work, then.

Jason is executive director of AMATS, the metro planning organization for Summit & Portage counties....

 

Jason Segedy @thestile1972

I recently reviewed Akron's funding application for removing and repurposing the northern end of the Akron Innerbelt freeway.

Jason is executive director of AMATS, the metro planning organization for Summit & Portage counties....

 

Jason Segedy @thestile1972

I recently reviewed Akron's funding application for removing and repurposing the northern end of the Akron Innerbelt freeway.

 

That would be awesome, but when they say the "northern end," where exactly does the "northern end" begin?  (Or, perhaps more accurately, how far south does the "northern end" go?  The Innerbelt as currently built is technically one big northern end, when you stop and think about it.

There should be some planning documentation out there. I'm sure you could find it. ;)

You don't always have to remove a highway to make a community more livable. Instead, you can put it on a Road Diet like this.....

 

This 4-way intersection was transformed from 18 lanes to 8 lanes:

I've been on that street before and after, and it's amazing how much nicer traffic flows. Another example is in Huntington, WV, where a four-lane (with two parking lanes) going westbound was converted to one-lane westbound and one lane eastbound, with a turn lane in the center and variable parking. Folks complained that traffic would queue for those rush hour commuters, but that never materialized. See: http://goo.gl/maps/kmMEL

 

And since that image you have there KJP was taken, infill has come in: http://goo.gl/maps/97TFC

Monday, February 3, 2014

Akron Sets Out to Dismantle a Giant Road

by Angie Schmitt

 

Some places just talk about prioritizing transit and walking over highway construction. But Akron, Ohio, is putting its money where its mouth is.

 

The Akron region will spend more money this year to reduce road capacity than to add it, according to Jason Segedy, head of the Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation Study, the regional planning organization. Of the 39 projects approved for funding this year, the largest is $5 million to decommission a portion of State Route 59, the Akron Innerbelt Freeway.

 

That project will account for 17 percent of AMATS’s 2014 budget. Another 74 percent of AMATS’s budget is being spent on maintaining existing roads, while 14 percent will go toward adding bike and pedestrian infrastructure. And 12 percent will go to projects that add road capacity.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/02/03/akron-sets-out-to-dismantle-a-giant-road/

3 Cities With Freeways Going Nowhere

by LINTON WEEKS

March 01, 201411:11 AM

 

When I was growing up in Memphis in the 1960s, the Feds — and state and local officials — unveiled plans to build a short stretch of Interstate 40 to connect East Memphis with downtown.

 

The proposed corridor of concrete would run through Overton Park, a 342-acre green space of old forest and open fields in the heart of the city. The park features a zoo, an art museum and a handsome bandshell – where young Elvis Presley once played.

 

After the path had been determined and many in-the-way houses had been razed, a small advocacy group, Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, was able to face down "progress," thwart construction and save the park. Today ghostly vestiges of that gap still exist.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/theprotojournalist/2014/03/01/276863260/3-cities-with-freeways-going-nowhere

Can't find a relevant thread, so I'll put this tangent here...

 

 

I've been thinking a lot lately about how insane it is that we not only trust, but basically require, average citizens to drive an automobile. I mean, other than driving, is there any other modern-day activity that could potentially kill other people that we not only allow the average person to do, but require them to do because of the way we have sculpted our built environment over the past half-century? And because we look at it as a requirement, we respond to accidents by having automakers increase safety standards (making cars bigger and heavier) and over-engineering our roadways (increasing turning radii, adding more lanes).

 

I think that in 100 or 150 years, when people look back at our present-day society, people will think we were insane for designing our built environment in this way.

^^^Right there with you.

 

I had a similar thought the other day about on-street parking.  How the heck did we allow that to happen?  With what other commodity in history has the public ever said, "Oh, you bought a new contraption that doesn't fit onto your private property and you want to leave it out on public property all the time?  Sure, go ahead."

^^^Right there with you.

 

I had a similar thought the other day about on-street parking.  How the heck did we allow that to happen?  With what other commodity in history has the public ever said, "Oh, you bought a new contraption that doesn't fit onto your private property and you want to leave it out on public property all the time?  Sure, go ahead."

Well technically we did that with horse drawn carts for centuries before cars.

Well technically we did that with horse drawn carts for centuries before cars.

 

But many people couldn't even afford buying, keeping and feeding a horse, much less a cart or carriage.

^Even so, ancient cities had traffic congestion too. If I remember correctly, I read that ancient Rome had thousands of private carriages that clogged the streets. Traffic congestion did not start with automobiles.

 

 

 

 

 

I just looked up the reference to Rome. This concerns carriages only, and says nothing about wagons or carts.

 

"A final complication was provided by carriages. Carriages for rich men or women to travel in, as an alternative to riding on horseback or being carried in litters, first became a prominent feature in cities in the second half of the sixteenth century, when improvements in springing made them sufficiently comfortable to be enjoyable. Rome had more of them earlier than any other city. In the 1570's or thereabouts Cardinal Charles Borromeo said that two things were necessary for success in Rome, to love God and to own a carriage. by 1594 there were 888 carriages in Rome, owned by 675 people; the grander ones were pulled by six horses. Eighty of them escorted Marquis Ambrosio Spinoloa when he went to have an audience with the pope in 1598."

-Cities and People, Mark Girouard

Akron Inner Belt, six lanes, designed for 100,000 cars per day, as photographed at noon today by the director of AMATS. He noted "Did I see a tumbleweed roll by?"

 

^Best place for figuring out the top speed of your car or motorcycle on a weekday night when you're a student at UA back in the 90s. Not that I ever participated in such hooliganism. :-)

 

Seriously I think they've been talking about ripping this thing out since back then, and it's long overdue.

Well technically we did that with horse drawn carts for centuries before cars.

 

But many people couldn't even afford buying, keeping and feeding a horse, much less a cart or carriage.

 

Correct, and since most people can afford to own a car today, though some may elect not to, why don't we tear out the street in front of YOUR house since I DON'T USE IT?

Look at that picture above. Who, exactly is using that highway? In the middle of the day there are three cars on it. It's detrimental to the community to have such a massive road that divides neighborhoods from Downtown when almost nobody is using it. And it's not like there aren't alternatives. There ARE some times when causing a small handful of people a slightly longer commute is the small price to pay for a much healthier city.

 

Also, you can't be serious about the "most people can afford to own a car today" comment, right? Young people don't want cars because they are incredibly expensive and owning one would severely, and negatively affect their lives. Taking on payments that are several hundred dollars a month for even the most bare bones of a vehicle, increasing gas prices, and absurd maintenance prices totals an average of $9,000 a year for the average American car owner. $9K! When burdened with insane college debt just to get a job that pays 40k a year taking on a $9,000/year expense isn't possible for a lot of people without sacrificing a lot of other basic needs. You need to stop looking at the world from JUST your point of view and actually do some research before making such incredibly incorrect claims. Older, established generations might be able to afford cars, but the massive millennial generation, the ones the torch is being passed to, are not. We're building and redeveloping for the future, not for your status quo.

I really like your response jmicha. I am not sure if you are a millenial or not, but it is cool that you understand the perspective of so many younger people today, like myself.

 

There are many reasons why cities are built the way they are today, as most everyone on here knows and understands at least some of them. Being a millenial myself, 26 years old, my story is a lot like the average person my age. Bachelors degree (economics), student loan debt $37k to start when I graduated, which isn't actually too high compared to a lot of people, took me a year to find a job closer to my field (was in construction in the mean time), now finally starting to hit stride with a nice job in the city.

I drive a '99 model jeep and I am milking it for all it's worth. This student loan debt which I have worked very hard to reduce is still very burdensome (6.75% and 5.7% interest rates from the Fed Gov.). That is a lot of interest. If I had to make payments on a new car right now I would literally have no life, and I love my salary. 

 

To your point more jmicha, I am considering using public transit if/when my car hits the fan. Mostly to save money, but also because now it is more convenient for me here in Cincinnati. (Live near a line and my work is near a line). But I am lucky compared to most. Many of my friends from back home in IA can't afford to move out of their parents because they are still substitute teaching/working construction and are saddled with debt, plus have to drive everywhere.

 

Making cities more ped friendly with better streets and transit WILL save people so much money on car expenses and allow young people to spend more on other things, and allow people to live a healthier, more vibrant, rewarding lifestyle.

 

We are the generation that went through the worst recession since the great depression, we don't think we know it all and you can bet that we are very humble about it. And you can bet that policies that make our lives and other lower disposable income people's lives easier will start to pass and push through in the near future, because it is what makes sense for the future majority.

Well technically we did that with horse drawn carts for centuries before cars.

 

But many people couldn't even afford buying, keeping and feeding a horse, much less a cart or carriage.

 

Correct, and since most people can afford to own a car today, though some may elect not to, why don't we tear out the street in front of YOUR house since I DON'T USE IT?

 

There are fundamental differences between streets, roads, highways, etc. Tearing out a highway that no one uses, instead of spending more money to repair it, is completely reasonable.

Well, the Innerbelt was to connect to a network of highways that was never fully realized - for better or worse. As it was never finished, the Innerbelt/OH 56 dead ended onto some local streets. Not much has changed, but discussions to remove the freeway and convert it into bike paths, parks and parkways have been around for well over two decades.

 

I remember my last trip to Akron, I spent some time photographing the Innerbelt and wondered what the hell went wrong. During the middle of the day, I counted only 15 cars in a 5 minute timespan. The frontage roads had more traffic, but not much.

Someone asked for a map of Akron highway projects?

I got one from 1963.  :drunk:

 

Look at that picture above. Who, exactly is using that highway? In the middle of the day there are three cars on it. It's detrimental to the community to have such a massive road that divides neighborhoods from Downtown when almost nobody is using it. And it's not like there aren't alternatives. There ARE some times when causing a small handful of people a slightly longer commute is the small price to pay for a much healthier city.

 

I live in Akron and have started regularly attending AMATS meetings.  I honestly don't think there is a huge constituency defending that stretch of OH-59 as necessary to the regional transportation system.  Officials from other cities in the AMATS region would probably love to have the annual maintenance budget for that freeway to nowhere back and available for other projects.  It's all about the budget--in which fiscal year(s) do we want to take the hit to remove it, and/or can we draw the maximum amount of federal support for a deconstruction project instead of a construction project?

 

Also, you can't be serious about the "most people can afford to own a car today" comment, right? Young people don't want cars because they are incredibly expensive and owning one would severely, and negatively affect their lives. Taking on payments that are several hundred dollars a month for even the most bare bones of a vehicle, increasing gas prices, and absurd maintenance prices totals an average of $9,000 a year for the average American car owner. $9K! When burdened with insane college debt just to get a job that pays 40k a year taking on a $9,000/year expense isn't possible for a lot of people without sacrificing a lot of other basic needs. You need to stop looking at the world from JUST your point of view and actually do some research before making such incredibly incorrect claims. Older, established generations might be able to afford cars, but the massive millennial generation, the ones the torch is being passed to, are not. We're building and redeveloping for the future, not for your status quo.

 

His comment would still be correct.  "Most people" can afford cars.  That share may be shrinking, but it's still a clear majority.

Look at that picture above. Who, exactly is using that highway? In the middle of the day there are three cars on it. It's detrimental to the community to have such a massive road that divides neighborhoods from Downtown when almost nobody is using it. And it's not like there aren't alternatives. There ARE some times when causing a small handful of people a slightly longer commute is the small price to pay for a much healthier city.

 

I live in Akron and have started regularly attending AMATS meetings.  I honestly don't think there is a huge constituency defending that stretch of OH-59 as necessary to the regional transportation system.  Officials from other cities in the AMATS region would probably love to have the annual maintenance budget for that freeway to nowhere back and available for other projects.  It's all about the budget--in which fiscal year(s) do we want to take the hit to remove it, and/or can we draw the maximum amount of federal support for a deconstruction project instead of a construction project?

 

Also, you can't be serious about the "most people can afford to own a car today" comment, right? Young people don't want cars because they are incredibly expensive and owning one would severely, and negatively affect their lives. Taking on payments that are several hundred dollars a month for even the most bare bones of a vehicle, increasing gas prices, and absurd maintenance prices totals an average of $9,000 a year for the average American car owner. $9K! When burdened with insane college debt just to get a job that pays 40k a year taking on a $9,000/year expense isn't possible for a lot of people without sacrificing a lot of other basic needs. You need to stop looking at the world from JUST your point of view and actually do some research before making such incredibly incorrect claims. Older, established generations might be able to afford cars, but the massive millennial generation, the ones the torch is being passed to, are not. We're building and redeveloping for the future, not for your status quo.

 

His comment would still be correct.  "Most people" can afford cars.  That share may be shrinking, but it's still a clear majority.

 

A majority may own a car, but that doesn't mean they all can really afford it.  I'm sure many of those people are overextending themselves and taking on debt in other areas due to paying so much to own and maintain a car.

His comment would still be correct.  "Most people" can afford cars.  That share may be shrinking, but it's still a clear majority.

 

A majority may own a car, but that doesn't mean they all can really afford it.  I'm sure many of those people are overextending themselves and taking on debt in other areas due to paying so much to own and maintain a car.

 

I'm aware, but I stand by what I said.  Most people can still afford a car, even though that share may be shrinking as the real costs of car ownership increase and real incomes outside the top quintile stagnate.

I'm aware, but I stand by what I said.  Most people can still afford a car, even though that share may be shrinking as the real costs of car ownership increase and real incomes outside the top quintile stagnate.

 

Yes, by sacrificing other expenditures, purchases, etc.

I'm aware, but I stand by what I said.  Most people can still afford a car, even though that share may be shrinking as the real costs of car ownership increase and real incomes outside the top quintile stagnate.

 

Yes, by sacrificing other expenditures, purchases, etc.

How is that different than any other significant purchase?

How is that different than any other significant purchase?

 

Because if you want to participate fully in America's economy, you have no choice but to own a car.

 

As a friend who left the former Soviet Union in 1995 told me "There is no freedom in America without a car."

^I'm not arguing about the need for a car in the US today, I'm arguing that you have to make sacrifices in order to afford anything. I wanted a house, so I made room in my budget for a mortgage, insurance, repair costs. I wanted one car, so I made room in the budget for a car payment, insurance, repair costs. I wanted a smart phone, so I made room in my budget to buy one. The list goes on. Most of us still can make room in our budgets for a car. Obviously it's getting harder to do so though, and over time more and more of us will choose not to make the room in our budget for one.

 

Personally, I'm currently looking for a job that's easier to get to from transit because I don't want to have to make enough sacrifices to my budget to afford a second car. I won't say that I "can't afford" a second car, I could, but the payments for it would have to come from contributions to my 401k and kids' college savings, or I could cancel my cell phone, or quit giving to a couple of charities, or quit eating out a couple times a month, etc.