We have our national gathering coming up May 14-15 in Cincinnati, and I'd love to see you there. Check out some of the speakers here: gathering.strongtowns.org/speakers/
I don't think highways should go through towns or cities-have an off ramp that exits to the urban area that's at least a kilometer away. Barring that, elevated highways through towns and ease up on zoning so cheap shops and homes (≈300 per month) could be built underneath and nearby. Don't destroy buildings, let the highway conform to the city.
Back in the late 1980s and early 90s I had a paper route that passed by I5 in our town. Two old houses were right next to it, at about the half way point in my path. I got to know an older couple who lived in one of these homes. They described how once beautiful neighbors were split apart. Before the interstate their house was by a forested ravine. In a prime location close to down town. The ravine was filled in. On top of it was built a 20 foot tall mound of dirt for the highway, and so the Bensons had a view of that from their front yard. But despite this they told me moving still wasn't an option. Many of their neighbors had sold to developers who made a strip mall, also right next to them. 1448 King Street in Bellingham for anyone interested. I5's development ruined the existing down town. Malls were built along the interstate instead. If you look at aerial photos prior to the 1960s it's staggering how much was lost just for a road.
The government feigns powerlessness when it comes to building transit or high density housing. Then when it's time to build a highway, it's no problem at all.
Same with the supporters of roads and highways. They don't lift an eyebrow at building or expanding roads, but the instant someone proposes so much as a bike path, it's a chorus of 'but how are we supposed to afford that?!!?!"
@Imbatmn57IMO some zoning is necessary. Don't allow a high risk item (oil plant, chemical factory, etc.) inside or very close to population centers. If something happens to them there's a lot of public health and immediate danger present.
Riddle me this. All these "15 minute cities are a government conspiracy" people are all totally onboard with the government displacing hundreds of people just to build a road. FFS.
@@ianhomerpura8937Or their state has built their identity on them. Or their choice of "News" has given them their marching orders no thinking required.
Do you all not understand why the concept of "15 minute cities" would see wholesale opposition by people who've been gaslit by the powers that be for decades? The urbanist community can't truly be that dense, can it? I guess it just has to be a conspiracy by "muh oil companies and muh cable news."
There has yet to be a highway torn out that resulted in regret. Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Milwaukee, etc. have all torn out highways and it's been better for everybody. Make your city somewhere to drive to, not somewhere to drive through.
@@froggamer4884 they're gonna stop being able to use that defense eventually. maybe we should just start reminding everyone america was built on rail and it'll expedite the process
I find it infuriating that the traffic engineers say that “The infrastructure’s construction will make X million dollars.” and “It will employ locals and create jobs.” This is because it will only create a small amount of short term revenue that will be blown on making new highways. Yet thirty or so years later, double the money needs to be spent to fix the highway and that is funded either by ramp end car-dependent suburban sprawl or ANOTHER highway perpetuating the cycle and displacing thousands in the process.
Even more importantly, it's a broken window fallacy. "Let's have the government hire a bunch of people to go around breaking all the windows in town. Then we'll need to hire a bunch more people to fix them. Job creation!" If these highway projects don't save more labor hours than they cost to make and maintain, then they're literally throwing money down the toilet.
@fitsodafun AKA "in for a penny in for a pound" thinking which leads decision-makers to throw good money after bad ... because they cannot or will not admit that they made a mistake and cut their losses. Cheers.
@fitsodafun "we already invested X million. cancelling it now would mean we wasted these. We need to go ahead now so it wasn't X million for nothing" or "might as well do it now"
@@boahneelassmal In the UK, we spent billions on consultants, engineers and land purchase to build a Hi-Speed network up the spine of the country. Then a few weeks ago, the government arbitrarily cancelled the Northern parts, continuing with the parts that were of most benefit to London and the South. And the sold back the land, making it impossible for any later government to complete the project. They didn't care about the sunk cost - they wanted the cash to give tax breaks before an election.
It's so hard to explain a person who has never been here, in the USA, how hard it is to have a walk and enjoy it. When my sister visited me from Italy, she understood.
It's so sad that the mayor and council would rather see their own city empty out and fall into decay. Holding back maintenance on the streets and parks in the area as punishment is just pathetic.
It's kind of crazy to think that the goal was originally to get the military from one end of the country to another. So why did you need to send so many highways through the cities rather than near the edges and around cities?
That's what Eisenhhower intended when he signed the Interstate Highway Act. He wanted the Interstates to go around cities or run along the edge of cities. Cities, states, and developers made the decision to run the freeways right through the center of cities so people could travel easier and faster to the suburbs.
Because while the federal government funded and nominally directed the projects, it was state and municipal governments that actually gave them shape. The thought process for many highway planners was that routing them completely through downtowns of larger cities was going to be a boon for the business and entertainment districts overall, thinking it would make them more accessible. There’s some historical precedent to this with the earlier US highway system, where they would intentionally connect the “main streets” of various cities and towns by signing them with the US Route designation as well. And of course for the marginally less scrupulous among those planners, there’s the well known classist and racist implications and actions as well. And even the high minded folk ended up taking the L on these plans because their downtowns would become less vibrant and attractive with big old highways running through them, it separated and isolated neighborhoods from the rest of the city (the ones they didn’t just bulldoze, anyway), and by extension led to the proliferation of dead space surface parking lots.
My working class (white) widowed great grandmother’s house that her husband built himself was eminent domained in the 70s to for US-30 in Canton, OH. It was sold to the public that it was going to be brought up to 4 lane limited access standard all the way to PA. 50 years later the limited access portion STILL dead ends a few miles to the East of where their house once stood. My dad says it essentially broke her and she died not too long after, another old lady neighbor of hers had to be dragged out from in front of the bulldozer.
As a traffic and transportation engineer (yes I do both) it make me angry to see a pubilc meeting where people are saying "no" and the panel is sitting there completely obtuse. Projects are paid for by tax dollars by the citizens for the citizens. We're taught that public engagement is the most important step for a reason. I have had to deal with governments though whose mayor or elected official thought a roadway widening was a good legacy project that would be easy reelection for them. Trying to tell them the numbers don't back them up is soooo impossible until you show them the price tag of a roadway for construction AND maintenance.
Sadly though that seems like it happens no matter what. A meeting for a road diet or active transportation project will still be filled with residents saying “no”, because traffic.
They are expanding the highways in my city. First the government wanted to tell the people how it was going to be. That didn't work ofcourse, lot's of protests. So instead (partially because the courts ordered it) they started negotiating and now the build has started. Yes, it took more time (about 2 years extra) before the project could start, but we will live with a much better final result for decades.
@@auggie9438 passenger is really ok. We lived near a main train station a few years ago and the freight trains in the middle of the night stopping and waiting just next to our windows were the worst. Had one at 3.30 and one at 5.50 and the breaks continually screeched for about 10 minutes. We didn’t even notice passenger trains.
An interesting contrast: pretty much any transit agency these days has a laundry list of plans for new transit-oriented developments that add hundreds if not thousands of new housing units, as well as retail and office spaces, to station-adjacent land. This is exactly the sort of dense, mixed-use, human-friendly development that have been getting bulldozed to make way for freeways for decades. Freeways destroy. Transit creates.
*AS A EUROPEAN* I literally dont know how you can do this - how can you just demolish half the town to put I giant highway through it...??? Its just insanity.
It's what happens when capitalism is king of a vast domain. The auto industry and shipping companies have had more power than entire states for decades now. The average US citizen who isn't directly affected by this will just see dollar signs and faster Amazon deliveries and say "that's just progress" or "we need it for business" It's not insanity so much as apathy and unwavering loyalty to capitalism which is honestly worse
As an American, I feel you. We should have trains instead. We want to build trains on a good path where we don’t destroy everything in its path and it’s a no. And if we want to build a highway to destroy an entire city, then everyone is all for it.
When you're the world's strongest military power, it's essential to be to have multiple avenues of delivery for logistics. The highway system in the US is also a defense project.
The fact that anyone still thinks the correct amount of highways for America is anything other than way, way less than we have now makes my heart heavy. I appreciate how you've been trying to end on a call-to-action recently to help encourage us to do something about this mess. God bless.
Where all the skyscrapers are in Los Angeles was once the largest collection of Victorian homes in the country. You got major freeways also just cutting through downtown.
This is a huge double edged sword. And right now, it's hurting more than helping in most of the country. The days of Robert Moses style bulldoze and build a highway are mostly over; we won that battle. Not saying it doesn't happen anymore, but the tools to fight these highways are being used to fight rail, renewable energy, and dense housing.
As a native from The Bronx You can see the scars and how the highway shaped The Bronx. Still takes you 3hrs to cross the Hudson regardless of which bridge you use.
As a non-native English speaker, I would love to have illustrations for all the numbers you gave, like graphs and stuff like that. You know, numbers are the stuff that are the more challenging things to figurate when you hear another language, even if you're fluent in it (because it's not located in the same part of the brain, that's why even if you read a text in another language, you'll read the numbers in your native one). So if it's possible, seeing graphs and drawn comparisons would be great for people like me, I think ! Thank you for your work
There's a fight against a highway "connector" in southern Maine going on right now. This highway would cost over $200 million for a five-mile spur that ends in the middle of the small town of Gorham (tho, they say it will fund itself thru tolls). The way this is pitched as a "connector" is ridiculous, as the western end will connect not to another highway, but rather, to rural roads. Therefore, this spur will not connect anything that isn't already connected, but it will divide the communities of Westbrook and Gorham, so opponents to the highway are calling it the Gorham Divider. Much of the opposition to the Gorham Divider has coalesced around Smiling Hill Farm, a small family farm directly in the proposed path of the Divider. The owner of Smiling Hill refuses to give up any of his farmland, and people from not just Gorham, Westbrook, and Portland, but also from communities across the state and beyond have come out in support of Smiling Hill Farm's ongoing David and Goliath story. The conversation surrounding Smiling Hill Farm is also leading to a paradigm shift among Mainers away from car-only infrastructure to considering the restoring of our once extensive rail network, creating a proper BRT system in Greater Portland, making downtowns more human-centric again, and expanding bicycle infrastructure. We still have a long way to go in Maine, but I get filled with so much hope seeing how people are finally waking up to the horrors of car-only development
I visited Maine for the first time about two years ago and I took the train from Boston to Portland Maine. I was happy that I didn’t have to rent a car because I don’t like driving in a big city such as Boston and I was able to walk around on foot in Portland, Maine.
I did wish the train was closer to the city of Portland, since I had to wait for a bus to get me from the station to the city. And at the time I was the only one waiting, so it seemed kind of isolated, but at least it was in the daytime.
@@enjoystraveling Definitely! There is a plan to rebuild Union Station, which used to stand in downtown Portland before it was demolished to build an ugly strip mall
Mayor Johnsons leadership in Milwaukee should be on the radar of every urbanist. Milwaukee had become an unliveable place. Johnson and his team are actually doing something about it and there is a big demand for it.
While neighborhoods in cities were being demolished, small rural towns were being bypassed, economically devastating many families. Because no land was taken, those families received no compensation.
To be completely fair, building a railway would also cut through neighborhoods. But to be even more fair, a railway takes up much less space AND creates far more economic benefit for the amount of area used. Plus you can always put some of it underground.
@@nicolai8820 This is completely true, but streetcars aren't really in the same role as highways. A train is much closer to the high-speed, high-capacity city role a highway has. Although I suppose you could argue many highways also don't do what a highway is supposed to do, especially if they could be replaced by a boulevard...
The corridors for highways are already there. Take two highway lanes and put train tracks there. Increases the capacity of the corridor by a few humdred percent.
"Put the houses where there is already power, sewer and water." And access to services, healthcare, transit. Good ways to reduce building costs and increase net property tax revenue
@@ANTSEMUT1 It's not a matter of expand, it needs to be ripped out and replaced with larger pipes. Some of it will eventually happen on its own as individual pipes fail, but to upgrade it systematically will take 50 years and several trillion dollars. You have to remember a lot of their infrastructure was built in the 1800s and designed for a quarter of the population currently using it.
Eminent domain isn't "dystopian". It'd be impossible to build public infrastructure without it. What is dystopian is how it's abused to build projects no one wants to benefit a few well-connected companies and individuals, at the expense of the public and already-marginalized communities - highways to nowhere, privately-owned shopping malls, fossil fuel pipelines...
@@lelandunruh7896 Rail presents a huge opportunity to electrify long-haul transport. The problem is that North American rail companies are currently obsessed with "precision scheduled railroading". This is a system of cost-cutting involving running overly long trains to save on infrastructure and staffing costs. The problems are: 1. Long trains no longer fit in sidings, so trains can't pass one another 2. Long trains get delayed, so staff are forced to work unpredictable hours 3. The lack of scheduling means that the railroads can only move low-value bulk freight.
I'm from San Francisco, and we used to have one of the worst freeways in the country. The Embarcadero Freeway was a double-decker freeway that blocked out the city's waterfront, made the downtown area much uglier and inhospitable, all just to save 10 minutes of driving time between the Bay Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge. It was torn down in 1989-1990 after part of it collapsed in the Loma Prieta earthquake.
I'd recommend that instead of using stock footage in the introduction, a much more effective tool would've been to use actual photographs of neighborhoods that are gone, because of these measures, such as downtown Portland, Cincinatti or Saint Louis for example. There are plenty photogaphs of these beautiful oldtowns disappearing, because of highway construction. These cities are just a few examples, but I think from every New York borough to Los Angeles, this has happened and was captured through photographs.
Thing is, eminent domain is also used for public infrastructure I'd like to think we do want. Texan farmers are already gearing up to challenge the highspeed plans there - doesn't matter that it's going to be build elevated (at enormous extra cost), that the impact on their land will be small, or that the land impacted isn't very valuable or important in the first place. NIMBYism, yeehaa. And it's not just roads or rail, but also things like electricity lines or whatever. While it is difficult to balance I do think it's a necessary tool. And sometimes that will mean that some people lose there home - and sometimes unfortunately for something as stupid as a new highway. But hopefully in the future also for things like a new railway corridor that otherwise could never be build, and where the greater good to society outweighs the emotional attachment of the few to their home.
This is a very important thing to consider. The poorest people /don't own homes/ in the first place, eminent domain doesn't affect them but the promise of enhanced transit and higher density neighborhoods making housing more affordable will benefit them, as it will benefit everyone.
Is sad how much historical neighborhoods, unique buildings and places keep getting destroyed and erased for a high way. I was checking places and wondered how is possible we as country are willing to destroy so much for a highway to save a meager amount of travel time and displace so many people. Is so sad
I would be extremely pissed if the government took my house for a road/highway. I would only be mildly upset if it was to build light rail/subway and improve public transport infrastructure. Also they should be required to comp you an extra 50%-100% on top of current home/land value so you have plenty to find something suitable and have adequate budget to move.
Freeway expansions mean the destruction of entire city blocks. Metro expansions mean the addition of one or two more trains or an extra car added to the set. Unless you need to split a neighborhood in half to extend a platform by 30 ft, I have a feeling that one of these things is not like the other.
@@Kaede-Sasakiwho lives in the city? A city isn't a thing it is people. You keep commenting all of your high thoughts but you have no basis in reality. Just how things should be
Building a highway for projected (!) 3600 cars per day is an absolute joke and waste of money. This is at the upper edge of a residential street and should be treated as such. Even that "business boulevard" is massively overbuild! The correct design here would a single lane per direction with busses stopping on the drivelane (intentionally forcing everybody to wait) and at the very best (!) bike lanes on both sides. But maybe not even that and instead ban though-traffic, set a 20 mph limit, very narrow lanes and send the cyclists on the road, where they are safer at this speed and low traffic volume. Because there IS a loop around the city and as mentioned, it only costs truckers around one minute.
@@ItFoundMe If you follow the history of mankind before there was a highway there was a road and before there was a road there was a trail. No town or city exists without a way to get there. The people that live in a city should have a say so in what happens to their city that should not be outweighed by convenience of people of other cities. A bypass loop should be adequate to satisfy the needs of the outliers.
The issue is that you assume people will get off the freeway to spend money People who live outside new york, but work there tend to buy all their good outside the city because it's cheaper the issue isn't "cars bad" the issue is "we should build cities for people to live in, not pit stops for people driving past" Or, as several other people have put it: "We should build places, not spaces"
@@ItFoundMe Urbanism didn't, no. Do you know what you have without highway access? *Rural* homes. Imagine a suburb, but you need to go on a half mile hike *to see your neighbor.* But don't worry, it's only 1-2 miles to the nearest small store.... which is a glorified gas station minus the gas. And good luck funding a bus line with the few hundred people living in the valley.
Happened to my family in the '60s, when I was a kid, and it totally uprooted a thriving Asian-American and an established African-American communities.
Abuse of eminent domain has led to dramatically worse land use than if the government didn't have an abundance of wealth to gobble up everything. It is precisely the "poor" cities that didn't have the money to demolish half the community to build highways that are now desirable places to live.
Everyone should share this with their local officials (perhaps at the neighborhood level). It's honestly info ANYONE related to planning should know. Very well done!
America is insane. They say they can't afford building modern intercity rail, but they can afford building massive highways while displacing people. Who will use the highway if you displace the people for it?
The goal is not to use the highway in an efficient manner. The goal has always been and will always be to constrict undesired people from building out the communities they come from. Coded language is used to achieve the objective.
There's also an issue of per-eminent industry. The automobile industry is ascendant and supreme, while there isn't really a passenger rail lobby to oppose them. Their also isn't a mature passenger rail industry to build new lines, stations, and trains. It's a very chicken/egg scenario, which makes it much easier to fight against change.
I don’t get why 49 can’t simply be routed onto 220 through the city. 49 defaults itself onto 220 northwest of Shreveport and would run west of the city, still providing a direct connection between Arkansas and New Orleans without demolishing any neighborhoods
The twin cities suffered a very stark blow to our collective well being by demolishing a few black neighborhoods for such infrastructure. But not only did the neighborhoods get displaced, but we also lost the streetcar system that provided excellent public transit to so many daily commuters. This was all way before my time, but it is a well documented instance of how devastating such practices of racially biased government sanctioned catastrophes continue to occur. We are planning our cities wrong, and how we connect cities together. Other places like Amsterdam are doing it right in not only the end results, but in how such infrastructure is decided to be constructed. Electing people who want what is best for the actual people instead of corporations is the first step to recovery.
Any civil engineer will tell you, you can build and widen highways to 10, 20, 30 lanes, whatever you want. It'll, at best, only relieve congestion for a limited time. And that doesn't address the existing bottlenecks at all.
Highways in cities are very rarely built for cross traffic---they're for commuters. They are built to try to keep people coming in who have already moved out. It was absolutely the wrong choice, but it should be clear who is making it. Most of our cities are still bleeding core productive workers.
It seems like the biggest obstacle to accomplishing urbanist goals is often people living in the suburbs (Who chose not to live in the city) believing the city should cater to their needs.
15:10 I think this is a really important point that can be easily overlooked. A lot of people will come away from this video with the takeaway that eminent domain is inherently bad. But that's not the point this video is trying to make. Eminent domain is a tool governments can use to improve society, but when used incorrectly, it can have the adverse effect of hurting communities and leaving everyone worse off. Whether or not eminent domain should be used requires holistically weighing the benefit of a project against its societal cost.
Thankfully my city's government is strongly against eminent domain. There's still a stroad (State highway) running right through the city with planned widenings, but that's better than deleting neighborhoods for more highways.
Beautiful story and supporting Schreveport from afar! Love to hear from the locals who care and are taking action. Thanks for another wonderful video Mike and ST team :)
$850M 'Economic Impact' doesn't go to the local community. It goes to big business out of town. NOLA Has a big movement to tear down the I10 in the city proper. I support it.
I support most of what’s said on this channel, but the hypocrisy from the government is that more highways are built than other transit. Eminent domain is an important part of a functioning society. We should advocate for stronger eminent domain. NIMBYs in california are stopping green energy projects and mass rail transit across the state. It needs to be easier to build large projects, because all the highways have been built, but we have lots more trains to build.
Eminent domain needs to be a tool, but you said it: "hypocrisy". Eminent domain needs to be for a public cause that makes the pain and trauma worth it. Right now, it seems to be an easy tool for highways but a travesty when it's anything else. One important detail: Rail corridors are comparatively narrow and easy to build over and under. Nothing compares to highways for cutting a community in half, and only things like airports and new hydro dams compare for wholesale destruction.
@@chazdomingo475 I mean, that's pretty self evidently the highway network. Highways generally have to be wider for the same throughput of riders and material compared to a fully utilized rail line. IIRC there's a commuter example from someplace in the US where a rail bridge carrying a similar number of daily commuters as the nearby automobile bridge was less than a tenth as wide. Highways also, generally, want to continue along a specific route as much as possible, so the ability of car to get off and take surface streets or divert to a different highway is rarely a consideration in the path the road takes.
Highways have just wrecked our cities. I agree that highways are good in connecting major cities so you can get to them quicker but they must always go around cities and never through them
Currently Pennsylvania is trying to take my entire street. My street is nestled in between both the north and southbound lanes of 81. We have been fighting but they just stopped listening.
More people need to understand the destructive impact highways and similar projects have had on our cities. Here in Oklahoma, the historically Black communities in NE OKC and in Tulsa‘s Greenwood District (AKA Black Wall Street) have both been cut off from downtown by highways and further choked out by other forms of “Urban Renewal.” If we forget how and why this happened, it’s much harder to reverse the process, and it’ll surely be doomed to keep happening. Let’s do better.
Eminent domain is an important power for the government to have, and if you want to have strong urbanism and public transit, you /need/ to have the power of eminent domain. NIMBYs are and have already been weaponizing the "well what about people forced out of their homes" to stop projects.
My main question is WHY did they think putting HIGH SPEED MOTORWAYS through cities was a good idea. These roads should BYPASS cities so we don't have city traffic on these high speed motorways, not to mention that we have to lower speed limits just to have them go in the cities anyways so what is the point of the motorways at that point?
the point about the interstate being built to speed up military transport times is interesting to me just how much faster is it now because of the interstate? and how much faster could it be if the convoys were moved by rail instead
Can you guys cover a similar topic but regarding the process of upzoning and densifying? What does someone experience when their neighborhood is getting upzoned?
I wonder if there’s some case for calling the US a military state. Much of the seemingly nonsensical decisions, such as the continued expansion of car-dependent infrastructure, seem more suited to supporting a lengthy war effort.
Ah, I thought so... the U.S. is known for having the strongest military force in the world, and the role of U.S. highways made a tremendous burst in wealth and power.
@@Vacouryard The proliferation of firearms is also explainable here. While of dubious benefit for civilian purposes, it also means that an invading force does not have the luxury of assuming harmless civilians as well. Even with a massive disparity in training, trading a dozen civilians for a single, experienced soldier, is hardly a great trade for the invader. Kind of reminds me a bit of Amestris from Full Metal Alchemist, a nation that has been at war for nearly its entire existence, built on fighting wars, wields an extremely strong military force, and a well-armed populace.
It does so because car-dependent outer suburbs are what are valued and invested in and cities are often seen as places to drive through rather than live, work and invest in.
Local government will always have the interests of local citizens at the expense of drivers passing through their locality, whereas state and federal governments could care less if 100 people lose their homes because they only care about industrial activity of areas outside of the locality. Guess who is bigger and better funded?
I mean, I wish that were true, but it's not that simple. Local officials make bad or selfish calls all the time. That's why people need to pay attention to their local politics.
Great stuff here Mike. I’d highly recommend checking out the 30 year story on the 710 freeway connection through South Pasadena in LA. It’s got loads of interesting stuff
Well starting 20miles south of Fort Smith is a mountain range that spans 40miles. This is a routing problem for that section of highway. To the east of Lockesburg is a vast area of woodland that is used for timber farming, another routing problem for a highway. There is also other routing problems, that will drive costs more then saved by just going through towns instead of around.
Will do my part to fight it, but engineering and right-of-way for all of the Arkansas segment has supposedly already been completed. There's basically no stopping the Arkansas segment at this point.
My mom lives near an intersection where they're putting in an overpass over the RR tracks. They have torn down DOZENS of houses and businesses, all so that cars can get to... less places now...
The south Bronx during the 1970s which was considered the worst ghetto in the whole country according to president Carter was formed due to an expressway built by Robert Moses … once he constructed the cross Bronx expressway the neighborhood became excrement immediately.
The solution is simple: find the company lobbying for this highway project and convince them they woudl make more money buiding transit through town instead of a highway. They will then lobby for transit and transit will get built. When you have a lobby-driven government, you need to fight fire with fire.
I find it even more insidious that eminent domain and deliberate disregard for the local population is allowed for highway expansion/creation but when it comes to high speed rail, 10+ years of environmental reviews and huge concessions to NIMBY's are what we get.
Shreveport LEARN? I grew up here and lives away for many years. I only live here now because of my family. Fortunately I found ReForm Shreveport and other groups that help me remain sane. The people in charge don't know what they don't know and sadly I think they don't want to know. It takes way too much energy to live here😢😢😢
There is only one kind of highway that is uncontroversial, and that is a highway that bypasses (i.e. runs on the edges of) cities, that runs on the boundaries of rural property lines, that reduces the number of commuting trips, and that encourages sustainable transportation options. Having moved to New York from San Francisco, I can safely say that New York City has way too many highways and parkways, and that it should consider demolishing a lot of them and replacing them with surface level boulevards, trams, busways, and canals that move people far more quickly while keeping neighborhoods attractive.
I feel like the state of Louisiana should focus on getting its residents to stop fleeing the state en masse before they try to get a freeway built in Shreveport. 🤷♂️😅
They build the highways to cater to the most affluent & more expensive pocket neighborhoods. The premise is to move past the inner-cities & places with “less-desirable people” who they believe aren’t worth much at high speed. This includes trains. I figured out that whoever builds them is catering to those who produce high profits & returns vs the folks in the ghettos & inner cities. Basically, if they don’t think you’re worth anything, they will not help or service you.
also using trains would make transportation less fuel dependent considering us of a imports stupid amount of oil already that might be a good thing idk why I'm trying to help us -could help it die, would be more productive-
We fought this bs a year or two ago here in western ky. The city wanted to put an “outer loop” in the county outside of our bypass to connect I169 to the Audubon parkway. The hope was it would bring more traffic through our area instead of routing it 35min west, but all it would do is destroy dozens of family farms and homes for something that may not even help our community.
I don't think highways should go through towns or cities-have an off ramp that exits to the urban area that's at least a kilometer away. Barring that, elevated highways through towns and ease up on zoning so cheap shops and homes (≈300 per month) could be built underneath and nearby. Don't destroy buildings, let the highway conform to the city.
I do like how memphis is one of the few cities that fought the development of i-40 going through its center and has it going around its majority. It still lost a bunch of historical sites and homes via pre-planning. I feel it’s an interesting project to look up as proposed exit ramps still dot the midtown and east memphis landscapes as well as interstate infrastructure in general
That's easier said than done in a lot of place. LA, for instance, is basically one giant conurbation stretching across the entire basin. There's also cases where cities end up overgrowing and overrunning a highway that used to be at their periphery. Which is one of the few cases where I think a highway running through the city might be okay-ish. At least in that case the land next to the highway is likelier to be properly zoned and apportioned from the start, rather than plopping a giant noise and air pollution generator down next to a formerly quiet neighborhood. (provided that you don't put exits and on ramps at every intersection.)
We have our national gathering coming up May 14-15 in Cincinnati, and I'd love to see you there. Check out some of the speakers here: gathering.strongtowns.org/speakers/
I’m thinking of attending and also since my cousins lived there
Present tense, live
I don't think highways should go through towns or cities-have an off ramp that exits to the urban area that's at least a kilometer away.
Barring that, elevated highways through towns and ease up on zoning so cheap shops and homes (≈300 per month) could be built underneath and nearby. Don't destroy buildings, let the highway conform to the city.
Eminent domain shouldn't exist. If the easement and the road isn't wide enough, that's the city's problem, not the homeowner.
Back in the late 1980s and early 90s I had a paper route that passed by I5 in our town. Two old houses were right next to it, at about the half way point in my path. I got to know an older couple who lived in one of these homes. They described how once beautiful neighbors were split apart. Before the interstate their house was by a forested ravine. In a prime location close to down town. The ravine was filled in. On top of it was built a 20 foot tall mound of dirt for the highway, and so the Bensons had a view of that from their front yard. But despite this they told me moving still wasn't an option. Many of their neighbors had sold to developers who made a strip mall, also right next to them. 1448 King Street in Bellingham for anyone interested.
I5's development ruined the existing down town. Malls were built along the interstate instead. If you look at aerial photos prior to the 1960s it's staggering how much was lost just for a road.
The government feigns powerlessness when it comes to building transit or high density housing. Then when it's time to build a highway, it's no problem at all.
That's when NIMBY's are REALLY powerless. They want all the extra lanes until the extra lanes run through their houses.
Not even highways. The government will happily seize and destroy whole neighborhoods for a strip mall or a server farm. All about that money
Same with the supporters of roads and highways. They don't lift an eyebrow at building or expanding roads, but the instant someone proposes so much as a bike path, it's a chorus of 'but how are we supposed to afford that?!!?!"
@Imbatmn57IMO some zoning is necessary. Don't allow a high risk item (oil plant, chemical factory, etc.) inside or very close to population centers. If something happens to them there's a lot of public health and immediate danger present.
Make public transit a matter of national security
Bulldozing a neighborhood to shave off 3.2 minutes travel time is stupid.
Most American thing I’ve ever heard.
Destroying peoples entire livelyhood for 3 minutes
They do this for public transit too. California High speed rail has bulldozed a lot of stuff to make way. So has rail expansion all the US.
@@walawala-fo7ds but rail takes way less space and provides an efficiency for mass transit.
Eminent domain shouldn't exist. If the easement and the road isn't wide enough, that's the city's problem, not the homeowner.
Riddle me this. All these "15 minute cities are a government conspiracy" people are all totally onboard with the government displacing hundreds of people just to build a road. FFS.
It's almost like there's a vested interest in that kind of propaganda.
@@chazdomingo475 there is. Most of the commenters work for the oil and petrochemical industries.
@@ianhomerpura8937Or their state has built their identity on them. Or their choice of "News" has given them their marching orders no thinking required.
Do you all not understand why the concept of "15 minute cities" would see wholesale opposition by people who've been gaslit by the powers that be for decades? The urbanist community can't truly be that dense, can it? I guess it just has to be a conspiracy by "muh oil companies and muh cable news."
New York, Venice, Mexico City, and Jakarta have all proven that cities can get too heavy. If they can’t grow wider, they’ll grow taller.
There has yet to be a highway torn out that resulted in regret. Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Milwaukee, etc. have all torn out highways and it's been better for everybody. Make your city somewhere to drive to, not somewhere to drive through.
And for San Francisco and Seattle, it took a few earthquakes (in 1989 and 2001) for them to demolish their elevated highways.
Love that line at the end
Highways that connect cities are good, far better than Rural Roads and Stroads but when highways get too close to the city, we have problems
At least 3 of those cities are notorious for open-air drug markets. You just destroyed your own argument.
@@SirBlackReeds How does that relate to highway infrastructure??
Let’s build intercity rail instead
Didn't you hear? America is too big for trains,(the most efficient long distance AND short distance transit)
@@froggamer4884 they're gonna stop being able to use that defense eventually. maybe we should just start reminding everyone america was built on rail and it'll expedite the process
One day there will be inter city rail in the south
@@froggamer4884russia is bigger but has a working train system
@@erkinalpI'm sure their comment was ironic
I find it infuriating that the traffic engineers say that “The infrastructure’s construction will make X million dollars.” and “It will employ locals and create jobs.” This is because it will only create a small amount of short term revenue that will be blown on making new highways. Yet thirty or so years later, double the money needs to be spent to fix the highway and that is funded either by ramp end car-dependent suburban sprawl or ANOTHER highway perpetuating the cycle and displacing thousands in the process.
Even more importantly, it's a broken window fallacy. "Let's have the government hire a bunch of people to go around breaking all the windows in town. Then we'll need to hire a bunch more people to fix them. Job creation!"
If these highway projects don't save more labor hours than they cost to make and maintain, then they're literally throwing money down the toilet.
And usually the promised new development and jobs never come, at best you get a new gas station and maybe an office building if you're lucky.
the sunken cost fallacy fuels a self fulfilling prophecy
@fitsodafun AKA "in for a penny in for a pound" thinking which leads decision-makers to throw good money after bad ... because they cannot or will not admit that they made a mistake and cut their losses. Cheers.
@fitsodafun "we already invested X million. cancelling it now would mean we wasted these. We need to go ahead now so it wasn't X million for nothing"
or
"might as well do it now"
@@boahneelassmal
In the UK, we spent billions on consultants, engineers and land purchase to build a Hi-Speed network up the spine of the country.
Then a few weeks ago, the government arbitrarily cancelled the Northern parts, continuing with the parts that were of most benefit to London and the South. And the sold back the land, making it impossible for any later government to complete the project.
They didn't care about the sunk cost - they wanted the cash to give tax breaks before an election.
It's so hard to explain a person who has never been here, in the USA, how hard it is to have a walk and enjoy it. When my sister visited me from Italy, she understood.
It's so sad that the mayor and council would rather see their own city empty out and fall into decay. Holding back maintenance on the streets and parks in the area as punishment is just pathetic.
It's kind of crazy to think that the goal was originally to get the military from one end of the country to another. So why did you need to send so many highways through the cities rather than near the edges and around cities?
It's so American to think if something is good, even more is better. And of course many care about ME and not THEE.
That's what Eisenhhower intended when he signed the Interstate Highway Act. He wanted the Interstates to go around cities or run along the edge of cities. Cities, states, and developers made the decision to run the freeways right through the center of cities so people could travel easier and faster to the suburbs.
@@BJN1253 …while ignoring that public transit is cheaper and faster, less polluting, don’t need parking deserts in the city, etc
Most of the industrial production was downtown in the city centres.
Because while the federal government funded and nominally directed the projects, it was state and municipal governments that actually gave them shape.
The thought process for many highway planners was that routing them completely through downtowns of larger cities was going to be a boon for the business and entertainment districts overall, thinking it would make them more accessible. There’s some historical precedent to this with the earlier US highway system, where they would intentionally connect the “main streets” of various cities and towns by signing them with the US Route designation as well.
And of course for the marginally less scrupulous among those planners, there’s the well known classist and racist implications and actions as well.
And even the high minded folk ended up taking the L on these plans because their downtowns would become less vibrant and attractive with big old highways running through them, it separated and isolated neighborhoods from the rest of the city (the ones they didn’t just bulldoze, anyway), and by extension led to the proliferation of dead space surface parking lots.
My working class (white) widowed great grandmother’s house that her husband built himself was eminent domained in the 70s to for US-30 in Canton, OH. It was sold to the public that it was going to be brought up to 4 lane limited access standard all the way to PA. 50 years later the limited access portion STILL dead ends a few miles to the East of where their house once stood. My dad says it essentially broke her and she died not too long after, another old lady neighbor of hers had to be dragged out from in front of the bulldozer.
This is heartbreaking.
As a traffic and transportation engineer (yes I do both) it make me angry to see a pubilc meeting where people are saying "no" and the panel is sitting there completely obtuse. Projects are paid for by tax dollars by the citizens for the citizens. We're taught that public engagement is the most important step for a reason. I have had to deal with governments though whose mayor or elected official thought a roadway widening was a good legacy project that would be easy reelection for them. Trying to tell them the numbers don't back them up is soooo impossible until you show them the price tag of a roadway for construction AND maintenance.
Sadly though that seems like it happens no matter what. A meeting for a road diet or active transportation project will still be filled with residents saying “no”, because traffic.
Check out how hard Houstonians have been fighting the expansion of I-45. The city council voted against it and the state DOT is doing it anyway.
@@nellwarnes7273 Or Austin. The DOT hasn't even had full approval for construction and they've already spent money to tear down affordable housing.
They are expanding the highways in my city. First the government wanted to tell the people how it was going to be.
That didn't work ofcourse, lot's of protests.
So instead (partially because the courts ordered it) they started negotiating and now the build has started.
Yes, it took more time (about 2 years extra) before the project could start, but we will live with a much better final result for decades.
Perhaps there is heavy lobbying and campaign contributions from the companies that profit from road construction.
I have a train running through my backyard but I would throw hands if someone tried to put a freeway back there
Passenger, freight, or both? Is your rent/mortgage cheaper, if you dont mind me asking?
@@Kaede-Sasaki passenger, commuter rail. And our rent is well below market value but that has more to do with our landlord liking us than the train
If I had an active train route near my house I'd probably sometimes go out and watch it.
@@auggie9438 passenger is really ok. We lived near a main train station a few years ago and the freight trains in the middle of the night stopping and waiting just next to our windows were the worst. Had one at 3.30 and one at 5.50 and the breaks continually screeched for about 10 minutes. We didn’t even notice passenger trains.
@@kurisu7885 the urge to watch trains is a beautiful thing.
An interesting contrast: pretty much any transit agency these days has a laundry list of plans for new transit-oriented developments that add hundreds if not thousands of new housing units, as well as retail and office spaces, to station-adjacent land. This is exactly the sort of dense, mixed-use, human-friendly development that have been getting bulldozed to make way for freeways for decades.
Freeways destroy. Transit creates.
I don’t see how those building roads couldn’t have the same ideas.
@@aycc-nbh7289Have you seen suburbs? Yikes
@@minetech4898I have seen them and I’ve also seen pictures of ports and factories that have as many tracks as rail yards.
*AS A EUROPEAN* I literally dont know how you can do this - how can you just demolish half the town to put I giant highway through it...???
Its just insanity.
It's what happens when capitalism is king of a vast domain. The auto industry and shipping companies have had more power than entire states for decades now.
The average US citizen who isn't directly affected by this will just see dollar signs and faster Amazon deliveries and say "that's just progress" or "we need it for business"
It's not insanity so much as apathy and unwavering loyalty to capitalism which is honestly worse
Agree 1000 Cars is laughable, in Germany Highway plannings is only considered !!!! at rougly 30000 Cars plus.
Turns out when you allow politics to be influenced by money, you get really bad things.
As an American, I feel you. We should have trains instead. We want to build trains on a good path where we don’t destroy everything in its path and it’s a no. And if we want to build a highway to destroy an entire city, then everyone is all for it.
When you're the world's strongest military power, it's essential to be to have multiple avenues of delivery for logistics. The highway system in the US is also a defense project.
criminally unheard, let our governments hear our pleas!
the government IS the problem brah...
They are already well aware
What does this comment even do?
@@jerbear7952 honestly I think I felt poetic that day
@@hermaeusmora2945 this is true
The fact that anyone still thinks the correct amount of highways for America is anything other than way, way less than we have now makes my heart heavy. I appreciate how you've been trying to end on a call-to-action recently to help encourage us to do something about this mess. God bless.
Where all the skyscrapers are in Los Angeles was once the largest collection of Victorian homes in the country. You got major freeways also just cutting through downtown.
Which is Ironic because LA is known for having a comedically under developed skyline for such a large city.
@@Bustermachine At least it’s not as barren as Mexico City or Tokyo. Now those guys lack!
This is a huge double edged sword. And right now, it's hurting more than helping in most of the country.
The days of Robert Moses style bulldoze and build a highway are mostly over; we won that battle. Not saying it doesn't happen anymore, but the tools to fight these highways are being used to fight rail, renewable energy, and dense housing.
As a native from The Bronx
You can see the scars and how the highway shaped The Bronx.
Still takes you 3hrs to cross the Hudson regardless of which bridge you use.
As a non-native English speaker, I would love to have illustrations for all the numbers you gave, like graphs and stuff like that.
You know, numbers are the stuff that are the more challenging things to figurate when you hear another language, even if you're fluent in it (because it's not located in the same part of the brain, that's why even if you read a text in another language, you'll read the numbers in your native one).
So if it's possible, seeing graphs and drawn comparisons would be great for people like me, I think !
Thank you for your work
There's a fight against a highway "connector" in southern Maine going on right now. This highway would cost over $200 million for a five-mile spur that ends in the middle of the small town of Gorham (tho, they say it will fund itself thru tolls). The way this is pitched as a "connector" is ridiculous, as the western end will connect not to another highway, but rather, to rural roads. Therefore, this spur will not connect anything that isn't already connected, but it will divide the communities of Westbrook and Gorham, so opponents to the highway are calling it the Gorham Divider.
Much of the opposition to the Gorham Divider has coalesced around Smiling Hill Farm, a small family farm directly in the proposed path of the Divider. The owner of Smiling Hill refuses to give up any of his farmland, and people from not just Gorham, Westbrook, and Portland, but also from communities across the state and beyond have come out in support of Smiling Hill Farm's ongoing David and Goliath story.
The conversation surrounding Smiling Hill Farm is also leading to a paradigm shift among Mainers away from car-only infrastructure to considering the restoring of our once extensive rail network, creating a proper BRT system in Greater Portland, making downtowns more human-centric again, and expanding bicycle infrastructure. We still have a long way to go in Maine, but I get filled with so much hope seeing how people are finally waking up to the horrors of car-only development
I visited Maine for the first time about two years ago and I took the train from Boston to Portland Maine. I was happy that I didn’t have to rent a car because I don’t like driving in a big city such as Boston and I was able to walk around on foot in Portland, Maine.
I did wish the train was closer to the city of Portland, since I had to wait for a bus to get me from the station to the city. And at the time I was the only one waiting, so it seemed kind of isolated, but at least it was in the daytime.
@@enjoystraveling Definitely! There is a plan to rebuild Union Station, which used to stand in downtown Portland before it was demolished to build an ugly strip mall
Mayor Johnsons leadership in Milwaukee should be on the radar of every urbanist. Milwaukee had become an unliveable place. Johnson and his team are actually doing something about it and there is a big demand for it.
While neighborhoods in cities were being demolished, small rural towns were being bypassed, economically devastating many families. Because no land was taken, those families received no compensation.
To be completely fair, building a railway would also cut through neighborhoods.
But to be even more fair, a railway takes up much less space AND creates far more economic benefit for the amount of area used.
Plus you can always put some of it underground.
Or building above is cheaper than building below
Yea
You might use a Streetcar or more Buses, it creates noise but it takes cars of the Road that are even louder.
@@nicolai8820 This is completely true, but streetcars aren't really in the same role as highways. A train is much closer to the high-speed, high-capacity city role a highway has.
Although I suppose you could argue many highways also don't do what a highway is supposed to do, especially if they could be replaced by a boulevard...
The corridors for highways are already there. Take two highway lanes and put train tracks there. Increases the capacity of the corridor by a few humdred percent.
"Put the houses where there is already power, sewer and water." And access to services, healthcare, transit. Good ways to reduce building costs and increase net property tax revenue
Until you get to the state New York is in, where most of their sewer system can't physically hold more sewage without backing up all over the streets.
@@willythemailboy2it's also easier to expand or do you think they leave it as is and hope for the best...
@@ANTSEMUT1 It's not a matter of expand, it needs to be ripped out and replaced with larger pipes. Some of it will eventually happen on its own as individual pipes fail, but to upgrade it systematically will take 50 years and several trillion dollars. You have to remember a lot of their infrastructure was built in the 1800s and designed for a quarter of the population currently using it.
Honestly, I think it should just be illegal to build a highway through a city in the first place.
Eminent domain isn't "dystopian". It'd be impossible to build public infrastructure without it.
What is dystopian is how it's abused to build projects no one wants to benefit a few well-connected companies and individuals, at the expense of the public and already-marginalized communities - highways to nowhere, privately-owned shopping malls, fossil fuel pipelines...
The trucking industry is the US is just unreasonable. WE NEED RAILS!
We send significantly more of our freight by rail than Western Europe does.
@@lelandunruh7896problem is its cargo never passenger
@@lelandunruh7896 Rail presents a huge opportunity to electrify long-haul transport. The problem is that North American rail companies are currently obsessed with "precision scheduled railroading". This is a system of cost-cutting involving running overly long trains to save on infrastructure and staffing costs. The problems are:
1. Long trains no longer fit in sidings, so trains can't pass one another
2. Long trains get delayed, so staff are forced to work unpredictable hours
3. The lack of scheduling means that the railroads can only move low-value bulk freight.
What do you know about the trucking industry?
We do, but the rails can't reach every place that freight needs to go, we'll still need trucks to get good to their destinations.
I'm from San Francisco, and we used to have one of the worst freeways in the country. The Embarcadero Freeway was a double-decker freeway that blocked out the city's waterfront, made the downtown area much uglier and inhospitable, all just to save 10 minutes of driving time between the Bay Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge. It was torn down in 1989-1990 after part of it collapsed in the Loma Prieta earthquake.
I'd recommend that instead of using stock footage in the introduction, a much more effective tool would've been to use actual photographs of neighborhoods that are gone, because of these measures, such as downtown Portland, Cincinatti or Saint Louis for example. There are plenty photogaphs of these beautiful oldtowns disappearing, because of highway construction. These cities are just a few examples, but I think from every New York borough to Los Angeles, this has happened and was captured through photographs.
Thing is, eminent domain is also used for public infrastructure I'd like to think we do want. Texan farmers are already gearing up to challenge the highspeed plans there - doesn't matter that it's going to be build elevated (at enormous extra cost), that the impact on their land will be small, or that the land impacted isn't very valuable or important in the first place. NIMBYism, yeehaa.
And it's not just roads or rail, but also things like electricity lines or whatever. While it is difficult to balance I do think it's a necessary tool. And sometimes that will mean that some people lose there home - and sometimes unfortunately for something as stupid as a new highway. But hopefully in the future also for things like a new railway corridor that otherwise could never be build, and where the greater good to society outweighs the emotional attachment of the few to their home.
It's always rich ranchers going full NIMBY on a lot of stuff. I don't get why though.
@@ianhomerpura8937 Because it's an easy attack if you have money.
This is a very important thing to consider. The poorest people /don't own homes/ in the first place, eminent domain doesn't affect them but the promise of enhanced transit and higher density neighborhoods making housing more affordable will benefit them, as it will benefit everyone.
THIS. This is why persuasive essays have a paragraph dedicated to a counter argument. Something to think about @Strong Towns
@@ianhomerpura8937 Not all Ranchers are rich, I know someone who has a small farm.
Is sad how much historical neighborhoods, unique buildings and places keep getting destroyed and erased for a high way. I was checking places and wondered how is possible we as country are willing to destroy so much for a highway to save a meager amount of travel time and displace so many people. Is so sad
I would be extremely pissed if the government took my house for a road/highway. I would only be mildly upset if it was to build light rail/subway and improve public transport infrastructure. Also they should be required to comp you an extra 50%-100% on top of current home/land value so you have plenty to find something suitable and have adequate budget to move.
Freeway expansions mean the destruction of entire city blocks. Metro expansions mean the addition of one or two more trains or an extra car added to the set.
Unless you need to split a neighborhood in half to extend a platform by 30 ft, I have a feeling that one of these things is not like the other.
@@jens_le_benz im talking about adding a new line. Not just increasing capacity on existing lines.
Eminent domain shouldn't exist. If the easement and the road isn't wide enough, that's the city's problem, not the homeowner.
@@Kaede-Sasakiwho lives in the city? A city isn't a thing it is people. You keep commenting all of your high thoughts but you have no basis in reality. Just how things should be
@@jerbear7952
If nobody dreamed better, we'd all still be mucking dirt for our feudal lords. Someone has to dream
Building a highway for projected (!) 3600 cars per day is an absolute joke and waste of money. This is at the upper edge of a residential street and should be treated as such. Even that "business boulevard" is massively overbuild!
The correct design here would a single lane per direction with busses stopping on the drivelane (intentionally forcing everybody to wait) and at the very best (!) bike lanes on both sides. But maybe not even that and instead ban though-traffic, set a 20 mph limit, very narrow lanes and send the cyclists on the road, where they are safer at this speed and low traffic volume. Because there IS a loop around the city and as mentioned, it only costs truckers around one minute.
People don't spend money in your town if they don't stop there.
always these lame excuses, did towns and cities just not exist before highways then?
@@ItFoundMe If you follow the history of mankind before there was a highway there was a road and before there was a road there was a trail. No town or city exists without a way to get there.
The people that live in a city should have a say so in what happens to their city that should not be outweighed by convenience of people of other cities. A bypass loop should be adequate to satisfy the needs of the outliers.
The issue is that you assume people will get off the freeway to spend money
People who live outside new york, but work there tend to buy all their good outside the city because it's cheaper
the issue isn't "cars bad" the issue is "we should build cities for people to live in, not pit stops for people driving past"
Or, as several other people have put it: "We should build places, not spaces"
@@ItFoundMe Urbanism didn't, no. Do you know what you have without highway access? *Rural* homes. Imagine a suburb, but you need to go on a half mile hike *to see your neighbor.* But don't worry, it's only 1-2 miles to the nearest small store.... which is a glorified gas station minus the gas.
And good luck funding a bus line with the few hundred people living in the valley.
Streets and mass transit exist and serve to connect places. It is not just highways or nothing
The music at 5:34 is Avenoir by Katharine Petkovski.
Happened to my family in the '60s, when I was a kid, and it totally uprooted a thriving Asian-American and an established African-American communities.
Abuse of eminent domain has led to dramatically worse land use than if the government didn't have an abundance of wealth to gobble up everything. It is precisely the "poor" cities that didn't have the money to demolish half the community to build highways that are now desirable places to live.
Everyone should share this with their local officials (perhaps at the neighborhood level). It's honestly info ANYONE related to planning should know.
Very well done!
America is insane. They say they can't afford building modern intercity rail, but they can afford building massive highways while displacing people. Who will use the highway if you displace the people for it?
Let's not forget sports stadiums
The goal is not to use the highway in an efficient manner. The goal has always been and will always be to constrict undesired people from building out the communities they come from. Coded language is used to achieve the objective.
There's also an issue of per-eminent industry. The automobile industry is ascendant and supreme, while there isn't really a passenger rail lobby to oppose them. Their also isn't a mature passenger rail industry to build new lines, stations, and trains.
It's a very chicken/egg scenario, which makes it much easier to fight against change.
I don’t get why 49 can’t simply be routed onto 220 through the city. 49 defaults itself onto 220 northwest of Shreveport and would run west of the city, still providing a direct connection between Arkansas and New Orleans without demolishing any neighborhoods
The twin cities suffered a very stark blow to our collective well being by demolishing a few black neighborhoods for such infrastructure. But not only did the neighborhoods get displaced, but we also lost the streetcar system that provided excellent public transit to so many daily commuters.
This was all way before my time, but it is a well documented instance of how devastating such practices of racially biased government sanctioned catastrophes continue to occur.
We are planning our cities wrong, and how we connect cities together. Other places like Amsterdam are doing it right in not only the end results, but in how such infrastructure is decided to be constructed. Electing people who want what is best for the actual people instead of corporations is the first step to recovery.
Brilliant video! It’s always magic to me how you get locals speak so well in front of the camera no matter where you go :)
Any civil engineer will tell you, you can build and widen highways to 10, 20, 30 lanes, whatever you want. It'll, at best, only relieve congestion for a limited time. And that doesn't address the existing bottlenecks at all.
And, as this video notes, congestion isn't a problem at all--it's literally trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
I think we should have more trains.
you're correct.
On the money, marina
Railways for passengers in USA is a big joke
I agree.
Highways in cities are very rarely built for cross traffic---they're for commuters. They are built to try to keep people coming in who have already moved out. It was absolutely the wrong choice, but it should be clear who is making it. Most of our cities are still bleeding core productive workers.
It seems like the biggest obstacle to accomplishing urbanist goals is often people living in the suburbs (Who chose not to live in the city) believing the city should cater to their needs.
15:10 I think this is a really important point that can be easily overlooked. A lot of people will come away from this video with the takeaway that eminent domain is inherently bad. But that's not the point this video is trying to make. Eminent domain is a tool governments can use to improve society, but when used incorrectly, it can have the adverse effect of hurting communities and leaving everyone worse off. Whether or not eminent domain should be used requires holistically weighing the benefit of a project against its societal cost.
Thanks a lot. Eisenhower
Yeah yeah this guy gets it
Thankfully my city's government is strongly against eminent domain. There's still a stroad (State highway) running right through the city with planned widenings, but that's better than deleting neighborhoods for more highways.
How about new railway lines though?
Beautiful story and supporting Schreveport from afar! Love to hear from the locals who care and are taking action. Thanks for another wonderful video Mike and ST team :)
$850M 'Economic Impact' doesn't go to the local community. It goes to big business out of town.
NOLA Has a big movement to tear down the I10 in the city proper. I support it.
I support most of what’s said on this channel, but the hypocrisy from the government is that more highways are built than other transit. Eminent domain is an important part of a functioning society.
We should advocate for stronger eminent domain. NIMBYs in california are stopping green energy projects and mass rail transit across the state. It needs to be easier to build large projects, because all the highways have been built, but we have lots more trains to build.
Eminent domain needs to be a tool, but you said it: "hypocrisy". Eminent domain needs to be for a public cause that makes the pain and trauma worth it. Right now, it seems to be an easy tool for highways but a travesty when it's anything else.
One important detail: Rail corridors are comparatively narrow and easy to build over and under. Nothing compares to highways for cutting a community in half, and only things like airports and new hydro dams compare for wholesale destruction.
Let me ask you this. Which form of transit do you think needs emminent domain more? Train lines or highway networks?
@@chazdomingo475 That's what I'm saying. We need to use it to build rail networks. It's different than 'don't use it to build highways.'
@@chazdomingo475 I mean, that's pretty self evidently the highway network. Highways generally have to be wider for the same throughput of riders and material compared to a fully utilized rail line.
IIRC there's a commuter example from someplace in the US where a rail bridge carrying a similar number of daily commuters as the nearby automobile bridge was less than a tenth as wide.
Highways also, generally, want to continue along a specific route as much as possible, so the ability of car to get off and take surface streets or divert to a different highway is rarely a consideration in the path the road takes.
Highways have just wrecked our cities. I agree that highways are good in connecting major cities so you can get to them quicker but they must always go around cities and never through them
Yes they absolutely can. State of Arizona just did this a few years ago to finish the last leg of SR202
I remember that
Despite the Koch foundation astro-turfing to try and kill it.
Imagine getting kicked out of your home for no reason? Dude. Welcome to renting.
Currently Pennsylvania is trying to take my entire street. My street is nestled in between both the north and southbound lanes of 81. We have been fighting but they just stopped listening.
Fight with weapons.
More people need to understand the destructive impact highways and similar projects have had on our cities. Here in Oklahoma, the historically Black communities in NE OKC and in Tulsa‘s Greenwood District (AKA Black Wall Street) have both been cut off from downtown by highways and further choked out by other forms of “Urban Renewal.” If we forget how and why this happened, it’s much harder to reverse the process, and it’ll surely be doomed to keep happening. Let’s do better.
Eminent domain is an important power for the government to have, and if you want to have strong urbanism and public transit, you /need/ to have the power of eminent domain. NIMBYs are and have already been weaponizing the "well what about people forced out of their homes" to stop projects.
I’m very grateful for the highway system and it’s undoubtedly a positive thing. However, it’s no surprise that it can be improved upon.
My main question is WHY did they think putting HIGH SPEED MOTORWAYS through cities was a good idea. These roads should BYPASS cities so we don't have city traffic on these high speed motorways, not to mention that we have to lower speed limits just to have them go in the cities anyways so what is the point of the motorways at that point?
the point about the interstate being built to speed up military transport times is interesting to me
just how much faster is it now because of the interstate? and how much faster could it be if the convoys were moved by rail instead
Eminent domain shouldn't exist. If the easement and the road isn't wide enough, that's the city's problem, not the homeowner.
Can you guys cover a similar topic but regarding the process of upzoning and densifying? What does someone experience when their neighborhood is getting upzoned?
I wonder if there’s some case for calling the US a military state. Much of the seemingly nonsensical decisions, such as the continued expansion of car-dependent infrastructure, seem more suited to supporting a lengthy war effort.
Ah, I thought so... the U.S. is known for having the strongest military force in the world, and the role of U.S. highways made a tremendous burst in wealth and power.
@@Vacouryard The proliferation of firearms is also explainable here. While of dubious benefit for civilian purposes, it also means that an invading force does not have the luxury of assuming harmless civilians as well. Even with a massive disparity in training, trading a dozen civilians for a single, experienced soldier, is hardly a great trade for the invader.
Kind of reminds me a bit of Amestris from Full Metal Alchemist, a nation that has been at war for nearly its entire existence, built on fighting wars, wields an extremely strong military force, and a well-armed populace.
It does so because car-dependent outer suburbs are what are valued and invested in and cities are often seen as places to drive through rather than live, work and invest in.
Just had this happen to a neighborhood in Houston. The state is expanding HWY 59 through downtown.
The cult of the car demands sacrifice.
Local government will always have the interests of local citizens at the expense of drivers passing through their locality, whereas state and federal governments could care less if 100 people lose their homes because they only care about industrial activity of areas outside of the locality. Guess who is bigger and better funded?
I mean, I wish that were true, but it's not that simple. Local officials make bad or selfish calls all the time. That's why people need to pay attention to their local politics.
It just occurred to me how unrealistic the movie UP was.
They didn't want to demolish his house to make a highway or parking lot.
The arguments presented here are reminding me a lot of the "Broken Window" fallacy.
Great stuff here Mike. I’d highly recommend checking out the 30 year story on the 710 freeway connection through South Pasadena in LA. It’s got loads of interesting stuff
Great video! Thank you, Strong Towns!
Well starting 20miles south of Fort Smith is a mountain range that spans 40miles. This is a routing problem for that section of highway. To the east of Lockesburg is a vast area of woodland that is used for timber farming, another routing problem for a highway. There is also other routing problems, that will drive costs more then saved by just going through towns instead of around.
Will do my part to fight it, but engineering and right-of-way for all of the Arkansas segment has supposedly already been completed. There's basically no stopping the Arkansas segment at this point.
My mom lives near an intersection where they're putting in an overpass over the RR tracks. They have torn down DOZENS of houses and businesses, all so that cars can get to... less places now...
The south Bronx during the 1970s which was considered the worst ghetto in the whole country according to president Carter was formed due to an expressway built by Robert Moses … once he constructed the cross Bronx expressway the neighborhood became excrement immediately.
Why was Eisenhower fixated on highways, but not the already existing, economical railway?
These are stories that need to be told. Thank you, subscribed.
Stay strong Shreveport. Stay strong.
The solution is simple: find the company lobbying for this highway project and convince them they woudl make more money buiding transit through town instead of a highway. They will then lobby for transit and transit will get built. When you have a lobby-driven government, you need to fight fire with fire.
I find it even more insidious that eminent domain and deliberate disregard for the local population is allowed for highway expansion/creation but when it comes to high speed rail, 10+ years of environmental reviews and huge concessions to NIMBY's are what we get.
The us is looked at as a case study in what not to do. America is hooked on roads.
Shreveport LEARN? I grew up here and lives away for many years. I only live here now because of my family. Fortunately I found ReForm Shreveport and other groups that help me remain sane. The people in charge don't know what they don't know and sadly I think they don't want to know. It takes way too much energy to live here😢😢😢
There is only one kind of highway that is uncontroversial, and that is a highway that bypasses (i.e. runs on the edges of) cities, that runs on the boundaries of rural property lines, that reduces the number of commuting trips, and that encourages sustainable transportation options. Having moved to New York from San Francisco, I can safely say that New York City has way too many highways and parkways, and that it should consider demolishing a lot of them and replacing them with surface level boulevards, trams, busways, and canals that move people far more quickly while keeping neighborhoods attractive.
Amazing video. Thanks.
I feel like the state of Louisiana should focus on getting its residents to stop fleeing the state en masse before they try to get a freeway built in Shreveport. 🤷♂️😅
Amen and amen!
Doesn't that depend on who you ask? I hear more people have been moving to Louisiana to get away from the decay of blue states.
@@SirBlackReedsThe truth is it's been pretty flat. They added 1% in the last ten years.
Please consider doing a video on radburn New Jersey
They build the highways to cater to the most affluent & more expensive pocket neighborhoods. The premise is to move past the inner-cities & places with “less-desirable people” who they believe aren’t worth much at high speed.
This includes trains.
I figured out that whoever builds them is catering to those who produce high profits & returns vs the folks in the ghettos & inner cities.
Basically, if they don’t think you’re worth anything, they will not help or service you.
Supposedly Eisenhower wanted the highways to go around the cities but was overruled by auto companies that wanted direct access to downtown.
I am having a courses in environmental justice and it talks about this
0:55 this always seemed so weird to me
like
why are they forgetting about trains?
also using trains would make transportation less fuel dependent
considering us of a imports stupid amount of oil already that might be a good thing
idk why I'm trying to help us
-could help it die, would be more productive-
12:56 I believe that's called "Sunk cost fallacy" SoonerLater
I'm so glad my minions in City Skylines aren't so vocal.
For The Greater Good!
We fought this bs a year or two ago here in western ky. The city wanted to put an “outer loop” in the county outside of our bypass to connect I169 to the Audubon parkway.
The hope was it would bring more traffic through our area instead of routing it 35min west, but all it would do is destroy dozens of family farms and homes for something that may not even help our community.
Thank you for the video
Of course these highways across America goes through black neighborhoods.
I don't think highways should go through towns or cities-have an off ramp that exits to the urban area that's at least a kilometer away.
Barring that, elevated highways through towns and ease up on zoning so cheap shops and homes (≈300 per month) could be built underneath and nearby. Don't destroy buildings, let the highway conform to the city.
I do like how memphis is one of the few cities that fought the development of i-40 going through its center and has it going around its majority. It still lost a bunch of historical sites and homes via pre-planning. I feel it’s an interesting project to look up as proposed exit ramps still dot the midtown and east memphis landscapes as well as interstate infrastructure in general
The solution is simple - close down the interstates going through the cities. Do it whatever the cost. Reroute them outside the cities.
That's easier said than done in a lot of place. LA, for instance, is basically one giant conurbation stretching across the entire basin. There's also cases where cities end up overgrowing and overrunning a highway that used to be at their periphery. Which is one of the few cases where I think a highway running through the city might be okay-ish. At least in that case the land next to the highway is likelier to be properly zoned and apportioned from the start, rather than plopping a giant noise and air pollution generator down next to a formerly quiet neighborhood. (provided that you don't put exits and on ramps at every intersection.)