4 Cases Of How Tearing Down A Highway Can Relieve Traffic Jams

[khris]

Remember a few years ago when millions of our fellow Americans started gorging on bacon and cheeseburgers in order to lose weight? The Atkins diet fad was an odd moment in our culture and probably one best politely forgotten. But one reason the scheme took off like it did is that human beings are innately fascinated by counter-intuitive effects. Most examples you hear about on teevee–”Rock-hard abs without getting off your couch!”–are malarkey, of course. But in certain charmed cases, it is possible to get thin by eating lard, so to speak.
.
One example is reducing traffic congestion by eliminating roads. Though our transportation planners still operate from the orthodoxy that the best way to untangle traffic is to build more roads, doing so actually proves counterproductive in some cases. There is even a mathematical theorem to explain why: “The Braess Paradox” (which sounds rather like a Robert Ludlum title) established that the addition of extra capacity to a road network often results in increased congestion and longer travel times. The reason has to do with the complex effects of individual drivers all trying to optimize their routes. The Braess paradox is not just an arcane bit of theory either – it plays frequently in real world situation.

Likewise, there is the phenomenon of induced demand – or the “if you build it, they will come” effect. In short, fancy new roads encourage people to drive more miles, as well as seeding new sprawl-style development that shifts new users onto them.

Of course, improving congestion is not the main reason why a city would want to knock down a poorly planned highway–the reasons for that are plentiful, and might include improving citizen health, restoring the local environment, and energizing the regional economy. More efficient traffic flow is just a wonderful side benefit.

Sound dubious? Here are several examples of how three cities (and their drivers) have fared better after highways that should never have been built in the first place were taken down.

See the rest of the article here

 

[wonderboy416]

The case of Seoul was unique. The area below the highway was incredibly run-down and perhaps the only true "bad neighbourhood" in the entire city. The solution was beautiful. I find myself going by the stream every week. You simply couldn't replace the Gardiner with a public park like this... you'd have to seriously beef-up lakeshore or drop it into the ground Boston-style.

What made it work so well in Seoul is their incredible transportation system. Local range buses are every couple of minutes, medium-long range buses are maybe a 5-7 minute wait at most and there are regional bus terminals that have $3 rides that will take you 1 hour out of the city... Team that up with an affordable, cutting edge subway (and massive - just google image search seoul subway map), commuter rail and high speed rail network along with taxis that would get you from Yonge and King up to Eglinton for $5 and you have a recipe for success.

Torontonians will never be so fortunate to have a government truly committed to alternative transportation... well Federal gov't that is. Imagine being able to jump on a high speed train from Union to Hamilton or waterloo for $6 and be there in 20 minutes? It seems like a pipe dream but that sort of thing is a reality in many asian cities.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Well, in a way you're right: we'll never have the political will to tear down freeways or to build the public transportation system we require. As David Brooks pointed out, Asian cultures have a collectivist attitude where individuals will be more willing to cede personal gains in the name of public amenities. This is good and bad. The good is pretty obvious because you've already covered it in your previous post. The bad part is that there is no device that would prevent a government from trammeling over people's rights. In most cases, this might be something like seizing property to build a high speed rail line, but if you follow it to its extreme end point you get examples like the regime in North Korea, where people completely yield to the cult of the state. Can you imagine a regime like North Korea ever taking root in an Anglo-Saxon society? I can't.