Imagining a Less Disruptive Alternative to a Highway

[M II A II R II K]

In Virginia, Imagining a Less Disruptive Alternative to a Highway


July 13, 2012

By Angie Schmitt

Read More: http://streetsblog.net/2012/07/13/in-virginia-imagining-a-less-disruptive-alternative-to-a-highway/


On the north side of Charlottesville, Virginia, Route 29 is congested. So of course county officials immediately zeroed in on the most expensive, most disruptive course of action: building a $245 million bypass.

- While local authorities seem to be bent on building the bypass, proposing an alternative — and proposing it in video — is a smart and increasingly common strategy. Charleston environmental group the Coastal Conservation League was able to help successfully halt the 8-mile Mark Clark Expressway using a well-designed and accessible alternative plan. In Portland, Spencer Boomhower’s animated condemnation of the Columbia River Crossing highway project has been viewed more than 2,000 times. He even followed up with a “common sense alternative.â€

.....




The Southern Environmental Law Center says the problem could be solved for a lot less than $40 million a mile — with just a few key interventions.


[video=youtube;LtnSsd9AJrI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LtnSsd9AJrI#![/video]

 

[Electrify]

I wonder if such a project could help fix the problem spots on Sheppard Ave.

 

[unimaginative2]

It probably could, but we don't build road projects like that anymore. If you were going to do something like that, an interchange at Black Creek and Lawrence would be more obvious.

 

[gweed123]

It probably could, but we don't build road projects like that anymore. If you were going to do something like that, an interchange at Black Creek and Lawrence would be more obvious.

Yeah, from what I can tell this type of approach works best on arterials that are already quasi-expressway to begin with. Don't they have quite a few of those types of interchanges/intersections in Calgary?

I've always thought that this sort of approach would have worked really well on Hunt Club Rd in Ottawa, seeing as how it's already a quasi-expressway, and by and large only has intersections at major concession roads (specifically West Hunt Club). It's the intersections that cause the backlogs on it during rush hour, not purely volume.

 

[nfitz]

This seems to be a pretty common problem in these suburban American towns ... not even sure suburban is the right word ... subrural perhaps ... we don't really get towns like this here. The old main strip ... or two ... has become a long, long road of big box stores, etc. Everyone has to drive everywhere, so you get gridlock every time everyone goes for a quart of milk. The towns aren't big enough to have a grid system or anything, and you get relatively large populations spread out over very large areas ... but only one shopping district .... along the old main road.

 

[M II A II R II K]

So if in a similar environment where there's the inclination to build a separate highway if this alternative to use the already existing main arterial is viable then sure go for it.

 

[reaperexpress]

I find it amusing that people still believe "solutions" like this. Especially after they were extensively tested in places like Los Angeles. We all know how well that worked out.

They're fixing the most congested spots. So now, instead of having a few spots with traffic, they will have the entire road gridlocked like the 401 as more people choose to use it.

This is what I call a less disruptive alternative to a highway:

Image by Jcovarru on Wikimedia Commons

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Here's the thing. Isn't optimizing the existing highway far better than building a new bypass that will bring it's own latent demand?

Seems like the few road expansions parallel to the highway are a no brainer.

 

[Lenser]

It increasingly appears that any solution to gridlock which calls for building additional infrastructure to accommodate (and inevitably attract) more cars amounts to old school thinking. New school thinking calls for a much greater ratio of public transit in the mix, along with agressive densification, and contracting the sheer expanse of real estate our urban centres take up. In tandem with these developments, it's inevitable that our own sense of requisite personal space is also bound to shrink; we are likely looking at settling for less living area in exchange for being more practically and comprehensively plugged into a vibrant urban environment, one which confers on its citizens a huge range of services and benefits.

All these moves are predicated on rising energy costs, the steady erosion of the middle class and the failure (thus far, anyway) to come up with workable alternate energy tech to enable cars to run independent of fossil fuel.

In other words, it's getting very expensive indeed to live in low-density urban environments, especially when one is forced to commute significant distances to work - heck, even to shop.

 

[unimaginative2]

On the whole I agree with you, Lenser, but I think that the utopian/dystopian Kunstlerian vision of the death of suburbs because of the increasing cost of gas is very implausible. Look at the cost of gas, for example. Assuming a gas price of $1.20 cents per litre and a car getting 8L/100km (an average sedan), a daily round-trip commute of 50km would cost $4.80 in gas. That's less than two TTC tokens. Let's assume that gas prices quintuple to $6 a litre. That would mean a $24 commute in our relatively inefficient sedan, which is less than what many people pay every day to commute from Hamilton to Toronto on the GO Train. In a more efficient car, it would cost far less. There'd be a lot of grumbling, but that's affordable for many suburban families. People are clearly already paying that much to commute every day, and they judge that the benefits of the suburban lifestyle are worth it. We'd definitely see the end of of extreme (200 km daily round trips) commutes and the end of SUVs and other inefficient vehicles in favour of subcompacts, hybrids, and electric cars. I just don't see it prompting the wholesale abandonment of suburbia as the likes of Kunstler predict. Of course, there will be other more serious economic consequences to such an increase in gas prices, particularly in the increased cost of transporting goods, but we don't rely on oil to generate electricity or for most heating anymore.

 

[sixrings]

On the whole I agree with you, Lenser, but I think that the utopian/dystopian Kunstlerian vision of the death of suburbs because of the increasing cost of gas is very implausible. Look at the cost of gas, for example. Assuming a gas price of $1.20 cents per litre and a car getting 8L/100km (an average sedan), a daily round-trip commute of 50km would cost $4.80 in gas. That's less than two TTC tokens. Let's assume that gas prices quintuple to $6 a litre. That would mean a $24 commute in our relatively inefficient sedan, which is less than what many people pay every day to commute from Hamilton to Toronto on the GO Train. In a more efficient car, it would cost far less. There'd be a lot of grumbling, but that's affordable for many suburban families. People are clearly already paying that much to commute every day, and they judge that the benefits of the suburban lifestyle are worth it. We'd definitely see the end of of extreme (200 km daily round trips) commutes and the end of SUVs and other inefficient vehicles in favour of subcompacts, hybrids, and electric cars. I just don't see it prompting the wholesale abandonment of suburbia as the likes of Kunstler predict. Of course, there will be other more serious economic consequences to such an increase in gas prices, particularly in the increased cost of transporting goods, but we don't rely on oil to generate electricity or for most heating anymore.

every day the price of electric cars gets cheaper and gas is less and less a problem. By the time 6$ gas is here we will all be driving cars getting prius gas milage if not better. Tolls would stop people. But people would have to vote in tolls.. Not happening so we are going to continue to see driving.. I also agree even if the electric cars werent ready there would be plenty of people who would rather trade space and drive then live in a condo and walk...

 

[junctionist]

The price of gas is likely to affect the kind of vehicle that drivers will buy; however, congestion, overall costs of ownership and operation including parking, and perhaps government regulation will affect how many people choose to drive. Suburbs can be built to work like cities with a dense and mixed-use built form. They may be built to be walkable and oriented around transit, so they won't die. A suburban townhouse in a dense neighbourhood with a backyard in proximity to a narrow mixed-use arterial will still appeal to those wanting more space for less money than what is offered in the city. That preference doesn't have to mean sprawl and more cars on the road.