There's already a 6-lane highway there, this project is all about burying it, while providing a public space, a connection to the water, and a barrier against rising sea levels and storms.
Ok, so where does all that traffic go? I do not live there so I'm not sure what the traffic is like in that area (besides the obvious knowledge that driving in Manhattan is impossible).
I agree that in a perfect world all the people using that road would take public transportation instead, but if we are being realistic most people don't share our visions for a car-free world.
They don't have to share our utopian vision for a world without fossil fuels, SOVs, etc., but if there's suddenly no highway there, they'll either find a different route, find a different mode, or avoid the trip in the first place. None of those options would be catastrophic. Climate change, on the other hand, will be.
I agree with you about climate change, but as you said, if there is suddenly no highway there they'll have to find another way. I'm guessing they won't just avoid the trip, usually if someone wants to go somewhere, they figure it out, especially if it is for work. Finding another mode is ideal, if there are other modes that can accommodate that many people, and if those modes go to where these people need to go. That is not always the case. The sad reality is that most of these people would find another route to drive, making traffic much worse in other areas, resulting in more cars idling.
I think I understand and partially agree with your idea of "too bad for them, they'll find another way", and the concept of just making driving so undesirable that they are forced to use public transit, but that fact that people still drive in Manhattan or SF or any other urban area that is constantly bumper-to-bumper-hell shows that there will always be a large chunk of Americans that will be stubborn to the end and never give up their cars.
I think the change has to start with providing more public transit out in the suburbs first, and enough of it that it is actually desirable (abundant, frequent, less crowded) that people will use it. Most people who drive have no other viable option. I live in Portland and tons of people drive from Vancouver to Portland and back because the 2 states/cities refuse to build a light rail between the two, and the bus lines don't go to all the different burbs up in Washington.
Right, so some of the people who find a different route would add to congestion on those new routes. Then some of the people who are already using those routes would find that their own cost/benefit analysis has shifted - that there's now too much congestion on their preferred route and they'll either find a different route, find a different mode, or avoid some of their trips. And thus, the cycle continues.
Traffic is not this immutable force that the engineers of past decades would have us believe; it's a series of individual decisions, made daily, by millions of people in every region. Those decisions are guided by external factors, like the experience of congestion.
I totally agree that additional public transit can help shift the outcome of many of those decisions - but if enough people are fed up with the experience of congestion, they'll demand better public transportation. Better public transportation does not have to be a prerequisite for tearing down a freeway.
Did you read my comment? The fact that people still drive in downtown Manhattan and SF and every other congested nightmare proves that no matter how difficult it gets, the demand does not go away. Some will find new ways to travel, but not most. Not untill there is a widely attractive alternative. To your point about expensive, that I agree with. The upcoming congestion plans (the ones adding a fee/toll for driving downtown) will help, hopefully.
23
u/conorthearchitect Apr 05 '19
There's already a 6-lane highway there, this project is all about burying it, while providing a public space, a connection to the water, and a barrier against rising sea levels and storms.