• ultimate_question@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This title is under a few layers of irony, there are similar pictures floating around of green spaces converted to highways in the US with the same title, OP is suggesting the European version actually is progress

    • bouncing@partizle.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a worldwide phenomena. The “Big Dig” is a great example of urban space reclaimed from above-grade highways.

      • Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I remember as a kid hearing this vague ideological warfare around it. The Boston Science Museum had a big exhibit on it, as a kid I learned nothing about it. Then it was lamented for being wasteful spending - and only now do I hear about how it was meant to give us back urban areas.

        • jasondj@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure did. I’ve lived in RI my whole life save for when I lived just barely into MA about 5 years ago.

          Pardon the Reddit link, but as soon as I saw a before and after a few months ago, I was awestruck.

        • bouncing@partizle.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s surprising to me. I remember at the time, NBC Nightly News and PBS Newshour (my family’s news diet in the 90s) did stories about it, and they both definitely mentioned reclaiming city space as one of the benefits.

          I think the Big Dig, while it ended up costing several times what it was supposed to, will go down in history as one of the best highway projects of its era. It also proved infrastructure naysayers wrong. A lot of people insist that any highway projects always just induce demand, resulting in even more congestion, but the Big Dig did nothing of the sort. To this day, 30 years on, Boston traffic is still not as bad as it was pre-Big Dig.

          • abessman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            A lot of people insist that any highway projects always just induce demand, resulting in even more congestion, but the Big Dig did nothing of the sort. To this day, 30 years on, Boston traffic is still not as bad as it was pre-Big Dig.

            Induced traffic does not mean that traffic on a specific place inevitably goes back to what it was before a new highway. It means that total traffic, including old and new infrastructure, always goes up if the total road capacity goes up.

            Do you think the total car traffic in the Boston area today is greater than it would have been had the Big Dig not been built? If yes, the ‘infrastructure naysayers’ were correct.

            Of course, this means new highways can be locally beneficial, for example when they are used to divert car traffic from a city center. But they still deepen the overall car dependency. Investing in rail-bound transportation while imposing heavy fees on car traffic into the city would likely be a better use of resources.

            • bouncing@partizle.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Do you think the total car traffic in the Boston area today is greater than it would have been had the Big Dig not been built? If yes, the ‘infrastructure naysayers’ were correct.

              It’s probably gone down, actually, at least in per capita terms. Boston’s population is a lot bigger than it used to be, so that has to be taken into account.

              Keep in mind, the Big Dig actually reduced the total number of highway ramps, which is part of why it increased traffic flow. And by reclaiming neighborhoods from elevated highways, it reconnected areas. You can easily walk places that were not possible before.

              But they still deepen the overall car dependency. Investing in rail-bound transportation while imposing heavy fees on car traffic into the city would likely be a better use of resources.

              Boston is far from car dependent; it’s probably one of the worst cities in America for drivers, and best for cyclists and pedestrians.

              • abessman@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s probably gone down, actually, at least in per capita terms. Boston’s population is a lot bigger than it used to be, so that has to be taken into account.

                The comparison is between today and ‘today but without the highway’, not between today and before the highway was built. If the population increase is greater with the highway there, that’s still part of the induced demand.

                Boston is far from car dependent; it’s probably one of the worst cities in America for drivers, and best for cyclists and pedestrians.

                A city being “bad for drivers” is not a great indicator of it not being car dependant. Cities in the Netherlands are probably the most walkable and bikable on the planet, and also great to drive in because there are hardly any cars.

                • AA5B@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  How about comparing the before, where rush hours totaled like six hours a day of bumper to bumper, stop and go, just sitting there polluting, wasting so much time, money, health. Today, while rush hours is still too long, traffic continues to move, no stop and go, much less time sitting there, raging. Today, on the surface in Boston, there is likely much less traffic, benefitting everyone

                  • abessman@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Because the point of the comparison is to determine if the infrastructure investment was cost effective. What would traffic look like today if the money had instead been used to build public transport, bike lanes, and walkable streets? If the alternative investment had improved traffic even more, building the highway was the wrong thing to do.

                • bouncing@partizle.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The comparison is between today and ‘today but without the highway’, not between today and before the highway was built. If the population increase is greater with the highway there, that’s still part of the induced demand.

                  I wouldn’t suggest that highways never induce demand, but the idea that people are driving more in Boston because of the Big Dig seems doubtful to me.

                  A city being “bad for drivers” is not a great indicator of it not being car dependant. Cities in the Netherlands are probably the most walkable and bikable on the planet, and also great to drive in because there are hardly any cars.

                  The Netherland has pretty robust car infrastructure too.

                  And I agree; a city can be bikable, walkable, and drivable all at once. That should be the goal.