←back to thread

473 points Brajeshwar | 1 comments | | HN request time: 1.441s | source
Show context
offsign ◴[] No.46220254[source]
One thing that irks me about these schemes is that they often ignore cities role as regional hubs -- i.e. many cities became cities because they serve as geographical gateways interlocking the surrounding region. They are happy to take the benefits of being at the hub, but (increasingly) adopt a nativistic dialogue with the rest of the spokes.

I get that no one likes highways running through their communities, but when you decommission historical arteries while aggressively adopting anti-car transportation policies throughout the rest of the hub, it's somewhat inevitable that the network get snarled.

Maybe congestion pricing is the way to go -- it can certainly work for major European cities built inland, and surrounded by ring roads. For NYC / SF (surrounded by water), I'm less convinced. Sure, I'll 'just take public transport' to go downtown, but the options significantly diminish if I want to travel from North Bay to South Bay to see my parents, or Jersey to South Brooklyn to visit my inlaws.

replies(9): >>46220346 #>>46220356 #>>46220406 #>>46220457 #>>46220516 #>>46221009 #>>46221027 #>>46221068 #>>46221978 #
1. TulliusCicero ◴[] No.46221978[source]
What you're describing as a problem is actually the solution, and what you think is the solution is actually the problem.

Highways running straight through the middle of major cities is stupid, unnecessary, and harmful. Going to the major cities is fine, but there's no good reason they need to go all the way through them. They should just go around/near the cities instead.