I’m all in favor of personal choice and flexible work arrangements that allow people to make better work-life decisions. That doesn’t mean government should use the power of eminent domain to build expressways from every suburban cul de sac into the center city. We would be better off with denser cities in which more people were able to live close to their jobs. Transportation issues are highly local and I am always ready to allow for exceptions, but as a general rule, urban expressways are like big public housing projects: more bad ideas from the 1960’s that haven’t stood the test of time and that we are now trying, very expensively, to unwind. No more commuter sewers through residential neighborhoods. No more urban expressways that create barriers and disrupt and degrade close-in neighborhoods. If commuters want to drive, fine. But they can do their driving on regular city streets, with sidewalks, stoplights, and safe crossings every block. If that’s too slow for them, they can take the train. Or move back into the city, help gentrify older neighborhoods, and perhaps even help recover a healthy civic culture.
“No more urban expressways that create barriers and disrupt and degrade close-in neighborhoods.”
__________
This thoughtful comment reminded me of a particular urban expressway that, when it was built in the United States near the middle of the 20th century, certainly created barriers, and clearly degraded a close-in neighborhood.
Thus urban expressway is less than a mile in length. It is currently the shortest, most heavily traveled urban expressway in the world.
Can you cite the precise name of the urban expressway to which I am alluding?
Here’s a hint. The chances of almost anybody citing the name of this urban expressway off the top of their head are essentially nil. Research is needed.
If that’s too slow for them, they can take the train.
now this is a comment most likely heard in the NE. Out west we just smile - train? subway? what’s that?