Eisenhower never wanted freeways to go through cities

Another informative post from Patrick Kennedy of Walkable DFW Blow

I've only listed our most conservative estimates of 9 separate models, which is what Kaid is citing here. Our most aggressive (in terms of FAR and land value) raises property tax revenue to nearly $100 million per year (from $3.5M) by year +15 assuming a 95% buildout by then. This new yearly tax revenue would come on the back of $6 billion in new investment (up from the 750M in the conservative model).

A few points of note, the conservative model is EXTREMELY conservative. We're talking one-story buildings and relatively static land values ($60/sf which is fairly typical in the area). The increased investment is almost entirely from dumpin 60 new acres of land onto the market and repositioning 120 of currently underdeveloped land (vacant/surface parking).

The most aggressive scenario sees property values rising to the level of some parts of uptown Dallas with the highest land values in the city. We think we can achieve this (almost as a base line) because we would be closer to downtown (without a freeway dividing as with uptown/downtown) and with better urbanism than what is around the Crescent area of uptown.

In this case we would be proposing land value spikes in the neighborhood of 300%, which seems like quite a bit. However, our confidence in this number was bolstered by the recent ITDP case study of the Embarcadero which showed a 300% increase in land value along the boulevard. Furthermore, we ran network analysis of the street and block network before and after. And if you follow Bill Hillier and his colleagues' line of work, they show that the degree of network interconnecitivity is in proportion with value. Value = desirability = density. In this scenario, we found spikes in "land value" as expressed by the value of the hub within the hierarchy of the network spiking 345% in some locations.

Also, a point of note: many are suggesting/asking if this is a highway to boulevard plan. It is not. While many other cities are doing or planning as such, it didn't make sense to cut/paste that solution here. We explored the option and determined that, while it works on NOLA's Claiborne expressway which tracks with the grid, IH-345 cuts at odd angles making too many fractured, undevelopable parcels. And the overall network isn't improved. Instead, we're relying on existing one-way couplets nearby to handle the local load which doesn't 1) stay on regional highways outside the city like 635 beltway 2) shift to rail 3) disappear as the opposite corollary of capacity induced traffic. These couplets are each 3 and 4 lanes wide and both badly under capacity, carrying between 7 and 10,000 cars per day. The area of these couplets could also use the increased energy as many investors look at traffic counts.

http://www.carfreeinbigd.com/2012/02/couple-of-downtown-graphics-old-and-new.html

 

That's not possible now, but at least torn down in downtown areas would be good. Seoul and San Francisco have done this with great success. I'm sure some people here remember the Embarcadero Freeway.

 

There are billions spent on freeway expansion, so the funding theoretically would be there for demolition as well.

 

Or you could keep the freeways and make them greenspace

 

Have you seen the high line in new york city?