Unbuilt Urban Projects That You Wish Had Been Built

[SadSprinter]

Well how could it not be the Northern Heights plan...?

The London Underground's Northern Line's northern extremities, were going to be a lot more complicated until WW2 intervened. With two Northern branches- one to the OTL High Barnet and one to ATL Bushey Heath. Plus a third route through Central London via Finsbury Park with another branch to Alexandra Palace.

Much of the works had already been put in place prior to its cancellation. East Finchley station had been quadrupled in anticipation of services via Finsbury Park, and the embankments had been raised north of Edgware to carry the line onwards to Bushey Heath.

Alas, while the Northern Line is still today probably the single most complicated rapid transit line in the world, it could have been even more complicated.

 

[kernals12]

Well how could it not be the Northern Heights plan...?

The London Underground's Northern Line's northern extremities, were going to be a lot more complicated until WW2 intervened. With two Northern branches- one to the OTL High Barnet and one to ATL Bushey Heath. Plus a third route through Central London via Finsbury Park with another branch to Alexandra Palace.

Much of the works had already been put in place prior to its cancellation. East Finchley station had been quadrupled in anticipation of services via Finsbury Park, and the embankments had been raised north of Edgware to carry the line onwards to Bushey Heath.

Alas, while the Northern Line is still today probably the single most complicated rapid transit line in the world, it could have been even more complicated.

They could've built it after the war, but then came the Greenbelt legislation.

 

[jatt_scythian]

This subway system for New York.

http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2010/02/the-futurenycsubway-the-ind-second-system/

And these roads
https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2015/09/unbuilt-highways-of-new-york-city-and-robert-moses/

But underground so neighborhoods aren't destroyed.

 

[kernals12]

This subway system for New York.

http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2010/02/the-futurenycsubway-the-ind-second-system/

And these roads
https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2015/09/unbuilt-highways-of-new-york-city-and-robert-moses/

But underground so neighborhoods aren't destroyed.

I think that putting all the proposed roads, outside Manhattan, underground would've cost too much.

I did however do a lot of that in my New York Thinks Big thread

 

[Ella]

Oooo! Yes! This is an awesome thread and idea. I'm surprised it's all been in America so far though

 

[kernals12]

Oooo! Yes! This is an awesome thread and idea. I'm surprised it's all been in America so far though

There have been several projects in Canada and Britain.

 

[kernals12]

In 1954, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Traffic Association proposed busways to be built underground in Downtown LA.

It makes a lot more sense than all the costly subways and light rail that have been built instead.

 

[kernals12]

There is a benefit to NOT building freeways beyond the freeways themselves, as Toronto has discovered since the Spadina Expressway was killed by the Provincial Government in 1971. Since then, Toronto's 1950s/1960s plan towards car-focused megaprojects has evaporated, leaving the city to evolve for its people instead of its drivers. If anything, I think here that was a massive benefit, as Toronto too had plans for a large freeway system - The plans included extending Highway 400 to the Gardiner Expressway, the Crosstown Expressway to link the Don Valley Parkway to the 400 Extension and the Scarborough Expressway from Highway 2A in East Scarborough to the Gardiner at Leslie Street and Eastern Avenue, as well as building the Spadina Expressway to Spadina and Bloor - but their being canned ultimately resulted in major expansion plans for the TTC instead and the creation by the province of the Ontario Transit Development Corporation, which designed, built or both almost all of GO Transit's fleet and most rail vehicles used by Canadian transit agencies, as well as keeping Toronto for people rather than cars - and it shows, though in the 1960s that wasn't so much the case.

If the freeways you propose had been approved, odds are that finances would have resulted in them not being like Lake Shore Drive and more like the Embarcadero Freeway, which is almost certainly not a benefit. Would you have kept the Embarcadero Freeway in its place? I wouldn't have built it in the first place, honestly, for a number of reasons.

The Gardiner Expressway and the Don Valley Parkway allow Downtown Toronto to be accessed from all directions.

San Francisco is completely different. There is no way to get from Marin County to Downtown SF by freeway, unless you want to cross over the Richmond Bridge, come down through Berkeley and Oakland and then take the Bay Bridge.

 

[WILDGEESE]

The London Ringway Scheme scheme gets my vote.

 

[kernals12]

The London Ringway Scheme scheme gets my vote.

View attachment 498860

I don't think Ringway 1 should've been built, but certainly Ringway 2 would've been good.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Am all for Ringway 1, would also include the Arterial A-Ring at the centre. - https://www.roads.org.uk/ringways/post-war-planning

 

[Workable Goblin]

In 1954, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Traffic Association proposed busways to be built underground in Downtown LA.
It makes a lot more sense than all the costly subways and light rail that have been built instead.

You do realize that building an underground highway--which is what this is, basically--costs as much or more than building subway tunnel, right? And for various reasons busses just can't maintain the kind of passengers per second flow rates than a train can, right? And that the closer you bring them to subway-like performance, the more expensive they get in operational costs due to all the busses and bus drivers and maintenance workers you need, right?

So...why spend just as much or more to get a worse system? If you're really going to push busses, then anything other than lanes on existing roads and maybe some surface routes doesn't make any sense. It's just adding enough cost to make busses as expensive and limited as subways while remaining markedly inferior in all the features that make subways strong. There's a reason Seattle replaced busses in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel with trains instead of the other way around.

 

[kernals12]

You do realize that building an underground highway--which is what this is, basically--costs as much or more than building subway tunnel, right? And for various reasons busses just can't maintain the kind of passengers per second flow rates than a train can, right? And that the closer you bring them to subway-like performance, the more expensive they get in operational costs due to all the busses and bus drivers and maintenance workers you need, right?

So...why spend just as much or more to get a worse system? If you're really going to push busses, then anything other than lanes on existing roads and maybe some surface routes doesn't make any sense. It's just adding enough cost to make busses as expensive and limited as subways while remaining markedly inferior in all the features that make subways strong. There's a reason Seattle replaced busses in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel with trains instead of the other way around.

You still save the cost of laying down tracks and you don't need to acquire any trainsets since existing buses can use it.

 

[Workable Goblin]

You still save the cost of laying down tracks and you don't need to acquire any trainsets since existing buses can use it.

The cost of laying down tracks is practically negligible, besides which the larger tunnel and additional ventilation needed for "existing busses" to use the tunnel will cause significant increases in tunneling and construction costs. And "using existing busses" makes the project even more pointless, because it means that it will have much less capacity than a subway would. This is because busses are smaller than subway trains, so you need to run more of them to provide similar service levels (people/second throughput). Providing this level of service with only "existing" busses means that you have to leech them from the rest of the network and provide very bad service unless you had a truly spectacular oversupply of busses.

In practice, you would need to purchase many additional busses to make such a system worthwhile, and they would probably need to be electric or at least dual-mode diesel-trolleybuses to avoid problems with fume buildup in the tunnels, hence nonexistent in the 1940s/1950s (in the first case) or expensive bespoke systems (in the latter). If you want a grade-separated, high-frequency, high-capacity transit system, then what you want is rail. Not busses in tunnels.

 

[Simon]

The London Ringway Scheme scheme gets my vote.

[SNIP]​

Oh good God no. Ringway 1 was an abomination, Ringway 2 was at least half completed as the North Circular, and Ringways 3 and 4 had parts combined to create the M25. About the only thing I'd change would be to build all of the North Circular as grade-separated dual carriageway right from the beginning, and to build the South Circular similarly – necessitating demolition work – as a proper ring road rather than merely signposting regular streets as currently. Oh and link them via tunnels or bridges.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Two from Toronto!

I would have loved to see Eaton's complete the College Street Store and office tower as intended in 1931. The existing seven-storey store was and is a beautiful example of Art Moderne, but the Rockefeller Center sized, full scale project would have been truly stunning:

Vimy Circle would have been interesting too:

 

[Dr. Hochmeister]

The Baltimore Red Line would have been a fantastic addition greatly easing travel across the city.

 

[kernals12]

There's a reason Seattle replaced busses in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel with trains instead of the other way around.

It's because they've been captured by the light rail cargo cult.

 

[kernals12]

The cost of laying down tracks is practically negligible, besides which the larger tunnel and additional ventilation needed for "existing busses" to use the tunnel will cause significant increases in tunneling and construction costs. And "using existing busses" makes the project even more pointless, because it means that it will have much less capacity than a subway would. This is because busses are smaller than subway trains, so you need to run more of them to provide similar service levels (people/second throughput). Providing this level of service with only "existing" busses means that you have to leech them from the rest of the network and provide very bad service unless you had a truly spectacular oversupply of busses.

In practice, you would need to purchase many additional busses to make such a system worthwhile, and they would probably need to be electric or at least dual-mode diesel-trolleybuses to avoid problems with fume buildup in the tunnels, hence nonexistent in the 1940s/1950s (in the first case) or expensive bespoke systems (in the latter). If you want a grade-separated, high-frequency, high-capacity transit system, then what you want is rail. Not busses in tunnels.

The system wouldn't have been very extensive so it wouldn't have cost an arm and a leg.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Why not merge proposals for underground buss routes and proposals for raised sidewalks? Raised side walks which are reserved for municipal rickshaws.