Walkable DFW makes a nice distinction between inter-city and intra-city highways. They are nominally same technology, but placed in the wrong context they can have adverse unintended consequences.
That’s why we must understand that there are two types of highways: Inter-city and Intra-city. Inter-city highways are those necessary for linking regional economies, such as Houston to DFW. They are necessary, provided they’re also competing with overlapping regional linkages by air and rail. Intra-city highways are inner-city highways. These disrupt and disconnect more than they actually connect.
You can’t have a conversation about improved and optimized cities and public infrastructure without understanding the two types of highways and which is appropriate and beneficial.
The reason is the point of any highway is free flow. Anything that interrupts free flow thereby diminishes the efficacy of the infrastructure. The closer you get to an urban core, the more friction there will be due to the more interchanges, exits, intersections, and crosswalks (as these frictional elements decrease in scale closer to the core).
Free flow and friction cannot coexist. They are antagonists. Thus in Lewis Mumford’s terms, they are anti-city and city. Therefore, bodies politic must prioritize, which is more important: free flow or the friction of economic vibrancy. Otherwise, free flow will erode the friction until there is none. We must also remember what that free flow is in service towards, economic activity. If it is killing economic activity that it is supposed to be supporting, we have indeed entered a cancerous stage of infrastructure and in turn city building.