Most pro and anti freeway states & cities.

[Plutonic Panda]

There isn't really too much criteria for this other than your personal opinion of the most pro and anti freeway states and/or cities. I'm not talking about the amount of freeways they have now but for pro freeway states and cities would be the ones building or advocating for the most new freeways and anti would be the ones rejecting and/or planning freeway removals. You can also factor in any freeway capacity expansions as well.

For the most anti freeway states, I'm putting my wagers on Oregon. I don't know enough about east coast states to know how pro-freeway they are. For the cities I'd say Portland(OR), San Francisco, and Vancouver.

I'd add Los Angeles to the list, but they seem to have a fair amount of expansion projects in the pipeline. Seattle is the same way with the SR-99 Tunnel.

For the most pro freeway states, I'd pick Utah, Washington, Arizona, Florida, Texas, and Oklahoma. Keep in mind, these are places I know am familiar with except for Washington. CalTrans seems to have a decent pro-freeway agenda at times though they could do better.

If you can compare all 50 states that is even better. These are just your own observations based on politics/attitudes towards new freeway projects. I know in Oklahoma it's almost underheard of for a freeway project to get canceled because of opposition. There was considerable opposition to the new EOC(future East Oklahoma City tollway) but it still went through.

For cities I'd say SLC, Houston, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Las Vegas, Tampa, and Central Valley cities in California. I'm generally referring to the entire metros.

[LM117]

I'm not sure about the most anti-freeway, but I can definitely say that North Carolina is pro-freeway and probably the most pro-Interstate in the nation, especially eastern NC. Hell, they gained 3 new future interstates (I-42, I-87, I-587) and a future extension of an existing one (I-795), all within a year.

Beat that, Texas!

[pianocello]

Another state with a unique situation is Iowa. I'm counting around 35 random freeway segments, but as far as long-distance corridors, they don't seem to be that excessive.

Iowa, as well as Wisconsin and other midwestern states to some extent, seems to be more focused on building 4-lane expressway sections where traffic doesn't have to stop. Because of this mentality, they haven't seen the need to make every corridor a full-fledged freeway.

[US 89]

Iowa, as well as Wisconsin and other midwestern states to some extent, seems to be more focused on building 4-lane expressway sections where traffic doesn't have to stop. Because of this mentality, they haven't seen the need to make every corridor a full-fledged freeway.

Utah follows a similar mentality as well. There are a few 4-lane or 6-lane expressways in the SLC area (like SR 154, 201, 85) but the plan is to turn them fully into freeways in the future when traffic volumes warrant it. In fact they've started replacing some of the busiest intersections on 154 with interchanges.

On the other hand, UDOT seems intent on building the West Davis freeway, despite strong opposition from NIMBYs and environmentalists. If it gets built, they better not do what they did with Legacy and put a strictly-enforced 55mph speed limit on it.

[catsynth]

San Francisco is incredibly anti-freeway.  The development of a freeway network was halted by the great "Freeway Revolt" in the 1950s.  We also tore down the Embarcadero Freeway in the 1990s, the northern part of the Central Freeway in the 2000s, etc.  I do have to admit, the former freeway spaces are really nice now, especially Hayes Valley and the waterfront.  But getting across town to the GG Bridge is a constant exercise in frustration...

[jakeroot]

Washington (err, more precisely, WSDOT) is pro-freeway. In addition to numerous widening and interchange reconfiguration projects, there are several urban/suburban new-build freeway projects either in development or under construction, such as

- the 395 Spokane Freeway;
- the 167 Tacoma extension;
- the 509 southern extension; and
- the 99 Alaskan Way Tunnel

The freeway revolts started in the late 60s in Seattle. While the suburban freeways that were to enter Seattle were cut, the ones that steered clear of it, such as the 167, 16, 522 (east of the 405), 512 and 18 freeways, were all built (in some capacity). The last really huge project was the finishing of I-90 across Lake Washington in the early 90s. There was always some sort of bridge, but it was a really crappy, unsafe, substandard highway, unfit for an interstate designation. Not to mention that it hadn't yet connected to I-5 (the interchange with the 5 was built in the 60s, but sat unused for several decades -- the highway ended at Rainier Ave instead).

tl;dr -- while Seattle remains a relatively anti-freeway city, they are tolerant of improvements to infrastructure. The suburbs are straight-up pro-freeway.

[freebrickproductions]

Huntsville (and most of Alabama as well) seems to be rather pro-freeway. The city of Huntsville is looking to make most of Memorial Parkway a freeway, extend I-565 to the eastern city limits along US 72, and build the northern bypass as a freeway, along with constantly making noises about a southern bypass (that'll likely be a freeway). ALDOT is also building several new freeways in the Birmingham and Montgomery areas, with I-685 in Montgomery, and a couple of 3dis of I-22 in Birmingham. There have also been noises made about extending I-565 west to Decatur.

[kkt]

Pro: Texas, North Carolina, Arizona.

Con: San Francisco, Portland.

Washington State is somewhere in the middle.  Yes, 99 tunnel, but that has less capacity than the viaduct it replaces.  Yes, new 520 bridge is six lanes while the old was four lanes, but the new lanes are carpool and the old bridge was probably going to sink.

[jakeroot]

Washington State is somewhere in the middle.  Yes, 99 tunnel, but that has less capacity than the viaduct it replaces.

They could have easily knocked down the vaiduct, filled in the Battery Street Tunnel, and called it a day. But they spent billions realigning the 99 with a tunnel, reconnected streets in South Lake Union, rebuilt entire stretches of roadway (99 south of the stadiums). Perhaps "pro-freeway" isn't the best term, but "anti freeway" certainly isn't correct either. Maybe "pro car"?

FWIW, the tunnel has less capacity than the viaduct because it doesn't serve downtown or Western Ave. That's a lot of who uses the present-day viaduct.

[kkt]

That's why I called them somewhere in the middle.  But 99 is a heavily used through route and just knocking out the middle section would have caused serious traffic problems through the Seattle Center area.  I mean even worse than it is anyway.

[Pink Jazz]

Within Arizona, Tucson is definitely anti-freeway.  They only have two freeways and they always vote down road improvement bonds.

[Plutonic Panda]

Interesting. I would have thought the lack of freeways in Tucson was due to negligence from the state government, not the local government.

Sort of like how Austin and San Antonio seem to get overlooked for mega project while TxDOT Dallas and Houston.

That'd actually be a good topic for a thread for states the neglect certain cities in favor of other ones within their state obviously. It would need to be worded better lol, but I do know of Texas that seems to do that.

So that isn't the case with Tucson? I really like Tucson for some reason. I'd like to see it have about a million people someday.

[sparker]

Interesting. I would have thought the lack of freeways in Tucson was due to negligence from the state government, not the local government.

Sort of like how Austin and San Antonio seem to get overlooked for mega project while TxDOT Dallas and Houston.

That'd actually be a good topic for a thread for states the neglect certain cities in favor of other ones within their state obviously. It would need to be worded better lol, but I do know of Texas that seems to do that.

So that isn't the case with Tucson? I really like Tucson for some reason. I'd like to see it have about a million people someday.

Austin has always struck me as a bit schizophrenic when it comes to freeways and the building/expansion of such.  They seem to put up a stink whenever something close to downtown (such as I-35 or the MoPac) is slated for enhancement -- but they seem to tolerate the toll facilities that have sprung up south and east of town (and out of the city's jurisdiction) -- at least to the point of not putting up much of a fight when these things (45, 130, Toll 183, etc.) are in the planning stages.  Perhaps they're considering a particular aspect of academic urban transportation curricula seriously -- particularly the notion of making the driver bear the full/real cost (actual and social) of automotive use -- which is more easily accomplished via a user-fee (read toll) system than a diffused fuel or other resource tax base. 

Maybe this localized set of preferences goes at least partway to explaining why I-14 avoids Austin metro (besides the existence of the 25-mile existing freeway west of I-35) -- no red-blooded Texas road planner would realistically deploy a new Interstate through an area that would likely raise objections to its existence in their backyard.  If an Austin-Houston Interstate-grade corridor does eventually materialize, it'll be interesting to see just how it ties in with the extant composite free/toll Austin network!       

[D-Dey65]

Don't be so sure about Florida being so pro-freeway, especially in the Tampa Bay Metro Area. The upgrade of Gandy Boulevard was stalled for decades before FDOT 7 finally decided to get off their asses and build the thing at least between I-275 and SR 697. They cancelled the proposal to extend the Veterans Expressway east of Dale Mabry Highway, and like many other NIMBYists, they think they've saved their communities from traffic jams and suburban sprawl. They didn't.  SR 56 is still incomplete, Pasco CR 524 is still incomplete, the Suncoast Parkway is still incomplete, the proposed interchange for SR 54 and US 41 sucks balls, because it forces the same problems that people on SR 54 west of US 41 have now onto people who will drive on the proposed eastbound on-ramp and westbound off-ramp.

[Pink Jazz]

As for Tucson, they continuously vote down every road bond that would help build new freeways and improve existing freeways.

[jp the roadgeek]

CT is the poster child of Freewayphobia.  Generations come and go while every project is bogged down by EIS after EIS and NIMBY's rule the roost.  CT 11, US 7 between Norwalk and Danbury, I-84 to Providence.  All have either died or have essentially been slowed to the point of not even being a consideration.  The only freeway portion to open since the turn of the century was the Brookfield Bypass portion of US 7.  Otherwise, other than short links being completed in the late 80's and early 90's (I-691 west of Exit 4, I-384 to I-84, CT 9 stretches in East Berlin and Farmington, and I-291 from South Windsor to Manchester), the system has pretty much remained the same for the last 30 years. 

[kurumi]

CT is the poster child of Freewayphobia.  Generations come and go while every project is bogged down by EIS after EIS and NIMBY's rule the roost.  CT 11, US 7 between Norwalk and Danbury, I-84 to Providence.  All have either died or have essentially been slowed to the point of not even being a consideration.  The only freeway portion to open since the turn of the century was the Brookfield Bypass portion of US 7.  Otherwise, other than short links being completed in the late 80's and early 90's (I-691 west of Exit 4, I-384 to I-84, CT 9 stretches in East Berlin and Farmington, and I-291 from South Windsor to Manchester), the system has pretty much remained the same for the last 30 years. 

It would be interesting to do a chart of miles of new freeway completed by year. Sudden spikes in 1938-41, a lull during wartime, then really taking off between 1958 and about 1971.

[Henry]

For the most anti freeway states, I'm putting my wagers on Oregon. I don't know enough about east coast states to know how pro-freeway they are. For the cities I'd say Portland(OR), San Francisco, and Vancouver.

I could think of some eastern cities that are anti-freeway: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Washington, DC.

[silverback1065]

Interesting. I would have thought the lack of freeways in Tucson was due to negligence from the state government, not the local government.

Sort of like how Austin and San Antonio seem to get overlooked for mega project while TxDOT Dallas and Houston.

That'd actually be a good topic for a thread for states the neglect certain cities in favor of other ones within their state obviously. It would need to be worded better lol, but I do know of Texas that seems to do that.

So that isn't the case with Tucson? I really like Tucson for some reason. I'd like to see it have about a million people someday.

having a million people in Tucson would be a problem if the water issues continue with Lake Mead. 

[jakeroot]

As for Tucson, they continuously vote down every road bond that would help build new freeways and improve existing freeways.

Is traffic flow in Tucson deteriorating? Or is just poor, but not getting worse? I feel like Tucson is playing it smart by not building freeways like Phoenix, instead opting for high-capacity arterial roads. This will become advantageous in the future, as these wide roads will have space to implement BRT lanes, and median width to support elevated metro lines (if that ever becomes necessary).

[inkyatari]

I think that the Chicago area is pretty anti-freeway.  Look at the BS with the IL 53 extension, the Prairie Parkway, the Illiana, and of course, the crosstown

[ilpt4u]

I think that the Chicago area is pretty anti-freeway.  Look at the BS with the IL 53 extension, the Prairie Parkway, the Illiana, and of course, the crosstown

I thought it was impressive Blago got the I-355 Will County extension thru!

But not just those, the Fox Valley/Fox River Expressway, too, from Plainfield to McHenry (and eventually Richmond and to meet the US 12 Freeway in Genoa City, WI) -- basically, the Prairie Parkway before the Prairie Parkway, or upgrading the Rt 59 and/or Randall Rd Corridor to Freeway

I would like to have seen the "Next" Leg of the I-355 Extension down to I-57, and possibly I-65, but that one never got very far off the planning stages, due to development in New Lenox that was already built up south of I-80 by the time the current South Extension opened -- no room to go further South. This route would have made more sense than the "current" Illiana idea, IMHO

On the plus side for Chicago Freeways, the aforementioned 355 Will County Extension got built, and the EOE is being built to where it will actually reach O'Hare! Now it will only be half-named wrong. The old Elgin O'Hare Expressway/Now IL 390, that went to neither Elgin nor O'Hare . And of course the O'Hare Western Bypass is being built, too

[JKRhodes]

As for Tucson, they continuously vote down every road bond that would help build new freeways and improve existing freeways.

Is traffic flow in Tucson deteriorating? Or is just poor, but not getting worse? I feel like Tucson is playing it smart by not building freeways like Phoenix, instead opting for high-capacity arterial roads. This will become advantageous in the future, as these wide roads will have space to implement BRT lanes, and median width to support elevated metro lines (if that ever becomes necessary).

I honestly think it's getting better. I remember 15 years ago when rush hour traffic on the north side was horrendous, but the network of arterial roads has been built up nicely since then.

I drove for Uber for a few weeks, and picked up a lot of fares from the airport. I was generally impressed at how the roads tie the airport into pretty much every part of town, despite very few actual freeways.

[bing101]

San Francisco is incredibly anti-freeway.  The development of a freeway network was halted by the great "Freeway Revolt" in the 1950s.  We also tore down the Embarcadero Freeway in the 1990s, the northern part of the Central Freeway in the 2000s, etc.  I do have to admit, the former freeway spaces are really nice now, especially Hayes Valley and the waterfront.  But getting across town to the GG Bridge is a constant exercise in frustration...

I remember there was a map that showed that I-80 was also supposed to reach the Castro district at one point though but that was cancelled.

[kkt]

San Francisco is incredibly anti-freeway.  The development of a freeway network was halted by the great "Freeway Revolt" in the 1950s.  We also tore down the Embarcadero Freeway in the 1990s, the northern part of the Central Freeway in the 2000s, etc.  I do have to admit, the former freeway spaces are really nice now, especially Hayes Valley and the waterfront.  But getting across town to the GG Bridge is a constant exercise in frustration...

I remember there was a map that showed that I-80 was also supposed to reach the Castro district at one point though but that was cancelled.

A bunch more freeways in S.F. were planned.  Embarcadero Freeway stretching all around the waterfront to the Golden Gate Bridge, a N-S freeway parallel to 19th Ave. and Park-Presidio Blvd., I-80 extending was along the south edge of Golden Gate Park to meet the Park-Presidio Blvd. freeway (I-80 mile numbers count from there), more other places.  All shot down.  The only new freeway that was finished since the late 1950s is I-280.