Are highway removal activists stats misleading?

[silverback1065]

I come across these articles sometimes, they always show it one sided, saying basically removing freeways in cities is always a good idea, but every time they point out highways that have been removed and show the benefits, they always tend to be incomplete spurs, and almost never through routes. I always hear stories about CA 480, or candidates that they want to remove like i-280 east of us 101, i-375 and detroit, and a few more in other cities, as being a good idea.  these all tend to be spurs that end downtown or near it. I have heard a few through routes calling for their removal, i-70 through denver, i-81 in syracuse are a few.  I feel like removing spurs in a lot of areas is an easy thing to do, and the data will make things look promising, but i don't see this applying to through routes as well.  anyway, my question is, what do you all think? is my point at all valid? 

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2017/01/the-highway-hit-list/514965/?utm_source=SFFB

[kalvado]

I would say that arguments there are only to support the main goal, which is forcing people back to old cities and have things the way they were 50-100 years ago. New urbanism is not about engineering, it is about almost religious believes. People want good old times to return without realizing that life changed quite a bit, and good old times are gone not because of highways, but because things  changed quite a bit...   

[tradephoric]

This is a webinar by Dr. Eric Dumbaugh, an urban planner spearheading the removal of the I-10/Claybourne Ave freeway in New Orleans:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv2ajjO2avw

Eric's quote at 51:25 in the webinar pretty much sums up the manipulation when someone is proposing a freeway removal:

"All we're trying to do here is not figure out the "˜quote on quote' truth, but to come up with the most defensible volume for getting this thing torn down" .

He uses Machiavellian tactics to create the most biased traffic models possible to support the removal of the freeway.  He uses the lowest defensible baseline traffic volumes (IE. post Katrina traffic volumes), 50/50 directional splits (even though 60/40 splits are more common), and assumes long cycle lengths and long left turn bays to maximize capacity (even though in the real world shorter cycles will be used and short queue space is available).

[sparker]

Just today KCBS/AM (740) in San Francisco was doing a piece on the urbanists' push to remove I-980 in Oakland.  They resurrected the old "rich folks traveling through and disrupting poor neighborhoods" argument (shades of Helen Leavitt!), stating that "boulevardizing" the "underutilized" (they obviously haven't been on that facility between 6:30-9:30 A.M or 3-7 P.M.) freeway would only add about 5-10 minutes to anyone traveling between Oakland and Walnut Creek.  Finally, one of the advocates stated that I-980 had been part of the original "Southern Crossing" transbay bridge approach system  -- and now that that project had been abandoned, I-980 was no longer needed!  Seems these folks are reaching hard for teardown rationales! 

[Anthony_JK]

This is a webinar by Dr. Eric Dumbaugh, an urban planner spearheading the removal of the I-10/Claybourne Ave freeway in New Orleans:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv2ajjO2avw

Eric's quote at 51:25 in the webinar pretty much sums up the manipulation when someone is proposing a freeway removal:

"All we're trying to do here is not figure out the "˜quote on quote' truth, but to come up with the most defensible volume for getting this thing torn down" .

He uses Machiavellian tactics to create the most biased traffic models possible to support the removal of the freeway.  He uses the lowest defensible baseline traffic volumes (IE. post Katrina traffic volumes), 50/50 directional splits (even though 60/40 splits are more common), and assumes long cycle lengths and long left turn bays to maximize capacity (even though in the real world shorter cycles will be used and short queue space is available).

And all of those justifications are simply nonsense and BS, easily rebuked.

The Claiborne Elevated is the ONLY means for traffic from the Superdome and Smoothie King Center (read, Saints and Pelicans games) to effectively reach eastern NOLA and points east from there. If he thinks that a six-lane boulevard, even with "left turn bays" and long signal cycling can effectively handle nearly 120,000 vehicles per day, and even more than that on game days, then he really does have a serious issue.

And no, diverting that traffic up the Ponchatrain Expressway and on to a repurposed I-610 will not solve that problem, because the Ponchatrain is already maxxed out with traffic coming from the western suburbs of NOLA (Kenner, Metarie). And that's even before I-49 South is finished to Lafayette and adds Westbank/Algiers/Westwego/Luling/Boutte traffic.

Now, if the old Dixie Highway I-410 bypass which would have integrated I-310 and I-510 into a complete semiloop around NOLA had been built, then you could make a decent case for removing the Claiborne Elevated since there would be a secondary bypass to move people around Greater NOLA.

One of the most striking ironies, though? The Claiborne Elevated was a compromise alignment reached after the "Second Battle of New Orleans" over the original Riverfront Expressway; which would have avoided using Claiborne, but went through the far more wealthy and powerful neighborhoods.

Best solution for the Claiborne Elevated is to rebuild and retrofit it, and use the same CSS/Urban Design methods that Lafayette is now using for the I-49 Lafayette Connector project. Treme doesn't need CNU, they need to place a call to the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team and let them work on reviving that neighborhood WITH a better Claiborne Elevated in place.

[RoadWarrior56]

I had a professor back in Graduate School who had a saying he used over and over, and it fits so many things in life.............."Figures don't lie, but liars figure!"  In other words, people with agendas tend to shape facts to fit their desired conclusions.  That doesn't mean that no freeway should ever be removed anywhere, but no claims by advocates should ever be taken at face value.

[cpzilliacus]

Eric's quote at 51:25 in the webinar pretty much sums up the manipulation when someone is proposing a freeway removal:

"All we're trying to do here is not figure out the "˜quote on quote' truth, but to come up with the most defensible volume for getting this thing torn down" .

He uses Machiavellian tactics to create the most biased traffic models possible to support the removal of the freeway.  He uses the lowest defensible baseline traffic volumes (IE. post Katrina traffic volumes), 50/50 directional splits (even though 60/40 splits are more common), and assumes long cycle lengths and long left turn bays to maximize capacity (even though in the real world shorter cycles will be used and short queue space is available).

Has any of this been subject to impartial peer review?

[cpzilliacus]

I come across these articles sometimes, they always show it one sided, saying basically removing freeways in cities is always a good idea, but every time they point out highways that have been removed and show the benefits, they always tend to be incomplete spurs, and almost never through routes. I always hear stories about CA 480, or candidates that they want to remove like i-280 east of us 101, i-375 and detroit, and a few more in other cities, as being a good idea.  these all tend to be spurs that end downtown or near it. I have heard a few through routes calling for their removal, i-70 through denver, i-81 in syracuse are a few.  I feel like removing spurs in a lot of areas is an easy thing to do, and the data will make things look promising, but i don't see this applying to through routes as well.  anyway, my question is, what do you all think? is my point at all valid? 

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2017/01/the-highway-hit-list/514965/?utm_source=SFFB

I-83 in  Baltimore is often  on this list.

But the anti-highway industry is in this for the long haul.  If they succeed in  getting a lot of spur-type urban freeways removed, then they  will go on to demanding  that mainline freeways like I-70 be re-routed and the part they do not like removed and they will point to the removal of the spur freeways as "success stories."  Note that capping freeways to reduce impact is often a good idea, and I think it might be a winner in Denver, and it might  also work with I-95 through Center City Philadelphia.

I-95 was re-routed onto the Capital Beltway in the 1970's because of anti-freeway opposition in D.C. and the Maryland suburbs  of D.C., and because it was rationalized that once the regional Metrorail system was completed, "everyone will be riding Metro" (never mind that Metrorail had and has capacity constraints of its own, just like like the highway system and never mind that Metro cannot serve circumferential trips in most cases).   

The re-routing of I-95 has not always worked out well, and it has made the Beltway more-vulnerable to serious traffic disruptions that it would otherwise have been, and it has routed a large amount of heavy-duty truck traffic through majority minority neighborhoods of Prince George's County, Maryland (not all suburban counties or municipalities are 100% white, though anti-highway activists often imply that as part of their sales pitch).

[silverback1065]

I-83 needs to connect somehow to i-395.  I think this tactic is very effective in convincing residents in the cities it involves, but they never think about how misleading it is to conflate spurs with through routes.

[jeffandnicole]

I'm sure many of us can site examples of highways in their neck of the woods that have been brought up by groups wanting their removal.

Some people in the Philly area want better access to the river. They say the 8 lane (4 per direction) I-95 should be removed in its entirely between the Ben Franklin & Walt Whitman bridges.  They claim that it gets the least amount of usage in that area.  While that is correct, what they don't tell you is 90,000 vehicles a day us it in that area.  As 140,000 or so vehicles use 95 north of the Ben Franklin bridge, the figures are clearly relative. They claim the traffic can use I-676 instead, which is an often jammed, 2 lane-per-direction highway.  There's a 1 lane ramp to I-76 East...and no direct connection back to I-95.  And going North, same thing - there's no direct connection to 95 from 76.  And the ramp from 76 to 676 is a 1 lane hair-pin turn where the jersey barrier is nearly completely black from all the cars hitting it.

In the Trenton area, some people want to redo NJ 29 from a limited access highway to a city-street-grid type road, in order to get pedestrians better access to the river.  NJDOT was on board at one point, although they aren't spending any money on it currently.  It's also been noted that no funding has been set aside to do anything regarding access to the river once the road has been moved.

[froggie]

I feel like removing spurs in a lot of areas is an easy thing to do, and the data will make things look promising, but i don't see this applying to through routes as well.  anyway, my question is, what do you all think? is my point at all valid?

It's a valid concern, but one that cannot be applied en masse to through route projects.  Those will still need to be looked at in detail on a case-by-case basis.  There are also some factors that most people don't consider need to be brought to the forefront, like lifecycle costs and the costs of replacement versus removal.  This is the case with I-81 in Syracuse where the existing viaduct is seriously at the end of its life but replacing it to current (or even near current) standards would be both expensive and require additional right-of-way in an urban core environment.  SO it becomes a question of whether it's cost- and benefit-effective to replace such facilities as-is.

There's also the case of alternatives and whether alternative routes could be improved as a replacement.  This is where Anthony and I will forever disagree regarding the Claiborne in New Orleans (IMO, upgrading 610 would be far more cost effective than keeping/improving the Claiborne...he will forever disagree with me on that).

People want good old times to return without realizing that life changed quite a bit,

...a statement that sums up the recent national election quite well.

In other words, people with agendas tend to shape facts to fit their desired conclusions.

Works both ways.  The recent "fetish" in some areas with public-private partnerships, including and in particular US 460 in southeastern Virginia, is a good example of this on the pro-highway side.

I-83 needs to connect somehow to i-395.

No it doesn't.  Not when you'd have to rip up half of downtown Baltimore to do so.  Or put a bridge right on top of the harbor.  And tunneling is out of the question due to existing rail tunnels.

[Chris]

I've been comparing historical satellite imagery of the demolished Park East Freeway in Milwaukee. It seems that since it was removed in the early 2000s, the right-of-way remained largely vacant. So far only two residential buildings were built on the right-of-way, as well as a soccer field.

[PHLBOS]

I'm sure many of us can site examples of highways in their neck of the woods that have been brought up by groups wanting their removal.

Some people in the Philly area want better access to the river. They say the 8 lane (4 per direction) I-95 should be removed in its entirely between the Ben Franklin & Walt Whitman bridges.  They claim that it gets the least amount of usage in that area.  While that is correct, what they don't tell you is 90,000 vehicles a day us it in that area.  As 140,000 or so vehicles use 95 north of the Ben Franklin bridge, the figures are clearly relative. They claim the traffic can use I-676 instead, which is an often jammed, 2 lane-per-direction highway.  There's a 1 lane ramp to I-76 East...and no direct connection back to I-95.  And going North, same thing - there's no direct connection to 95 from 76.  And the ramp from 76 to 676 is a 1 lane hair-pin turn where the jersey barrier is nearly completely black from all the cars hitting it.

According to PennDOT's 2014 Traffic Volume Map for Philadelphia County, published January 2016, the average daily traffic counts for I-95 in Central Philadelphia are:

- 120,000 vehicles/day between I-676 and Broad St. (stretch includes Penns Landing bathtub)
- 162,000 vehicles/day between I-676 and Allegheny Ave.
- 156,000 vehicles/day between Broad St. and Enterprise Ave. (stretch includes Girard Point Bridge)

[adventurernumber1]

Excerpt from the article that is linked from the OP:

Of course, this is not to say that highways should stay: These roads never belonged in cities in the first place.

What a load of baloney! I'm not saying that highways in cities should never be removed or realigned, but most of the time, of course they belong there. Cities need highways and freeways, in addition to surface streets and arterials.

By no means am I against rerouting them or rebuilding them. A great example of this is the currently existing Interstate 93 tunnel in Boston, which I-93 was originally on a viaduct. I think that was a good idea, and the interstate still serves the city. But to say that the highways shouldn't exist in cities at all is nonsense.

I am also noticing a pattern in the Rust Belt. As the Rust Belt loses its industry, population, and prominence, it is losing some of its highways. I remember hearing about part of the Inner Loop in Rochester being downgraded, and now there are possibly plans to tear down or realign or rebuild the Scajaquada Expressway in Buffalo, and Interstate 81 in Syracuse.

[kalvado]

Some people in the Philly area want better access to the river. They say the 8 lane (4 per direction) I-95 should be removed in its entirely between the Ben Franklin & Walt Whitman bridges.  They claim that it gets the least amount of usage in that area.  While that is correct, what they don't tell you is 90,000 vehicles a day us it in that area.  As 140,000 or so vehicles use 95 north of the Ben Franklin bridge, the figures are clearly relative. They claim the traffic can use I-676 instead, which is an often jammed, 2 lane-per-direction highway.  There's a 1 lane ramp to I-76 East...and no direct connection back to I-95.  And going North, same thing - there's no direct connection to 95 from 76.  And the ramp from 76 to 676 is a 1 lane hair-pin turn where the jersey barrier is nearly completely black from all the cars hitting it.

Similar mantra in Albany NY regarding I-787 and river access. I usually point out at the other shore of Hudson, which is pretty much glorious nothing... Looks like people want to believe left shore is absolutely different from the right...

[cl94]

You can make statistics say anything you want and manipulate the models. That being said, these activists have a ton of political pull because they tend to have deep pockets.

[jeffandnicole]

I'm sure many of us can site examples of highways in their neck of the woods that have been brought up by groups wanting their removal.

Some people in the Philly area want better access to the river. They say the 8 lane (4 per direction) I-95 should be removed in its entirely between the Ben Franklin & Walt Whitman bridges.  They claim that it gets the least amount of usage in that area.  While that is correct, what they don't tell you is 90,000 vehicles a day us it in that area.  As 140,000 or so vehicles use 95 north of the Ben Franklin bridge, the figures are clearly relative. They claim the traffic can use I-676 instead, which is an often jammed, 2 lane-per-direction highway.  There's a 1 lane ramp to I-76 East...and no direct connection back to I-95.  And going North, same thing - there's no direct connection to 95 from 76.  And the ramp from 76 to 676 is a 1 lane hair-pin turn where the jersey barrier is nearly completely black from all the cars hitting it.

According to PennDOT's 2014 Traffic Volume Map for Philadelphia County, published January 2016, the average daily traffic counts for I-95 in Central Philadelphia are:

- 120,000 vehicles/day between I-676 and Broad St. (stretch includes Penns Landing bathtub)
- 162,000 vehicles/day between I-676 and Allegheny Ave.
- 156,000 vehicles/day between Broad St. and Enterprise Ave. (stretch includes Girard Point Bridge)

Still fits the anti-highway people's agenda though!

If they ever actually said "120,000 people use I-95 between 676 and Board", they would lose all credibility though.

[kalvado]

You can make statistics say anything you want and manipulate the models. That being said, these activists have a ton of political pull because they tend to have deep pockets.

Although sometimes I think there is some good in what they want.
Cities - downtowns - are getting pretty old, things like water/sewer lines are often on borrowed time, and rebuild is pretty expensive. Maybe we need some mechanism for old cities to retire? Letting them die in a natural way is less painful than anything else - and road removal would just accelerate that. Once property values plunge, natural decay is less of a pain.... And greenfield development may be advantageous - after all US is still somewhere at the top of the list of countries by land area..
Although Detroit may tell a different story... 

[froggie]

Something I forgot to mention in my earlier post, which has also been referenced in this thread:

The Rochester Inner Loop is a good example of "rightsizing" the infrastructure to the expected demand.  Sure, some of the roadgeeks on this forum may lament it's destruction, but it was at the end of its life, and it was seriously overbuilt for its traffic volumes....much of which would meet LOS C (or better) on a 2-lane surface street.  Rebuilding it as-is for the paltry level of traffic it received would have been wasteful, and so it was downgraded to something more appropriate.

Cities - downtowns - are getting pretty old, things like water/sewer lines are often on borrowed time, and rebuild is pretty expensive.

Still less expensive per-capita than new greenfield development.

Maybe we need some mechanism for old cities to retire?

Are you suggesting that old cities should just die off?  How much land do you want to burn and how much outer suburbia traffic do you want to generate in return?

[kalvado]

Something I forgot to mention in my earlier post, which has also been referenced in this thread:

The Rochester Inner Loop is a good example of "rightsizing" the infrastructure to the expected demand.  Sure, some of the roadgeeks on this forum may lament it's destruction, but it was at the end of its life, and it was seriously overbuilt for its traffic volumes....much of which would meet LOS C (or better) on a 2-lane surface street.  Rebuilding it as-is for the paltry level of traffic it received would have been wasteful, and so it was downgraded to something more appropriate.

Cities - downtowns - are getting pretty old, things like water/sewer lines are often on borrowed time, and rebuild is pretty expensive.

Still less expensive per-capita than new greenfield development.

Maybe we need some mechanism for old cities to retire?

Are you suggesting that old cities should just die off?  How much land do you want to burn and how much outer suburbia traffic do you want to generate in return?

Land - compared to about an acre of agricultural land per person loss of 0.1-0.05 acre of city land per person is not critical.  As for development - it assumes existing infrastructure. When that infrastructure would need a rebuild, greenfield will be winning by a factor of XX.
Many cities are where they are for reasons which no longer make too much sense. River ports, mine locations, crossroads... With high speed truck traffic, telecommute across the ocean and decrease of manufacturing many places just outlive their role.

[tradephoric]

Here is an aerial of Detroit in 1949 when the only freeway that existed was the Davison.

http://gigapan.com/gigapans/147450

[tradephoric]

^I stitched together some of the 1949 Detroit aerials near downtown to make an image overlay file in Google Earth.  Hope this works.

https://www.mediafire.com/?x6e2mjalcvumqza

[Terry Shea]

I think it's obvious that if you remove a freeway traffic will decrease...and that's not usually a good thing!  People prefer freeways to 2-lane roads with lots of traffic signals.  Remove the freeway and people will simply avoid the area...and take their business elsewhere.

[kalvado]

I think it's obvious that if you remove a freeway traffic will decrease...and that's not usually a good thing!  People prefer freeways to 2-lane roads with lots of traffic signals.  Remove the freeway and people will simply avoid the area...and take their business elsewhere.

IF they can do that.
Somewhat special situation, maybe - but I-787 in Albany (I mentioned it before, city folks want to remove that "to get river access") is used by state employers to go to state government buildings. Whit is fairly special case...

[dvferyance]

Anyone who makes this argument I would just remind them what happened in Milwaukee with the park east spur. We were  all told it was going to bring all this economic development and it was going to be so wonderful. They even said it was some of the most valuable land in the state. However it took more than a decade before we saw any development and if it wasn't for the new Bucks arena who knows when we would have seen any development.