New York Times Article Filled w/Lies About Freeway Removals

[Bruce]

I-5 in Seattle is not being studied for removal, just for lidding and reconfiguration in the long-term. The NY Times must have misinterpreted the CNU report, but I can't find the exact page.

Highway removals are a good way of undoing the horrible wrongs of mid-century planning, particularly in communities of color. It also helps reduce the maintenance and repair load on state DOTs, especially as many early freeways are literally crumbling and will need billions for replacements. Redirecting those billions to fixing bottlenecks and improving intra-city routes, along with adequately funding real mass transit solutions (e.g. high frequency, limited stop buses, grade-separated rail, and anything but vaporware like hyperloop) would yield huge benefits at the cost of some minor inconvenience while traffic adjusts to the new normal.

[silverback1065]

I-5 in Seattle is not being studied for removal, just for lidding and reconfiguration in the long-term. The NY Times must have misinterpreted the CNU report, but I can't find the exact page.

Highway removals are a good way of undoing the horrible wrongs of mid-century planning, particularly in communities of color. It also helps reduce the maintenance and repair load on state DOTs, especially as many early freeways are literally crumbling and will need billions for replacements. Redirecting those billions to fixing bottlenecks and improving intra-city routes, along with adequately funding real mass transit solutions (e.g. high frequency, limited stop buses, grade-separated rail, and anything but vaporware like hyperloop) would yield huge benefits at the cost of some minor inconvenience while traffic adjusts to the new normal.

which dot is investing in mass transit as an alternative?

Pixel 5

[andrepoiy]

In Toronto, the Gardiner Expressway has been an issue because it is literally crumbling.

Thus, in the end, it came down to 3 options:
1) Removal (and replace with boulevard)
2) Maintain
3) Hybrid Option, which would be to rebuild it and route the eastern end a bit differently. Also the most expensive option.

In the end, option 3 was chosen, and it's interesting because all the downtown city councillors voted for removal while all the suburban councillors voted for the hybrid option.

[froggie]

So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?

Bad faith arguments have no home here. Try again.

Doesn't stop a number of posters here from the pro-freeway/anti-transit side from making such arguments (see below), though I believe you at least mentioned such in your  OP.

So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?

Do you believe highway removal after 50 years would magically restore community, bring back jobs into the rust belt, and restore good old times?
I heavily doubt so.

Yeah, the people who were affected by the highway don't even live there anymore. It sucks that communities were destroyed for highways in the 60s and 70s, but we need to get over it and focus on now.

This is patently false.  Along the vast majority of urban freeways, you have those who did not have their homes directly taken but live immediately adjacent to the freeway and thus were directly impacted by both construction and remain impacted by its presence.  Your comment is the same sort of "bad faith argument" silverback alluded to.

[ErmineNotyours]

I-980 Oakland and CA-103 Terminal Island Freeway I never heard of these two actually being considered for freeway removal by CalTrans

California Highways, State Route 103.  Scroll down to the "Status" section.  Only the section north of the PCH is being considered for lane reduction.

[Rothman]

So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?

Bad faith arguments have no home here. Try again.

Doesn't stop a number of posters here from the pro-freeway/anti-transit side from making such arguments (see below), though I believe you at least mentioned such in your  OP.

So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?

Do you believe highway removal after 50 years would magically restore community, bring back jobs into the rust belt, and restore good old times?
I heavily doubt so.

Yeah, the people who were affected by the highway don't even live there anymore. It sucks that communities were destroyed for highways in the 60s and 70s, but we need to get over it and focus on now.

This is patently false.  Along the vast majority of urban freeways, you have those who did not have their homes directly taken but live immediately adjacent to the freeway and thus were directly impacted by both construction and remain impacted by its presence.  Your comment is the same sort of "bad faith argument" silverback alluded to.

Syracuse is an interesting one.  Yes, the viaduct was a disaster for the old black community.  However, other actions were taken and the community simply isn't there along the viaduct, having been obliterated by hospitals, a psychiatric center and new apartment towers.  When the viaduct comes down, there will be a wide boulevard lined with large medical facilities, mostly.

Although the community grid is going to happen and is set -- any idea that the plans will change at this point is fantasy -- I really doubt any hopes that the removal of the viaduct will promote a feeling of community will be realized.  Heck, my wife and I were just commenting that people may actually miss the shade the viaduct provides as they wait for the lights on Almond.

We'll see.

[SEWIGuy]

Yep, clearly if ONE neighborhood managed to work around a freeway that tore right through, then ALL urban freeways are good!

Whew!!  Glad we solved that one.

[jemacedo9]

As usual, this argument along with many others devolves to an extremist bipolar tennis match.

Remove all inner city freeways!  Here is the two examples where it worked, so apply it unilaterally.
Keep all inner city freeways!  Here are two other examples why it's necessary, so apply it unilaterally.

As usual, the truth is somewhere in between of the extremes.

Yes, some removals are probably a good idea, for several reasons...restoring neighborhoods, cheaper than rebuilding, etc.  And yes, some removals would be disasters. 

[silverback1065]

As usual, this argument along with many others devolves to an extremist bipolar tennis match.

Remove all inner city freeways!  Here is the two examples where it worked, so apply it unilaterally.
Keep all inner city freeways!  Here are two other examples why it's necessary, so apply it unilaterally.

As usual, the truth is somewhere in between of the extremes.

Yes, some removals are probably a good idea, for several reasons...restoring neighborhoods, cheaper than rebuilding, etc.  And yes, some removals would be disasters.

I agree. I believe this is where I am on this issue. I just get annoyed by bad faith arguments on this topic.

[kalvado]

So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?

Bad faith arguments have no home here. Try again.

Doesn't stop a number of posters here from the pro-freeway/anti-transit side from making such arguments (see below), though I believe you at least mentioned such in your  OP.

So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?

Do you believe highway removal after 50 years would magically restore community, bring back jobs into the rust belt, and restore good old times?
I heavily doubt so.

Yeah, the people who were affected by the highway don't even live there anymore. It sucks that communities were destroyed for highways in the 60s and 70s, but we need to get over it and focus on now.

This is patently false.  Along the vast majority of urban freeways, you have those who did not have their homes directly taken but live immediately adjacent to the freeway and thus were directly impacted by both construction and remain impacted by its presence.  Your comment is the same sort of "bad faith argument" silverback alluded to.

If we're talking about 50+ years old construction.... Homes which were affected are at least 50 year old, most likely more than that. Kids who saw highway built are retiring.
Heck, average home ownership span in US is 8 years, people move often enough.

If we're arguing on community level.. Even if area is transformed, would those few who were affected by original construction still stay there? Gentrification is a real thing.

In general, surely it's better to be wealthy and healthy than poor and ill - and I doubt freeway removal would cure old illness.

[SEWIGuy]

As usual, this argument along with many others devolves to an extremist bipolar tennis match.

Remove all inner city freeways!  Here is the two examples where it worked, so apply it unilaterally.
Keep all inner city freeways!  Here are two other examples why it's necessary, so apply it unilaterally.

As usual, the truth is somewhere in between of the extremes.

Yes, some removals are probably a good idea, for several reasons...restoring neighborhoods, cheaper than rebuilding, etc.  And yes, some removals would be disasters.

I agree. I believe this is where I am on this issue. I just get annoyed by bad faith arguments on this topic.

Then why do you continue to make them?

[silverback1065]

As usual, this argument along with many others devolves to an extremist bipolar tennis match.

Remove all inner city freeways!  Here is the two examples where it worked, so apply it unilaterally.
Keep all inner city freeways!  Here are two other examples why it's necessary, so apply it unilaterally.

As usual, the truth is somewhere in between of the extremes.

Yes, some removals are probably a good idea, for several reasons...restoring neighborhoods, cheaper than rebuilding, etc.  And yes, some removals would be disasters.

I agree. I believe this is where I am on this issue. I just get annoyed by bad faith arguments on this topic.

Then why do you continue to make them?

explain. I didn't provide an argument, just pointed out inaccuracies in the article.

[PastTense]

Basically for every freeway built in the U.S. there were people negatively affected and others still being negatively affected: People lost their homes they lived in for decades. Local roads/streets were cut off by the freeway so it takes longer to go the other side of where the freeway now is. There is noise and pollution along the  freeway route. Since the freeway has been built there has been massive development pricing local people out of the market...

So why only concern for inner city blacks who were adversely affected?

And of course the result of freeway removal will be gentrification and most inner city blacks currently living in these neighborhoods will be forced to move since they can no longer afford to live there [unless they live in public housing or are well off]. And the substantial increase in traffic on surface arterial streets will have negative effects.

So except for a few instances of low traffic and very substantial costs to rebuild a falling apart freeway I think freeway removal is a poor idea.

[kalvado]

Basically for every freeway built in the U.S. there were people negatively affected and others still being negatively affected: People lost their homes they lived in for decades. Local roads/streets were cut off by the freeway so it takes longer to go the other side of where the freeway now is. There is noise and pollution along the  freeway route. Since the freeway has been built there has been massive development pricing local people out of the market...

So why only concern for inner city blacks who were adversely affected?

And of course the result of freeway removal will be gentrification and most inner city blacks currently living in these neighborhoods will be forced to move since they can no longer afford to live there [unless they live in public housing or are well off]. And the substantial increase in traffic on surface arterial streets will have negative effects.

So except for a few instances of low traffic and very substantial costs to rebuild a falling apart freeway I think freeway removal is a poor idea.

Not only highway, any change would affect someone else. Forest cut, farm shuttered, meadow paved over; view from the window ruined, noise, construction dust, property value, habitat, fish, contamination...
Problem is that doing nothing going forward is not the option. Actually, it is an option actively pushed, and immediate result is high cost  and low availability of resources.
Recognizing someone paid higher price for that road is great, some fair accommodation is a great idea. It's not about the removal of the bright side in hope that the damage is aomwhoq undone, it is about minimizing negative consequences while keeping benefit.
I don't know how to do it that long after construction

Unfortunately doing good things is not something US politicians are proficient with. Sending B-52s is the preferred method of solving issues. Bulldozers are less efficient, but still, they produce some of the similar effects as B-52s cannot be used at home.

[silverback1065]

lots of people lose businesses and homes and land any time a new terrain interstate, or any road for that matter is built I-69 is a recent example near me.

[ran4sh]

As usual, this argument along with many others devolves to an extremist bipolar tennis match.

Remove all inner city freeways!  Here is the two examples where it worked, so apply it unilaterally.
Keep all inner city freeways!  Here are two other examples why it's necessary, so apply it unilaterally.

As usual, the truth is somewhere in between of the extremes.

Yes, some removals are probably a good idea, for several reasons...restoring neighborhoods, cheaper than rebuilding, etc.  And yes, some removals would be disasters. 

I think, at the very least, if they are not Interstate standard, they should either lose Interstate system designation (with the route designation being moved onto a standard route if one exists, or a new standard route built if one does not exist), or at least some low-cost effort be done to allow them to partly comply, such as restriping a 3-lane no-shoulder road to a 2 lane with standard shoulders, or closing some ramps if closely-spaced ramps do not meet standards.

Interstate System users going from point A to point C should not have to be inconvenienced by point B just because B is geographically between A and C.

[sprjus4]

As usual, this argument along with many others devolves to an extremist bipolar tennis match.

Remove all inner city freeways!  Here is the two examples where it worked, so apply it unilaterally.
Keep all inner city freeways!  Here are two other examples why it's necessary, so apply it unilaterally.

As usual, the truth is somewhere in between of the extremes.

Yes, some removals are probably a good idea, for several reasons...restoring neighborhoods, cheaper than rebuilding, etc.  And yes, some removals would be disasters. 

I think, at the very least, if they are not Interstate standard, they should either lose Interstate system designation (with the route designation being moved onto a standard route if one exists, or a new standard route built if one does not exist), or at least some low-cost effort be done to allow them to partly comply, such as restriping a 3-lane no-shoulder road to a 2 lane with standard shoulders, or closing some ramps if closely-spaced ramps do not meet standards.

Interstate System users going from point A to point C should not have to be inconvenienced by point B just because B is geographically between A and C.

If there's an urban 6 lane interstate on an elevated viaduct with narrow shoulders carrying heavy traffic volumes, I think the benefits of providing a full shoulder are less than the impact caused to traffic now being crammed into 2 lanes each way.

[SkyPesos]

I wouldn't want to go back to 6 lanes with decent shoulder space from the current 8 lanes with no shoulder space on the Brent Spence Bridge.

[Flint1979]

People seem to think that I-475 and I-675 around flint and Saginaw respectively is overkill. But think of Flint and Saginaw without them. I-75 wouldn't be able to handle the traffic on its own.

[hbelkins]

So, we have a thread about the credibility of a NYT story, and we aren't allowed to discuss the credibility of the NYT? Figures...

[Henry]

Thinking back to when I-70N and I-70S were planned to end in Baltimore and Washington, respectively; neither freeway ever made it to its terminus, although at least there was more effort on I-70N to get it done, and it probably would've been completed by now if it weren't for that big city park and those environmentalists working like mad to save the park from destruction. The US 40 freeway (old I-170) would be a perfect candidate for full removal, even though the western stub end has been the only section to actually be removed so far.

As for Chicago, trying to remove the Dan Ryan and Kennedy Expressways would be a nonstarter, mainly because they've become the most vital highway in the area, and it would be far too expensive to do anything to them based on their width (8-12 lanes, counting both local and express).

[thspfc]

So, we have a thread about the credibility of a NYT story, and we aren't allowed to discuss the credibility of the NYT? Figures...

We aren't allowed to discuss the credibility of the NYT because there is no credibility to discuss.

Also, I don't think your signature is going to fly . . .

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I don't think there is any official proposal being explored to remove I-94 on St. Paul's west side either, but every year that goes by the push to lid it or make some other alterations gets a little louder; back in 2017 the city issued a formal apology for the destruction of that largely black neighborhood. As you might expect given it traverses the state's two largest cities, that's one cat that probably can't be put back in the bag.

We had discussed the I-35 Duluth community group at one point when that cane up; a lid covering 35 between downtown and Canal Park would definitely be a good service, and would fit right in with the lids just to the northeast anyway.

[ran4sh]

As usual, this argument along with many others devolves to an extremist bipolar tennis match.

Remove all inner city freeways!  Here is the two examples where it worked, so apply it unilaterally.
Keep all inner city freeways!  Here are two other examples why it's necessary, so apply it unilaterally.

As usual, the truth is somewhere in between of the extremes.

Yes, some removals are probably a good idea, for several reasons...restoring neighborhoods, cheaper than rebuilding, etc.  And yes, some removals would be disasters. 

I think, at the very least, if they are not Interstate standard, they should either lose Interstate system designation (with the route designation being moved onto a standard route if one exists, or a new standard route built if one does not exist), or at least some low-cost effort be done to allow them to partly comply, such as restriping a 3-lane no-shoulder road to a 2 lane with standard shoulders, or closing some ramps if closely-spaced ramps do not meet standards.

Interstate System users going from point A to point C should not have to be inconvenienced by point B just because B is geographically between A and C.

If there's an urban 6 lane interstate on an elevated viaduct with narrow shoulders carrying heavy traffic volumes, I think the benefits of providing a full shoulder are less than the impact caused to traffic now being crammed into 2 lanes each way.

GPS navigation is a thing... if congestion increases because a lane was taken away then that will result in some traffic taking alternative routes, or in the case of local traffic, making the trip at a different time.

[sprjus4]

GPS navigation is a thing... if congestion increases because a lane was taken away then that will result in some traffic taking alternative routes, or in the case of local traffic, making the trip at a different time.

...and still would have an even more congested interstate then before... you are not going to divert an entire lane's worth of traffic.