Worst possible freeway removal in each city?

[hotdogPi]

What would be the worst place for a freeway removal (and conversion to surface street) by environmental groups?

For Boston, I think that it would be I-93 just south of I-90. (The part north of I-90 is already tunneled, and environmental groups would see no benefit in removing the Zakim Bridge; the concept of grade separation typically doesn't exist on bridges.)

[Rothman]

What would be the worst place for a freeway removal (and conversion to surface street) by environmental groups?

For Boston, I think that it would be I-93 just south of I-90. (The part north of I-90 is already tunneled, and environmental groups would see no benefit in removing the Zakim Bridge; the concept of grade separation typically doesn't exist on bridges.)

Either that or the Pike Extension.  People are already used to the Ted Williams Tunnel.  Killing access to it and sending Boston back to the Dark Ages (despite the Extension's dark history) would cause a revolution.

[JoePCool14]

For Chicago, I'd say just about every expressway we have is crucial. Hell, we even need more of them! I think the fact that the IL-53 extension is essentially dead at this point takes the cake. Lake County is a traffic nightmare and there don't appear to be any substantial plans now to improve that.

In terms of existing expressways, possibly the short US-41 section north of Dundee Rd. I could see them wanting that modified since there's the Botanic Gardens right next to the highway and for other reasons I'm sure. And speaking of US-41, Lake Shore Drive too, just because it's a lakefront expressway.

[Max Rockatansky]

For Fresno putting CA 99 on a road diet would be a disaster.  What little remains of the former surface route of US 99 was massively overwhelmed by the 1940s.  CA 41 and CA 180 probably could pick up a lot of slack bypassing downtown but they would see a ton of freight traffic that usually sticks to 99.  CA 41 being thrown back onto Blackstone Avenue would be the most realistic as it is a high capacity six lane arterial.   Former CA 180 on Kings Canyon Road slogs even today with the modern freeway, I couldn't fathom how much worse it would be as a through route.  Clovis would be a lot less livable if CA 168 was a on surface alignment still like Shaw Avenue and Tollhouse Road. 

[US 89]

Probably the worst thing you could do to the Salt Lake area is kill the I-15/80 concurrency. There's no way SR 201, I-215 and the connections between them, I-15, and I-80 could handle the nearly 300,000 cars that drive that segment daily. In addition, there is a ton of entering and exiting traffic on that section, and killing it would almost certainly cause some awful traffic on surface roads like 3rd West, State Street, or 7th East.

The second-worst thing would be removing I-15 south of the I-215 interchange. The big issue here is the lack of any easily accessible freeway alternates (Bangerter and Mountain View are too far west), and the existing surface roads in the area like State, 7th East, and especially Redwood are overwhelmed as it is now.

[SectorZ]

84 in Hartford

[Beltway]

The Southeast and Southwest Freeways in Washington, D.C.

The RE/T groups have actually suggested this.

[Great Lakes Roads]

Getting rid of I-65/I-70 between the splits in Indianapolis was a HORRIBLE idea.

[zzcarp]

In Denver, there was discussion of removing I-70 from its current corridor and routing it on I-270/I-76 when the central I-70 project began. CDOT found that routing traffic farther out wouldn't serve the traffic from I-70 to downtown, but some neighborhood groups kept pushing it.

[hbelkins]

The stupid "8664" proposal in Louisville that won't die.

[Konza]

Tucson would be an AWFUL mess without I-10.

[ozarkman417]

In Saint Louis it would have to be I-70. It is an important route to some of the larger suburbs such as O'Fallon & St Charles, and is the main route to/from Kansas City. It is also a major crossing point across the Missouri River. I-70 in Kansas City, I-70 might be the best freeway removal option for that city (that or I-670).

[kphoger]

Question:  What would be the worst leg of Kansas City's Alphabet Loop to remove?

[Eth]

Well, we know that for Atlanta it isn't I-85 between GA 400 and I-75. Been there, done that.

Limiting this exercise only to segments that I could plausibly see someone actually seriously suggesting, the Downtown Connector between I-20 and the 75/85 north split seems like the obvious choice. (Something like I-75 in Cobb County would likely be far worse, but nobody would ever suggest that.)

[tolbs17]

I-40 or I-85 in North Carolina. Both major interstates that go through major cities. without them, traffic would be a lot worse on county roads.

[PHLBOS]

For Philadelphia, the removal of I-95 between I-676/US 30 & I-76; such was actually pondered/discussed a few years ago.  Thankfully, such an initiative has since been ditched in favor of the current capping-over proposal.

[sbeaver44]

Harrisburg: I-83 John Harris bridge over the Susquehanna.  I've seen what happens when there is an accident on 83 and everyone diverts.

[ET21]

For Chicago, Lake Shore Drive. People are already targeting it since it's due for a 21st century upgrade to reduce its lane capacity for more park space.

[roadman]

What would be the worst place for a freeway removal (and conversion to surface street) by environmental groups?

For Boston, I think that it would be I-93 just south of I-90. (The part north of I-90 is already tunneled, and environmental groups would see no benefit in removing the Zakim Bridge; the concept of grade separation typically doesn't exist on bridges.)

Either that or the Pike Extension.  People are already used to the Ted Williams Tunnel.  Killing access to it and sending Boston back to the Dark Ages (despite the Extension's dark history) would cause a revolution.

Technically not an expressway (due to the insanely low clearances), but there have been ongoing discussions about converting Storrow Drive to a slow-speed at grade boulevard.  Which would only serve to dump even more traffic onto the Pike Extension.

[thspfc]

I'm not sure about Madison since there aren't very many freeways and none of them have a reason to be removed. For Milwaukee, I think the I-894 bypass would be the worst because it would force thru traffic into the Marquette interchange. Not to mention that I-94 on either side of the interchange is not built to accommodate 100k VPD, and it already handles way more than that.

[sparker]

There's been the occasional rumbling from the usual suspects about removing I-880 between I-280 and US 101, primarily because it goes through an old/historic neighborhood (Rose Park district) partially in a trench.  However, it's the only way to get from the northeast area commercial/employment area (Berryessa, Milpitas) to the southwest mostly residential part of the developed region (Los Gatos, Saratoga, etc.) without a detour on the perennially congested I-280 section south of downtown San Jose.  Removing 880 would create a local traffic nightmare that would be devastating.  Also -- if the 880/101 interchange were not to be rebuilt, its substandard ramps & loops could never handle the SB commute traffic off I-880.   A bad idea that needs to be shouted down before it grows legs!

[Techknow]

I think for Oakland, CA I-980 could be worst freeway removal, probably proposed by the same people sparker is referring to. Others may chime in but I believe I-980 allows one to bypass the MacArthur maze to get on I-880 southbound or I-580 southbound.

[jakeroot]

Groups have discussed moving I-5 through Seattle to I-405, on the other side of Lake Washington (ergo, through Bellevue). I hate the freeway barging through the city as much as the next chap, but there are fundamental issues with removing that much roadway. For example, all of the other roads that were built to connect to it, the businesses that rely on it, etc. I'd rather work towards making it less "obvious" through lidding, instead of outright removal.

I (and many others) look at cities like Vancouver or Christchurch, where there are no motorways chugging through town, as to how density and liveability can be achieved without freeways. But for those cities that did look to freeways in the 50s to 80s, the rest of the city (and indeed metro area) have been slowly modified to respond to this new infrastructure. Seattle was lovely without I-5, I'm sure. But the number of obstacles involved with removing a freeway, at least an important cross-country one such as this, are just too many in number to actually consider removal as a serious option.

[sparker]

I think for Oakland, CA I-980 could be worst freeway removal, probably proposed by the same people sparker is referring to. Others may chime in but I believe I-980 allows one to bypass the MacArthur maze to get on I-880 southbound or I-580 southbound.

Since there's no access from NB 880 to EB 580 (and thus to CA 24) and vice-versa, removing I-980 would essentially throw the proverbial monkey wrench in the regional mobility scenario.  But then the groups promoting removal(s) appear to have functionally if not actually declared war on the driving public, so reducing the ability to efficiently get from point A to point B is considered a victory to them!  On a related note, there is a group calling themselves "War on Cars" that's reaching out for members/associates -- of course, they have a website that, like pretty much all such endeavors, assumes anyone accessing that site is a potential recruit for their "cause".  IMO -- another example of a methodological approach to an issue that has "morphed" into an ideology.     

[TheHighwayMan3561]

For Minneapolis, the obvious answer is I-94 between the downtowns, but there are enough viable alternatives involving 35W/E, 494/694, and MN 36 to ease the pain a bit. I'm tempted to go with 494 between 169 and 35E, which would make getting from the western suburbs to the downtowns and airport incredibly painful.