Existing urban freeways that would not even be considered now

[ARMOURERERIC]

Everytime I hear more news about Detroit and their bankruptcy, I thonk of the rust belt cities, their declining population and their freeway systems.  If the freeway systems of Major East Coast/Ohio Valley/Midwest were being considered for the first time today.  Which EXISTING freways would not even be considered as needed.

[NE2]

Most urban freeways. They've done too much to fuck up the cities.

[paleocon121171]

Everytime I hear more news about Detroit and their bankruptcy, I thonk of the rust belt cities, their declining population and their freeway systems.  If the freeway systems of Major East Coast/Ohio Valley/Midwest were being considered for the first time today.  Which EXISTING freways would not even be considered as needed.

Pretty much any 3-Digit Interstate near Flint or Detroit for sure. There are several bypass and spur routes that probably never needed to be constructed for the sake of saving money. I-275 is fine since it's long; it bypasses downtown Detroit (reminds me of I-294 in the Chicago Suburbs), and it cuts down on city traffic already coming from eastbound/southbound I-94, I-96, and I-75. I-375 and I-696 possibly would not have been considered. 375 really only serves the purpose of temporarily relieving minor traffic from U.S. Route 12 and isn't very necessary. Michigan Route 10 heading north and Michigan Route 102 heading west already relieve westbound I-94 traffic entering downtown Detroit, making 696 useless. 475 is a very short bypass and lacks much purpose either given Michigan Route 54, which basically serves as a non-interstate bypass of downtown Flint.

[bulldog1979]

Everytime I hear more news about Detroit and their bankruptcy, I thonk of the rust belt cities, their declining population and their freeway systems.  If the freeway systems of Major East Coast/Ohio Valley/Midwest were being considered for the first time today.  Which EXISTING freways would not even be considered as needed.

Pretty much any 3-Digit Interstate near Flint or Detroit for sure. There are several bypass and spur routes that probably never needed to be constructed for the sake of saving money. I-275 is fine since it's long; it bypasses downtown Detroit (reminds me of I-294 in the Chicago Suburbs), and it cuts down on city traffic already coming from eastbound/southbound I-94, I-96, and I-75. I-375 and I-696 possibly would not have been considered. 375 really only serves the purpose of temporarily relieving minor traffic from U.S. Route 12 and isn't very necessary. M-10 heading north and M-102 heading west already relieve westbound I-94 traffic entering downtown Detroit, making 696 useless. 475 is a very short bypass and lacks much purpose either given M-54, which basically serves as a non-interstate bypass of downtown Flint.

I-375 exists because FHWA's predecessor had Michigan move I-75 further inland away from the Detroit River; the southern end of the Chrysler Freeway was already in progress and became I-375. It doesn't have anything to do with US 12 which ends 2/3 of a mile west of I-375 on the opposite side of the Financial District.

I-696 is in the suburbs and heavily trafficked; assuming the cities would come together now to agree on a routing, it would still be needed, Detroit's decline or not.

[froggie]

Concur with NE2.  Given today's NEPA and environmental justice laws, most urban freeways PERIOD would likely not be considered.

[lordsutch]

I don't know that they'd not be considered at all; however, you'd probably see a lot more built below grade and/or in tunnels, where possible, which is what we're seeing in many of the reconstruction projects for existing elevated freeways today (but not all of them).

[froggie]

However, those options (especially tunnels) are far more expensive.  Part of the reason they routed the urban freeways the way they did was because the land was cheap, socio-economic issues weren't a factor (unless the route was planned thorugh a high-value/wealthy area), and "environmental justice" issues also weren't a factor.

But not just "environmental justice".  Cost considerations would be another factor in why we'd have a lot fewer of them considered.

[J N Winkler]

Design standards have also become more strict and more strictly enforced--for this reason alone many urban freeways are now unbuildable in their original configurations.

[dgolub]

The Oak Street Connector (CT 34) in New Haven.  They're planning to rip it down over the next few years, so they clearly wouldn't build it in the first place.

In New York City, it seems that the Sheridan Expressway (I-895) doesn't serve much of a purpose.  If they had built it up to I-95 near the Bronx-Westchester border, then it might have been a useful shortcut, but as is it doesn't seem to accomplish all that much.

[roadman65]

What about the MD 43 freeway that got demoted to arterial?

[Roadsguy]

I believe the part crossing I-95 was meant for the Outer Beltway, which would cross I-795 at that huge interchange at the mall, and feeding into US 29.

[froggie]

No, the Outer Beltway was a separate animal entirely from MD 43.

[brad2971]

Most urban freeways. They've done too much to fuck up the cities.

Jane Jacobs was one of the bigger critics of '60s freeways and other atrocities of urban planning of that era. However, I'm convinced that even Jane Jacobs could not fully understand how the urban environment can adapt to the freeway. Take a closer look at most urban areas today (outside the 5 boroughs of NYC); most revitalization/gentrification would not have happened if not for the "easy" access that a nearby freeway provides.

Having said that, there would likely be fewer attempts at building freeways in urban areas (and those attempts would mostly be state-funded; no Interstate shield involved). Not only that, but in all likelihood South Dakota would not have I-90 through the center of the state, and I-70 from Topeka to Denver would also not be built. Not enough traffic benefit for all that NEPA cost.

In short, our traffic patterns would be...significantly different.

[thenetwork]

I-696 is in the suburbs and heavily trafficked; assuming the cities would come together now to agree on a routing, it would still be needed, Detroit's decline or not.

If M-DOT knew then what they know now, I-696 probably would have been just numbered as the east-west continuation of I-275, giving Metro Detroit a full singe-route loop around the city. 


The only freeway I could see Detroit being without is the M-10/Lodge Freeway.  But then again, that freeway was pretty much the only freeway serving the Northwest suburbs before I-96 & I-275 were completed in the late 70s.

Meanwhile, SR-59 (The MLK Freeway nee Innerbelt) in Downtown Akron would be a shoe-in for a freeway that should never have been built.

[Kacie Jane]

Take a closer look at most urban areas today (outside the 5 boroughs of NYC); most revitalization/gentrification would not have happened if not for the "easy" access that a nearby freeway provides.

Not sure this is true. Definitely not in Seattle, where recent revitalization was focused on Ballard and Interbay (on the same north-south arterial, far west of I-5) and Columbia City and the rest of the Rainier Valley (somewhat closer to I-5 on the east though access over the hill is tricky, revitalized thanks to access to the new light rail).

[ARMOURERERIC]

When I started this thread, I was thinking about places like Youngstown, Rochester and Niagara Falls and their existing freeways that are no longer needed due to population loss.  Erie is now 30% larger than Youngstown, but compare their respective freeway systems

[brad2971]

When I started this thread, I was thinking about places like Youngstown, Rochester and Niagara Falls and their existing freeways that are no longer needed due to population loss.  Erie is now 30% larger than Youngstown, but compare their respective freeway systems

If that's the case, then YES, those particular communities would've tried to build freeways inside the urban core. Mainly for reasons of "economic development."

[roadman65]

Most urban freeways. They've done too much to fuck up the cities.

Jane Jacobs was one of the bigger critics of '60s freeways and other atrocities of urban planning of that era. However, I'm convinced that even Jane Jacobs could not fully understand how the urban environment can adapt to the freeway. Take a closer look at most urban areas today (outside the 5 boroughs of NYC); most revitalization/gentrification would not have happened if not for the "easy" access that a nearby freeway provides.

Having said that, there would likely be fewer attempts at building freeways in urban areas (and those attempts would mostly be state-funded; no Interstate shield involved). Not only that, but in all likelihood South Dakota would not have I-90 through the center of the state, and I-70 from Topeka to Denver would also not be built. Not enough traffic benefit for all that NEPA cost.

In short, our traffic patterns would be...significantly different.

I have to agree with NE 2, but freeways do mess up ( I will not swear) cities as they tend to divide neighborhoods. Orlando is living proof with I-4.  You think that the industrial area just happens to stop at I-4 by coincidence south of Downtown?  Also you think that its also a chance that I-4 separates the Parramore Section from Downtown as well?  To the west of I-4 you have neighborhoods and to the east you have either the Downtown area or industry.

If I-4 were not there the Downtown area would be much different as well as the Holden Heights neighborhood south of Parramore would maybe have been expanded further to the east as no doubt Interstate 4 caused the development of the industrial west of Division Avenue along with the CSX corridor (originally ACL) that had industry along its path already.

[cpzilliacus]

Given today's NEPA and environmental justice laws, most urban freeways PERIOD would likely not be considered.

There is also an attitude among a fair number of state highway agencies that if a city does not want a freeway, why should they go to the trouble to try and get it through preliminary engineering and the NEPA process.

[cpzilliacus]

I don't know that they'd not be considered at all; however, you'd probably see a lot more built below grade and/or in tunnels, where possible, which is what we're seeing in many of the reconstruction projects for existing elevated freeways today (but not all of them).

Even though it became a "dead end" freeway, the part of I-395 in the Third Street Tunnel in the District of Columbia under the National Mall does not disrupt its surroundings at all now as it crosses under the National Mall west of the U.S. Capitol (though it did when it was constructed as a cut-and-cover project). 

[3467]

Cost too I suspect Construction has outstripped inflation and that leads to cps point with high costs and lack of public support a lot of highways would not have been built. IKE did not like the idea of freeways slashing through urban areas.

But that having been said we did build them and I cant help but thinking at least one never built project would have helped one urban area: The Crosstown on Chicagos west side. It might have diverted some traffic and development from the Tri-State

[mgk920]

IMHO, Lake Shore Drive (US 41) in Chicago would be laughed out of the room if it were to be proposed today.

Mike

[1995hoo]

Urban waterfront freeways in particular likely wouldn't be built now as cities realize the value of waterfront property.

[vtk]

Much of the urban damage caused by the first-generation freeways were because we were Doing It Wrong.  As ODOT rebuilds Columbus's Innerbelt, they're trying their best to correct the mistakes of the past.  That is, aside from completely tearing the freeways out.  Very few people here are asking for such drastic action.

[SP Cook]

All of them.  If the EPA had existed in 1955, the interstate system would have never been built.  If the EPA had existed in 1930, the massive land reclamation and hydro / irrigation projects that make life possible in places like southern California, would have never been built.

Draw your own conclusions as to what part of the country NOW favors NIMBYism and BANANAism the most.