Which highway do you think should be removed/downgraded?

[Joseph R P]

When I'm talking removed, I'm talking physically removed from existence or downgraded to a lower-speed/capacity road.

In my opinion, I think that the Whitehurst Freeway ("freeway" is debatable, it's narrow with a speed limit of 35), a rusty old viaduct carrying US 29 around Georgetown in Washington, DC, should be removed, and K Street should be upgraded and extended to where US 29 currently transitions of of Whitehurst Freeway onto M Street towards Francis Scott Key Bridge. However, removing Whitehurst Freeway wouldn't do much other than improving the view (it's built right up against buildings in way where if you were to look out the window, your eyes would be hit by the viaduct) and maybe forcing some traffic onto the other freeways or encourage more people to take the bus or metro, and isn't much of a necessity.

[Max Rockatansky]

Personally I'm not a fan of removing developed infrastructure unless there is a truly compelling reason.  The seismic instability of some the Embarcadero Freeway and Alaskan Way Viaduct were good applications for removal, maybe not necessarily replacement though.  In the case of the Viaduct the corridor certainly had to be maintained which ended up being the current WA 99 tunnel under Alaskan Way.

[thspfc]

I-64 between I-264 and I-65 in Louisville

The west and north sides of Kansas City's downtown freeway loop

[Rothman]

Hasn't this been a topic a couple of times already?

[Joseph R P]

Hasn't this been a topic a couple of times already?

Probably, but I'm a newer user and wasn't here when similar threads were posted. I did try searching for one but didn't find any so I created this.

[Bruce]

I-5 on the east bank in Portland. The city would be better off without an ugly waterfront freeway, as they showed when they removed Harbor Drive.

[Scott5114]

I can't think of anything in Oklahoma that doesn't serve some kind of need. I-444 is probably the closest example (as it's sort of redundant to I-244), but even then it sees plenty of use by traffic to/from the BA Expressway, so I can't think that removing it would be a good thing, necessarily.

The Indian Nation Turnpike/OK-375 is fairly low-traffic for a freeway, but since it's already built out as limited access as-is and in a rural area, there's not much to be gained by downgrading it. You could maybe save some cash by abandoning one carriageway, but since it's all paid for with toll money anyway, the safety hit wouldn't be worth the actual gains there.

Basically, the only sort of "downgrade" that makes any sense is dropping short spurs to dying towns from the state highway system. And even that isn't much of a downgrade, just transferring the two-lane road as-is to the county for "maintenance" (which probably means letting the stripes wear off and eventually chipsealing it).

[epzik8]

If we're going with obscure D.C. expressways, perhaps the E Street Expressway.

[NWI_Irish96]

I-64 between I-264 and I-65 in Louisville

A lot of people commute to downtown Louisville from Floyd/Harrison counties in Indiana. I know it's easy to say that traffic should use 264 or 265 to 65 to get downtown, but the reality is that cars will race through on surface streets on Louisville's west side.

Now, cutting the freeway off at 9th Street would get rid of the waterfront freeway downtown and still allow commuters to get downtown.

[Hobart]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned Interstate 180 in Illinois. I don't think we need an interstate spur to serve a town of 1,000 people and an idled steel mill. Abandon one carriageway and replace the bridges with at-grade intersections as they become unusable.

[CardInLex]

I-64 between I-264 and I-65 in Louisville

YES PLEASE

[SEWIGuy]

I-794 in Milwaukee should be a surface street. A boulevard would be nice.

[MATraveler128]

I-91 in Hartford should be put into a tunnel or perhaps capped. It's important, but Downtown Hartford needs better access to the Connecticut River and the freeway takes up too much space.

[hbelkins]

I-64 between I-264 and I-65 in Louisville

YES PLEASE

Can't we please kill this ridiculously stupid 8664 idea already? Traffic in Louisville is bad enough without removing the only east-west expressway and replacing it with a surface boulevard.

[kurumi]

I'd love to see I-84 routed around or underneath Hartford, and have the Bulkeley Bridge revert to a six-lane US 6/44 boulevard. Most of the Mixmaster could be reclaimed and developed.

[hobsini2]

I-64 between I-264 and I-65 in Louisville

So you would route I-64 traffic onto I-264 in Louisville to open up the West Riverside area?  And would you keep to part of I-64 east of I-65 and I-264? Or do I have that flipped?

[hobsini2]

I-794 in Milwaukee should be a surface street. A boulevard would be nice.

All of it? Would you still have the "Boulevard" run from the Marquette to the lake and then turn south for the Hoan Bridge? This isn't like the Park Frwy stub that was on the northside of Downtown.

[SEWIGuy]

I-794 in Milwaukee should be a surface street. A boulevard would be nice.

All of it? Would you still have the "Boulevard" run from the Marquette to the lake and then turn south for the Hoan Bridge? This isn't like the Park Frwy stub that was on the northside of Downtown.

Well, maybe make Clybourn the boulevard through an upgrade and allow development to occur where the highway is running now. Then just use the Harbor Drive ramps to access the bridge. 

[hobsini2]

I-794 in Milwaukee should be a surface street. A boulevard would be nice.

All of it? Would you still have the "Boulevard" run from the Marquette to the lake and then turn south for the Hoan Bridge? This isn't like the Park Frwy stub that was on the northside of Downtown.

Well, maybe make Clybourn the boulevard through an upgrade and allow development to occur where the highway is running now. Then just use the Harbor Drive ramps to access the bridge. 

I could see Clybourn and St Paul used as a one way boulevard situation.

[US20IL64]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned Interstate 180 in Illinois. I don't think we need an interstate spur to serve a town of 1,000 people and an idled steel mill. Abandon one carriageway and replace the bridges with at-grade intersections as they become unusable.

Agree 100%, and also IL 394 [changed my mind] should be made to alternate to I-65 and US 41 south.

[NWI_Irish96]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned Interstate 180 in Illinois. I don't think we need an interstate spur to serve a town of 1,000 people and an idled steel mill. Abandon one carriageway and replace the bridges with at-grade intersections as they become unusable.

Agree 100%, and also IL 394 doesn't need to be a freeway/X-way. In far future, I-172 can be downgraded, too.

IL 394 gets quite a bit of traffic. Definitely doesn't need to be downgraded.

[CardInLex]

I-64 between I-264 and I-65 in Louisville

So you would route I-64 traffic onto I-264 in Louisville to open up the West Riverside area?  And would you keep to part of I-64 east of I-65 and I-264? Or do I have that flipped?

No, I-265 in Southern Indiana would become I-64, all the way around the city. Traffic would rejoin at I-64's exit 19. I-64 between I-65 and I-265 in Kentucky would become a 3di. I-64 from I-265, across the Sherman Minton, and to the existing I-264 would become part of I-264.

Regarding, HB's comments about traffic... Louisville traffic is not that bad. I drive it everyday. Removing this section would not hurt. Especially since Waterfront Park is actively expanding west under I-64.

[NWI_Irish96]

I-64 between I-264 and I-65 in Louisville

So you would route I-64 traffic onto I-264 in Louisville to open up the West Riverside area?  And would you keep to part of I-64 east of I-65 and I-264? Or do I have that flipped?

No, I-265 in Southern Indiana would become I-64, all the way around the city. Traffic would rejoin at I-64's exit 19. I-64 between I-65 and I-265 in Kentucky would become a 3di. I-64 from I-265, across the Sherman Minton, and to the existing I-264 would become part of I-264.

Regarding, HB's comments about traffic... Louisville traffic is not that bad. I drive it everyday. Removing this section would not hurt. Especially since Waterfront Park is actively expanding west under I-64.

There are a lot of commuters from Floyd/Harrison counties in Indiana to downtown Louisville. Remove 64 all the way out to 264 and how do they get downtown?

It's an extra 6 miles to take 265->65 back to downtown, plus you've added a toll and a lot of extra traffic onto that route, which is going to cause 265 to need expansion.

What more likely happens is many commuters still take the Sherman-Minton bridge and just race through the west side down Market or Chestnut, creating a serious safety issue.

As I noted earlier, if you want to remove the section between 65 and 9th street, that allows commuters to still get downtown while still preventing through traffic.

[hbelkins]

I've attended many conferences at the Galt House in Louisville. Invariably, after the events of the day are over around 4:30 or 5, I will look out and see bumper-to-bumper traffic crawling along I-64 and on the I-65 bridges. I won't even think of venturing out of the parking garage until around 7 p.m. to give all that traffic time to clear.

You've already got people using the Clark bridge (US 31) to avoid the tolls on I-65. I can't imagine how badly removing the I-64 freeway would gum up downtown surface street traffic. Why add mileage if you go around on I-264 when there's already a good freeway in place? If anything, I-64 needs to be widened out of downtown going east to the Watterson.

[mgk920]

Heck, IL 394 should be extended southward and southeastward to feed into US 41 in Indiana.

Mike