Freeways that should be demolished

[bing101]

CA-710 can be decommissioned mainly because locals only know this as the CA-134 @ I-210 interchange in the Pasadena area.

[skluth]

I-44 between Busch Stadium and I-70 in St. Louis.

The St. Louis area is already severely lacking in north-south corridors

Do I-55, I-170, I-255, US-61, US-67, MO-141, and I-270 ring a bell?

* I-55:  Only works south of downtown St. Louis and uses the PSB, which has capacity and frequent construction.  On the Illinois side I-55 goes more east-west than north-south until Troy, at which point it is too far east.

* I-170:  Doesn't go south of US 40.

* I-255:  Depending on the destination could require crossing the Mississippi twice.  Frequently has construction anymore.

* US 61:  Only crosses about half of the region before turning west towards Wentzville on US 40.  Has some of the same issues that US 67 has.

* US 67:  Lots of stoplights and has a very slow downtown section in Kirkwood complete with two railroad crossing..  The northern railroad crossing can be blocked for long periods due to the adjacent Amtrak station and slow moving coal trains climbing up from the Meramec River valley.  The corridor improves north of MO 100/Manchester but is hindered by an underposted speed limit and a decent amount of enforcement.

* I-270:  Overburdened due to the lack of alternatives.

* MO 141:  Lots of stoplights, has capacity issues at US 40 and possibly also at I-44 and MO 364.  Also getting too far west for many destinations.

You gotta love how urbanists, in this case an out-of-area urbanist, will often locate a useful highway to minorities and poorer whites to demolish. I used to live in St Louis, working near the brewery. I'd guess about 80% of my African-American coworkers used this highway to get to work coming from the NW suburbs or Illinois. It's also the highway connecting the lower middle class blacks and whites along the I-55 corridor in South City and South County to Downtown. Some local white urbanists were also arguing in favor of demolishing I-44 between the Stan Span and PSB, ignoring that it was the primary route for African-Americans in the inner suburbs to get downtown and the South Side while the more suburban white commuters could easily use I-170/I-64 to get downtown from their homes.

The most logical candidate in St Louis for removal would be I-64/US 40 between McCausland and Busch Stadium. Traffic can still get downtown on I-44 and the Forest Park Parkway/Market much like it did during the I-64 reconstruction ten or so years ago. But that would only inconvenience the rich, white West County commuters. Can't let that happen.

In reality, I don't think any St Louis freeways should be demolished except the never-completed I-755 stub just west of Union Station. I'm not against removing freeways. The Gardiner Expressway in Toronto, Park Freeway in Milwaukee, and the Embarcadero Freeway in SF needed to be removed, as should the remnant of the Franklin-Mulberry in Baltimore. But people should just demolish freeways because they've arbitrarily decided to remove them without considering what new problems they might create.

[ilpt4u]

^^^^^^^^^^^^I'm pretty sure that MO 755 stub near Union Station is already no more and is well on its way to being a MLS Stadium

I drove over that way a couple weeks back...the outer shell of the new soccer stadium is already built

[jamess]

Pretty much any highway between a city and the waterfront.

I-64 in Louisville meets this, and I'd argue it shouldn't be demolished.

Ive never been to Louisville, but looking at Google Maps, that absolutely looks like a great candidate to go.

Take a look at the traffic volumes on that segment of I-64. It's not going anywhere.

Whats really great about cars is that its exceptionally easy to go another route. Youre inside, sitting, climate controlled, with radio.

So yeah, if that highway just magically disappeared one day, everyone would still get to where theyre going, in pretty high comfort. There are a ton of alternatives in every single direction. Are those alternatives as direct? Maybe not, but again, thats ok. All one has to do is press lightly on the accelerator and they will be fine.

When waterfront highways were built, rivers were literally sewage lines. Some were even on fire. They were nasty, nasty places. Building a highway along them was probably the right choice.

Fortunately, thats no longer the case, and the economic value of an accessible waterfront is much higher. It is time we start moving those highways to other locations so cities can capitalize on their waterfronts. Turning that space into condos, parks, tourists attractions etc will do locals and the regional economy a whole lot more than a highway.

[sprjus4]

There are a ton of alternatives in every single direction. Are those alternatives as direct? Maybe not, but again, thats ok. All one has to do is press lightly on the accelerator and they will be fine.

You're also going to congest those other routes further by trying to divert 100,000 AADT.

Additionally, you're forcing what is now a toll free route to cross a toll bridge either on I-65 or I-265. I-64 is the only free interstate crossing. Cutting off decent access to that bridge from the east side is not going to be popular.

There's no plans to demolish the highway, Kentucky in fact recently reconstructed its interchange with I-65, it's not going anywhere.

[jamess]

Additionally, you're forcing what is now a toll free route to cross a toll bridge either on I-65 or I-265. I-64 is the only free interstate crossing. Cutting off decent access to that bridge from the east side is not going to be popular.

What is popular and what is for the best are rarely the same. Progress requires a strong backbone. People absolutely detest change. But they come around to it once the benefits are in front of them.

I doubt youll find anyone now who wishes the Big Dig never happened. But it was NOT at all popular during the decade of construction and exploding costs.

There's no plans to demolish the highway

Correct, and this thread isnt about that. Its about good candidates.

[vdeane]

Pretty much any highway between a city and the waterfront.

I-64 in Louisville meets this, and I'd argue it shouldn't be demolished.

Ive never been to Louisville, but looking at Google Maps, that absolutely looks like a great candidate to go.

Take a look at the traffic volumes on that segment of I-64. It's not going anywhere.

Whats really great about cars is that its exceptionally easy to go another route. Youre inside, sitting, climate controlled, with radio.

So yeah, if that highway just magically disappeared one day, everyone would still get to where theyre going, in pretty high comfort. There are a ton of alternatives in every single direction. Are those alternatives as direct? Maybe not, but again, thats ok. All one has to do is press lightly on the accelerator and they will be fine.

When waterfront highways were built, rivers were literally sewage lines. Some were even on fire. They were nasty, nasty places. Building a highway along them was probably the right choice.

Fortunately, thats no longer the case, and the economic value of an accessible waterfront is much higher. It is time we start moving those highways to other locations so cities can capitalize on their waterfronts. Turning that space into condos, parks, tourists attractions etc will do locals and the regional economy a whole lot more than a highway.

So it doesn't matter that the route becomes way out of the way, takes a lot longer, or becomes more congested?  Or that the highway system functions less optimally?  That's the thing I don't like with modern planning - everything is looked at locally to projects/corridors/etc., with the system as a whole is practically an afterthought.  Gone are the days where you'd see the federal government come up with a wholistic package of interstate system additions, for example.

There are a ton of alternatives in every single direction. Are those alternatives as direct? Maybe not, but again, thats ok. All one has to do is press lightly on the accelerator and they will be fine.

You're also going to congest those other routes further by trying to divert 100,000 AADT.

Additionally, you're forcing what is now a toll free route to cross a toll bridge either on I-65 or I-265. I-64 is the only free interstate crossing. Cutting off decent access to that bridge from the east side is not going to be popular.

There's no plans to demolish the highway, Kentucky in fact recently reconstructed its interchange with I-65, it's not going anywhere.

I'm not a fan of removing I-64 either, but playing devil's advocate, I'm pretty sure I-264 would still be there.  In fact, I'm pretty sure I remember reading something at some point that that's where I-64 would go were it to be removed.

[jamess]

So it doesn't matter that the route becomes way out of the way, takes a lot longer, or becomes more congested?  Or that the highway system functions less optimally?  That's the thing I don't like with modern planning - everything is looked at locally to projects/corridors/etc., with the system as a whole is practically an afterthought.  Gone are the days where you'd see the federal government come up with a wholistic package of interstate system additions, for example.

Youre right that we need to look at the whole system, but in my opinion, that means looking further out than just the highway network. That means looking at the full economy and weighing the economic costs.

Im not a professional economist, but I know they can weigh the costs, like congestion, wasted time etc and compare it with the benefits of direct river access, which could include tourism, health, etc

So at the end of the day, a 5 minute longer commute for Bob might be worth it if it means John gets to open a new waterfront restaurant.

[bwana39]

Interstate 30.

Interstate 30 where?  this sure seems out of the blue????

All of it.

West of Little Rock the prevailing traffic follows Interstate 30. While it is not as busy as I-20 in east Texas, it is certainly far busier than I-40 west of Little Rock.  I have two thoughts SHORTNESS. It is the shortest of the I-X0's. That said, if the truncation rules has been followed consistently, I-30 would have gone on to the east coast as opposed to I-40.

I guess the question is why it should go away or is a numbering issue?

[Roadgeekteen]

Interstate 30.

Interstate 30 where?  this sure seems out of the blue????

All of it.

West of Little Rock the prevailing traffic follows Interstate 30. While it is not as busy as I-20 in east Texas, it is certainly far busier than I-40 west of Little Rock.  I have two thoughts SHORNESS. It is the shortest of the I-X0's. That said, if the truncation rules has been followed consistently, I-30 would have gone on to the east coast as opposed to I-40.

I guess the question is why it should go away or is a numbering issue?

Rothman is being sarcastic here, I don't find it funny at all.

[sprjus4]

Interstate 30.

Interstate 30 where?  this sure seems out of the blue????

All of it.

West of Little Rock the prevailing traffic follows Interstate 30. While it is not as busy as I-20 in east Texas, it is certainly far busier than I-40 west of Little Rock.  I have two thoughts SHORNESS. It is the shortest of the I-X0's. That said, if the truncation rules has been followed consistently, I-30 would have gone on to the east coast as opposed to I-40.

I guess the question is why it should go away or is a numbering issue?

Rothman is being sarcastic here, I don't find it funny at all.

It's not being funny, it's just merely trolling for a reaction.

[RobbieL2415]

At this point, if CT 11 isn't going to be finished to New London, it should either be moved over to one carriageway or removed all together.

[mgk920]

None here in Wisconsin, although when the Stadium North freeway (WI 175) in Milwaukee comes due for major work I would be open to some creative ideas for making it more useful to the neighborhood, but I do have some words about New York - I would most definitely keep I-81 through Syracuse.  OTOH, I would seriously study the continued presence of I-787 (at least the part south of I-90), the US 9/20 bridge over the Hudson River and its major downtown interchange in and around Albany, NY.  Also the US 9 freeway stub and its I-90 interchange on the north side.  Build/restore a Madison Ave/State St (US 9/20) Hudson River crossing as a grand street bridge?

Mike

[MCRoads]

I think that Louisville has done a fairly decent job revitalizing the riverfront in downtown, but west of downtown could use some love too. I would redo the 9th St interchange to make it a lower profile, either by making it a diamond/SPUI/DDI, or by putting the flyover ramps under the existing freeway. I would also put the freeway west of the interchange in a trench, possibly with lids, to allow for east access to the riverfront. This would be done on the existing alignment, or a slight variation thereof, to avoid ROW acquisition. I may make a drawing of what I have in mind. I know this is possible, as they are doing it in Denver.

[zzcarp]

I think that Louisville has done a fairly decent job revitalizing the riverfront in downtown, but west of downtown could use some love too. I would redo the 9th St interchange to make it a lower profile, either by making it a diamond/SPUI/DDI, or by putting the flyover ramps under the existing freeway. I would also put the freeway west of the interchange in a trench, possibly with lids, to allow for east access to the riverfront. This would be done on the existing alignment, or a slight variation thereof, to avoid ROW acquisition. I may make a drawing of what I have in mind. I know this is possible, as they are doing it in Denver.

Lowering I-70 in Denver was made possible by constructing a giant storm drainage interceptor to collect stormwater runoff and run it via gravity to the South Platte. For Louisville, it appears all of I-64 is in or adjacent to the river floodplain and floodway. At best, it could be a cut and cover tunnel, and it would likely be more costly and require more floodproofing for it to work.

[Flint1979]

I support removing the Lodge Freeway in Detroit from Grand Blvd. to Downtown. The Service Drive's should be rebuilt to handle more traffic and the current freeway part should be built up as an extension of the area now called Midtown. This would connect Midtown to the Woodbridge neighborhood. This is a city we're talking about and as little land as possible should be used for freeway's in a city.

This is included in removing I-375 on the other side of Downtown and I-75 between I-94 and I-96 (I-75 should be concurrent with I-94 and I-96 south of I-94 in this area). The current freeway can be a freeway until Warren and then it becomes Hastings Street. I-75 west of the I-375 interchange becomes Vernor Highway with a median filled in like the Lodge which becomes 5th Street NB and 6th Street SB.

Removing all the interchanges between these freeways would free up a lot of land for new development. The area within the Grand Blvd. loop should be built up as dense as possible.

[sprjus4]

Not saying I'm opposed to demolishing the freeways, but what guarantee is there that it would redevelop?

[Katavia]

Speaking of redeveloping... Nominating the Franklin-Mulberry Expressway (read: would-be I-170) in Baltimore.
In the roadgeek sense, it would definitely be unfortunate to lose it, but beyond this interest, what does it really provide?

It doesn't go very far and it doesn't take you anywhere that staying on Mulberry or Franklin won't. It will also never be connected to I-70 given the history of Baltimore urban freeways, and it's definitely more on the side of "wasted space" than some other mentioned freeways in this thread because of it.

I have heard that the city was trying to build a subway(?) line thru there several years ago, did anything ever come of that?

[jmacswimmer]

I have heard that the city was trying to build a subway(?) line thru there several years ago, did anything ever come of that?

It was cancelled in June 2015 by Governor Hogan (It was actually a state-level project, rather than city, thru the Maryland Transit Administration, which also runs the existing Owings Mills-Johns Hopkins subway line along with the BWI-Hunt Valley light rail line.)

Hogan is term-limited and leaves office in 2023, so perhaps the project will be revisited sometime after that depending on who the next governor is.

Wikipedia link, in case you're interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Line_(Baltimore)

[HighwayStar]

Pretty much any highway between a city and the waterfront.

I-64 in Louisville meets this, and I'd argue it shouldn't be demolished.

Ive never been to Louisville, but looking at Google Maps, that absolutely looks like a great candidate to go.

Take a look at the traffic volumes on that segment of I-64. It's not going anywhere.

Whats really great about cars is that its exceptionally easy to go another route. Youre inside, sitting, climate controlled, with radio.

So yeah, if that highway just magically disappeared one day, everyone would still get to where theyre going, in pretty high comfort. There are a ton of alternatives in every single direction. Are those alternatives as direct? Maybe not, but again, thats ok. All one has to do is press lightly on the accelerator and they will be fine.

When waterfront highways were built, rivers were literally sewage lines. Some were even on fire. They were nasty, nasty places. Building a highway along them was probably the right choice.

Fortunately, thats no longer the case, and the economic value of an accessible waterfront is much higher. It is time we start moving those highways to other locations so cities can capitalize on their waterfronts. Turning that space into condos, parks, tourists attractions etc will do locals and the regional economy a whole lot more than a highway.

The "economic value" of an accessible waterway is largely fictitious. Hipsters being able to walk by the river and drink their Starbucks is inconsequential compared to the value of highways that can transport goods and people with efficiency and comfort.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I-35 through Duluth removed nasty railyards and demolished decaying industrial buildings while adding greenspace and a path along the shore. I'd argue it made the local waterfront very much more accessible than it was before.

[Rothman]

I-35 through Duluth removed nasty railyards and demolished decaying industrial buildings while adding greenspace and a path along the shore. I'd argue it made the local waterfront very much more accessible than it was before.

Depends on which section you mean.  West Side took a big hit when it was built into the city.  I-35 took hundreds of homes.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I-35 through Duluth removed nasty railyards and demolished decaying industrial buildings while adding greenspace and a path along the shore. I'd argue it made the local waterfront very much more accessible than it was before.

Depends on which section you mean.  West Side took a big hit when it was built into the city.  I-35 took hundreds of homes.

I specifically meant the downtown tunnels.

I mean, given the above discussion I don't know how that seemed ambiguous, since the tunnels came decades after the rest of the freeway and the part west of Lake Avenue is decidedly not on the lakeshore.

[HighwayStar]

I-35 through Duluth removed nasty railyards and demolished decaying industrial buildings while adding greenspace and a path along the shore. I'd argue it made the local waterfront very much more accessible than it was before.

Depends on which section you mean.  West Side took a big hit when it was built into the city.  I-35 took hundreds of homes.

Old run down housing can be replaced, not much of a loss.

[Rothman]

I-35 through Duluth removed nasty railyards and demolished decaying industrial buildings while adding greenspace and a path along the shore. I'd argue it made the local waterfront very much more accessible than it was before.

Depends on which section you mean.  West Side took a big hit when it was built into the city.  I-35 took hundreds of homes.

Old run down housing can be replaced, not much of a loss.

The neighborhood was quite a loss, insomuch that it affected the routing of I-35 as it continued north due to public blowback.