Are highway removal activists stats misleading?

[Duke87]

The Claiborne Elevated is the ONLY means for traffic from the Superdome and Smoothie King Center (read, Saints and Pelicans games) to effectively reach eastern NOLA and points east from there. If he thinks that a six-lane boulevard, even with "left turn bays" and long signal cycling can effectively handle nearly 120,000 vehicles per day, and even more than that on game days, then he really does have a serious issue.

And no, diverting that traffic up the Ponchatrain Expressway and on to a repurposed I-610 will not solve that problem, because the Ponchatrain is already maxxed out with traffic coming from the western suburbs of NOLA (Kenner, Metarie). And that's even before I-49 South is finished to Lafayette and adds Westbank/Algiers/Westwego/Luling/Boutte traffic.

All this, however, hinges on the premise that all that traffic needs to be handled. New Orleans was a vibrant city before it had any freeways, after all. The difference was that in those days people lived closer to where they worked because it wasn't so easy to cross town regularly, and people relied on streetcars and the like to get around rather than their own private vehicles.

Freeways helped create the spread out development patterns that are typical in most US cities today, if there is a desire to reverse that removing the freeways seems like a logical step towards doing so. And, not for nothing, there are valid reasons to want to do this: low density lifestyles with people taking long car trips to get where they need to go are inherently inefficient. The United States has higher energy usage per capita than most other countries in the world in part because of our inefficient development patterns.

Anyone who makes this argument I would just remind them what happened in Milwaukee with the park east spur. We were  all told it was going to bring all this economic development and it was going to be so wonderful. They even said it was some of the most valuable land in the state. However it took more than a decade before we saw any development and if it wasn't for the new Bucks arena who knows when we would have seen any development.

On the other hand, when New Haven removed two blocks of the CT 34 freeway, they had developers lined up and on board in the planning stages, and the buildings that now stand on these parcels were already designed and ready to be built before any shovels went in the ground removing the freeway.

But yes, this does not amount to the freeway removal bringing development. It's quite the opposite: demand for development bringing freeway removal because the freeway was in the way of where investors wanted to put buildings. What happened in New Haven could almost be thought of as reverse eminent domain.

Freeway removal advocates will point to this as a shining example of how quickly freeway removal can spur new development which benefits the economy, but that would be a blatant case of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in action.

Determining the real net impact of freeway removal on the economy is difficult. Neighborhoods near removed freeways do tend to become more vibrant places, yes, but vibrant places near freeways which don't get removed also exist, so clearly the presence of a freeway does not preclude this. Meanwhile, the loss of the availability of the freeway to through traffic carries an economic cost in terms of lost mobility. One which is not seen by the local neighborhood or by any particular locale, but rather which is diffuse throughout the region - and therefore it itsn't noticeable, but that doesn't mean it doesn't nonetheless exist.

[Brandon]

Here is an aerial of Detroit in 1949 when the only freeway that existed was the Davison.

http://gigapan.com/gigapans/147450

If you look, the Detroit Industrial Expressway (I-94) also is there.

[PHLBOS]

On the other hand, when New Haven removed two blocks of the CT 34 freeway, they had developers lined up and on board in the planning stages, and the buildings that now stand on these parcels were already designed and ready to be built before any shovels went in the ground removing the freeway.

To be fair, the CT 34 freeway in that area was more of spur (or glorified on/off ramp) as opposed to a through-expressway (although such was originally planned way back when); so removing/downgrading it didn't translate into spilling traffic (including delivery vehicles) onto local streets.

[Sykotyk]

Interesting that this thread just come up as there's one lone wolf trying to argue that I-77 in Canton, Ohio should be boulevardized between US62 and US30 because it cuts off neighborhoods, and lights would only add 'five minutes' to the commute for those taking I-77. Then tried to argue that traffic can take side streets if traffic backs up too much. Somehow not realizing that despite a lot of Cantonians using the road, there's a lot of through traffic whose main objective will be to stay on I-77, regardless of how bad traffic may be.

And if it can be boulevardized, they want it capped, for 2.8 miles long to be graded with the surrounding lane as a covered freeway.


Through it all, the constant harping of "it's only five minutes" is what I find most odd. Clearly they don't understand traffic (they claim they were an urban planner!?), nor do they understand that one light, one time, at 76k AADT can cause more traffic than you can clear at one light during peak times. And with the number of lights needed, if timing the lights perfectly, not everyone will get through the city, and those 'timed lights' will start bottlenecking traffic in waves, and each wave increasing the traffic.

[Scott5114]

I've seen some lists of "successful freeway removals" that cite I-40 in Oklahoma City...failing to note that it was simply realigned about seven blocks south.

I think a lot of freeway removal advocates like to point to the concept of "induced demand"–which is often the result of a highway drawing traffic that would otherwise be on another, more overburdened parallel route.


Post Merge: February 03, 2017, 03:10:06 AM

But yes, this does not amount to the freeway removal bringing development. It's quite the opposite: demand for development bringing freeway removal because the freeway was in the way of where investors wanted to put buildings. What happened in New Haven could almost be thought of as reverse eminent domain.

Freeway removal advocates will point to this as a shining example of how quickly freeway removal can spur new development which benefits the economy, but that would be a blatant case of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in action.

This is an example of the planning doctrine of "highest and best use". A given parcel of land should be developed to its highest and best use. In some cases, that will be commercial development. In others, it will be a freeway. It sounds like in New Haven, the land's highest use was for development, but on some parcels of land the need for transportation infrastructure (and its inherent economic benefits that it provides to the surrounding neighborhood) will outweigh the economic effects of other projects that could be built there.

If you can demonstrate that a given development is a higher and better use of the land than a freeway, then by all means remove the freeway. But, unless there is extremely high demand for real estate in an area, it's difficult to show that private use of the land serves a higher purpose than a freeway.

[PHLBOS]

I've seen some lists of "successful freeway removals" that cite I-40 in Oklahoma City...failing to note that it was simply realigned about seven blocks south.

A similar deception was cited in reference to the realignment of I-195 in Providence, RI.

In those 2 cases; such were wins-wins (hence, exceptions not the rule).  Urban planners/developers got some prime real estate and motorists & truckers got a better/safer highway.

[Buck87]

Interesting that this thread just come up as there's one lone wolf trying to argue that I-77 in Canton, Ohio should be boulevardized between US62 and US30 because it cuts off neighborhoods, and lights would only add 'five minutes' to the commute for those taking I-77. Then tried to argue that traffic can take side streets if traffic backs up too much. Somehow not realizing that despite a lot of Cantonians using the road, there's a lot of through traffic whose main objective will be to stay on I-77, regardless of how bad traffic may be.

And if it can be boulevardized, they want it capped, for 2.8 miles long to be graded with the surrounding lane as a covered freeway.

Through it all, the constant harping of "it's only five minutes" is what I find most odd. Clearly they don't understand traffic (they claim they were an urban planner!?), nor do they understand that one light, one time, at 76k AADT can cause more traffic than you can clear at one light during peak times. And with the number of lights needed, if timing the lights perfectly, not everyone will get through the city, and those 'timed lights' will start bottlenecking traffic in waves, and each wave increasing the traffic.

Good lord. Where are you encountering this guy?

[sparker]

The philosophies that underlie the push for freeway removal in cities, including the oft-cited "new urbanism", largely stem from a belief that enhanced socialization, including imbuing a "sense of place" regarding places of residence and commerce, is necessary and desirable to counteract forces seen as isolating people from one another (i.e., individual suburban housing, substitution of commuting for localized residence/employment centers).  Prior to widespread car ownership, the principle of "bounded rationality" (one doesn't consider what isn't available) kept folks close to their jobs, with social circles overlapping commercial considerations (a la Robert Putnam's observations), creating a more full and often "vibrant" set of communal activities.  In order to reintroduce some form of this bounded rationality to the socioeconomic arena, certain aspects of what exists currently within that arena must be excised; the concept of mobility -- and the things that are seen as promoting it, such as efficient means of "escape" (e.g., freeways), are high on the list of features to be deleted.   A reinvigorated city is, to these social activists, expected to function as a gathering place -- the "beacon on the hill", so to speak -- from which the products of collective human activity flow.  The concept of removing one's self from that environment is considered counterproductive -- even, in more ideological circles, verging on evil! 

It's within these more ideological communities of thought that the notion of freeway removal has taken hold -- replacing means of egress with something thought to be more enticing to the prospect of staying put is considered to be an effectual means to achieving the end result of a more place-oriented general attitude.  However, the notion that daily life contains commercial aspects as well as social ones is given short shrift; the viewpoint that those same means of egress may enable goods & services to be efficiently and effectively delivered within the urban area is often dismissed as superfluous or even contributing to materialism.  Considering that in many instances urbanist (new and otherwise) and communitarian spheres of influence function as an overlapping "Venn diagram", lack of consideration for the commercial aspects of daily life shouldn't be surprising.  The cost of freeway facility teardown as well as that of reconfiguring the local area to fit the idealized urbanist conceptualization also isn't afforded much consideration except for the general idea that in the long haul such activity is worth it. 

Unfortunately, undertaking such a major project often involves parties whose interests are not necessarily parallel to those of the neighborhood/area at large -- including developers, retail franchisers, and the like who readily evolve (or devolve) any concepts of social justice that may be endemic to the original freeway-removal rationale into basic cookie-cutter gentrification (think of blocks of condos atop endless Starbucks, Noah's Bagels, and other businesses purportedly catering to the whims & tastes of urban dwellers).  It often seems that enhanced socialization is fine as long as it takes place where profit can be made from the pass-through!   

[cpzilliacus]

I-83 needs to connect somehow to i-395.  I think this tactic is very effective in convincing residents in the cities it involves, but they never think about how misleading it is to conflate spurs with through routes.

The original plans for a connection between I-83 and I-95 included a terrible and terribly intrusive high or low bridge (there were plans for both) to carry I-95 over the Inner Harbor, leading to an interchange with I-83 in the Canton or Fells Point area of Baltimore City (one example can be seen in this document (2.73 MB, .pdf) on physical page 20.  When I-95 was re-routed south of the downtown area to cross the northwest branch of the Patapsco River in what became the Fort McHenry Tunnel, the path of I-83 was extended south and mostly east to connect with I-95 north of the toll plaza (parts of the ramps on I-95 can still be seen), a path that would have been quite damaging to the Canton area of the city. 

Unless I-83 were to be built in bored tunnels (there are no plans and no funding for that), I do not see it ever connecting directly to I-95.

[cpzilliacus]

Through it all, the constant harping of "it's only five minutes" is what I find most odd. Clearly they don't understand traffic (they claim they were an urban planner!?), nor do they understand that one light, one time, at 76k AADT can cause more traffic than you can clear at one light during peak times. And with the number of lights needed, if timing the lights perfectly, not everyone will get through the city, and those 'timed lights' will start bottlenecking traffic in waves, and each wave increasing the traffic.

I am sure that the apologists for Breezwood and its evil kin in Pennsylvania rationalize them with similar claims.

What about the inevitable crashes that will happen where the freeway comes to a sudden end?

[silverback1065]

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/01/30/10-urban-freeways-that-need-to-come-down/

this is basically the type of article i mean when i ask the question of the thread. 

2 things, why are these people so hell bent on removing i-70 in denver and i-980 in oakland?  70 looks like it doesn't even come close to downtown, going through what looks like a mostly train and industrial area, and i-980 looks to be a vital highway that would be insane to remove.  2 side questions are why was 70 elevated in the first place? and why is 980 signed east west?

also, where the hell would traffic go if the did remove i-70?

[cpzilliacus]

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/01/30/10-urban-freeways-that-need-to-come-down/

this is basically the type of article i mean when i ask the question of the thread. 

2 things, why are these people so hell bent on removing i-70 in denver and i-980 in oakland?  70 looks like it doesn't even come close to downtown, going through what looks like a mostly train and industrial area, and i-980 looks to be a vital highway that would be insane to remove.  2 side questions are why was 70 elevated in the first place? and why is 980 signed east west?

also, where the hell would traffic go if the did remove i-70?

I am not from Denver, but I have relatively recent knowledge of the area, and have driven all of I-70 in Colorado both  ways.  There's no real bypass road to the north of the city that re-joins I-70, without building an entirely new freeway. 

I suppose they could re-route onto the C-470 toll road south of town, but that may not work from a transportation perspective. 

But the promoters of projects like this are generally not interested in transportation impacts - the freeway tear down is all they want.

[sparker]

why is 980 signed east west?

I-980 was a western extension of CA 24 for a couple of years prior to its re-designation as an Interstate, and CA 24 is signed east-west although largely SW-NE at its present western terminus.  Also, 980 is perpendicular to I-880 (at least in the area of their interchange), which is signed N-S.

But the promoters of projects like this are generally not interested in transportation impacts - the freeway tear down is all they want.

Bravo to CPZ for so succinctly delineating the absurdity of the "tear-down" crowd's rationales.     Unfortunately, some well-meaning but misdirected folks have "morphed" urbanism from a particular developmental methodology to an alternative ideology (and we've all by now become inured to "alternative facts") that has condemned vehicular traffic, treating the driving public as recalcitrant smokers have been viewed in the past decades.  And like with most ideologies, even Pyrrhic victories are sought and celebrated.  All that is desired is to see those manifestations of modern civilization they deem inappropriate or even evil pushed out to the periphery so they don't have to think about it -- regardless of the costs, in both social and monetary terms, of implementing their viewpoints.   It seems their greatest pleasure is derived from dancing on the graves of dead freeways!  So sad.

[froggie]

Given the location of the proposed "teardown" in Denver on I-70, there were two alternatives.  First, despite what CP said, there is a fairly easily used bypass on the north side of Denver:  I-76 and I-270.  Second, a few of the alternatives were to build a rerouted I-70 that would have paralleled the northeast-running railroads and CO 265 from just east of the Mousetrap (I-25/I-70) to I-270, then upgrade 270 back down to 70 East.

Lastly, Sparker's previous post suggests that he's not convinced about this "sense of place" bit.  It's clear he thinks it's nonsense.  My own experience, having lived in cities, suburbs, and rural areas, is that it *IS* real and is a valid pursuit, nevermind being better for the local economies.  It's been proven that local, dense commercial nodes are far better for both local economies and local tax revenue than the big box stores that have to waste huge amounts of land on parking lots.

[kalvado]

Given the location of the proposed "teardown" in Denver on I-70, there were two alternatives.  First, despite what CP said, there is a fairly easily used bypass on the north side of Denver:  I-76 and I-270.  Second, a few of the alternatives were to build a rerouted I-70 that would have paralleled the northeast-running railroads and CO 265 from just east of the Mousetrap (I-25/I-70) to I-270, then upgrade 270 back down to 70 East.

Lastly, Sparker's previous post suggests that he's not convinced about this "sense of place" bit.  It's clear he thinks it's nonsense.  My own experience, having lived in cities, suburbs, and rural areas, is that it *IS* real and is a valid pursuit, nevermind being better for the local economies.  It's been proven that local, dense commercial nodes are far better for both local economies and local tax revenue than the big box stores that have to waste huge amounts of land on parking lots.

I love those "waste space on parking", "increase productivity per acre" type of argument.
Last time I checked, US is still in top 5 of countries by area, and in bottom 50 for population density.
Of course those metrics are important for municipalities which are neither able to expand nor build sustainable economy on the parcel they have. But that is chicken-and-egg type of argument, more people means more expenses - and oh, we need more people again to pay those taxes...

[cpzilliacus]

Given the location of the proposed "teardown" in Denver on I-70, there were two alternatives.  First, despite what CP said, there is a fairly easily used bypass on the north side of Denver:  I-76 and I-270.  Second, a few of the alternatives were to build a rerouted I-70 that would have paralleled the northeast-running railroads and CO 265 from just east of the Mousetrap (I-25/I-70) to I-270, then upgrade 270 back down to 70 East.

I disagree.  That's not a complete bypass (E-470 and the Northwest Parkway probably would be (judging from the maps of what was built), but the two do not form a full 360° "circle" around Denver).

And the anti-freeway activists touting this proposal appear not to have taken into account the large amount of privately-owned warehouse, freight and freight intermodal infrastructure (and employment associated with same) that has located near I-70 (examples here, here and here).

Beyond that, there is the dysfunction that seems to come from re-routing radial freeway routes onto circumferential or orbital freeways (Washington and Boston being the most well-known instances).

Lastly, Sparker's previous post suggests that he's not convinced about this "sense of place" bit.  It's clear he thinks it's nonsense.  My own experience, having lived in cities, suburbs, and rural areas, is that it *IS* real and is a valid pursuit, nevermind being better for the local economies.  It's been proven that local, dense commercial nodes are far better for both local economies and local tax revenue than the big box stores that have to waste huge amounts of land on parking lots.

Is there a "sense of place" around the Metrorail stations in the Maryland suburbs of D.C. (like there is near some of the stations in Arlington County, Virginia and even near the new stations at Tysons Corner).  In general, no!  In large part because employers appear to not be interested in locating in the Maryland suburbs of Washington when they can find better alternatives in Northern Virginia.  Without employment, there's not much of a "sense of place" or "place" (consider much of Detroit, Michigan, a lesson that most Maryland politicians do not seem to have grasped).

[froggie]

I disagree.  That's not a complete bypass (E-470 and the Northwest Parkway probably would be (judging from the maps of what was built), but the two do not form a full 360° "circle" around Denver).

Your earlier assessment was that there is no bypass road north of the city for I-70.  That is simply not the case, nor is there a need for a bypass to be a full 360 loop.

Is there a "sense of place" around the Metrorail stations in the Maryland suburbs of D.C. (like there is near some of the stations in Arlington County, Virginia and even near the new stations at Tysons Corner).  In general, no!  In large part because employers appear to not be interested in locating in the Maryland suburbs of Washington when they can find better alternatives in Northern Virginia.  Without employment, there's not much of a "sense of place" or "place" (consider much of Detroit, Michigan, a lesson that most Maryland politicians do not seem to have grasped).

I'll defer to you when it comes to the Maryland side of the DC region, but I full-fledged disagree that you "need employment" in order to create a "place", at least not the type/magnitude of employment that you are inferring.  Plenty of neighborhoods and locales across DC and northern Virginia that have that type of place but don't have major employment (citing Del Ray, Annandale, and Arlandria as a few examples inside the Beltway and outside of Arlington).

[sparker]

Sparker's previous post suggests that he's not convinced about this "sense of place" bit.  It's clear he thinks it's nonsense.  My own experience, having lived in cities, suburbs, and rural areas, is that it *IS* real and is a valid pursuit, nevermind being better for the local economies.  It's been proven that local, dense commercial nodes are far better for both local economies and local tax revenue than the big box stores that have to waste huge amounts of land on parking lots.

I do value a "sense of place" -- just not when applied in an exclusionary manner.  I do personally prefer compact and readily accessible by all means commercial areas with individual businesses rather than chain stores -- I'm a partner in such an independent business (vintage specialty audio) with a jaundiced eye toward "big box" retail outlets (largely because of their emphasis on convenience over quality), and my retail choices more often reflect that when searching for merchandise to purchase -- and we have a great such commercial area here in Willow Glen (San Jose).  However, more fungible items occasionally lend themselves to a Costco or even Wal-Mart approach.  But I certainly don't want to see small businesses -- and the neighborhoods they occupy -- displaced by these ubiquitous chains. 

The subject matter of this thread deals with freeway tear-downs; the rationales for which are, to me often spurious and based upon concepts that I've previously characterized as exclusionary.  A sense of place does not necessarily invoke psychological transporting to a magical land without cars, freeways, or any other artifacts of modernity and 21st century reality.  While that may be an idealized situation to a few, reconstructing whole tracts within cities to satisfy those specific desires seems to be an ecological fallacy -- satisfying the part while ignoring the needs of the whole.  Do note that even the most quaint businesses require reasonably efficient egress in & out of their area to receive and send goods (even service-oriented endeavors require parts, tools, etc.).  And these businesses are more often than not dependent upon maintaining a customer base that's larger than a few square blocks; and if what they're selling is bigger than a breadbox, so to speak, some way of getting it home without resorting to UPS or FedEx becomes part of the commercial reality.  If you're selling pizza, bagels, or coffee, no problem -- catering to the carless crowd is a piece of cake (they can eat that on buses or light rail as well!) -- but try schlepping 70 pounds of vacuum-tube amplifier on the bus (which I have done when my car was in the shop and a customer wanted their repaired unit back in short order -- and an activity I'm in no hurry to repeat!), and shortly the fallacy of a viable commercial area without efficient automotive egress is driven home quickly.   

In most urban areas where I've resided or visited extensively, the distribution networks are built up around the transportation systems that are "on the ground", including urban freeway segments.  Disrupting an extant system simply so a few vocal folks can achieve their goal of being psychologically free of the presence of roadways and their accompanying structures seems to be hardly the best use of hard-to-come-by funding.  Here in San Jose, we have a relatively new freeway (CA 87) running on bridges and berms right next to downtown, and the area immediately adjacent to it is being redeveloped for primarily walking and light-rail served usage (with some offsite parking facilities).  I have yet to hear anyone involved in that development (and I know quite a few of them as acquaintances and/or customers of my business) whining about the fact that their street-borne customer base has to look at a freeway bridge a block or two away.  And SJSU's main campus is only 7 blocks from CA 87; if there were to be any complaints raised, they would likely emanate from that quarter -- at least from their urban planning department.  Freeways and enhanced urbanization need not be physically incompatible -- and I know my local situation may not pose the precise characteristics of other venues, but it does illustrate that a "sense of place" can be inclusive rather than exclusive; the wholesale teardown approach of the more vehement activists seems unnecessary and ill-considered.  More measured, cost-effective, and less disruptive methods are out there and available.

But then, John Norquist & company haven't been here to stir up the pot AFAIK.      

[cpzilliacus]

I disagree.  That's not a complete bypass (E-470 and the Northwest Parkway probably would be (judging from the maps of what was built), but the two do not form a full 360° "circle" around Denver).

Your earlier assessment was that there is no bypass road north of the city for I-70.  That is simply not the case, nor is there a need for a bypass to be a full 360 loop.

Bypasses do not need to be 360° loops, but they tend to work better if they are 360° or at least 180°.  Even I-695/MD-695 around Baltimore became a more useful bypass when the FSK Bridge and approaches were completed in the 1970's, especially for trucks hauling placarded loads, which were never allowed to use I-895 (I-95, with similar restrictions, did not open until 1985).

This Denver bypass is supposed to be about getting I-70 traffic onto a more circuitous routing (at least according to the author of the Streetsblog piece).  It does not get traffic back to I-70 at or west of the current E-470 interchange in Golden, and adds over 20 miles of driving, potentially on arterial streets not engineered for that sort of traffic (where have we heard that before?).  And at the risk of repeating myself, the impact on what would appear to be a pretty substantial set of activity centers (and employment) along the I-70 Corridor is entirely ignored.

Is there a "sense of place" around the Metrorail stations in the Maryland suburbs of D.C. (like there is near some of the stations in Arlington County, Virginia and even near the new stations at Tysons Corner).  In general, no!  In large part because employers appear to not be interested in locating in the Maryland suburbs of Washington when they can find better alternatives in Northern Virginia.  Without employment, there's not much of a "sense of place" or "place" (consider much of Detroit, Michigan, a lesson that most Maryland politicians do not seem to have grasped).

I'll defer to you when it comes to the Maryland side of the DC region, but I full-fledged disagree that you "need employment" in order to create a "place", at least not the type/magnitude of employment that you are inferring.  Plenty of neighborhoods and locales across DC and northern Virginia that have that type of place but don't have major employment (citing Del Ray, Annandale, and Arlandria as a few examples inside the Beltway and outside of Arlington).

None of those have much in the way of employment (though Arlandria is not that far from Crystal City and Shirlington), and Annandale (by some definitions) includes Gallows Road south of U.S. 50, which means that the substantial amount of employment at and near INOVA Fairfax Hospital would be counted.

But more to the point, these places in Northern  Virginia, in aggregate, have shorter commute times to work than most of the Maryland suburbs, including especially Prince George's County.  Easy access to work (in other words, reliably short travel times) helps make a "sense of place."

Outside of metropolitan New York, long commute times as reported by ACS (which Montgomery County also suffers from) tends to stem directly from elected officials and activists chasing a chimera (in this case chasing an increase in transit patronage large enough to decongest the highway system, which  is not likely to ever happen - not in Maryland and not in Colorado).

Returning to Denver, I do wonder where you think those employment centers along I-70 should go.  Moving east of E-470 and Aurora (where there is plenty of vacant land) appears to be a non-starter because of the lack of water.  I am sure that Safeway could find a place further out (they did in Prince George's County, moving their large warehouse operation from a transit-accessible location on Cabin Branch Drive to Leeland Road west of U.S. 301 in Upper Marlboro, a place about 13 miles further out, with zero transit service, and were generously assisted in the move with Maryland state tax dollars, in spite of Glendening's claims about being in favor of transit and Smart Growth).

[cpzilliacus]

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/01/30/10-urban-freeways-that-need-to-come-down/

The same writer is promoting essentially the same thing for I-70 in Kansas City, Missouri.

Kansas City Will Take a Serious Look at Removing Downtown Highway

Rochester just wrapped up the conversion of part of its Inner Loop highway into a surface street, another highway removal is underway in New Haven, and freeway teardowns are in play in many other American cities.

Now you can add Kansas City to the list of places getting serious about removing a grade-separated highway to save money, improve walkability, and open up downtown land for development.

[tradephoric]

Toronto was considering tearing down the Gardiner Expressway back in 2015 but the city voted against it.  The main argument is that the elevated expressway cuts the city's waterfront off from the rest of its downtown.  But doesn't the massive rail yard/railroad tracks cutting through Toronto do the same thing?  Here is an aerial just east of downtown Toronto... one is OK to demolish and one is not.

[silverback1065]

Some people want to remove 65 and 70 from downtown Indy.  INDOT currently has 65 closed downtown for construction, traffic is now horrible downtown!  i think that proves my point (of it being a bad idea) in this single instance.

[jon daly]

On the other hand, when New Haven removed two blocks of the CT 34 freeway, they had developers lined up and on board in the planning stages, and the buildings that now stand on these parcels were already designed and ready to be built before any shovels went in the ground removing the freeway.

To be fair, the CT 34 freeway in that area was more of spur (or glorified on/off ramp) as opposed to a through-expressway (although such was originally planned way back when); so removing/downgrading it didn't translate into spilling traffic (including delivery vehicles) onto local streets.

This explains why the sign on I-95 mow says MLK. I was wondering about that.

I'd like to thank sparker for a deep post that spurs big picture thought and discussion. I'm mainly familiar with new urbanism via the crunchy-con version of it. See this link or the Frront Porch Republic.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/web-categories/new-urbanism/

I don't know much about it, but I know that I live too far from work. Is Putnam the BOWLING ALONE guy? I've been meaning to read that for years.

[silverback1065]

IMO, I think removing spurs can be good ideas, depending on where.  through routes is insane.  we didnt design our cities like europe.

[tradephoric]

IMO, I think removing spurs can be good ideas, depending on where.  through routes is insane.  we didnt design our cities like europe.

Yeah it's one thing to tear down the I-375 spur in Detroit that is at the end of its useful life.  While I-375 is reported to be 1.062 miles in length, only 0.3 miles of it is actually being converted to a surface street (it only will turn into a surface street south of Gratiot).   In addition, MDOT is planing direct access from Gratiot onto I-375 hopefully making it easier to get onto the freeway.  I can get behind the removal of I-375 because it just won't have that big of an impactful to traffic flow in the area... and anyone who claims it's going to lead to total gridlock downtown is blowing things way out of proportion. 

On the other side, to all the urbanists who will claim victory when I-375 is torn down, you got to ask yourself how big a deal it really is.  From a pedestrian standpoint i don't see how it will be much better.. you will go from having to cross a couple lanes of service drive traffic to crossing 8-10 lanes of boulevard.  Short of being a drunk pedestrian wondering around aimlessly on I-375 it's really hard to get hit by through traffic traveling on I-375... that will no longer be the case if it's converted to a surface street.