Do any of these highways deserve to be removed?

[MNHighwayMan]

You characterized the CNU as a "special interest group."  That is where I disagree.

Lobbies with largely a singular interest, yet isn't a "special interest group."

Okay.

[hbelkins]

You characterized the CNU as a "special interest group."  That is where I disagree.

Lobbies with largely a singular interest, yet isn't a "special interest group."

Okay.

"Special interest" and "special interest group" are used as pejoratives, but every advocacy group by definition is a special interest group. And for every special interest group, there are usually one or more equal and opposite special interest groups.

[Beltway]

You characterized the CNU as a "special interest group."  That is where I disagree.

Lobbies with largely a singular interest, yet isn't a "special interest group."  Okay.

"Special interest" and "special interest group" are used as pejoratives, but every advocacy group by definition is a special interest group. And for every special interest group, there are usually one or more equal and opposite special interest groups.

I have heard the term "advocacy group" used as a pejorative, as well.

[Bruce]

Relevant pop-sci video from Grist looking at Portland's Harbor Drive, SF's Embarcadero, and Seattle's Alaskan Way Viaduct.

And yes, the traffic apocalypse in Seattle did not happen. But we are seeing bigger backups thanks to the buses leaving the transit tunnel, which carried more people than the viaduct did anyway...

[Rothman]

So...moving more people at a slower speed.  Gotcha.

[Gnutella]

...not to say that there is no merit to mixed-use developments and promoting transit and the like, but a decent number of New Urbanists promote them to an extreme.

I call those people "SimCity urbanists." When I used to play SimCity, I'd build my cities with nothing but rail lines simply to enhance the land value and get bigger buildings. SimCity urbanists fail to understand that every city needs room for the "ugly" and utilitarian in order to function properly.

On a somewhat related note, if highways are a psychological barrier and an eyesore, then so are rail lines. There's a reason why less desirable city neighborhoods are said to be located on "the wrong side of the tracks."

[Duke87]

On a somewhat related note, if highways are a psychological barrier and an eyesore, then so are rail lines. There's a reason why less desirable city neighborhoods are said to be located on "the wrong side of the tracks."

This was a significant motivating factor behind New York City tearing down numerous elevated subway lines from the 1930s through the early 1980s.

Some of the torn down lines were functionally replaced by new underground lines immediately parallel (and in some cases even immediately underneath), but others have not been replaced by anything and have left some neighborhoods less well served by transit than they used to be.

In the 1990s, subway ridership began increasing after decades of decline. New focus has been subsequently put on transit, and the teardowns have thus ceased. The fact that elevated subway lines are noisy and create dark dingy streets underneath them is no longer used as a rallying cry for their removal, and acknowledgment of these concerns is now seemingly overshadowed by regret that maybe some of those lines shouldn't have been torn down because they might be useful if they were still there.


There are parallels to be drawn between the two but also differences. In particular:
- While if you remove a freeway some number of cars are still able to use surface streets, if you remove a train line without a replacement this completely precludes any train service along that general path.
- Elevated subway lines were being removed at a time when ridership was steadily declining, leading to a perhaps logical conclusion that the system was overbuilt and should be pruned to reduce costs (this decline uncoincidentally corresponded with the proliferation of automobiles and with rapid expansion of the suburbs while the population of the city itself was in decline). The use of urban freeways, on the other hand, is not generally declining - if anything it is increasing as city populations continue growing. So where efforts to remove elevated subway lines typically were in response to shifting travel patterns, efforts to remove urban freeways typically attempt to force travel patterns to shift in ways they otherwise would not.

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

I have a quick suggestion before you try removing highways.


Close the highway segment to be removed for three months, then reopen it, and see how traffic flow is affected. For example, the Claiborne Expressway could be closed on October 1 and reopened January 1, through traffic directed either onto I-610 or the Pontchartrain. This would give a good idea as to whether this would truly be a worthwhile removal or whether it wouldn't be.


I, for one, would not want the structure of the Claiborne removed. An earlier poster had an article about how Tréme came together underneath the bridge, so I may want it to become an elevated park were it to be closed to traffic.

[NWI_Irish96]

I would *love* to see I-64 removed from downtown Louisville for all the reasons mentioned in the article. Not only does it separate the city from her reason for existence and her largest asset -- the river -- it's an enormous eyesore, plain and simple. I'd even go so far as to say it could be removed as far east as its junction with the Watterson (I-264), thus removing it from the city's flagship park, Cherokee Park. Through traffic can easily use I-264 or I-265 to get around the city (hazmat would have to use 264).

Obviously this will never happen thanks to the newly redesigned Spaghetti Junction at I-65. The article is a bit misleading in regard to 8664 -- that movement died years ago.

i feel like routing 64 over 265 would be a good idea.

A lot of traffic commutes from Floyd and Harrison Counties in Indiana to downtown Louisville.  Eliminating 64 all the way out to 264 cuts off their commuting route.  It's easy to say they can go around to 65, but in reality they'll clog up streets in the West End.  Now, you can eliminate the section of 64 betwen 65 and 9th Street, which would still force through traffic to go around but leave a way for commuters to get downtown.

[ibthebigd]

For Indianapolis at 65/70 I think they should build green space over the Interstate to connect the area.

SM-G950U

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

I would *love* to see I-64 removed from downtown Louisville for all the reasons mentioned in the article. Not only does it separate the city from her reason for existence and her largest asset -- the river -- it's an enormous eyesore, plain and simple. I'd even go so far as to say it could be removed as far east as its junction with the Watterson (I-264), thus removing it from the city's flagship park, Cherokee Park. Through traffic can easily use I-264 or I-265 to get around the city (hazmat would have to use 264).

Obviously this will never happen thanks to the newly redesigned Spaghetti Junction at I-65. The article is a bit misleading in regard to 8664 -- that movement died years ago.

i feel like routing 64 over 265 would be a good idea.

A lot of traffic commutes from Floyd and Harrison Counties in Indiana to downtown Louisville.  Eliminating 64 all the way out to 264 cuts off their commuting route.  It's easy to say they can go around to 65, but in reality they'll clog up streets in the West End.  Now, you can eliminate the section of 64 betwen 65 and 9th Street, which would still force through traffic to go around but leave a way for commuters to get downtown.

Cap it maybe?

[NWI_Irish96]

I would *love* to see I-64 removed from downtown Louisville for all the reasons mentioned in the article. Not only does it separate the city from her reason for existence and her largest asset -- the river -- it's an enormous eyesore, plain and simple. I'd even go so far as to say it could be removed as far east as its junction with the Watterson (I-264), thus removing it from the city's flagship park, Cherokee Park. Through traffic can easily use I-264 or I-265 to get around the city (hazmat would have to use 264).

Obviously this will never happen thanks to the newly redesigned Spaghetti Junction at I-65. The article is a bit misleading in regard to 8664 -- that movement died years ago.

i feel like routing 64 over 265 would be a good idea.

A lot of traffic commutes from Floyd and Harrison Counties in Indiana to downtown Louisville.  Eliminating 64 all the way out to 264 cuts off their commuting route.  It's easy to say they can go around to 65, but in reality they'll clog up streets in the West End.  Now, you can eliminate the section of 64 betwen 65 and 9th Street, which would still force through traffic to go around but leave a way for commuters to get downtown.

Cap it maybe?

Can't really put a freeway underground that close to the river.  West of 9th Street is not a tourist area and not particularly scenic.  You aren't ruining anything by leaving the freeway there.

[hbelkins]

I would *love* to see I-64 removed from downtown Louisville for all the reasons mentioned in the article. Not only does it separate the city from her reason for existence and her largest asset -- the river -- it's an enormous eyesore, plain and simple. I'd even go so far as to say it could be removed as far east as its junction with the Watterson (I-264), thus removing it from the city's flagship park, Cherokee Park. Through traffic can easily use I-264 or I-265 to get around the city (hazmat would have to use 264).

Obviously this will never happen thanks to the newly redesigned Spaghetti Junction at I-65. The article is a bit misleading in regard to 8664 -- that movement died years ago.

i feel like routing 64 over 265 would be a good idea.

A lot of traffic commutes from Floyd and Harrison Counties in Indiana to downtown Louisville.  Eliminating 64 all the way out to 264 cuts off their commuting route.  It's easy to say they can go around to 65, but in reality they'll clog up streets in the West End.  Now, you can eliminate the section of 64 betwen 65 and 9th Street, which would still force through traffic to go around but leave a way for commuters to get downtown.

Cap it maybe?

Can't really put a freeway underground that close to the river.  West of 9th Street is not a tourist area and not particularly scenic.  You aren't ruining anything by leaving the freeway there.

They'd be doing the world a favor if they widened I-64 to 15 lanes in each direction between 9th Street and the Sherman Minton Bridge.

[sparker]

Routing I-64 over current (or close to it) I-265 would, in order to handle the levels of through or shifting traffic would entail upgrading both the current 65/265 interchange near New Albany and the 64/265 interchange east of Louisville.  Both were built to (barely) accommodate the traffic levels seen with strictly local connectors (even though the former has one EB>NB direct ramp); the cost of upgrading these facilities, along with the fact that 265 across the bridge and through the tunnels is only 2+2 and any future capacity increases would come an at exorbitant cost, should offset any purported gain to be achieved by removing I-64's western Louisville stretch. 

But then the expedition or even minimal accommodation of both through and commercial traffic is regularly dismissed -- or even decried -- by those advocating through-freeway teardowns here and elsewhere.   Sociopolitically, these activists, in and out of official capacity, tend to be on a different page than much of the general public.  It's not particularly educational levels that accounts for the differential; it's inculcation and propinquity that more often than not make the difference.  If one spends an extended amount of time surrounded by a particular mindset -- and that mindset is perceived as normative within institutional or social circles of bounded rationality, it stands a good chance of being embedded within individuals who aren't encouraged -- or even accustomed -- to consistent critical thinking.  And this pervades the entire sociopolitical spectrum from nominal right to nominal left.  With the current political divide evident across the country, there's diminishing chance of meaningful idea exchange that could lead to practicable solutions; folks are afraid (or in more extreme cases, loath) to venture beyond their own "safe area".  And so their bounded rationality shrinks to fit their adopted limitations rather than expanding to accommodate any influx of ideas or conceptualizations deemed beyond consideration.  Hardly the most rational state of affairs -- but it's what's out there right now!         

[hbelkins]

The I-64/I-265 interchange is being rebuilt, but certainly not in anticipation of making I-265 a through route.

[sparker]

The I-64/I-265 interchange is being rebuilt, but certainly not in anticipation of making I-265 a through route.

So -- out of pure curiosity -- what's the planned configuration of the upgraded interchange -- stack, turbine, or some combination of those?

[hbelkins]

The site keeps closing unexpectedly on me, but you should be able to find info at https://i-moveky.com/project-map/

The alternatives are at https://transportation.ky.gov/DistrictFive/Pages/Interstate-64-at-Interstate-265-Interchange-Reconstruction.aspx

[sparker]

The I-64/I-265 interchange is being rebuilt, but certainly not in anticipation of making I-265 a through route.

So -- out of pure curiosity -- what's the planned configuration of the upgraded interchange -- stack, turbine, or some combination of those?

The site keeps closing unexpectedly on me, but you should be able to find info at https://i-moveky.com/project-map/

The alternatives are at https://transportation.ky.gov/DistrictFive/Pages/Interstate-64-at-Interstate-265-Interchange-Reconstruction.aspx

You are correct, sir -- the selected alternative expedites movement to and from I-64 west of the I-265 interchange -- back toward Louisville -- rather than improving movements that would utilize I-265 and its new bridge as a metro bypass.  Clearly in this instance metro commuter needs have been prioritized over regional ones, for better or worse.   

[hbelkins]

The I-64/I-265 interchange is being rebuilt, but certainly not in anticipation of making I-265 a through route.

So -- out of pure curiosity -- what's the planned configuration of the upgraded interchange -- stack, turbine, or some combination of those?

The site keeps closing unexpectedly on me, but you should be able to find info at https://i-moveky.com/project-map/

The alternatives are at https://transportation.ky.gov/DistrictFive/Pages/Interstate-64-at-Interstate-265-Interchange-Reconstruction.aspx

You are correct, sir -- the selected alternative expedites movement to and from I-64 west of the I-265 interchange -- back toward Louisville -- rather than improving movements that would utilize I-265 and its new bridge as a metro bypass.  Clearly in this instance metro commuter needs have been prioritized over regional ones, for better or worse.   

The loop ramp from eastbound 64 to northbound 265 is a cluster foxtrot in the mornings. I have only had the misfortune of experiencing it once.

[vdeane]

Interesting.  I actually saw a presentation of Kunstler's at a conference and I found his arguments interesting to think about, though disturbing if his suppositions about the future of energy turn out to be right.  I wasn't aware he was so closely tied to the ideological underpinnings of New Urbanism, however.  A lot of the New Urbanist arguments make a lot more sense now.  The idea that suburban living and driving are problems in and of themselves (and not just as a consequence of how we currently power our civilization) makes a lot more sense if the people arguing it believe Kunstler's predictions will come true.