Worst possible freeway removal in each city?

[Roadgeekteen]

Any freeway removal is unacceptable. 

Not a fan of many removals, but there are select scenarios where a freeway removal is a good idea.

[SkyPesos]

Any freeway removal is unacceptable. 

Even ones encircling a rust belt city's downtown that three people use per day?

[jmacswimmer]

Any freeway removal is unacceptable. 

Even ones encircling a rust belt city's downtown that three people use per day?

Or this?

[HighwayStar]

Any freeway removal is unacceptable. 

Even ones encircling a rust belt city's downtown that three people use per day?

I would consider that especially unacceptable as it is contrary to what should be the goal, namely re-industrializing the Rustbelt.

[HighwayStar]

Any freeway removal is unacceptable. 

Even ones encircling a rust belt city's downtown that three people use per day?

Or this?

Again, I consider removing that one particularly bad, as it would be key to finishing I-70 into Baltimore as designed.

[hotdogPi]

Any freeway removal is unacceptable. 

Even ones encircling a rust belt city's downtown that three people use per day?

Or this?

How is that any different from US 1 in Newburyport, MA?

[Roadgeekteen]

Any freeway removal is unacceptable. 

Even ones encircling a rust belt city's downtown that three people use per day?

Or this?

Again, I consider removing that one particularly bad, as it would be key to finishing I-70 into Baltimore as designed.

Oh no

[stevashe]

Any freeway removal is unacceptable. 

Even ones encircling a rust belt city's downtown that three people use per day?

Or this?

Again, I consider removing that one particularly bad, as it would be key to finishing I-70 into Baltimore as designed.

Actually, it was supposed to be a part of I-170. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_170_(Maryland)

If the possibility of the freeway being finished one day were greater than 0%, I'd agree. But that is not the case so might as well remove it imo.

[hotdogPi]

It's not harming anything. The grid above it has very few gaps. What's the point of removing it, since it's already there?

[edwaleni]

It's not harming anything. The grid above it has very few gaps. What's the point of removing it, since it's already there?

It won't be removed. But it won't be extended.

The endpoint was never finished (Gwynns Falls Expressway) where I-70 ends at I-95. (ghost ramps at I-95 still there)

Therefore it will remain as is.

[jmacswimmer]

Or this?

How is that any different from US 1 in Newburyport, MA?

Several reasons from what I can tell:

-US 1 in Newburyport appears to be fully built out as originally proposed
-Continues directly into US 1's continuing alignment to the north (including the bridge over the Merrimack River)
-Doesn't terminate at the same streets on both sides
-Goes across the entirety of Downtown Newburyport as opposed to a few blocks west of Downtown Baltimore

Again, I consider removing that one particularly bad, as it would be key to finishing I-70 into Baltimore as designed.

Actually, it was supposed to be a part of I-170. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_170_(Maryland)

If the possibility of the freeway being finished one day were greater than 0%, I'd agree. But that is not the case so might as well remove it imo.

Agreed - hypothetically it'd be great to have I-70 & I-170 fully built out, but I don't see that ever happening.

It's not harming anything. The grid above it has very few gaps. What's the point of removing it, since it's already there?

Probably no point this very second, but once the bridges on that segment reach the point of requiring extensive repairs and/or replacement, Baltimore DOT might be motivated to remove if they feel the improvements aren't worth the cost.  I believe they already removed some ghost ramps & stubs at the west end within the past decade (with additional parking for the West Baltimore MARC station added at the same time).

[Evan_Th]

For Seattle, the worst part would be removing I-5 - specifically, the part between UW and downtown.  There's no other freeway connection there (except for the sort-of-freeway SR 99, but that's well west and empties onto local streets), and there're really only three parallel surface roads which're already at capacity with local traffic.  Plus, you've got the SR 520 Lake Washington Bridge emptying into that freeway without any remotely-reasonable local alternative.

Removing either of the bridges would also be pretty bad, but traffic has managed before with one of them closed.  I-5 south of downtown might be bad too, but there you've got SR 99 as a great alternative feeding into more freeway.

[Flint1979]

Not sure of the worst one for Detroit. I-75, 94 and 96 all are very busy. We could do without I-375 though and MDOT agrees

[jakeroot]

I (and many others) look at cities like Vancouver or Christchurch, where there are no motorways chugging through town, as to how density and liveability can be achieved without freeways. But for those cities that did look to freeways in the 50s to 80s, the rest of the city (and indeed metro area) have been slowly modified to respond to this new infrastructure. Seattle was lovely without I-5, I'm sure. But the number of obstacles involved with removing a freeway, at least an important cross-country one such as this, are just too many in number to actually consider removal as a serious option.

Vancouver is a horrible example.  Vancouver routinely ranks in the top 3 for worst commute in North America, for almost 10 years it had the worst traffic in North America, if not the world.  The only viable way to not have a freeway downtown is to have extensive, grade separated transit.  In order for cities to not be gridlocked, even with transit, you must have a grade separated roadway to get cars and trucks into and out of the city, without clogging residential streets or relying on froads (which are worse in my opinion than freeways).

I don't understand the logic of your conclusion. If Vancouver's lack of a serious freeway network was responsible for their traffic woes, it stands to reason cities like Los Angeles or Atlanta should have incredibly good traffic flow ... but they don't, at all.

The problem seems to be lack of demand where it's desired: LA or Atlanta have serious traffic flow because demand continues to outstrip lane capacity. In Vancouver, you have similar levels of demand (maybe the most, but not by a big margin), particularly from suburban areas like Surrey, Coquitlam, or Delta, but with substantially less lane miles of freeway. In essence, they have created similar demand for roadway capacity as most North American metro areas, but with much less lane mileage.

Taking into account Vancouver's excellent non-car transit network (bus + SkyTrain + SeaBus + cable cars (soon) et al), you have to give it up to them: pretty crappy traffic, but not way worse, and with a lot less roadway capacity and a lot more non-car options.

For the record: traffic congestion in Vancouver is certainly apparent, but this whole "worst in North America" business doesn't sit with me. It's never struck me as any worse than Seattle.

[vdeane]

LA and Atlanta are also a lot larger than Vancouver.  Though it's worth noting that Vancouver isn't the only Canadian city to have more congestion than similarly sized cities in the US.

[In_Correct]

Freeway removals are unnecessary.

[Avalanchez71]

Freeway removals are unnecessary.

That is a knee-jerk reaction to myriad of scenarios that could otherwise prove beneficial.  I thought why would you want to remove a freeway after spending the money until I understood that there may be a scenario or two.  I do not buy into the greener pastures theory.

[JoePCool14]

I think for Chicago getting rid of I-90/I-94 from the merge to downtown on the north side would be the worst removal, more so than Lake Shore Drive. LSD is still critical, just that the Kennedy Expy is more critical.

[texaskdog]

In Austin I-35, which they are desparately trying to remove two decks to bury.

[texaskdog]

Freeway removals are unnecessary.

That is a knee-jerk reaction to myriad of scenarios that could otherwise prove beneficial.  I thought why would you want to remove a freeway after spending the money until I understood that there may be a scenario or two.  I do not buy into the greener pastures theory.

Many of these same cities are attempting to defund police as well.

[Roadgeekteen]

Freeway removals are unnecessary.

That is a knee-jerk reaction to myriad of scenarios that could otherwise prove beneficial.  I thought why would you want to remove a freeway after spending the money until I understood that there may be a scenario or two.  I do not buy into the greener pastures theory.

Many of these same cities are attempting to defund police as well.

[dkblake]

Removing the Cross Bronx would probably be the worst for NYC and the northeast in general.

[Roadgeekteen]

Removing the Cross Bronx would probably be the worst for NYC and the northeast in general.

Lots of people think that it shouldn't have ever been built but at this point it's too important to remove.

[index]

Freeway removals are unnecessary.

That is a knee-jerk reaction to myriad of scenarios that could otherwise prove beneficial.  I thought why would you want to remove a freeway after spending the money until I understood that there may be a scenario or two.  I do not buy into the greener pastures theory.

Many of these same cities are attempting to defund police as well.

Are you trying to get the thread locked? Randomly injecting irrelevant politics into a discussion about infrastructure is pretty childish behavior.

Any freeway removal is unacceptable. 

Even ones encircling a rust belt city’s downtown that three people use per day?

Or this?

Again, I consider removing that one particularly bad, as it would be key to finishing I-70 into Baltimore as designed.

That's the same mentality that hoarders use to justify keeping random stuff in their house. Baltimore doesn't want nor does it need the original freeway plans for the area. You have to look at the world through a practical and pragmatic perspective, not a roadgeek perspective.

Plus, with the other rust belt response, the rust belt will not need its vestigial freeways when it revitalizes. Those freeways served a different time and a different purpose in an area with a different character than it has today, all for something that was, in hindsight, headed toward collapse, but nobody could've seen it coming.

Rust belt towns that are revitalizing are doing so by opening up downtown, refurbishing historic structures, and more, and part of that process is freeway removal. They have to adapt because the industrial ways of old aren't viable anymore. It's long gone and likely will not be coming back in the way it existed in the past. The way it was done simply isn't profitable anymore. Manufacturing in America today isn't the same as manufacturing in the 40s-80s for a reason.

The urban decay/miserable looks and grittiness brought on by those things, in combination with the pollution and decaying industry is part of why the core of those cities declined. Tourism and local visitors don't see the city and bring it money by car, they want to stop downtown, shop, eat, and walk in a park. If people want to rent out a new apartment made out of an old building, they don't want a freeway tearing through and making noise right by them. If everything is done by car in downtown, you don't get that. If freeways can't be removed, their presence should be reduced by a highway lid.

Imagine for a moment you're starting a business and you want the life and pull a downtown can give for one. You're trying to capitalize on what could be a revitalization of a decaying rust belt city. Now, imagine if the downtown nearest to you was like how Houston was in the 1970s, where two-thirds of the downtown was made out of parking lots. Is that somewhere you'd want your business? In order for the life to come back, those things have to change.

[webny99]

LA and Atlanta are also a lot larger than Vancouver.  Though it's worth noting that Vancouver isn't the only Canadian city to have more congestion than similarly sized cities in the US.

Winnipeg is another example, at least for its size.