New York Times Article Filled w/Lies About Freeway Removals

[silverback1065]

Can Removing Highways Fix America's Cities? https://nyti.ms/3uqohkX

I recently read an article released this morning on how there's a movement across America removing downtown freeways. They use the same lies freeway advocates use. They cite examples across the country of spurs that were never really used in the first place then pretend that this route was actually a through route. They spend a ton of time on the inner loop removal as well, then site examples across the country of alleged "removal studies". Some listed are absurd and not even seriously being considered. One I know for sure isn't true. 65/70 in Indianapolis is literally being rebuilt as we speak, we are feeling the traffic nightmare with it closed now. 75/85 in Atlanta, are you serious?! Are any of these removal plans serious? Another I saw was i-10 in new Orleans, that is dead too.

[silverback1065]

one of the most annoying things about freeway removal people are they tout how some have been removed to much success, but don't tell you those were largely superfluous spurs or remnants of a corridor never fully built. Inner Loop may be gone, but 490 still goes through downtown to service downtown.

[SkyPesos]

There's a list of highway removal projects they want in the middle of the article, some of them are just plain comical. Imagine getting around in Austin without I-35, Seattle without I-5, or Atlanta without I-75. And no, I don't think you can shove all those people onto a city bypass, trains (if a city even have one, and you need more than 2 lines that runs on 15 minute headways for that to work too) or local streets, especially on a larger scale project on a busier freeway in a larger city than Rochester, which is what the article used as their example.

Also note to NYT: if you really want to show images of before/after cities with highways, don't cut 8 of the city images off the edges. Especially on the bottom where there aren't even labels. I could tell the bottom left is Louisville, but what about the other three?

[silverback1065]

All of their examples seem to be smaller cities that really never needed downtown freeways to begin with, but they use this logic and try to apply it to large and mid size cities. Rochester and Syracuse would benefit from freeway removal because they never really needed a downtown freeway to begin with they are smaller cities. But who's insane enough to think removing 75/85 from Atlanta, 35 from Austin and many more of their examples?! Also NY 198 is barely a freeway and it doesn't even go through downtown Buffalo.

[webny99]

Rochester and Syracuse would benefit from freeway removal because they never really needed a downtown freeway to begin with they are smaller cities. But who's insane enough to think removing 75/85 from Atlanta, 35 from Austin and many more of their examples?!

To be fair, you can't really put Rochester and Syracuse in the same bucket here. Rochester can do without the Inner Loop, it was missing some key ramps and had basically no through traffic anyways.

I-81, on the other hand, is more comparable to your other examples (I-75/I-85 and I-35) than it is to the Inner Loop, especially when you factor in through traffic, truck traffic, and the alternate routes available.

[bing101]

I-980 Oakland and CA-103 Terminal Island Freeway I never heard of these two actually being considered for freeway removal by CalTrans


In the case of I-980 its used as an alternate route to I-880 for port traffic.


CA-103 is used for port traffic too.

[SEWIGuy]

American cities would have been a lot better off had highways not been built right through them.  That being said, removing some freeways has been great for development, even if they are just "superfluous spurs" but it is unlikely at this point that additional removal of through freeways would work.

It's just too bad they can't turn back time to when better ideas could have been considered instead.

[kalvado]

American cities would have been a lot better off had highways not been built right through them.  That being said, removing some freeways has been great for development, even if they are just "superfluous spurs" but it is unlikely at this point that additional removal of through freeways would work.

It's just too bad they can't turn back time to when better ideas could have been considered instead.

Honestly thinking, cities need to be reinvented. Highway removal is just another cargo cult.
Historically, cities were centers of craft/industry and trade. With lots of automation in manufacturing- and a lot of shift overseas; and transformation of goods flow, cities must change. Collecting people in the area so they can happily walk, sing and drink coffee in mom and pop shops is as good as economic landscape. News flash: coffee shops cannot be the only business  to support a city.

[silverback1065]

American cities would have been a lot better off had highways not been built right through them.  That being said, removing some freeways has been great for development, even if they are just "superfluous spurs" but it is unlikely at this point that additional removal of through freeways would work.

It's just too bad they can't turn back time to when better ideas could have been considered instead.

In a way we made these freeways become necessary in downtown. When the car took prominence in America, we basically gave up on any other form of transportation in most American cities. We have only 1 reasonable choice to get downtown in most metro areas that is convenient and reliable. In a lot of American cities with downtown freeways that is your only good choice for getting around town efficiently. I live in the Indy metro area and our mass transit options are embarrassing. I wish there were more options but there aren't, hence why I didn't support the removal of 65/70 here. Indy used to have a very nice light rail system (probably not the correct term by today's standards), as soon as cars took hold, it all died. 

[andrepoiy]

Meanwhile here in Toronto, we are complaining about the lack of good suburb-to-suburb transit since suburb-to-downtown is relatively advanced for North America. (We have both commuter rail and subways that serve the suburb-to-downtown market, with the commuter rail for those who can pay up or live too far from the subway station)

The reason being that some of our suburban cities (notable example being Mississauga) also have A LOT of employment, and the only viable way to get there for now is car, unless you live downtown in which you get a nice reverse commute lol

[silverback1065]

Even if we magically had comparable mass transit to Europe, I think it would fail because America LOVES it's cars. Fine by me I like to drive too, but I would like to have more choices available for all.

[vdeane]

then site examples across the country of alleged "removal studies". Some listed are absurd and not even seriously being considered. One I know for sure isn't true. 65/70 in Indianapolis is literally being rebuilt as we speak, we are feeling the traffic nightmare with it closed now. 75/85 in Atlanta, are you serious?! Are any of these removal plans serious? Another I saw was i-10 in new Orleans, that is dead too.

I think their idea of "proposed" is "someone in Urbanist advocacy circles mentioned wanting to do this once" rather than actual official proposals.

[bing101]

American cities would have been a lot better off had highways not been built right through them.  That being said, removing some freeways has been great for development, even if they are just "superfluous spurs" but it is unlikely at this point that additional removal of through freeways would work.

It's just too bad they can't turn back time to when better ideas could have been considered instead.

Honestly thinking, cities need to be reinvented. Highway removal is just another cargo cult.
Historically, cities were centers of craft/industry and trade. With lots of automation in manufacturing- and a lot of shift overseas; and transformation of goods flow, cities must change. Collecting people in the area so they can happily walk, sing and drink coffee in mom and pop shops is as good as economic landscape. News flash: coffee shops cannot be the only business  to support a city.

True too I can see some cities doing this as you suggested prior to the COVID-19 shutdown.

[kalvado]

Even if we magically had comparable mass transit to Europe, I think it would fail because America LOVES it's cars. Fine by me I like to drive too, but I would like to have more choices available for all.

A lot of problems with just getting transit.
Yes, cars are loved - but transit works well in San Fransisco or New York, for example.
I suspect a lot of transit problems come from considering it a tax-funded welfare rather than a business acting as organic part of the city like grocery stores or utilities.   

[bing101]

Even if we magically had comparable mass transit to Europe, I think it would fail because America LOVES it's cars. Fine by me I like to drive too, but I would like to have more choices available for all.

A lot of problems with just getting transit.
Yes, cars are loved - but transit works well in San Fransisco or New York, for example.
I suspect a lot of transit problems come from considering it a tax-funded welfare rather than a business acting as organic part of the city like grocery stores or utilities.

I can see college towns such as Davis and Berkeley saying we need more Transit and bike access.

[kalvado]

Even if we magically had comparable mass transit to Europe, I think it would fail because America LOVES it's cars. Fine by me I like to drive too, but I would like to have more choices available for all.

A lot of problems with just getting transit.
Yes, cars are loved - but transit works well in San Fransisco or New York, for example.
I suspect a lot of transit problems come from considering it a tax-funded welfare rather than a business acting as organic part of the city like grocery stores or utilities.

I can see college towns such as Davis and Berkeley saying we need more Transit and bike access.

That is easy to say - but simple question is "who foots the bill?"
So far, US transit runs on public money, fares being smaller part of it. And transit operations are not taxed to provide that pool of public money , unlike standard road driving.
At the end of the day, transit ends up running at pleasure of politicians who can send a slice of general fund to the agency rather than passengers who contribute only that much - and agencies are often seemingly not interested in actually serving passengers. That is unlike businesses, where customer satisfaction (in a form of $$ paid) is the primary goal.   

With roads, driver influence is stronger as there is a good correlation of voters and drivers being overlapping groups in most areas. That may be partially true for transit riders in NYC, but likely not in a regular college town, where students are still only a fraction of population. 
My gut feeling is that if transit has to fight for fare dollars, they may start doing better things.

[Roadgeekteen]

Atlanta? Maybe if I-285 was 30 lanes wide...

[SkyPesos]

then site examples across the country of alleged "removal studies". Some listed are absurd and not even seriously being considered. One I know for sure isn't true. 65/70 in Indianapolis is literally being rebuilt as we speak, we are feeling the traffic nightmare with it closed now. 75/85 in Atlanta, are you serious?! Are any of these removal plans serious? Another I saw was i-10 in new Orleans, that is dead too.

I think their idea of "proposed" is "someone in Urbanist advocacy circles mentioned wanting to do this once" rather than actual official proposals.

And I-64 Louisville isn't even on the NYT article's list. Pretty sure the 8664 organization is more known than at least half of the highway removal proposals listed.

[bluecountry]

So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?

[silverback1065]

So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?

Bad faith arguments have no home here. Try again.

Pixel 5

[thspfc]

Oftentimes people writing these types of articles and holding these types of viewpoints are backing it up with the old "look at western Europe" argument. Anytime I hear anyone compare western tiny European countries, (generally the Netherlands, Switzerland, or God forbid Luxembourg), I laugh, because saying that a giant country of 330 million people should be modeled after a minnow-sized nation of 15 million is the equivalent of saying that a road through a desolate forest with an AADT of 30 should be designed the same as an urban highway with an AADT of 100,000. Our country is so huge in terms of both size and population and our economy is so well connected that cars are a necessity for most, and that's not going to change. Not to mention that cars are just nice compared to public transportation. Privacy. Independence. No relying on somebody else. Choice. Many other reasons.

[thspfc]

then site examples across the country of alleged "removal studies". Some listed are absurd and not even seriously being considered. One I know for sure isn't true. 65/70 in Indianapolis is literally being rebuilt as we speak, we are feeling the traffic nightmare with it closed now. 75/85 in Atlanta, are you serious?! Are any of these removal plans serious? Another I saw was i-10 in new Orleans, that is dead too.

I think their idea of "proposed" is "someone in Urbanist advocacy circles mentioned wanting to do this once" rather than actual official proposals.

And I-64 Louisville isn't even on the NYT article's list. Pretty sure the 8664 organization is more known than at least half of the highway removal proposals listed.

There are some inner city highways that should be done away with. I-64 between I-65 and its western I-264 junction in Louisville is a good example. The western and northern links of the Kansas City loop can go. OH-2 in Cleveland. Youngstown's downtown loop is unnecessary.

[kalvado]

So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?

Do you believe highway removal after 50 years would magically restore community, bring back jobs into the rust belt, and restore good old times?
I heavily doubt so.

[thspfc]

So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?

Do you believe highway removal after 50 years would magically restore community, bring back jobs into the rust belt, and restore good old times?
I heavily doubt so.

Yeah, the people who were affected by the highway don't even live there anymore. It sucks that communities were destroyed for highways in the 60s and 70s, but we need to get over it and focus on now.

[brad2971]

So you people have a problem with removing some highways that destroyed neighborhoods?
How obtuse can you be, possible?

The residents of the mostly-black Treme neighborhood of New Orleans would like to have a word with you regarding tearing down the I-10 bridge that was built after Claiborne Ave's neutral grounds (median for the rest of us not from New Orleans) were clear-cut.

https://nextcity.org/features/view/a-divided-neighborhood-comes-together-under-an-elevated-expressway

NB: New Orleans was where one of the first visible efforts to STOP planned freeways was undertaken. In that case, they were trying to stop I-310, which was supposed to run along the Mississippi River banks in front of the French Quarter.