City Freeway Teardowns: More on Their Way?

[kharvey10]

Hell yeah. 86 64.

If "8664" wasn't already a stupid idea -- and make no mistake, the bunch that came up with that idea has a severe case of cranio-rectal inversion, it will certainly go nowhere fast now that they're saying tolls on the new bridges may stay in effect long after construction costs are paid off.

The Sherman Minton Bridge closure should have been a major wake-up call to any feces-for-brains people who still seriously support "8664."

It did, now it seems they're willing to concede tolls to get the much needed bridges built in Louisville.

There's a comment in the main body of the article about highways not paying taxes or creating economic opportunities.  Parkland and bodies of water don't pay taxes either, perhaps we should sell all the parkland and fill in the bodies of water for more developable ground.  Just think how much more accessible cities like Memphis or Louisville would be without that pesky river funneling access to one or two points and the economic opportunities all the open land could create.

Memphis is fucked due to the New Madrid Fault.  It's not a matter of if, but when.  It's a major tragedy waiting to happen.

Memphis didn't exist 200 years ago.  Memphis better got some good airports when that fault finally does do the big one.

[bugo]

The airports in Memphis will be toast as well.  I don't think everyone realizes how bad the destruction will be.  I certainly wouldn't want to live anywhere near there.

[PHLBOS]

Here's the "Local Street Networks and the Future of Claiborne Avenue" presentation that was made at the meeting.

Two "successes" set forth in the presentation are the Riverfront Parkway in Chattanooga and San Francisco's Central Freeway.

I had a chuckle at the claim of "no traffic jams" after removing the Central Freeway. The replacement, Octavia Blvd, is gridlocked for most of the day. The neighbors who successfully had the freeway removed are now complaining about all the traffic congestion.

Three thoughts on the above:

1. One ought to be careful of what they wish for.

2. Sometimes people just don't know what they have assetwise until it's gone.

3. Sounds like they're suffering from Buyer's Remorse.

The above is the prime reason why I am completely opposed to any proposed removal, even a small segment, of I-95 in Philadelphia.  I'm also sure residences along the west side of Front Street wouldn't be too thrilled of having high-rise condos sprout up in front of them where I-95 is now should the highway be taken out.

[Brandon]

What these folks, the freeway-teardown folks, forget is that not only does automobile traffic use these roads, but truck traffic does as well.  They seem to think the traffic will magically move to public transit once the freeway is gone.  It's very wrong.  Through traffic and truck traffic still needs to get from point A to point B.  And these center city folks who want the teardowns seem to forget that these trucks can bring good to their markets quickly and cheaply with the freeways.  Without them, the good take longer, and they will be more expensive.

[texaskdog]

Austin dumped their eloborate plan in 1985 figuring "don't build it and they won't come" and now we have traffic problems.  Does that ever work?
Post Merge: March 15, 2012, 06:10:05 PM
In Duluth they developed the industrial waterfront area in the early 80s, and made the new freeway part of it

[InterstateNG]

Austin dumped their eloborate plan in 1985 figuring "don't build it and they won't come" and now we have traffic problems.  Does that ever work?

35 and Mopac would still be a mess today.

.

.

.

Ah, the old "I use my real name" statement.  This place is really going downhill.

[hbelkins]

It did, now it seems they're willing to concede tolls to get the much needed bridges built in Louisville.

There are no "much needed bridgeS in Louisville. Only the East End bridge to complete the I-265 loop is needed. The new downtown bridge is a colossal waste.

[realjd]

So where would you have placed I-95 in Central Philadelphia if tunneling it Big Dig style was already rejected back in the 60s due to cost?  As I stated earlier, placing it betweeen Independence Mall (6th St.) and Broad Street (PA 611) is a non-starter.  Placing it between its current location and 5th Street would have it litterally rip through the Old City Historic District and many of its landmarks.

One has to remember when that stretch of I-95 was built, most of the waterfront area was either industrial or a wasteland.

I'm not saying they made the wrong choice back when it was built, only that given today's sensibilities, cutting a city center off from its waterfront (usually) doesn't make sense from an economic or from an aesthetic perspective.

As for where else I-95 could go, I'm not very familiar with Philadelphia personally. I can speculate only from looking at a map. Assuming I was building it from scratch, my first thought would have been to route it east across the Walt Whitman Bridge, north where I-676 is now, then continuing north across the river on a new bridge to reconnect to where I-95 currently is. Or to route it along the west edge of the FDR Golf Club (as seen on Google Maps) and along the current I-76 routing, then east along I-676 north of downtown to where I-95 currently is.

That's just speculation though since I'm not familiar with local traffic patterns, road states, or anything like that. Is there a lot of through traffic on that stretch of I-95 or is it mostly people heading to/from downtown? Eliminating a stretch of freeway seems like it would result in much less impact if it mostly carried downtown O/D traffic as opposed to people needing to get across downtown.

[realjd]

What these folks, the freeway-teardown folks, forget is that not only does automobile traffic use these roads, but truck traffic does as well.  They seem to think the traffic will magically move to public transit once the freeway is gone.  It's very wrong.  Through traffic and truck traffic still needs to get from point A to point B.  And these center city folks who want the teardowns seem to forget that these trucks can bring good to their markets quickly and cheaply with the freeways.  Without them, the good take longer, and they will be more expensive.

There's no reason that through trucks need to be routed through the immediate downtown area of most cities.

[cpzilliacus]

Austin dumped their eloborate plan in 1985 figuring "don't build it and they won't come" and now we have traffic problems.  Does that ever work?

No.

[cpzilliacus]

What these folks, the freeway-teardown folks, forget is that not only does automobile traffic use these roads, but truck traffic does as well.  They seem to think the traffic will magically move to public transit once the freeway is gone.  It's very wrong.  Through traffic and truck traffic still needs to get from point A to point B.  And these center city folks who want the teardowns seem to forget that these trucks can bring good to their markets quickly and cheaply with the freeways.  Without them, the good take longer, and they will be more expensive.

Extremely important point that the anti-highway industry (including the tear-down people) prefer to ignore.

Even the things they buy at their neighborhood Whole Foods come in a vehicle that rolls down the road on rubber tires.

[PHLBOS]

I'm not saying they made the wrong choice back when it was built, only that given today's sensibilities, cutting a city center off from its waterfront (usually) doesn't make sense from an economic or from an aesthetic perspective.

As for where else I-95 could go, I'm not very familiar with Philadelphia personally. I can speculate only from looking at a map. Assuming I was building it from scratch, my first thought would have been to route it east across the Walt Whitman Bridge, north where I-676 is now, then continuing north across the river on a new bridge to reconnect to where I-95 currently is. Or to route it along the west edge of the FDR Golf Club (as seen on Google Maps) and along the current I-76 routing, then east along I-676 north of downtown to where I-95 currently is.

While I will give you kudos for thinking outside the box with the above; here are some site specific issues:

1.  The Delaware River is about a mile wide (with most bridge crossings roughly 1.5 to 2 miles long) in the immediate Center City area AND the land that abuts the east side of the river is NEW JERSEY (Camden & Gloucester City).  Your suggested re-routing would needlessly involve crossing state lines TWICE for someone heading from the airport to Northeast Philly (as an example).  Not to mention that EVERY Delaware River bridge crossing in the immediate area is tolled; $5 westbound for the 3 DRPA bridges and $2 for the 2-lane Tacony-Palmyra Bridge.  If the Delaware River was as narrow as the Schuylkill River (which is only roughly 800 feet wide) and there was no state boundary to contend with; then that option would have some validity.

2.  Your second idea essentially involves utilizing the existing 4-lane Vine Expressway (I-676), 4-lane Schuylkill Expressway (I-76) and the 4-lane Platt Bridge (PA 291).  In comparison, I-95 ranges from 6 to 8 lanes.  This option has been discussed and backed by the Get Rid of I-95 crowd but the primary problem with this alternative is that those roads (most of them older than I-95 BTW) are grossly undersized to be the primary artery: 10 to 12 currently available expressway lanes for all corridors going down to only 4.

The only way this option COULD work would be to widen EVERY 4-lane segment to either 8 to 10 lanes BEFORE removing/rerouting I-95.  IMHO, one would sooner see Former-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi becoming a conservative Republican than the widening of those expressways & bridges.  It's worth noting that the I-676 Vine Expressway, particularly the newer eastern end (from PA 611 to I-95, that opened in 1991), is actually a downsized expressway compared to what it originally planned to be.

[hbelkins]

This happens often in Louisville. Let's hear it for the WONDERFUL idea that is "8664."

To quote Bugs Bunny: "What maroons."



(OK, so the pic looked normal before I uploaded it but for some reason on the web server it's rotated. But still, this is what that valuable Louisville waterfront looks like several times a year. This particular flood closed the lower levels of the Galt House parking garage.)

[realjd]

I'm not saying they made the wrong choice back when it was built, only that given today's sensibilities, cutting a city center off from its waterfront (usually) doesn't make sense from an economic or from an aesthetic perspective.

As for where else I-95 could go, I'm not very familiar with Philadelphia personally. I can speculate only from looking at a map. Assuming I was building it from scratch, my first thought would have been to route it east across the Walt Whitman Bridge, north where I-676 is now, then continuing north across the river on a new bridge to reconnect to where I-95 currently is. Or to route it along the west edge of the FDR Golf Club (as seen on Google Maps) and along the current I-76 routing, then east along I-676 north of downtown to where I-95 currently is.

While I will give you kudos for thinking outside the box with the above; here are some site specific issues:

1.  The Delaware River is about a mile wide (with most bridge crossings roughly 1.5 to 2 miles long) in the immediate Center City area AND the land that abuts the east side of the river is NEW JERSEY (Camden & Gloucester City).  Your suggested re-routing would needlessly involve crossing state lines TWICE for someone heading from the airport to Northeast Philly (as an example).  Not to mention that EVERY Delaware River bridge crossing in the immediate area is tolled; $5 westbound for the 3 DRPA bridges and $2 for the 2-lane Tacony-Palmyra Bridge.  If the Delaware River was as narrow as the Schuylkill River (which is only roughly 800 feet wide) and there was no state boundary to contend with; then that option would have some validity.

2.  Your second idea essentially involves utilizing the existing 4-lane Vine Expressway (I-676), 4-lane Schuylkill Expressway (I-76) and the 4-lane Platt Bridge (PA 291).  In comparison, I-95 ranges from 6 to 8 lanes.  This option has been discussed and backed by the Get Rid of I-95 crowd but the primary problem with this alternative is that those roads (most of them older than I-95 BTW) are grossly undersized to be the primary artery: 10 to 12 currently available expressway lanes for all corridors going down to only 4.

The only way this option COULD work would be to widen EVERY 4-lane segment to either 8 to 10 lanes BEFORE removing/rerouting I-95.  IMHO, one would sooner see Former-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi becoming a conservative Republican than the widening of those expressways & bridges.  It's worth noting that the I-676 Vine Expressway, particularly the newer eastern end (from PA 611 to I-95, that opened in 1991), is actually a downsized expressway compared to what it originally planned to be.

Like I said, I'm not overly familiar with Philadelphia

I fail to see why crossing the state line twice though is a concern. It may be a hassle from a coordination perspective if the PA and NJ DOTs don't get along particularly well, but for your example of the person going from the airport to the NE suburbs, it shouldn't matter provided the tolls went away. It doesn't add much distance. Besides, bridges are cool!

As for the narrow 4-lane roads and bridges, yes, they'd clearly need to be updated. But I'm not proposing any of this solutions that have an actual chance of happening, just hypothetical alternatives.

That's why I asked though about how much of the downtown I-95 traffic is O/D for downtown and how much is through traffic. If most of the traffic is O/D, the traffic increase on other downtown freeways would be smaller than if the majority of traffic were through traffic not stopping downtown.

This is getting into dangerous fictional highway territory. Hopefully this thread doesn't get sent to that black hole!

[bugo]

So where would you have placed I-95 in Central Philadelphia if tunneling it Big Dig style was already rejected back in the 60s due to cost?  As I stated earlier, placing it betweeen Independence Mall (6th St.) and Broad Street (PA 611) is a non-starter.  Placing it between its current location and 5th Street would have it litterally rip through the Old City Historic District and many of its landmarks.

One has to remember when that stretch of I-95 was built, most of the waterfront area was either industrial or a wasteland.

I'm not saying they made the wrong choice back when it was built, only that given today's sensibilities, cutting a city center off from its waterfront (usually) doesn't make sense from an economic or from an aesthetic perspective.

As for where else I-95 could go, I'm not very familiar with Philadelphia personally. I can speculate only from looking at a map. Assuming I was building it from scratch, my first thought would have been to route it east across the Walt Whitman Bridge, north where I-676 is now, then continuing north across the river on a new bridge to reconnect to where I-95 currently is. Or to route it along the west edge of the FDR Golf Club (as seen on Google Maps) and along the current I-76 routing, then east along I-676 north of downtown to where I-95 currently is.

That's just speculation though since I'm not familiar with local traffic patterns, road states, or anything like that. Is there a lot of through traffic on that stretch of I-95 or is it mostly people heading to/from downtown? Eliminating a stretch of freeway seems like it would result in much less impact if it mostly carried downtown O/D traffic as opposed to people needing to get across downtown.

I-95 should have never been built through Philadelphia or Pennsylvania at all.  The New Jersey Turnpike should be I-95 all the way to the Delaware border.  Maybe the road in Pennsylvania should have been built, but it shouldn't have been I-95 past the point that the new I-95 in NJ was cancelled.

[bugo]

There has been some rumblings about tearing down the Inner Dispersal Loop (I-244/444) in Tulsa, but thankfully the movement doesn't have much momentum.  OTA ignored the NIMBYs when they built the Creek Turnpike through south Tulsa.  Thankfully the weenies don't have much power around here.

[lamsalfl]

I'm as big of a roadgeek as the next guy, but I fully support tearing down the I-10 over Claiborne Ave.  Through-traffic doesn't need it, it's ugly, and hinders development.  Some roads just ain't right.

[cpzilliacus]

I'm not saying they made the wrong choice back when it was built, only that given today's sensibilities, cutting a city center off from its waterfront (usually) doesn't make sense from an economic or from an aesthetic perspective.

As for where else I-95 could go, I'm not very familiar with Philadelphia personally. I can speculate only from looking at a map. Assuming I was building it from scratch, my first thought would have been to route it east across the Walt Whitman Bridge, north where I-676 is now, then continuing north across the river on a new bridge to reconnect to where I-95 currently is. Or to route it along the west edge of the FDR Golf Club (as seen on Google Maps) and along the current I-76 routing, then east along I-676 north of downtown to where I-95 currently is.

While I will give you kudos for thinking outside the box with the above; here are some site specific issues:

1.  The Delaware River is about a mile wide (with most bridge crossings roughly 1.5 to 2 miles long) in the immediate Center City area AND the land that abuts the east side of the river is NEW JERSEY (Camden & Gloucester City).  Your suggested re-routing would needlessly involve crossing state lines TWICE for someone heading from the airport to Northeast Philly (as an example).  Not to mention that EVERY Delaware River bridge crossing in the immediate area is tolled; $5 westbound for the 3 DRPA bridges and $2 for the 2-lane Tacony-Palmyra Bridge.  If the Delaware River was as narrow as the Schuylkill River (which is only roughly 800 feet wide) and there was no state boundary to contend with; then that option would have some validity.

In addition to the cost of constructing two large  and expensive river crossings (probably 8 lanes, high enough to allow ocean shipping to pass or in tunnels), I assert that the city fathers of Camden (and probably New Jersey's state officials) would raise the issue of environmental justice, since Camden is notoriously poor and majority-minority.   Philadelphia's urban problems are relatively minor when compared to Camden.

2.  Your second idea essentially involves utilizing the existing 4-lane Vine Expressway (I-676), 4-lane Schuylkill Expressway (I-76) and the 4-lane Platt Bridge (PA 291).  In comparison, I-95 ranges from 6 to 8 lanes.  This option has been discussed and backed by the Get Rid of I-95 crowd but the primary problem with this alternative is that those roads (most of them older than I-95 BTW) are grossly undersized to be the primary artery: 10 to 12 currently available expressway lanes for all corridors going down to only 4.

Agreed. 

The only way this option COULD work would be to widen EVERY 4-lane segment to either 8 to 10 lanes BEFORE removing/rerouting I-95.  IMHO, one would sooner see Former-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi becoming a conservative Republican than the widening of those expressways & bridges.  It's worth noting that the I-676 Vine Expressway, particularly the newer eastern end (from PA 611 to I-95, that opened in 1991), is actually a downsized expressway compared to what it originally planned to be.

There's also the matter of any tear-down proposal needing approval of both PennDOT and the U.S. Department of Transportation.  I don't think that's going to happen (regardless of what Neal Peirce says), especially when those agencies and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission are spending a lot of money to close the "missing link" of I-95.

[MrDisco99]

I fail to see why crossing the state line twice though is a concern. It may be a hassle from a coordination perspective if the PA and NJ DOTs don't get along particularly well, but for your example of the person going from the airport to the NE suburbs, it shouldn't matter provided the tolls went away. It doesn't add much distance. Besides, bridges are cool!

I wonder what DRPA would think about ending tolls on the Delaware crossings (which are currently $5 per round trip, not quite as exorbitant as NYC metro, but still quite a racket) at the same time as it builds a new one (possibly two).

You'd be just as likely to see space elevators carry traffic from one side of center city to the other.  How's THAT for a fictional highway?

Seriously, though, your ideas may make sense in some other parts of the country, but there are some realities particular to the northeast, and to the Philly metro, that make some ideas a lot less possible there.

[PHLBOS]

I-95 should have never been built through Philadelphia or Pennsylvania at all.  The New Jersey Turnpike should be I-95 all the way to the Delaware border.  Maybe the road in Pennsylvania should have been built, but it shouldn't have been I-95 past the point that the new I-95 in NJ was cancelled.

Even if the Delaware Expressway (the street name for I-95 in PA) never received the I-95 designation or even ANY Interstate designation for that matter; southeastern PA STILL would have needed some type of highway that connected Downtown Philly to the 2 adjacent counties (Bucks & Delaware), links the city to the airport, the Sports Complex, the Tioga & Packer Marine Port Terminals, South & Northeast Philly.

Furthermore, even if I-95 in Somerset County, NJ WAS built, would through-traffic from there to Delaware State and points further south head into PA via the Delaware Expressway?  Unless they were making a stop in either Philly, Bucks and/or Delaware County, probably not; they would likely use I-295 to get to Delaware State and points further south.

The through-traffic I was referring to is more of a regional/localized venue as opposed to long-distance.  That said, would traffic on I-95 in PA increase once the Turnpike interchange is built; yes, but the increase will likely involve traffic that is O&D-ing in southeastern PA (though not necessarily Philly).

I fail to see why crossing the state line twice though is a concern. It may be a hassle from a coordination perspective if the PA and NJ DOTs don't get along particularly well, but for your example of the person going from the airport to the NE suburbs, it shouldn't matter provided the tolls went away. It doesn't add much distance. Besides, bridges are cool!

We'd sooner see Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad convert to Judiasm than elimination of tolls on all the DRPA bridges and/or the disbanding of the DRPA.

BTW the distance added by crossing the Delaware TWICE is roughly 4 miles.  For a longer trip, 4 miles isn't too big a deal; but for more shorter trips, that extra distance can be a deal-breaker.

[mgk920]

I also recall hearing chatter a few years ago from some wanting to remove the Rochester, NY Inner Loop freeway.  Any more on that one?

Mike

[NE2]

BTW the distance added by crossing the Delaware TWICE is roughly 4 miles.  For a longer trip, 4 miles isn't too big a deal; but for more shorter trips, that extra distance can be a deal-breaker.

Sounds like induced demand

[Revive 755]

I also recall hearing chatter a few years ago from some wanting to remove the Rochester, NY Inner Loop freeway.  Any more on that one?

Mike

There was a TIGER grant proposal floating around the internet for boulevarding the east half (not including I-490).  As much as I dislike the idea, it is kind of hard to justify keeping a freeway with an ADT around 6000.

[Brandon]

What these folks, the freeway-teardown folks, forget is that not only does automobile traffic use these roads, but truck traffic does as well.  They seem to think the traffic will magically move to public transit once the freeway is gone.  It's very wrong.  Through traffic and truck traffic still needs to get from point A to point B.  And these center city folks who want the teardowns seem to forget that these trucks can bring good to their markets quickly and cheaply with the freeways.  Without them, the good take longer, and they will be more expensive.

There's no reason that through trucks need to be routed through the immediate downtown area of most cities.

They have to get to the downtown area.

[NE2]

There's no reason that through trucks need to be routed through the immediate downtown area of most cities.

They have to get to the downtown area.

Through trucks don't have to get to the downtown area. That's what makes them through trucks.