Do any of these highways deserve to be removed?

[oscar]

Any thoughts on that stretch of I-10 in NOLA? Supposedly, there has been some actual conversation about it.

I think that one is non-silly. Might have to widen the freeways on the other two legs of that triangle.

[Plutonic Panda]

Huge no to any of these.

[Beltway]

The thing is, if we remove megafreeways from cities, large plots of unused land are going to remain where the freeways were, which is even worse than a 10 lane highway.

This is the issue with former I-170 in Baltimore.  While it is no longer really needed, if they demolished it and backfilled the area, I don't know that any development would occur on the land, even in the next 20+ years, as West Baltimore is already fighting depopulation of its existing neighborhoods.

[MantyMadTown]

Any thoughts on that stretch of I-10 in NOLA? Supposedly, there has been some actual conversation about it.

I like that idea. Claiborne Ave in NOLA should be restored to its original state.

[Plutonic Panda]

Any thoughts on that stretch of I-10 in NOLA? Supposedly, there has been some actual conversation about it.

I like that idea. Claiborne Ave in NOLA should be restored to its original state.

That freeway needs to be preserved and reconstructed. Arguably expanded by a lane or two. I know I find it convenient. There can be middle ground for reconstruction by raising the structure high to allow more sunlight underneath adding a park or maybe a transit line. For obvious reasons, tunnels are out of the question. Hopefully this freeway isn't torn down and converted to a boulevard.

If a gun is to my head and I'm to choose on any of these removals I'm familiar with, it would me this one but at the same I'd join any organized protest in favor of keeping it if the proposal to tear it down really gets considered.

[Tom958]

The I-10 NOLA teardown idea is dead. https://nextcity.org/features/view/a-divided-neighborhood-comes-together-under-an-elevated-expressway

[Plutonic Panda]

The I-10 NOLA teardown idea is dead. https://nextcity.org/features/view/a-divided-neighborhood-comes-together-under-an-elevated-expressway

Good deal! I do think a rebuild should include elements to better connect the neighborhoods.

[oscar]

The I-10 NOLA teardown idea is dead. https://nextcity.org/features/view/a-divided-neighborhood-comes-together-under-an-elevated-expressway

Interesting take on the situation from local residents, that might apply to others in the CNU report:

-- the benefits of freeway removal might result in gentrification, pushing out current residents so they'll never get to see those benefits

-- maybe current residents would be better off keeping their hideous freeway, so their community can remain intact.

[MantyMadTown]

The I-10 NOLA teardown idea is dead. https://nextcity.org/features/view/a-divided-neighborhood-comes-together-under-an-elevated-expressway

Interesting take on the situation from local residents, that might apply to others in the CNU report:

-- the benefits of freeway removal might result in gentrification, pushing out current residents so they'll never get to see those benefits

-- maybe current residents would be better off keeping their hideous freeway, so their community can remain intact.

That sucks. I wish we could tear down the freeway without seeing the negative effects of gentrification.

[Anthony_JK]

The I-10 NOLA teardown idea is dead. https://nextcity.org/features/view/a-divided-neighborhood-comes-together-under-an-elevated-expressway

THANK. YOU.

Common sense still matters to some people.

You simply DO NOT tear down a major artery that provides direct access to downtown NOLA, the French Quarter, and the Superdome and force traffic to go through a 4- to 6-lane surface arterial.

A far better idea for NOLA is to do what Lafayette is trying to do with its proposed I-49 Lafayette Connector: add some Context Sensitive Solutions design standards to better integrate the Claiborne Elevated into the Treme community and the surrounding neighborhoods, and also make plans to ultimately renovate the facility to maintain and extend its life.

Good to see that some people get that freeway teardowns aren't the panacea some would have them think they are.

[txstateends]

The removal of I-345 in Dallas would put all freeway traffic towards the I-30/I-35E mixmaster and make a busy interchange into an even worse chokepoint.  Even one wreck in the Canyon, Mixmaster, or along Woodall Rodgers would make commuting in any part of the remaining freeways a messy nightmare.  The side streets in Dallas are already way *way* behind in keeping up with potholes as it is, and adding more non-essential traffic to them would really exacerbate things in/near downtown.  Retaining what is there may not 'look' good to some, but at least there are ways around traffic problems that would arise in that area.  Putting I-345 (eventual I-45 extension, maybe??) below ground level would placate at least some of those who are into highway corridor aesthetics, and add a potential extra possible deck park opportunity for those who are fans of Klyde Warren Park (the new deck park over Woodall Rodgers).

The latest City Council recommendation made about the proposed redo of I-30 in and east of downtown, would ask TxDOT to work simultaneously on I-30 and whatever would get done to I-345.  Another proposal someone hasn't thought very long on... whoever thinks that the State will agree to do both freeways at once, doesn't realize the traffic headache that would result from having 2 freeways (that cross!!) out of commission partially or completely.  TxDOT hasn't answered the City's counter-proposal just yet, but I doubt that they'd agree to redo both freeways together.

Either way, there isn't a whole lot that would be positively gained by completely removing I-345.  If anything should be removed regarding it, it should be the numbering.  No one calls it that, and it's really too short for a legitimate separate number.  Either US 75 should end at I-30, or I-45 should end north of I-30 -- many miles north of I-30 would be even better.

[Anthony_JK]

The I-10 NOLA teardown idea is dead. https://nextcity.org/features/view/a-divided-neighborhood-comes-together-under-an-elevated-expressway

Interesting take on the situation from local residents, that might apply to others in the CNU report:

-- the benefits of freeway removal might result in gentrification, pushing out current residents so they'll never get to see those benefits

-- maybe current residents would be better off keeping their hideous freeway, so their community can remain intact.

That sucks. I wish we could tear down the freeway without seeing the negative effects of gentrification.

Actually, it doesn't. The very idea of freeway removal is built upon gentrificating older, mostly "minority" neighborhoods in order to attract wealthier, hipper people. Also, the "hideous" freeway can be transformed through CSS design and neighborhood feedback to be better integrated into the community while still serving its purpose of moving traffic.

[Plutonic Panda]

The removal of I-345 in Dallas would put all freeway traffic towards the I-30/I-35E mixmaster and make a busy interchange into an even worse chokepoint.  Even one wreck in the Canyon, Mixmaster, or along Woodall Rodgers would make commuting in any part of the remaining freeways a messy nightmare.  The side streets in Dallas are already way *way* behind in keeping up with potholes as it is, and adding more non-essential traffic to them would really exacerbate things in/near downtown.  Retaining what is there may not 'look' good to some, but at least there are ways around traffic problems that would arise in that area.  Putting I-345 (eventual I-45 extension, maybe??) below ground level would placate at least some of those who are into highway corridor aesthetics, and add a potential extra possible deck park opportunity for those who are fans of Klyde Warren Park (the new deck park over Woodall Rodgers).

The latest City Council recommendation made about the proposed redo of I-30 in and east of downtown, would ask TxDOT to work simultaneously on I-30 and whatever would get done to I-345.  Another proposal someone hasn't thought very long on... whoever thinks that the State will agree to do both freeways at once, doesn't realize the traffic headache that would result from having 2 freeways (that cross!!) out of commission partially or completely.  TxDOT hasn't answered the City's counter-proposal just yet, but I doubt that they'd agree to redo both freeways together.

Either way, there isn't a whole lot that would be positively gained by completely removing I-345.  If anything should be removed regarding it, it should be the numbering.  No one calls it that, and it's really too short for a legitimate separate number.  Either US 75 should end at I-30, or I-45 should end north of I-30 -- many miles north of I-30 would be even better.

Fortunately, I don't see this freeway going anywhere. TxDOT still has common sense.

[MNHighwayMan]

Also, the "hideous" freeway can be transformed through CSS design

I'm now imagining an engineer working with a web developer to use Cascading Style Sheets to make a freeway look better.

[DAL764]

Aside from the already talked about stuff in this pamphlet, I really love the argument by that group under the graduated campaigns that because no 'Carmageddon' happened when the Alaskan Way switched from viaduct to tunnel, the whole tunnel was an 'unnecessary expense'. What kind of f'd up logic is that? Oh, the authorities did everything to prepare the driving the public for the change and thus chaos was avoided, clearly the tunnel was not needed at all.

Also the other two 'graduated campaigns' are Rochester loop which was only partially removed, and I-375 in Detroit, for which there aren't even any final redesign plans yet.

They're not really helping their case here.

[bing101]

The I-980 item ignores the network redundancy value of that freeway. That was highlighted when part of I-880 in west Oakland collapsed in the 1989 earthquake. I-980 carried much of the load previously borne by I-880. It also gave Caltrans time to develop a better replacement for I-880, which was much less damaging to west Oakland neighborhoods than the original freeway, without the pressure to do a quick-fix replacement just to get traffic moving again.

Also I remember I-980 was going to be part of the proposed "Southern Crossing" to Candlestick park though in some of the maps prior to I-238 and I-380 being put as another part of the talks for an alternate Southern Crossing.

[Ned Weasel]

Keep in mind that the OP link is the product of a lobbying organization/special interest group.

I'm not sure that's a fair description.  As one of the leading organizations for urban design and planning, the Congress for the New Urbanism is deeply concerned for the public interest, as it aims to take a holistic and comprehensive view of urban development and design practices, as they affect everything from neighborhoods to metropolitan regions.  That being said, I haven't always agreed with everything that some of the more prominent figures within the CNU have said, but for the most part, their design philosophies are well grounded in reason, evidence, and the learned experience of prior planning and design movements, such as City Beautiful, Garden City, CIAM, etc.  A vacuum was left when CIAM disbanded, and CNU is, in effect, trying to correct the mistakes of CIAM and its less-than-ideal results, and pick up where it left off in its public-interest aspirations.

[hbelkins]

CNU just needs to realize that not everyone wants transit, not everyone wants walkability, and so forth and so on.

[Rothman]

Have to agree with HK.  The myopic focus on non-car transportation does not take into account suburban families (that require more flexible transportation than transit can provide) or even people who do not want to walk or bike in bad weather (rain, snow or even when it is just cold).

They also do not recognize the overwhelming market demand for single family homes -- the American Dream.

As I have said before, all of my electives im grad school were in my university's Regional Planning Department.  The idea that hard science is behind modern planning mantras is totally laughable.

That is 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.  Someone mentioned that even new transit stations that should only be accessible by walking or bicycling, for example.  Totally ridiculous and stupidly blind to exisiting transportation patterns.  The last thing we need is to waste precious transportation dollars on such projects and the like.

[Duke87]

Keep in mind that the OP link is the product of a lobbying organization/special interest group.

I'm not sure that's a fair description.  As one of the leading organizations for urban design and planning, the Congress for the New Urbanism is deeply concerned for the public interest, as it aims to take a holistic and comprehensive view of urban development and design practices, as they affect everything from neighborhoods to metropolitan regions.

Yeah, no, that reads like a canned mission statement. I'm sure they're deeply concerned for what, in their opinion, is in the public's best interest. That doesn't mean they speak for the whole public.

Rule of thumb: if the group has a name of the form "X For Y", that is a pretty damn good indication that you are looking at a lobbying organization/special interest group.

After all, they are "for" New Urbanism. This is a particular viewpoint they are explicitly expressing. They are not taking input from people who are against New Urbanism (or neutral/luekwarm on it), nor are they spending any space discussing these opposing or differing viewpoints.

CNU's own website dedicates a page to "The Movement", has a whole "Get Involved" category, and under "What We Do" they have an "Our Issues" page which contains this statement:

CNU advocates for changes that make it easier to build great places.

(emphasis mine)

Tell me with a straight face that doesn't sound like lobbying. Hell, "advocate" is a freaking synonym for "lobby".

[Ned Weasel]

After all, they are "for" New Urbanism. This is a particular viewpoint they are explicitly expressing. They are not taking input from people who are against New Urbanism (or neutral/luekwarm on it), nor are they spending any space discussing these opposing or differing viewpoints.

They spent an entire book discussing opposing and differing viewpoints:
https://www.amazon.com/Landscape-Urbanism-its-Discontents-Dissimulating/dp/0865717400/

CNU's own website dedicates a page to "The Movement", has a whole "Get Involved" category, and under "What We Do" they have an "Our Issues" page which contains this statement:

CNU advocates for changes that make it easier to build great places.

(emphasis mine)

Tell me with a straight face that doesn't sound like lobbying. Hell, "advocate" is a freaking synonym for "lobby".

Okay.  It's time to take a deep breath and think about a very fundamental point.

Does the public interest just--reach a state of advancement--automatically?

Or--

Does someone need to advocate for the public interest--in order to inspire changes that advance the public interest?

What do you think "to build great places" means?  It sounds like something that serves the public interest, since the public lives in places.

You have created a false dichotomy in which advocating is somehow diametrically opposed to the public interest.  It is not.

[Duke87]

After all, they are "for" New Urbanism. This is a particular viewpoint they are explicitly expressing. They are not taking input from people who are against New Urbanism (or neutral/luekwarm on it), nor are they spending any space discussing these opposing or differing viewpoints.

They spent an entire book discussing opposing and differing viewpoints:
https://www.amazon.com/Landscape-Urbanism-its-Discontents-Dissimulating/dp/0865717400/

Oh goodie, someone wrote a book. THAT makes them neutral and all-encompassing in everything they do, even publications like the one linked in the OP that are clearly expressing only one specific viewpoint.

Does the public interest just--reach a state of advancement--automatically?

Or--

Does someone need to advocate for the public interest--in order to inspire changes that advance the public interest?

What do you think "to build great places" means?  It sounds like something that serves the public interest, since the public lives in places.

You have created a false dichotomy in which advocating is somehow diametrically opposed to the public interest.  It is not.

You're completely missing the point.

Let's look at the the dictionary definition of "lobbying":

seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue.

Gee, that sounds exactly like what CNU is doing. I don't know why this is so hard to accept or acknowledge.

This does not, by the way, mean that what they are doing is "diametrically opposed to the pubic interest". Lobbying for the public interest (whatever in your opinion that may be) is still lobbying, and the publications of a group doing it still need to be viewed through that lens to properly understand what they do and don't mean, and what role they play in the political process.

[Kulerage]

I'm gonna have to go with a "no".

[skluth]

Saw the article the other day. Here's a non-PDF version:

https://www.cnu.org/highways-boulevards/freeways-without-futures/2019

Most of these sound pretty ridiculous. I-275 in Tampa? That's crazy!

Any thoughts on that stretch of I-10 in NOLA? Supposedly, there has been some actual conversation about it.

IMO, The Claiborne Avenue proposal is the one legitimate idea. I-10 went through a vibrant neighborhood and contributed to its decay. There's outside interest in redeveloping the neighborhood as it got a lot fame from HBO's Tremé and it's already undergone some restoration. Removing the freeway basically adds a few miles commute via I-610 for those east of Franklin Av. I don't think NO is known for horrible interstate traffic.

The Louisville and Syracuse proposals have some merit.

[Ned Weasel]

This does not, by the way, mean that what they are doing is "diametrically opposed to the pubic interest". Lobbying for the public interest (whatever in your opinion that may be) is still lobbying, and the publications of a group doing it still need to be viewed through that lens to properly understand what they do and don't mean, and what role they play in the political process.

Keep in mind that the OP link is the product of a lobbying organization/special interest group.

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