Worst possible freeway removal in each city?

[bing101]

Can CA-13 Warren Freeway be acceptable for freeway removal in Oakland?

Likewise can CA-90 Marina Freeway be acceptable for removal too in the Los Angeles area.

I-380 and I-238 can be considered for freeway removal but that's overshadowed by the rumored southern crossing.

[jakeroot]

the house next door to my parents...sold for well above...its asking price (somewhere around $90k)

I didn't know homes still came that cheap.

edit: awful English

[andrepoiy]

the house next door to my parents...sold for well above...its asking price (somewhere around $90k)

I didn't homes still came that cheap.

Yeah lol, I thought it was a typo

[vdeane]

the house next door to my parents...sold for well above...its asking price (somewhere around $90k)

I didn't homes still came that cheap.

Base home prices pre-pandemic were probably quite a bit cheaper around Rochester than major cities (even $300k is considered high there).  That ~$90k would be cheap by the standards of the neighborhood, but given that it hadn't seen more than the most basic maintenance in a very long time and was sold as-is, cash only on very short notice without even cleaning out the stuff, we were more surprised at what it actually sold for than the list price.

[webny99]

the house next door to my parents...sold for well above...its asking price (somewhere around $90k)

I didn't homes still came that cheap.

Base home prices pre-pandemic were probably quite a bit cheaper around Rochester than major cities (even $300k is considered high there).  That ~$90k would be cheap even by the standards of the neighborhood, but given that it hadn't seen more than the most basic maintenance in a very long time and was sold as-is, cash only on very short notice without even cleaning out the stuff, we were more surprised at what it actually sold for than the list price.

Yeah, I wasn't shocked at all by a house being listed for ~$90k, but it is important context you provide. Most suburban areas would be at least in the low- to mid-$100k range, but there's plenty of homes that would go for less than that in the inner city.

To echo your point, I thought $300k was very expensive when I was younger. Not so much now, obviously, but there are still plenty of decent areas where you can get a home for less than that. Even newly constructed homes were selling in the mid-$200k range as recently as 2018-19 (I used to drive past two such neighborhoods on my commute, but those have been largely sold out/complete for a year or two now).

[Bruce]

$300K is the standard for a cookie-cutter 30+ year-old house in the exurbs here. Any lower and you're looking at some very dilapidated homes in even worse areas.

The median home price in King County is $725,000.

[bing101]

I-80, Vacaville to  Fairfield, CA would be the worst places to remove  freeway because that section has to carry both Sacramento area and Bay Area commuters at the same time.

[SkyPesos]

https://time.com/pittsburgh/

I'm waiting for Angelo71 to find this link.

Or kernals12.

Kernals12 hangs out somewhere else now

[Roadgeekteen]

https://time.com/pittsburgh/

I'm waiting for Angelo71 to find this link.

Or kernals12.

Kernals12 hangs out somewhere else now

"Because I say so" 

[Brandon]

the house next door to my parents...sold for well above...its asking price (somewhere around $90k)

I didn't homes still came that cheap.

Yes, but it depends on where you are.  Here, in Joliet, Illinois, you can find a decent 3-bed/2-bath house (~2,200 SF) in the range of $140k-$220k, and we're still building a lot of new houses, unlike most of Chicagoland, much less the State of Illinois (only nine counties in the state grew last decade: Will, Kendall, DuPage (barely), Kane, Grundy, Champaign, Williamson, Monore, and McLean).

[jakeroot]

the house next door to my parents...sold for well above...its asking price (somewhere around $90k)

I didn't homes still came that cheap.

Yes, but it depends on where you are.  Here, in Joliet, Illinois, you can find a decent 3-bed/2-bath house (~2,200 SF) in the range of $140k-$220k, and we're still building a lot of new houses, unlike most of Chicagoland, much less the State of Illinois (only nine counties in the state grew last decade: Will, Kendall, DuPage (barely), Kane, Grundy, Champaign, Williamson, Monore, and McLean).

What, in your opinion, seems to keep the prices of homes down? Is there not a huge draw to Joliet? Too long of a commute to Chicago?

$140k to $220k is certainly not free, but still well below even the cheapest of homes in suburban WA (as Bruce's map above shows quite well). You have to really get out into the boonies to find something for $140k, or perhaps a very rundown home in a very rundown part of town in a very rundown city (I'm think Tacoma's Eastside and, ten years ago, Tacoma's Hilltop area, where I can still remember seeing a home for under $100k within the last ten years).

[webny99]

What, in your opinion, seems to keep the prices of homes down?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but my answer for Upstate NY (and the Rust Belt in general) would be very slow population growth rates - or even population decline - and the fact that the area is generally not seen as desirable, as evidenced by more people moving out than moving in. Over the last 4-5 decades, if there's been any growth, it's usually the result of natural growth outweighing the net loss due to migration.

Of course, that's starting to change a bit now, but that's certainly been the case since the decline of the Rust Belt began in the 1970's-80's.

[Brandon]

the house next door to my parents...sold for well above...its asking price (somewhere around $90k)

I didn't homes still came that cheap.

Yes, but it depends on where you are.  Here, in Joliet, Illinois, you can find a decent 3-bed/2-bath house (~2,200 SF) in the range of $140k-$220k, and we're still building a lot of new houses, unlike most of Chicagoland, much less the State of Illinois (only nine counties in the state grew last decade: Will, Kendall, DuPage (barely), Kane, Grundy, Champaign, Williamson, Monore, and McLean).

What, in your opinion, seems to keep the prices of homes down? Is there not a huge draw to Joliet? Too long of a commute to Chicago?

$140k to $220k is certainly not free, but still well below even the cheapest of homes in suburban WA (as Bruce's map above shows quite well). You have to really get out into the boonies to find something for $140k, or perhaps a very rundown home in a very rundown part of town in a very rundown city (I'm think Tacoma's Eastside and, ten years ago, Tacoma's Hilltop area, where I can still remember seeing a home for under $100k within the last ten years).

What helps keep prices down?  There's quite a bit of inexpensive new construction of average homes instead of McMansions.  New housing starts came to a standstill after the 2008 crash; however, they built back up quickly enough and a lot of new homes were being built again by 2014 or so.  When it costs about the same to buy a new house as it does to buy a used house, then prices stay much lower.  There's a lot more competition. That said, houses do go for over list price, and they do go quickly.

[bing101]

CA-242 the entire route given that it's a short freeway from I-680 to CA-4 in Concord, CA it is useful offset jams on I-680 at Rush hour.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I'm kinda mixed about Hennepin-122.  It was downgraded from a freeway to an expressway about 10 years back when they built the LRT to St. Paul.

Is that Washington Ave? Assuming you're thinking of the part between I-35W and the Mississippi River (beyond both ends are a surface street), it looks like a 4 lane to 2 lane downgrade to me to fit the LRT tracks in, not really freeway to expressway, as it barely counted as a freeway in the first place.

On the Dinkytown side, the right lane was usually clogged with parked vehicles anyway so the traffic flow capacity was basically the same as it is now.

[vdeane]

What, in your opinion, seems to keep the prices of homes down?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but my answer for Upstate NY (and the Rust Belt in general) would be very slow population growth rates - or even population decline - and the fact that the area is generally not seen as desirable, as evidenced by more people moving out than moving in. Over the last 4-5 decades, if there's been any growth, it's usually the result of natural growth outweighing the net loss due to migration.

Of course, that's starting to change a bit now, but that's certainly been the case since the decline of the Rust Belt began in the 1970's-80's.

To add: Rochester didn't feel the housing boom of the 2000s that eventually led to the Great Recession (and, conversely, didn't feel the foreclosure crisis, either).

[DJ Particle]

Is that Washington Ave? Assuming you're thinking of the part between I-35W and the Mississippi River (beyond both ends are a surface street), it looks like a 4 lane to 2 lane downgrade to me to fit the LRT tracks in, not really freeway to expressway, as it barely counted as a freeway in the first place.

Ah...I always figured it was a freeway for that short distance given that originally there were no surface intersections between the Metrodome and the East Bank...just a few interchanges (35W, Cedar Ave, E River Road).  When the LRT moved in, they put in 2 signalized intersections.

[achilles765]

Here in Houston it would be a huge mistake to get rid of any of the interstate routings. They are already so ingrained into the makeup of the city. Could you imagine rerouting I 10 and putting a boulevard in that stretch that's 26 lanes wide

Aren't they actively planning to remove I-45 on the west side of Downtown, assuming the expansion of the I-69 segment of the loop is ever cleared from environmental hurdles.

Yeah and it's a terrible idea. Technically what they are doing is rerouting IH 45 along Ih 10 and then running alongside IH 69. They aren't even technically getting rid of the current route because the plan is to label it "the downtown connector."  
It's a stupid idea to get rid of it totally because that means traffic heading to the med center or the southwest now would have to go all the way around downtown and around the east side instead of just a direct route. And means there'd only be one freeway through downtown.
One of the things I've always liked about Houston's freeway system is that we don't have many multiplexed routes. None of that nonsense like in San Antonio where every major route multiplexes at some point. Or Beaumont with its interstate 10/US 90/US 69/US 96/US 287 insanity.
If this plan is built as planned there will be a stretch here that will be Interstate 10/Interstate 45/Interstate 69/US 90/US 59/SH 288

[andrepoiy]

I think if there's a fundamental rethinking of Houston - to make the whole city a lot less car-oriented - then a freeway removal would make sense

[CoreySamson]

I think if there's a fundamental rethinking of Houston - to make the whole city a lot less car-oriented - then a freeway removal would make sense

True, Houston is still very car-oriented, but it's making strides in the mass transit sector. We have three light rail lines, a substantial bus network, HOV lanes, an underground walkway around downtown, and a park-and-ride system for carpooling. Sadly, a subway wouldn't make sense given the city's capacity for flooding.

I would say the worst freeway to remove in Houston would be I-69/I-59 thru downtown, especially considering the I-45 rerouting.

[andrepoiy]

A subway doesn't have to be underground, it could very well be overground or elevated.

[sprjus4]

I think if there's a fundamental rethinking of Houston - to make the whole city a lot less car-oriented - then a freeway removal would make sense

Perhaps... but let's get there first. Prematurely removing freeways with a goal in mind that may never play out... bad idea. Houston is certainly car-oriented at the present.

[SkyPesos]

I think if there's a fundamental rethinking of Houston - to make the whole city a lot less car-oriented - then a freeway removal would make sense

True, Houston is still very car-oriented, but it's making strides in the mass transit sector. We have three light rail lines, a substantial bus network, HOV lanes, an underground walkway around downtown, and a park-and-ride system for carpooling. Sadly, a subway wouldn't make sense given the city's capacity for flooding.

I would say the worst freeway to remove in Houston would be I-69/I-59 thru downtown, especially considering the I-45 rerouting.

Houston would be one of those cities that I could see have an S-bahn/RER like suburban rail system if the city/metro area is less freeway centric, though I think the I-10 Katy Fwy expansion might've killed that, as I heard there was ROW for a double-tracked rail line next to the freeway before the expansion. Still, taking a train from IAH to downtown would be a nice to have.

[achilles765]

I think if there's a fundamental rethinking of Houston - to make the whole city a lot less car-oriented - then a freeway removal would make sense

True, Houston is still very car-oriented, but it's making strides in the mass transit sector. We have three light rail lines, a substantial bus network, HOV lanes, an underground walkway around downtown, and a park-and-ride system for carpooling. Sadly, a subway wouldn't make sense given the city's capacity for flooding.

I would say the worst freeway to remove in Houston would be I-69/I-59 thru downtown, especially considering the I-45 rerouting.

I live in the east end and I will tell you, that light rail line is awesome.  but there's also a bus line literally a block from my house that runs every 15 minutes too, so I generally use that but late at night the train runs later. 
I actually have managed to live here without a car for the last five years and have rarely had it be an issue.  But damn is it going to feel good to have one again later this month.