[updated list]
Full closures
Fall River: Route 79 (double decker section)
Gary: Cline Avenue Bridge
Milwaukee: Park East Freeway
New Haven: Oak Street Connector
New York City: West Side Elevated Highway
Niagara Falls: Robert Moses State Parkway
Rochester: Inner Loop
San Francisco: Central Freeway, Embarcadero Freeway, Southern-Embarcadero Freeway (unopened structure to 3rd Street)
Toronto: Gardiner Expressway (east of Don Valley Parkway)
Washington, D.C.: Southeast Freeway
Direct conversions into surface roads (same roadway but intersections added)
Carlsbad: Carlsbad Boulevard (south of CR S12; bypassed by I-5)
Chattanooga: Riverside Drive
Minneapolis: County Road 122
Phoenix: Sky Harbor Expressway (parallel SR 143 handles through traffic)
Sacramento: West Sacramento Freeway (bypassed by the W-X Freeway)
Horizontal or vertical relocations
Boston: Central Artery
Fort Worth: I-30
Oakland: Cypress Street Viaduct
Oklahoma City: Crosstown Expressway
Portland: Harbor Drive (closed after parallel I-5 and I-405 were built)
Providence: Iway project
Seattle: Alaskan Way Viaduct and Battery Street Tunnel (under construction)
Rural/suburban relocations
Florida: SR 4080, SR 429 (at SR 414)
Missouri: I-44 (east of Arlington)
Oklahoma: Will Rogers Turnpike (west of Creek Turnpike)
Pennsylvania: Abandoned Pennsylvania Turnpike
A section of I-44 east of Tulsa: https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=36.177269,-95.73976&spn=0.002863,0.004128&t=h&z=19&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=36.177269,-95.73976&panoid=o0DuXPpT6UnFSY1aduadeA&cbp=12,259.54,,0,6.61 (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=36.177269,-95.73976&spn=0.002863,0.004128&t=h&z=19&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=36.177269,-95.73976&panoid=o0DuXPpT6UnFSY1aduadeA&cbp=12,259.54,,0,6.61)
AZ 153- East of Sky harbor airport.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on December 14, 2014, 03:55:38 PM
AZ 153- East of Sky harbor airport.
That one looks slightly questionable, in that the road's still there; it just had a few at-grades added.
I did list I-44 east of Tulsa.
Freeway section of CT 34 in New Haven (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9085.0). I believe that work has since started on this project.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 14, 2014, 04:03:53 PM
Freeway section of CT 34 in New Haven (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9085.0). I believe that work has since started on this project.
Already listed.
Only the east end of the Southeast Freeway in Washington D.C. has been closed. (It is being rebuilt as a surface street, but it hasn't yet been reopened as such.) The part west of the 11th St. Bridge remains open, as part of I-695.
Quote from: NE2 on December 14, 2014, 03:57:29 PM
I did list I-44 east of Tulsa.
You certainly did. My bad.
In progress, Dallas: S. M. Wright Freeway (US 175)
Quote from: dfwmapper on December 14, 2014, 04:50:08 PM
In progress, Dallas: S. M. Wright Freeway (US 175)
But not actually happening yet, right? There are many that are "in progress" at some level.
Quote from: NE2 on December 14, 2014, 03:24:36 PM
[updated list]
Phoenix: Sky Harbor Expressway (road kept but at-grade intersections added; parallel SR 143 handles through traffic)
Is this now Sky Harbor Boulevard or 44th Street? AZ 143 parallels 44th Street, while Sky Harbor Boulevard would be bypassed by either Loop 202 or I-10.
* Riverfront Parkway in Chattanooga, TN: Had at at-grade intersections added.
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 14, 2014, 09:02:43 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 14, 2014, 03:24:36 PM
[updated list]
Phoenix: Sky Harbor Expressway (road kept but at-grade intersections added; parallel SR 143 handles through traffic)
Is this now Sky Harbor Boulevard or 44th Street? AZ 143 parallels 44th Street, while Sky Harbor Boulevard would be bypassed by either Loop 202 or I-10.
44th.
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 14, 2014, 09:02:43 PM
* Riverfront Parkway in Chattanooga, TN: Had at at-grade intersections added.
Hmmm. A bit short but I suppose it counts.
[edit]I'm not going to count the Sam Jones/Airport Expressway in Indy. In my book it's still a freeway; all that changed was the west end.
[edit]Oh shit, CA 275.
Quote from: NE2 on December 14, 2014, 03:24:36 PM
[updated list]
Full closures
Milwaukee: Park East Freeway
Direct conversions into surface roads
Milwaukee: Park East Freeway
...trimmed out
as noted.
No. The conversion was not direct, as the elevated structure was removed. Those I listed as direct conversions kept the same exact roadway, but had intersections added.
In Columbus, OH, US-33 was a freeway, sort of, as it passed through the Spring-Sandusky Interchange (an I-670 stub and OH-315). When the interchange was reconstructed over several years from the late-90's - early 2000's, US-33 stopped "pretending" to be a freeway and was made into a boulevard with signalized at-grade intersections.
Shoreline Drive in Long Beach, CA was once a freeway from the 710 end.
Old US 101 in south Carlsbad, CA used to be freeway from Palomar Airport Road to La Costa.
Quote from: NE2 on December 14, 2014, 05:04:45 PM
Quote from: dfwmapper on December 14, 2014, 04:50:08 PM
In progress, Dallas: S. M. Wright Freeway (US 175)
But not actually happening yet, right? There are many that are "in progress" at some level.
The contract for Phase 1 (widening I-45 and building the new ramps from it to the existing C.F. Hawn (US 175) freeway) was awarded at the end of September, but construction hasn't started yet. Tearing down the existing freeway is Phase 2 and that isn't scheduled to be let until early 2017.
Quote from: MarkF on December 15, 2014, 02:10:32 AM
Shoreline Drive in Long Beach, CA was once a freeway from the 710 end.
And it still is, except that there's now a light at the end of a U-turn ramp. As nothing was removed or even reconfigured, I'm not counting it.
Quote from: MarkF on December 15, 2014, 02:10:32 AM
Old US 101 in south Carlsbad, CA used to be freeway from Palomar Airport Road to La Costa.
Took some poking at old aerials, but I see it. Looks like at-grades were added first, then the interchanges were removed. Definitely fits in the direct conversion list.
Quote from: NE2 on December 14, 2014, 03:24:36 PM
[updated list]
Full closures
Gary: Cline Avenue Bridge
Only because the bridge was unsafe for travel. A new one is being debated about (how to pay for it).
The Mt. Hood Freeway in Portland was never fully built, correct? I seem to recall a post on here mentioning some old ramps that led to it however, so perhaps part of it WAS built? Is that correct?
Quote from: NE2 on December 14, 2014, 03:24:36 PM
San Francisco: Central Freeway
Since you've mentioned specific sections of routes (when applicable) I do want to clarify that only the section north of Market Street was removed, with Octavia Boulevard replacing the portion to Fell, and no replacement from there northeast to Franklin (the section that was closed right after Loma Prieta). The portion from 80 west to where the road turns to meet Market is still the original structure.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on December 15, 2014, 03:58:11 PM
The Mt. Hood Freeway in Portland was never fully built, correct? I seem to recall a post on here mentioning some old ramps that led to it however, so perhaps part of it WAS built? Is that correct?
Only a few stub ramps were built.
Quote from: TheStranger on December 15, 2014, 04:14:43 PM
Since you've mentioned specific sections of routes (when applicable) I do want to clarify...
I do that where it's not well known which pieces were removed. Generally, if the Wikipoo article is clear about where it used to be, it's not listed.
Also short, the sub ramps for the Western Ave Freeway were removed from the Kennedy Expy in Chicago . That may have been one of the few cases where actual construction took place before anything more than a line on a map was drawn. It was a line on a map in the 1963 CATS plan. In the 2010 CATS plan a sort section was proposed between the Stevenson and Ike was proposed but removed by the 2020 plan
Florida 4080, the original connector between the East-West Expwy (SR 408) and Central Greeneway (SR 417) in east Orlando. More or less its own limited access route, removed in favor of new flyovers directly connecting the two toll roads.
Fall River Route 79 (double decker section) is a direct conversion into a surface road, not a full closure.
Original I-70 between then OH 440 and OH 158. Eastbound half remains open, grade separated, as two way OH 158; interchange converted to intersection at west end; road rerouted from interchange to new intersection at east end.
US 99W Harbor Drive in Portland, though whether it was a full freeway by the time it was closed or only an expressway is a matter of debate.
Quote from: NE2 on December 14, 2014, 03:24:36 PM
[updated]
Direct conversions into surface roads (same roadway but intersections added)
Carlsbad: Carlsbad Boulevard (south of CR S12; bypassed by I-5)
Chattanooga: Riverside Drive
Phoenix: Sky Harbor Expressway (parallel SR 143 handles through traffic)
Sacramento: West Sacramento Freeway (bypassed by the W-X Freeway)
The one-time original Foothill Freeway (California 118) between Pasadena and La Canada Flintridge is now an extension of Woodbury Road.
Quote from: roadman on December 16, 2014, 09:12:13 AM
Fall River Route 79 (double decker section) is a direct conversion into a surface road, not a full closure.
No, it's a teardown of the existing structure with a surface road replacing it.
I thought about including 4080 (and 429 at 414) but somehow they seem different from the other rural relocations. But why not, I'll add them since there's land between the old and new alignments.
And SR 158 is more of a temporary end.
Quote from: hm insulators on December 16, 2014, 12:09:52 PM
The one-time original Foothill Freeway (California 118) between Pasadena and La Canada Flintridge is now an extension of Woodbury Road.
It's still there, just no longer connected to the rest of the freeway.
Depending on which alternative gets selected, NY 198 may be another casualty in the near future. Alternatives range from direct conversion to (partial) surface road to complete elimination and replacement with a 2-4 lane road.
Quote from: cl94 on December 16, 2014, 04:11:31 PM
Depending on which alternative gets selected, NY 198 may be another casualty in the near future. Alternatives range from direct conversion to (partial) surface road to complete elimination and replacement with a 2-4 lane road.
First the inner loop in Rochester, and now NY SR 198 in Buffalo is a possibility for some down-grading? The rust belt is losing its freeways!
The conversion of GA 410/unsigned I-485 in Atlanta to Freedom Parkway belongs under "Direct conversions into surface roads."
Quote from: Tom958 on December 16, 2014, 06:22:55 PM
The conversion of GA 410/unsigned I-485 in Atlanta to Freedom Parkway belongs under "Direct conversions into surface roads."
Hmmm. I'm not sure I'd count the removal of one grade separation on what was essentially a long ramp.
The western 2 miles of the West Shoreway in Cleveland (SR-2, US 6, US 20) is being downgraded to a boulevard with intersections, allowing for better access to the Lake Erie shoreline.
ODOT Project Link:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/ClevelandUrbanCoreProjects/LakefrontWest/Pages/default.aspx
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 16, 2014, 05:58:44 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 16, 2014, 04:11:31 PM
Depending on which alternative gets selected, NY 198 may be another casualty in the near future. Alternatives range from direct conversion to (partial) surface road to complete elimination and replacement with a 2-4 lane road.
First the inner loop in Rochester, and now NY SR 198 in Buffalo is a possibility for some down-grading? The rust belt is losing its freeways!
Pretty much everywhere is. The freeway revolt has shifted from stopping new construction to removing existing freeways. Each time they increment to a more and more traveled freeway.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 16, 2014, 05:58:44 PM
First the inner loop in Rochester, and now NY SR 198 in Buffalo is a possibility for some down-grading? The rust belt is losing its freeways!
And a portion of the Akron Innerbelt, according to this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14210.0).
So after years of Building Freeways to Nowhere being the panacea of economic development, is Tearing Down Freeways going to take its place?
Rochester, Buffalo, Akron...have declined for a number of reasons, and while reduced neighborhood cohesiveness due to the presence of an urban freeway may have played a small part in that decline, it's a factor that's dwarfed by larger economic and demographic trends.
Buffalo uses any development between the 50s and now as a scapegoat for the city's decline. This includes all expressways in the city and the light rail system that gets a surprising amount of usage. Biggest issue with NY 198 is that it was built through the middle of a park. As it is, the expressway section (east of NY 384) has an AADT near 70,000 and congestion is frequent. If you're not familiar with the road, it's similar to the Jackie Robinson Parkway and only slightly tamer.
Buffalo and the wealthy residents surrounding the expressway want it removed, thinking that the 70,000 vehicles will miraculously disappear. Their preferred alternatives are all surface roads ranging from 2-4 lanes with a design speed of about 35 mph. The Delaware Park section, which has an AADT around 50K, hovers between LOS D and F. The 2005 corridor study (https://www.dot.ny.gov/content/delivery/region5/projects/547022-home/547022-repository/NYRoute198ScajaquadaCorridorStudyJune2005NYSDOT547014BW.pdf) actually states that LOS would only improve if traffic uses other routes and the current signalized intersection would not improve above LOS F under any considered alternative. Assuming traffic does use alternate routes, PHVs would increase significantly, more than likely making quite a few intersections outside the study area fail.
I know they didn't consider this, but I'd bury NY 198 east of Lincoln Parkway and put a parkway-style low-speed road with at-grade intersections (current Alternative 3) on top of it. If done properly, Humboldt Parkway would be restored, through traffic could continue to pass through the park, and parkland could be reconstructed. West of the park, other than ramp realignments at interchanges, little needs to be done.
When did I-180 in Wyoming get downgraded to a surface street? :-P
I'm sorry, couldn't help myself with that one!
Quote from: OCGuy81 on December 18, 2014, 12:11:19 PM
When did I-180 in Wyoming get downgraded to a surface street? :-P
I'm sorry, couldn't help myself with that one!
You just had to say it didn't you...
Well, it does have 2 grade separations... :spin:
Damn Cheyenne NIMBYs.
And damn Hennepin NIMBYs for failing.
The SR153 in Phoenix was never really a full freeway per se, as it never had full interchanges, but it was built to be expanded into such. The intersection with University Drive is built as a half-diamond with space and grading for a future overpass. The roadway over the Salt River Bridge was built to full freeway spec, with space for 3 lanes each way. I believe at one point it even had two or three lanes striped each way. Once 153 was scrapped along with the plans for it to connect to either I-10 or the 202, it was restriped and the speed limit dropped to surface street speeds. On the north side of the river, the southbound side was converted to the SkyTrain with the northbound switched to a normal N/S surface street setup with two lanes each way without a center divider.
I gotta say, even though I'm not familiar with other places, the former 153/current 44th Street is one of the strangest roads to come across for people who don't know the story. It doesn't really start anywhere special, doesn't end anywhere special, doesn't go anywhere special, serve anything in particular, anything at all. Yet here's this road, as wide as a freeway yet it's only striped for 2 lanes each way, massive bridge over the Salt River with the travel lanes on the old NB sode, the empty SB lanes just sitti my over there, wide RoW, and a diamond interchange design at the dead end for no apparent reason. I just looked at it on Google maps and Street View, and it's just as awkward as I imagine lol.
Quote from: Sonic99 on December 19, 2014, 12:19:59 AM
The SR153 in Phoenix was never really a full freeway per se, as it never had full interchanges
Uh dude, freeways don't need full interchanges to be freeways. I just checked a 2004 aerial and it definitely was a full freeway, with no cross traffic anywhere between the ends at University and Washington.
According to Streetview, former 153 has a curb-median and is two lanes each direction, and if the maps portion is accurate, still has an exit number with Sky Harbor Dr. I'd say it's a 'traffic-calmed' freeway.
Quote from: NE2 on December 19, 2014, 12:53:18 AM
Uh dude, freeways don't need full interchanges to be freeways. I just checked a 2004 aerial and it definitely was a full freeway, with no cross traffic anywhere between the ends at University and Washington.
True dat. It was the best (full) freeway right next to another freeway ever built. I used to drive my girlfriend to work using the 153 Shortcut many moons ago.
The original plans were for 153 to run down 40th Street and end at I-10 with an interchange similar to how 143 ends. That's why the 40th Street interchange has a loop ramp for SB traffic entering EB I-10 despite the very low traffic volumes actually using that interchange.
Oddly, the old 153 still has Arizona-standard 'Pedestrians/bicycles/motor-driven cycles prohibited' freeway entrance signs on it at University and Madison.
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on December 19, 2014, 02:09:13 PM
It was the best (full) freeway right next to another freeway ever built.
Hey, there is also old US 395/I-15 right next to current I-15 at Miramar Air Force Base in San Diego - still a useful shortcut heading southbound!
Another direct conversion to surface road: CR 122 in Minneapolis.
Quote from: NE2 on February 04, 2015, 04:16:36 PM
Another direct conversion to surface road: CR 122 in Minneapolis.
Light rail right down the middle of the road will do that.
Quote from: Bickendan on February 04, 2015, 06:55:40 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 04, 2015, 04:16:36 PM
Another direct conversion to surface road: CR 122 in Minneapolis.
Light rail right down the middle of the road will do that.
Actually it won't any more than heavy rail down the middle of Chicago freeways. What did it was the place where the light rail leaves the median, necessitating the closure of the eastbound offramp to Cedar and replacement with a left turn, as well as the decision to allow peds to cross at the station (rather than requiring use of the elevator/stairs to Cedar and 19th).
Even before LRT, there was a plan for an at-grade where the new ramp to 35W north went. Just happened to be that construction of the Green Line preceded the ramp.
Quote from: briantroutman on December 17, 2014, 03:33:50 PM
So after years of Building Freeways to Nowhere being the panacea of economic development, is Tearing Down Freeways going to take its place?
Rochester, Buffalo, Akron...have declined for a number of reasons, and while reduced neighborhood cohesiveness due to the presence of an urban freeway may have played a small part in that decline, it's a factor that's dwarfed by larger economic and demographic trends.
I don't think that's really the reason. The important thing to bear in mind is that pretty much all urban freeways in the US were built in the 1960s or earlier. This means we are now at the point where these freeways are at or past the end of their design life and require lots of money to be spent on rehab/rebuild projects in order to keep them from falling apart. In some cases, in the intervening 50 years the area has declined and traffic counts have declined along with it. In some cases, the freeway was never/is never going to be finished and is of limited usefulness in its unfinished state. But whatever the reason, there will be cases where the cost versus benefit of the necessary rehab just isn't favorable, and it's cheaper and easier to just remove or downgrade the freeway.
Note how whenever you see a freeway removal actually move forward, the removed freeway generally was not fine just being left as is. It was old and decrepit and needed work, if not outright collapsed (as with the West Side Highway and San Fransisco examples). Only CT 34 comes to mind as a true exception to this rule, where the freeway was in perfectly serviceable condition prior to the commencement of its removal but they had other reasons for wanting to get rid of it (a combination of ideology and a grand redevelopment scheme).
Quote from: Duke87 on February 05, 2015, 02:01:23 AM
Note how whenever you see a freeway removal actually move forward, the removed freeway generally was not fine just being left as is. It was old and decrepit and needed work, if not outright collapsed (as with the West Side Highway and San Fransisco examples).
I HAVE heard that the Embarcadero Freeway's damage after the earthquake was not critical enough to necessitate removal (unlike the old Cypress portion of 880 and the section of the Central Freeway between Golden Gate Avenue and Fell Street) but that Mayor Agnos had the process go forward regardless in step with waterfront constituents - which is why Chinatown interests who had supported the existence of 480 as a shortcut to their neighborhood helped swing the 1991 SF mayoral election against him.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 05, 2015, 11:55:05 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 05, 2015, 02:01:23 AM
Note how whenever you see a freeway removal actually move forward, the removed freeway generally was not fine just being left as is. It was old and decrepit and needed work, if not outright collapsed (as with the West Side Highway and San Fransisco examples).
I HAVE heard that the Embarcadero Freeway's damage after the earthquake was not critical enough to necessitate removal (unlike the old Cypress portion of 880 and the section of the Central Freeway between Golden Gate Avenue and Fell Street) but that Mayor Agnos had the process go forward regardless in step with waterfront constituents - which is why Chinatown interests who had supported the existence of 480 as a shortcut to their neighborhood helped swing the 1991 SF mayoral election against him.
A lot of that agrees with what I read at the time. The Embarcadero Freeway did not collapse, but was closed and would have required a massive amount of work before it could reopen, comparable to demolishing it and rebuilding from scratch. Given that and the relatively low traffic counts, most of S.F. agreed that it should not be rebuilt. Yes, there were Chinatown and North Beach interests who missed it as a convenient off-ramp, however they were a relatively small minority. Demolishing the Embarcadero Freeway probably gained Agnos as many votes as he lost, maybe more. The reality of traffic without the Embarcadero Freeway is nowhere near as bad as they feared, once the Embarcadero surface street was redone.
Quote from: kkt on February 05, 2015, 12:46:21 PM
Yes, there were Chinatown and North Beach interests who missed it as a convenient off-ramp, however they were a relatively small minority. Demolishing the Embarcadero Freeway probably gained Agnos as many votes as he lost, maybe more. The reality of traffic without the Embarcadero Freeway is nowhere near as bad as they feared, once the Embarcadero surface street was redone.
Agnos
lost the 1991 election to Frank Jordan (and the Wikipedia article on the Embarcadero Freeway specifically brings that up as one of the aftereffects of the route's demolition, one of the first times the Asian vote made a significant impact on a SF election).
Without arguing against the visual improvement of the waterfront area post-freeway, the surface streets in the Financial District are very challenging at rush hour - Montgomery Street in particular from the Transamerica Pyramid (near where the Washington Street ramp pair used to land) south past Market through New Montgomery has become an afternoon parking lot.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 05, 2015, 12:48:56 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 05, 2015, 12:46:21 PM
Yes, there were Chinatown and North Beach interests who missed it as a convenient off-ramp, however they were a relatively small minority. Demolishing the Embarcadero Freeway probably gained Agnos as many votes as he lost, maybe more. The reality of traffic without the Embarcadero Freeway is nowhere near as bad as they feared, once the Embarcadero surface street was redone.
Agnos lost the 1991 election to Frank Jordan (and the Wikipedia article on the Embarcadero Freeway specifically brings that up as one of the aftereffects of the route's demolition, one of the first times the Asian vote made a significant impact on a SF election).
Without arguing against the visual improvement of the waterfront area post-freeway, the surface streets in the Financial District are very challenging at rush hour - Montgomery Street in particular from the Transamerica Pyramid (near where the Washington Street ramp pair used to land) south past Market through New Montgomery has become an afternoon parking lot.
It was a close election, so Agnos's loss could be attributed to anything that might have made a couple thousand votes difference. For instance, he annoyed the firefighters by agreeing to hiring quotas for racial minorities. He annoyed the police officers in some similar way, I'd have to look it up. He allowed people made homeless by the Loma Prieta earthquake to camp in the Civic Center plaza until temporary housing was available for them, which seems like a no brainer to me but apparently annoyed some of the conservative downtown interests. I still say allowing the Embarcadero Freeway to be demolished probably gained him as many votes as it lost.
Montgomery Street was a parking lot at commute hours before the earthquake, too. In fact, it's been a parking lot at commute hours as long as I can remember.
Quote from: NE2 on December 15, 2014, 02:55:39 PM
Quote from: MarkF on December 15, 2014, 02:10:32 AM
Shoreline Drive in Long Beach, CA was once a freeway from the 710 end.
And it still is, except that there's now a light at the end of a U-turn ramp. As nothing was removed or even reconfigured, I'm not counting it.
Except that the southeast end of the 710 at Shoreline Drive had an interchange at Magnolia/the Queensway Bridge with a loop ramp for eastbound traffic from the 710 to exit onto northbound Magnolia and two ramps for westbound 710 traffic to enter and exit at Chestnut. It also had two long flyover ramps for traffic to enter the end of the eastbound 710 off of the Queensway Bridge and exit onto the Queensway Bridge from the beginning of the westbound 710. The loop ramp and flyover ramps were replaced with a single intersection that only allows access onto the Queensway Bridge.
So they demolished a non-signalized grade-separated interchange and replaced it with an at-grade signal . . .
A little late to this thread but Virginia has one:
The southernmost 0.8 miles of the Newport News Connector (super-2 with full access control) that did not become part of I-664 was converted into a regular street. It used to have a bridge over the RR and VA 351 and now it has at-grade crossings of both.
Mapmikey
In Wisconsin, the westernmost km or so of the original WI 29 freeway in Chippewa Falls was downgraded to a local surface street when the WI 29 bypass freeway was built in the early '00's. This is the part between WI 124 and Seymour Cray Bd.
Mike
Aren't surface roads more dangerous than freeways? I don't get the rationale of converting freeways to surface streets with stoplights, oncoming traffic etc. That adds the risk of more potential accidents.
Oh that's right, b/c of the "sins" of the 1950s-1960s all limited access highways are bad no matter what.
Quote from: NE2 on December 14, 2014, 04:06:03 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 14, 2014, 04:03:53 PM
Freeway section of CT 34 in New Haven (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9085.0). I believe that work has since started on this project.
Already listed.
and it's amazing how fast this project was pushed through the red tape and constructed. If you wanted to add a shoulder instead it'll take years and years of studies, samples and funding. amazing.
I think it's amazing how fast freeway removals move. many of them are so fast that state DOT isn't prepared for it and might even do work to maintain the about to be removed freeway. With CT 34, obviously ConnDOT didn't know that removal was coming, because there's no need for a flyover like the one they built for a surface street. The Inner Loop is another obvious one; the City of Rochester pushed it through so quickly at the end (and after such a long period of talking but no action, to the point that nobody believed the removal would actually happen until the closure date was announced), that NYSDOT was not prepared and even installed brand new signs on the portion that is being filled in just months before the closure.
Meanwhile, something as simple as reconstructing a road so that the concrete won't ruin people's cars get stuck in years of red tape and funding issues.
The flyover eliminated a left exit on a tight turn that was coupled with another left exit. I don't think the class of road it led to was the issue considering that the freeway is now about three blocks shorter than it used to be.
Having used that exit plenty over the years, I think the result of the recent work is very good. Seamless transition, maybe even better than befire. I don't usually go through at peak times, but it's been fine every time I've used it. Makes me wonder a little what the fuss was about.
Quote from: doofy103 on February 08, 2015, 02:55:14 PM
Aren't surface roads more dangerous than freeways? I don't get the rationale of converting freeways to surface streets with stoplights, oncoming traffic etc. That adds the risk of more potential accidents.
Oh that's right, b/c of the "sins" of the 1950s-1960s all limited access highways are bad no matter what.
Declaring all limited-access highways to be "bad" would make about as much sense as not acknowledging that there are some places freeways didn't turn out to best meet the situation's needs.
It took a lot longer than I expected for the carsplainers to derail this.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2015, 07:26:40 PM
The flyover eliminated a left exit on a tight turn that was coupled with another left exit. I don't think the class of road it led to was the issue considering that the freeway is now about three blocks shorter than it used to be.
Having used that exit plenty over the years, I think the result of the recent work is very good. Seamless transition, maybe even better than befire. I don't usually go through at peak times, but it's been fine every time I've used it. Makes me wonder a little what the fuss was about.
Personally, I would have used something less powerful/expensive for what is essentially a city street.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2015, 07:26:40 PM
The flyover eliminated a left exit on a tight turn that was coupled with another left exit. I don't think the class of road it led to was the issue considering that the freeway is now about three blocks shorter than it used to be.
Having used that exit plenty over the years, I think the result of the recent work is very good. Seamless transition, maybe even better than befire. I don't usually go through at peak times, but it's been fine every time I've used it. Makes me wonder a little what the fuss was about.
because the old ramps were perfectly fine too, and seemingly designed for higher speeds. The real problem with the old ramp was the signage was very poor. The fact it was a left exit was not highlighted until you were right on top of the exit. Just about everyone I know (myself included) has either accidentally exited or missed the exit at that interchange at least once, but again, due to poor signage.
We'll have to agree to disagree that the previous exit was a good situation. I don't know what its accident record was, but that was always a messy area. A left exit off a left exit in the midst of a high-volume curve was far from ideal.
Since there seems to be a sentiment that the flyover was overkill, does anyone know what the justification used for its construction was?
Quote from: doofy103 on February 08, 2015, 02:55:14 PM
Aren't surface roads more dangerous than freeways? I don't get the rationale of converting freeways to surface streets with stoplights, oncoming traffic etc. That adds the risk of more potential accidents.
Oh that's right, b/c of the "sins" of the 1950s-1960s all limited access highways are bad no matter what.
Sometimes it's a matter of economics. There is naturally some expense in doing the conversion, but in the long run it's cheaper to maintain an at-grade intersection than an overpass.
An example that comes to mind is Exit 77 from the Indiana Toll Road (SR-933, South Bend, Notre Dame). It was originally a double trumpet. When the overpass at the south end (over 933) needed repair or replacement, INDOT decided to go with a conversion to traffic signals. Although the intersection is heavily traveled, the signal works well.
Quote from: theline on February 09, 2015, 07:11:13 PM
An example that comes to mind is Exit 77 from the Indiana Toll Road (SR-933, South Bend, Notre Dame). It was originally a double trumpet. When the overpass at the south end (over 933) needed repair or replacement, INDOT decided to go with a conversion to traffic signals. Although the intersection is heavily traveled, the signal works well.
It's also now a 4-way intersection leading to Douglas Rd, instead of just a T. But one reason there was a trumpet there in the first place was that the road was elevated anyway to go over a railroad track that paralleled 933 at that point. With the tracks abandoned sometime in the 1980s, there was no need for a bridge there, so the road was just flattened to grade. (North of the ramp, the railbed is now the "LaSalle Big Bluestem Trail") I know of one other location, in New Jersey, where a not-really-needed interchange was converted to an at-grade intersection after the railroad it was built around was dismantled.
Having said that, I've noticed a tendency for the early, 50's-60's-era toll roads to build a trumpet interchange with the surface road by default, whether the traffic count called for it or not. Some of those early loop ramps were tight; with today's longer trucks, a signalized intersection might actually be safer, especially in areas where it ices up in the winter. I suspect there was a "mentality" if you will, at the time, that stopping traffic on surface roads with signals was a no-no when it came to freeway access, which also explains all the full cloverleafs with surface arterials from that era, many of which have recently been converted to parclos to avoid weaving motions.
Another rural/suburban relocation: I-70 in Maryland between exits 56 and 59. The old I-70 alignment is now part of MD 144.
iPhone
Quote from: Laura on February 12, 2015, 05:48:12 AM
Another rural/suburban relocation: I-70 in Maryland between exits 56 and 59. The old I-70 alignment is now part of MD 144.
iPhone
This was never a full freeway.
PS: what's with the 1pt iPhone text? I've seen it on multiple people's posts.
CA-275 in Sacramento became Tower Gateway the arterial up to the state capital.
Quote from: bing101 on February 12, 2015, 02:56:27 PM
CA-275 in Sacramento became Tower Gateway the arterial up to the state capital.
This actually applies only to the (former) 275 routing (originally US 99W/US 40) in West Sacramento only. East of the Sacramento River, Capitol Mall has never been a freeway.
Quote from: lepidopteran on February 10, 2015, 05:58:49 PMHaving said that, I've noticed a tendency for the early, 50's-60's-era toll roads to build a trumpet interchange with the surface road by default, whether the traffic count called for it or not. Some of those early loop ramps were tight; with today's longer trucks, a signalized intersection might actually be safer, especially in areas where it ices up in the winter. I suspect there was a "mentality" if you will, at the time, that stopping traffic on surface roads with signals was a no-no when it came to freeway access, which also explains all the full cloverleafs with surface arterials from that era, many of which have recently been converted to parclos to avoid weaving motions.
That was more so that they only had to build and maintain one toll plaza per interchange. Back when all tollbooths had human collectors, this would significantly reduce operating costs.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 12, 2015, 11:47:42 PM
That was more so that they only had to build and maintain one toll plaza per interchange. Back when all tollbooths had human collectors, this would significantly reduce operating costs.
No, what he's saying is that the intersection with the surface road was often a trumpet rather than an at-grade.
Quote from: lepidopteran on February 10, 2015, 05:58:49 PMHaving said that, I've noticed a tendency for the early, 50's-60's-era toll roads to build a trumpet interchange with the surface road by default, whether the traffic count called for it or not. Some of those early loop ramps were tight; with today's longer trucks, a signalized intersection might actually be safer, especially in areas where it ices up in the winter. I suspect there was a "mentality" if you will, at the time, that stopping traffic on surface roads with signals was a no-no when it came to freeway access, which also explains all the full cloverleafs with surface arterials from that era, many of which have recently been converted to parclos to avoid weaving motions.
The
likely rationale for such a design approach was probably to avoid left-turn conflicts (potential for head-on collisions) and account for future growth (increased traffic counts). In short, just because the traffic along the road at a dual-trumpet interchange for a toll road isn't at Level of Service E or F (gridlocked) at present; doesn't mean it won't be 20 years down the road.
What about Central Freeway Us-101 it was demolished for re development reasons and quake fears. Central Freeway was supposed to be in close proximity to the Castro and Haight districts. There were maps saying that I-80 was supposed to take the Central freeway or US-40 and US-50 the previous alignments to I-80 in San Francisco.
Quote from: NE2 on December 14, 2014, 03:24:36 PM
[updated list]
Full closures
Fall River: Route 79 (double decker section)
Gary: Cline Avenue Bridge
Milwaukee: Park East Freeway
New Haven: Oak Street Connector
New York City: West Side Elevated Highway
Niagara Falls: Robert Moses State Parkway
Rochester: Inner Loop
San Francisco: Central Freeway, Embarcadero Freeway, Southern-Embarcadero Freeway (unopened structure to 3rd Street)
Toronto: Gardiner Expressway (east of Don Valley Parkway)
Washington, D.C.: Southeast Freeway
Direct conversions into surface roads (same roadway but intersections added)
Carlsbad: Carlsbad Boulevard (south of CR S12; bypassed by I-5)
Chattanooga: Riverside Drive
Minneapolis: County Road 122
Phoenix: Sky Harbor Expressway (parallel SR 143 handles through traffic)
Sacramento: West Sacramento Freeway (bypassed by the W-X Freeway)
Horizontal or vertical relocations
Boston: Central Artery
Fort Worth: I-30
Oakland: Cypress Street Viaduct
Oklahoma City: Crosstown Expressway
Portland: Harbor Drive (closed after parallel I-5 and I-405 were built)
Providence: Iway project
Seattle: Alaskan Way Viaduct and Battery Street Tunnel (under construction)
Rural/suburban relocations
Florida: SR 4080, SR 429 (at SR 414)
Missouri: I-44 (east of Arlington)
Oklahoma: Will Rogers Turnpike (west of Creek Turnpike)
Pennsylvania: Abandoned Pennsylvania Turnpike
Cypress freeway was moved to the Port of Oakland when they rebuilt the north end of I-880 in the 1990's. Cypress Freeway used to go through Nelson Mandela blvd. In Oakland prior to 1989.
There was a Colorado Freeway in Glendale, but that was bypassed by the CA-134 Ventura freeway.
Quote from: bing101 on February 13, 2015, 10:22:45 AM
There was a Colorado Freeway in Glendale, but that was bypassed by the CA-134 Ventura freeway.
And the old Colorado Freeway has not been demolished.
Quote from: bing101Cypress freeway was moved to the Port of Oakland when they rebuilt the north end of I-880 in the 1990's. Cypress Freeway used to go through Nelson Mandela blvd. In Oakland prior to 1989.
The post you quoted already mentions the Cypress viaduct relocation.
Quote from: bing101What about Central Freeway Us-101 it was demolished for re development reasons and quake fears. Central Freeway was supposed to be in close proximity to the Castro and Haight districts.
Already mentioned in the post you quoted, as well. (And only the segment north of Market Street no longer exists; the portion from Market to I-80 is still in regular use)
Quote from: NE2 on February 12, 2015, 01:22:24 PM
Quote from: Laura on February 12, 2015, 05:48:12 AM
Another rural/suburban relocation: I-70 in Maryland between exits 56 and 59. The old I-70 alignment is now part of MD 144.
iPhone
This was never a full freeway.
PS: what's with the 1pt iPhone text? I've seen it on multiple people's posts.
That's because too many Tapatalk users never bothered to turn off the setting that adds "Sent from..." to the bottom of every post, so the mods use the profanity filter to turn the common parts into formatting tags that make the variable part nearly invisible.
Quote from: NE2 on February 13, 2015, 12:04:58 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 12, 2015, 11:47:42 PM
That was more so that they only had to build and maintain one toll plaza per interchange. Back when all tollbooths had human collectors, this would significantly reduce operating costs.
No, what he's saying is that the intersection with the surface road was often a trumpet rather than an at-grade.
Ah. Then as later stated, it was likely in anticipation of higher traffic counts, along with a desire to keep from backing up traffic at the toll plazas.
Quote from: vtk on February 13, 2015, 12:18:39 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 12, 2015, 01:22:24 PM
Quote from: Laura on February 12, 2015, 05:48:12 AM
Another rural/suburban relocation: I-70 in Maryland between exits 56 and 59. The old I-70 alignment is now part of MD 144.
iPhone
This was never a full freeway.
PS: what's with the 1pt iPhone text? I've seen it on multiple people's posts.
That's because too many Tapatalk users never bothered to turn off the setting that adds "Sent from..." to the bottom of every post, so the mods use the profanity filter to turn the common parts into formatting tags that make the variable part nearly invisible.
A couple users at WordForge mock Tapatalk users by adding '
phone while driving' to the end of their posts :lol:
Quote from: Bickendan on February 13, 2015, 06:11:51 PM
A couple users at WordForge mock Tapatalk users by adding ' phone while driving' to the end of their posts :lol:
Owned by filter.
Quote from: NE2 on February 13, 2015, 06:12:28 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on February 13, 2015, 06:11:51 PM
A couple users at WordForge mock Tapatalk users by adding ' phone while driving' to the end of their posts :lol:
Owned by filter.
LMAO!
..."by adding 'S. F. my phone while driving' to the end of their posts" :bigass:
Quote from: TheStranger on February 13, 2015, 12:08:54 PM
Quote from: bing101 on February 13, 2015, 10:22:45 AM
There was a Colorado Freeway in Glendale, but that was bypassed by the CA-134 Ventura freeway.
And the old Colorado Freeway has not been demolished.
What is the Colorado Freeway called today?
Quote from: bugo on February 20, 2015, 07:58:22 AM
What is the Colorado Freeway called today?
Freeway Entrance.
Quote from: bugo on February 20, 2015, 07:58:22 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 13, 2015, 12:08:54 PM
Quote from: bing101 on February 13, 2015, 10:22:45 AM
There was a Colorado Freeway in Glendale, but that was bypassed by the CA-134 Ventura freeway.
And the old Colorado Freeway has not been demolished.
What is the Colorado Freeway called today?
This doesn't quite answer the question, but at least shows the route still in existence. It's basically is as it always was - a short offramp connector (which manages to have two exits eastbound!)
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Colorado+St,+Glendale,+CA+91204/@34.1423328,-118.2719722,809m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x80c2c0f43119fa85:0x78d2aa78cc575326
Quote from: bugo on February 20, 2015, 07:58:22 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 13, 2015, 12:08:54 PM
Quote from: bing101 on February 13, 2015, 10:22:45 AM
There was a Colorado Freeway in Glendale, but that was bypassed by the CA-134 Ventura freeway.
And the old Colorado Freeway has not been demolished.
What is the Colorado Freeway called today?
Photos of the old and what is left are here http://www.socalregion.com/highways/socal_unsigned/colorado_fwy/ (http://www.socalregion.com/highways/socal_unsigned/colorado_fwy/).
Thanks, Michael.
Quote from: vdeane on February 08, 2015, 03:47:04 PM
I think it's amazing how fast freeway removals move. many of them are so fast that state DOT isn't prepared for it and might even do work to maintain the about to be removed freeway. With CT 34, obviously ConnDOT didn't know that removal was coming, because there's no need for a flyover like the one they built for a surface street.
It's a question of who's calling what shots. Removing the Oak Street Connector was something the city of New Haven came up with and started clamoring for. ConnDOT wasn't planning for it to happen because it wasn't their idea. So ConnDOT only knew about it once they started getting leaned on to make it happen, it was never in any long range plans and therefore was not considered in any projects prior to it.
As for how fast it moves, well, yeah, it's amazing how fast construction moves when environmental groups favor it and no one tries to sue to stop it.
QuoteAs for how fast it moves, well, yeah, it's amazing how fast construction moves when environmental groups favor it and no one tries to sue to stop it.
Add
"and when there are no NIMBY's" and it's just as apt...