City Freeway Teardowns: More on Their Way?

[cpzilliacus]

[This article is by syndicated columnist Neal Peirce, who is reliably anti-highway, anti-auto and anti-mobility.   I do not agree with what he has written here (or with most of the other stuff that he writes), but members of this forum might be interested anyway.]

City Freeway Teardowns: More on Their Way?

PHILADELPHIA – Will the 20th century's urban freeway legacy – interstate roads cutting huge swaths through American cities – be reversed in the 21st?

Increasingly bold urbanists are looking to reclaim lost city land by demolishing segments of the interstates and other massive limited access super-roads.

One reason's obvious: to restore livability to downtowns and neighborhoods that were deeply scarred by massive highways plunging through them. But there's another key motive: belief that demolitions will trigger dramatic flows of new private investment and increased real estate value as the scourged city acres are redeveloped.

[texaskdog]

Someone suggested getting rid of the upper deck in Austin.  Yeah, get rid of part of the freeway on the most congested road in town.

[Stephane Dumas]

Reminds me of a thread I saw about I-94 in Detroit in another forum, some suggested to tear it down as well as the I-75 gap in downtown Detroit. http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthread.php?12398-I-94-Expansion-Project-(Roadway-to-Detroit-s-Future)

[realjd]

[This article is by syndicated columnist Neal Peirce, who is reliably anti-highway, anti-auto and anti-mobility.   I do not agree with what he has written here (or with most of the other stuff that he writes), but members of this forum might be interested anyway.]

Anti-mobility? Most anti-auto urbanists tend to be  pro-transit, pro-cycling, etc. He's against those as well? What about horses or jetpacks?

As for the issue of tearing down freeways, it is true that urban freeway development in many cities destroyed neighborhoods and led to the massive growth of the suburbs. The damage is already done in many cases however, and all that traffic has to go somewhere. There are a few examples though of places where IMO removing/relocating the freeway would help development. Freeways along waterfronts are an excellent example. Just look at the Embarcadero Fwy. in San Francisco. Relocating or burying I-95 through downtown Philly would be another good example IMO. I-35 through Austin would not be a good one to remove since it doesn't really seem to be cutting the city off from a resource.

[vdeane]

Let's see:
-Transit: you're setting your schedule to someone else's, and are limited in the stuff you can take with you
-Cycling: range is limited by lower speed, can't do in bad weather, even more limited in what you can take with you

I'd hardly call that "mobility".  Looks like the anti-auto urbanists are against grocery shopping too.

The I-480 teardown was successful only because I-480 was never finished; it was just a stub freeway that went nowhere.

Besides, some of us aren't suited to an urbanist lifestyle.  I don't like having to share space with other people; I'd be driven crazy outside of the suburbs!

[NE2]

Hell yeah. 86 64.

[kkt]

[This article is by syndicated columnist Neal Peirce, who is reliably anti-highway, anti-auto and anti-mobility.   I do not agree with what he has written here (or with most of the other stuff that he writes), but members of this forum might be interested anyway.]

City Freeway Teardowns: More on Their Way?

PHILADELPHIA – Will the 20th century's urban freeway legacy – interstate roads cutting huge swaths through American cities – be reversed in the 21st?

Increasingly bold urbanists are looking to reclaim lost city land by demolishing segments of the interstates and other massive limited access super-roads.

One reason's obvious: to restore livability to downtowns and neighborhoods that were deeply scarred by massive highways plunging through them. But there's another key motive: belief that demolitions will trigger dramatic flows of new private investment and increased real estate value as the scourged city acres are redeveloped.

Freeways wiping out waterfront access and public parks in urban spaces were generally not a good idea.  I'm glad the riverfront freeway in Portland is a park, I'm glad the Embarcadero Freeway is gone, I'm glad the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle will be a tunnel.  Those were pretty easy choices -- the sites were prime urban space, the freeways did not serve huge amounts of traffic, the structures were unsafe.

There are other places were freeways cut through urban areas and set up a blockade between halves of the city.  Overpasses or underpasses every 1 mile are just not adequate when the freeway cuts through an urban grid with streets every 1/10 mile.

All that said, the most obvious candidates for freeway removal have already been done.  When the freeway serves a lot of traffic on a through route, a new route would have to be found for the freeway.  I don't see the desire to convert a different piece of land to freeway use and build the road again unless it's structurally unsound.

[1995hoo]

One of the more obvious problems I see with the "tear down the freeways" argument is the financial one: If cities and states are strapped for money as it is, how are they supposed to pay for these projects? I suppose there's a legitimate question to be asked about how you decide at what point it becomes more reasonable to make major repairs to a road (say, an elevated highway needing major structural rehabilitation) versus tearing it down and using the land for another purpose, perhaps one that generates tax revenue. But it's probably a non-starter to demand that the developers who covetously eye the highway right-of-way should pay for the road's demolition as a sort of proffer or the like.

[realjd]

Let's see:
-Transit: you're setting your schedule to someone else's, and are limited in the stuff you can take with you
-Cycling: range is limited by lower speed, can't do in bad weather, even more limited in what you can take with you

I'd hardly call that "mobility".  Looks like the anti-auto urbanists are against grocery shopping too.

The I-480 teardown was successful only because I-480 was never finished; it was just a stub freeway that went nowhere.

Besides, some of us aren't suited to an urbanist lifestyle.  I don't like having to share space with other people; I'd be driven crazy outside of the suburbs!

I have no problem fitting groceries in a backpack when I bike to the store, and plenty of utility bikes have baskets and other cargo carriers. Sure a bike isn't good for a large grocery trip, but stopping by on the way home from work to pick up a few things for dinner is fully doable on a bike.

And a transit system absolutely does provide mobility. Whenever I visit a city with good transit options like New York, Washington DC, or London, I have no issues getting around the city whenever and wherever I want without a car. There's hardly a need to plan around a schedule when the trains come every few minutes.

I'm not an anti-auto urbanist. I live in the suburbs and hate the idea of living in a city. Cars make perfect sense for the suburban and rural environments. But realistically, they're a terrible method of transportation in a high-density, urban area.

[deathtopumpkins]

I'm going to agree with realjd. When I'm in the city, I do my grocery shopping on foot (two Shaw's stores and a Whole Foods within a couple blocks), and I see people with grocery bags on the subway all the time. The main difference, as he said, is that you have to shop in smaller increments. You can easily carry a day or two's stuff with you at once, so rather than shopping every week or two like you would out in the suburbs, you just have to go every day or two (which isn't that big of a difference since I know most people end up running down to the store for random things throughout the week anyway).

Also, I feel like I can comfortably get anywhere I need to go on Boston's transit system. If I decide to go downtown for something, I can be on a train in under 10 minutes. If a train doesn't run there there's a bus route that does. The only things that would complicate travel are late hours (unfortunately Boston's transit does not run 24/7 like some cities') and some really far distances, because while commuter rail might extend remarkably far out from the city, there aren't always bus connections from farther out stations, and the trains don't run anywhere near as often as subway trains.

All in all I don't mind not having a car. It's never been a real issue for me since moving into the city. Thus while I like roads (obviously), I don't regularly make use of them in the city, and can easily get by without them.

[PHLBOS]

I commented on similar in another thread.  The majority of 'success stories' of highway removal in other areas fall into one of the following categories:

1.  Original highway segments in question weren't built to begin with as originally planned (Ex. pieces of I-70, 83 & 170 in Baltimore).

2.  Highway segments in question were either relocated (like I-195 in Providence) and/or replaced with an equal or better highway alternative (Big Dig I-93 in Boston).

3.  Highway segments were structurally condemned and permanently closed (NY's West-Side Highway & SF's Embarcadero Freeway).

That said, I-95 in Philly does NOT fall in ANY the above-three categories.  The best option would be to cover the remaining open section of the bathtub piece between Exits 21 & 22 (Columbus Blvd. & I-676).

What these visionaries can't seem to comprehend is that stretch of I-95 serves as a vital artery for the region linking Center City, South & Northeast Philly, the Sports Complex, the Packer & Tioga Marine terminals, the Airport as well as Bucks & Delaware Counties.  The only reason why it was built the way in its current configuaration was due to the fact that tunneling the entire road even back in the 1960s & 1970s was viewed as cost-prohibitive and placing the I-95 corridor between Independence Mall and Broad Street was essentially a non-strater.

Former City Planner Ed Bacon (father of actor Kevin Bacon) stated it best a few years ago prior to his death; it was GREED not I-95 that ruined Penns Landing.

[Duke87]

To some degree mode flexibility is real. People will take whatever is most convenient and makes the most sense. That said, there are some things which only cars can effectively accomplish - and there are some things which only transit can accomplish.

Using the grocery example, I don't even need transit. The store is a block and a half away, I just walk. But, while this is fine and dandy shopping for just myself, it wouldn't work as well if I were shopping for a whole family. Which is just as well, my area is dominated by apartments and most of the residents here aren't in the mode of currently raising kids. You move elsewhere for that.

Transit makes possible densities which highways alone cannot serve (there would be no Manhattan as we know it without the subway and commuter rail lines), and also allows you to go out drinking without concern of having a designated driver.


Back to urban freeways, though, the problem from the neighborhood perspective is the urban renewal mindset of the postwar era. Of course they destroy the neighborhoods they go through - they were designed to! We've of course since learned that haphazardly demolishing parts of slums to build freeways or housing projects tends to ensure their continued existence rather than make them go away. And indeed, removing a freeway can have a positive effect on the neighborhood it goes through, but in a way fighting for that is making the same mistake all over again: just as you can't make slums go away by demolishing tenements, you can't make traffic demand go away by demolishing freeways.
Which is fine, though, because you don't need to remove a freeway to minimalize its detrimental effect. Note, for instance, that I-71 in Cincinnati, despite running directly along the waterfront, does not isolate the city from it - because it is built such that it is easy and unintimidating to cross. I-95's problem in Philly isn't that it's there, it's that there are few opportunities to cross it.

The other thing that surface boulevard advocates miss is that the freeway is safer both for cars and for pedestrians. With intersections come cars crossing paths with each other and with people. Given the opportunity for two objects to attempt to occupy the same space at the same time, probability indicates that sometimes it will happen. I for one would rather walk under a six lane elevated freeway than cross an eight lane boulevard. The new West Side Highway in Manhattan certainly has a more pleasant atmosphere to it than a dingy elevated freeway, but anyone who calls it pedestrian friendly has clearly never attempted to cross it as one.

As for the money argument, it's valid if you're talking about ripping up a perfectly good highway, but when a highway is old and decrepit the argument can be made that simply tearing it down is cheaper than rebuilding it. Of course, then you still have to spend money reinventing the land it once stood on. And you can't just say "alternatives exist" without looking at traffic counts.

[Bickendan]

[This article is by syndicated columnist Neal Peirce, who is reliably anti-highway, anti-auto and anti-mobility.   I do not agree with what he has written here (or with most of the other stuff that he writes), but members of this forum might be interested anyway.]

City Freeway Teardowns: More on Their Way?

PHILADELPHIA – Will the 20th century's urban freeway legacy – interstate roads cutting huge swaths through American cities – be reversed in the 21st?

Increasingly bold urbanists are looking to reclaim lost city land by demolishing segments of the interstates and other massive limited access super-roads.

One reason's obvious: to restore livability to downtowns and neighborhoods that were deeply scarred by massive highways plunging through them. But there's another key motive: belief that demolitions will trigger dramatic flows of new private investment and increased real estate value as the scourged city acres are redeveloped.

Freeways wiping out waterfront access and public parks in urban spaces were generally not a good idea.  I'm glad the riverfront freeway in Portland is a park,

I need to address this one. Harbor Drive was removed not because of anti-freeway sentiment, but because I-5 on the Willamette's eastbank got built. Harbor Drive was rendered redundant, and Front Avenue/Naito Parkway more than took up the slack on the westside.

With that said. Anti-freeway types ARE calling for the removal of SW Naito Parkway from SW Barbur Blvd to the Ross Island Bridge and for the removal of I-5 on the eastbank. I can see some rationale for SW Naito Parkway; the rationale for I-5 (restoring public access to the river) is complete and utter BS. Before the freeway was built, the eastbank was rail, docks and industrial warehouses, right up to the waterline. There never was 'public access' to the river on the eastside, not in terms of parks like now (and the Eastbank Esplanade is 100% more access than there used to be).

[Grzrd]

I don't remember this being discussed earlier; apologies if it has already been discussed.  On December 6, a public meeting was held regarding the proposed I-10 teardown in New Orleans:

On December 6, more than 120 New Orleans residents attended "Local Street Networks and the Future of Claiborne Avenue."  This event presented research and reflections from both local and national experts that helped residents understand the potential impact of an I-10 freeway removal.  Since the City of New Orleans received TIGER II funds ten months ago for a transportation study on the Claiborne Corridor but has yet to release a request for proposal, this event helped spark renewed interest in removing I-10 from New Orleans' urban fabric.  CNU and the Claiborne Corridor Improvement Coalition issued a preliminary study last year that discussed alternative visions for the corridor, particularly an urban boulevard option in lieu of the elevated highway.  Before the City releases its request for proposals to conduct the federal study, the Coalition's event sought to educate residents on a potential highway removal project favoring a boulevard conversion effort ....

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.

Also, here is the City of New Orleans Request For Proposals.

[Revive 755]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[rantanamo]

you have to drink or you die.

[realjd]

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.

I know you're being sarcastic, but I'll address this anyway. Waterways are scenic. Waterfront real estate sells for more. Waterfront restaurant and shopping districts are a draw for both tourists and locals. More people downtown benefits non-waterfront businesses as well. They don't directly pay taxes but they do have the potential to stimulate the local economy.

Freeways do none of those things. They're necessary, but it makes no sense to completely cut off a city from its waterfront by putting a freeway in the way.

[flowmotion]

When the freeways were being planned in the 1950s, the waterfronts weren't considered "scenic", they were generally declining port and industrial areas, and were a cheap place to build. For example, San Francisco's Embarcadero area was a skid row, and there was a ton of other redevelopment prior to removing the freeway.

In reality, there's zero chance of roads like I-95 in Philadelphia being removed - they are too critical to the local economy. However, in my opinion, politicians tend not to discourage this type of anti-highway talk, because if it gets strong enough they can finagle a "big dig" type project.

[Bickendan]

That's what Portland's kind of hoping for for the I-5 loop. I think Seattle's going to have a lot of attention paid its way on how it handles its Big Dig; after Boston's results, if Seattle can't pull it off...

[flowmotion]

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.

[triplemultiplex]

We have experience with demolishing a freeway here in Milwaukee and the benefits and complications thereof.
In 2003, the Park East Freeway was demolished in downtown Milwaukee and replaced with an at-grade boulevard (W. McKinley Ave).  The Park East was an underused stub end freeway that was never completed as originally intended (for the best, IMHO). While the removal freed up a lot of good land ripe for development, to date only one building has been constructed in the former r/w (a hotel on the west bank of the Milwaukee River between McKinley & Juneau Streets).

http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=43.04721,-87.91467&z=17&t=S
(aerials are from 2011)

Now there has been a lot of new development in blocks adjacent to the former freeway corridor, so some of the promises of eliminating the Park East have come to pass, but there are entire city blocks that sit vacant, save for some piles of rubble-ized concrete.
So what's been the hold up?
In short it's been a bureaucratic clusterfuck, with some parcels owned by the city, others by the county.  And because these are/were publicly owned lands, everyone gets to have their 2 cents about who they can be sold to and what they can do with it.  Then just when it looked there was momentum towards getting some stuff built, the economy tanks and projects get shit-canned.

I get the impression that if even only some of the land had just been put up for sale on the open market, there would be more buildings on the old r/w today.  The Park East Corridor certainly missed out on the mid-00's condo boom here in Milwaukee.

Despite the red tape and slow pace of development, in this case, removal of a freeway was the right decision.  Long term, the future is much brighter.  We'll have some new construction this year at the east end of the corridor. It's good for the city to have this much land downtown they can dangle in front of a developer (it was the only way Milwaukee even had a shot at getting Kohl's to relocate it's HQ from the suburbs).  There are very minimal traffic problems without the freeway and it probably saved $100 million in the reconstruction of the Marquette Interchange.  But like the Embarcedero, the Park East was a dead end freeway in a once blighted neighborhood on the rebound and was useless the minute its continuation was abandoned.  So in that respect it's a bad model for removing a freeway that actually goes somewhere.  But I do think Milwaukee can provide some lessons to other cities on how to handle the real estate if they do remove a chunk of freeway.

[PHLBOS]

Out of curiousity, was the former-Park East highway an Interstate spur or intended to be one?  In a nutshell, its history sounds a bit like SF's Embarcadero (pre-earthquake) or even the former-I-170 in Baltimore; highways that were never fully connected as originally planned.

IIRC, there were plans to do a Big Dig plan for NYC's old West Side Highway (called the Westway) back in the early-to-mid 1980s before Boston's Big Dig funding was approved (via a Congressional override) and was backed by then-Gov. Mario Cuomo, the father of the current-NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo.  However, those plans were killed off in 1985 due to the $4 billion estimated price tag; which was about TWICE the then-price of Boston's Big Dig... little did anyone know what ultimately happened pricewise to Boston's project ($15-16 billion).

Waterways are scenic. Waterfront real estate sells for more. Waterfront restaurant and shopping districts are a draw for both tourists and locals. More people downtown benefits non-waterfront businesses as well. They don't directly pay taxes but they do have the potential to stimulate the local economy.

Freeways do none of those things. They're necessary, but it makes no sense to completely cut off a city from its waterfront by putting a freeway in the way.

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.

Had the Foxwoods Casino south of Penns Landing been built as planned (which was heavily backed by former-Gov. Rendell); that stretch of I-95 would certainly see more traffic.

As far as the New Orleans project is concerned; I only have one word... Katrina.

[mgk920]

^^

The Park East was built to full late-1960s/early-1970s interstate standards, but from what I am aware of, was never intended to receive an I-route number.  It was WI 145 for its existence.  A major part of the planned Park West freeway (west of I-43) was already bid and contracted, less than a week before its scheduled start of construction, when a lawsuit was ruled on preventing the work.

Also, the Park East was originally planned to loop around the north and east sides of downtown Milwaukee, connecting with present-day I-794 at its Lincoln Memorial Drive interchange.  The 'ghost' stubs of its connection are easily visible in aerial images.  If you have ever seen the movie The Blues Brothers, one of the interchange's four stubs (which has since been rerouted and connected to Lincoln Memorial Dr) is what the Illinois Nazis' car flies off of in that big final chase.

IMHO, for the effect that that had on the area's freeway system and the need, at great additional cost, to re-engineer parts of it since then to handle the traffic that was expected to use the Park West and Stadium North out to 67th/Fond du Lac Ave (the present-day end of the WI 145 freeway on the city's northwest side), it should have been built.

Anyways, one big factor in the current moribund pace of redevelopment of the Park East ROW is that the Milwaukee County Board has placed such onerous 'social justice' related restrictions on whatever the land would be used for that it has stifled any potential interest in it.  Remove those restrictions and I have no doubt that it will have no problem at all selling to developers with very nice, worthy building proposals.

Mike

[hbelkins]

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."