City Freeway Teardowns: More on Their Way?

[Dr Frankenstein]

Montréal could (and will probably) lose the Bonaventure Expressway in a matter of a few years.

[Brandon]

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

They have to get to the downtown area.

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

OK, you propose how a truck gets to downtown, cheaply, using less fuel and less time, if all that exist are surface streets within a city.

I'm waiting.

And no, using a train doesn't count as the truck still has to get from the railyard to downtown.

[Kacie Jane]

Through trucks -- or through passenger traffic for that matter -- by definition don't have to get downtown.  Through traffic is traffic that is, for example, passing through Atlanta on it's way from Tampa to Nashville.

However, there is a somewhat valid point to be made in that shunting all traffic onto a beltway can cause problems in that (a) a beltway is by definition longer in mileage, and (b) a beltway by definition has less capacity than a beltway and a freeway through the city combined (unless you double the # of lanes on the beltway).

[realjd]

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

They have to get to the downtown area.

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

OK, you propose how a truck gets to downtown, cheaply, using less fuel and less time, if all that exist are surface streets within a city.

I'm waiting.

And no, using a train doesn't count as the truck still has to get from the railyard to downtown.

Who is saying that there would be only surface streets and no freeways in a city? We're talking about removing specific portions of freeways. In the hypothetical Philadelphia example where we remove that portion of I-95, there is still plenty of freeway access to downtown. And just because a freeway doesn't cross a downtown area itself doesn't mean that there aren't freeways leading to downtown. See Columbia, SC for a good example of what I mean.

[vdeane]

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

Mike

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

It's something that keeps coming up but it always fizzles out, probably because NYSDOT won't maintain a road after a downgrade (NY 590's downgrade was conditional on the town of Irondequoit maintaining it) and the city is broke.  But the reason traffic counts are so low is not because the freeway isn't needed, but because the eastern I-490 interchange is missing the movements that traffic coming to/from that part of downtown needs.  They should complete the interchange and make it a super-2.  The idea that a four-lane boulevard is easier to cross than a sunken freeway is ludicrous (and who wants to stop at all those lights?).

[hbelkins]

In Philadelphia, I-95 isn't really much of a through route now, although that may change when the Turnpike connection is built. Most of the through traffic in the area takes I-295, the Del Mem Br and the NJTP.

Unlike Louisville, where through east-west traffic uses I-64.

[PHLBOS]

Who is saying that there would be only surface streets and no freeways in a city? We're talking about removing specific portions of freeways. In the hypothetical Philadelphia example where we remove that portion of I-95, there is still plenty of freeway access to downtown. And just because a freeway doesn't cross a downtown area itself doesn't mean that there aren't freeways leading to downtown. See Columbia, SC for a good example of what I mean.

Since you yourself earlier stated that you've never been to Philly and were only looking at a map or two; your observations only focused on freeways as a heavy line on a map but NOT the actual size of the roads and/or site logistics.

That said and as I stated earlier (and I've lived in the Philly area for nearly 22 years BTW), the majority of freeways in Philadelphia are 4-laners which are grossly undersized for such a large populated city/metropolitan region.  If one goes to any other major metropolitan area in the northeast; the highways are at least 6 lanes wide.  Heck, even Boston's old elevated Central Artery (which was replaced with a mostly 8-lane O'Neill Tunnel via the Big Dig) was a 6-laner and it was already overcrowded shortly after it opened in 1959.

I also believe that most of NYC's highways are also 6-laners as well.

For some reason, PennDOT seems to have a love affair w/4-laners even in big cities/metropolitan regions and it shows with many of their roadways in and around Philly.

[agentsteel53]

Most of the through traffic in the area takes I-295, the Del Mem Br and the NJTP.

why not just sign that as I-95?  if Penna cannot be bothered to upgrade their infrastructure, why should they get a major x5 corridor?

[realjd]

Who is saying that there would be only surface streets and no freeways in a city? We're talking about removing specific portions of freeways. In the hypothetical Philadelphia example where we remove that portion of I-95, there is still plenty of freeway access to downtown. And just because a freeway doesn't cross a downtown area itself doesn't mean that there aren't freeways leading to downtown. See Columbia, SC for a good example of what I mean.

Since you yourself earlier stated that you've never been to Philly and were only looking at a map or two; your observations only focused on freeways as a heavy line on a map but NOT the actual size of the roads and/or site logistics.

That said and as I stated earlier (and I've lived in the Philly area for nearly 22 years BTW), the majority of freeways in Philadelphia are 4-laners which are grossly undersized for such a large populated city/metropolitan region.  If one goes to any other major metropolitan area in the northeast; the highways are at least 6 lanes wide.  Heck, even Boston's old elevated Central Artery (which was replaced with a mostly 8-lane O'Neill Tunnel via the Big Dig) was a 6-laner and it was already overcrowded shortly after it opened in 1959.

I also believe that most of NYC's highways are also 6-laners as well.

For some reason, PennDOT seems to have a love affair w/4-laners even in big cities/metropolitan regions and it shows with many of their roadways in and around Philly.

I get that. I'm not seriously in favor of removing that stretch of highway. It's purely a thought experiment.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

For some reason, PennDOT seems to have a love affair w/4-laners even in big cities/metropolitan regions and it shows with many of their roadways in and around Philly.

Mainly because they thought more would be built.
http://www.phillyroads.com/history/expwy-map_1966/
http://www.phillyroads.com/history/expwy-map_1974/

[vdeane]

Most of the through traffic in the area takes I-295, the Del Mem Br and the NJTP.

why not just sign that as I-95?  if Penna cannot be bothered to upgrade their infrastructure, why should they get a major x5 corridor?

If NJ can't be bothered to build their section of I-95, why should they get a major x5 corridor?

[agentsteel53]

Most of the through traffic in the area takes I-295, the Del Mem Br and the NJTP.

why not just sign that as I-95?  if Penna cannot be bothered to upgrade their infrastructure, why should they get a major x5 corridor?

If NJ can't be bothered to build their section of I-95, why should they get a major x5 corridor?

they did build a perfectly good corridor, though.  it's a matter of choosing between a continuous and a discontinuous I-95 - I'd choose the continuous on practical grounds.

[MrDisco99]

The whole broken I-95 situation is delicate to be sure...

I agree that the turnpike is the practical thru route, but I also see where PA is coming from in that they shouldn't have to lose I-95 through no fault of their own.  After all, they built their part.  The reason I-95 is broken is NJ didn't build theirs.  They didn't have much incentive to do so considering the potential loss of turnpike traffic to PA.

I see the new PA turnpike interchange as going above and beyond to work around NJ's inaction and justify having I-95 signed in PA.  It would steal back some gas tax and toll revenue from NJ, not to mention get more people off the trains, all of which I-95 was supposed to do had NJ done their part.

Considering how much time and money has gone toward planning and studies for that interchange, it would take a pretty serious 180 of decades of policy, and a conscious decision to walk away from a huge investment, to tear down I-95 in center city, as there would be no point in continuing with the interchange if they did.  I-95 would probably have to move to the turnpike after all.

[NE2]

Considering how much time and money has gone toward planning and studies for that interchange, it would take a pretty serious 180 of decades of policy, and a conscious decision to walk away from a huge investment, to tear down I-95 in center city, as there would be no point in continuing with the interchange if they did.  I-95 would probably have to move to the turnpike after all.

Because NYC-Philly traffic will no longer use the new interchange if I-95 is removed beyond the part it's using. Wait...

[Perfxion]

There is no easy way to get from NYC to Philly. Sad thing is there is that they are like less than 70 miles apart. And the issue is 10 to 15 miles of highway. Jersey has screwed it up big time.

As for mass transit, try to put that in Houston. When it takes 90 mins to 2 hours to go from Baytown(one town over south east) to The Woodlands (one town over North west) on the freeway system. No Mass transit is going to help.

[MrDisco99]

Considering how much time and money has gone toward planning and studies for that interchange, it would take a pretty serious 180 of decades of policy, and a conscious decision to walk away from a huge investment, to tear down I-95 in center city, as there would be no point in continuing with the interchange if they did.  I-95 would probably have to move to the turnpike after all.

Because NYC-Philly traffic will no longer use the new interchange if I-95 is removed beyond the part it's using. Wait...

You forgot to read the previous paragraphs.

NYC-Philly traffic is going to get to Philly whether they tear down I-95 or not, or whether they build the interchange or not.

The interchange is not just to make the NYC-Philly drive easier, but more importantly, to finish I-95 as a thru route that actually serves Philly.  If the part that actually goes through the city is torn down, leaving just stubs with no workaround, then it wouldn't make a very good thru route, would it?

The reason people clamor for the turnpike to be signed I-95 is because it's the only useful thru route in the area, despite it completely ignoring the fifth largest city in the country.  If the current I-95 is destroyed as a thru route by tearing down the "thru" part, then I'd have to agree with them.  And thus, the interchange would be pointless... well, except to serve people going to Philly who were going to do so anyway.

[NE2]

OK, so there wouldn't be a through route through Philly. Big deal. There's none through DC currently.

[Beltway]

OK, so there wouldn't be a through route through Philly. Big deal. There's none through DC currently.

There will be in about a year when the 11th Street Bridge and interchange completion project is finished.

As far a cutting out a chunk of I-95 in downtown Philadelphia, that makes about as much sense as cutting out a chunk of I-95 in downtown Baltimore.  After all, the I-695 beltway provides two different ways to bypass I-95, so using the "logic" why not cut out a chunk of I-95?

[Perfxion]

The thing is I-95 is built almost the entire length through urban counties. There is no clean way to build a major highway on the east coast that doesn't go through a major city or 12. The only way is by-passes that end up with more traffic than through routes(Baltimore). Or you have areas where traffic is so congested that it takes 3.5 hours to get through "rush hour"(Fairfield County, CT). Removing a chunk of I-95 from Philly or D/C is just a pointless practice since people do drive through those areas. It would be like getting rid of the Stack in Austin(I-35), the elevated in Houston (I-45), or The Alexander Hamilton Bridge in NYC(I-95).

[MrDisco99]

OK, so there wouldn't be a through route through Philly. Big deal. There's none through DC currently.

Exactly.  And they gave up trying to get I-95 signed thru DC decades ago and just signed the beltway instead.

PA has been actively working on finishing I-95 as a route through Philly for a while now.  They're not going to just give it up to NJ because some postmodernists are getting uppity.

There will be in about a year when the 11th Street Bridge and interchange completion project is finished.

Sort of... it's only good for non-commercial traffic in MD.

As far a cutting out a chunk of I-95 in downtown Philadelphia, that makes about as much sense as cutting out a chunk of I-95 in downtown Baltimore.  After all, the I-695 beltway provides two different ways to bypass I-95, so using the "logic" why not cut out a chunk of I-95?

Don't give them any ideas.  It took them forever to finish what's there now.  Of course we could turn the Harbor Tunnel Thruway back into a parking lot.

[Beltway]

There will be in about a year when the 11th Street Bridge and interchange completion project is finished.

Sort of... it's only good for non-commercial traffic in MD.

I-395, I-695 and DC-295 will carry commercial traffic thru D.C. between VA and MD.  Commercial traffic could follow US-50 and I-95/I-495 to access MD northerly and easterly places.

[vdeane]

I-95 also comes a lot closer to DC (technically passing through when crossing the Potomac, so yes, I-95 *is* signed through DC, all 1/10 mile of it) than the NJTP does to Philly.

[KEVIN_224]

There is no easy way to get from NYC to Philly. Sad thing is there is that they are like less than 70 miles apart. And the issue is 10 to 15 miles of highway. Jersey has screwed it up big time.

New York City to Philadelphia are 78 straight-line miles apart, likely at or close to 90 when driving, though.

[PHLBOS]

For some reason, PennDOT seems to have a love affair w/4-laners even in big cities/metropolitan regions and it shows with many of their roadways in and around Philly.

Mainly because they thought more would be built.
http://www.phillyroads.com/history/expwy-map_1966/
http://www.phillyroads.com/history/expwy-map_1974/

I'm well aware of those proposed highways that never get built BUT, even after all that happened; both the eastern end of the Vine Expressway (I-676) and the southern end of the Blue Route (I-476 between MacDade Blvd. & PA 3) were STILL scaled down from 6-laners down to 4-laners when they were opened in 1991.

Like Philly, Boston ALSO had some planned highways (from its 1948 Master Plan) that never got built.  The original Central Artery and Southeast Expressway (in its original configuration) were also built (in the 50s) under the presumption that other highways (Inner Belt & Southwest Expressway) would later follow (little did they know).

Where Greater Boston differs from Greater Philly was that BOTH facilities (the Artery & Expressway) were 6-lanes wide from the get-go.

[OCGuy81]

Just read a similar story over the weekend on this subject.  Apologies if it was posted earlier in this thread.

http://grist.org/infrastructure/off-ramp-how-demolishing-freeways-is-reviving-american-cities/