StreetsBlog: Tear down these 10 freeways

[jeffandnicole]

There would be no need for cars if everyone lived in the city and used urban mass transit and their love affair with (inhale deeply) TRAINS!

They also conveniently forget that in most of the United States (including New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C.), the trains and buses would grind to a halt and the employees would go home unpaid without the diverted motor fuel tax revenue and toll revenue that goes to subsidize their operations.

They point to the success of mass transit in places like Singapore, and ignoring the fact that Singapore is the size of postage stamp that is very urban dense.

Agreed.  Or perhaps more commonly, they tour European cities with reasonably high-density core areas dating back hundreds or thousands of years (plus good and frequently excellent transit service) like Rome, London, Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, Copenhagen and Stockholm, and come back home to North America and write Letters to the Editor lauding the "clean and efficient" rail transit systems they observed on the other side of the pond.  What these people don't do is take a trip to see the North American-style "sprawling" suburbs to be found to varying degrees around all of those cities.

And they ignore the train breakdowns that do occur over there.

[J N Winkler]

We aren't robots. Humans need to be in an environment they are comfortable in in order to want to use the facility. Why do you think light rail is so much more accepted by middle/upper classes than buses? People are more comfortable on light rail, for whatever reason.

The experience of riding on light rail is much better.

*  The ride is much smoother, partly because light-rail vehicles don't chew up the pavement under themselves and partly because they tend to be routed down the middle of the road, where geometry is more favorable (no "humps" when traversing the crown of intersecting roads, for example).

*  Seating is more flexible.  Most light-rail vehicles of recent design allow the option of seating en banc, which gives the passenger much more open sightlines since he or she is sitting looking outside a large window at the urban landscape instead of straight forward into a visual "tunnel" occluded by the driver cabin, heads of other passengers, backs of seats further forward, etc.  In SRO situations, it is also more comfortable to stand than on a bus.

*  Timekeeping tends to be better because virtually every light-rail system--even old-fashioned trams carried forward into the twenty-first century (as in Vienna)--runs on some dedicated right-of-way.

Also of note: in the form vs. function debate, it's also important to not discard aesthetics completely; the ugly structures of the 40s-60s galvanized the freeway revolt in the first place.  If we built elevated structures then with the designs we use now, NIMBY culture would have likely never taken hold.

I am not so sure about this.  Two points come to mind:

*  What recent examples are there of successful new-build freeway viaduct designs that have gained community acceptance?  I am looking for something finished after 1990 or so--the Canal Route viaduct in Wichita (completed 1979) arguably does not qualify (has no graffiti, which argues for community acceptance; has lighting and bike paths underneath, plus a carefully maintained waterway in the median which could be regarded as an amenity feature; follows a severance corridor that long predates the freeway; but also has lots of loose dirt since grass won't grow in the shadow of the road deck).  I am not so sure we have genuinely fixed the problems with elevated freeway designs as opposed to simply refraining from adding more fuel to the fires of NIMBYism.

*  When generalized urban freeway build options were (to the best of my knowledge) last studied in a systematic way that tried to take into account cost, amenities, and redevelopment adjacent to the freeway corridor, in the research effort in Britain that resulted in publication of the Report of the Urban Motorways Project Team to the Urban Motorways Committee (1973), viaducts were found to be much cheaper even with their various disadvantages taken into account, such as visual occlusion, "dead" area underneath the road deck (which, it was suggested, could be mitigated by building "walls" of specially soundproofed housing next to the viaduct with the area under the deck becoming part of the yards for the houses), psychological severance (more below), etc.

I think the point was that people were/are emphasizing aesthetics to the point of EXCLUDING a functional considerations.  The teardown proposals typically handwave function with "pedestrians will no longer perceive a barrier" and then ignore car function entirely.

As a general proposition, I don't think it is true that pedestrians no longer perceive a barrier even when an overhead freeway is removed.  Removing the freeway takes care of the "Chinese wall" effect (a noted problem with the double-decker freeways that have been removed in San Francisco, as well as the multi-story expressways that still stand in Japan), and also tends to remove dark shaded areas underneath the road deck which (in the absence of shared-use development, e.g. factories immediately underneath the viaduct, as has been tried with the A40 Westway in London and in Japan with the often-cited example of a shopping promenade immediately underneath an expressway) tend to degenerate into visually unappealing locations that attract trash and crime.  However, the absence of the freeway creates an open area that pedestrians tend to perceive as a barrier.  This is known as "psychological severance" and it is also a problem with freeways in cut (regardless of whether retaining walls are used to confine the freeway to a narrow right-of-way), and to a lesser extent also rail lines.  The effect is present regardless of how heavy traffic is on whatever surface boulevard replaces the freeway.  (There is usually an attempt to simulate a natural landscape on top of wildlife bridges to encourage animals to use them, and humans are not so far removed from animals in this respect.)

In the case of the Embarcadero removal in San Francisco, I think this effect is less pronounced partly because the Ferry Building serves as a landmark that guides pedestrians through the former freeway alignment.  It also helps that the Embarcadero, as a double-decker freeway with just three lanes in the up and down directions, was already in a very narrow right-of-way, with a footprint generally only forty feet wide away from interchanges.  A similar scenario isn't really workable with single-level viaducts where the "dead area" is typically on the order of 80 feet and often much larger if interchange ramps are involved.  Removing the freeway only to replace it with a wasteland (even if a surface boulevard is subsequently built to provide some residual capacity) isn't really a solution--this is why successful teardowns (e.g. Mandela Parkway in Oakland) have involved some element both of relocation (I-880 now runs in a different corridor) and urban design in the former freeway right-of-way.

Lynch, Appleyard, and Myers' The View from the Road (1962, if memory serves) offers a good introduction to some of the design issues involved.

Edit:  Had to revise this post to fix missing sentence clauses.

[Brandon]

Adam, there's a 900 kilo gorilla here - in Europe, grocery shopping usually means walking or biking to a relatively small grocery store nearby several days a week (though in parts of the EU, Carrefour runs stores that rival a Wal-Mart Supercenter in store and parking lot size).   

But many people on this side of the pond like to shop at the grocery maybe once a week instead.  Somewhat difficult to do with a bike or on foot.

A couple counter-points:

A) not a lot of overall trips are grocery store trips, and there are other short trips that could be captured by other modes.  While roughly half of all trips less than 3 miles in length are for "Family/Personal Business", it stands to reason that not all of those are grocery trips.

B) there's nothing stopping people on this side of the pond from grocery shopping more than once a week.  Even when I was in non-bikeable land and driving everywhere, I'd typically hit the grocery store (or Commissary as the case may be) every 4-5 days.

You forget that culture is different here than there.

A) These trips often include having more than one person in the vehicle.  Even with the price of fuel, it is cheaper and more timely than waiting for a bus or walking.  These trips are often combined as well.

B) Depends on the distance.  The culture is different here than there.  Most people in North America go to the grocer weekly as it fits better into their schedules.

[corco]

*  Seating is more flexible.  Most light-rail vehicles of recent design allow the option of seating en banc, which gives the passenger much more open sightlines since he or she is sitting looking outside a large window at the urban landscape instead of straight forward into a visual "tunnel" occluded by the driver cabin, heads of other passengers, backs of seats further forward, etc.  In SRO situations, it is also more comfortable to stand than on a bus.

Would this not be possible to configure in a bus? Some things are going to be design limitations, yes- a bus will never be as smooth as light rail, but isn't there a way to make the environment of a bus car more or less identical to that of a light rail car?

[NE2]

isn't there a way to make the environment of a bus car more or less identical to that of a light rail car?

Disney buses have side-facing seats, so yes. But seating capacity is less, which means bendy buses (which Disney is starting to use, but they have their own infrastructure requirements).

[J N Winkler]

Would this not be possible to configure in a bus? Some things are going to be design limitations, yes- a bus will never be as smooth as light rail, but isn't there a way to make the environment of a bus car more or less identical to that of a light rail car?

To add to NE2's answer:  part of the ride discomfort associated with buses comes from stopping and starting.  Trams (of whatever seating configuration--and some older trams, e.g. in Vienna, Lisbon, and Bratislava, as well as some newer ones, e.g. in Sacramento, do seat passengers facing toward the direction of travel) are generally superior from this perspective.

[vdeane]

*  What recent examples are there of successful new-build freeway viaduct designs that have gained community acceptance?

In the US, can't think of any, but in China:

Quite the contrast from the US elevated structures, I'd say.

The I-86 Horseheads bypass is technically elevated and looks good, but it's not a viaduct and is built on landfill contained by concrete walls.

One of the proposals for the Gardiner in Toronto is similar to the Chinese example.

I'm not sure if people would have embraced freeways, but they probably would have learned to live with them at least.

As a general proposition, I don't think it is true that pedestrians no longer perceive a barrier even when an overhead freeway is removed.  Removing the freeway takes care of the "Chinese wall" effect (a noted problem with the double-decker freeways that have been removed in San Francisco, as well as the multi-story expressways that still stand in Japan), and also tends to remove dark shaded areas underneath the road deck which (in the absence of shared-use development, e.g. factories immediately underneath the viaduct, as has been tried with the A40 Westway in London and in Japan with the often-cited example of a shopping promenade immediately underneath an expressway) tend to degenerate into visually unappealing locations that attract trash and crime.  However, the absence of the freeway creates an open area that pedestrians tend to perceive as a barrier.  This is known as "psychological severance" and it is also a problem with freeways in cut (regardless of whether retaining walls are used to confine the freeway to a narrow right-of-way), and to a lesser extent also rail lines.  The effect is present regardless of how heavy traffic is on whatever surface boulevard replaces the freeway.  (There is usually an attempt to simulate a natural landscape on top of wildlife bridges to encourage animals to use them, and humans are not so far removed from animals in this respect.)

And none of this is ever brought up by freeway teardown advocates.  They always assume that traffic will just magically vanish.

[Revive 755]

Tear down a key interstate just to remove a barrier between St. Louis and the Arch. Next we'll hear cries to tear down Lake Shore Drive because it disconnects the city from the lakefront 

I though that cry had already been made once, in addition to the proposals to downgrade the northern end (which is covered in a thread somewhere around here)

[froggie]

You forget that culture is different here than there.

A) These trips often include having more than one person in the vehicle.  Even with the price of fuel, it is cheaper and more timely than waiting for a bus or walking.  These trips are often combined as well.

B) Depends on the distance.  The culture is different here than there.  Most people in North America go to the grocer weekly as it fits better into their schedules.

First off, the trip length figures I cited earlier are for the US, not for "there".

Second, I'm not saying all trips can be converted...but given the large percentage of trips that are 3 miles or less (one-third, as cited earlier), these are trips that could fairly easily be converted to other modes if the infrastructure was there.

Third, car culture has been so heavily built/wrapped around the US for the past 60 years that Americans (including, I daresay, several members of this forum) find it impossible to think in terms of anything else.

Inflammatory, yes.  But that's the reality.

And none of this is ever brought up by freeway teardown advocates.  They always assume that traffic will just magically vanish.

Though we admittedly have limited examples of freeway teardowns or long-term freeway closures, a percentage of that traffic really does "magically vanish".

[Brandon]

^^ Car culture took off in the US due to the distances between places.  Have you even bothered to look at the population densities between continental Europe and the US/Canada?  Having a viable system of public transit that people will use on a daily basis for trips to the grocer requires density.  We lack that density in most places.  Get off the navy base and take a look at reality.

Let's use an example.  If I want to go to a grocer, I can either walk over a mile to a bus stop, and take the bus a mere half mile to the store; bicycle to the store; drive; or simply walk.

1. There's not much point to the bus.  If does not run on the schedule I need, and it's too far away.
2. Bicycling is fine for small items, but you try to carry home 20 pounds of cat litter on a bicycle.  Bet you tire of it quickly as well.
3. A car can carry everything, and I can fit the shopping into my schedule when I want to go.
4. Walking's fine, but it runs into the same problem as the bicycle.

I am very certain most other North Americans run into the same problems.  And it's not just the US/Canada, Europe outside the city centers is much the same way.  it has nothing to do with changing how one thinks, it has to do with the infrastructure and lack of density we have.

[texaskdog]

^^ Car culture took off in the US due to the distances between places.  Have you even bothered to look at the population densities between continental Europe and the US/Canada?  Having a viable system of public transit that people will use on a daily basis for trips to the grocer requires density.  We lack that density in most places.  Get off the navy base and take a look at reality.

Let's use an example.  If I want to go to a grocer, I can either walk over a mile to a bus stop, and take the bus a mere half mile to the store; bicycle to the store; drive; or simply walk.

1. There's not much point to the bus.  If does not run on the schedule I need, and it's too far away.
2. Bicycling is fine for small items, but you try to carry home 20 pounds of cat litter on a bicycle.  Bet you tire of it quickly as well.
3. A car can carry everything, and I can fit the shopping into my schedule when I want to go.
4. Walking's fine, but it runs into the same problem as the bicycle.

I am very certain most other North Americans run into the same problems.  And it's not just the US/Canada, Europe outside the city centers is much the same way.  it has nothing to do with changing how one thinks, it has to do with the infrastructure and lack of density we have.

And SPRAWL is not the problem.  Many people even in the suburbs live reasonably close to the places they need to shop. 

[J N Winkler]

Let's use an example.  If I want to go to a grocer, I can either walk over a mile to a bus stop, and take the bus a mere half mile to the store; bicycle to the store; drive; or simply walk.

1. There's not much point to the bus.  If does not run on the schedule I need, and it's too far away.

2. Bicycling is fine for small items, but you try to carry home 20 pounds of cat litter on a bicycle.  Bet you tire of it quickly as well.

3. A car can carry everything, and I can fit the shopping into my schedule when I want to go.

4. Walking's fine, but it runs into the same problem as the bicycle.

I am very certain most other North Americans run into the same problems.  And it's not just the US/Canada, Europe outside the city centers is much the same way.  it has nothing to do with changing how one thinks, it has to do with the infrastructure and lack of density we have.

Adapting your example to my situation:

1.  Since I live within a mile of the nearest supermarket and the nearest bus stop is also outside the supermarket, taking the bus is pointless.

2.  In Britain I got quite used to carrying several days' worth of groceries in a bike basket.  I could do the same over here, except I don't really have a usable bicycle and getting to the store from within my subdivision entails an awkward crossing of a four-lane arterial that does not have curbside cycle lanes.

3.  A bicycle may not be able to accommodate the same payload as a car, but it is equally flexible as to schedule, and also gives you exercise as an incidental benefit.  (I don't know about the Navy specifically, but both the Army and the Air Force require their service personnel to pass an annual physical fitness test that has strength and cardiovascular endurance components.)

4.  If you walk, you can use a bag on wheels, which is how many older people do their grocery shopping in Britain.  For that matter, when I lived in Riverdale Park, Maryland, and walked to the nearby Giant supermarket (only about half a mile away), I adapted a wheeled luggage carrier to carry bags of groceries.

When a grocery store is nearby, I would say the strongest use cases for cars involve extreme weather, since it is tedious to deal with groceries and snow while walking or cycling, while milk goes sour very rapidly outdoors when the temperature is over 90° F.

I'd also question whether most Americans in fact do their grocery shopping just once a week.  That frequency might work for families that eat nothing but processed food that can be stored in freezers or cupboards for extended periods with little decline in quality.  If you eat fresh food for taste and nutrition, however, a shorter shopping interval is better.  In this household we usually do a grocery shop once every two to three days.  I eat apples as a fiber snack immediately before going to bed and I never get more than five at a time since, unless I keep them refrigerated (which causes space problems in the fruit and vegetable drawer), they go soft and mealy after five days.

[NE2]

[US 41]

Hopefully none of these freeways are torn down. Turning a freeway into a road with at grade intersections is just stupid.

[froggie]

^^ Car culture took off in the US due to the distances between population centers.

FTFY.  Distances between cities was significant, but not within those cities.  Yes, a majority of the population at the time lived in rural areas, but within the cities, and thanks to a more mixed-use development pattern (instead of zoning everything far apart like the past 50 years), you were close to things.  Density was also noticeably higher in our cities back in those days.

Have you even bothered to look at the population densities between continental Europe and the US/Canada?  Having a viable system of public transit that people will use on a daily basis for trips to the grocer requires density.  We lack that density in most places.

Yes, I'm aware of the population densities.  You may want to go back over my posts and note that nowhere did I say that transit was the answer (in fact, I haven't even mentioned transit in this thread until now).

Get off the navy base and take a look at reality.

Nice jab.  For the record, aside from temporary periods during transfers (none lasting more than a month), I haven't lived on a Navy base since 1999.

Let's use an example.  If I want to go to a grocer, I can either walk over a mile to a bus stop, and take the bus a mere half mile to the store; bicycle to the store; drive; or simply walk.

1. There's not much point to the bus.  If does not run on the schedule I need, and it's too far away.
2. Bicycling is fine for small items, but you try to carry home 20 pounds of cat litter on a bicycle.  Bet you tire of it quickly as well.
3. A car can carry everything, and I can fit the shopping into my schedule when I want to go.
4. Walking's fine, but it runs into the same problem as the bicycle.

You have a point on #1 (but again, I haven't been talking about transit).  Carrying home 20 pounds of cat litter is very doable on a bicycle.  On my bike commutes, I carry about 40 pounds worth of gear, uniforms, and shower stuff.  It's easily done with the right gear on a bike (a rear rack and two panniers in my case).  They also make dedicated cargo bikes that could easily carry a large amount of groceries, but those aren't viable for most people.  Regarding #3, yes a car can "carry everything", but walking and bicycling can also fit easily into a "schedule when one wants to go".  Arguably more easily in urban areas (as I cited earlier in response to Duke).

I am very certain most other North Americans run into the same problems.  And it's not just the US/Canada, Europe outside the city centers is much the same way.  it has nothing to do with changing how one thinks, it has to do with the infrastructure and lack of density we have.

With this, you actually prove my earlier point about infrastructure.  And you don't need density in order to add sidewalks or bike paths or bike lanes.

And SPRAWL is not the problem.  Many people even in the suburbs live reasonably close to the places they need to shop.

Depends what you define as "reasonably close".  Per the 2009 travel survey, the average distance for a shopping trip was over 6 miles.  Short out in the sticks, perhaps (especially since our Vermont house is 25 miles from the nearest decent and dedicated grocery store...our town store is 4.5 miles but doesn't have everything).  But still getting lengthy when you're talking about urban and suburban areas.

(I don't know about the Navy specifically, but both the Army and the Air Force require their service personnel to pass an annual physical fitness test that has strength and cardiovascular endurance components.)

Twice a year.

I'd also question whether most Americans in fact do their grocery shopping just once a week.  That frequency might work for families that eat nothing but processed food that can be stored in freezers or cupboards for extended periods with little decline in quality.  If you eat fresh food for taste and nutrition, however, a shorter shopping interval is better.  In this household we usually do a grocery shop once every two to three days.  I eat apples as a fiber snack immediately before going to bed and I never get more than five at a time since, unless I keep them refrigerated (which causes space problems in the fruit and vegetable drawer), they go soft and mealy after five days.

Concur.  Most fresh fruits and vegetables start going bad after 4-5 days (even in the fridge for some of them....try keeping a pint of raspberries for more than 3 days).  And unless you freeze it, meat should be used within 2-3 days.

[vdeane]

As a single girl, I can shop every 5-6 days and still fit all my stuff in the 15 item "express" line (which translates to 3-5 bags of groceries depending on how efficient the cashier is).  My Mom shops every couple days and comes home with at least three full bags every time.  Some of the difference is caused by feeding one person vs. two-three plus two dogs, but a lot of it comes down to me standardizing all my meals and Mom buying things she regularly uses whenever she runs out only to figure out what will actually be for dinner on the same day.  Even with the much lower volume, I'm glad I can drive my groceries home.

[PHLBOS]

Meh. The envirowackos can keep crowing. Ain't happening.

True, but all it takes is one election victory en masse to change the score.

[Duke87]

I'd also question whether most Americans in fact do their grocery shopping just once a week.

For nearly a decade in my family there was always with little exception one of us too young to be in school, so a trip anywhere required strapping at least one child into the car no matter what. This naturally made it a to-do, so when I was little my mother would make one big grocery shopping trip once a week with my father picking up a few things on the way home from work as needed.  Once we got a bit older and could be left at home alone for a bit, my mother started making 2-3 grocery trips a week. But for a family of five, that still meant too much cargo per trip to carry on a bicycle, so that wouldn't have been an option even if we lived close enough to the grocery store for biking to otherwise be an option.

Living on my own now, I stop at the grocery store 1-2 times a week. I then just walk home, since it's only a block and a half away. Naturally, I am not carrying enough to require a car, but I am only shopping for one person. For households with more people, they either make more frequent trips or buy one of those personal shopping carts that they can push home from the store. Walking is far more dominant than biking, but then the area where I live is exceptionally densely populated, especially by American standards.

Also, I don't know how common this trend is elsewhere, but where I grew up in Connecticut, shopping in a lot of families is done daily - because when both parents work 50+ hours a week, a quick stop on the way home to pick up tonight's dinner is all they usually have time for. This also reduces the number of home-cooked meals these families eat.
So, I would propose that the fact that Americans on average work longer hours than Europeans also has an influence on our grocery shopping habits.

[hm insulators]

Sure, your neighborhood may look nicer without the freeway

I'm not convinced. I think Interstate 90 over Mercer Island it quite pretty.



Also, I know they intentionally left the Alaskan Way Viaduct out because, well half of it's missing and the rest is primed for demolition. But with the tunnel-boring machine continually breaking down, locals seem to be (to borrow Alps' term) "crowing" about it and seem to just want to keep the viaduct. Uh yeah that's not happening you imbeciles. That thing is either gonna be torn down or it's falling down on its own.

For example, if the big 9.0 earthquake hits in the next few years or so.

[hm insulators]

Tear down a key interstate just to remove a barrier between St. Louis and the Arch. Next we'll hear cries to tear down Lake Shore Drive because it disconnects the city from the lakefront 

Did they ever hear of "bridges" and "pedestrian overcrossings?"

[ET21]

Tear down a key interstate just to remove a barrier between St. Louis and the Arch. Next we'll hear cries to tear down Lake Shore Drive because it disconnects the city from the lakefront 

Did they ever hear of "bridges" and "pedestrian overcrossings?"

That's what I'm thinking. I guess these bridges don't count and they want just a big open field/beach with no roads

[bzakharin]

We aren't robots. Humans need to be in an environment they are comfortable in in order to want to use the facility. Why do you think light rail is so much more accepted by middle/upper classes than buses? People are more comfortable on light rail, for whatever reason.

The experience of riding on light rail is much better.

*  The ride is much smoother, partly because light-rail vehicles don't chew up the pavement under themselves and partly because they tend to be routed down the middle of the road, where geometry is more favorable (no "humps" when traversing the crown of intersecting roads, for example).

*  Seating is more flexible.  Most light-rail vehicles of recent design allow the option of seating en banc, which gives the passenger much more open sightlines since he or she is sitting looking outside a large window at the urban landscape instead of straight forward into a visual "tunnel" occluded by the driver cabin, heads of other passengers, backs of seats further forward, etc.  In SRO situations, it is also more comfortable to stand than on a bus.

*  Timekeeping tends to be better because virtually every light-rail system--even old-fashioned trams carried forward into the twenty-first century (as in Vienna)--runs on some dedicated right-of-way.

Where do you get these figures anyway? I've been in situations when I regularly took light rail, regular trains, buses, and subways in a single trip. I've never noticed any difference in the type of people who ride them (I'm not talking Amrak and Greyhound here. Local / commuter transit only). It's whatever is more convenient.

Light rail also makes no sense for longer distance trips when there is a parallel bus that only stops if people actually need to get on or off. The recently built River Line between Camden and Trenton, NJ makes zero sense for anyone travelling anywhere close to the entire length (over an hour). The parallel bus (which has been cut back since the line opened) actually makes the trip slightly faster, and anyone with access to a car will never even consider using it (it's a 30 minute drive, so it only makes sense if congestion is bad enough to double the trip). On the other hand, the also recently opened light rail link in Newark between Broad Street and Penn stations makes sense because it's short, connects two places where a high number of people is already getting off or on another public transit line, and parallel buses often get stuck in traffic.

[NE2]

Light rail also makes no sense for longer distance trips when there is a parallel bus that only stops if people actually need to get on or off.

IIRC Boston's Green Line only stops if requested to.

[PHLBOS]

Light rail also makes no sense for longer distance trips when there is a parallel bus that only stops if people actually need to get on or off.

IIRC Boston's Green Line only stops if requested to.

What you're describing is known as a flag stop (it will only stop when a rider requests such and/or if there's passenger(s) waiting at the stops/platforms) and I believe such applies for the at-grade legs outside the Boston tunnels and beyond/west of where the T's Green Line routes (B, C , D & E) branch off.

Similar flag stops holds true for the SEPTA trolley routes in the Philly area and for some low-volume stations along the Regional Rail system during off-peak periods.

[Laura]

Tear down a key interstate just to remove a barrier between St. Louis and the Arch. Next we'll hear cries to tear down Lake Shore Drive because it disconnects the city from the lakefront 

Did they ever hear of "bridges" and "pedestrian overcrossings?"

That's what I'm thinking. I guess these bridges don't count and they want just a big open field/beach with no roads

I think the best solution would be large, oversized bridges at pedestrian level/mini tunnels at car level that don't feel like bridges from the surface. The best example I can think is the one recently constructed on MD-200 (ICC).