StreetsBlog: Tear down these 10 freeways

[Brandon]

For I-70 (now I-44) in St. Louis, the city can just cap the freeway similar to how Columbus capped I-670.

Capping it would be better than either leaving it as it is or removing it.

Leaving it as it is keeps the same eyesore as before.
Removing it will cause traffic issues in the downtown area.
Capping it will connect the area while leaving the freeway intact for traffic.  It's the best of both worlds.

[realjd]

... electric cars with better electric storage than we have today.

Praytell, where does the electricity come from? 

Ideally from renewable sources like solar or wind, or something low emission like nuclear. But even for coal and natural gas, electric cars move the pollution from millions of small sources (cars) to a handful of centralized sources (power plants). It's much easier to mitigate/control the pollution from a handful of power plants than from all of the cars on the roads.

[froggie]

2) The northern 481/81 junction is a cloverleaf which has 81 south to 481 south use a tight loop ramp. This interchange would need to be rebuilt to make that the through route for I-81.

Reading through the preliminary studies, if the "boulevard" option is selected, both 81/481 interchanges would be revised to make the transition more seamless.

3) As bypass routes go, I-481 is rather boxy, which adds unnecessary length if it's used as such. If you want to make it the through route, it should be rerouted so that it heads straight into I-81 to the south, rather than taking two 90 degree turns.

This was suggested during the public input process, but would require a lot of right-of-way and construction and so was dropped.  There's also topographical issues with such, as the neighborhoods along NY 173/Seneca Tpk east of I-81 are on a plateau.  There's also a state park (Clark Reservation) in the way.

It should also be noted that using I-481 over I-81 adds a total of about 3.5 miles.  The bigger issue is the I-690 West to I-81 south traffic noted by someone else earlier...the "all freeway" route adds 8 miles....though I think even with that distance, most of such drivers would stick to the boulevard.

[Duke87]

You say "It only adds 3.5 miles" as though that should be no big deal. And for one trip in one vehicle it may not be, but multiply that by thousands of trips every day* and it quickly adds up to a lot of miles and a lot of wasted time.

As for the alternative of "just use the boulevard"... yeah, no. You're taking away what's currently a free flowing route, and replacing it with inferior infrastructure that makes people slow down and stop at red lights instead. This isn't called a "downgrade" for nothing. It is backwards progress for mobility.

Now, if you build a light rail line that runs north-south through the city, then maybe you mitigate that. But destruction without corresponding construction is just that: destruction.

(and I'd rather have both the light rail line and the freeway, but one is better than neither)

*AADT is about 80,000 on that segment, but I don't know how much of it is through traffic. Presumably a large chunk of it is bound for somewhere in the city.

[froggie]

You say "It only adds 3.5 miles" as though that should be no big deal.

I did not use the word "only".  I was simply making a statement of fact of the mileage given that it was mentioned earlier.

As for the alternative of "just use the boulevard"... yeah, no. You're taking away what's currently a free flowing route, and replacing it with inferior infrastructure that makes people slow down and stop at red lights instead. This isn't called a "downgrade" for nothing. It is backwards progress for mobility.

There is far more to a city and urban area than infrastructure.  True, some drivers would be inconvenienced, but it could be argued (and is by some in Syracuse) that there are more benefits to the city to removing the eyesore (which, to be fair, the I-81 viaduct *IS* an eyesore) and restoring connectivity between downtown and SU than the loss of mobility for some.

*AADT is about 80,000 on that segment, but I don't know how much of it is through traffic. Presumably a large chunk of it is bound for somewhere in the city.

According to NYSDOT's own study (mentioned earlier), I-81 through traffic is about 7,200 vehicles a day.

Just to be clear, I'm *NOT* advocating one way or the other regarding I-81.  There are strong arguments for both options.  I'm still mapping out (via GIS) my own scenarios.

[J N Winkler]

I-81 in Syracuse strikes me as a poor choice for a teardown, not just because of the indirect routings that would result for through traffic and the added delay at traffic signals for local and regional traffic, but also because casual inspection in StreetView suggests that NYSDOT and the local agencies have already done many of the things that are considered good practice for mitigating the visual impact of urban viaducts, such as converting the space underneath into parking lots.  Are there additional things that can be done as an alternative to tearing down I-81, such as retrofitting it with transparent noise panels, or upgrading the lighting to remove shadowed areas at ground level?

As for I-70 in St. Louis, nobody has yet mentioned the I-10 deck park in Phoenix as a possible model for what can be done.

[froggie]

Are there additional things that can be done as an alternative to tearing down I-81, such as retrofitting it with transparent noise panels, or upgrading the lighting to remove shadowed areas at ground level?

Pointless to do now given that the bridges are in dire need of replacement, though it's something that could be incorporated into the new bridge.  But it still doesn't remove the bridge as a physical/psychological impediment.

[Laura]

Update on the Gardiner: http://torontoist.com/2014/03/new-proposal-for-gardiner-expressway/

[Pete from Boston]

Not a freeway, but some people in Somerville, Mass., are very actively pushing to get the elevated McGrath Highway (MA 28 ) torn down.  The road currently has something like six traffic lights between I-93 and the Cambridge line, but the elevated portion avoids two busy major cross-street intersections.

Moreover, the most recent proposal I have heard has the road reduced to two lanes each way along its length (currently at least three lanes each way, including surface roads). 

And the icing -- it's been suggested that the road's name be removed, instead reassigning names of streets formerly running along part of its route, in essence demapping it as a through route but for the route number (and for all we know that's next).

[PHLBOS]

Not a freeway, but some people in Somerville, Mass., are very actively pushing to get the elevated McGrath Highway (MA 28 ) torn down.  The road currently has something like six traffic lights between I-93 and the Cambridge line, but the elevated portion avoids two busy major cross-street intersections.

Moreover, the most recent proposal I have heard has the road reduced to two lanes each way along its length (currently at least three lanes each way, including surface roads). 

And the icing -- it's been suggested that the road's name be removed, instead reassigning names of streets formerly running along part of its route, in essence demapping it as a through route but for the route number (and for all we know that's next).

So stopping the I-695/Inner Belt 40+ years ago wasn't enough for these... *Ahem* people.

If this goes through (I could see MA 28 being thrown onto I-93 and exiting at the Leverett Circle Connector); one better pray that Somerville doesn't undergo an emergency evacuation scenario (I-93 doesn't serve all points of the town).  MA 28/McGrath (& O'Brien) Highway is the primary arterial north-south road that serves the town.

Not to get political, but maybe it's time that Bay State voters (at large) to stop blindly voting in one-party for every single elected office out there.  A more balanced political demographic (for both state and local offices) would put a stop to this road tear-down (w/no suitable alternative/replacement) nonsense IMHO.

[amroad17]

Regarding my earlier post about I-81 in Syracuse...

If I-81 (and I-690) could be modernized, then I'm all for keeping I-81 where it is.  The way the freeways are in downtown Syracuse currently, traffic will only get worse.  Like I mentioned earlier, the flow is just not conducive to modern driving.

With hindsight being 20/20, it's a shame I-81 wasn't built a few miles to the east to go around Syracuse.  However, the idea in the 1950's and 1960's was to build the interstate highways as close to downtown as possible.  This is, IMHO, the reason why there is so much gridlock in downtown areas on these freeways.

I use Lexington, KY as a model to have an interstate highway near the city, but not through it.  If  you need to get to downtown Lexington (most likely to go to Rupp Arena to see UK play), you can use surface streets to get there.  Admittedly, Lexington/Fayette County has nearly 270,000 people verses Syracuse/Onondaga County's 460,000, but the model could have worked in Syracuse.  Explaining this would require using the Fictional Highways thread, though.

Since I-81 and I-690 are there, to modernize them would basically require many buildings north of I-690 to be demolished and the viaduct to be totally reconstructed.  Some of the downtown exits (north of I-690 on I-81 and the West and Geddes Street exits on I-690) would have to be permanently closed to allow a more streamlined flow through that area.  The I-81/I-690 interchange would need to be upgraded to allow free flow for every direction instead of the right exit/left slip ramp entrance currently in use as well as no access from I-81 south to I-690 west and I-690 east to I-81 north.  To make these connections, you have to use the Bear Street exits (NY 298) from both freeways.  Plus, does NYSDOT and the City of Syracuse have the funds to accomplish this?  I do not believe so.  With our economy in its current state, I cannot see these changes happening anytime in the near future.

[vdeane]

Modernizing the interchange, I-81 viaduct, and building the missing movements is actually one of the proposed alternatives for this project.  I'm not too hopeful about it though - NYSDOT historically hasn't been very effective with standing up to tear down advocates.

[amroad17]

From what I remember, it looked like I-81 from the north and I-690 were built between many buildings (I-690 followed an abandoned rail line) so it does not appear to be much room as is for the improvements.  Now if some of those buildings were razed, then the interchange and flow would be improved 200%. 

I know that where the freeways ultimately ended up was according to the 1947 freeway plan for Syracuse and that the belief then was to improve access to the downtown area (as was the case for many cities across the US).  It just does not work in its current form right now.

[amroad17]

Dusting off a two year ago topic...

Yesterday on Syracuse.com, I was reading about the new proposal for I-81/I-690 in Syracuse.  Basically, the proposal followed what I said in my March 12, 2014 post--many buildings, historic and non-historic would have to be torn down for the new streamlined interchange to work.  Instead of doing that, NYSDOT should consider routing I-81 on I-481 around the city and making I-81 from I-690 to the I-481/NY 481 interchange either I-381, a state route, or routing US 11 on it.  I-81 south of I-690 should be torn down until the hillclimb south of Harrison.  Make it a boulevard or whatever.  The viaduct needs to go before it falls down on its own.  It will improve traffic and looks in that section of Syracuse.

[vdeane]

Rerouting I-81 onto I-481 is a lot more work than people seem to think.  First, the interchanges at either end MUST be rebuilt if that happens.  Then you have the question of what to do about NY 481.  Then you would ideally widen ALL of I-481 to six lanes (eight between NY 5 and I-690 and also I-690 to the Thruway) (no idea why Region 3 is only looking at widening a small piece of the route - I-481 is quite congested now, and traffic moves at below the 65 mph speed limit).  And of course, you'd need to change all of the mileposts and exit numbers on I-81 north of Syracuse (which probably means converting all of I-81 to mile-based given the current MUTCD), and of course the same for I-481 and NY 481.  What a mess.

And where would the truckers go?  The viaduct is a MAJOR truck corridor, handling the freight between Rochester/Buffalo/western Syracuse and points south.  I doubt they will want to divert onto I-481.  I wouldn't want to divert onto I-481 for those movements either.  It's way out of the way and involves dealing with either more Thruway tolls or that boring part of I-690 east of I-81 (for that matter, the Thruway east of I-81 isn't that interesting either).

[NE2]

When your arguments include "what do we number NY 481" and "the proposed realignment is boring to drive" you've probably lost.

[kalvado]

When your arguments include "what do we number NY 481" and "the proposed realignment is boring to drive" you've probably lost.

Just look at the map... THis is Syracuse NY.  Removing portion of I-81 between 481 and 690 makes routing real strange for southbound traffic from the west. Things are not that bad given I-86 progress, though.
North-south traffic gets extra 3 miles, which may be tolerable.

I would agree that interchange construction is costly.. but elevated portion of I-81 is at the end of life, as far as I understand - so large bill is coming due anyway. Interchanges may be the cheaper part of it..

[vdeane]

Widening is expensive too.

[cl94]

Know what the reroute would do? Put more trucks and buses on I-390 and NY 63. Gets rid of any time advantage for taking the Thruway to Syracuse if you have to backtrack. I clinched 481 a couple weeks ago. That thing is heavily congested as it is. As previously stated, you'd have to change every sign on I-81 north of Syracuse, as well as spend hundreds of millions to rebuild the interchanges, including blasting through a ridge at the southern end. Yeah, I-81 isn't great, but the alternatives might be worse.

[kalvado]

Know what the reroute would do? Put more trucks and buses on I-390 and NY 63. Gets rid of any time advantage for taking the Thruway to Syracuse if you have to backtrack. I clinched 481 a couple weeks ago. That thing is heavily congested as it is. As previously stated, you'd have to change every sign on I-81 north of Syracuse, as well as spend hundreds of millions to rebuild the interchanges, including blasting through a ridge at the southern end. Yeah, I-81 isn't great, but the alternatives might be worse.

Overall sounds like a second Tapan Zee: noone knows how to do it, but something needs to be done before damn thing falls apart!

[texaskdog]

Tear down a key interstate just to remove a barrier between St. Louis and the Arch.

Just cap it

[CobaltYoshi27]

This isn't an interstate, but I really think that the Bethpage State Parkway in eastern Nassau County, New York is really unnecessary because it has a total of 3 exits including termini, and NY 135 is not even half a mile away and crosses all of Long Island.

[dvferyance]

When the park east in Milwaukee was torn down back in the early 2000's we were all promised it was going to bring in all this development and how wonderful it would be. Now over a decade later it's still mostly vacant despite some claims it was the most valuable land in the state. What a joke just keep that mind next time you propose tearing a freeway down will bring in economic development.

[jakeroot]

When the park east in Milwaukee was torn down back in the early 2000's we were all promised it was going to bring in all this development and how wonderful it would be. Now over a decade later it's still mostly vacant despite some claims it was the most valuable land in the state. What a joke just keep that mind next time you propose tearing a freeway down will bring in economic development.

Well, at least there's room for additional development. You can't build under a viaduct (not effectively, at least). Tearing down a viaduct does not automatically result in increased development. The city has to be in a situation where additional development is feasible. And from the looks of it, Milwaukee has begun to develop quite nicely as of late. And there's nothing that says the development has to be exactly where the viaduct formerly stood. Tearing down a viaduct helps improve the walkability of areas not just where the viaduct stood, but also miles away (perhaps increasing the demand for lots up to 15 or 20 blocks away).

[dvferyance]

When the park east in Milwaukee was torn down back in the early 2000's we were all promised it was going to bring in all this development and how wonderful it would be. Now over a decade later it's still mostly vacant despite some claims it was the most valuable land in the state. What a joke just keep that mind next time you propose tearing a freeway down will bring in economic development.

Well, at least there's room for additional development. You can't build under a viaduct (not effectively, at least). Tearing down a viaduct does not automatically result in increased development. The city has to be in a situation where additional development is feasible. And from the looks of it, Milwaukee has begun to develop quite nicely as of late. And there's nothing that says the development has to be exactly where the viaduct formerly stood. Tearing down a viaduct helps improve the walkability of areas not just where the viaduct stood, but also miles away (perhaps increasing the demand for lots up to 15 or 20 blocks away).

That makes absolutely no sense. Tearing the freeway down had no effect on walkability at all. If your not going to build anything there what was the point of tearing it down? Yeah there is room for development all right but if it ain't happening what's the point anyways? We were promised this was going to bring in development. I would think if this land was so valuable as they claim anyone would have built there in a heartbeat.