Existing urban freeways that would not even be considered now

[Laura]

I think Baltimore is a great example of pretty much every scenario discussed:

1. What happens when an interstate is built,
2. What happens when it isn't,
3. What happens when it is partially built.

In every case, the interstates alone weren't the main thing to make or break a neighborhood. Honestly, we give them too much credit. Public policy plays a huge role, too.

I do not believe that the Jones Falls Expressway (I-83 south of I-695) would be built today. At the time, it was considered advantageous to built it over a river because few houses needed to be taken. (Also, it was heavily polluted at the time.) However, it cuts Baltimore off from its inner waterfront. There's some beautiful rapids and scenic parts that aren't accessible to the general public because of the JFX.

In all of the areas where plans were cancelled, development happened anyway to the extent that it could have been. The Urban-Rural Demarcation Line (URDL) enacted in 1967 in Baltimore County, influenced growth beyond into the surrounding counties and York County, PA. I currently commute over an hour to work every day from northern Harford County, and I'm not the only one. I use a mix of driving and public transit. With more limited access highways here, I'm sure population would grow more, but compared to what was here even in the past 20 years, it's grown tremendously.

In places where interstates were partially built (the JFX and I-70), results varied due to public policy. Federal Hill and Fells Point grew due to programs that encouraged low home ownership cost in exchange for agreeing to renovate the property. Franklin-Mulberry had nothing of the sort. Even Rosemont, which was saved from I-70, declined due to drug usage overtaking the neighborhood. Interestingly, the most blighted areas of Baltimore also have the worst access overall - less public transit and less highways.

[hbelkins]

Given the fact that there are some idiots in Louisville who want to keep existing I-64 between I-65 and the Sherman Minton Bridge, I'd nominate that route.

Fixed again.

You have never given a logical reason for wanting to tear down the interstate or how you would provide for the displaced traffic besides making it go out of its way on either 264 or 265.

Given the fact that there are some idiots in Louisville who want to get rid of existing I-64 between I-65 and the Sherman Minton Bridge, I'd nominate that route.

Is that why they're building another bridge in that area?  The proposed bridge looks like the only halfway decent re-route of I-64.

No. Building the east end bridge and closing the gap between I-265 in Indiana and I-265 in Kentucky has long been a goal and has long been on the books. I object to the building of the second downtown bridge as not necessary. The idea to remove the I-64 freeway is a pipe dream being floated by a handful of fools in Louisville and has never been given serious consideration, and it will never happen.

The closure of the Sherman Minton Bridge and the resulting traffic nightmares were a pretty good indicator of what will happen if the I-64 freeway is ever eliminated. Whenever I'm in Louisville, I see what a mess I-64 along the river is. Turning that into a surface route with traffic lights would be a disaster.

[NE2]

Given the fact that there are some idiots in Louisville who want to keep existing I-64 between I-65 and the Sherman Minton Bridge, I'd nominate that route.

Fixed again.

You have never given a logical reason for wanting to tear down the interstate or how you would provide for the displaced traffic besides making it go out of its way on either 264 or 265.

265 is not out of the way. Thanks for playing.

[hbelkins]

265 is not out of the way. Thanks for playing.

Sure it is. Look at a map.

And if you're going to make it a through route, you'd have to redesign the cloverleaf at I-64 and I-265/KY 841; else you're funneling all eastbound traffic onto a one-lane loop ramp with a couple of nasty weaves involved. That exit is bad enough at rush hour as it is; put through traffic on it and it would be a cluster foxtrot.

And you're still not giving a logical reason for removing the freeway and screwing up Louisville traffic worse than it already is.

[NE2]

If you're talking about local traffic bound for downtown Louisville, that's getting off on surface roads anyway. I-64 through traffic is better off using I-265 whether or not 64 is 86ed downtown.

[edit]Oops - I read that as the 65/265 interchange. So add a flyover at I-265 and I-64. The money saved by not building elevated connections to the 86ed part of 64 could have been used.

[Duke87]

I-64 through traffic is better off using I-265 whether or not 64 is 86ed downtown.

Only if both of the following conditions are met:
1) 265 is actually finished
2) there is congestion on the freeway downtown

Otherwise the route through downtown is shorter and thus faster.


What this does reflect, though, is the misguided attitude that the mainline of a long distance freeway should be aimed directly at the center of a city and that any "bypass" should be built as a beltway rather than designed to tie smoothly into the through route on either side. This combination of design decisions encourages long distance traffic to go straight through downtown because it's shorter. Look, as an alternative, how the Ohio and Pennsylvania Turnpikes handle cities: they directly bypass them in a straight line and force traffic bound for them to take a spur route. This allows traffic just passing through to bypass the city without having to take a longer route in order to do so and is because of this a wiser method of planning.

Unfortunately the majority of interstates were not built this way, so in most cases we for better or for worse are forced to accept that we must either handle through traffic passing through downtown, or make its trip longer and less convenient by forcing it onto a beltway route that is half a circumference rather than a diameter, which math teaches us will be π/2 (or about 1.57) times longer.

[vdeane]

I-890 in Schenectady NY. Little traffic. Exit 1 to Exit 7 seems pretty useless to me. The whole elevated section through downtown and all of its six lanes seem like a waste to me. That maze of ramps near GE could all be eliminated. I think that land could be better utilized for parks, river access and possible SCCC expansion.

It seemed to be pretty well traveled to me when I was on it a few years ago near rush hour.  NYSDOT also built NY 890 (relatively) recently to extend it.  The GE ramps wouldn't be built today though.

[NE2]

I-64 through traffic is better off using I-265 whether or not 64 is 86ed downtown.

Only if both of the following conditions are met:
1) 265 is actually finished
2) there is congestion on the freeway downtown

Otherwise the route through downtown is shorter and thus faster.

Shorter by about 5 miles (21 vs. 26). If I-64 is 55 mph and I-265 is 65 mph, that's essentially the same amount of time.

[vtk]

What this does reflect, though, is the misguided attitude that the mainline of a long distance freeway should be aimed directly at the center of a city and that any "bypass" should be built as a beltway rather than designed to tie smoothly into the through route on either side. This combination of design decisions encourages long distance traffic to go straight through downtown because it's shorter. Look, as an alternative, how the Ohio and Pennsylvania Turnpikes handle cities: they directly bypass them in a straight line and force traffic bound for them to take a spur route. This allows traffic just passing through to bypass the city without having to take a longer route in order to do so and is because of this a wiser method of planning.

Unfortunately the majority of interstates were not built this way, so in most cases we for better or for worse are forced to accept that we must either handle through traffic passing through downtown, or make its trip longer and less convenient by forcing it onto a beltway route that is half a circumference rather than a diameter, which math teaches us will be π/2 (or about 1.57) times longer.

Well-said.  But there would still likely be radial freeways for commuters.  The Interstate program's timing and funding made it too tempting for states to make Interstate highways and commuter highways one and the same.

[Duke87]

Shorter by about 5 miles (21 vs. 26).

That's it? Huh. Looking at it on a map it seems like the difference should be greater than that. 1.24 times the distance is a lot less than 1.57 times the distance, but then 265 on the north side isn't a neat semicircle, it's rather squashed.

Perhaps the fact that it involves a couple of conspicuously sudden turns while 64 is straight-ish makes it appear to add more distance than it actually does.

At any rate, I've never been to Louisville so I can't comment on the aesthetic effect 64 has on downtown. I tend to believe such effects are exaggerated, but I get the sense that I do not perceive such structures to be barriers nearly as much as most other people do. I am actually fond of the visual effect of being under an elevated structure (be it freeway, rail, aqueduct, or whatever).

[hbelkins]

Between I-65 and the Sherman Minton Bridge, I-64 runs along the river and not through the center of town. Only that section near the Galt House Hotel has any worthwhile land that could be reclaimed if the freeway was demolished. West of the 9th Street exit, the route runs through the slums of Louisville's west end.

Speed limit on 265/841 north of I-64 is, I believe, 55 mph, and it's also 55 mph in Indiana, IIRC.

[vtk]

I've been to Louisville's riverfront under I-64.  It's quite nice.

[hbelkins]

The nicest thing about Louisville is seeing it in the rear view mirror.

[froggie]

The nicest thing about Louisville is seeing it in the rear view mirror.

Not that HB is biased or anything...

[froggie]

As much as I like the MN 62 crosstown as a traffic reliever, I doubt it would stand a chance for even being considered for a freeway upgrade in todays world.

Parts of it might have still been built...I could see from cedar over to 55 in a different world as part of an "airport ring road".

One of the N-S freeways west of Minneapolis (I-494, U.S. 169, and MN 100) could be nixed from the plan, too. 169 and 100 each get a lot more traffic, so I would ditch 494 west of 169 (and I do realize 494 came first).

Of these, 494 would actually be the easiest to build today, as much of it follows a high voltage power line corridor.  It should be noted that 100 predates virtually all Twin Cities suburban development...most of it was originally built in the 1930s.

I-35E wouldn't stand a chance in southern St. Paul (they had a heck of a time getting that built anyway).

Concur.  35E north of downtown St. Paul would probably be the same case, and especially 94 between the downtowns.

MN 36 wouldn't be a full freeway anywhere.

36 probably would be.  It was a 4-lane road through Roseville back when Roseville was a cornfield township in the 1930s.

MN 77 north of I-494 and south of I-35E would go, too.

The hardest part of 77 would've been between 494 and 13, not north of 494 or south of 35E.  Western Eagan and Apple Valley basically owe their current existance to 77 being built.  Had 77 not been built, would've been a lot less development in that area...thus would've theoretically been easier to shoehorn a freeway in those SUBurban areas today.

[Dougtone]

I-890 in Schenectady NY. Little traffic. Exit 1 to Exit 7 seems pretty useless to me. The whole elevated section through downtown and all of its six lanes seem like a waste to me. That maze of ramps near GE could all be eliminated. I think that land could be better utilized for parks, river access and possible SCCC expansion.

It seemed to be pretty well traveled to me when I was on it a few years ago near rush hour.  NYSDOT also built NY 890 (relatively) recently to extend it.  The GE ramps wouldn't be built today though.

True, considering that GE's presence in Schenectady isn't quite what it was when I-890 was built.  There's also the really long frontage road going eastbound between Exit 2 and Erie Boulevard, plus a traffic circle that's a pain to navigate sometimes.  East of the GE property, I-890 goes (in part) through a steep hollow between the Hamilton Hill and Mount Pleasant neighborhoods which I believe separated the neighborhoods even before interstates.  I still think that a modern day I-890 would've been constructed, but probably as a spur from Erie Blvd. and the GE property east to its current end, sans viaduct and ramp system.  IMO, I-890 east/southeast of downtown Schenectady is useful in getting people in, out and around town, since the other main corridors around town don't have the design capacity to do such things.

[cpzilliacus]

I think Baltimore is a great example of pretty much every scenario discussed:

1. What happens when an interstate is built,
2. What happens when it isn't,
3. What happens when it is partially built.

In every case, the interstates alone weren't the main thing to make or break a neighborhood. Honestly, we give them too much credit. Public policy plays a huge role, too.

I think this is correct.

I do not believe that the Jones Falls Expressway (I-83 south of I-695) would be built today. At the time, it was considered advantageous to built it over a river because few houses needed to be taken. (Also, it was heavily polluted at the time.) However, it cuts Baltimore off from its inner waterfront. There's some beautiful rapids and scenic parts that aren't accessible to the general public because of the JFX.

Had it been proposed today, the JFX would have to comply with Section  404 of the Clean Water Act, which (IMO) would have been difficult with the design of the freeway.  I don't know its history well enough to know for certain, but  if any of the Jones Falls stream valley was parkland before the construction of the JFX, then Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act would also have applied.

In all of the areas where plans were cancelled, development happened anyway to the extent that it could have been. The Urban-Rural Demarcation Line (URDL) enacted in 1967 in Baltimore County, influenced growth beyond into the surrounding counties and York County, PA. I currently commute over an hour to work every day from northern Harford County, and I'm not the only one. I use a mix of driving and public transit. With more limited access highways here, I'm sure population would grow more, but compared to what was here even in the past 20 years, it's grown tremendously.

The Baltimore County URDL, like its counterpart in Montgomery County [Md.], the Agricultural Reserve, has contributed to so-called "leapfrog" growth and development in places beyond the areas designated as largely off-limits to new home construction.  It's especially apparent if you cross the border from Baltimore County to York County, Pa., which has become a de-facto suburb of Baltimore and other points to the south.

In places where interstates were partially built (the JFX and I-70), results varied due to public policy. Federal Hill and Fells Point grew due to programs that encouraged low home ownership cost in exchange for agreeing to renovate the property. Franklin-Mulberry had nothing of the sort. Even Rosemont, which was saved from I-70, declined due to drug usage overtaking the neighborhood. Interestingly, the most blighted areas of Baltimore also have the worst access overall - less public transit and less highways.

Yeah, the Corner (written by David Simon  and  Ed Burns) about the corner of West Lexington Street and Monroe Street in Baltimore discusses these issues to some extent (including the "orphaned" part of I-70 that was once signed as I-170).

[Road Hog]

When I started this thread, I was thinking about places like Youngstown, Rochester and Niagara Falls and their existing freeways that are no longer needed due to population loss.  Erie is now 30% larger than Youngstown, but compare their respective freeway systems

There's an interesting wikipedia article on US cities formerly over 100,000 population.  Youngstown leads the list in both percentage and total number lost.

I read the article. Most of these are Rust Belt cities, but one of them stood out to me. What happened to Macon, Georgia?

[hbelkins]

The nicest thing about Louisville is seeing it in the rear view mirror.

Not that HB is biased or anything...

Actually, I like Jefferson County along and outside the I-264 ring. My family went to Louisville a lot when I was a kid. We shopped on Shelbyville Road and Preston Street/Highway. We went to the state fair every year. And my dad's artificial limb shop was in Louisville so we went there anytime he needed work on his leg.

I don't like being stuck in downtown Louisville for conferences because it's not auto-friendly. The parking garages fill up fast and most all the restaurants that are in walking distance of the main downtown conference hotels are too expensive, and it costs me to eat there. (My per diem allows $15 for dinner and it's hard to eat for less than that, and I usually try to make money when I travel by eating cheap.)

I hate Louisville traffic on the interstates. On surface streets, I'd much rather drive in Louisville than in Lexington.

I also don't like Louisville's politics. This is the city that sent John Yarmuth to Congress, after all.

The elitist attitudes exhibited by Louisville leaders and residents disgusts me. They act like Kentucky would be lucky to exist if not for them and their city.

The college basketball team there actually plays very little of a role in my dislike for the city and its culture.

Tearing down the I-64 freeway would make traffic even worse and give me cause to dislike the place even more.

[mgk920]

I do not believe that the Jones Falls Expressway (I-83 south of I-695) would be built today. At the time, it was considered advantageous to built it over a river because few houses needed to be taken. (Also, it was heavily polluted at the time.) However, it cuts Baltimore off from its inner waterfront. There's some beautiful rapids and scenic parts that aren't accessible to the general public because of the JFX.

Had it been proposed today, the JFX would have to comply with Section  404 of the Clean Water Act, which (IMO) would have been difficult with the design of the freeway.  I don't know its history well enough to know for certain, but  if any of the Jones Falls stream valley was parkland before the construction of the JFX, then Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act would also have applied.

What happens when a highway is proposed and in response, an opposed muni subsequently designates parkland in its path as a way to block the highway from being built (a 'mis-use' of the '4(f)' law, IMHO)?  Does that section still apply in those cases?

In all of the areas where plans were cancelled, development happened anyway to the extent that it could have been. The Urban-Rural Demarcation Line (URDL) enacted in 1967 in Baltimore County, influenced growth beyond into the surrounding counties and York County, PA. I currently commute over an hour to work every day from northern Harford County, and I'm not the only one. I use a mix of driving and public transit. With more limited access highways here, I'm sure population would grow more, but compared to what was here even in the past 20 years, it's grown tremendously.

The Baltimore County URDL, like its counterpart in Montgomery County [Md.], the Agricultural Reserve, has contributed to so-called "leapfrog" growth and development in places beyond the areas designated as largely off-limits to new home construction.  It's especially apparent if you cross the border from Baltimore County to York County, Pa., which has become a de-facto suburb of Baltimore and other points to the south.

IMHO, these 'greenbelts' are a farce that only serves to drive the inevitable development that much farther 'out'.

I-35E wouldn't stand a chance in southern St. Paul (they had a heck of a time getting that built anyway).

Concur.  35E north of downtown St. Paul would probably be the same case, and especially 94 between the downtowns.

The resulting traffic zoo on University would be having he locals demanding that *something* be done, IMHO.

Mike

[bugo]

As somebody said, virtually all of them.  Between the greenie weenies. NIMBY Nazis, anti-white racists (I'm looking at you, Bruce Watkins Drive) and anti-car crowd, it would be nearly impossible to get urban freeways built.
Post Merge: July 28, 2013, 09:51:27 AM

Most urban freeways. They've done too much to fuck up the cities.

They've also done a lot to improve the lives of commuters.  If I-44 (Skelly Drive) had never been built, it would take me over an hour to get to work.  It only takes about 20 minutes via Skelly.
Post Merge: July 28, 2013, 09:51:21 AM

All of them.  If the EPA had existed in 1955, the interstate system would have never been built.  If the EPA had existed in 1930, the massive land reclamation and hydro / irrigation projects that make life possible in places like southern California, would have never been built.

Draw your own conclusions as to what part of the country NOW favors NIMBYism and BANANAism the most.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. We wouldn't have developed as much as a civilized nation with the current regulatory policies of the EPA in place back in the early 1900's. Route 66 would have been fought at every turn (pun intended). On a different note, the EPA has more legislative influence than one might think, and every smoking ban in the last 20 years can be attributed to their controversial (and highly disputable) early-1990's study into the harmful, deadly effects of secondhand smoke. I could definitely see them finding a way to prevent one of the greatest achievements of the mid-20th century from being fulfilled.

Sometimes the EPA goes overboard, but I'm very glad that governments have passed smoking bans.  I'm sensitive to tobacco smoke and it makes my clothes stink.  Why can't smokers step outside to smoke?
Post Merge: July 28, 2013, 09:51:12 AM
To anybody who says "but you don't have a highway running through your neighborhood" I live less than 400 feet from a major Interstate highway.  The noise isn't that bad, and I've grown used to it.

[Revive 755]

I don't know about that. Two lane highways like US-66's earliest form don't have very much environmental impact because the ROW is so narrow (and 1920s-era highway design often took the path of least resistance, curving around things that modern highways would plow under). Even these days you scarcely see opposition to a new two-lane road unless it goes through a sensitive area like a park or does something like provide logging access to a new part of a virgin forest.

You must not have heard of the whole Newport Road two lane upgrade/realignment controversy north of Iowa City, Iowa.

[froggie]

The college basketball team there actually plays very little of a role in my dislike for the city and its culture.

I was referring more to your rural/urban bias than to a certain university...

The resulting traffic zoo on University would be having he locals demanding that *something* be done, IMHO.

Not necessarily.  First off, you'd have a lot less traffic between the two cities period of I-94 wasn't built.  Second, MN 36 would suddenly open itself up as an alternative route.  Third, I don't think it's a case that I-94 wouldn't have been built period...it just wouldn't have taken the route it follows now.  More likely, it would've been routed further north next to the BNSF railyards.

They've also done a lot to improve the lives of commuters.

...at the expense of those who remain living next to the freeway.  Furthermore, given the level of congestion that most urban freeways have had even right after their construction (but especially within the past 20 years), one could make the argument that they no longer "improve the lives of commuters"...

If I-44 (Skelly Drive) had never been built, it would take me over an hour to get to work.  It only takes about 20 minutes via Skelly.

If I-44 had never been built, Tulsa likely would've developed somewhat differently, and it's very likely you wouldn't be living where you currently are.

To anybody who says "but you don't have a highway running through your neighborhood" I live less than 400 feet from a major Interstate highway.  The noise isn't that bad, and I've grown used to it.

It's not just the noise.  A lot of it is the concentration of particulates...

[cpzilliacus]

I do not believe that the Jones Falls Expressway (I-83 south of I-695) would be built today. At the time, it was considered advantageous to built it over a river because few houses needed to be taken. (Also, it was heavily polluted at the time.) However, it cuts Baltimore off from its inner waterfront. There's some beautiful rapids and scenic parts that aren't accessible to the general public because of the JFX.

Had it been proposed today, the JFX would have to comply with Section  404 of the Clean Water Act, which (IMO) would have been difficult with the design of the freeway.  I don't know its history well enough to know for certain, but  if any of the Jones Falls stream valley was parkland before the construction of the JFX, then Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act would also have applied.

What happens when a highway is proposed and in response, an opposed muni subsequently designates parkland in its path as a way to block the highway from being built (a 'mis-use' of the '4(f)' law, IMHO)?  Does that section still apply in those cases?

I don't know the answer to that.

I do know that part of the proposed Washington Outer Beltway (later renamed the Rockville Facility) in Montgomery County, Maryland was converted to a little used park called Matthew Henson State Park to prevent its use for any transportation purpose.  This was done under the leadership (if you want to call it that) of the late state Sen. Idamae Garrott (D-19), who never met a highway project she didn't want to see cancelled.

In all of the areas where plans were cancelled, development happened anyway to the extent that it could have been. The Urban-Rural Demarcation Line (URDL) enacted in 1967 in Baltimore County, influenced growth beyond into the surrounding counties and York County, PA. I currently commute over an hour to work every day from northern Harford County, and I'm not the only one. I use a mix of driving and public transit. With more limited access highways here, I'm sure population would grow more, but compared to what was here even in the past 20 years, it's grown tremendously.

The Baltimore County URDL, like its counterpart in Montgomery County [Md.], the Agricultural Reserve, has contributed to so-called "leapfrog" growth and development in places beyond the areas designated as largely off-limits to new home construction.  It's especially apparent if you cross the border from Baltimore County to York County, Pa., which has become a de-facto suburb of Baltimore and other points to the south.

IMHO, these 'greenbelts' are a farce that only serves to drive the inevitable development that much farther 'out'.

"Leapfrog" development.  Which is why most such boundaries (especially in small states like Maryland) do not work (and the much-acclaimed one in Portland, Oregon has caused much of the growth to move north across the Columbia River into Washington state, where the Portland UGB is irrelevant and ignored).  Even in Los Angeles, much denounced by the Smart Growth industry, has a de-facto urban growth boundary to its north in the Los Padres and Angeles National Forests.  But in spite of that (and thanks in part to the construction of Ca. 14 (Antelope Valley Freeway), growth has leapfrogged the national forest land into the  Mojave Desert.

[Duke87]

Even in Los Angeles, much denounced by the Smart Growth industry, has a de-facto urban growth boundary to its north in the Los Padres and Angeles National Forests.

Which is caused even without that land being national forest by the fact that it's very mountainous. Can't make urban out of mountains.