The End Of The Road: Saying Goodbye To Freeways

[M II A II R II K]

The End Of The Road: Saying Goodbye To Freeways


March 21, 2011

By Dan Bobkoff



Read More: http://www.npr.org/2011/03/21/134743...ye-to-freeways

Half a century after cities put up freeways, many of those roads are reaching the end of their useful lives. But instead of replacing them, a growing number of cities are thinking it makes more sense just to tear them down. To Clevelanders like Judie Vegh, the whole idea of tearing down a freeway just sounds crazy. "I think it's a pretty bad idea for commuters because I commute every morning downtown," she says. Vegh takes the West Shoreway each day from her home in the nearby suburb of Lakewood, Ohio. When she learned that the city plans to convert this freeway into a slower, tree-lined boulevard, she was not amused. "If it was 35 miles per hour, I would just be later than usual," Vegh says. Bob Brown, Cleveland's city planner, says this is not the traditional highway project. "The traditional highway project is obviously speeding things up, adding more capacity, but often ignoring the character of neighborhoods," he says.

How did this happen? After all, this is the country that always saw roads as a sign of progress. Now, taking down freeways has gone mainstream. Cities as diverse as New Haven, New Orleans and Seattle are either doing it or talking about it. The chief motivation seems to be money. Milwaukee removed a freeway spur for $30 million. Officials estimated it would have cost between $50 million and $80 million to fix that roadway. That inspired Akron, Ohio, officials to study what to do with an aging six-lane freeway that few motorists use. "Perhaps we can remove sections of it and have it fit in better with the Akron grid system and offer an economic benefit by making land available," says Jim Weber, Akron's construction manager.

This is the city planner's dream: Take out an underused freeway, open up land for new businesses or parks and magically more workers will move back to the city and property values will soar. So far, though, the results have been mixed. Milwaukee hasn't seen as much development as proponents hoped after that city took down a spur of the Park East Freeway. But San Francisco revitalized an entire neighborhood by taking down the Embarcadero Freeway in the early 1990s.

.....

A pedestrian and cyclist are seen along the Embarcadero with the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge in the background. San Francisco dismantled a freeway in this location in the early 1990s.






The Embarcadero Freeway, circa 1960, as it once existed along San Francisco's waterfront.






The Alaskan Way Viaduct, the raised two-level highway that runs along Seattle's downtown waterfront, is seen from the air in 2006. Seattle is now replacing it to improve mobility for people and goods.

[northbay]

if it's an 'underused' freeway, down it should go
if it's a freeway that divides a dense neighborhood, underground it should go
commercial/industrial (not residential) zoning around a freeway should go

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

A pedestrian and cyclist are seen along the Embarcadero with the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge in the background. San Francisco dismantled a freeway in this location in the early 1990s.



The Embarcadero Freeway, circa 1960, as it once existed along San Francisco's waterfront.



The Alaskan Way Viaduct, the raised two-level highway that runs along Seattle's downtown waterfront, is seen from the air in 2006. Seattle is now replacing it to improve mobility for people and goods.

San Francisco removed its freeway entirely without replacing it. Seattle plans to replace their aerial freeway with a tunnel. That's not the same thing.

[M II A II R II K]

But they both entail removing the freeways.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

But they both entail removing the freeways.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe moving a freeway from a viaduct to a tunnel actually removes the freeway. It's still there, just not as visible as before.

[Beta_Magellan]

Originally Posted by northbay

if it's a freeway that divides a dense neighborhood, underground it should go

Although, depending on what goes in its place, you can still leave a giant gash in the city. In Boston, the Rose Kennedy Greenway is more pleasant than the old elevated artery, but on the ground it still forms a barrier between the North End and downtown. A mix of development and parkland would have done a better job at reconnecting the urban fabric.

[arbeiter]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

But they both entail removing the freeways.

Well, in the most literal sense, yes, you are removing one freeway and replacing it with a new freeway (in Seattle's case, underground).

[mhays]

Seattle is a mix of the two. For pass-through traffic (Seattle being an ithmus) it's a replacement 9,000' four-lane tunnel. Traffic heading to Downtown or to the northwest will be switched mostly to a new/expanded surface boulevard.

[M II A II R II K]

It's a move to move freeways out of the way even if they are replaced, but also to be sure to replace the empty space with something.

[Doady]

Toronto stopped major freeway construction in the 70's and it's been declining ever since, with businesses moving to the suburbs. That's why I prefer living in Mississauga: less congestion, and plenty of free parking. I think it's time to embrace the 21st century, stop living the the past and bothering with obsolete modes of transport. Walkign, public transit and biking are things of the past, freeways are the future.

[gtbassett]

Originally Posted by arbeiter

Well, in the most literal sense, yes, you are removing one freeway and replacing it with a new freeway (in Seattle's case, underground).

Your argument seems a little ridiculous. While you are correct that they are not completely removing a freeway like they did in San Francisco, and Seattle's project is much more in line with Boston's big dig, you don't seem to be discussing the issue at all. Instead you are getting into the technical semantics of what is going on, so I'll ask you this, do you or do you not agree that burying and/or removing freeways so they no longer tear through neighborhoods and divide cities is a good thing? Personally, I'm all for removing freeways where possible, and burying them where they're still necessary but tear through neighborhoods.

Oakland's 880 is a perfect example of a freeway that I would love to see buried. It cuts off the waterfront from downtown.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

Although, depending on what goes in its place, you can still leave a giant gash in the city. In Boston, the Rose Kennedy Greenway is more pleasant than the old elevated artery, but on the ground it still forms a barrier between the North End and downtown. A mix of development and parkland would have done a better job at reconnecting the urban fabric.

The Greenway is a grand civic space. It's not intimately-scaled, but it doesn't have to be, and probably shouldn't be.

I don't understand the talk of barriers. The greenway isn't densely-developed, but it is an engaging place where it is just as enjoyable to spend time as in the developed neighborhoods adjacent to it. Crossing the greenway on foot is pretty easy - traffic on Atlantic Avenue is not terribly heavy and there are frequent lights with crosswalks, and IIRC, a few mid-block crossings.

Allowing development is not as easy as it sounds... building a foundation above and around one of the world's most complex underground structures is an immense and costly problem.

[mhays]

Development over a freeway can be tough. Even at a small scale you can have significant issues with foundations, i.e. the bearing capacity of the lid and/or supports independent of the lid. At minimum this makes the structure expensive.

Further, you can't put parking below-ground because there's no "below ground."

Then you have a variety of issues with contractual assignment of construction and permanent risk, unusual insurance gyrations, and (presumably) a general public disinclination to live or work on top of a freeway. Maybe anti-terror restrictions too, which certainly relate to some public buildings and might relate to private ones too.

PS, Seattle is using a deep-bore approach, which is very different. It'll be under streets in parts, and way under buildings and their deep foundations in the middle.

[M II A II R II K]

And sometimes there doesn't have to be development. Open park space for instance can bridge disconnected areas.

[Beta_Magellan]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The Greenway is a grand civic space. It's not intimately-scaled, but it doesn't have to be, and probably shouldn't be.

I don't understand the talk of barriers. The greenway isn't densely-developed, but it is an engaging place where it is just as enjoyable to spend time as in the developed neighborhoods adjacent to it. Crossing the greenway on foot is pretty easy - traffic on Atlantic Avenue is not terribly heavy and there are frequent lights with crosswalks, and IIRC, a few mid-block crossings.

It’s not difficult to cross, but at least when I was there it was pretty bleak, borderline-windswept—not so grand as big, and most people I talked to had mixed-to-negative feelings about the space, even if that’s probably in part due to the cost of the Big Dig as well. That was in the summer of 2009, and after a quick look around Google I found a couple of (paywalled, unfortunately) Boston Globe stories from spring 2010 which echoed my feelings one called it a “placeless desert.” It is probably is a bit harsh to judge the space so soon, though—it opened to a stagnant economy, which has hurt attempts to revitalize its edge and would have been pretty devastating to attempts to redevelop over the freeway (which definitely would have been a complex endeavor).

[mhays]

Apparently the one saving grace -- trees -- is limited because there's not enough room for big root systems. Or maybe it's just that the trees are young. But trees always go a long way to make a park pleasant. Walkways should be shady.

[arbeiter]

Originally Posted by gtbassett

Your argument seems a little ridiculous. While you are correct that they are not completely removing a freeway like they did in San Francisco, and Seattle's project is much more in line with Boston's big dig, you don't seem to be discussing the issue at all. Instead you are getting into the technical semantics of what is going on, so I'll ask you this, do you or do you not agree that burying and/or removing freeways so they no longer tear through neighborhoods and divide cities is a good thing? Personally, I'm all for removing freeways where possible, and burying them where they're still necessary but tear through neighborhoods.

Oakland's 880 is a perfect example of a freeway that I would love to see buried. It cuts off the waterfront from downtown.

I was responding more to electricron's statement that the freeway is not actually removed.

I am from Seattle originally, and am personally happy with either the tunnel option or the boulevard-surface option.

[Godwindaniel]

In some cities, freeways need changing. Overall though, we could not travel like we want to without the freeways. I didn't want to take an automobile trip this year because of the long driving.

[armorand93]

I'd laugh if they tried to get rid of Highway 401 in Toronto

[glowrock]

There's a huge difference between getting rid of an underused spur of a freeway and "saying goodbye to freeways", folks. I don't consider demolishing a 1 mile long spur to nowhere much of a big deal in terms of an overall mobility scenario. And obviously doing what Seattle is now doing or what Boston did is NOT eliminate a freeway but rather put the freeway underground, which is always possible (but extremely expensive!). I think most cities with freeways that form a tight ring around their downtowns will go for the cut and cover option, if in fact they're considering anything at all. If not cut and cover, simply a cover, especially if the cut already exists! (Think Dallas with the covering of the Woodall Rogers Fwy.)

Aaron (Glowrock)