^^ Nice sig. Their cars are tiny, no doubt about it.

Yup, who woulda thunk, Amrap?  Maryland, traditionally a very progressive state, is going to spend $3 billion to build a new freeway that studies have shown will not relieve Beltway traffic (as its supporters claim)--all because someone drew a line on a map 60 years ago, and no one was smart enough to erase it.  Maybe they didn't notice all the new sprawl that happened when I-270 went from six lanes to 12.  Virginia thinks that adding 6 lanes to the disastrous stretch of the Beltway between I-95 and Tysons Corner will somehow "solve" congestion if they charge tolls.  Houston is building a THIRD beltway.  Cleveland, though, is actually being reasonable in looking at more parkways.  Who woulda thunk?

 

Glad the I-80N was never built.  It would have destroyed Garfield Park!

 

One more thing:

It's a little more specific, but I think it's really hard to pinpoint the changes that would occur with neighborhoods and downtowns having a seamless transition.

 

Columbusite, could you clarify what you mean by this?  I'm not sure I understand, but I think I know where you're going with it.

 

 

^That was in reference to another thread I started that was very similar to this one (accidently), but I asked about what effects taking down highways in the downtown & urban neighborhoods would have on our cities. I think it'd be great for both and the connectivity would be very beneficial. I think among the people in downtown and the nearby neighborhoods, having a highway go in between them is both a physical and mental barrier for people in both. I don't think we should underestimate what this does to us as a city, even though it might seem trivial. So you have some highways going through it, big deal right? But it looks like it is a big deal. Our cities have been castrated, for lack of a better term, by the highways tearing through them.

 

Just look at what happened in San Francisco (in the above study), I don't think anyone anticipated the positive changes that came from their freeway collapsing and doing away with it from that point on. I honestly believe that our cities, especially Columbus, would see great improvements even though I couldn't even begin to speculate what, exactly, they might be.

From Planetizen:

 

Removing Urban Freeways

19 March 2007 - 9:30am

Author: Charles Siegel

 

As part of our effort to slow global warming, we should be correcting one of the great errors in the history of American city planning: the post-war binge of urban freeway building.

 

During the twenty-five years following World War II, American cities changed dramatically as freeways were sliced through them -- and it soon became clear that they had changed for the worse.

 

Instead of reducing congestion, the freeways encouraged people to move to remote suburbs and drive long distances to work and to shopping, increasing traffic dramatically. One study found that, five years after a major freeway project is completed in California, 95% of the new capacity fills up with traffic that would not have existed if the freeway had not been built1.

 

The freeways also blighted the older parts of our cities. For example, San Francisco stopped most of its proposed freeways and it remained an attractive and prosperous city, but right across the bay, Oakland had several freeways cut through its center, and nearby neighborhoods decayed and were half-abandoned.

 

Americans soon realized how destructive urban freeways are, and citizens organized to stop them. The first freeway revolt was in San Francisco, where the Board of Supervisors voted to cancel seven of the city's ten planned freeways in 1959, after neighborhood groups presented them with petitions signed by 30,000 people.

 

The freeway revolt spread, and by the end of the 1970s, it was impossible to build a new freeway through the center of most American cities. But a great deal of damage had been done before the freeways were stopped.

 

Undoing the Damage

A few foresighted cities have begun to undo this damage. Several have torn down uncompleted freeway spurs, which are relatively easy to remove because they are not important parts of the regional freeway system. For example:

 

    * San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway was planned to connect the Golden Gate Bridge with the Bay Bridge, but only 1.2 miles were built before it was stopped. During the 1990s, the city demolished this freeway spur and replaced it with a waterfront boulevard and new trolley line. The freeway removal made room for thousands of new housing units and millions of square feet of office space. In addition, once the freeway no longer cut them off from the waterfront, the entire new neighborhoods of Rincon Hill and South Beach were developed on what had been underused land.

 

    * Milwaukee's Park East Freeway was part of a plan to circle downtown with freeways, but only 1 mile of the Park East was built before this plan was stopped in 1972. In 2002-2003, the city demolished this freeway spur and replaced it with a traditional street grid. Hundreds of millions of dollars of new development have already been built, approved, or proposed in the 26 acre redevelopment district that had been occupied by the freeway or blighted because it was next to the freeway.

 

It is obviously more difficult to remove mainline freeways that are integral parts of the regional freeway network than to remove freeway spurs, but it has been done:

 

    * Manhattan's West Side Highway, an elevated freeway along the Hudson River, collapsed and was closed in 1973. When it was closed, 53 percent of the traffic that had used this freeway simply disappeared. The political establishment took it for granted that they had to replace it with a bigger and better freeway, but citizen resistance delayed the replacement for two decades, and finally even the politicians saw that the city was getting along quite well without any freeway here. Instead of replacing the freeway, the city simply added new medians, a waterfront park, and a bicycle path to the surface street here.

 

    * Seoul, South Korea, removed the Cheonggye freeway, the one major freeway that cut through the center of the city, in order to stimulate the economic revival of central Seoul's Dongdaemun district. The river that this freeway covered was restored as a park. Seoul built bus ways to replace the freeway capacity, with the goal of reducing automobile use from 27.5 percent to 12 percent of all trips.

 

    * Paris, France, has closed the Pompidou Expressway during the summer, covered the roadway with sand, and turned it into Paris Plage (Paris Beach), which has become a very popular attraction. Recently, the city decided to close the Pompidou permanently as part of a larger plan to reduce automobile use by 40%.

 

It's important to note that reducing road capacity does not reduce automobile use as dramatically as increasing capacity increases automobile use. Typically, only about 20 percent of the traffic that had used the road capacity disappears.

 

In the short term, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policies can be used to mitigate the effect of freeway removal:

 

    * Parking Cash-Out:Businesses could be required to give employees commute allowances instead of free parking. Employees could use the allowance to pay for the parking they used to get for free, they could use it to pay for transit, they could keep part of the allowance if they car-pooled to work, or they could keep the entire allowance if they walked or bicycled to work. It is estimated that this policy could reduce commuter traffic (and peak demand for road space) by about 20%.

 

    * Congestion Pricing: As in London and Stockholm, drivers could be charged a fee for driving into the central business district at times when roads are congested. The revenues could be used to pay for better public transportation. This policy has been very successful where it has been tried, and the fee can be set at the level needed to reduce congestion to a manageable level.

 

In the long term, removing major urban freeways should be part of a more comprehensive approach to reduce automobile dependency by promoting public transportation and transit-oriented development. To slow global warming, we must move us from the heavy auto dependency of most American cities toward a more balanced transportation system that works for pedestrians and public transit as well as for automobiles.

Freeways in the Age of Global Warming

Many of the freeways built during the postwar binge are now approaching the end of their lifespan. Unfortunately, the political establishment seems to take it for granted that these freeways have to be replaced by bigger and better freeways, just as New York's establishment took it for granted that the West Side Highway had to be replaced.

 

For example, Philadephia is talking about undergrounding I-95, which cuts the city off from its waterfront.

Postcard: Westside Highway

Present day West Street in New York -- freeway gone, the roadway is now a pedestrian-friendly street.

 

Likewise, Seattle is debating what to do about the earthquake-damaged Alaska Way Viaduct on its waterfront. An active citizen's movement and one of the local newspapers says that the Alaska Way should not be rebuilt; it should be replaced by surface streets and transit. But Washington's governor has run a referendum that just lets voters choose between an elevated freeway and an underground freeway, and Seattle's Mayor, Greg Nickels, supports the underground freeway.

 

Nickels has taken many minor steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Seattle. If he would back freeway removal and more balanced transportation, he could make Seattle into a leader in fighting global warming - an example for the rest of the country and the world to imitate.

 

Instead, Nickels has backed an alternative that hides the traffic but does nothing to reduce the region's auto dependency and carbon dioxide emissions. He has not learned anything from the huge cost overruns of Boston's Big Dig. And he does not realize that, as global warming causes sea levels to rise, his underground waterfront freeway could turn into the world's largest underground swimming pool.

 

Rebuilding freeways in an age of global warming is like rebuilding deck-chairs on the Titanic, so passengers can keep following their old habits while the ship sinks.

 

Now that Seattle voters have rejected both alternatives for replacing the Alaska Way, the politicians will have to start looking at alternatives that are more environmentally sound.

 

Politicians are looking for a technological fix for global warming and are usually afraid to call for any changes in our way of life. But this is a case where we could change our lives for the better.

 

Just look at the people who enjoy walking on San Francisco's Embarcadero or walking by Seoul's Cheonggye River. These places are much more livable than they were when they were blighted by freeways jammed full of people driving as if there were no tomorrow.

 

Charles Siegel is the author of The End of Economic Growth and the creator of the web site Removing Freeways -- Restoring Cities.

 

1: Mark Hansen and Yuanlin Huang, "Road Supply and Traffic in Californian Urban Areas." Transportation Research A, Volume 31, No 3, 1997, pp. 205-218.

 

There are some interesting comments after the article on the Planetizen website

http://www.planetizen.com/node/23300

I would expect to see downtown spurs as the first thing removed if mass transit were to take over.  I'm sure they would be changed to boulevards with a bunch of infill around it.

 

Bump.  The last two messages are merged from a topic started in Urbanbar.

http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df2/df09022008.shtml#AmtrakConsidering

 

Highway Removal Olympics:

Who Will Win The Gold?

 

From The Tri-State Transportation Campaign

NCI Editor’s note: More than half a century after the Interstate Highway System was used not only to connect American cities by asphalt, but also as a tool to clear urban slum areas, the Tri State Transportation Campaign’s newsletter Mobilizing the Region reports that the “race is on” to see which major highway project will be ripped up and returned to its’ former “grid” residential pattern. The betting is on New Haven, and its city-wrecking “downtown connector.” New Haven earned the name “The Model City” under Mayor Richard Lee, who was President Lyndon Johnson’s poster child for Great Society slum clearing programs, many of which used highway construction as a tool to wipe out neighborhoods, largely minority, seen as blighted.

 

NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY-CONNECTICUT --- MTR readers may be surprised to learn that there are six serious proposals to remove urban highways in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.

 

Though the size, location, and economic situation of the host cities varies, all the projects aim to remove highways that bisect urban life and redevelop them into, well, cities, with things like housing, streets, parks, and offices.

 

The six projects are the Sheridan Expressway in the South Bronx, Route 5 in Buffalo, I-81 in Syracuse, Route 29 in Trenton, Route 34 in New Haven, and I-84 in Hartford. Right now, all but Route 5 in Buffalo (which is under litigation) are in the study phase. This situation begs the question: which project will win the “Race to Removal” gold medal? Below MTR offers an update on each project, along with speculation about who will win.

 

A Pratt Center rendering of future development on the Sheridan footprint.

 

 

Swapping the Sheridan in the South Bronx

 

There is the long discussed plan to remove the Sheridan Expressway in the South Bronx and replace it with 28 acres of parks and housing. Advocacy by the Southern Bronx River Watershed Alliance, which includes Tri-State, Pratt Center, Sustainable South Bronx, Nos Quedamos, Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice and Mothers on the Move, successfully inserted the community plan into NYSDOT’s study of ways to increase access to Hunts Point market. The study is now reviewing four alternatives, two of these would remove the Sheridan.

 

Will it win the gold? It’s possible, but the silver is more likely. This project is on a good track, and NYSDOT Commissioner Astrid Glynn could use the Sheridan’s removal to step up her smart growth game, which so far has been rather passive. Recent design changes, strong community backing, and a blossoming interest in smart growth statewide also bode well for the teardown plan. The project is not moving rapidly however. It was first conceived in the mid-’90s (see MTR #s 124 and 181); the first step in the environmental review process was in 2003, the full environmental review did not start until last summer, and NYSDOT officials have said the study will not be complete until 2010. In other words, it may succeed, but it will take a few more years.

 

Battling in Buffalo

 

After years of study, the NYS DOT recently began the construction phase of a project to keep the berm-style elevated Route 5 roadway instead of replacing it with an at-grade boulevard that would increase access to Lake Erie. In response, Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper, city council members, and recreation groups sued the agency in January, hoping to win modifications to the plan. The boulevard design, which would run from the Buffalo Skyway to Union Ship Canal, would open 77 acres for waterfront development and create the same number of jobs as the elevated alternative.

 

A billboard in Buffalo evokes a famous Ronald Reagan quote to call for the transformation of Route 5 into a boulevard.

 

 

Bizarrely, the first phase of construction involves knocking down part of the roadway only to rebuild it again at a taller height. Equally frustrating, according to Riverkeeper executive director Julie Barrett O’Neil, is that NYSDOT was supportive of the boulevard design until the very last minute. The group also notes in a press release that an elevated Route 5 would work against efforts to eventually remove the nearby Skyway. In December 2006, Congress for the New Urbanism, Center for Neighborhood Technology, and Smart Mobility studied traffic patterns along the corridor and found that its low traffic volumes could easily be accommodated on a surface street. For more on this project, see this excellent video and Riverkeeper’s website

 

Will it win the gold? The project may not win the gold medal, but the staff of Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper should receive one for their hard work and advocacy.

 

Studying in Syracuse

The Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council commenced a study in April to investigate options for I-81, an elevated roadway that is reaching the end of its life. The multi-year study is being co-led by NYSDOT and will include three parts: a study of potential alternatives for I-81, a traffic modeling analysis, and a public participation process. The Onondaga Citizens League, a non-profit organization, is also conducting its own study to “think creatively” about the future of I-81, including the social, cultural, and economic impacts of various alternatives.

 

Will it win the gold?

 

Probably not. Like I-84 in Hartford (see below), the I-81 viaduct is part of the interstate highway system, raising the degree of difficulty for plans to remove the road or reroute traffic. Governmental timelines for the project are infinite; there is no completion date for any of the three studies. However, the Onondaga Citizens League’s study will be complete next spring and could help push the project along. Still, the group’s executive vice president, Sandra Barrett, predicts “a five to ten year process” before the roadway’s future is decided.

 

Above: I-81 runs through downtown Syracuse, bisecting the city and prohibiting development.

 

Trenton Proposal The City of Trenton released a Request for Proposals this past May for a market feasibility study of potential development along the Route 29 footprint. Route 29 runs along Trenton’s waterfront, and prohibits community access to the Delaware River. A boulevard design for the roadway has been studied by NJDOT for many years as part of its innovative “NJFIT” approach to connecting land use and transportation. The project has been split into two parts, one north of Calhoun to Sullivan Way and one south of Calhoun to Cass St. Only the southern study is moving forward and the market feasibility study is running about four months behind schedule; a consultant has not yet been selected.

Will it win the gold? Probably not, but the silver or bronze is very possible. The project has backing from the city and state, though disagreements remain about who will pay for the project. Another issue is the reduction in NJFIT program staff at NJDOT, and the agency’s focus on state-level financial problems (see TSTC’s report, “Trouble Ahead? Tracking NJDOT’s Priorities“). However, the results of the market feasibility study should help push the project along.

 

L-R: New Haven’s Oak Street neighborhood in the 1950s, the area in the 1970s after the construction of the Route 34 Connector, and today.

 

The Elm City Express

 

In New Haven, Mayor John DeStefano and community groups are working to remove Route 34, which bisects the city, recreate the street grid, and add housing and office opportunities. The project is now part of the Mayor’s larger, exciting vision to reconnect the city to the New Haven train station, and promote development nearby. The project is anticipated to cost to 100 million dollars and is now moving forward at a rapid pace.

 

Will it win the gold? This one looks like the front-runner. The project is being pushed by the mayor and has strong newspaper editorial board and community support (over 150 people attended Tri-State’s symposium on the issue in April). In fact, the City’s community planning process for the corridor’s redevelopment, which started in July, is expected to be finished in just eight months. The funding is not lined up yet, but cost estimates are not prohibitive and new leadership from ConnDOT Commissioner Joseph Marie bodes well for state support.

 

Finding Hartford’s Hub

 

Responding to news that the I-84 viaduct through Hartford will need to be replaced in 10-15 years, TSTC board member and Project for Public Spaces associate Toni Gold mobilized the Hub of Hartford group last year to study methods to reduce the roadway’s impact on the city. Though near-term maintenance projects are commencing, the Hub group, a coalition of citizens, and the local MPO, the Capital Region Council of Governments, are seeking a consultant to study alternatives such as bringing Interstate 84 to ground level, rerouting the highway around the city, or burying the highway.

 

Will it win the gold? Probably not. The study is meant to be long-term and an expressway of this size will be costly to bury or move. But stay tuned: the Hub of Hartford members have proved their ideas credible and their effort serious, so speedier timelines and broad backing by elected officials is likely.

 

That’s six urban highway removal projects in three states that are seriously being studied and pushed forward. And that doesn’t even include ideas to bury the Cross Bronx or Gowanus Expressways in NYC. Who do you think will win the gold?

Portland replaced the highway with a street....

 

Harbor Drive is the name of a street in Portland, Oregon, which was formerly a freeway that carried U.S. Route 99W along the western shore of the Willamette River in the downtown area. While a segment of the road still exists today, the majority of the route (the stretch between the Steel Bridge and the Riverplace Marina) was demolished in 1974, to make way for the Tom McCall Waterfront Park. In doing so, the city of Portland became the first major city in the United States to actually remove an existing freeway; the removal of Harbor Drive is widely considered a milestone in urban planning.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbor_Drive

Just a hunch, but I would not expect a major trend of highway removal.  Some urban highways, sure.  Like the West Shoreway in Cleveland, but nothing earth shattering or life-style changing is going to sweep the country anytime soon. 

Please explain.

too expensive.

 

The federal gov paid for/subsidized construction of the highways... they aren't going to pay for them to be removed

Unless they can't afford to maintain all of them anymore -- which they can't. Starting next year, the federal Highway Trust Fund goes bankrupt and goes deeper into the red ($22 billion down in five years) unless there's a big boost in gas taxes or a huge cut in highway expenses.

Transit agencies are facing similar financial difficulties (especially since they get a few billion dollars from the federal gas tax too). There is funding for parks however.

The entire I-75/475 mess on the west side of downtown Cincinnati. I have no solutions or plans but it takes up A LOT of land.

 

475? Looks like they may have already removed that one.

 

 

wakka wakka wakka

Unless they can't afford to maintain all of them anymore -- which they can't. Starting next year, the federal Highway Trust Fund goes bankrupt and goes deeper into the red ($22 billion down in five years) unless there's a big boost in gas taxes or a huge cut in highway expenses.

 

Maybe they should charge us to drive on them in the form of a monthly pass or tolls.  This would deter travel along the highways which anyhow lead to massive sprawl.  If a ride to downtown Cleveland from Medina was going to cost a commuter on average $2.50/day, that's $12.50/week and $650/year.  Those costs along with rising fuel costs would probably be the selling point for some people to remain closer to the city.  Less people on the roads means less up keep, and the tolls mean more revenue.  Just a thought.  Kind of a "kill two birds with one stone" thought.

we should just do everthing in our power as a city to hinder development of future highways so when they get recockulously crowded people have to start building trains systems back up.

Maybe they should charge us to drive on them in the form of a monthly pass or tolls. This would deter travel along the highways which anyhow lead to massive sprawl. If a ride to downtown Cleveland from Medina was going to cost a commuter on average $2.50/day, that's $12.50/week and $650/year. Those costs along with rising fuel costs would probably be the selling point for some people to remain closer to the city. Less people on the roads means less up keep, and the tolls mean more revenue. Just a thought. Kind of a "kill two birds with one stone" thought.

 

Just set up a toll booth at the city limits on each freeway. Charge an even dollar amount so it doesn't slow traffic down too much. 1 or 2 dollars ought to be enough and wouldn't cause people to throw too big a fit about it. Split the money between highway maintenance and RTA. But of course leave a separate lane open just for busses so that it becomes a little faster to ride in than to drive and get stuck in traffic at this everyday.

This is why the highway system is not an element of the free market. In a free market supply and demand are balanced by price. With our highway system, the only balancing mechanism is supply -- the capacity of the highway system as measured by lane-miles. So when highways get too crowded, there is political pressure to relieve it. Since we don't have a point-of-use charge at the entry points of individual highways, the only other way to balance supply and demand is to continually increase supply. That causes growth in undeveloped areas at the expense of developed areas because roadway supply cannot be added there as easily.

Have you ever noticed, turnpike exits in Ohio are not congested with gas stations and shopping malls and McDonalds.  Thats because, the road is not that convenient anymore when you have to pay for it.  Wow, how intresting...now I get it....Make them pay for the road, and they will mostly use it for travel versus commuting.  Big difference there.

So, in my conclusion, I would not say I would get rid of any of the highways in Northeast Ohio, rather, make them less convienient to use. 

Yep, another list! Read the full article and see the lovely pictures here.....

 

http://www.cnu.org/highways/freewayswithoutfutures

 

Freeways Without Futures

 

A National List of Top Teardown Prospects

The “Freeways Without Futures” list recognizes the top-ten locations in North America where the opportunity is greatest to stimulate valuable revitalization by replacing aging urban highways with boulevards and other cost-saving urban alternatives. The list was generated from an open call for nominations and prioritized based on factors including the age of the structure, redevelopment potential, potential cost savings, ability to improve both overall mobility and local access, existence of pending infrastructure decisions, and local support.

 

Cities around the world are replacing urban highways with surface streets, saving billions of dollars on transportation infrastructure and revitalizing adjacent land with walkable, compact development. Transportation models that support connected street grids, improved transit, and revitalized urbanism will make reducing gasoline dependency and greenhouse gas emissions that much more convenient. It pays to consider them as cities evaluate their renewal strategies — and as the U.S. evaluates its federal transportation and climate policy.

 

Learn more about the Highways to Boulevards Initiative from CNU and the Center for Neighborhood Technology and explore the current campaigns that residents and inspired public officials are leading in Seattle and Buffalo.

 

1. Alaskan Way Viaduct, Seattle, WA

2. Sheridan Expressway, Bronx, NY

3. The Skyway and Route 5, Buffalo, NY

4. Route 34, New Haven, CT

5. Claiborne Expressway, New Orleans, LA

6. Interstate 81, Syracuse, NY

7. Interstate 64, Louisville, KY

8. Route 29, Trenton, NJ

9. Gardiner Expressway, Toronto, ON

10. 11th Street Bridges and the Southeast Freeway, Washington D.C.

The Shoreway isn't on the list?

What about I-264 in Louisville? With I-265 there, what's the point of having it besides wasting space?

Neither is Ohio 59?

 

Seriously, since it was never completely finished, it is the most pointless expressway in the world. There's an advocate group out there that thinks it should be finished, But many think that the money could best be used to tear the expressway out, make a wide boulevard, and build a biomedical hub.

The before-and-after pictures are awesome!!!!

____________

 

http://www.infrastructurist.com:80/2009/07/06/huh-4-cases-of-how-tearing-down-a-highway-can-relieve-traffic-jams-and-help-save-a-city/

 

FEATURE

 

Huh?! 4 Cases Of How Tearing Down A Highway Can Relieve Traffic Jams (And Save Your City)

 

Posted on Monday July 6th by Yonah Freemark and Jebediah Reed

 

http://www.infrastructurist.com:80/2009/07/06/huh-4-cases-of-how-tearing-down-a-highway-can-relieve-traffic-jams-and-help-save-a-city/

State Route 11 south of Ashtabula always seems to have very little traffic. 

7 Urban Freeways To Tear Down Today–And What Tomorrow Might Look Like If We Do

Posted on Tuesday August 4th by Yonah Freemark and Jebediah Reed

 

seattle-before-and-after

 

During the Beaver Cleaver era of American history, it was almost impossible to conceive of a bad road–after all, paving things over was synonymous with “improvement.” Sadly, planning mistakes made at highway speed back then will require a huge amount of effort and money to undo today. But as we discussed in an earlier article, doing so is often the best decision a city can make: razing an ill-conceived highway can have huge social, economic, and aesthetic pay offs for a city. And if it’s done right, it can actually improve traffic flow.

3diggs

 

Due to efforts of organizations like the Congress for the New Urbanism–which has made and eloquent case for urban freeway removal (we’re echoing a few of their top candidates )–this idea is starting to go mainstream. A number of US cities are poised to follow the examples set by Portland, Milwaukee, and San Francisco and start knocking down poorly planned roads. Here are seven elevated highways doomed to meet the reaper at some point in the not-to-distant future, and views of how their respective cities might look like after they’re gone:

 

Cleveland: West Shoreway

 

Today, the West Shoreway freeway divides downtown and west Cleveland from Lake Erie and makes walking between the city center and, say, the Browns Stadium or the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame unpleasant at best. The city, working with the Ohio Department of Transportation, has been pushing for a transformation of its waterfront for years and the Shoreway remains the major obstacle. The current plan is to take down the old road without building a replacement. Instead the route will be modified into a pedestrian-scaled avenue, including new and renovated parks, a beach, new housing and offices.

 

One reason this is possible is that Cleveland’s population has been shrinking in recent decades and is now about half of what it was in 1950. The bright side of that is that the city has more flexibility and potential for redevelopment–as planners hope will the new lakefront boulevard will demonstrate.

 

Before:

 

cleveland-shoreway

After:

 

 

Seattle: Alaskan Way Viaduct

 

Local and state authorities have a plan in place to take down this two-level freeway, which sustained structural damage in a 2001 earthquake, and replace it with a new surface boulevard and a streetcar line. Doing so would reconnect Seattle’s downtown area to its natural waterfront on spectacular Puget Sound and remove an enormous–and very noisy–eyesore from the cityscape. To make up for the loss of a freeway that handles more than 100,000 cars a day, the $4 billion plan also provides for a four-lane tunnel under the city center with a daily capacity of 85,000 vehicles. The balance of the old traffic would be served by public transit and surface routes.

 

Before:

 

 

 

After:

 

 

Oklahoma City: I-40

 

The capital of the Sooner state isn’t getting rid of I-40, but it is doing away with the elevated section–which has cut through downtown since 1965. The new highway will be much less intrusive, situated below street level in an old rail right of way, while a much smaller surface street will trace the path of the old I-40.

 

The best part of OKC’s plan, however, has nothing to do with transportation. Rather, the municipal government will use the highway teardown as the basis for a full-scale urban renewal, adding new parks and denser development in a 1,375-acre zone between downtown and the Oklahoma River.

 

The plan doesn’t include many provisions for public transportation though, which is a shame–but losing the elevated roadway remains a big step in the right direction.

 

Before:

 

 

After:

 

New Haven: Route 34

 

New Haven’s Oak Street Connector has retained the earned reputation of being a road to nowhere since the mile-long freeway was built by Mayor Richard Lee in 1960. Though it was originally intended to continue as a fully grade-separated road into West Haven, construction was (fortunately) halted before it had made it a few blocks out of downtown.

 

Even in truncated form, the Connector led to the demise of hundreds of homes and businesses in the Oak Street neighborhood and destroyed a healthy swath of the city. To this day, it acts as a barrier between New Haven’s downtown Green and the Union Station rail depot.

 

The good news is that city officials are planning a new neighborhood in the highway’s place. Mayor John DeStefano envisions a “Downtown Crossing” community that would heal the gash and reestablish the urban grid. The city has been enjoying a downtown renaissance in recent years, and eliminating the Oak Street Connector will be a huge boost to that effort.

 

New Haven before and after Route 34 was built:

 

And after the freeway is gone?

 

 

Buffalo: Skyway

 

Like Cleveland, Buffalo has seen its population decline sharply since the 50s. In fact, when the city’s Skyway was built in 1953, the town had 300,000 more people than it has today. It’s very reasonable then to do away with this elevated route which right now makes development on the Lake Erie Outer Harbor area very difficult. Together with I-190, the Skyway effectively serves as a wall between downtown and the lake and makes the commute there — even by car — needlessly difficult.

 

The Skyway is also costing taxpayers millions of dollars every year in maintenance costs because of its decrepit condition.

 

While the New York State Department of Transportation has looked at a plan to demolish it, the agency foolishly opted to leave the road in place. Many of the city’s citizens have greeted that decision with loud boos. Fortunately, some local politicians seem to be understand the situation and are now seeking stimulus funds to rid Buffalo of the Skyway.

 

Before (Pic)

 

After

Syracuse: I-81

 

A few hundred miles a away, Syracuse is hoping that state authorities will be a tad more open-minded in moving ahead with a proposal to get rid of I-81–a.k.a. that structure that divides the city in half. The road was built five decades ago, and today several governmental organizations are considering replacing with a surface street.

 

A local citizens group is making the sensible argument that tearing down the highway would reconnect the downtown street grid and re-energize city center. Their solution is to route I-81’s traffic onto I-481, which encircles the city.

 

After

 

Baltimore: Jones Falls Expressway

 

Recently, mayor Sheila Dixon has been discussing tearing down of the first few blocks of the Jones Falls Expressway. The six-lane elevated road is an obstruction to movement between two sections of downtown and divides the Johns Hopkins Medical complex–one of the city’s economic engines–from the revitalized Inner Harbor district.

 

Because the expressway already turns into a smaller surface road at its southern tip, converting a few more blocks to a boulevard wouldn’t dramatically affect traffic. It would, however, ensure connectivity for the people who live and work in Baltimore’s urban core. The city, however, has no money for the $1 billion project, and neither does the State of Maryland (which is currently contemplating a scheme to spend $5 billion widening an exurban highway). So, for the moment anyway, the proposal hangs in limbo.

 

 

After

 

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/08/04/7-urban-freeways-to-tear-down-today-and-what-tomorrow-might-look-like-if-we-do/

Time To Accelerate Freeway Teardowns?

Neal Peirce / Sep 02 2010

 

For Release Sunday, September 5, 2010

© 2010 Washington Post Writers Group

 

Is America ready to tear down more of the elevated expressways that ripped through its cities in our post-World War II freeway building boom?

 

It may well be. In New Orleans, there’s a concerted citizen-led campaign, backed by the national Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU), to demolish 2.2 miles of the elevated Interstate-10 Claiborne Expressway as it plows into the city from the northeast, past the French Quarter and ending near the Superdome.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://citiwire.net/post/2241/

We’re tearing this highway down, Transportation Sec. Ray LaHood says 

by Jonathan Hiskes

20 Oct 2010 4:57 PM

 

It's one thing to talk about designing cities and towns for people instead of cars, as Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has done.

 

It's another thing to make good on that pledge by tearing down elevated highways that prevent foot traffic and isolate neighborhoods from each other. LaHood's Transportation Department announced support for three such projects in a major funding announcement Wednesday. The department made $600 million in TIGER II grants, funding 42 construction projects and 33 planning projects around the country.

 

Perhaps the most eye-catching winner is the New Haven, Conn., Downtown Crossing, which gets $16 million to remove the limited-access Route 34. Residents and planners hate how it blocks foot-traffic and streetfront retail and separates the city's Union Station and the Yale-New Haven hospital complex from the rest of downtown. Now it'll be replaced with two walk-bike-transit-friendly boulevards

 

Read more at: http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-20-were-tearing-this-highway-down-transportation-sec.-ray-lahood-sa/

^ So mayors are dropping the F-bomb now.

I'd remove or reconfigure the whole I-75/US-50/6th-Street/8th-Street boondoggle west of downtown Cincinnati. Just adding another vote to this one, I know it's been mentioned in this thread before. It irritates me to no end when I see pictures of what the west end of Cincinnati looked like before Queensgate and I-75. Not only could the highway project have taken up far less land, there was also no need to completely reconfigure all the streets west of downtown. Now it's a confusing mess of suburban-style divided highways and ramps. Why not return at least the street grid to something that makes sense (like it used to)?

^ Why do all that when we can expand 75 to four lanes and build a new bridge?

^ Why do all that when we can expand 75 to four lanes and build a new bridge?

 

True, I didn't think of that :P </sarcasm>

^ So mayors are dropping the F-bomb now.

 

"We think this is a big f---ing deal," New Haven Mayor John DeStefano Jr. said.

 

Classy.

State Route 11 south of Ashtabula always seems to have very little traffic. 

 

I lived in Ashtabula for 18 years and NEVER saw much traffic on that road. There was no economic justification for it, aside from a free right of way for a trucking company to haul gravel and iron ore in competition with privately owned and operated railroads.

The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Downtown need a makeover? More cities are razing urban highways

Removal of aging highways is a strategy some cities are using to try to boost their downtown districts.

 

By Jeremy Kutner, Correspondent

posted March 2, 2011 at 2:43 pm EST

 

New Haven, Conn.

In New Haven, Conn., a mistake of the past – one that displaced hundreds, razed a neighborhood, and physically divided a city – is finally set to be rectified: A highway is going to be demolished.

 

Some people in New Haven have been waiting to see this for 40 years, ever since it became clear that a modern roadway slicing through the heart of downtown would not bring the hoped-for suburban shoppers and revitalization. That waiting list is long, it turns out, as cities across the United States look to erase some of the damage from urban highway construction of the 1950s and '60s – tearing up or replacing the roadways and attempting to restitch bulldozed neighborhoods.

 

"For people who live and work around [urban highways], they always had huge negative side effects: They broke up the urban fabric, were noisy, and divided cities," says Ted Shelton, a professor of architecture at the University of Tennessee who has studied urban highway removal. Removing roadways presents an opportunity for wiser, gentler redevelopment that can – if all goes well – add vibrancy and livability to areas around city centers.

 

Read more at: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0302/Downtown-need-a-makeover-More-cities-are-razing-urban-highways

I would eliminate several freeways in the Cleveland area:

 

- unlike wimwar, I'd do the reverse, and demolish the I-490 bridge.  I use it, occasionally, but it's hardly indispensable for me.  Rarely do I travel across it that there are any more than a few cars, even during rush hour.  What's more, it's existence is fueling the highway-lobby to, once again, try and build a freeway into the eastern suburbs.

 

- I-90 west.  A lot of sprawling growth has happened because of it.  Much of Cleveland's west side neighborhoods, esp Detroit-Shoreway, have been ripped apart by I-90s wide concrete gully.  It is largely redundant to I-71, I-480, anyway.  The West Side is chewed up by 4 freeways, and freeway stubs, fanning through the area.  And, in concert, they've done what American freeways have tended to do to cities: harm and destroy city hoods, hasten city exodus and sprawl, enhance and encourage greater racial separation, and damage mass transit.

 

Yet the West Side has more stable neighborhoods in the city proper, no more sprawl than the east side, and more integrated areas in the city limits. 

To answer the thread question, I'd remove the innerbelt and connect it with 490, as once proposed by KJP.  But I also agree with ss14 that evidence does not support the notion that highways have destroyed the west side. 

Below is a blurb from an article from Seattle, where they are considering removing a waterfront highway for parkland and some new urban development (though it just deals with waterfront highways). It led me to wonder what Ohio highway, interchange or related facility would you want to see removed or redesigned to accommodate an urban park or development? It could be anywhere -- waterfront, in the middle of a neighborhood, or even in a suburb. How would you design the new land use? Would you maintain a "freeway presence" such as under a cap? Would you replace it with a boulevard? A transit line? Or just get rid of the road altogether?

 

We had some fun with this kind of idea with Cleveland's Central Interchange. Give it a try graphically if you feel so inclined, but text would be just fine too.

_________________________

 

Inner-city freeways have gone out of style in this country and around the world. In the United States, it's been decades since one was built on valuable urban shoreline. In fact, cities are more commonly tearing down existing freeways to revitalize waterfronts and promote urban renewal.

 

The most prominent example is San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway, removed from the Bay waterfront after it was damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Impressed with the civic improvements that followed, San Francisco recently took down a segment of a second elevated freeway and replaced it with a pedestrian-oriented boulevard that carries fewer cars. Portland's Waterfront Park, built on what was once a major roadway along the Willamette River, is now one of Oregon's top attractions.

 

The list goes on: Paris is reclaiming the north bank of the Seine by progressively closing an urban motorway; Seoul is proposing to remove a six-lane highway and replace it with a riverscape. The concept has even taken hold in the Rust Belt: Milwaukee recently converted a segment of its Park East Freeway into a boulevard, removing a major source of urban blight and opening access to the Milwaukee River. Washington, D.C., proposes to raze the Whitehurst Freeway to create similar improvements in Georgetown. Cleveland and Buffalo are considering doing the same.

 

The freeways aren't coming down for mere aesthetics. Roads are in fact a rotten investment for local government. Freeways that aren't tolled generate no local tax revenues even as they occupy prime developable land that could be contributing to the tax base. In Milwaukee, developers were linked in common cause with environmentalists advocating the demise of the Park East Freeway because the new river views opened golden real estate opportunities.

 

 

 

I was thinking about this and propose that ALL Interstate highways within outerbelts be demolished and replaced by thousands of new houses, businesses, putting valuable land BACK on the property tax rolls. Add to that new light rail lines, parks and bike/ped facilties and we'd have some very liveable cities.

 

Junk the roads! :clap:

With declining gas tax revenues and the unwillingness of legislators to enact new revenues, roads will be in even worse shape in coming years and some lesser-used roads may even close due to lack of funding.

 

Make that "roads will be in even worse shape in coming years and some lesser-used roads [will/should] close due to lack of funding."

This thing has evolved over time.  I think residents mostly supported it as a component of the boulevard project, but we all know that wont happen.  So essentially it is an off-ramp.  Kasich likes the connection to the lake and actually i agree.  I dont understand why they cant shave about 5-10 mill off the price and JUST make it a street connecting to Edgewater.  Why the off-ramps?  Its no quicker to Gordon Square for people coming from the west...they get off at Lake.  People from the east get off at 49th or else they are backtracking.  This stems from a handshake before there were Battery Park residents, now that there are residents they should have a say,  not just the developers.

 

it is pure insanity. 

 

what is ODOT going to do when they have to replace the 70  year old Main Avenue bridge? 

 

do you think it will be as easy to find 300+ million dollars to replace the main avenue bridge that only carries 31,000 vehicles per day as it was to replace the inner-belt bridge which carries 130,000 vehicles day?

 

if/when the bridge comes down how much traffic will be left on the shoreway?

 

hopefully We will be able to add intersections  like what was proposed 10 years ago.

^ anyone have insight on when the bridge will need replaced? 

 

Interesting. I'm trying to imagine how life would be without it. I'd miss the convenience and the views, but it would be even nicer to see them finally chisel out all of those Jersey barriers in Ohio City, Warehouse District and E 9th exit.  It's doubtful a Main Ave. replacement bridge (drawbridge?) would need the same type of infrastructure. I imagine Detroit and Lorain - and the Flats obviously - would become much more active routes.

I have predicted in recent articles and blogs that a section of Interstate, or interstate-quality highway, will close permanently within the next 5-15 years. I will reiterate and further explain this prediction in the next All Aboard Ohio newsletter. And Ohio is as likely as a setting for this closure to occur owing to its stagnant population.

 

Yet as I looked all around the state for a likely candidate (my thought is it would be a short, lightly used highway with one or more expensive-to-replace bridges in the middle of it), I thought a segment along SR11 outside of the Youngstown area would be a good candidate. Or maybe SR21 north of Massillon. Or US22 between Cadiz and Steubenville. Or SR7 south of Bellaire. But I totally ignored the what could be the most likely candidate right in my own back yard.....

 

The West Shoreway.

Man, that would suck if that bridge was torn down.

 

OTOH it would really decrease the traffic on Clifton during rush hour.

 

But putting the 40million 73rd street project up against the lens of a possible Main Avenue bridge tear down really makes it seem like the pork barrel project I always thought it was.

 

 

Man, that would suck if that bridge was torn down.

 

OTOH it would really decrease the traffic on Clifton during rush hour.

 

But putting the 40million 73rd street project up against the lens of a possible Main Avenue bridge tear down really makes it seem like the pork barrel project I always thought it was.

 

Speculating here of course. But the Shoreway could still function as street. Traffic would move through the Flats and cross the river via drawbridge. This is actually how it used to be. So under that scenario who knows - Clifton traffic could get more/less/same traffic as now.

Totally off topic now and venturing into never-never land.  That bridge is not going to be torn down.  Not in the next 5-15 years and not in the next 20-30 years.  It's one of Cleveland's icons.  The superstructure below was recently repainted and the roadway is in fine condition.  KJP is hypothesizing here about "train world" rather than adding anythign of substance to the thread

 

 

Totally off topic now and venturing into never-never land.  That bridge is not going to be torn down.  Not in the next 5-15 years and not in the next 20-30 years.  It's one of Cleveland's icons.  The superstructure below was recently repainted and the roadway is in fine condition.  KJP is hypothesizing here about "train world" rather than adding anythign of substance to the thread

 

Lots of icons are torn down. Maybe it's in our best interest to seek out an alternative. Who could tell. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a cost-benefit analysis?

One freeway crossing for the entire city?  A city that's laid out laterally, due to the lake?  Madness.

It would be an amazing day to see that scar on the City of Cleveland removed.

One freeway crossing for the entire city?  A city that's laid out laterally, due to the lake?  Madness.

 

I personally think you're overvaluing the West Shoreway. It's not the end of the world if it ends up looking like Clifton Blvd.  And through the Flats, you could see a bridge like this: