Remember a few years ago when millions of our fellow Americans started gorging on bacon and cheeseburgers in order to lose weight? The Atkins diet fad was an odd moment in our culture and probably one best politely forgotten. But one reason the scheme took off like it did is that human beings are innately fascinated by counter-intuitive effects. Most examples you hear about on teevee–”Rock-hard abs without getting off your couch!”–are malarkey, of course. But in certain charmed cases, it is possible to get thin by eating lard, so to speak.
.
One example is reducing traffic congestion by eliminating roads. Though our transportation planners still operate from the orthodoxy that the best way to untangle traffic is to build more roads, doing so actually proves counterproductive in some cases. There is even a mathematical theorem to explain why: “The Braess Paradox” (which sounds rather like a Robert Ludlum title) established that the addition of extra capacity to a road network often results in increased congestion and longer travel times. The reason has to do with the complex effects of individual drivers all trying to optimize their routes. The Braess paradox is not just an arcane bit of theory either – it plays frequently in real world situation.
Likewise, there is the phenomenon of induced demand – or the “if you build it, they will come” effect. In short, fancy new roads encourage people to drive more miles, as well as seeding new sprawl-style development that shifts new users onto them.
Of course, improving congestion is not the main reason why a city would want to knock down a poorly planned highway–the reasons for that are plentiful, and might include improving citizen health, restoring the local environment, and energizing the regional economy. More efficient traffic flow is just a wonderful side benefit.
Sound dubious? Here are several examples of how three cities (and their drivers) have fared better after highways that should never have been built in the first place were taken down.
CASE 1: Seoul, South Korea - Cheonggycheon highway
In 2002, Mayor Lee Myung Bak pledged to renew South Korea’s capital Seoul by eliminating a 1970s-era highway that literally represented a paving over of the Cheonggyecheon River. His radical plan replacing it not with another road, but with a restored stream along the old riverbed. The immediate result of the intervention was a beautiful new 1000-acre park in the center of the city, lower pollution, cooler temperatures city-wide. What wasn’t expected, however, was the city’s reduced traffic volumes. After all, the road carried 160,000 cars a day before it was closed. But the highway’s closing was enough to convince thousands of people to drive less, or change their habits, as the city offered better public transportation options.
Before:
(Photo)
After:
(Photo)
CASE 2: Portland, Oregon - Harbor Drive
The idea that it’s possible to remove a major road without creating traffic jams is not exactly a recent one: Portland proved its merits more than 30 years ago. Until the early 1970’s–a period when the city’s now-thriving downtown area was losing the battle with urban blight–there was a four-lane freeway known as Harbor Drive occupying the western shore of the Willamette River, creating a barrier between the downtown area and the waterfront. Even citizens and a few politicians began arguing in favor of taking down the road in the late ’60s though, Oregon’s Highway Department wanted to widen the thoroughfare.
Ultimately, the most important advocate for its demolition was then-governor Tom McCall. After a long and contentious political battle, McCall prevailed and the highway was closed in 1974. On the first day it was shut off to traffic, one of the highway engineers who predicted gridlock catastrophe reportedly called one of McCall’s lieutenants to congratulate him: there hadn’t been “a ripple” of disturbance in the city’s traffic flow.
By 1978, a greenway occupied the land where the Harbor Drive once stood. Twice expanded since then, the Tom McCall Waterfront Park is an integral part of Portland’s success in recreating itself as a 21st century city.
Before:
(Photo)
After:
(Photo)
CASE 3: San Francisco - Embarcadero Freeway
Arguably the US city where freeway removal has most improved urban life is San Francisco. The Embarcadero Freeway once stood elevated on the city’s waterfront. Two levels of concrete divided downtown from the bay. Though there had been a public push to demolish it since it was constructed, only after it was damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake did the efforts crystallize, and it was never rebuilt. In its place today: a waterfront boulevard with bike trails, parks, and public exhibitions.
Before:
After:
(Photos)
CASE 4: San Francisco - Central Freeway
Also damaged in the Loma Prieta quake was the Central Freeway, which ran as a spur into the city. The thoroughfare was closed in 1992 and a few years ago rebuilt as a surface road named Octavia Boulevard. Though the boulevard is well-used, it’s no more congested than the far larger highway that it replaced, showing that traffic responds the environment in which it is placed.
Before:
(Photo)
After:
Of course, this evidence doesn’t suggest that all road expansions are unnecessary, or that all highways should be removed. All of the highway demolitions cited above are in densely packed urban areas where other highways and reliable and convenient public transportation options are available. But the lesson is clear: If a major road is making a city a less livable and vital place that it would otherwise be, in many cases everyone benefits when politicians have the vision and guts to tear it down.
COMING THIS WEEK: Roads to Tear Down, Part 1
July 6th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Fantastic post! Let’s hope New Haven’s Route 34 highway connector is next on the list.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Design New Haven -
Thanks! Let’s just say .
-JR
July 6th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
As a constant pedestrian I love this thought. Living in Boston I really want Storrow drive torn up and turned back into the park it should be. Photos of the Esplanade along the Charles river from before the road was built make it seem so parklike, but now the closest I ever get to the park are the rare occasions when I take a cab to the airport. Maybe someday…
July 6th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Looking forward to your take on Baltimore’s Jones Falls Expressway. Feel free to contact me if you’d like some research or writing assistance. remplan at gmail
July 6th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
[...] 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 [...]
July 6th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
The effect isn’t too complicated: drivers take what is the best alternative for them, which can end up distributing overall traffic poorly along existing capacity.
There’s more information and links in my MetaFilter post on this: http://www.metafilter.com/77773/The-Price-of-Anarchy
July 6th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
A cautionary note about the SF Central Freeway case: the “boulevard” part of this project was oversold and may end up inciting more antipathy than it deserves.
I voted many times to tear the old freeway down. And I think the replacement is a big improvement in terms of integrating traffic into a network of surface streets. Traffic flows as well as before under normal loads and much, much better during peak congestion because traffic can divert to other routes more easily.
But the designers that envisioned a classic boulevard missed the mark. There simply is not enough room for what they designed. The result is misplaced pedestrian amenities too close to traffic, unwanted crossover between the local outter lanes and the inner traveling lanes. I think and hope the design can be fixed. But beware of overreaching design goals.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Fantastic post. The cause of traffic congestion is the fact that so few people know how to drive. If people knew how to drive, one lane would be enough. You would get on, mix in with traffic and get off where you needed to. There would be an easy steady current of traffic. But people can’t drive. So we build a second lane so that you can pass the person in front of you. Then we build a third lane. Then a fourth, fifth, sixth, ad infinitum. Dallas, TX today has over 20 lanes of limited access traffic flowing in and out of downtown. And, believe it or not, there are still plans to build yet another highway for the reason that, yup, it’ll help reduce traffic congestion. I swear it’s like a religion with these people.
HEY DOUCHE BAGS! If 20+ lanes of traffic doesn’t do the trick, what in the world makes you think 26+ will?!
July 6th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Ideally, we can also rip out some of these ugly elevated train lines and light rail systems with their electrified catanery wires. These systems result in crowding conditions by inducing additional trips. Also, they are noisy and ugly (and built by corporations that make profits). Instead, beautiful tree-lined esplanades can be laid out where artists can do important work.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
From the photos it appears that another side effect of highway elimination is that it induces the substitution of color photography for black & white, and encourages the snapping of photos on pleasant spring days.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Don’t forget the West Side Highway…. There used to be a an elevated highway on the West Side of Manhattan all the way down to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Love the site.
I’m a Torontonian and part of our downtown, elevated Gardiner expressway is currently being reviewed by urban planers for one of four possible options, including a tear down.
It cuts right through the city and has created a waterfront where there is very little municipal planning. Lacking any kind of oversight form City Hall for what to make of the area, condo developers have swept in and created these ugly tower blocks overlooking the lake and sealing off the core.
I hope this is one of the expressways you review!
Max
July 6th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
In addition to the West Side Highway, New York also experienced no increase in congestion when Fifth Avenue was closed through Washington Square Park (over the objections of Robert Moses, who wanted to widen the streets around the park to compensate).
July 6th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Eric F. you must be joking. Tram and light-rail systems contribute greatly to the built environment and encourage pedestrian activity and development. And modern transit systems are PUBLICLY owned, built, and operated- there is no profit involved.
Your crappy attempt at sarcasm is duly noted.
July 6th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
remove the skyway in buffalo!
July 6th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
That Seoul photo is slightly misrepresentative… It is true that the highway was removed, and a tunneled river was daylighted, but the streets surrounding it are jammed as ever.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:56 am
[...] and interchanges at the same time we are building them. The Infrastructurist recently highlighted four freeway tear-downs that measurably improved life in the surrounding city (two of them in San Francisco) without traffic or the trade of the city grinding to a [...]
July 7th, 2009 at 3:45 am
The San Francisco cases seem dodgy to me. Traffic congestion didn’t get worse in the long term because fewer people make non-business trips to San Francisco, partly because of the removal of the two freeways. (Though the main non-business trips that used the Central Freeway went down offramps which didn’t have much greater capacity than the replacement roadway, so a small effect isn’t a big surprise.) It’s the inverse of the “field of dreams” idea: if you tear it down, they’ll go away. That might be overall an improvement, but it’s not a costless improvement.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:47 am
No Milwaukee Park-East reference? Otherwise awesome list
July 7th, 2009 at 7:09 am
What people often forget is that one major function of traffic congestion is that it encourages people not to drive, and thus choose public transit instead. Building more roads simply makes driving more appealing, and ultimately leads to more congestion in the long run.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Bring down I-95 in Philadelphia!
July 7th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Sean Says:
“Eric F. you must be joking. Tram and light-rail systems contribute greatly to the built environment and encourage pedestrian activity and development. And modern transit systems are PUBLICLY owned, built, and operated- there is no profit involved.”
Really, no profit? So, the switching systems, electrical wires, sheet metal, etc. is produced on non-profit peasant communes in Chiapas? I had no idea! I didn’t realize that Siemens, Kawasaki and Bombadier were non-profits!
Do these new pedestrian pathways move freight? Or is freight movement unneccessary in the 21st century economy?
July 7th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Why yes actually, they do actually:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram#Cargo_trams
July 7th, 2009 at 10:25 am
On that same site, there is a top ten list of freeways to tear down. Sadly, there are none in TX.
http://www.cnu.org/highways/freewayswithoutfutures
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.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Great post. These are great case studies. We’ve covered this issue a bit at cityparksblog.org and will be looking for more when they come up. We’ll definitely link to this post.
There’s also the side issue of covering freeways. Here’s a report on that for those interested:
http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=21143&folder_id=3208
July 7th, 2009 at 10:53 am
To see a simple theoretical example of how Braess’s Paradox can work, check out this article:
http://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/the-price-of-anarchy/
It’s a little more readable than the Wikipedia article.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:55 am
[...] Infrastructurist takes a look at four cases where freeways have been torn down and made into parks and/or boulevards, making the [...]
July 7th, 2009 at 11:31 am
[...] Infrastructurist website offers four examples of the transformative possibilities when a city decides to remove a monstrous piece of highway [...]
July 7th, 2009 at 11:48 am
[...] Huh?! 4 Cases Of How Tearing Down A Highway Can Relieve Traffic Jams (And Save Your City) Infrastructurist [...]
July 7th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I know everyone will throw in their most hated local highways, but I can’t resist throwing in mine: 787 in Albany NY.
Its a sprawling multi-level freeway that cuts Albany off from the Hudson River. One the exits even cuts across downtown and connects directly into the massive Empire State Plaza, clearly serving commuters over local residents.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Very curious what the effect has been in Manhattan around Times Square. They shut down Broadway a few weeks ago. I have to think it helped (got rid of a lot of 6-way intersections) but I have not been to see.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Ethan,
When I’ve been there, it seems to be working well (i.e. perhaps a bit less congested than in the past). I don’t think we’ll get official data until late this year though.
-Jebediah
July 7th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
As someone mentioned, I just can’t believe that most of the traffic reduction is due to fewer people coming into the city because it’s not worth the hassle. Is that what we want?
July 7th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
More posts like this please!
July 7th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
The Skyway in Buffalo is highly regrettable - but even more so, Buffalo’s Niagara Thruway along the Niagara River!
July 7th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
[...] listicle of 4 Cases of Tearing Down Highways Helping Traffic looks at projects in Seoul, Portland and San Francisco (like the Central Freeway, pictured at right [...]
July 7th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Dan Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Bring down I-95 in Philadelphia!
It’s in such bad condition you may just get your wish sometime in the medium-term.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Great post. Recently, the Embarcadero in San Francisco was the site for Sunday Streets, the city’s experiment in Ciclovia. Nobody misses the Embarcadero Freeway. The greatest enhancement in San Francisco in the past 20 years has been the recovery of the waterfront, from AT&T Park, to the Ferry Terminal, to Fisherman’s Wharf, to Crissy Field. Tear down the freeways, create a more appealing city, and people will get there.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
More please! How about a post demonstrating how NYC’s tearing down of the 3rd avenue elevated reduced subway congestion on the east side!
July 7th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
#1 - Seattle Alaska Way Viaduct … but I’m curious about induced demand and if Seattle really needs this deep bore tunnel that is being proposed, or if we can just remove the Viaduct and cause some of the demand to disappear.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
A great example is Boston. The entire highway downtown was put underground and widened and above it is now lots of greenspace and the Financial District/Chinatown/Quincy Marketplace is now reunited with the waterfront and the North End.
July 7th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Sure, tear down a highway and there are no more cars on that highway. But cars are directed to other streets, commutes lengthen, etc.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
High volume and freight carriers are exceptions to personal transportation where road use is concerned. One reduces congestion by reducing the number of users of a service. In urban areas especially, it is hard to defend providing complete public access for single-occupant transportation, unless it’s a bicycle. Huge swaths of the urban landscape are designed to move cars about - not people.
I also live in San Francisco, and agree the destruction of the freeways was one of the best things to happen to the city in a long time. I have also seen lane reductions on busy corridors (Valencia, Alemany) and partial closures (17th at Market, Waller Street at Kezar). Congestion is no worse than before, and the pedestrian landscape is improved.
I work next to the convention center and have seen three major hotels and seven large residence towers rise in that area over the past 15 years. It’s hard for me to differentiate the business from non-business traffic, but there are more people than ever on the sidewalks in the area.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Anthony is right. The northwest half of San Francisco is nearly impossible to get to (public transit? Hah! Take three transfers, AC Transit to BART to Muni, and get jammed into a streetcar with a guy jacking off on you). Going into San Francisco is only worth it if you’re going to your 4 million dollar house. San Francisco has no middle-class housing in the northwest, and very scant shopping or restaurants. The pollution poured out from cars at the stopsigns and traffic lights of Embarcadero and Octavia is more than would be dumped from a freeway.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:03 am
If you want to see in-depth films on three of these four selected highway removals, check out Streetfilms. We did these about three years or so ago:
Portland: http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/lessons-from-portland/
SF (which includes Embracadero & Central Freeway - as well as a brief mention of the West Side Highway in NYC):
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/lessons-from-san-francisco/
July 8th, 2009 at 11:11 am
[...] Can Reduce Traffic Jams July 8th, 2009 TreeHugger Yonah Freemark and Jebediah Reed at the Infrastructuralist look at four major urban highways that were demolished, creating lovely waterfronts and parks. [...]
July 8th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
[...] Freemark and Jebediah Reed at the Infrastructuralist look at four major urban highways that were demolished, creating lovely waterfronts and parks. [...]
July 8th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
We’re trying to make this happen in Louisville, KY
http://www.8664.org/
July 8th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Only one of the suggestions deal with the top 4 congested cities in the country: LA, NY, Chicago, and Boston:
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.
These all work for second-class congested cities… but they won’t work for the major ones listed above. And Chicago already has boulevards. It’s more a question of getting people TO them… and getting the lights to work together.
Chicago used to have the largest street system in the world. All of it is now gone. They would do well to replace it in strategic locations (such as from the train stations to and along Michigan Avenue, to Grant Park, the Museum campus/Soldier Field, etc. This would improve the asthetics of the area as well as increasing the capacity of how many people can be moved between point A and point B.
Chicago had a “free trolley” program that it ran for a few years that has since been cancelled due to Chicago’s miserable financial woes. It was not a true trolley… just trolley-shaped busses that were open air alternatives. These were clearly tourist attractions… but they served the city quite well by moving a lot of people throughout specific parts of downtown. If the trolleys were reintroduced, this would be a great place for them, as well as a few other locations where Chicago has experimented with green light sensors and bus lanes to keep the buses on time. In these major corridors, trolleys could improve services too, moving people quickly and efficiently.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
[...] capacity of roads in cities. But two writers at the Infrastructuralist think there is a good case to be made for demolishing in-city [...]
July 8th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Yes, by all means, bury your highways just like Boston. By the time you have completed the project you can be billions (yes, multiple billions) of dollars in debt even though you sucked more billions from citizens of the US who will never get near the road.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
[...] Huh?! 4 Cases Of How Tearing Down A Highway Can Relieve Traffic Jams (And Save Your City) » INFRAST…. This entry was written by admin, posted on July 8, 2009 at 11:51 am, filed under Articles and tagged civil engineering, urban design. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. « Jason Fried @ Big Omaha 2009 on Vimeo [...]
July 8th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I agree about the freeways. They’re better off gone. Particularly the SF freeways which I am familiar with. But be careful with this so-called “Braess Paradox”. It goes too far. This same kind of logic is applied all the time to arterial streets. I see it all the time. I work for a transit agency. We use arterial streets. They need to be pedestrian-friendly AND vehicle-friendly. We are constantly being undermined by NIMBYism like this. Neighborhood Association X decides they no longer like the type of street they chose to settle in. It’s too fast now. So they whine to City Council. They get traffic calming. Now our buses run slower or have to be on a different street altogether. Regional connectivity suffers so their neighborhood can be quieter. Meanwhile the traffic goes to some other neighborhood, usually a less affluent one. It’s NIMBYism, plain and simple. You see this too in smaller, more rural towns. The City replaces suicide lanes with a paved median and more traffic controls. The result? People drive miles away to avoid it, burning more gas and often using more dangerous roads. I agree about the freeways in this article. They’re better off gone. They were monsters. They were too big and out of place. But that doesn’t mean smaller is ALWAYS better. We just need to use common sense.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
One thing to note about Harbor Drive in Portland is, though it was not directly replaced, it was essentially made obsolete by the construction of two freeways nearby just prior to its removal.
I-5 through Portland was completed in 1966 and it runs parallel to the Harbor Drive alignment along the opposite bank of the Willamette River 1/4 mile to the east. In 1973 the Stadium Freeway (I-405) was completed 3/4 mile to the west. These two freeways now form a ring around downtown Portland.
I love that Harbor Drive has been removed but it wasn’t done before freeway capacity in the immediate area had been vastly expanded.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
A little-known freeway removal is the Robert Moses Parkway in Niagara Falls, NY - particularly satisfying because the road was named after Robert Moses.
see http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysMoses.html
For a list of proposed future freeway removals, see
http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysPlansProposals.html
July 8th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
[...] Institute, is to increase the carrying capacity of roads in cities. But two writers at the Infrastructuralist think there is a good case to be made for demolishing in-city highways. The benefits don’t [...]
July 8th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Excellent piece - also should note West Side Highway in New York City and efforts now in progress to eliminate traffic on portions of Broadway in Manhattan.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
As a long time San Francisco Resident who both lives and works in both areas noted above….. I can honestly say that the teardowns are a GREAT thing for the city.
The end of Octavia Blvd is capped by a small park where the freeway once stood. The park is frequently packed by people of all ages. Not only that, but the hayes Valley area has gone through a remarkable transformation into a more active community of San Francisco. The freeway pushed people away, the local central park invites people back.
As far as the Ferry Building area. The former freeway served as a strong line of demarcation between the central city and its waterfront. People would hardly ever venture out to the water and look at the beautiful view of the Oakland-Bay Bridge or Treasure island. Now people can either hang out at the plaza in front of the ferry plaza, or one of the many many areas along the restored boardwalk.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Actually, the Central Freeway in SF closed in 1996 and part of it was torn down. One direction reopened in 1997 and the whole thing finally closed and was torn town north of Mission Street in about 2000 (I can’t find an exact date).
It was open when I moved here (I lived nearby and used it) in 1995.
I remember when they tore down the structure crossing Market it was amazing because you could see all the way downtown (Market is a very long, very straight street) to the Ferry Building at the end.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
[...] Robert Moses is rolling in his grave! July 8th, 2009 admin Leave a comment Go to comments Seoul, Portland and San Francisco: 4 cases for destroying highways to save the city. [...]
July 8th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Now, the new Embarcadero is beautiful, but San Francisco’s traffic is still hideous.
Obviously removing a road will cut your traffic counts, but how long does it take individual people to get to their destinations?
July 8th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Excelent entry, it came up just in time to help us in our efforts to prevent the construction of an underpass in the most beautiful and emblematic streets in Mexico City - Paseo de la Reforma and Avenida Palmas. We will use it to show all stakeholders what is being done around the world.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
“Fantastic post! Let’s hope New Haven’s Route 34 highway connector is next on the list.”
Removing the 34 freeway neglects the reality of I-95 and the vast new development with its multi-hundred space parking garages; an infinitely better idea of covering the existing open trenched portion of the 34 freeway, and of a short covered extension west of the Air Rights Garage would create a far friendlier environment, especially for pedestrians that Yale would rather place in skyways.
Strange how such a bad idea as that of shortening the 34 freeway instead get all of the airplay as if the “environmentalist” organizations were orchestrated not upon the idea’s merit but rather the political influence of those pushing it.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:10 am
San Francisco is definitely better off without the Embarcadero Freeway, even though there’s more congestion on the replacement surface streets, but I think that replacing the section of 101 north of Market is not so clearly a win for the City as a whole, even if it benefits the immediate neighbors. Losing the ramps from Gough and Franklin has made lower Van Ness *much* more crowded, and the traffic control onto Octavia isn’t that great, making it harder to get to Oak and Fell than really necessary.
I definitely find myself spending less time in the City than I used to, especially the parts best accessed from the north end of the Central Freeway.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Do you drive? if the answer is yes, you do drive for a reason, correct? If there is a reason for your driving the existence of certain road is not relevant. That means you will try to get to your destination by other means or other streets. if there is no other means, you take other roads. Does it help relieving congestion? If want our cities to be difficult to access from the suburbs, economically both the city and suburbs get affected. These things were not shown in this post. I dont think i got the total picture.
If induced demand is all true why most of the transit agencies are losing money due to low ridership. (NYC and few others are exceptions)? Why pedestrian overbridge is a failure (specially in US)?
I think connectivity (of roads, sidewalks/crosswalks, transit, trails) is very very important. We should not forget that. Sometimes freeways were not built on the right place, but if you think you dont need freeways you are aboslutely WRONG. Freeways have made different parts of the country closer.
I like to see different freewways closed for a day and see how the freight movement cannot get hampered.
If another 100,000 vehicles per day does not affect the travel time on parallel roads I dont know why a new walmart or a new shopping mall or a new neightborhood of 1000 unit of Townhouses would create any traffic problem?
July 9th, 2009 at 8:36 am
[...] The Infrastructuralist makes an argument for the counterintuitive practice of eliminating freeways to reduce congestion (via Metafilter). The first case is Seoul, with which I’m somewhat familiar. The removal of the freeway has indeed created a vibrancy and breathiness in the central city that had been choked and claustrophobic. I love to drop down below grade to the river because the noise and bustle of the city around you simply vanishes. It’s a fantastic effect. [...]
July 9th, 2009 at 9:37 am
[...] a look at how tearing down highways is a good thing. Though our transportation planners still operate from the orthodoxy that the best way to untangle [...]
July 9th, 2009 at 11:57 am
[...] zone when the next bus rapid transit (BRT) phase is installed. Interestingly, there have been many studies done that show traffic does not deteriorate when public space is added – even a mathematical [...]
July 9th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
[...] an hour break at rush hour [The Oregonian] Why light rail was predestined for MLK Way [Crosscut] Huh?! 4 Cases Of How Tearing Down A Highway Can Relieve Traffic Jams (And Save Your City) [The Infrastructurist] Mapping a Bird’s-Eye View of Foreclosure Misery [The New York Times] India [...]
July 9th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
As a 6 year resident of San Francisco and a 2 year resident of Portland I have familiarity with three of the four tear downs. Those who critique San Francisco’s tear down (especially the Embarcadero Freeway) really need to spend time talking to the residents of the city. I don’t think there are any who would oppose this change. Most likely a large majority would consider the Central freeway a good change, although it has probably increased traffic. The large majority of SF residents consider it a worthwhile trade off.
The Harbor drive tear down was probably instrumental in improving bicycle commuting in Portland as most bicyclists (like myself) live on the east side of the river and come across to the west. The Harbor Blvd. would have been a massive barrier to this. The bridge pictured in the “before” shot is the Hawthorne bridge, which has the more bicycle traffic than any bridge in the US. If bicyclist had to contend with the harbor on-ramp pictured, this would not be the case.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Very nice list and informative!
Let’s hope NYC gets rid of the FDR Drive in Lower Manhattan sometime soon!
July 9th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Check out a complete article on this same subject at http://www.livablestreets.com/streetswiki/highway-removal. And please feel free to add your own information to this wiki, which is designed for transportation activists like the crowd who posts here. The world needs your ideas and enthusiasm!
Andy
Streetswiki Writers Group
July 9th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
[...] riverfront. And the underground interstate always seems to be an impenetrable barrier. However, this article from The Infrastructurist provides an intriguing approach: remove the highway completely. It’s [...]
July 9th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
작호2.0의 생각…
제길. 이렇다니깐….
July 10th, 2009 at 2:05 am
Put all such systems below ground, or on the floor but create elevated pedestrian walkways. Are we so poor and backwards that we can’t have dedicated high-speed high-capacity traffic systems AND elegant pedestrian-only boulevards for the public to enjoy?
July 10th, 2009 at 7:23 am
[...] The Infrastructurist looks at three cities that have improved traffic flow by getting rid of highway… that had no business being built in the first place. Induced demand and a theorem called the Braess Paradox help explain the unexpected outcome. The Infrastructurist reminds us there are lots of good reasons to knock down a highway, like “improving citizen health, restoring the local environment, and energizing the regional economy,” and before and after pictures of Seoul, Portland, and San Francisco prove it looks nice too. So what do you think, should we start with the Glendale Freeway? [The Infrastructurist; image courtesy of] Share and Enjoy: [...]
July 10th, 2009 at 11:43 am
[...] Tear it down and they will go away From The Infrastructuralist: [...]
July 10th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
[...] Huh?! 4 Cases Of How Tearing Down A Highway Can Relieve Traffic Jams (And Save Your City) | INFRASTR… For the Ministry of the Impossible – ways to drastically change a city for the better. (tags: transportation traffic urban architecture design infrastructure) [...]
July 13th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Depave Lake Shore Drive!
July 13th, 2009 at 11:37 am
In each case, was there a similarly or larger sized replacement outside of the City core?
July 14th, 2009 at 12:05 am
[...] such a notion of ‘urban ecology’ is not merely theoretical. As The Infrastructurist notes, tearing down elevated freeways has a visible effect upon an urban landscape. While [...]
July 14th, 2009 at 3:26 am
Lets tear down I-5 from Blaine to San Diego. Then traffic will be so much better.
Car haters have been around since the invention of the car. Back then, they all wanted us to ride horses. Now they all want us to ride bicycles. The haters are the minority and always will be. Drivers vote and voters want more freeways, not less.
But I will admit that these examples were good candidates for other freeways to replace them.
July 14th, 2009 at 4:18 am
[...] but cool July 14, 2009 — misselaneius I’m gobsmacked… tearing down freeways can apparently be good for traffic flow… That is all. Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: awesome, public transport, quickun, traffic [...]
July 14th, 2009 at 6:23 am
DC is maddening, because the plans were changed so many times. Originally, there were to be three Beltways, an inner, a middle (which was built) and an outer. The inner would have torn through historic Black neighborhoods (and Georgetown!). Both the inner and outer were abandoned, which explains why oddities such as the E-street expressway, and the very odd junctions of 295, 395 and 495 in Anacostia exist.
I also want to give a shout-out to the town planners of Breezewood, PA. They refused to allow a junction for the PA turnpike, so if you’re getting on the pike, you have to leave the highway and drive through the city. It’s a bizarre place, made up entirely of chain restaurants, motels and gas stations, but it is definitely recession proof!
July 14th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
[...] contrário: para resolver o problema do trânsito, o mais eficiente é fechar a estrada. Duvida? Os caras do site The Infrastructurist analisaram 4 casos onde isso foi feito (Seul, Portland e duas estradas em São Francisco), todos com resultados positivos (clica, clica! [...]
July 14th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
[...] What if Madison didn’t have a Beltline? But instead on each side of town it had a network about about 3 east-west and 3 north-south roads that all resemble East Washington Avenue or Highway PD? In the past week, I’ve caught a few blogs that discuss this topic, including this one: http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/07/06/huh-4-cases-of-how-tearing-down-a-highway-can-relieve-tra... [...]
July 14th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
I’m a San Francisco resident — for over 25 years — who knew the City well before and after the demolitions. Yes, San Francisco is better off without the freeways. Yes, there is more traffic. There are also many, many more people walking and riding transit and biking. There are many more people strolling, people-watching and coming back the next day for more. No question: both projects have made these neighborhoods more beautiful, more vital and more safe. There’s more to city life than getting from one place to another.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Great Concept!, Hope our policy makers could study this idea or maybe there still buzy making money out of the infamous black gold…
Hmmm…
Well if you remove the cars in the first place, then you’ll have zero traffic.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
[...] I have a story running in The Times and International Herald Tribune on one of the most remarkable such transformations — the restoration of the Cheonggyecheon in Seoul, South Korea. Through more than six centuries of settlement, the stream went from being a revered feature of the landscape to an open sewer to a buried, forgotten storm drain and now to a three-mile corridor of burbling waters, milling carp, strolling picnickers and relative quiet in one of the powerhouse metropolises of Asia. You can see a video report on that effort at the bottom of this post. The Seoul stream project was integrated with a parallel effort to take away highways and improve public transportation. [...]
July 16th, 2009 at 6:36 am
[...] I have a story running in The Times and International Herald Tribune on one of the most remarkable such transformations — the restoration of the Cheonggyecheon in Seoul, South Korea. Through more than six centuries of settlement, the stream went from being a revered feature of the landscape to an open sewer to a buried, forgotten storm drain and now to a three-mile corridor of burbling waters, milling carp, strolling picnickers and relative quiet in one of the powerhouse metropolises of Asia. You can see a video report on that effort at the bottom of this post. The Seoul stream project was integrated with a parallel effort to take away highways and improve public transportation. [...]
July 16th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
These posts are fascinating - lots of “pro,” some “con…”
The key to understanding transportation dynamics in North American cities is to recognize the location: North America. The car is king.
VERY important is to notice a key phrase in the original article: 1) tear down badly designed freeways; 2) provide the alternative. Without public transportation, a thorough redesign of pedestrian and bicycle routes, any freeway tear-down may face failure, and create a worse world than otherwise.
Where the car is king, we have built spaces that are so spread out that it is very difficult to provide the alternative. Some of the new subdivisions are ugly and impossible to walk around. Pedestrian amenities and bike paths are pasted on after the fact, with the basic geography set by the automobile. So people who drive think that everything is fine; everyone else is left literally on the side of the road. Any city that experienced growth after the Second World War is left with these landscapes. Folks who drive see an economically advanced society as having recently paved roads, lots of businesses that are accessible to the auto, lots of shiny cars in paved sales lots.
Folks who do not drive, who live in the centre of cities and get around on their feet or on two wheels prefer a tighter community with small shops, more concentrated development, more eyes per acre for public safety, police on foot, on the beat. Per acre a pedestrian economy is MUCH more complex, much richer, much more capable of facing an economic downturn than acres of big box blandness. Freeways do not serve the centre of the cities; they serve the folks who live in the suburbs. For these folks, tearing down a freeway seems to be the very opposite of economic growth, even if the positive benefits are legion, the economic studies show positive growth, and folks who live in the centre are happier.
Vancouver, BC has horrendous traffic; much of the “blame” for this is the fact that citizen groups blocked the development of large, centre of city freeways in the 1970’s. It now has one of the most beautiful, walkable downtowns, but getting to the sprawling suburbs and into downtown from the sprawl is shear hell. The rapid transit system is barely capable of handling the traffic it gets, very underdeveloped for a city that size (2 million in Greater Vancouver). The tight core’s business is dependent on the surrounding sprawl…
BUT… Where the rapid transit stations have been built in Vancouver and area, there is a corresponding development of much denser housing. So build it, and they WILL come. Don’t build the alternative, and they certainly won’t…
Another thing: development that is based on the automobile does not allow alternatives: too spread out for comfortable pedestrian use, too dangerous for bicycle use, and way too spread out to make transit economically feasible without large subsidies…
Subsidies? Data from the 1990’s tells of a $7000.00 US per year subsidy for each car driver, for the cost of roads, accidents and uninsured drivers. (What is it now?) This does NOT include the cost of cleaning up the air pollution caused, or the cost of dealing with the pollution caused by crushing and “recycling” old cars. I personally would like to see my 7K used for rail, engineered bicycle lanes (bank them curves and let me fly!), pedestrian and future development, which may include radical ideas like tethered lighter than air craft (whaaaatever - let’s use our inventive little brains to, well, invent…), wind powered superlight vehicles, skateboards with wings, something that will allow our economy to grow, rather than stagnate with a bankrupt auto/freeway/big box model…
Cheers.
July 20th, 2009 at 11:57 am
[...] up on our recent story about highway teardowns, the NY Times explores how cities around the world are seeking to follow [...]
July 20th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
[...] why freedom is not liberty July 20, 2009 Picking up on the previously noted Infrastructurist post, the New York Times’ Andrew Revkin has featured Seoul’s success in tearing down an [...]
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
[...] to Guardian article via Infrastructurist. This entry was written by rholmes, posted on July 22, 2009 at 12:06 pm, filed under readings and [...]
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:18 am
Now only if they’d do the same thing for the Alaskan Way Viaduct here in Seattle - just tear it down and make the waterfront nicer.
July 29th, 2009 at 11:57 am
The leadership of the small southern NM city of Las Cruces has opted to go in the exact opposite direction: for the past two or so years many thousands of tax-payer dollars are being spent to tear up a three-block, downtown pedestrian mall in the hopes of “revitalizing downtown”. Altho each Saturday and Wednesday morning the broad, vehicle-free walkway bustles with hundreds of people - both local and out-of-town - shopping at the extensive Farmers and Crafts Market, the city leaders continue to, little-by-little, remove the overhead metal awnings which are so needed during the searing southwest summer sun in preparation to turn the pedestrian mall into a street. Still, bearing the heat, the merchants and shoppers continue to swarm the area on market days.The city’s next step will be to destroy the very large trees that now shade the mall because they are too large to be moved elsewhere.
One block has already been converted from the wide pedestrian walkway to a little two-way road lined with three-foot high lights. The metal awnings were long ago removed, as were the trees that lined either side of the walkway. Those original trees - which would have been very large by now - were relocated to a park, replaced by new trees that are beginning to provide shade now.
Altho very attractive, it seems rather counterproductive to the nation-wide push to get cities to plant trees to absorb CO2 and, by the shade that trees provide, to help in the reduction of energy needed for air conditioning, to encourage people to walk by reducing roads for motor vehicles, to encourage vehicle-free, open spaces in the centre of the city (as has recently been done in the middle of New York City) so people can gather and relax in a traffic-free environment.
I appreciate this article and the comments by other readers and I’m sending this website to my city council in hopes that they might reconsider their current plan, but I fear it won’t help; many local citizens and market merchants have contested this plan - sadly, to no avail.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Another comment about counter-productive decisions. Again, nationwide, the plea to reduce vehicular traffic and encourage and promote travel by rail can hit some irrational thinking.
Albuquerque, NM has recently established a very successful train service between the town of Belen, NM to Albuquerque, to Santa Fe. The plan/ hope is to continue this train service south from Belen to Las Cruces, NM and then on to El Paso, Texas, thereby reducing the traffic on Interstate 10 (the hiway between Las Cruces and El Paso). The last step for train service will be extending the train north from Santa Fe to Denver. A great plan - train travel from El Paso, Texas all the way to Denver, Colorado, backed by the governor of NM and the public.
Unfortunately, that same governor (*not* the public) has also approved *$5 million* for a *study* to widen Interstate 10 (parallel to where the train racks would be), the main hiway between Las Cuces,NM and El Paso, Texas.
C’est la vie.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Your use of Octavia Blvd. in SF as a positive outcome is ridiculous, and the photo of same is deceptive. The city of SF found that 45,000 cars a day—a good portion of the former freeway traffic—is now coming through the heart of that neighborhood every day. In short, it’s a perpetual traffic jam on Octavia Blvd. People were congratulating themselves so much on getting rid of the freeway overpass that they apparently didn’t notice the traffic disaster that has taken its place.
http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2009/05/octavia-blvd-disaster-is-finally-being.html
August 4th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
[...] 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 [...]
August 29th, 2009 at 1:52 am
[...] is the conundrum presented in the Infrastructurist post “Huh?! 4 Cases Of How Tearing Down A Highway Can Relieve Traffic Jams (And Save Your City)”, where four case studies are examined and show that removing roads can actually reduce traffic [...]
September 25th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
[...] Huh?! 4 Cases Of How Tearing Down A Highway Can Relieve Traffic Jams (And Save Your City) [...]
October 1st, 2009 at 2:22 am
[...] for a different future—New York, London, Paris, Seoul, Copenhagen, San Francisco. Together, their successes show that it’s possible to relieve congestion, create beloved vibrant streets, grow the economy, [...]
December 19th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
[...] stays at home. As with others cities, Philadelphia should consider dismantling its highways (see: Braess Paradox), and should reject any federal attempt to build more roads. For the annual capital required for [...]
December 21st, 2009 at 3:36 am
[...] stays at home. As with others cities, Philadelphia should consider dismantling its highways (see: Braess Paradox), and should reject any federal attempt to build more roads. For the annual capital required for [...]
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
[...] stays at home. As with others cities, Philadelphia should consider dismantling its highways (see: Braess Paradox), and should reject any federal attempt to build more roads. For the annual capital required for [...]
January 14th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
The Buffalo Skyway is a particularly good example. It’s not even terribly busy *now* thanks to Buffalo’s shrinkage — there’s absolutely no excuse for it.
Another cute example of closure *improving* traffic is Times Square. Broadway knots up the entire traffic pattern in Manhattan; closing it at all the intersections with north-south streets speeds traffic up. And people like it, too!
February 5th, 2010 at 2:14 am
[...] The answer may, perhaps, lie with the Alaskan Way viaduct, and how Seattle is dealing with it’s aging. The notable cultural phenomenon that both Vancouver and Portland share (but Seattle does not) is a rejection of freeways. [...]