As cities grapple with budget cuts and rising infrastructure costs, the value of removing costly freeways has been gaining more attention. Boulevard conversions are now being considered as a cost-effective, practical alternative to rebuilding expensive expressways. At first, most residents gasp at the thought of removing their local freeway and for good reason; it seems counterintuitive. Nobody likes it when their drive home is prolonged due to heavy bumper-to-bumper traffic, so we should make our freeways wider! Not tear them down…right?
John Norquist, former Mayor of Milwaukee (1988-2004), current CEO of the Congress for New Urbanism and author of The Wealth of Cities, was recently interviewed by Next American City to discuss highway removal and “our congestion obsession”. Norquist’s best known achievement as Mayor of Milwaukee was demolishing the Park East Freeway – 1960s-era expressway that restricted access to the city’s downtown.
Continue reading after the break for more on this subject and to view the top twelve freeways pending their demise.
As CEO of the Congress for New Urbanism (CNU) – a leading organization promoting walkable, mixed-use neighborhood development, sustainable communities and healthier living conditions – Norquist has been deeply involved with the Highways-to-Boulevards initiative. With this initiative, CNU has argued that “successful highways-to-boulevards conversions reconnect neighborhoods, improve access to key resources such as waterfronts and put underperforming land to use. Highway-to-boulevard conversions in cities such as San Francisco, Portland, Milwaukee and Seoul, South Korea have all raised property values, enhanced quality of life, improved traffic distribution and proven to be frugal investments that add value and vitality to the city.”
In the interview, Norquist revealed that more and more local leaders are seriously considering highway removal. However, one of the most challenging barriers is the resistance from residents. Understanding citizen fears about traffic congestion, Norquist suggests that we change our focus from pure traffic count comparison to traffic distribution. He states, “A robust street grid, with lots of connections, will distribute traffic much better than a few large freeways.” According to a study conducted by the city of San Francisco, the destruction of the Embarcadero Freeway allowed most commutes to decrease in length and increase in speed due to greater connectivity.
Norquist pointed out, “That’s one of the things about freeways, they tend to fail when you need them most. They fill up, and then there’s no escaping.” When comparing typical freeway back-up’s to streets like Connecticut Avenue in Washington D.C., it becomes clear that freeway removal isn’t necessarily an outlandish idea. Unlike most freeways during rush hour, Connecticut Avenue never really comes to a standstill. People have the option to escape and reroute through a number of cross streets.
As for addressing funding concerns, Norquist argued that removing aging infrastructure is a small-scale, fiscally conservative alternative to rebuilding aging freeways. For example, demolishing the Park East Freeway in Milwaukee was about a third of the cost it would have been to rebuild it. You cannot just resurface highways like you could a street. With the available funds through programs like TIGER grants, cities such as New Orleans and New Haven are making plans to carry out similar projects.
Norquist states, “Basically, freeways don’t belong in densely populated cities.” And as the next 3 billion people move into cities in the next 40 years, “they’re sort of doomed.”
In February, CNU released their top 12 list of prospective highway teardowns, suggesting that these freeways have the opportunity to transform from broken liabilities to vibrant assets.
CNU’s 2012 Freeways without Futures List:
Check out the entire interview conducted by Next American City here.
Photo by Flickr user Russell Mondy, licensed through Creative Commons.