Capping the IDL

[SXSW]

I'd love to see this BUT would rather push for better downtown transit and streetscapes first.  This is a low priority.

[godboko71]

I'd love to see this BUT would rather push for better downtown transit and streetscapes first.  This is a low priority.

Instead of saying low priority maybe say long term goal as part of a larger plan.

[sgrizzle]

Instead of saying low priority maybe say long term goal as part of a larger plan.

Pretty sure everything in the City of Tulsa is a long term goal or part of a plan.

[dsjeffries]

That's part of it, plus the fact that organic stuff moves. Roots intrude, dirt settles, etc. There are plans to redo the williams green to an arrangement with no fountains and much less dirt., partially due to water leaking into the garage below.

I can see where that would be a problem in an enclosed space like a subsurface parking garage, but we're talking about 6 lanes of traffic, open at both ends, with drainage already in place. And that might have been a problem 30 years ago when they built the Williams Center, Williams Green and PAC (and destroying loads of historic buildings with multiple uses in the process), but I think we've progressed in that amount of time. If it were such a big problem, Boston's Big Dig wouldn't have happened and they wouldn't be planning this in Dallas.

[OurTulsa]

Capping the southern bit of the IDL is a great idea and I would agree that buildings over the roadway would be preferrable to park/open space right now.  However, there is WAY too much undeveloped land on either side of that portion of the IDL to justify creating new buildable area and I just don't think a cap over any length of that portion of the IDL would really incent new development down there.  At some point in our history I do believe that we'll densify to the point that reclaiming air rights for development will make sense but until then streetscaping could go along way to visually making the connections across the bridges.

One idea that I really wish got more traction is that of converting the eastern leg of the IDL to a boulevard.  I was walking underneath the interchange at the SE corner of the IDL and was astounded to realize just how much City space gives way to accommodate what I think is a redundant connector expressway.  If the Pearl District and East End (or whatever the latest moniker is) ever get going I think converting the east portion of the IDL to a boulevard would seem most feasible.  I would even argue that you wouldn't necessarily need a primary boulevard and that you could get creative (to the degree that the surrounding built fabric allows) with the layout. 

That portion of the IDL has to be on some sort of list for improvement at ODOT.  I would urge them to use the money to get rid of it and deed the land underneath back to the City.  Allow a developer(s) to come in and rebuild a street network and develop the land.

As we continue rebuilding our core it's good to throw these ideas out.

[YoungTulsan]

Taking out a leg of the IDL has been discussed before, and I'm one who likes the idea, but now that they are rebuilding the entire thing I think we are stuck with it for at least a few more decades.

[OurTulsa]

Taking out a leg of the IDL has been discussed before, and I'm one who likes the idea, but now that they are rebuilding the entire thing I think we are stuck with it for at least a few more decades.

As far as I know the state is only rebuilding the north and west leg (I-244) of the IDL.  I wasn't aware anyone was touching the south and east legs. 

Is there a schedule at ODOT indicating when a particular roadway will be looked at for improvement?  When was that stretch (east leg) last overhauled?  When it was created?

I really hope that it is found out when it is scheduled for major overhaul so that a campaign can be initiated to remove it.

[Red Arrow]

So if we were to cap the IDL, how many years until the buildings or parks fall on to the motorists below?  We don't seem to be able to build anything that lasts more than about 20 to 30 years anymore.

[Hoss]

As far as I know the state is only rebuilding the north and west leg (I-244) of the IDL.  I wasn't aware anyone was touching the south and east legs. 

Is there a schedule at ODOT indicating when a particular roadway will be looked at for improvement?  When was that stretch (east leg) last overhauled?  When it was created?

I really hope that it is found out when it is scheduled for major overhaul so that a campaign can be initiated to remove it.

Good luck with that..most downtown offices/businesses will campaign to make sure that doesn't happen.  Plus, the S and E leg is an unsigned interstate (444), and as such, would take a federal decree to remove it.

[SXSW]

Good luck with that..most downtown offices/businesses will campaign to make sure that doesn't happen.  Plus, the S and E leg is an unsigned interstate (444), and as such, would take a federal decree to remove it.

Yes, unfortunately I think we're stuck with the IDL for a long time.  We might as well look at solutions to enhance it in the mean time.  The SE interchange with all the pine trees is really nice, mainly because it shields Maple Ridge neighborhoods to the south, but something like that at the SW interchange by OSU Med Center would create an attractive gateway to downtown for people crossing the bridge.  Or something like what has been proposed for the north leg between OSU and the Brady District:
 

[OurTulsa]

Good luck with that..most downtown offices/businesses will campaign to make sure that doesn't happen.  Plus, the S and E leg is an unsigned interstate (444), and as such, would take a federal decree to remove it.

Not sure I understand why downtown offices/businesses would campaign to make sure that it doesn't happen.  It's a redundant leg with only one local access point.  I don't see how downtown access would be adversely impacted at all.

Eliminating segments of federal interstates is not impossible.  Other cities has accomplished such feats.  If the planning starts early enough I don't see how they couldn't be won over.  It's not as if this small portion of I-444 is necessary for the purposes of National Defense (initial motivation behind the interstate highway system) or critical to the expediency of our national warehouse on wheels.  And again, I think the impact to vehicle circulation around the region would be unnoticeable and access to downtown would be diminished. 

The benefits of reconnecting the urban fabric between downtown and the eastern core - in time - would/ could be great and positive for the City's tax base and quality of life.

[Hoss]

Not sure I understand why downtown offices/businesses would campaign to make sure that it doesn't happen.  It's a redundant leg with only one local access point.  I don't see how downtown access would be adversely impacted at all.

Eliminating segments of federal interstates is not impossible.  Other cities has accomplished such feats.  If the planning starts early enough I don't see how they couldn't be won over.  It's not as if this small portion of I-444 is necessary for the purposes of National Defense (initial motivation behind the interstate highway system) or critical to the expediency of our national warehouse on wheels.  And again, I think the impact to vehicle circulation around the region would be unnoticeable and access to downtown would be diminished. 

The benefits of reconnecting the urban fabric between downtown and the eastern core - in time - would/ could be great and positive for the City's tax base and quality of life.

You just said 'federal' and 'not impossible' in the same sentence.  Think about it.

And please, cite me a reference where they have removed a highway in such a manner.  I looked and couldn't find one before I made my initial reply.  I have found cases of moving an interstate, but usually not very far.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am saying I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.

[OurTulsa]

I think the West Side Hwy in Manhattan was I-478 (can't recall) and it was reduced to a boulevard a few years ago.  Most others I know of were not Federal Interstate Hwys but still well travelled limited access highways converted.  Being on the rolls as a Interstate Hwy will add another level of beuracracy sure but why should it be a deterrent?

Here's a list of other Citys considering highway removal and many are Interstate Highways: http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysPlansProposals.html
Nashville has an incredible ambition!!

A well organized group in Louisville is pushing for the removal of a portion of an Interstate Hwy:
http://www.8664.org/video-rendering/

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

Removing Urban Freeways
United StatesOp-EdTransportation
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%.

This postcard of West Side Highway shows how the elevated highway overshadowed the street.
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.


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.

[PonderInc]

I like the idea...in theory.  However, I've seen what Oklahoma weather can do to trees that are planted in 3 feet of dirt.  Big storms eat these trees for lunch.  The Williams green used to have significantly more trees than it does today.  Most of them were popped out of the ground a few years ago in a big storm (roots, dirt, and all).  Never replanted b/c it was seen as a losing battle.  (As soon as the tree gets big enough to be enjoyable, there aren't enough roots to hold it down.)

You could probably do a nice job with a lot of ground cover and shrubs, where it would still make for a pleasant walk...if enough people would volunteer to maintain it!

[Red Arrow]

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.

I agree that the automobile sped up the flight from living in the city.  It wasn't started by the auto though.  Rich people had places in the country, now wrapped by the suburbs.  When (real) trolleys were available, suburbs became available to people with more moderate incomes.  Trolleys were often replaced by buses.  Public transit was the beginning of the death knell for cities having a monopoly on populations not living on the farm. Young, and some older, folk are now returning to the city but there was a significant number of years that a lot of people just didn't want to live in the city.  They wanted something between 5th Avenue and "Green Acres".