Given the recent announcement that congress may end funding for the Reconnecting Communities grant program, which funded planning and implementation of urban highway removals, I thought this would be a good time to talk about the benefits of such a program and how highway removals can transform our cities.
Highway 64/40 in STL is pretty iconic and I’d hate to remove it… but the 55 viaduct is such an absurdly textbook candidate for a cap-and-cover that it borders on stereotype.
To wit — taking up extremely valuable riverfront land, enormous harm to neighborhood connectivity along a stretch of at least a dozen miles total, and already well-carved into the ground such that a cap-and-cover would not require all-new digging etc.
In Halifax NS it took $120m in public money to remove the Cogswell Interchange a down town urban highway planners pushed through in the 1960s & demolished a community of 2600 buildings. Now Halifax and city Planners are pushing through corridors, up-zoning for towers along transit routes that also include car and bike lanes. Hundreds of buildings are being demolished, without requirements for affordable housing or public amenity in the new highrises whenever/if they're built. Historic buildings and 80 trees along Robie Street will be destroyed to add a second bus lane but maintain the lanes for cars. Unless we reallocate existing road space aren't corridors just a new form of urban highway?
Truth. Many proposals to tear down urban highways just replace them with wide at-grade boulevards. 6 lane roads can be just as much a neighborhood barrier as elevated freeways.
Great image here captures what Halifax's widening has achieved so far. https://halifaxcommon.ca/wider-roads-make-worse-cities/ Hollowing out the city for an urban elite and developer wealth. Meantime urban car dealerships land bank on prime land. And transit stays underfunded. A bit ironic?
Highway 64/40 in STL is pretty iconic and I’d hate to remove it… but the 55 viaduct is such an absurdly textbook candidate for a cap-and-cover that it borders on stereotype.
To wit — taking up extremely valuable riverfront land, enormous harm to neighborhood connectivity along a stretch of at least a dozen miles total, and already well-carved into the ground such that a cap-and-cover would not require all-new digging etc.
Plus it’s ugly AF.
In Halifax NS it took $120m in public money to remove the Cogswell Interchange a down town urban highway planners pushed through in the 1960s & demolished a community of 2600 buildings. Now Halifax and city Planners are pushing through corridors, up-zoning for towers along transit routes that also include car and bike lanes. Hundreds of buildings are being demolished, without requirements for affordable housing or public amenity in the new highrises whenever/if they're built. Historic buildings and 80 trees along Robie Street will be destroyed to add a second bus lane but maintain the lanes for cars. Unless we reallocate existing road space aren't corridors just a new form of urban highway?
Truth. Many proposals to tear down urban highways just replace them with wide at-grade boulevards. 6 lane roads can be just as much a neighborhood barrier as elevated freeways.
Great image here captures what Halifax's widening has achieved so far. https://halifaxcommon.ca/wider-roads-make-worse-cities/ Hollowing out the city for an urban elite and developer wealth. Meantime urban car dealerships land bank on prime land. And transit stays underfunded. A bit ironic?