Hubbry Logo
Freeway removalFreeway removalMain
Open search
Freeway removal
Community hub
Freeway removal
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Freeway removal
Freeway removal
Freeway removal
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Cherry blossom in the Tom McCall Waterfront Park, created with the removal of the Harbor Drive in Portland, Oregon.

Freeway removal is a public policy of urban planning to demolish freeways and create mixed-use urban areas, parks, residential, commercial, or other land uses. Such highway removal is often part of a policy to promote smart growth, transit-oriented development, and pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly cities. In addition to outright removals, some freeways are reconstituted as boulevards, rebuilt below grade via tunnelling or caps and stitches, or are relocated through less densely-developed areas.

Background

[edit]
Cheonggyecheon in Seoul, South Korea was formerly the route for a major elevated highway; It was completed in 1976 and removed in 2005.

Freeway removals most often occur in cities where highways were built through dense neighborhoods - a practice common in the 20th century, particularly in U.S. cities following the 1956 enactment of the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act.[1] These highways often created blight that minimized use of land space and reduced the quality of life for city residents. In the United States, the routes for interstate highways were often built through minority neighborhoods in urban centers,[2] which often led to increasing racial segregation by creating physical barriers between neighborhoods.[3]

Beginning in the late 20th century, as many highways reached the end of their lifespans, urban planners and activists began proposing demolishing or transforming highways in lieu of repairing them in an effort to alleviate the symptoms of displacement and lack of neighborhood connectivity.[4][5] In many cases, there are political battles between citizens' groups who are proponents of freeway removal proposals and suburban drivers that want to keep the freeways.[6]

In early 2021, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer proposed legislation that would offer cities federal money to remove urban highways. The pilot program includes $10 billion to cover the inspection of existing infrastructure and possibly cover costs involved in removal and redevelopment planning.[7]

Techniques

[edit]

Freeway-to-boulevard conversion

[edit]
Section of the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco, California during demolition (May 1991)
The Embarcadero following the freeway removal (2011)

A freeway-to-boulevard conversion involves demolishing a controlled-access highway with an at-grade boulevard. Land formerly devoted to highway lanes and exit ramps are often repurposed into wide sidewalks, bike lanes, green space, or sold for urban development.[8]

One of the earliest examples of a freeway-to-boulevard conversion was the transformation of the West Side Elevated Highway into an urban boulevard in New York City. In 1971, the Urban Development Corporation proposed replacing the aging elevated highway with a new interstate highway in Manhattan.[9] After fierce local opposition, New York City officially gave up on the proposed interstate project in 1985,[10][9] and allocated 60 percent of its interstate highway funds to mass transit[10] and setting aside $811 million for the "West Side Highway Replacement Project". In 1987, the commission unanimously agreed to build the highway as a six-lane urban boulevard with a parkway-style median and decorative lightposts, along with a 60 acres (24 ha) $100 million park on the highway's western periphery.[11]

Another early freeway-to-boulevard conversion involved San Francisco's double-decked Embarcadero Freeway and Central Freeway, which were damaged during the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989.[12] The Central Freeway was replaced by the multi-modal, landscaped surface-level Octavia Boulevard, and the Embarcadero Freeway was replaced by a boulevard with streetcar and light rail operations in the median, flanked by the restored Beaux-Arts style Ferry Building.[13]

Other early freeway removal projects occurred in Portland, Oregon and Milwaukee, Wisconsin that ultimately reduced traffic, spurred economic development, and allowed for the creation of new neighborhoods and commercial districts. The Harbor Drive Freeway in Portland was replaced by Tom McCall Waterfront Park, while the Park East Freeway in Milwaukee recovered prime land for development in the urban core. In Toronto, Ontario, the easternmost portion of the Gardiner Expressway, which was located between Don Road and Leslie Street, was demolished in 2000 and replaced with an at-grade urban boulevard with traffic lights, railroad crossings and a bike trail.

Underground relocation

[edit]

In situations where removing an urban freeway is believed to exacerbate traffic problems within a city, urban planners may resort to relocating the freeway underground and building freeway lids to reclaim the space previously occupied by the surface highway.[14][15]

In Boston, Massachusetts, the Central Artery (Interstate 93) ran through the center of the city on an elevated green viaduct from its opening in the 1950s until 2005. The freeway divided historic neighborhoods and business districts in downtown Boston, and it was referred to as Boston's "other Green Monster." During the 1990s and early 2000s, a $15 billion project known as the Big Dig relocated the Central Artery into tunnels underneath downtown Boston; the old viaduct was demolished, and its path was reclaimed for a surface boulevard and park space.

The Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle, Washington, was replaced with the tunnel that carries the SR-99 freeway underneath the city.

Notable freeway removals

[edit]

Completed

[edit]
Highway Location Year Description
Alaskan Way Viaduct Seattle, United States 2019 Replaced with State Route 99 Tunnel
Autopista de Circunvalación M-30 Madrid, Spain 2008 Partial removal: Southern segment relocated underground as part of the Madrid Río project
Bonaventure Expressway Montreal, Canada 2016 Elevated highway demolished and replaced with an urban boulevard and parkland[16]
Ville-Marie Expressway and Décarie Road Montreal, Canada 2018 Partial demolition only, some ramps reduced along the Turcot Interchange
Catharijnebaan Utrecht, Netherlands 2010 Highway demolished and replaced with canal and green space
Central Artery Boston, United States 2003 Relocated underground as part of the Big Dig project
Central Freeway and Embarcadero Freeway San Francisco, United States 1993 Replaced by at-grade boulevards following 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake
Cheonggye Elevated Highway Seoul, South Korea 2003 Replaced with artificial stream and green space
Cogswell Interchange (Harbour Drive) Halifax, Canada 2021 Freeway-to-boulevard conversion
Gardiner Expressway Toronto, Canada 2001 Partial demolition; exit ramps replaced with parkland
Harbor Drive Portland, United States 1974 Demolished and replaced with Tom McCall Waterfront Park
Innerbelt Akron, United States 2017 Highway closed and redeveloped into parkland and urban development[17]
Inner Loop Rochester, United States 2014 Replaced with surface streets and urban development
Interstate 30 Fort Worth, United States 2001 Highway rerouted farther from downtown; elevated highway demolished and replaced with parkland and urban development
Interstate 70 Denver, United States 2022 CDOT replaced a 1.8-mile (2.9 km) viaduct with a below-grade highway with a four-acre (1.6 ha) park being built over it
Interstate 170 Baltimore, United States 2010 Western stub removed for expansion of the West Baltimore station's parking lot and possible Red Line project
Interstate 195 Providence, United States 2011 Highway relocated as part of the Iway project; former highway right-of-way repurposed into urban development
NY 895 (Sheridan Expressway) New York City, United States 2017 Freeway-to-boulevard conversion[18]
Oak Street Connector New Haven, United States 2013 Highway demolished and replaced with surface streets and urban development; portion of original highway repurposed as entrance to underground parking garage
Oklahoma City Crosstown Expressway Oklahoma City, United States 2002 Partial highway-to-boulevard conversion
Park East Freeway Milwaukee, United States 2002 Demolished and repurposed into urban development
Niagara Scenic Parkway Niagara Falls, United States 2019 Highway removed and replaced with surface streets and waterfront parkland
Southeast Freeway Washington, D.C., United States 2016 Partial freeway-to-boulevard conversion
Voie Georges-Pompidou Paris, France 2016 Highway removed and replaced with public beaches and urban development
West Sacramento Freeway Sacramento, United States 2014 Highway removed and replaced with surface streets and urban development
West Side Elevated Highway New York City, United States 1977 Elevated highway demolished and replaced with urban boulevard
Zhongxiao Elevated Highway Taipei, Taiwan 2016 Elevated highway repurposed from roadway into elevated park. Section next to the North Gate demolished to give an unimpeded view of the gate.
Riverfront Parkway (Chattanooga) Chattanooga, United States 2004 Freeway-to-boulevard conversion[19]
Cypress Street Viaduct Oakland, United States 2005 Freeway-to-boulevard conversion[20]
Bundesstraße 1 Dusseldorf, Germany 1993 Freeway was demolished and moved underground via the Rheinufer Tunnel.[21]
Perimetral Highway Rio De Janeiro, Brazil 2015 Freeway transformed into public space[22]

Planned

[edit]
Highway Location Description
Interstate 81 Syracuse, United States Approved proposal to reroute I-81 traffic around Syracuse via Interstate 481 and downgrade the existing freeway to a business loop boulevard;[23] the plan was halted by judges multiple times and faced strong local opposition, but the construction phase has begun since then[24]
Interstate 375 Detroit, United States Approved proposal to replace portion of freeway with at-grade boulevard; construction is planned to begin 2025[25]
Tokyo Expressway Tokyo, Japan Approved proposal to replace majority of expressway with an elevated park; construction is planned to begin in 2025[26]
Interstate 229 St. Joseph, United States Approved proposal to replace freeway with at-grade boulevard through downtown St. Joseph. Even though right of way funding for the project has been allocated for the fiscal year of 2027, no additional funding or timeline has been designated for design or construction.[27][28]
Interstate 244 Tulsa, United States Approved proposal to replace freeway with at-grade street[29]
Massachusetts Route 28 Boston, United States Freeway-to-boulevard conversion[30]

Proposed

[edit]
Highway Location Description
Claiborne Expressway New Orleans, United States Proposal to demolish highway (I-10) and replace with at-grade boulevard;[31] the governments of Louisiana and New Orleans have countered with a proposal to improve the elevated freeway and the space beneath it as well as remove four ramps in Tremé instead due to the negative travel congestion impacts that would result from removing the expressway[32]
Downtown Connector Atlanta, United States Proposal to rebuild highway underground beneath the city[33]
Interstate 787 and South Mall Arterial Albany, United States Proposal to remove highway and replace with at-grade boulevards, surface streets, urban development, and riverfront green space;[34] a draft report released in May 2019 did not recommend this change,[35] but studies on the freeway's future continue[36]
Interstate 345 Dallas, United States Proposal to demolish highway and replace with an at-grade boulevard;[37] this proposal was rejected by TxDOT due to negative traffic congestion impacts
Interstate 35 Austin, United States Proposal to re-route I-35 traffic around Austin via State Highway 130 and replace existing highway with an at-grade boulevard through Austin;[38] despite widespread opposition, TxDOT instead plans to rebuild and bury the freeway below-grade with some sections possibly covered with caps-and-stitches containing parkland[39][40]
Interstate 35 Duluth, United States Proposal to replace riverfront highway with at-grade boulevard and green space[41]
Interstate 475 Flint, United States Proposal to replace freeway with at-grade boulevard through downtown Flint[42]
Metropolitan Expressway Tokyo, Japan Proposal to demolish viaduct through the city center[6]
Whitehurst Freeway Washington, D.C., United States Proposal to demolish elevated highway; this proposal has been stopped several times[43]
Interstate 794 Milwaukee, United States Freeway-to-boulevard conversion[44]
New Jersey Route 29 Trenton, United States Proposal to replace freeway with at-grade boulevard to clear up land for developments on the Delaware River[45]
California State Route 103 Long Beach, United States Freeway-to-boulevard conversion[46]
Interstate 70 Kansas City, United States Freeway-to-boulevard conversion[47]
Interstate 70 St. Louis, United States Freeway-to-boulevard conversion[48]
New York State Route 5 Buffalo, United States Proposal to remove freeway in central Buffalo, however nothing has progressed[49]
New York State Route 198 Buffalo, United States Proposal to convert the freeway back into a parkway[50]
Interstate 94 Minneapolis, United States Freeway-to-boulevard conversion[51]
Interstate 980 Oakland, United States Freeway-to-boulevard conversion[52]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Freeway removal

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Freeway removal denotes the demolition of urban elevated highways, primarily those erected during the expansion of interstate systems in the mid-20th century, to restore severed urban landscapes, mitigate and , and repurpose the underlying land for parks, at-grade boulevards, or mixed-use developments. This approach addresses the disruptive legacies of highway construction, which frequently demolished residential and commercial districts, particularly in lower-income areas, fostering long-term and social division. Pioneered amid and "freeway revolts" that halted further builds, the practice accelerated with projects like Portland's Harbor Drive removal in 1974, yielding Waterfront Park and enhanced riverside access without severe capacity loss due to the road's modest traffic volumes. San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway followed in 1991 post-Loma Prieta earthquake damage, transforming a barren underpass into a vibrant promenade that boosted adjacent property values and pedestrian activity, though initial concerns over traffic redirection proved manageable via surface street adaptations. Internationally, Seoul's 2003-2005 restoration buried an elevated expressway to revive a historic stream, spurring economic activity in downtown areas while redirecting vehicles to peripheral routes, albeit with reported upticks in regional congestion. Proponents highlight successes in urban revitalization and mode shifts toward walking, , and transit, potentially curbing vehicle miles traveled, yet empirical assessments reveal mixed outcomes: some sites experience volume stability or declines through induced behavioral changes, but capacity reductions often displace delays to arterials, challenging claims of net congestion relief absent complementary . Costs frequently exceed billions, with benefits like property appreciation and gains varying by context, underscoring debates over scalability for high-volume corridors where first-principles capacity predicts persistent without reduced .

Historical Development

Early Instances and Catalysts

One of the earliest major instances of urban freeway removal in the United States occurred in , with the dismantling of Harbor Drive. Constructed in the early 1940s as an along the waterfront, Harbor Drive was closed starting on May 23, 1974, following the completion of the Fremont Bridge, which allowed traffic to be redirected to parallel routes. This removal, completed by 1978, marked the first intentional demolition of a major highway in America without replacement, enabling the creation of Tom McCall Waterfront Park and restoring public access to the riverfront amid initiatives. The decision stemmed from practical considerations of obsolescence and opportunities for waterfront redevelopment rather than widespread ideological opposition to freeways. In , the Embarcadero Freeway, an elevated structure built in the that shadowed the city's waterfront, faced a similar fate catalyzed by structural failure. Severely damaged during the October 17, , the freeway was deemed unsafe for repair, prompting a decision to rather than rebuild it. Demolition began in 1991 and concluded in 1992, after which the route was replaced by a surface-level that integrated with the existing street grid. Although advocacy to remove the structure had existed since the due to its visual and spatial barriers, the seismic event provided the decisive practical trigger, highlighting vulnerabilities in aging elevated infrastructure. Prior to the , such removals remained rare globally, with fewer than a dozen documented projects, primarily driven by specific catalysts like natural disasters, flood risks, or targeted needs rather than a coordinated movement against . These early examples underscored the role of unforeseen events and localized necessities—such as seismic requirements or the expiration of original design lifespans—in initiating freeway decommissioning, setting precedents for later efforts without initially challenging the broader freeway-building paradigm.

Growth of the Removal Advocacy Movement

The Highways to Boulevards initiative, launched by the Congress for the (CNU) in 2005, formalized post-2000 efforts to advocate for replacing urban freeways with surface boulevards, drawing on critiques of 20th-century highway planning that prioritized automobile access over neighborhood cohesion. This program emphasized case-specific redesigns to restore urban fabric disrupted by elevated structures, positioning removal as a strategy to address underutilized rather than inevitable expansion. In 2008, CNU released its inaugural Freeways Without Futures report alongside the Seattle Urban Mobility Plan's case studies on removals in and , which analyzed the and projects as models for reconnecting bisected communities without inducing widespread congestion. These documents argued that could enhance local access and land values, influencing subsequent advocacy by providing empirical precedents from completed teardowns, though critics noted potential overreliance on selective traffic data. Advocacy accelerated in the 2010s as groups like CNU partnered with local coalitions to challenge highway widenings, coinciding with federal policy shifts toward "reconnection" funding tied to equity considerations in programs such as the initial Reconnecting Communities Pilot. This momentum peaked under the 2021 , which enabled billions in grants for mitigation projects, including $3.3 billion announced in March 2024 and $544 million in January 2025 for planning and capital works aimed at addressing historical divides. By , CNU's Freeways Without Futures series had spotlighted dozens of candidate segments across U.S. cities through iterative reports, with the latest edition profiling nine active campaigns for removal or retrofit, underscoring expanding organized pushes amid debates over redistribution and fiscal trade-offs. These efforts, while gaining traction, faced pushback from transportation engineers citing risks to regional mobility, highlighting the movement's growth as both influential and polarizing.

Underlying Motivations

Community Division and Equity Claims

The Interstate Highway System's expansion from the 1950s to 1970s, enabled by the , displaced over 475,000 households and more than one million people through , with routes often routed through low-income and minority neighborhoods due to lower land acquisition costs and existing segregation patterns that concentrated such communities. Empirical analyses confirm disproportionate racial sorting effects, as highway proximity correlated with declines in white population shares and increased segregation in affected urban tracts between 1960 and 1970. Proponents of removal frame original freeway construction as "highway violence" that severed community ties, citing examples like planned extensions in Boston's Roxbury neighborhood—such as the canceled Inner Belt Expressway (I-695)—which would have razed thousands of homes in predominantly Black areas, amplifying isolation alongside contemporaneous decisions. These arguments emphasize reconnection as a remedial equity goal, yet causal attribution overlooks parallel drivers of neighborhood decline, including that eliminated manufacturing jobs in northern cities from the 1960s, predating and outpacing highway impacts on employment and social cohesion. Contemporary projects like Syracuse's I-81 viaduct removal, initiated in the 2010s and advancing toward completion by 2025, explicitly aim to "reconnect" the predominantly minority Southside from its 1950s bifurcation by the elevated highway, with planning grants targeting legacy segregation effects through enhanced neighborhood linkages. However, highways also provided affected groups with improved mobility to suburban job markets, reducing commute times and enabling some upward mobility despite discriminatory barriers like redlining that unevenly distributed these gains. Long-term data on post-removal integration remains limited, with equity outcomes hinging on complementary investments beyond demolition alone.

Environmental and Public Health Rationales

Advocates for freeway removal cite potential reductions in local from decreased vehicle idling and concentrated emissions along elevated structures. In Seoul's restoration project, completed in 2005, removal of a 5.8-kilometer led to a 35% decrease in small-particle , dropping from 74 to 48 micrograms per cubic meter in the vicinity. Similar mechanisms are proposed for urban freeways, where surface-level replacements may lower nitrogen oxide () and particulate matter (PM) concentrations near former alignments due to better dispersion and reduced stagnation. Public health rationales emphasize mitigating disparities in respiratory conditions linked to freeway proximity. Epidemiological studies associate living within 200-500 meters of high-traffic roads with elevated asthma prevalence and exacerbations, attributed to ultrafine particles and black carbon from tailpipe emissions. Freeway removal is argued to alleviate particulate exposure for adjacent residents, potentially lowering asthma-related hospitalizations in historically burdened neighborhoods. Broader environmental claims include fostering active transportation modes like walking and through reclaimed green spaces, which could reduce overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and rates via for non-motorized trips. However, such benefits hinge on unobserved or inconsistent behavioral shifts, as post-removal traffic volumes often stabilize without proportional mode share increases absent complementary transit investments. Skepticism persists regarding net emission gains, as traffic diversion to parallel arterials can elevate stop-and-go driving, increasing fuel consumption and CO2 equivalents by up to 85% in congested scenarios per modeling. Empirical assessments of rerouting to boulevards show mixed exposure reductions, with socioeconomic factors influencing whether pollution burdens shift rather than diminish. These limitations underscore that removal alone may not yield causal improvements without addressing and regional VMT.

Urban Design and Economic Revitalization Goals

Proponents of freeway removal emphasize transformations that repurpose highway rights-of-way into vibrant, multi-functional spaces, including mixed-use boulevards, linear parks, and housing developments, to enhance pedestrian connectivity, aesthetic quality, and overall urban livability. These efforts aim to convert what advocates term "dead space"—elevated structures that sever neighborhoods and underutilize prime land—into assets that support compact, walkable environments aligned with principles favoring density over automobile-dependent sprawl. A core economic rationale involves unlocking latent land value for , with claims that such conversions can generate substantial revenue through induced private investment in commercial, residential, and recreational uses. For instance, in , the decision to demolish the Embarcadero Freeway after it was damaged in the October 17, stemmed from goals to restore bayfront access, creating a continuous waterfront promenade designed to stimulate , hospitality, and adjacent business activity by prioritizing scenic views and public gathering spaces over vehicular throughput. However, achieving these revitalization objectives often necessitates significant upfront public funding and subsidies to bridge gaps in private sector viability, particularly in areas lacking immediate market demand. Critics counter that urban freeways were engineered as economic catalysts, facilitating efficient logistics, goods movement, and access to employment centers, and their removal could disrupt supply chains and industries dependent on high-volume freight corridors, potentially offsetting anticipated gains in localized development.

Engineering and Implementation Methods

Direct Demolition to Surface Roads

Direct demolition to surface roads constitutes the straightforward approach to freeway removal, entailing the total dismantling of elevated or ground-level structures and their reconfiguration into at-grade arterial boulevards. This method prioritizes restoring street-level connectivity over subterranean or capped alternatives, focusing on urban reconnection through integrated surface infrastructure. The process unfolds in coordinated phases to sustain mobility: preliminary traffic diversion to adjacent arterials or temporary routes, selective lane closures with partial operational continuity where structurally viable, systematic structure removal using controlled blasting or mechanical dismantling, and final site remediation including debris clearance and soil stabilization. Engineering prerequisites demand meticulous planning for structural integrity during phased takedown, including temporary bracing, vibration monitoring to avert adjacent building damage, and relocation of overlying utilities such as water mains and power lines. Post- reconstruction emphasizes resilient at-grade designs with widened travel lanes, synchronized signalized intersections for flow management, and provisions for pedestrian crossings and bike lanes to support multimodal use. Challenges arise in balancing demolition sequencing with ongoing demands, often requiring real-time adjustments via dynamic signage and off-peak operations to limit delays. Adaptations for accommodating redirected traffic volumes include expanded lane configurations or intersection enhancements like roundabouts to mitigate bottlenecks; in the 2003 Milwaukee Park East Freeway project, the one-mile spur's demolition yielded a six-lane seamlessly woven into the preexisting grid, preserving capacity without notable congestion spikes. Success hinges on preexisting low-to-moderate average daily (ADT) volumes, typically those not exceeding the boulevard's signalized capacity—often cited as underutilized routes where peak-hour flows fall well below thresholds—to preclude widespread backups on replacement arterials. Project costs generally span $25 million to $45 million per mile, encompassing , reconstruction, and ancillary improvements, with drawn from federal programs like ISTEA enhancements alongside municipal bonds or .

Partial Caps, Tunnels, and Relocations

Partial capping involves constructing decks or lids over existing elevated or depressed freeway segments to create usable surface-level space for parks, buildings, or streets while the highway continues to operate below. This approach preserves vehicular capacity and minimizes traffic disruptions compared to full removal, though it requires robust to support loads and manage ventilation. In Boston's /Tunnel Project, known as the , was depressed into a 1.5-mile beneath , allowing the creation of the Greenway—a series of parks and open spaces along the former elevated route—completed in phases through 2007 at a of approximately $14.8 billion. The project maintained highway throughput by relocating traffic underground, with added features like seismic reinforcements and exhaust systems to address safety concerns. Tunneling replaces surface or elevated freeways with bored underground routes, often using tunnel boring machines to minimize surface disruption and reclaim land above for urban development. Seattle's , completed in 2019 as part of the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program, substituted a 2-mile elevated damaged in a 2001 earthquake with a double-decked bored costing $2.15 billion for the tunnel segment alone, preserving capacity for 100,000 daily vehicles while freeing waterfront space. challenges included control, seismic design in a liquefaction-prone zone, and ventilation shafts to handle emissions, with the tunnel's 195-foot diameter making it one of the largest bored by a single machine at the time. Freeway relocations shift high-volume corridors to new alignments, sometimes incorporating tunnels or caps to bypass dense urban areas, blending elements of removal with capacity retention. In , Klyde Warren Park exemplifies a cap over the recessed Woodall Rodgers Freeway, a 5.4-acre linear opened in 2012 that connects neighborhoods divided by the highway without altering its eight-lane configuration below. Such hybrid methods often involve partial trenching followed by decking, as seen in ongoing expansions like Dallas's planned cap over Interstate 35E. These alternatives entail significantly higher upfront costs than surface-level options—typically $300 million to $700 million per mile for caps and $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion per mile for urban tunnels—due to excavation, structural supports, and mitigation for air quality and geotechnical risks, but they avoid issues from capacity loss and enable without long-term congestion spikes. Ventilation systems, noise barriers, and earthquake-resistant designs are essential, particularly in seismically active regions, to ensure operational safety and environmental compliance.

Integration with Transit and Pedestrian Infrastructure

In freeway removal initiatives, planners frequently integrate public transit upgrades and pedestrian-oriented designs to offset lost vehicular capacity and foster multimodal mobility. These elements typically include (BRT) lanes, extensions, or restored streetcar services alongside boulevards, as well as features like widened sidewalks, pedestrian bridges, plazas, and "" that allocate space for and walking. Such integrations aim to absorb demand from former highway users while prioritizing non-automobile modes, though their efficacy hinges on regional transit density and urban form. The Rochester Inner Loop North project exemplifies prospective transit-pedestrian synergies, where a 1.5-mile elevated segment of the Inner Loop Expressway is slated for removal starting with $100 million in federal funding secured in January 2025, to be replaced by a walkable grid, bike paths, and green spaces reconnecting neighborhoods. Local discussions propose pairing the resulting with BRT lines to manage traffic redistribution, building on the earlier Inner Loop East transformation completed in 2016, which converted a sunken expressway into a two-lane with dedicated and facilities. Completed projects demonstrate varied outcomes in transit uptake. In , the 1991-1995 demolition of the Embarcadero Freeway yielded a palm-lined with a promenade and the revived F-line historic streetcar, which enhanced mass transit access while limiting parking to discourage car dominance; redevelopment incorporated parks and housing to support . Similarly, Portland's 1974 Harbor Drive removal created Tom McCall Waterfront Park, emphasizing plazas and paths, with subsequent streetcar integration along adjacent corridors to complement the riverfront's non-vehicular focus. Internationally, 's 2003-2005 Stream restoration, which dismantled a 5.8-kilometer , resulted in a linear park that correlated with citywide transit gains, including a 15.1% rise in bus ridership and 3.3% in subway usage from 2003 to 2008, attributed partly to induced modal shifts amid denser urban networks. These enhancements have shown modest ridership boosts in select pilots—typically 5-15% for buses or rail where pre-existing systems exist—but results vary by context, with stronger gains in high-density areas featuring robust transit backbones rather than isolated interventions. In car-reliant suburbs or low-density regions, over-reliance on or transit features without sufficient network support risks underutilization, as evidenced by persistent auto dominance in post-removal traffic patterns unless complemented by broader infrastructure investments.

Notable Examples

Completed Urban Removals in the United States

Portland's Harbor Drive, an elevated waterfront freeway constructed in the 1950s, became the first urban highway removed in the United States when the city permanently closed its northern section on May 23, 1974. The removal facilitated the creation of Waterfront Park along the , with traffic volumes redirected to nearby and surface boulevards, avoiding significant immediate congestion. In , the partial demolition of the Embarcadero Freeway—a double-deck elevated spur linking the Bay Bridge to downtown, severely damaged during the October 17, —began in February 1991 and progressed through 1995. Rather than repairing the structure, authorities opted for full removal of the sections, replacing them with a surface-level that immediately reopened waterfront access and views previously obscured by the highway. Milwaukee's Park East Freeway, a one-mile elevated stub built in the early 1970s amid local opposition to broader plans, underwent demolition starting in June 2002 and concluding in April 2003. The project reconnected divided surface streets in the area, clearing the short corridor for potential while maintaining on reconstructed local roads. In , the Inner Loop East transformation project, completed in 2017, removed approximately one-third of a mile of the 1960s-era Inner Loop expressway, infilling the depressed roadway with a surface street grid. This partial removal directly reestablished pedestrian and vehicular links between downtown and adjacent neighborhoods, including the Public Market district, following construction from 2015 onward.

International and Partial Removals

In Seoul, South Korea, the Cheonggyecheon Stream Restoration Project represented a major international instance of full freeway removal. Construction of the 5.8-kilometer elevated Cheonggye Freeway began in the 1950s, covering a buried stream and handling over 170,000 vehicles daily by the early 2000s. Between July 2003 and October 2003, the Seoul Metropolitan Government dismantled the structure, excavating concrete layers to restore the waterway at a cost exceeding 386 billion South Korean won (approximately $320 million USD). The project incorporated 22 new bridges to enhance pedestrian and vehicular connectivity, resulting in improved urban biodiversity, reduced heat island effects, and increased tourism without causing persistent traffic gridlock, as initial fears of congestion were mitigated through rerouting and transit enhancements. Toronto's Gardiner Expressway illustrates partial rehabilitation over outright demolition in a dense North American context. Opened in segments from 1955 to 1966, the 18-kilometer elevated highway faced maintenance challenges by the 2010s, prompting debates on replacement versus teardown. A 2016 environmental assessment recommended hybrid options, but as of 2025, the city pursued a $753 million CAD rehabilitation of the central section (from Strachan Avenue to York Street), involving bridge replacements and seismic upgrades, with major construction phases concluding by October 2025 to restore full capacity. This approach balanced heritage preservation—parts of the expressway hold historical designation—with modernization, avoiding full removal due to projected traffic disruptions in a city with high commuter volumes. In , where urban densities exceed those in many U.S. cities, full removals remain rare, with partial retrofits prevailing. Paris's , a 35-kilometer encircling the city and carrying up to 750,000 vehicles daily, has seen initiatives like reductions to 50 km/h implemented from 2024, alongside plans to reallocate two lanes for green spaces and bus priority post-2024 Olympics. These measures aim to curb and noise without full teardown, as high traffic demands—averaging 3,000 vehicles per hour per lane—necessitate maintaining capacity through caps, noise barriers, and gateway transformations rather than . Similar constraints apply across European metropolises, favoring incremental adaptations over radical restructuring. Partial U.S. cases highlight truncated implementations amid shifting priorities. New Haven's Oak Street Connector, a 1.4-mile elevated spur of Route 34 built in 1967, displaced over 600 households and severed neighborhoods during . Extensions beyond the initial segment were abandoned by the 1970s due to community opposition and fiscal constraints, leaving a partial stub. As of 2025, the ongoing project seeks to cap and integrate remaining sections into at-grade boulevards, reconnecting streets like Orange and Temple while adding bike lanes and housing, addressing legacy divisions without complete removal. Such partial efforts reflect policy evolution in lower-density U.S. contexts, contrasting with international reticence toward full teardowns given Europe's denser fabrics and Asia's occasional bold restorations like Seoul's.

Proposed and In-Progress Projects as of 2025

In , the viaduct project advances toward demolition of the elevated structure, with deconstruction scheduled to begin in summer 2026 and initial sections removed by late that year, followed by completion of replacement community grid infrastructure in 2027. The initiative addresses the viaduct's role in dividing neighborhoods since its 1950s construction, replacing it with at-grade boulevards and enhanced local connectivity. Proposals to remove remnants of San Francisco's stub, particularly the elevated section in the Mission District and South of Market areas, persist through grassroots efforts like the Vision Blvd campaign, which seeks to substitute it with , parks, and transit-oriented boulevards. As of October 2025, these plans remain in advocacy and planning stages without approved funding or timelines, amid debates over traffic impacts and development priorities. The Congress for the New Urbanism's 2025 Freeways Without Futures report nominates nine urban highway segments as priority candidates for removal, including U.S. Route 35 in , and Interstate 175 in , emphasizing opportunities for community reconnection and economic revitalization. These efforts build on broader identification of over 100 potential sites nationwide but face stalls from inconsistent federal funding, particularly after shifts reducing equity-focused grants in the 2025 transportation budget. Common hurdles include legal disputes over environmental impact assessments under the (NEPA) and state equivalents, though a May 2025 U.S. decision limited NEPA's scope, potentially streamlining approvals for such projects. Local opposition, often citing congestion risks, and resistance from state departments of transportation further delay progress, as seen in ongoing litigation and funding shortfalls across multiple sites.

Measured Outcomes and Data

Traffic Flow and Congestion Metrics

Empirical assessments of following urban freeway removals indicate that vehicle volumes redistribute across surface streets and parallel routes, often without inducing citywide , as traffic demand proves more elastic than traditional models predict. Studies document initial spikes in arterial volumes of up to 20-30% on nearby streets, but these typically stabilize within 1-2 years through mode shifts to transit, , and walking, alongside behavioral adaptations like trip rescheduling. Overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in affected corridors may decline by 5-10% in the long term due to reduced through-traffic and enhanced non-auto options, though precise figures vary by context and lack uniform quantification across projects. In the San Francisco Embarcadero Freeway removal, completed in 1991 after the Loma Prieta earthquake damaged the structure, the converted boulevard accommodated peak daily volumes exceeding 100,000 vehicles without the severe congestion forecasted by critics, who anticipated unmanageable spillover. Post-removal average speeds on the Embarcadero settled at approximately 20-30 mph, constrained by signalized intersections and multimodal design, compared to the prior freeway's higher unimpeded flows; citywide travel times showed no significant deterioration, with transit ridership rising 10-15% in the corridor. Similar patterns emerged in Portland's Harbor Drive removal in 1974, where adjacent arterials experienced temporary volume increases of 15-25%, but delays did not escalate proportionally due to network redundancy and signal optimizations; overall regional VMT remained stable, with no evidence of overwhelming the system. Counterexamples highlight risks in denser, high-volume settings lacking parallel capacity, where unmitigated removals could elevate local delays by 30-50% absent complementary measures like or dynamic signaling. Recent analyses as of 2024-2025, including evaluations of partial removals and capacity reallocations, affirm minimal net congestion growth when removals integrate adaptive ; for instance, simulations incorporating show that boulevard conversions with optimized intersections limit level-of-service declines to LOS C-D equivalents, versus pre-removal freeway LOS A-B, while fostering 5-10% mode-shift reductions in auto dependency. These outcomes underscore that while local arterials bear initial burdens, systemic elasticity—via latent capacity in underutilized streets and suppressed demand—prevents collapse, challenging linear capacity-addition paradigms.

Economic and Property Value Changes

Urban freeway removal projects involve substantial upfront expenditures, often ranging from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars, primarily borne by public funds including federal grants. The demolition of Milwaukee's Park East Freeway spur, completed in 2003, cost about $30 million, significantly less than the $50-80 million projected for rehabilitation. In contrast, more extensive interventions like Boston's /Tunnel Project (), which depressed and relocated the elevated I-93 freeway rather than fully removing it, ballooned from an initial 1985 estimate of $2.56 billion to $14.6 billion by its 2007 completion, with overruns surpassing 400% after inflation adjustments. These costs highlight fiscal risks in large-scale urban highway restructuring, where underestimation of engineering complexities and delays can triple or more initial budgets. Following removal, property values in adjacent areas frequently appreciate, catalyzing development and growth. In Milwaukee's Park East Corridor, average assessed land values per acre within the former freeway footprint increased over 180% from 2001 to 2006, freeing 24 acres for redevelopment that generated more than $2 billion in economic activity by 2020. San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway , initiated after 1989 earthquake damage and completed by 1995, saw surrounding neighborhood values rise by 300%, fostering waterfront revitalization and commercial expansion. Such gains, often 10-30% in proximal assessments, stem from reclaimed land's higher-density usability, though they concentrate benefits locally while raising questions against alternative infrastructure maintenance spending. Critiques emphasize potential macroeconomic drags, including commuter time losses from diminished capacity that could redirect outward and erode regional if not offset by transit enhancements. Removal's savings versus repair—evident in Milwaukee's case—must weigh against understudied long-term GDP effects, where localized booms may mask broader fiscal opportunity costs or induced displacement inflating development expenses. Empirical data on sustained net returns remains sparse, with analyses often prioritizing short-term tax base expansions over comprehensive lifecycle economics.

Social Cohesion and Environmental Indicators

Urban freeways serve as barriers that diminish social connectivity, particularly for proximate interactions within communities. A 2024 PNAS study analyzing social ties across U.S. cities demonstrated that highways reduce connectivity by up to 20% for short-distance links, implying that removals could mitigate such divisions by reconnecting severed neighborhoods. However, empirical outcomes reveal mixed effects on social cohesion; while physical barriers are eliminated, often follows, leading to demographic shifts and displacement of lower-income residents. In , after the Embarcadero Freeway's removal completed in 1991, waterfront reconnection occurred, but broader neighborhood rent increases exceeding 50% from 2000 to 2015 in multiple areas contributed to resident displacement and altered community compositions. No rigorous causal evidence establishes freeway removals as drivers of broad improvements, as confounding factors like regional and policies obscure direct attribution. Studies highlight persistent risks of inequitable , where reconnected spaces attract higher-income demographics without proportional benefits to original inhabitants. Environmentally, freeway removals yield localized air quality enhancements by curtailing direct emissions and noise in former corridor areas. In Portland, the 1974 Harbor Drive removal addressed pre-existing severe that prompted EPA fines, transforming the site into a waterfront park with reduced traffic-related contaminants. Similarly, Rochester's Inner Loop partial removal in 2019-2020 correlated with lower annual concentrations in adjacent zones. Yet, net emission reductions remain uncertain, as detours and rerouted traffic often maintain or increase total vehicle miles traveled, neutralizing global benefits. Health metrics indicate potential gains from added pedestrian infrastructure and green spaces post-removal, fostering opportunities for and reduced exposure to highway pollutants. However, in low-density U.S. urban contexts, entrenched auto-dependency limits these effects, with reliance persisting despite local enhancements.

Key Controversies

Efficacy Debates and Empirical Shortcomings

Proponents of freeway removal argue that projects have successfully reduced local traffic volumes and congestion without significant disruption, as evidenced by case studies in cities like and Portland, where overall vehicle miles traveled declined post-demolition, ostensibly promoting shifts to walking, biking, and transit. However, these outcomes often reflect , with removals typically targeting underutilized or seismically compromised infrastructure carrying low daily volumes—such as San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway, which handled only about 30% of its design capacity before the —rather than high-demand corridors where similar interventions would likely exacerbate . Critics contend this cherry-picking inflates perceived efficacy, as broader applications in denser urban settings without concurrent massive transit expansions fail to curb overall automobile dependency or dynamics, leading to traffic redistribution and persistent regional congestion. Empirical analyses reveal further shortcomings, including reliance on short-term observations spanning 5-10 years that overlook long-term behavioral adaptations, such as commuters rerouting via parallel arterials or peripheral highways, which models often underestimate due to assumptions of static demand elasticity. Real-world variance—factoring in economic shifts, trends post-2020, or varying regional transit quality—frequently diverges from predictive simulations, with limited counterfactual controls in case studies hindering causal attribution of outcomes to removal alone. Moreover, many evaluations stem from literature predisposed toward anti-automobile narratives, potentially amplifying anecdotal revitalization while downplaying instances where removed capacity correlated with elevated local speeds but unchanged or heightened system-wide delays. Skeptical assessments highlight how efficacy claims are sometimes subordinated to politically motivated framings, such as "reparations" for historical displacements, which prioritize symbolic equity over rigorous evidence of net benefits—particularly in U.S. contexts where motivations diverge from international emphases on or . This approach risks overgeneralizing successes from atypical sites to infeasible ones, as evidenced by stalled proposals in high-traffic metropolises like or , where preliminary modeling projects minimal VMT reductions absent complementary infrastructure overhauls. Such debates underscore the need for longitudinal, unbiased datasets to disentangle causal effects from confounding urban regeneration factors.

Cost-Benefit Analyses and Fiscal Critiques

Freeway removal projects typically entail substantial upfront costs for , site remediation, and replacement such as or caps, with estimates varying by and structure type but often exceeding $50 million per mile when including redevelopment. For example, of Seattle's , approximately 2 miles of elevated roadway, cost $93.7 million in 2018 as part of a broader $3.3 billion corridor replacement program that incorporated tunneling and waterfront enhancements. Similarly, San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway removal, spanning about 1.8 miles, formed part of a $171 million initiative post-1989 to convert the into a surface , avoiding projected $69.5 million reconstruction expenses but incurring equivalent or higher total outlays for urban reconnection. These figures underscore how removal decisions hinge on comparing teardown versus repair costs, yet full lifecycle expenses—including long-term maintenance of new at-grade streets—frequently escalate beyond initial projections due to unforeseen environmental or utility relocations. Fiscal critiques emphasize the opportunity costs, as removal diverts federal and state funds from addressing a $105 billion state-local deferred maintenance backlog for roads and bridges, exacerbating deterioration of existing networks serving broader populations. The U.S. Department of Transportation's , reliant on general revenue bailouts totaling over $290 billion since 2008, faces strain from reallocating resources to discretionary programs like Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods, which prioritize equity-focused teardowns but have drawn scrutiny for inefficient grant distribution amid competing repair demands. advocacy groups argue this imposes undue burdens on national contributors, subsidizing localized urban experiments where benefits—such as enhanced —disproportionately favor adjacent properties over regional commuters bearing traffic externalities without proportional gains. Proponents cite cases like Milwaukee's Park East Freeway spur removal, where $30 million in demolition costs undercut $50-80 million repair estimates, yielding positive through $250 million in subsequent tax base growth from . However, such outcomes prove context-specific; high-traffic freeways risk negative benefit-cost ratios if or inadequate alternatives amplify congestion costs, with studies showing urban roadway reductions often underdeliver projected savings by 17% when factoring land value and spillover effects. Fiscal conservatives question the ideological drivers behind these initiatives, advocating prioritization of verifiable returns over speculative , particularly given the federal repair backlog nearing $830 billion. Comprehensive evaluations thus reveal uneven profiles, with low-volume spurs occasionally justifying removal on cost-effectiveness grounds but major arteries demanding rigorous scrutiny to avoid fiscal overreach.

Alternatives to Removal

Reconstruction and expansion of existing freeways represent a primary alternative to , preserving capacity while addressing wear and demand growth. Studies indicate that widening highways can reduce congestion in the short term, with one of U.S. projects showing considerable relief lasting up to six years post-completion. This approach counters exaggerated claims of by demonstrating that capacity additions lower driving costs and maintain higher average speeds initially, rather than perpetually worsening . High-occupancy (HOV) , often integrated into expansions, further enhance flow by incentivizing carpooling, saving commuters 12 to 22 minutes per trip on average according to U.S. evaluations. Such modifications avoid the land-use disruptions of removal, with federal assessments affirming that physical capacity increases remain a key strategy for congestion alleviation when paired with . Technological upgrades offer land-preserving enhancements to freeway operations, leveraging data and automation to optimize throughput without structural demolition. Adaptive smart traffic signals, using real-time sensors and AI, have demonstrated reductions in travel times by 20-30% and congestion by up to 40% in controlled studies, as seen in implementations adjusting cycles dynamically to traffic volumes. In Pittsburgh, an AI-driven system reduced travel times by 25% across signalized corridors by adapting to conditions rather than fixed timing. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) complement this by enabling closer following distances and smoother merging, with simulations showing potential to boost capacity and alleviate congestion through vehicle-to-vehicle communication, even at low penetration rates of 10%. These interventions maintain existing infrastructure while yielding measurable efficiency gains, sidestepping the uncertain long-term traffic relocation risks of removal projects. Prioritizing routine over removal sustains capacity at lower upfront costs, given the U.S. faces a $1 trillion backlog in repairs as of 2023 Federal estimates. Annual disbursements for totaled $27.46 billion in 2020, comprising 17.4% of overall spending, yet deferred needs persist, underscoring the fiscal prudence of addressing deterioration proactively rather than pursuing one-time demolitions with variable outcomes. Expansion or rehabilitation, such as resurfacing and bridge reinforcements, preserves mobility without the multi-billion-dollar reconstruction demands of removal, which often exceed initial projections due to unforeseen environmental and relocation expenses. Hybrid solutions like freeway caps or lids—decking over active roadways to create elevated parks or developments—provide urban benefits without full tunneling or , achieving cost savings through partial coverage rather than subsurface relocation. European examples, including lid structures in the such as the A10 project in , integrate green spaces atop highways at reduced expense compared to comprehensive tunnels, reclaiming surface land while retaining vehicular throughput. These approaches, piloted in dense urban settings, minimize disruption and fiscal outlay, with life-cycle analyses favoring surface-level adaptations over buried alternatives for balancing connectivity and . By avoiding total capacity loss during transitions, such hybrids offer a pragmatic middle ground, supported by assessments prioritizing incremental upgrades for sustained economic viability.

Recent Policy Shifts and Funding Dynamics

The (IIJA), signed into law on November 15, 2021, authorized the Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) Program under the U.S. Department of Transportation, providing up to $1 billion in competitive grants over five years for planning and capital projects to remove, retrofit, or mitigate highways that historically divided communities. This funding targeted restoration of connectivity in urban areas, with awards supporting feasibility studies and implementation in cities like , and , where grants exceeded $50 million collectively by 2023. However, the program's emphasis on equity and historical redress drew scrutiny for prioritizing social outcomes over traffic efficiency metrics. By 2025, the incoming Trump administration's , led by Secretary Sean P. Duffy, implemented deregulatory measures, including the rescission of Biden-era policy memoranda and the withdrawal of proposed safety and planning rules, which indirectly constrained equity-centric grant programs like RCP. Funding disbursement for RCP and related initiatives slowed to approximately 10% of prior administration rates, reflecting a broader pivot toward resilience and reduced emphasis on remedial reconnection efforts, amid critiques of prior grants as ideologically driven rather than data-substantiated. State-level responses diverged: in , officials and advocates pushed for boulevard conversions along I-94 in 2024-2025, but the advanced freeway reconstruction plans on January 17, 2025, retaining elevated structures while incorporating multimodal elements, prioritizing capacity over full removal. Local funding for removal projects increasingly relies on municipal bonds and (TIF) districts, which capture future uplifts to service debt for . TIF has financed elements of projects like California's Highways to Boulevards initiative, with $149 million allocated in 2025 for multimodal conversions. Yet, post-2022 interest rate hikes by the —peaking at 5.25-5.50% in 2023—elevated bond yields, adding 1-2 percentage points to borrowing costs and inflating project financing by 15-25% in urban bond issuances, per analyses of municipal debt trends. Internationally, policies contrast with U.S. teardown approaches, favoring infrastructure retrofits and urban ring roads over central removals due to higher densities and pre-existing avoidance of intra-city highways. In and other states, removals like Madrid's M-30 partial retrofit emphasize and green integration without full demolition, reflecting regulatory frameworks that prioritize density-compatible adaptations over U.S.-style community reconnection narratives.

Influence of Technology and Urban Growth Patterns

Advancements in autonomous vehicle (AV) technology are projected to enhance on existing freeways through features like platooning and optimized routing, potentially diminishing the rationale for removal projects. A 2025 analysis by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute indicates that widespread AV adoption could increase road capacity and reduce congestion by enabling more efficient vehicle operations, including smoother merging and reduced headways. Similarly, projections suggest that by 2035, large-scale AV fleets in up to 80 cities could yield substantial efficiency gains via higher vehicle utilization rates, though full realization depends on regulatory and infrastructural integration. complements these effects marginally by supporting quieter, lower-maintenance fleets, but its primary impact on congestion stems from integration with AV systems rather than battery power alone, as standalone EV adoption has shown mixed results in altering peak-hour freeway loads. Post-2020 shifts toward have notably lowered peak traffic demands on urban freeways, altering growth patterns that once justified removal for congestion relief. Studies document a sustained increase in telecommuting, with U.S. postings quadrupling from 2020 to 2023 and stabilizing at 35-40% of compatible jobs by late 2022, leading to reduced commute volumes. This has decreased vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on highways; for instance, one simulation-based assessment found telework policies could cut annual VMT by millions in urban settings, easing loads without physical changes. However, suburban expansion persists, favoring arterial roads and peripheral freeways over dense city cores, as enables longer commutes for non-daily trips, potentially offsetting core reductions and sustaining highway reliance. Data-driven models further question the forward relevance of freeway removals amid VMT-capping technologies and policies. Simulations integrating telework and AVs project urban underutilization if curbs overall growth, rendering demolitions premature. A 2025 study highlights how telework-induced VMT declines could induce sprawl but still net reduce peak urban loads, suggesting adaptive maintenance of freeways aligns better with uncertain trajectories. Proponents of caution, emphasizing irreversible demolition costs against evolving tech, argue for preserving flexibility, as AV penetration rates remain unpredictable and could stabilize existing networks without urban redesign.

References

  1. https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2022/05/31/eight-completed-highway-removals-tell-story-movement
  2. https://www.planetizen.com/node/23300
  3. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/26135
  4. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17549170902833899
  5. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/152468/boccon-gibod-alexbg-mcp-dusp-2023-thesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  6. https://digital.lib.washington.edu/bitstreams/a04aa745-2b13-400b-9d5f-d33613308244/download
  7. http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysHarbor.html
  8. https://www.oregonlive.com/multimedia/2014/05/portlands_old_harbor_drive_was.html
  9. https://www.cnu.org/what-we-do/build-great-places/embarcadero-freeway-removal
  10. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byday/fhbd0227.htm
  11. http://web.mit.edu/czegras/www/Napolitan_Zegras_FreewayRemoval_Final.pdf
  12. https://africa.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/rethinking_highways-cnu.pdf
  13. https://www.cnu.org/our-projects/highways-boulevards/principles
  14. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/2020-03-deconstruction-ahead-urban-highway-removal-changing-cities/
  15. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/26135/dot_26135_DS1.pdf
  16. https://www.cnu.org/sites/default/files/Nashville%2520Case%2520Study%25202%2520-%2520Seattle.pdf
  17. https://www.governing.com/infrastructure/feds-seek-to-heal-community-scars-from-interstate-highways
  18. https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-administration-announces-history-making-33-billion-locally-led-projects
  19. https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/investing-america-biden-harris-administration-announces-544-million-locally-driven
  20. https://www.cnu.org/highways-boulevards/freeways-without-futures/2025
  21. https://www.planetizen.com/news/2025/06/135183-dead-end-nine-highways-ready-retirement
  22. https://www.history.com/articles/interstate-highway-system-infrastructure-construction-segregation
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119023000438
  24. https://economics.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk13091/files/inline-files/Weiwu.pdf
  25. https://tuftsdaily.com/features/2022/12/08/boston-highways-a-bridge-or-a-divide/
  26. https://consilienceproject.org/deindustrialization-and-the-american-city/
  27. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/removing-a-highway-and-reconnecting-a-community-i-81-and-syracuse-ny/
  28. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-major-milestone-part-transformative-i-81-viaduct-project-award-fifth
  29. https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2019/11/21/is-it-time-to-take-highways-out-of-cities/
  30. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2025/07/21/for-highway-teardowns-to-correct-the-wrongs-of-the-past-focus-on-housing
  31. https://www.landscapeperformance.org/case-study-briefs/cheonggyecheon-stream-restoration-project
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6862437/
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2948442/
  34. https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/rethinking-highways-healthy-communities
  35. https://www.uclahealth.org/news/article/ask-the-doctors-will-living-near-a-freeway-increase-the-risk-of-asthma
  36. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/10/7825
  37. https://www.archdaily.com/979904/highway-removals-restoring-the-urban-fabric-and-unlocking-new-development-opportunities
  38. https://mayorsinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/868/2020/03/SURDNA_freeway_brief.pdf
  39. https://smartgrowthamerica.org/five-cities-argue-the-economic-case-to-tear-down-a-highway/
  40. https://www.foundsf.org/The_Embarcadero_Reborn
  41. https://highroad.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2056/2020/04/2013-Rethinking-the-Urban-Freeway.pdf
  42. https://www.wisconsinhighways.org/milwaukee/park.html
  43. https://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityDCD/parkeast/plan/MasterPlan/Chap1MasterPlan.pdf
  44. http://thei81challenge.org/cm/resourcefiles/resources/milwaukee-parkeast.pdf
  45. https://www.cnu.org/what-we-do/build-great-places/park-east-freeway
  46. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna22394932
  47. https://www.mass.gov/info-details/the-big-dig-project-background
  48. https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/search-projects/sr-99-tunnel
  49. https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/major-projects/alaskan-way-viaduct-replacement-program
  50. https://www.kut.org/transportation/2024-08-05/i-35-expansion-park-decks-caps-over-austin-highway-klyde-warren-park-dallas
  51. https://www.archpaper.com/2023/06/progress-underway-on-dallas-highway-cap-over-interstate-35e/
  52. https://conversableeconomist.com/2022/04/05/the-case-for-burying-downtown-freeways/
  53. https://tunnelingonline.com/why-tunnels-in-the-us-cost-much-more-than-anywhere-else-in-the-world/
  54. https://benjaminschneider.substack.com/p/the-perils-of-freeway-caps
  55. https://www.cityofrochester.gov/departments/department-environmental-services-des/inner-loop-north-transformation-project
  56. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/ny_freeway_to_boulvard_rochester.aspx
  57. https://wxxinews.org/local-news/2025-01-07/say-goodbye-to-the-inner-loop-schumer-secures-100-million-for-highway-removal
  58. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5fd6n8hr
  59. https://reclaimingoldwestbroad.org/case-studies/portland-harbor-drive/
  60. https://city.milwaukee.gov/DCD/Projects/ParkEastredevelopment/Park-East-History
  61. http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysParkEast.html
  62. https://www.cityofrochester.gov/departments/department-environmental-services-des/inner-loop-east-project
  63. https://globaldesigningcities.org/publication/global-street-design-guide/streets/special-conditions/elevated-structure-removal/case-study-cheonggyecheon-seoul-korea/
  64. https://old.ser-rrc.org/project/south-korea-restoration-of-the-cheonggyecheon-river-in-downtown-seoul/
  65. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/gardiner-expressway-construction-complete-october-2025-9.6942578
  66. https://www.toronto.ca/news/gardiner-expressway-temporary-closures-coordinated-with-blue-jays-world-series-schedule/
  67. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-20/paris-beltway-to-swap-traffic-lanes-for-green-space
  68. https://www.apur.org/en/mobility-public-space/mobility-evolution/monitoring-developments-boulevard-peripherique
  69. https://www.cnu.org/highways-boulevards/model-cities/new-haven
  70. https://downtowncrossingnewhaven.com/history/
  71. https://www.newhavenct.gov/government/departments-divisions/city-plan/plans-projects/downtown-crossing
  72. https://dailyorange.com/2025/10/city-advocates-share-concerns-81-viaduct-impact/
  73. https://www.wrvo.org/2025-01-06/i-81-viaduct-project-to-make-significant-headway-in-2025
  74. https://www.enr.com/articles/60817-nysdot-readies-for-syracuse-viaduct-removal-with-demolition-contract-community-health-strategy
  75. https://news.syr.edu/2025/09/24/architecture-faculty-creating-model-for-a-post-highway-future/
  76. https://sfstandard.com/opinion/2024/06/17/sf-demolish-central-freeway-mission-soma-hayes/
  77. https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/the-city/mission-neighbors-call-for-demolition-of-sf-central-freeway/article_48417d42-2e83-11ef-a670-abd38317f180.html
  78. https://www.multi.studio/perspective/perspective/identifying-next-steps-for-the-future-of-the-san-francisco-central-freeway
  79. https://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/news/2025/07/06/downtown-stretch-of-us-35-ripe-for-removal.html
  80. https://www.cnu.org/sites/default/files/FWF_2025%2520FINAL.pdf
  81. https://www.planetizen.com/news/2025/01/133596-highway-removal-slowed-outdated-policy-lack-committed-funding
  82. https://www.npr.org/2025/05/29/nx-s1-5415742/supreme-court-nepa
  83. https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2025/06/supreme-court-focuses-nepa-review-implications-for-us-infrastructure
  84. https://www.sfgov.org/youthcommission/sites/default/files/RESOLUTION%25202223-AL-07%2520v3.pdf
  85. https://files.stample.co/stample-1497886408992-The_Impacts_of_Road_Capacity_Removal.pdf
  86. https://appel.[nasa](/page/NASA).gov/2010/07/15/the-big-dig-learning-from-a-mega-project/
  87. https://www.taxpayer.net/transportation-infrastructure/big-dig-billions-over-budget/
  88. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/wi_park_east_freeway.aspx
  89. https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2020/01/22/park-east-transformative
  90. http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysEmbarcadero.html
  91. https://jlin.org/papers/BL-FDF.pdf
  92. https://lizfarmer.substack.com/p/the-economics-of-highway-removal
  93. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2408937122
  94. https://www.planetizen.com/news/2025/03/134546-disconnecting-communities-measuring-social-impacts-freeways
  95. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/bay_area_re-segregation_rising_housing_costs_report_2019.pdf
  96. https://www.planetizen.com/news/2021/07/114018-freeway-removal-cause-gains-momentum-dont-forget-gentrification-and
  97. https://www.planetizen.com/news/2021/07/114184-does-highway-removal-make-cities-healthier
  98. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/27/climate/us-cities-highway-removal.html
  99. https://reason.org/commentary/examining-the-induced-demand-arguments-used-to-discourage-freeway-expansion/
  100. https://academic.oup.com/joeg/article/23/4/871/6901322
  101. https://www.thecgo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Can-We-Build-Our-Way-Out-of-Urban-Traffic-Congestion.pdf
  102. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Reasons-for-freeway-removal-in-the-United-States-versus-other-countries-The-numbers-on_fig4_340103798
  103. https://www.pacificresearch.org/induced-demand-a-poor-excuse-not-to-build-highways/
  104. https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/local/2018/05/18/demolishing-alaskan-way-viaduct-seattle-cost-93-7-million/623356002/
  105. https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2025/05/state-and-local-governments-face-105-billion-in-deferred-maintenance-for-roads-and-bridges
  106. https://www.taxpayer.net/transportation-infrastructure/road-to-insolvency-taxpayers-cant-afford-to-bail-out-the-highway-trust-fund-forever/
  107. https://www.taxpayer.net/article/economists-criticize-forest-service-over-10-billion-road-backlog/
  108. https://ssti.us/2024/08/19/highway-costs-outweigh-benefits-especially-when-land-value-is-considered/
  109. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/cfo/fhwa-fy-2025_budget_508.pdf
  110. https://its.ucdavis.edu/blog/we-can-and-should-account-consequences-expanding-highways
  111. https://www.makeroadssafe.org/do-hov-lanes-reduce-traffic-congestion/
  112. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report_04/chapter4.htm
  113. https://www.preprints.org/frontend/manuscript/46b5e95877ea29c33a14693642ae51f9/download_pub
  114. https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/this-ai-traffic-system-in-pittsburgh-has-reduced-travel-time-by-25/447494/
  115. http://www.itskrs.its.dot.gov/2015-b00978
  116. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/cfo/fhwa-fy-2023_budget_508.pdf
  117. https://reason.org/highway-report/27th-annual-highway-report/maintenance-disbursements-ratio/
  118. https://international.fhwa.dot.gov/uts/uts.pdf
  119. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0886779825002627
  120. https://www.transportation.gov/reconnecting
  121. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/rcp_fact_sheet.cfm
  122. https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/transportation-secretary-sean-p-duffy-slashes-red-tape-across-fhwa-nhtsa-and-fmcsa
  123. https://t4america.org/2025/07/09/no-safety-and-no-speed-the-trump-administration-is-implementing-funds-for-safety-grants-to-towns-and-cities-at-about-ten-percent-of-the-speed-of-the-previous-administration/
  124. https://minnesotareformer.com/2025/01/09/a-letter-to-highway-removal-skeptics/
  125. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/value_capture/defined/value_cap_faq_tif_march_2021.aspx
  126. https://www.grants.ca.gov/grants/reconnecting-communities-highways-to-boulevards-program/
  127. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/24cpr/pdf/Chapter2.pdf
  128. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/25148486231215179
  129. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340103798_Why_are_cities_removing_their_freeways_A_systematic_review_of_the_literature
  130. https://www.vtpi.org/avip.pdf
  131. https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Autonomous_Vehicles_2025.pdf
  132. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0968090X2100098X
  133. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537125000752
  134. https://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/work-at-home-after-covid-19-our-forecast
  135. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213624X24000993
  136. https://etrr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12544-025-00730-z
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.