What If A Freeway Wore Out

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by xandrex

I think part of the problem is that a bridge collapsed. River crossings are always problematic because traffic is funneled into one area.

It's interesting this topic came up (and I suspect there's a relation) because MinnPost just had an article on this topic: Is it time to start dismantling downtown freeways? | MinnPost

I sort of like the idea of replacing roaring freeways in/near downtown with calmer boulevards and emphasizing transit. But I'm also realistic that it's going to be hard to convince people to do this. If we could cover the freeways (a la Boston's Big Dig), then that would be fantastic. But again, political realities don't exactly align with that.

Why am i not surprised that you think it would be "fantastic" if we could repeat one of the biggest boondoggles of all time. $24 billion in cost. Yeah, I guess political realties don't align with a construction project that cost as much as it costs to run our entire state for a year. I thought the whole point of the OP was that maintaining freeways was too expensive.

Big Dig costs pegged at $24.3B, lawmakers told - Boston.com

[Beenhere4ever]

Things are gonna change. It won't be in the blink of an eye. And people will rant and rave every step of the way. But every lifestyle has its day, and that day ends at some point. You can look at the freeways like the Levittowns built in the 50's. Doomed by the passage of time.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

Things are gonna change. It won't be in the blink of an eye. And people will rant and rave every step of the way. But every lifestyle has its day, and that day ends at some point. You can look at the freeways like the Levittowns built in the 50's. Doomed by the passage of time.

I suspect that freeways will suffer the same fate as the "doomed" Levittowns. More than 50,000 people live in Levittown, NY today.

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Why am i not surprised that you think it would be "fantastic" if we could repeat one of the biggest boondoggles of all time. $24 billion in cost. Yeah, I guess political realties don't align with a construction project that cost as much as it costs to run our entire state for a year. I thought the whole point of the OP was that maintaining freeways was too expensive.

Big Dig costs pegged at $24.3B, lawmakers told - Boston.com

Honestly, I'm a little offended by the tone of your post. I'm never for a boondoggle and think when it comes to actual policy implementation, I'm pretty pragmatic. Shocking, I know. The Big Dig had a lot of problems, including some corruption issues and, if I remember correctly, some engineering that had to be redone. Obviously it's too expensive. Obviously it's not going to happen. I was talking about if money weren't any object in this debate. It would be fantastic. In the pure fantasy I'm talking about, what possible objection do you have to hiding noisy, polluted highways?

Further, I was simply talking about covering our freeways. We don't need to dig because--and I'm sure you know this, being a driver in Minneapolis--our freeways are already in trenches! The Big Dig took an elevated freeway, dismantled it, dug a trench, built a freeway, and buried that freeway. We wouldn't need to dismantle anything, we wouldn't have to dig a trench, we wouldn't need to rebuild the freeway. We'd do a cut-and-cover method.

The beauty of such a method is that you could pay for the project by selling land above the freeway (Duluth has things above its freeway tunnels and we have buildings above the Lowry Tunnel). Or using it for green space. Or what have you.

Don't worry. I'm not some scary man trying to steal the state's limited budget dollars for a beauty project. But I'd hope we'll eventually do some sort of land-bridging in an incremental fashion some time in the future. If not, I'll surely survive. But it's a nice thought exercise.

[ManBearPig1]

We shouldn't even need to cut and cover for certain trenches. We should be able to cap the 94 trench by downtown and the 35w trench by the U's west bank as is. Something totally feasible and that ought to happen in reality, not fantasy.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by xandrex

Honestly, I'm a little offended by the tone of your post. I'm never for a boondoggle and think when it comes to actual policy implementation, I'm pretty pragmatic. Shocking, I know. The Big Dig had a lot of problems, including some corruption issues and, if I remember correctly, some engineering that had to be redone. Obviously it's too expensive. Obviously it's not going to happen. I was talking about if money weren't any object in this debate. It would be fantastic. In the pure fantasy I'm talking about, what possible objection do you have to hiding noisy, polluted highways?

Further, I was simply talking about covering our freeways. We don't need to dig because--and I'm sure you know this, being a driver in Minneapolis--our freeways are already in trenches! The Big Dig took an elevated freeway, dismantled it, dug a trench, built a freeway, and buried that freeway. We wouldn't need to dismantle anything, we wouldn't have to dig a trench, we wouldn't need to rebuild the freeway. We'd do a cut-and-cover method.

The beauty of such a method is that you could pay for the project by selling land above the freeway (Duluth has things above its freeway tunnels and we have buildings above the Lowry Tunnel). Or using it for green space. Or what have you.

Don't worry. I'm not some scary man trying to steal the state's limited budget dollars for a beauty project. But I'd hope we'll eventually do some sort of land-bridging in an incremental fashion some time in the future. If not, I'll surely survive. But it's a nice thought exercise.

I don't know why you're bent out of shape. You're the one who cited the Big Dig as an example to emulate, not me.

[Thegonagle]

Originally Posted by xandrex

...we have buildings above the Lowry Tunnel.

Nope, it's just Lyndale Avenue on top of the tunnel, no buildings. They definitely took out a building or three when they built it.

You can't just put a lid on top of the 94/35W common. The entire area would have to be reengineered and rebuilt, and you still wouldn't want to build buildings on top of it--the space above would be limited to greenery, streets, and trails.

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

I don't know why you're bent out of shape. You're the one who cited the Big Dig as an example to emulate, not me.

I said we could cover them and used that as an example of what I meant. Not about the entire project. As I explained, our situation is completely different than Boston's. I'm not "bent out of shape", I just expected your comments to be a bit more thoughtful than those I'd find on the Strib's website.

Originally Posted by Thegonagle

Nope, it's just Lyndale Avenue on top of the tunnel, no buildings. They definitely took out a building or three when they built it.

You can't just put a lid on top of the 94/35W common. The entire area would have to be reengineered and rebuilt, and you still wouldn't want to build buildings on top of it--the space above would be limited to greenery, streets, and trails.

That's true. I should have clarified. What I meant is that we have infrastructure on top of the tunnel and the buildings (and their foundations) are incredibly close to the highway. So close, if I remember correctly, that expanding the tunnel wasn't possible for the longest time with the technology available because it would have affected the buildings.

Even though that trench has a bunch of ugly space above it, it has allowed buildings to remain incredibly close to the freeway without traffic roaring by (well...sort of). It's reclaiming space. Duluth has caps (mostly with parks above) that dramatically improve the livability in those areas.