Freeway removal is the dismantling of freeways (also known as motorways, expressways or urban highways in various parts of the world), usually in urban areas, and repurposing the land for housing, parks or mixed-use development. Such projects may also include a new boulevard, tunnel, or new or expanded alternative transportation.
The trend to remove urban freeways emerged in response to the massive freeway construction boom during the mid-20th century across many industrialized nations (most notably in the U.S.) and the consequent freeway revolts, where citizens began protesting against the construction through their neighborhoods. Today, a growing number of cities have already removed these barriers, while others are actively planning or proposing similar transformations.
One of the main reasons for removing urban freeways is the adverse effects of their emissions on public health and the environment. Foremost among these is air pollution, resulting from toxic and environmentally harmful substances released from automobile, truck and other internal combustion engines, including ground-level ozone, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds. Toxic substances are also released into the air and water bodies in the form of fine particles created by the abrasion of road surfaces, road markings, tires and brake pads.
A second reason is to reduce noise pollution. Numerous studies have shown that excess noise is not merely annoying but can actually harm the mental and physical health of humans and even of some wildlife.
Another benefit is reconnecting and revitalizing neighborhoods fractured by freeway construction. The improvements in the quality of the urban environment and the increased availability of space for housing and other activities can encourage living in higher density urban areas rather than sprawling suburbs. Additional benefits include eliminating the increasingly high costs of maintenance and repair for the aging urban freeways and boosting municipal tax bases.
In addition to the increasing awareness of the adverse effects of massive urban freeways on the environment, public health and the quality of life, another major factor in the growing momentum to remove them has been the discovery that their elimination does not necessarily lead to the massive traffic congestion that had been predicted by opponents of removal. In fact, experience has shown that dramatic net benefits are possible in some cases.*
Also important has been the growing recognition that urban freeways, at least in the U.S., were often intentionally built through low income and minority neighborhoods. These communities have suffered disproportionately, first from the demolishing of wide strips of housing and businesses through them and subsequently from increased air pollution and noise, reduced walkability and lower property values.
The question arises as to why these freeways were originally built if they are so harmful. One reason is that transportation planners saw them as an effective solution to the continuously increasing traffic congestion resulting from the ever-expanding number of automobiles and other road vehicles. The fact that new freeways did initially reduce both congestion and travel times encouraged planners to build still more. However, after a while congestion and travel times began increasing again due to induced demand. For decades the response to this increased demand has been to continue to build still more freeways and further widen existing ones.
Another reason for the mass construction of urban freeways was that during that period there was far less knowledge and concern about environmental issues. The great extent of damage that freeways could do to both the environment and public health could not have been anticipated. For example, smog and other forms of air pollution were mostly viewed as a mere annoyance rather than a severe public health threat.
Moreover, there was a widespread belief, not only among transportation planners but also among the public in general, that urban rail transportation was obsolete and that nearly everyone preferred private automobiles and should be entitled to use them without restriction. A residual bus service would be retained only for those incapable of driving. This attitude led to the neglect and eventual dismantling of rail transit systems in nearly all U.S. cities except for a few of the largest, thereby intensifying the shift towards automobile use and the construction of more freeways to accommodate it.
_______
*Perhaps the most outstanding example of this is Cheonggyecheon, a nearly 11 kilometer natural stream in central Seoul, South Korea, that had been covered by an elevated freeway for about half of its length. This freeway, completed in 1976, had been acclaimed as an example of the country's successful modernization and industrialization.
In contrast to predictions that removing the freeway would increase traffic congestion on nearby streets, congestion actually decreased following the project's completion in 2005, because of improved traffic control and some drivers switching to nearby subway lines. At the same time, nearby air quality improved dramatically and noise levels dropped sharply. Moreover, the replanting of native vegetation on the banks of the restored stream was followed by the return of native insects, fish and birds to the area.
Other examples include the Georges-Pompidou Expressway in Paris, France, parts of which were closed and converted into pedestrian and park spaces along the River Seine to reclaim the waterfront for the public. In San Francisco in the U.S., the Embarcadero and Central Freeways, damaged by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, were demolished and replaced by surface boulevards, which stimulated large-scale redevelopment, including along the waterfront. The Harbor Drive freeway in Portland, Oregon was converted into Tom McCall Waterfront Park in the 1970s, becoming one of the first major freeway-to-park transformations in the U.S.