Freeway removal is the removal of freeways, usually in urban areas, and using the land for other purposes, such as housing, parks, or mixed use. In some cases a removed freeway is replaced with a tunnel or a boulevard, and in some cases it is replaced with alternative transportation.
The trend to remove urban freeways, which were built primarily in the U.S., has gained momentum during the past several decades in the wake of the massive construction of such roadways during the second half of the twentieth century and the consequent freeway revolts, when citizens began protesting against the construction through their neighborhoods. Currently there are many urban freeways that have either been removed, are scheduled for removal, or for which proposals have made for removal.
One of the main reasons for removing freeways is their adverse effects on public health. Foremost among these is air pollution, which is the result of toxic and environmentally harmful substances released from 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 which are created by the abrasion of road surfaces and road markings by tires and by the abrasion of 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 some wildlife.
Among the various other benefits can be reconnecting and revitalizing neighborhoods that were fractured by the construction of the freeways. The improvements in the quality of the urban environment and the increased availability of space available for housing and other activities can encourage living in higher density urban areas rather than far-flung suburbs. Another benefit is eliminating the increasingly high maintenance and repair costs for aging freeways.
Foremost among the growing momentum to remove urban freeways has been the increasing awareness of environmental issues and of the adverse effects of urban freeways on health, the environment and the quality of life. Closely related to this was the discovery that removing freeways did not necessarily lead to the massive traffic congestion that had been predicted by opponents of removal. In fact, experience with removal has shown that dramatic net benefits are possible in some cases.1
Another reason for the growing interest in removing freeways has been their increasing state of deterioration, in large part due to the massive volumes of traffic they accommodate, and the increasingly huge costs of maintaining and repairing them.
Still another reason has been the growing awareness of and reflection about the fact that urban freeways, at least in the case of the U.S., were often built purposely through low income and minority neighborhoods and that such neighborhoods have suffered disproportionately, initially from the demolishing of wide strips of housing and businesses through them and thereafter continuously from increased air pollution, increased 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 they were seen by transportation planners and others from around the middle of the last century as an effective solution to the continuously increasing traffic congestion that was occurring in urban areas as the number of automobiles and other road vehicles continued to increase. The fact that new freeways did initially reduce both congestion and travel times also encouraged planners to build still more freeways. 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 relatively little knowledge of 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 thought of as just an annoyance rather than as 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 prefers using private automobiles and should be entitled to use them without restriction. A residual bus service would be retained for those who were incapable of driving. This attitude led to the neglect and then dismantling of rail transit systems in nearly all U.S. cities except for a few of largest, thereby intensifying the shift towards automobile use and the construction of more freeways to accommodate it.
_______
1. 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 its demolition around 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.