Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Subtle Signs of Progress in the Urban Highway Debate

A rendering of Denver's planned I-70 widening, bury, and cap. Photo from I-70east.com.
Last Friday, Streetsblog highlighted a project moving forward in Denver to widen, bury, and partially cap an elevated freeway that runs through the city, leaving neighborhoods divided and disinvested in a city that's otherwise booming economically. It's a sad story, especially given Denver's tendency toward smart transportation and development policy, and because bigger freeways don't do much of anything to improve traffic in the long term. It's also somewhat surprising, as other cities across the country (and the world) have seen aging urban freeways as an opportunity to heal the wounds of the past rather than doubling down on destructive development from a bygone era.

All that said, I'd like to note that even in this backwards proposal there's hope to be gleaned. First, take a look up above at the rendering for the planned highway. Now, imagine that this same highway widening had been proposed 20 or 30 years ago. Back then, would the officials proposing this expansion have bothered with extra "treats" like a freeway cap park? (They're also "promising a network of parks, open space, and transit" according to Streetsblog.) Would they be burying it in order to lessen the impact on the surrounding communities?

I think it would be a lot less likely, and small consolation though it may be, we should take heart that we're moving the needle toward transportation and development policy that acknowledges the needs of more than just drivers. It's a lot more consideration than was offered to pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and local residents in decades past, even if that consideration is still woefully insufficient.

2 comments:

  1. the 1980s expansion of I-696 in Southfield, MI, included cap parks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm absolutely not trying to make the claim that these things weren't done in the past, just that they seem to be a more standard part of the package these days than they were in the past, when DOTs tended to either not care about the impact on local residents or made claims that running a freeway through their neighborhood would actually improve their lives with new jobs, etc.

      Delete