With what money?

Look, I'm not insensitive to New Orleans, it's one of my favorite cities to visit. I just question spending money on this when vast sections of the city still lack even basic infrastructure at all.

Or proper zoning codes requiring them to build so any living spaces are on the 2nd floor or above with multiple rooftop escapes.

Should the 'L' in Chicago be torn down too?

The SF and Milwaukee examples are just lies, pure and simple. They were both glorified on-ramps, not major arteries.

As a Bostonian, I'd just like to point out that while the Big Dig was a nightmare while it was being built, it's extremely convenient now that it's complete. There's generally very little surface traffic, the tunnels under the city are very efficient, traffic is never backed up for more than 10 minutes in rush hour, and the city is much more bikeable than it used to be.

For an on-ramp, Fnarf, it sure loomed oppressively over a big swath of the Embarcadero. I was down there before the Loma Prieta quake (which of course caused its closure and eventual removal), and then didn't get back to that part of the city until just a couple of years ago. It was so gorgeous (sunny day!) and fun, I ended up hanging around for the whole afternoon right there--though the newly restored and reopened Ferry Building was also a major reason for the vibrancy of the area.

Will, the issue here seems to be similar to the AWV -- that stretch of I-10 (and many other elevated interstate highways around the nation, most of which were built in the 60s) has reached the end of its useful life and the question becomes one of "rebuild" versus "tear down", both of which will require money.

It's more a matter of deciding whether this is the last time it will require money, or if they want to double-down on their previous urban planning decision and face the same question again in another 40 years.

@7 is dead on: Of course the Big Dig had massive cost overruns (as most major projects do, and this was far bigger than most to start with), but the fact is it has been a game-changer in terms of traffic flow and connecting the city to its waterfront. The area from the North End to South Boston is growing rapidly, which is pretty rare in this economy.

Of course, you could have got those changes for about one-twentieth the price and still have had enough to provide transit quadrupling and bike paths in every neighborhood for the same net cost, bigyaz.

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. If the Billionaires Tunnel was free, that would be one thing. But it's not, it's blowing out budgets at the State, County, and City levels and shutting down parks, libraries, bridges, and other roadwork ... and that's before we even Build it.

Yes it (I-10 in New Orleans) did damage to the thriving black community in that area when it was built, but tearing it down isn't going to bring those neighborhoods back. They are long gone. Additionally, the New Orleans surface streets are in such poor condition that I don't think they could handle the added traffic. Furthermore, they'd have to turn that former section of interstate into a 6 or 8 lane boulevard to handle the traffic load. How does that help. Finally, I've seen no plans as to how they would integrate the remaining interstate sections into the road network. To the west I assume it would just remain connected the the Mississippi River bridge, but what about the eastern side of the city? Giant on-ramp at Elysian Fields? Show me some alternatives with traffic modelling behind them, and then we can talk.

@8, where's our Ferry Building, then? I know where you can the world's worst seafood lunch on our waterfront, and a bootleg "Twilight" t-shirt, but not much else. And seriously -- you were in San Francisco, one of the world's great cities to explore, and chose to spend your time down by the FERRY BUILDING?

the Alaskan Way Viaduct that cuts Seattle off from its waterfront, the double-decker freeway that once cut San Francisco off San Francisco Bay—

Seattle is not San Francisco. San Francisco has sex. Seattle masturbates.

@14, I was driving from South Bay to Marin as close to the bay shore as practicable, and stumbled across a cheap metered parking spot with a pocket full of quarters; had also done all the main attractions years before. Still plenty to see/revisit, but I hadn't planned to stop, just wend my way through.

Will @11: State highways are paid for from gas taxes. Under our State Constitution, gas taxes can only be used for roads and ferries, not for libraries and transit.

MPC-HC @12: Same as the incessant bitching about the second span of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Then: Oh, the injustice of having to pay $3! Now: Gee, it's kinda nice that we don't have to sit stalled in traffic for an hour each way. Whaddyaknow?

@17 under our State Constitution, you can also only have a certain number of buggy whips and slaves have to be freed unless they're apprentices.

Stuff changes. People don't care why - they just care what happens.

Here's another example of a city that, unlike Seattle, can get things done.

http://subsidyscope.com/transportation/h…

Here you go, kk. While gas taxes may be dedicated to road funding, a not-insignificant portion of road funds come from the general fund ("non-user fees") and bonds, which are - shockingly - paid back using general funds. If gas taxes covered 100% of road building and maintenance costs, you'd still have a losing argument, but as it stands, I want my 36% back for libraries, parks, public transportation, and all the other services mentioned.

A more intriguing question is what the state, county, and city will do to cope with the reduction in gas tax revenues from higher mpg hybrids, Tato Nanos, and all-electric vehicles. They create the same basic wear and tear on roadways, use the same parking space, and require just as many intersections and lights, but provide even less revenue.

Ms. D @20: Those are national statistics. There are many states (such as Georgia) that have very low gas taxes and use general funds for roads and highways. But that's not the situation here. Even when the State bonds for highway purposes, the bonds are - shockingly - paid pack using gas taxes.

Will @18: Did you work in the Bush Administration? Because you don't seem to have much connection to the reality-based community.

SEATTLE, July 16, 2057 — Mayor Shanequa Lopez-Kawasaki announced today that she is appointing a commission of twelve robots to study the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct, which is now in such poor condition that huge chunks of the roadway are missing and only the new autoplane hybrids from Hondaudi can use it.

There are two massive highways on each side of Manhattan, never mind the massive highways thru Brooklyn, Queens, and The Bronx. (BQE, LIE, I-95, to name just a few)

@23 - LOL

Dan, for someone who claims to not even drive, you sure have a lot to say about tearing down highways. Can we file all of your viaduct destruction/anti-tunnel rants under the two block radius header?

@22 that's zoning for new buildings built from scratch.

I'm talking about ALL buildings.

I'm from Seattle, but have lived in New Orleans for the past few years. I would love to see this section of highway torn down. It's totally unnecessary (I-610 connects the interstate east to west), and it created a miniature wasteland in the heart of the city. No, the people and businesses chased out decades ago won't come back. But I think new people and businesses will. There's incredible potential for connecting some of the most vibrant neighborhoods in the city (French Quarter, Treme, Mid-City).

As for traffic, oh please. There's enough space to replace the Claiborne elevated highway with a 6-lane boulevard, just like South Claiborne.

Did you know? The next phase after the Claiborne Expressway was supposed to be another elevated highway along the riverfront. It would have demolished part of the French Quarter and cut off the neighborhood from the water. Luckily they never did that.

Dan- Please name the 'elevated highway' that was torn down in Portland. I know of no such highway, and lived/visited there for 38 years, and the NW all my life.
Do tell.

What you're missing, kk, is that those stats include all forms of funding - state, federal, and local. You're diluding yourself if you think that all or even most of the money for roads anywhere, even Washington state, don't come from the feds. The feds also use general funds for roads. So even if you mistakenly think that all, or even most, of your state-level road funds come from gas taxes, you're wrong about the overall percentages.

Fnarf, last time I went to San Francisco, I rented a bike and went to this: http://www.ferrybuildingmarketplace.com/ to get ingredients for dinner. It ruled and your misinformed snobbery sucks.

Sorry for nit-picking, but there's an inconsistency: it's Mr "Laundrieu" in the title of this post, but "Landrieu" in the body of text. One of these two must be wrong and should be corrected.

@24 NYC did construct many highways that would never be built now. However, Manhattan has a good example of Dan's point. The West Side Highway -- the oldest elevated road in the city -- began to fall apart in the 1970s, and was it was torn down in stages. It was eventually replaced by a surface level boulevard which can be crossed to reach the esplanade and bike paths that have been built more recently.