Chicago: A Microcosm of Public Policy Failure pt 2. Like Ike's Turnpikes?

There are a few cities in North America that have been letting their expressways meet the wrecking ball. Toronto and Milwaukee are two such cities. Now, it is true that both of these expressways were less important -- Milwaukee's expressway had low traffic, and Toronto's was an unfinished stub that was previously the beginning of a larger project.
But, looking at inner city Toronto, it's clear that there's really only one expressway in the inner city. Yet Toronto is one of the richest cities on the continent.

Chicago doesn't need its expressways. Building them was a mistake. Here's why:

In Henry Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson," the lesson is as follows:

"The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."

America is a HUGE country. Even now our population density is merely 83 people per square mile, good for 178th. Germany is 55th, and has 594 people/mi sq. France is 96th with 295. United Kingdom? 51st with 660.
The famous Autobahn runs about 6,800 miles. The US Interstate system includes 46,837 miles. For every mile of Autobahn there are approximately 12,075 Germans. For every mile of interstate, there are only approximately 6,555 Americans. The numbers for France? 8,356 French people per mile.
Now, Russia and the Scandinavian countries are mostly less dense than America. But in Finland, for example, the highway miles comparable to the Interstate system are very low -- as seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highways_in_Finland

The point is that the number of miles of highway for each American taxpayer is wholly unsustainable. Before Eisenhower had the system built, many of the state highways he was in effect replacing were small roads with a single lane, or were unpaved altogether. America doesn't need the highway system we have today at the cost we're paying for it -- we're not getting as much benefit as more densely populated places.

In fact, America's infrastructure is crumbling in no uncertain terms. We're in bad shape, as seen here:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/10/crumbling-of-americas-infrastructure/

The interstate system's planners failed to consider the longer term sustainability of the system (I mean the word sustainability in a wholly different way than the green lobby does). It cost a fortune to build, but it will also cost a fortune to prevent it from collapsing under itself. By forcing future generations to deal with this problem by either dismantling the system or continuing to pay for it each passing year, the present has taxed the future.

Further, such vast changes in the fundamental working of the national economy -- in terms of the movement of goods and people -- always benefits some at the expense of others. It was a huge government intervention which altered the basic assumptions upon which business is to be done.

But Cook County is dense. Even ignoring the foolhardiness of the system as a whole, or its legality at the Federal level for that matter, doesn't the system make sense for dense areas? Perhaps for transportation from Chicago to Milwaukee, and perhaps for transportation among Chicagoland suburban centers. But not for Chicago proper. And, in fact, Urban America would be just as well off without the system; better off, I dare say.

When Chicago was growing fastest around the turn of the 20th century, it was in no small part due to its strategic location in the center of the country -- and consequently its status as one of the nation's two main railroad hubs (the other being St Louis). Chicagoland railways also caused a substantial number of suburbs to develop around Chicago along the tracks. In the 1930s one could drive from one suburb to another, or drive in to the city. But a large portion of daily commuters walked or drove to the train station and rode in to the city. Rail fares were cheap and trains fast enough.
In fact, imagine if a company were to buy up all of the land, without eminent domain, and build an expressway through Chicago! Imagine how much they would have to charge in order to break even, considering maintenance costs as well. If those costs showed up in the price per mile of expressway use, people would never have paid it. Rail would have a HUGE competitive advantage. Even today, beyond a certain distance it is cheaper to ship an intermodal container on a train than a truck. For example, from Chicago to the twin cities. How much larger would this competitive advantage be if people had to directly pay the real cost for highway use??
Of course, the point here is that in real terms and without socialized costs due to taxes, the highway is still less efficient than trains, and by quite a large sum. Highways could be privatized now, but only because the cost to build them and to forcibly buy people's land from them was socialized.
Indeed, were passenger railroads still private and highways privately built, it would still be far cheaper to travel from Chicago to Milwaukee by train than by highway.

As it is, the Interstate Highway Act forced an economic reorganization that would never have happened naturally! That is, the forces that would have produced a private highway system did not exist until after the public system was already built. In fact, they existed BECAUSE of the economic reformation that had to occur in response. The system was not previously needed. And, in fact, were it not built there it would never have been needed in urban areas. The difference in time and mobility of cars over trains can not be denied, but the case for a highway increasing speed vs a large boulevard is more dubious when the consumer has to pay for the difference. Traveling on main roads in to town is just not burdensome enough to justify a large price difference.
And, in fact, the highways themselves create the traffic problems American society is supposed to be unable to solve without them. It's the socialized costs and the concentration of traffic, which would exist in some part anyway, along one route which cause the problem. Whereas prior to the new infrastructure cars and trucks would travel along any number of main roads in to the city, now all of them concentrate on one superhighway.
Think of the way you travel to work, in Chicagoland or elsewhere. In all likelihood, you travel to the freeway and then get on it. Then you find your exit and travel some distance away from it. You've got to travel to one route where traffic is concentrated.
But Chicago was set up by Burnham to afford any number of important and intelligently placed thoroughfares -- the city is relentless in its logic. It doesn't need highway infrastructure. If not for the expressways, Chicagoans would drive along any one of Chicago's endless straight streets. Or they would take a local train.

I've thus far made the case that the highway system's benefits to Chicago are not significant. After underscoring my point with pictures, I'll examine the system's costs for the city's people.

These are the routes that Chicago's expressways take through the city. The glaringly obvious point is that the routes were already covered by major thoroughfares! And in fact when the highways were built the roads they replaced needn't have been. The huge suburban populations only arose in response to the illusory low cost of highway travel.

This is the Stevenson Expressway in red, and Archer Ave in yellow.



Here is South Chicago Ave in yellow, and the Chicago Skyway in red.



The Kennedy essentially replaces Milwaukee Ave. Additionally, when I-94 turns North it essentially replaces Cicero Ave, and then Skokie Blvd after Cicero's transformation. The Kennedy is in Red, and the other streets are in yellow. Milwaukee Ave is the diagonal street



And of course, the Congress, and afterwards the Eisenhower is most glaringly useless. It's as if it's a poster child for the whole interstate system. The Ike replaces any number of East West streets which previously carried its traffic. Of course, there is Congress which is right next to or completely replaced by the Ike. Or Van Buren, or Madison, or Lake, or Roosevelt, or 5th St running SW from Madison. This highway has sapped much of the traffic from these previously busy streets.

The Eisenhower Expy/Congress Pkwy is in red, and all other noted streets are in yellow. These streets are, from North to South, Lake, Madison and 5th, Congress, and finally Roosevelt.



Additionally, the Dan Ryan replaces Halsted while it passes the Loop. After it is South of the loop, the Dan Ryan steals traffic from State, Wentworth, King, Halsted, and others.

Halsted and Roosevelt, before the city had the expressway built and then bulldozed the whole area for UIC, at one time had the highest land values of any intersection outside of the loop. (ref. Homer Hoyt "One Hundred Years of Land Values in Chicago..")



This one act, the Interstate Highway Act, completely changed America's economic structure. Yet people wonder about the Midwest's decay? The balance was swiftly shifted from water and rail traffic to truck traffic. Rail and nautical infrastructure remains important to this day. But the extent of the existing infrastructure is such as to meet a demand that no longer exists -- and largely as a result of the highways.
The rules of the economic game shifted so suddenly as to a provoke a near complete restructuring. It is no wonder cities are in trouble.

What the Interstate system has done is artificially and unsustainably lower the costs of living outside of the city. It benefits suburbanites, not Chicagoans. Chicagos entire land use structure was based around the railroads. Slow shifts allow adaptation, but sudden restructuring forces dramatic economic changes and extreme shifts in land values. Areas that were previously suitably developed are now overbuilt for example. Vacancies increase in areas as goods and people flow along other avenues (sometimes literally).
Cars that used to drive along Archer Ave now take the Stevenson. Archer, fifty some years later, is a shadow of its former glory and fading still. And this particular area is not overly poor. Yet buildings are falling apart, storefronts are empty, the street wall is pockmarked and incomplete where it used to be full and cohesive.



But of course, Archer is not the only business thoroughfare to suffer. The highway reroutes commuters around businesses all over the city. No longer does a resident of Cicero pass by a business on Madison Ave on his way to his job in Uptown. Now he gets on the Eisenhower and drives to his job. He spends his money in Cicero and patronizes businesses in Cicero. Far from benefiting from the highway system, Chicago suffers.

Businesses on South Chicago Ave, on Milwaukee, on Lake, and on any number of previously important streets like King Drive or Pulaski (formerly Crawford) have the same problem. Traffic has been completely rerouted such that the old urban land uses are not suited to the new economic model. The economic environment has been changed such as only coercion can do.

The benefits of the city are no longer unique to the city. Suburbanites can get the benefits by proxy. The main business advantage in locating in the city is the pool of skilled labor that it affords (more on how unions have further damaged the Midwest in a future article). But with highways, Chicago business can locate anywhere in the area and have access to the same labor force. Good for business, bad for Chicago.

Additionally, the highways split neighborhoods in half. Oftentimes the wealth differential between one side of a highway and the other is substantial. Eminent domain tore apart communities, rending them in two and displacing thousands of families that were firmly tied to their land, to their sense of place. The character of these communities -- blue collar neighborhoods and ethnic enclaves -- has been changed forever. Gas stations, convenience stores, and large big box retailers spring up around the highway, and Chicago loses its sense of place, its authenticity in context, its history -- that which makes it unique and different from anywhere else. This uniqueness is what makes people love their homes and neighborhoods, what makes them take pride in their communities and fight to protect them. Additionally, displacing tens of thousands of residents that grew up in the city or who've lived there thirty years devastates the nature of the place. It becomes less Chicago, more somewhere else. The highways irreparably damage the unique urban nature of this particular city.


It's time to end the highways. They do not benefit Chicagoans. They damage their communities, fundamentally and artificially alter the economic conditions that created the city (forcing swift and radical change on the urban environment), funnel money around the city to the suburbs instead of focusing it in the center, divert traffic around the city, dilute Chicago's sense of place, and weaken Chicago's economic advantages. Additionally, they are financially unsustainable for the public sector -- Illinoisans and Americans cannot afford them.

Chicago would do better without them. Traffic would fall back on its old routes, equilibrium would be reached as some move back in to the city to balance longer commutes, traffic problems would be less concentrated and extreme, local railroads could again become profitable and come off of the county's tax rolls, thousands of old buildings would be pulled from abandonment and reused as their reasons for being are restored in the present. Chicago should demolish all of them within city limits but Lake Shore Drive, which largely avoided eminent domain -- LSD should be privatized.

City leaders should realize that the city is suffering from the differential between the economic basis on which it was created and the radically transformed environment which the highways and other factors have forced upon it. It all could have been avoided with a little respect for the private property rights guaranteed in the Constitution -- highways are not one of the very limited things which Washington has authority to take land for.