Stranded Infrastructure Lock-In Vignettes

Conceptual Framework for Ch.1

Infrastructure built for specific modal assumptions or technology scenarios creates path-dependency. When those assumptions prove false or technology disrupts, removal becomes politically and fiscally expensive. Three vignettes demonstrate the sunk-cost and political economy dynamics that could trap cities into bad CAM governance bets.

Vignette 1: Detroit I-375 (Paradise Valley) Freeway Removal

Historical Context

• 1960s: One-mile sunken expressway constructed through Paradise Valley (predominantly Black neighborhood) as part of urban renewal push
• Impact: Demolished two historic neighborhoods; severed community; dominated downtown waterfront
• Problem: Infrastructure aged; carry declined; maintenance costs mounted; community demanded reconnection

Removal Proposal (Ongoing)

• Total project cost: $270 million (2022 estimate)
• Federal funding awarded: $105 million (Infrastructure for Rebuilding America program, 2022)
• Scope: Fill the trench; construct boulevard at street level; reconnect grid
• Land value freed: ~30 acres for redevelopment; estimated future economic benefit substantial but unquantified in governance context
• Status as of 2024: Planning phase; early cost estimates (pre-2020) ranged $40–$80 million, suggesting significant cost inflation

Governance Lessons for CAM

1. Path-dependency: A 60-year infrastructure lock-in required federal intervention to reverse
2. Political economy of removal: Removal required sustained community advocacy, not marginal cost-benefit
3. Equity dimension: Infrastructure decisions imposed costs on specific (Black) communities; removal required long-term justice framing, not just efficiency
4. Cost trajectory: Original removal estimates (2000s–2010s) were $40–$80M; actual project ballooned to $270M, suggesting uncertainty in long-term planning

Application to CAM Governance:

• If CAM infrastructure (dedicated lanes, curb access, charging, communication networks) is built assuming specific deployment paths (e.g., Waymo dominance in Phoenix, Tesla in LA), switching costs to alternative operators or modalities will be high
• Equity risks: CAM curb access, parking removal, or right-of-way allocation without community benefit-sharing could create intergenerational locked-in externalities

Sources:

• Streetsblog USA: Feds Using Freight Funds for I-375 Removal
• Lincoln Institute: Urban Highway Removal
• NPR: Detroit Highway Removal & Community Reconnection
• Washington Post: Detroit $100M for I-375 Removal

Vignette 2: Hartford I-84 Viaduct (Planned Removal)

Historical Context

• 1970s–1980s: Elevated viaduct constructed through downtown Hartford as part of interstate system
• Purpose: Carry through-traffic; theoretically support urban renewal
• Outcome: Divided downtown; reduced street-level activity; created noise, pollution, visual blight

Removal Proposal (Long-Pending)

• Total estimated cost: $4.3–$5.3 billion (lowered highway option; alternative estimates range $4–$5B)
• Alternative estimates: Up to $17 billion over 15 years (multi-phase approach)
• Timeline: Planning since 2010s; environmental/engineering studies ongoing as of 2021–2024; no active construction as of March 2026
• Scope: Remove viaduct; lower highway; reconnect downtown grid
• Status: Indefinite planning stage; lack of clear funding mechanism cited as barrier

Governance Lessons for CAM

1. Planning delays: 10+ years of planning with no construction start; suggests governance barriers exceed technical barriers
2. Cost inflation: Initial estimates $4B; total project estimates grew to $17B with phasing
3. Funding uncertainty: Federal sources insufficient; state/local funding mechanisms unclear; project stalled
4. Community disruption during transition: Viaduct removal requires long-term traffic management; displaced parcels unclear

Application to CAM Governance:

• Long infrastructure timelines and high removal costs create political incentive to defer difficult decisions
• If CAM infrastructure (e.g., exclusive lanes, transit-integrated hubs) is built assuming specific technology winners, governance delays in reassessing will lock in suboptimal paths
• Risk: City might maintain CAM infrastructure (e.g., curb access for Waymo robotaxis) even if competing technology emerges, simply due to political difficulty of reversal

Sources:

• CNU: I-84 Hartford Viaduct
• CT Mirror: Hartford Highway Realignment Plan
• Hartford Courant: I-84 Business Demolitions

Vignette 3: Parking Garages & Transit Facility Stranding (Multiple Cities)

Case Examples:

Staten Island Ferry Terminal / Bus Depot Closure

• Fleet consolidation at Castleton Depot (2024–2025)
• Closure of Meredith Bus Depot created immediate congestion at remaining facility
• Structural issues in supporting underground parking garage discovered during consolidation
• Viability of structure uncertain; deferred demolition/remediation costs unknown

Fargo Matbus Transfer Hub (Matbus)

• Bus transfer station with multi-level parking garage
• Structural issues discovered in underground parking deck
• Required redesign of transit facility around compromised infrastructure
• Ongoing costs for structural assessment and potential remediation

Boston (MBTA) Bus Facility Modernization

• Aging bus depots unable to service modern (larger) buses effectively
• Infrastructure modernization required to support battery-electric bus (BEB) transition
• Existing garages and service facilities require significant capital to adapt

Governance Lessons for CAM

1. Underutilized infrastructure: Parking garages and depots built for specific modal assumptions (car-based, diesel buses) become liabilities when modal patterns change
2. Hidden costs: Structural issues and remediation costs often discovered only during transition planning
3. Transition costs neglected: City budgets often fail to account for decommissioning costs of old infrastructure when planning new systems
4. Labor & operations: Bus depot closures disrupt union jobs and operational continuity, creating political barriers to consolidation

Application to CAM Governance:

• If CAM requires new curb infrastructure, charging networks, or communication systems, removal/repurposing costs for existing parking, loading zones, or transit facilities are likely to be underestimated
• Risk: Cities might maintain CAM infrastructure (e.g., dedicated curb access) longer than efficient, simply because dismantling old systems is costly and politically difficult
• Labor displacement: CAM adoption (reduced parking attendants, dispatch consolidation) will create stranded labor and political backlash, similar to bus depot consolidations

Sources:

• NY1: Staten Island Bus Depot Closure
• W42ST: Hell’s Kitchen Bus Depot Structural Issues
• MBTA: Bus Facility Modernization
• InForum: Matbus Transfer Hub Structural Issues

Key Takeaway for Ch.1

Path-dependency & lock-in risk is real and expensive. Detroit’s I-375 (60-year lock, $270M removal cost), Hartford’s I-84 viaduct (15+ year planning, unclear funding, $4B–$17B removal), and bus depot consolidations (hidden structural costs, labor displacement) all demonstrate that infrastructure built for specific modal assumptions becomes entrenched. CAM governance must design for reversibility and flexibility, not bet-the-city on single operators or technologies.

---