Freeway Removal and Waterfront Development

Xiaoyu Cheng Patrick Farley Jonathan Hawkins Devin Healey Christine Orthmeyer Andrew Tivey34:970:555 URBAN TRANSPORTATION POLICY

How We Got Here “No bad roads” Most efficient way to move in and out of cities Often shoehorned in between water and downtown

The Case for Removal Major catalyst for development Rare to free up large spaces of land in downtown areas Freeways act as a barrier

But Where Do the Cars Go? Assumption: Losing major automobile infrastructure will cause bottlenecks elsewhere Reality: Reduction of capacity reduces number of trips made, and traffic is easily absorbed by other streets

Returning to the Water City edges often the last place remaining for development Demise of industry and shipping leaves an opportunity Waterfront parks are a major image booster People want parks

Two Birds With One Stone Losing infrastructure is more palatable when it is immediately replaced

Harbor Drive: The Facts  In 1974, carried 25,000 vehicle trips per day  Was projected by state highways engineers to carry 90,000 trips per day by 1990  1968-Proposal to widen and realign the freeway

The Rise of the Highways…

…And Decline of Downtown  Between 1940 – 1970 there was 56% decrease in downtown housing units  Decrease in public transit  Trolleys, trams and streetcars  First suburban mall opened in 1960  Low air quality and high pollution

Opposition to Harbor Drive Expansion Governor Tom McCall created a task force to find alternatives to the proposed expansion Gov. Tom McCall loved parks  3 Alternatives:  Cut and cover  Widen and align (as recommended by DOT)  Relocate to Front Ave and widen Role of the public Reevaluation

Success of the Removal of Harbor Drive Minimal traffic impacts Key measures  Use of downtown grid  Converted to one-way network, coordinated signal lights to accommodate traffic flow  Reduced speed limits to be more pedestrian friendly  Alternate route for through traffic (I-405)  Overall growing support for transit and ped/bike

Tom McCall Waterfront Park  37 Acres completed in 1978, only direct access to the river  Multiple expansions  Redesigning boulevard to be more pedestrian friendly

Creating a New Portland 1974: the city rejected a proposal to build another freeway, called the Mt. Hood Freeway. Instead, the city used the federal funding to build a downtown transit mall, the Eastside Light Rail, and other transit projects. 1980: Portland implemented a new Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which established an urban growth boundary, and supported further pedestrian and transit development Overall reinvestment in waterfront and downtown areas w/mixed use and residential units

Park East Freeway

Park East Freeway •Approved in 1948 •1.5 mile section completed in 1971 •Intended to connect North-South Freeway to Lake Freeway •Expansion plans nixed by Mayor Maier in 1972 •Approximately 35,000 vehicles a day, but still created significant congestion

Park East Freeway

Park East Redevelopment •Mayor John Norquist spearheaded removal campaign in 1988 •Resistance from the state, DOT & George Watts •Visioning workshops bolstered support •Norquist conceded to removal of only Park East in exchange for DOT funding •Demolition began in 2002

Park East Redevelopment •McKinley Avenue District Office development, retail & entertainment •Lower Water Street District Office and mixed-use retail •Upper Water Street District Small infill office & mixed-use

Park East Redevelopment

Origin of The GardinerA quote from the May 3, 1954 Toronto Telegram:“How would you like to drive through Toronto during rush-hour at 50 miles an hour?...you would have no stoplights to contend with, no billboards to... fray your temper. Inaddition, you would have a beautiful view of the lake through most of the ten- mile trip,with miles of six-lane, gently curving landscaped highway.... ”

Construction of The Gardiner

The Gardiner in 1959

The Gardiner in 1966

Current Problems •Barrier between city and waterfront •Structure is outdated

Humber River Pedestrian Bridge

GO TransitGO Transit is a regional publictransit system in SouthernOntario, Canada. It primarilyserves a conurbation designatedthe "Greater Toronto andHamilton Area" (GTHA), withoperations extending to severalcommunities beyond the GTHAproper in the Greater GoldenHorseshoe. GO carries over 55million passengers a year usingan extensive network of trainand bus services

Benefit of GO Transit •GO Transit has biggest impact on reducing use of Gardiner since 70% of Gardiner users live outside of Toronto •Future travel demand will be met through expanded public transit •GO Transit Expansion -12 projects include: − Lake Shore West -Third Track − Lake Shore East -Third Track − Georgetown Corridor - Capacity Increase − Union Station Improvements

Four Options

Great Street Option•TWRC Preferred Option• Retain Gardiner west ofSpadina•Remove east of Spadina to DVP• Replace with University Ave-style Blvd.•“Waterfront Boulevard”• Simcoeto Jarvis five-lane one-way pairs• Jarvis to Don River eight lanes

Central Waterfront Roads PlanREDESIGNED FREDERICK G.GARDINER EXPRESSWAYREDESIGNED LAKE SHOREBOULEVARDMAJOR ROADS

Removing Barriers/Making Connections

Buffalo’s Highways http://www.flickr.com/photos/37027740@N00/2243067623 http://image14.webshots.com/14/5/82/38/159058238lmgYlA_fs.jpg http://www.bing.com/maps/ http://www.bing.com/maps/

Highways on top of Highways on top of Highways

The Solution to Buffalo’s Highways? http://www.bing.com/maps/ http://www.bing.com/maps/ http://www.bing.com/maps/

The Solution to Buffalo’s Highways? http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/GxngDjIMMnFagejFmMFdFA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BuffaloSkyway.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BuffaloSkyway.jpg http://www.bing.com/maps/

The Solution to Buffalo’s Highways?

A Framework for Analyzing WaterfrontFreeway Removal How do we get from this?

A Framework for Analyzing WaterfrontFreeway Removal To this?

A Framework for Analyzing WaterfrontFreeway Removal Napolitan & Zegras (2008)  (a) preconditions  (b) windows of opportunity  (c) the value of mobility  (d) the values embedded in power

A Theory of Freeway Removal Freeway removal will occur if:  (a) the freeway’s condition raises concerns about its integrity and safety;  (b) a window of opportunity exists, some event that enables a freeway removal alternative to gain serious consideration;  (c) the value of mobility is lower than other objectives such as economic development; and  (d) those in power value other benefits associated with freeway infrastructure. Napolitan, &, Zegras, 2008

Portland and Milwaukee: PreexistingCondition Preexisting condition of deterioration? • Not significantly Is a Precondition necessary? • Yes • A Struggling CBD Combined with an Underutilized Waterfront

A Window of Opportunity?  Portland  Development of I-405 and the I-5

A Window of Opportunity? Milwaukee  Successful redevelopment efforts  East Pointe  Riverwalk

The Relative Value of Mobility? Mobility vs. Revitalization/Economic Development  Portland  Locally - revitalization wins  Regionally - not as clear  Milwaukee  Locally - continued economic development  Regionally – mobility still a sacred value

Values Embedded In Power? Portland  Governor Tom McCall

Values Embedded In Power? Milwaukee  Mayor John Norquist

Portland & Milwaukee: Toward a Theoryon Waterfront Freeway Removal Freeway removal will occur if:  (a) the location exhibits a preexisting condition of an underutilized or deteriorating adjacent waterfront;  (b) a window of opportunity must be present that allows freeway removal to be explored as a viable option;  (c) the value structure within a location ranks issues such as revitalization over mobility; and  (d) this value structure must be embodied within the structure of power.

Outlook for Potential Projects? Toronto  The Prognosis is good  Underutilized Waterfront  Successful teardown of the eastern portion of The Gardiner  Strong support for waterfront development  Backing of the Mayor  Newly appointed Mayor could pose a problem

Outlook for Potential Projects? Buffalo  Outlook not as positive  Stagnated CBD and underutilized waterfront  Window of Opportunity?  Value Structure?  Support from USDOT and Olmsted Parks Conservancy  Values not embedded in power structure  Federal funding can build allies

Freeway Removal and Waterfront Development

by Jonathan Hawkins on Dec 24, 2011

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Freeway Removal and Waterfront Development — Presentation Transcript