Download to read offline
More Related Content
Similar to F2 Restoring Vibrant Downtowns
More from Southern New England American Planning Association
F2 Restoring Vibrant Downtowns
- 1. F2 Restoring Vibrant Downtowns throughHighway Transformation David Spillane, AICP, RIBA | Goody Clancy Michael Morehouse, P.E. | Fitzgerald & Halliday Rich Armstrong | Connecticut Department of Transportation Ben Carlson, LEED AP | Goody Clancy
- 2. Legacy urban expressways: notaging gracefully Urban Expressway construction rapidly transformed the center of many New England cities in the 1950s and 1960s Many of these highways were “visionary” projects that provided real transportation benefits but resulted in collateral damage in the surrounding urban environment Built together, many of these structures are failing together—challenges include structural deterioration, traffic volumes that vastly exceed design capacity, and failure to meet current safety standards Repair is very expensive; replacement is expensive too F2 RESTORING VIBRANT DOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 3. Finding answers: works inprogress, lessons learned The new paradigm: better transportation infrastructure plus unlocking urban renaissance Engaging community stakeholders Who pays F2 RESTORING VIBRANT DOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 4. Two case studies:Providence and Hartford Providence: I-195 relocation 1950s construction Replacement planning commences in the 1980s Highway replacement relocation completed in 2009 Community planning/visioning begins in the early 1990s and continues today for more than 40 acres of found urban land Hartford: I-84 Viaduct replacement 1960s construction Replacement planning commences around 2000 Comprehensive planning process underway F2 RESTORING VIBRANT DOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 5. Hartford I-84 Viaduct F2RESTORING VIBRANT DOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 6.
- 7. What is theI-84 Hartford Project?
- 8. Core Transportation Challenges •Bridges in poor condition • Congestion and safety problems on highway • Limited mobility options locally
- 9. • Many bridgesreaching end of intended lifespan • CTDOT spent over $60M on repairs since 2004 • An additional $60M will be spent over next 5 years • Bridges are safe, but deterioration will continue Bridge Conditions: Fair to Poor in general Deck Sub Structure Super Structure Bridge Deficiencies
- 10. Safety and Operations Highaccident segments
- 11. Safety and Operations Highaccident segments
- 12. Car andtruck movement Transit integration Pedestrian and bicyclist accommodation Parking supply and management Mobility: Moving People and Goods
- 13. Mobility: A BalancedApproach I-84 designed to maximize safety and efficiency for motor vehicles City Streets designed and operated to enable safe and comfortable access for all users
- 14. Urban Design Challenge •To develop a project that incorporates – Urban design – Improved local connectivity – Economic opportunity • Requires planning and design methods very different from when the highway was first built
- 15. Missed Opportunities inI-84’s Past
- 16. From the DOTArchives (40’s and 50’s)
- 17. I-84 Environmental andJoint-Use Study (1970)
- 18. I-84 Environmental andJoint-Use Study (1970) “It is the growing awareness of these impacts that has aroused the urban public to insist on more thoughtful and perceptive planning for freeway development.”
- 19. I-84 Environmental andJoint-Use Study (1970)
- 20. I-84 Environmental andJoint-Use Study (1970)
- 21. I-84 Environmental andJoint-Use Study (1970)
- 22. What have welearned? • An east-west expressway was originally sought to alleviate congestion on local streets • The Federal Aid Highway Act sought to improve the nation’s mobility by building expressways • Building highways on viaducts was a way to maintain local access under the highway • Significant city impacts were realized once the highway and it’s viaducts were constructed • We think and plan/design differently today
- 23.
- 24. Mainline alternatives (vertical): No Build (as is) Green Alt 2 (elevated) Blue Alt 3 (lowered) Yellow Alt 4 (tunnel) Brown
- 25. Mainline alternatives (Horizontal): Alt2A (elevated) Green Alt 3A (lowered) Green Alt 3B (lowered) Blue Alt 3C (lowered) Yellow Alt 4C (tunnel) Aqua
- 26.
- 27. Lowered Highway Mainline Option3B – Interchange Option E4(S)
- 28. Street Level Views AsylumAvenue – Existing view looking east towards Downtown
- 29. Street Level Views AsylumAvenue – Potential view looking east towards Downtown
- 30. Street Level Views BroadStreet – Existing view looking south towards Armory
- 31. Street Level Views BroadStreet – Potential view looking south towards Armory
- 32. Street Level Views SigourneySt. – Existing view looking south to Park Terrace
- 33. Street Level Views SigourneySt. – Potential view looking south to Park Terrac
- 34. Street Level Views CapitolAve. – Existing view looking east towards Sigourney
- 35. Street Level Views CapitolAve. – Potential view looking east towards Sigourne
- 36. Aerial View Sisson ramps– Existing aerial view looking north
- 37. Aerial View Sisson ramps– Potential aerial view with lowered highway
- 38. Costin$Billions Cost Estimates: August2015 Alternatives $- $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 $10.0 $12.0 $14.0 No-Build Elevated Highway Lowered Highway Tunneled Highway $3.1 $2.5 $12.1 $9.7 $5.3 $4.3 $6.2 $4.9
- 39.
- 40. Providence I-195 F2 RESTORINGVIBRANT DOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 41. F2 RESTORING VIBRANTDOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 42. F2 RESTORING VIBRANTDOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 43. F2 RESTORING VIBRANTDOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 44. F2 RESTORING VIBRANTDOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 45. F2 RESTORING VIBRANTDOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 46. F2 RESTORING VIBRANTDOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 47. F2 RESTORING VIBRANTDOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 48. F2 RESTORING VIBRANTDOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 49. F2 RESTORING VIBRANTDOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 50. F2 RESTORING VIBRANTDOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 51. F2 RESTORING VIBRANTDOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 52. F2 RESTORING VIBRANTDOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 53. F2 RESTORING VIBRANTDOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 54. F2 RESTORING VIBRANTDOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 55. F2 RESTORING VIBRANTDOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 56. F2 RESTORING VIBRANTDOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 57. F2 RESTORING VIBRANTDOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 58. F2 RESTORING VIBRANTDOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15
- 59. Discussion F2 RESTORING VIBRANTDOWNTOWNS THROUGH HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15 David Spillane, AICP, RIBA | Goody Clancy Michael Morehouse, PE | Fitzgerald & Halliday Richard Armstrong | Connecticut Department of Transportation Ben Carlson, LEED AP | Goody Clancy F2 Restoring Vibrant Downtowns through Highway Transformation