F2 Restoring Vibrant Downtowns

F2 Restoring Vibrant
Downtowns
through Highway
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

Legacy urban expressways:
not aging 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

Finding answers:
works in progress, lessons learned
 The new paradigm: better transportation infrastructure plus
unlocking urban renaissance
 Engaging community stakeholders
 Who pays

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

Hartford I-84 Viaduct

What is the I-84 Hartford
Project?

Core Transportation Challenges
• Bridges in poor condition
• Congestion and safety problems on
highway
• Limited mobility options locally

• Many bridges reaching 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

Safety and Operations
High accident segments

 Car and truck movement
 Transit integration
 Pedestrian and bicyclist accommodation
 Parking supply and management
Mobility: Moving People and Goods

Mobility: A Balanced Approach
 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

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

Missed Opportunities in I-84’s
Past

From the DOT Archives (40’s and
50’s)

I-84 Environmental and Joint-Use
Study (1970)

I-84 Environmental and Joint-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.”

What have we learned?
• 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

Mainline alternatives (vertical):
 No Build (as is) Green
 Alt 2 (elevated) Blue
 Alt 3 (lowered) Yellow
 Alt 4 (tunnel) Brown

Mainline alternatives
(Horizontal):
 Alt 2A (elevated) Green
 Alt 3A (lowered) Green
 Alt 3B (lowered) Blue
 Alt 3C (lowered) Yellow
 Alt 4C (tunnel) Aqua

Lowered Highway
Mainline Option 3B – Interchange Option E4(S)

Street Level Views
Asylum Avenue – Existing view looking east towards Downtown

Street Level Views
Asylum Avenue – Potential view looking east towards Downtown

Street Level Views
Broad Street – Existing view looking south towards Armory

Street Level Views
Broad Street – Potential view looking south towards Armory

Street Level Views
Sigourney St. – Existing view looking south to Park Terrace

Street Level Views
Sigourney St. – Potential view looking south to Park Terrac

Street Level Views
Capitol Ave. – Existing view looking east towards Sigourney

Street Level Views
Capitol Ave. – Potential view looking east towards Sigourne

Aerial View
Sisson ramps – Existing aerial view looking north

Aerial View
Sisson ramps – Potential aerial view with lowered highway

Costin$Billions
Cost Estimates: August 2015
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

Providence I-195

F2 RESTORING VIBRANT DOWNTOWNS THROUGH
HIGHWAY TRANSFORMATION | 9.25.15

Discussion
 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

F2 Restoring Vibrant Downtowns

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à F2 Restoring Vibrant Downtowns

Similaire à F2 Restoring Vibrant Downtowns (20)

Plus de Southern New England American Planning Association

Plus de Southern New England American Planning Association (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

F2 Restoring Vibrant Downtowns