the sketch (below) which accompanied the article isa proposal of what the area could look like... not the final.
Attached Thumbnails
Edited by archiham04, 07 May 2007 - 07:46 PM.
2
I-26 Connector
Started by
Matthew
, Mar 12 2004 01:34 PM
72 replies to this topic
#61
archiham04
-
- Members+
-
- 307 posts
Whistle-Stop
- Location:Plaza-Midwood, Charlotte
Posted 07 May 2007 - 07:39 PM
There was a front page article, and a lengthy guest editorialin Sunday's paper about the i-26 bridge across the french broad. I am posting in this new topic for several reasons. There are two related threads: i-26 connectorand Asheville Gateway. This bridge project is essentially a separate issue from the road widening issue and a majority of the posts on the 1-26 connector topic are centered on 6 or 8 or 4 lanes... the Asheville Gateway topic is similar, but I see the gateway as a component of a much larger bridge project.
the sketch (below) which accompanied the article isa proposal of what the area could look like... not the final.
the sketch (below) which accompanied the article isa proposal of what the area could look like... not the final.
#62
orulz
-
- Moderators
-
- 3,518 posts
Town
- Location:Raleigh, NC
Posted 28 June 2007 - 09:33 AM
The latest news on the I-26 connector is that the DOT has reviewed the ADC proposal.
View the presentation on the subject here.
The plan as analyzed by NCDOT involves putting I-240 on the top deck of the bridge and I-26 on the bottom deck. I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to have (for example) all westbound traffic on the top deck, and all eastbound traffic on the bottom deck? That saves quite a bit of space that would otherwise be used for road shoulders, and would allow for an extra space for the WB 240 traffic to merge into I-26 before getting to the Patton interchange.
View the presentation on the subject here.
- Not as cheap as ADC thought (DOT estimates $260 million)
- Some engineering concerns not addressed by ADC (weave issues, slope, curvature)
- Riverside Drive and the Norfolk-Southern's Craggy spur will have to be relocated (sounds like it's time for the RiverWay!)
The plan as analyzed by NCDOT involves putting I-240 on the top deck of the bridge and I-26 on the bottom deck. I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to have (for example) all westbound traffic on the top deck, and all eastbound traffic on the bottom deck? That saves quite a bit of space that would otherwise be used for road shoulders, and would allow for an extra space for the WB 240 traffic to merge into I-26 before getting to the Patton interchange.
#63
archiham04
-
- Members+
-
- 307 posts
Whistle-Stop
- Location:Plaza-Midwood, Charlotte
Posted 28 November 2007 - 09:47 PM
Posted below is an update from the Asheville Design Center recently published in the NCAPA newsletter, copied of course with the permission, and at the request, of the author:
The Asheville Design Center (ADC) was started with a grant from the American Institute of Architects (AIA) in their program called AIA 150 in September 2006. It was a challenge for archi-tects to collaborate to address community de-sign issues that will affect their communities for 150 years. The team of architects, planners, urban designers, landscape architects, and community activists chose the I-26 connector project as their urban design problem. The con-nector will solve a much needed, albeit contro-versial, traffic issue in Asheville. The ADC was able to synthesize alternates that were pro-posed by DOT with the goals and desires of various community groups to create their own Alternate, dubbed Alternate 4b. The attached image is ADC's 4b in yellow, side-by-side with DOT's Alternate 4 in blue. The City and the County has partnered with the ADC to hire Figg Engineering to resolve some design concerns raised by DOT with the expectation that the ADC proposal could be introduced as a viable Alternate for a connector. If this is the case, there will be a considerable saving of land and costs of the project.
DOT Alt. 4: 273 Acres of ROW 89 Acres of Asphalt 815,000 Sq.Ft. of bridges
ADC Alt. 4b: 135 Acres of ROW 35 Acres of Asphalt 400,000 Sq.Ft. of bridges
Additionally, the work of the ADC has raised community awareness toward larger planning issues that get left out of conversations of highway design and the aesthetics of the bridge over the river. As part of the study, the community has become interested in exploring a "signature" bridge over the French Broad River that could be a similar in aesthetic quality as the Cooper River bridge in Charleston, Linn Cove Viaduct on the Blue Ridge Parkway, or the Maumee River bridge in Toledo. For more information visit www.ashevilledesigncenter.org
The Asheville Design Center (ADC) was started with a grant from the American Institute of Architects (AIA) in their program called AIA 150 in September 2006. It was a challenge for archi-tects to collaborate to address community de-sign issues that will affect their communities for 150 years. The team of architects, planners, urban designers, landscape architects, and community activists chose the I-26 connector project as their urban design problem. The con-nector will solve a much needed, albeit contro-versial, traffic issue in Asheville. The ADC was able to synthesize alternates that were pro-posed by DOT with the goals and desires of various community groups to create their own Alternate, dubbed Alternate 4b. The attached image is ADC's 4b in yellow, side-by-side with DOT's Alternate 4 in blue. The City and the County has partnered with the ADC to hire Figg Engineering to resolve some design concerns raised by DOT with the expectation that the ADC proposal could be introduced as a viable Alternate for a connector. If this is the case, there will be a considerable saving of land and costs of the project.
DOT Alt. 4: 273 Acres of ROW 89 Acres of Asphalt 815,000 Sq.Ft. of bridges
ADC Alt. 4b: 135 Acres of ROW 35 Acres of Asphalt 400,000 Sq.Ft. of bridges
Additionally, the work of the ADC has raised community awareness toward larger planning issues that get left out of conversations of highway design and the aesthetics of the bridge over the river. As part of the study, the community has become interested in exploring a "signature" bridge over the French Broad River that could be a similar in aesthetic quality as the Cooper River bridge in Charleston, Linn Cove Viaduct on the Blue Ridge Parkway, or the Maumee River bridge in Toledo. For more information visit www.ashevilledesigncenter.org
#64
macrocosim144
-
- Members
-
- 76 posts
Unincorporated Area
Posted 15 July 2008 - 07:38 PM
Id do one larger landmark focal point central structure with smaller structures on each side of the valley; with suspension lines & separated east & west traffic flows. Its hard to say about the architecture... maybe something with a modern/deco tinge (Grove Arcade'ish). Plus some sort of accessible working space on top of the main central tower to shoot of fireworks for special occasions; everyone in the central city would see them from there! lol This could be fun to design in 3d!
#65
ChiefJoJo
-
- Moderators
-
- 4,069 posts
City
#66
orulz
-
- Moderators
-
- 3,518 posts
Town
- Location:Raleigh, NC
Posted 24 September 2008 - 05:32 PM
There was a pretty informative article in the Mountain Express about it, check it out here.
After considering it, I think I've come to the conclusion that the Alternative 4b, as is, is inferior to the NCDOT design. To copy and paste my comments from a different Mountain X article:
1. The interchange of Patton Avenue and I-26 sucks in the ADC alternative 4b. High speed offramps from both directions of Patton Avenue completely negate any attempts at making Patton a more people/pedestrian/bike friendly road. This is the deal breaker. There’s no point to putting sidewalks and bike paths on Patton if you’re just going to have high speed offramps at the other end. Fix it so Patton has no high-speed ramps, and I could go with either NCDOT or ADC.
The other deficienceis of alternative 4b:
2. I-26 goes under Patton. With the ADC alternative, we wind up with an enormous viaduct. NCDOT doesn’t have the budget to do something really distinctive, so it will not look good.
3. Alternative 4b involves a weave between the I-240W onramp and the Patton Avenue onramp. There are no weaves in the NCDOT alternative 4. If this weave were necessary to yield a significant improvement in character or design then I’d say it’s worth it, but the ADC design really isn’t much of an improvement, if it’s even an improvement at all.
In contrast, I would say that the only deficiency of the NCDOT alternative 4 is that the routing of I-240 is a bit (maybe a quarter mile) longer. The problem of how much land it takes up is an “issue” but then again, land along the west bank of the French Broad is pretty much inaccessible, and besides, how many people will miss a couple holes on the Crowne Plaza golf course and a trailer park?
The improvements ADC should push for are: 1. Better design near Downtown. 2. Better design of the I-26 / Patton interchange. The plan has the ramps pushed really far apart which seems awkward. Find a way to make it more compact. A SPUI might be nice.
After considering it, I think I've come to the conclusion that the Alternative 4b, as is, is inferior to the NCDOT design. To copy and paste my comments from a different Mountain X article:
1. The interchange of Patton Avenue and I-26 sucks in the ADC alternative 4b. High speed offramps from both directions of Patton Avenue completely negate any attempts at making Patton a more people/pedestrian/bike friendly road. This is the deal breaker. There’s no point to putting sidewalks and bike paths on Patton if you’re just going to have high speed offramps at the other end. Fix it so Patton has no high-speed ramps, and I could go with either NCDOT or ADC.
The other deficienceis of alternative 4b:
2. I-26 goes under Patton. With the ADC alternative, we wind up with an enormous viaduct. NCDOT doesn’t have the budget to do something really distinctive, so it will not look good.
3. Alternative 4b involves a weave between the I-240W onramp and the Patton Avenue onramp. There are no weaves in the NCDOT alternative 4. If this weave were necessary to yield a significant improvement in character or design then I’d say it’s worth it, but the ADC design really isn’t much of an improvement, if it’s even an improvement at all.
In contrast, I would say that the only deficiency of the NCDOT alternative 4 is that the routing of I-240 is a bit (maybe a quarter mile) longer. The problem of how much land it takes up is an “issue” but then again, land along the west bank of the French Broad is pretty much inaccessible, and besides, how many people will miss a couple holes on the Crowne Plaza golf course and a trailer park?
The improvements ADC should push for are: 1. Better design near Downtown. 2. Better design of the I-26 / Patton interchange. The plan has the ramps pushed really far apart which seems awkward. Find a way to make it more compact. A SPUI might be nice.
#67
archiham04
-
- Members+
-
- 307 posts
Whistle-Stop
- Location:Plaza-Midwood, Charlotte
Posted 24 September 2008 - 06:53 PM
orz,
Quick point. What you are describing is not the ADC plan. It is the NCDOTs alternate 4B which is based on the ADC plan. Many of the concerns that you are voicing are have arisen since the plan was turned over to NCDOT, and the ADC is working to ensure they are addressed.
As for 4B being a great deal more expensive than 4… I haven’t seen the exact numbers. 4B is fewer miles and less land impact. Even if you take the numbers at their worst, you have to consider the overall future loss of this land and its tax value. To you really think that a large parcel of land overlooking the French Broad and downtown with no permanent structures will remain a trailer park forever? Sounds like a prime real estate development to me.
Quick point. What you are describing is not the ADC plan. It is the NCDOTs alternate 4B which is based on the ADC plan. Many of the concerns that you are voicing are have arisen since the plan was turned over to NCDOT, and the ADC is working to ensure they are addressed.
As for 4B being a great deal more expensive than 4… I haven’t seen the exact numbers. 4B is fewer miles and less land impact. Even if you take the numbers at their worst, you have to consider the overall future loss of this land and its tax value. To you really think that a large parcel of land overlooking the French Broad and downtown with no permanent structures will remain a trailer park forever? Sounds like a prime real estate development to me.
Edited by archiham04, 24 September 2008 - 06:54 PM.
#68
orulz
-
- Moderators
-
- 3,518 posts
Town
- Location:Raleigh, NC
Posted 25 September 2008 - 08:51 AM
You raise some good points. However, the only alternative that NCDOT has officially recognized that came out of the public input process is Alternative 4b. Are they still listening regarding changes to this design? Is there some point at which they will no longer consider any major changes or new designs? How flexible are they / can they be at this point? Here's hoping that they're still listening.
And from reading the articles, it seems that the public was ready to get behind Alt 4b as is. That's dangerous. NCDOT might now simply cave to public opinion, and commit to building Alternative 4b, deficiencies and all, in order to have the decision over and done with - even if ADC is still trying to push for improvement.
That said, there are certainly ways that ADC is pushing that would yield a better design. Basically, what I'm questioning is, should they stick to modifying Alt 4b, or would modifying alternative 4 to take up less land and achieve some of their goals be more successful? In addition, there are some areas where they could push and get some real results, but other areas where it's extremely unlikely that NCDOT will budge at all (design speeds, interstate classification, weave length, etc.)
For example, the amount of land that Alt 4 takes up on the west bank of the FBR is a matter of concern, but it should not be the foremost concern. If they could take Alt 4 and reduce it from 3 new bridges to 2 new bridges, that would make Alt 4 much more palatable. The biggest concern IMO, though, is the downtown interchange design, and that's an issue common to both Alt 4 and Alt 4b. I've not seen much evidence of dialog between NCDOT, Figg, and ADC on that issue at all. I'm not directly involved in the I-26 debate by any stretch, but the downtown interchange design certainly has not been covered by the media, and the design has remained entirely unchanged throughout the process since A4 was first developed, so the proof is (not) in the pudding.
And from reading the articles, it seems that the public was ready to get behind Alt 4b as is. That's dangerous. NCDOT might now simply cave to public opinion, and commit to building Alternative 4b, deficiencies and all, in order to have the decision over and done with - even if ADC is still trying to push for improvement.
That said, there are certainly ways that ADC is pushing that would yield a better design. Basically, what I'm questioning is, should they stick to modifying Alt 4b, or would modifying alternative 4 to take up less land and achieve some of their goals be more successful? In addition, there are some areas where they could push and get some real results, but other areas where it's extremely unlikely that NCDOT will budge at all (design speeds, interstate classification, weave length, etc.)
For example, the amount of land that Alt 4 takes up on the west bank of the FBR is a matter of concern, but it should not be the foremost concern. If they could take Alt 4 and reduce it from 3 new bridges to 2 new bridges, that would make Alt 4 much more palatable. The biggest concern IMO, though, is the downtown interchange design, and that's an issue common to both Alt 4 and Alt 4b. I've not seen much evidence of dialog between NCDOT, Figg, and ADC on that issue at all. I'm not directly involved in the I-26 debate by any stretch, but the downtown interchange design certainly has not been covered by the media, and the design has remained entirely unchanged throughout the process since A4 was first developed, so the proof is (not) in the pudding.
#69
Alias
-
- Members
-
- 18 posts
Unincorporated Area
- Location:Charlotte metro
Posted 30 May 2010 - 08:27 PM
Does anyone have any updates on this? Which design did they finally choose?
#70
archiham04
-
- Members+
-
- 307 posts
Whistle-Stop
- Location:Plaza-Midwood, Charlotte
Posted 30 May 2010 - 09:33 PM
Alias, on 30 May 2010 - 08:27 PM, said:
Does anyone have any updates on this? Which design did they finally choose?
The 4 b option is in the official Eis, which is a huge accomplishment. Revisions are being made by ncdot to accommodate ADC. The final design and final decision are still up in the aiR. Check out ashevilledesigncenter.com for more.
#71
thecowgoesmoo
-
- Members
-
- 42 posts
Unincorporated Area
Posted 04 June 2010 - 08:55 PM
archiham04, on 30 May 2010 - 09:33 PM, said:
The 4 b option is in the official Eis, which is a huge accomplishment. Revisions are being made by ncdot to accommodate ADC. The final design and final decision are still up in the aiR. Check out ashevilledesigncenter.com for more.
ashevilledesigncenter.org is the proper URL.
#72
cowboy_wilhelm
-
- Members
-
- 89 posts
Unincorporated Area
- Location:Raleigh
Posted 10 August 2010 - 10:54 PM
What are everyone's thoughts on the project getting delayed past 2020?
Has the I-26 connector always been considered an urban loop project? I was surprised to see that since it's a project to complete the gap in I-26 through Asheville.
Should NCDOT divide the project and have different sections funded and constructed separately? I.e., move forward with Section B (the new bridge[s]) - the critical part of this project - using traditional funding, then widen I-240 at a later date with urban loop funding?
Has the I-26 connector always been considered an urban loop project? I was surprised to see that since it's a project to complete the gap in I-26 through Asheville.
Should NCDOT divide the project and have different sections funded and constructed separately? I.e., move forward with Section B (the new bridge[s]) - the critical part of this project - using traditional funding, then widen I-240 at a later date with urban loop funding?
#73
cowboy_wilhelm
-
- Members
-
- 89 posts
Unincorporated Area
- Location:Raleigh
Posted 08 September 2011 - 08:42 PM
Well, with Governor Perdue's plan to accelerate urban loop projects, the I-26 connector project is back on the drawing board. However, according to the Asheville Citizen-Times, the funding is only for widening I-240 in West Asheville (Section A). Right-of-way acquisition should begin in 2018, with construction starting in 2020. In the most recent STIP, funding for the project had disappeared and delayed the project far past 2020.
Not sure what the widening alone will accomplish. Perhaps they're working on a method for funding the construction of the new bridge across the French Broad River (next Mobility Fund project?!).
Not sure what the widening alone will accomplish. Perhaps they're working on a method for funding the construction of the new bridge across the French Broad River (next Mobility Fund project?!).
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
