Jump to content

Get rid of the S-Curve?


GRDadof3

Recommended Posts

It's a FB group page. Started off as a series of "speaker events" in small venues around downtown and then moved onto FB when the two founders got too busy to do them (I believe).

 

 

In one of these discussions, seems like someone laid out a pretty good reason why it couldn't be done. The highway would be so wide, and the lanes going from I-196 to go Northbound 131 would have to be so large that Union Square would have to be torn down, or half of it.

 

I have no idea if it has been posted in here or not, probably has. But leave the S-curve alone and re-construct the 196-131 interchange. Horrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It's a FB group page. Started off as a series of "speaker events" in small venues around downtown and then moved onto FB when the two founders got too busy to do them (I believe).

 

 

In one of these discussions, seems like someone laid out a pretty good reason why it couldn't be done. The highway would be so wide, and the lanes going from I-196 to go Northbound 131 would have to be so large that Union Square would have to be torn down, or half of it.

 

Not the only problem, either.  This is actually a pretty brilliantly designed interchange designed to cope with a very space-restricted urban environment.  To pull off all of the interchanges in such a tight space, the highway crosses over itself.  This happens right after your proposed exit, which would seem to require a more significant grade change than has been stated.  You would need to bury this pretty deep to make it work--basically double decker, all below grade.  The whole things sounds prohibitively expensive for something that would offer relatively minor benefits.  Doing this to 196 would seem to be far less involved.

 

EDIT:  ironyisadead scene -- The way this highway works is also why reworking that interchange would be so difficult.  Look at how it works on a map very closely.  To say it's unusual would be an understatement.  I'm not sure what to call it, exactly.  It looks sort of like a double crossover diamond, but elevated and without stoplights.  They've recently started doing these at grade crossings with traffic lights as a "new" concept "borrowed" from France.  Well, ours was first by many, many decades, and we did it with two highways and no traffic lights.  There are likely very few of these in existence, and it isn't something that is easy to revise because it is so space efficient. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the only problem, either.  This is actually a pretty brilliantly designed interchange designed to cope with a very space-restricted urban environment.  To pull off all of the interchanges in such a tight space, the highway crosses over itself.  This happens right after your proposed exit, which would seem to require a more significant grade change than has been stated.  You would need to bury this pretty deep to make it work--basically double decker, all below grade.  The whole things sounds prohibitively expensive for something that would offer relatively minor benefits.  Doing this to 196 would seem to be far less involved.

 

EDIT:  ironyisadead scene -- The way this highway works is also why reworking that interchange would be so difficult.  Look at how it works on a map very closely.  To say it's unusual would be an understatement.  I'm not sure what to call it, exactly.  It looks sort of like a double crossover diamond, but elevated and without stoplights.  They've recently started doing these at grade crossings with traffic lights as a "new" concept "borrowed" from France.  Well, ours was first by many, many decades, and we did it with two highways and no traffic lights.  There are likely very few of these in existence, and it isn't something that is easy to revise because it is so space efficient. 

 

 

My only issue with capping I-196 near Belknap is that it will be expensive too, and the park will only used by the nearby residents and employees at Spectrum. Maybe if Spectrum paid for it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the only problem, either.  This is actually a pretty brilliantly designed interchange designed to cope with a very space-restricted urban environment.  To pull off all of the interchanges in such a tight space, the highway crosses over itself.  This happens right after your proposed exit, which would seem to require a more significant grade change than has been stated.  You would need to bury this pretty deep to make it work--basically double decker, all below grade.  The whole things sounds prohibitively expensive for something that would offer relatively minor benefits.  Doing this to 196 would seem to be far less involved.

 

EDIT:  ironyisadead scene -- The way this highway works is also why reworking that interchange would be so difficult.  Look at how it works on a map very closely.  To say it's unusual would be an understatement.  I'm not sure what to call it, exactly.  It looks sort of like a double crossover diamond, but elevated and without stoplights.  They've recently started doing these at grade crossings with traffic lights as a "new" concept "borrowed" from France.  Well, ours was first by many, many decades, and we did it with two highways and no traffic lights.  There are likely very few of these in existence, and it isn't something that is easy to revise because it is so space efficient. 

 

It certainly is unusual! I wouldn't imagine it would be easy (or even on their radar) but coming from the north, coming around that bend, getting off at Pearl and having that blind merge coming off a curve.... I hate that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The highways throughout downtown are certainly a unique problem.  We can't really move them elsewhere, we can't feasibly bury them.  Any effort to remove or convert to boulevard would also see very, very high opposition.  And angry opposition, at that.

I think the best place to have the conversation and focus is the actual problem caused by the highways, rather than the highways themselves.  How can we activate and better connect the spaces taken up by the highways?

I've been streetviewing around Tokyo a bit lately and they have highways all over, but they don't interfere with anything.  They're all elevated.  Ours is partly elevated in places.  I think our best bet is to elevate the entire stretch, reconnect the streets beneath that were unconnected when it was built, and work with MDOT to ensure that space beneath can be used for more than just parking -- let's fill those streets beneath with retail, office, and the like.  Better yet, run the northbound 131 lane over the top of Scribner, southbound 131 over the top of Turner, open the land between for development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The highways throughout downtown are certainly a unique problem.  We can't really move them elsewhere, we can't feasibly bury them.  Any effort to remove or convert to boulevard would also see very, very high opposition.  And angry opposition, at that.

I think the best place to have the conversation and focus is the actual problem caused by the highways, rather than the highways themselves.  How can we activate and better connect the spaces taken up by the highways?

I've been streetviewing around Tokyo a bit lately and they have highways all over, but they don't interfere with anything.  They're all elevated.  Ours is partly elevated in places.  I think our best bet is to elevate the entire stretch, reconnect the streets beneath that were unconnected when it was built, and work with MDOT to ensure that space beneath can be used for more than just parking -- let's fill those streets beneath with retail, office, and the like.  Better yet, run the northbound 131 lane over the top of Scribner, southbound 131 over the top of Turner, open the land between for development.

while they dont seem to disconnect the city, it actually does.. it bottlenecks whole areas and makes a street crossing a 15 minute affair... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An elevated highway?  I'm basically picturing something like the chicago el, just carrying auto traffic.  The exits would basically be no different.

Or we could elevate in its current position instead of over-road and build storefronts beneath, like under these railways:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.698388,139.77049,3a,75y,5.1h,101.32t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sYqjDchzcTsBAzbMKwWoyZQ!2e0 

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.690848,139.7703,3a,75y,69.57h,88.87t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSVWSwtH8MTYGmSjt897iww!2e0

The traffic of the highway essentially remains unchanged from what it is now, but the space is activated and used for pedestrian purposes in addition to the traffic flow and helps to stitch the urban fabric back together.  In Japan it's for lack of space, here it'd be for reconnecting neighbourhoods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, burying highways underground isn't the easiest thing to do...

 

Washington state bill would scrap delayed Seattle tunnel project

 

3.1 billion?  Ouch.  But keep in mind this is a completely different project.  Seattle's attempting a much bigger engineering feat in trying to bore a 2 mile tunnel beneath an existing neighborhood; here we're talking about excavating the land the freeway sits on.

 

I noticed Klyde Warren Park was a public/private partnership - the funding was $20 million from municipal bonds, $20 million from state/federal, and $50 million in private donations, plus $16.7 million from the Stimulus Bill.  I think we'd have to set up a similar program in GR to get something like this off the ground (which is why I would think a cap over I-196 is less likely).  In Dallas, real estate developers formed an alliance to rally private support and donations... Is that sort of dynamic possible in GR?

 

To be honest, if we had a rally in private donations, I'd rather they focus efforts on the River Restoration before 131.  Just my preference.

 

 

I've been streetviewing around Tokyo a bit lately and they have highways all over, but they don't interfere with anything.  They're all elevated.  Ours is partly elevated in places.  I think our best bet is to elevate the entire stretch, reconnect the streets beneath that were unconnected when it was built, and work with MDOT to ensure that space beneath can be used for more than just parking -- let's fill those streets beneath with retail, office, and the like.  Better yet, run the northbound 131 lane over the top of Scribner, southbound 131 over the top of Turner, open the land between for development.

 

I've seen this in Tokyo and I agree.  I feel there's a lot we could do to mitigate 131 in a similar fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.