DOT at it again - I-84 patch job

[Lowerdeck]

Whoever is behind highway numbering would not allow I-84N and I-84S, since they had the suffixes removed back in the 70s or 80s. I forget when exactly.

The only two that remain are I-35E and W in Dallas/Ft. Worth and then Minneapolis/St. Paul. Mainly cause there was too much debate over which side would get renumbered the three digit I-X35.

If that happened in Connecticut, you'd see I-284 replace I-691, then head north along 91 and 15 back to E. Hartford.

My alternate idea was fixing up the interchanges in Hartford, E. Hartford, Meriden, and Cheshire. Put I-84 on current 691 and 91. Then renumber I-84 from Southington to West Hartford as I-184. Remove the viaduct. Could extend I-384 to the Bulkeley Bridge and Main St. Hartford.

On a side thought I wonder why 8 and 25 aren't I-X95s.

[Bill Mocarsky]

Bill I completely agree with this concept except that it has another technology based problem that has come up in the last few years.

google maps, yahoo maps, tom tom etc etc etc will all tell a driver that if he needs to get from scranton to Boston he needs to drive throught 84N and not 84S

so the renaming meght work from a logical perspective, but will be defeated by technology.

[The Voice of Reason]

To be honest I have never come close to mapping anything near a Boston to Scranton trip, so yes, I was typing clear out my arse

Google earth(I had it open) just happened to take me along I-84

but I see Bing(MSN) goes 691 pretty cool.

[Lowerdeck]

If you have a second, go on to msn maps, Yahoo maps or mapquest and try something like Scranton to Boston.

I think that should be the ultimate goal.

Technology could be used to promote the concept. Those electronic signs that are on the highways could be placed before the "splits", advising drivers on which route is best based on current conditions.

I thought that the 84s/84n numbering concept if used at all would be transitional.

84s would eventually become 84.

84n would become the 3 digit route.

[mikel]

I don't see the point in having the signs and maps change twice. If we were going to such an effort, we might as well renumber all the exits in the state via milepost and not sequential.

[Bill Mocarsky]

I don't see the point in having the signs and maps change twice. If we were going to such an effort, we might as well renumber all the exits in the state via milepost and not sequential.

[The Voice of Reason]

Well, solutions are many, and the budgets vary big time.

Cheapest: Change the signs so 691 is not 84 and 84 is now 184

see how this affects traffic.

next close I-84 between the tunnell and sisson ave exit.

see how this affects traffic.

if all that stuff works out, then I say start tearing down the viaduct.

if I-91 needs another lane through Hartford... well thats another project

A mid price version:

bury 84 through downtown

a high price but by far the best version:

Build a bridge next to Charter Oak bridge doubling its capacity.

Build a new bridge between Jennings road and Rt 2.

Remove I-91 between Charter Oak and the new Jennings Rd Bridge.

Remove I-84 between Sisson ave and Rt 2 interchange

Remove whitehead highway

re-route traffic onto the roads that are left.

Blammo

[Bill Mocarsky]

I think that for practical purposes, cut in cover is the way to go. Like you said, some parts of 84 can already be decked over. The only issue that I have with this strategy is that it keeps 84 on the Buckley Bridge. It's a real disgrace that a bridge like that was ever used for a highway in the first place. I would love to see it returned to the street grid.

[beerbeer]

Would't it be cheaper just to run 84 up the RR tracks to 91? Then cross the Brissel Bridge and reconnect to the original route in Manchester.

It accomplishes the same thing while making it possible to tear down acres of interstate ramps and connections in East Hartford.

[JayCT]

I am sorry but none of these plans will really work. Playing games with route numbers to reroute traffic away from Hartford is not practical because people always find a the shortest route no matter what. Removing I-84 through Hartford does not make any sense since there are MANY people in the region that use the road to commute from one side of Hartford to the other. Someone West Hartford who commutes to Pratt in East Hartford will not tolerate going through slow local streets or drive MILES out of their way. It is just not practical. On top of that, the Fed's who paid for a good portion of the highway will NOT give it up.

Also the plan to build a route around the Bulkley Bridge will not work, since the wetlands north of I-84 are the highest rated so there will never be approval to build a highway through this are. That is why the Prospect Street Bypass which connects I-84 at governor Street to Route 5 north of downtown East Hartford was never built. ConnDOT could not get the environmental permits required for the highway. ConnDOT (or its predecessor, the Connecticut Highway Department) used the Bulkley Bridge for the I-84 river crossing because even back int he 1960's there was great opposition to another river crossing. Otherwise I-84 would have had its own crossing and the Bulkley would have connected local roads like you wish. JayCT

[Theophrastus Bombastus]

Here is what was SUPPOSED to have been built - I think it would have addressed all concerns. However, like you said, wetlands, NIMBYism, and $$$ killed it.

http://kurumi.com/roads/ct/pics/art-hfd-fwy-60s.png

[mikel]

Here is what was SUPPOSED to have been built - I think it would have addressed all concerns. However, like you said, wetlands, NIMBYism, and $$$ killed it.

http://kurumi.com/roads/ct/pics/art-hfd-fwy-60s.png

[The Voice of Reason]

check out the bing maps birds eye view of that area and tell me it is actually environmentally significant. at this point it looks like we might have said no to a bridge in favor of a few illegal dumping grounds.

[The Voice of Reason]

Just for fun

A few things to think about:

I-84 (statewide traffic) would be transferred to the more expansive I-691/91 corridor. However, I-484 would probably be the popular Waterbury-Springfield route. btw, I called it 484 because I read somewhere that 3 digit suffixes that begin with even numbers typically connect highways on both ends (291, 684, 691). Odd numbers are usually spurs (384).

Better link between route 2 and 91 north.

Better link between West Hartford and 91 north.

Are there many notable buildings in the path of this proposed route that would be sacrificed? Or, has that been done already?

[Bill Mocarsky]

I am sorry but none of these plans will really work. Playing games with route numbers to reroute traffic away from Hartford is not practical because people always find a the shortest route no matter what. Removing I-84 through Hartford does not make any sense since there are MANY people in the region that use the road to commute from one side of Hartford to the other. Someone West Hartford who commutes to Pratt in East Hartford will not tolerate going through slow local streets or drive MILES out of their way. It is just not practical. On top of that, the Fed's who paid for a good portion of the highway will NOT give it up.

[mikel]

I believe the best plan is the no-build plan. Remove I-84 through Hartford. The End. But we need to get passenger rail running first.

[Bill Mocarsky]

Would't it be cheaper just to run 84 up the RR tracks to 91? Then cross the Brissel Bridge and reconnect to the original route in Manchester.

It accomplishes the same thing while making it possible to tear down acres of interstate ramps and connections in East Hartford.

[Bill Mocarsky]

lastly, I felt the need to edit this in. Light rail on CT Blvd might be a waste. I love the idea of a trolly line or something in Hartfords downtown, but sadly right now and for at least the next decade CT Blvd is not the road for it. In East hartford all there are is car dealerships, and sure they might develop into something else as tranit changes, and cars become less important bla bla, but as of right now they are just car dealerships.

in Hartford, CT Blvd would scrape the top edge of downtown, so while there are tons of jobs in this area, there are very few residents, so I fear that despite the bridge being great, there is little use for light rail on this route.

Now, Asylum/Farmington between WestHartford center and Downtown, that covers tons of jobs tons of eateries, and tons of residences.

just an observation. in principle howver that road would be great, and the Bridge I am all for

[MichaelQReilly]

Bill, 484 would be good for waterbury Springfield, but would need to be built sub grade and in conjunction with the decking of most of I-84 trhough downtown as per other ideas. Following the train ROW is a great move as long as the train ROW is not only retained, but improved and brought underground with the highway. Best I can tell, there would no historical damage regarding buildings.

I will ask you to do this as a mental exercise because I can send you an image, but look at that East Hartford interchange and assuming Bulkeley connected to Ct Blvd, eliminate all of the highway and on/off ramps etc that would become uneccessary and see how much it changes the area.

the long and short of it is that East Hartford gains several large usefull blocks in its office district while transportation improves greatly.

[MichaelQReilly]

I've been thinking about this issue and have been meaning to revisit it.

As far as I know (perhaps Voice can help me out here), the various groups that are looking at the Aetna Viaduct still haven't come to a final determination about what to do. We've discussed this issue every which way, and I'm convinced the only practical solution is the one I discussed above - making 84 a state highway that goes to grade somewhere around Sigourney and making 84 run coterminally with 691/84 from Southington to the Charter Oak where it would then return to its curret route.

Although this is the generall idea, there are still many details that would need to be worked out. I'm no civil engineer, so I turn to the members of the board to help me think through this plan. In doing so, I think we need to keep in mind that the virtues of this plan in comparison to other options - namely, the fact that this plan should be relatively inexpensive and it should not disrupt people's commutes, either during building or at completion.

In my plan, the boulevard would follow the current course of 84. The first question that I think needs to be addressed is where would the highway go to grade and interact with the street grid? Looking at this, I would ideally like to be able to have the highway cross Capitol Avenue as an elevated highway and then descend to street level at the intersection with Sigourney Street, becoming an at-grade boulevard. The main issue I see with this, however, is that it doesn't seem like the highway would be able to descend to grade in the distance from where it crosses Capitol to where it reaches Sigourney. This is potentially problematice because having the road go to grade further west is going to be a big issue from the perspective of commuters coming from that direction. I can't imagine people would be very happy having to drive through that much of the city to reach downtown. (Note: I don't necissarily agree with this perspective, but I think we have to account for it in any realistic plan). So, I guess my question is: Is it feasible to have the highway descend to grade at Sigourney Street?

Moving along, the boulevard would then continue, crossing Flower and Broad Streets at grade. After that, the boulevard would turn north and intersect with Asylum Avenue at the same place that Garden and Farmington do. This would hopefully create the potential for a really great square at this intersection. Even though I think this is an awesome idea, I have some serious reservations that the traffic engineering could ever be worked out for such a complex intersection. The problem is further complicated by the fact that it would have to be done on a hill. Any thoughts?

Here is where I start to have trouble figuring out what should happen. If the boulevard were to cross Church and Myrtle Streets at grade, the issue of crossing the train tracks north of Union Station needs to be addressed. I would think that since the tracks come into Union Station from the south elevated that the same thing could be done with the tracks to the north. However, I'm not really familiar enough with the layout of Union Station or the arrangement of tracks north of the station to know if this approach would be feasible, and if it were, whether or not it would be cost prohibitive.

Once we get past the railroad tracks, as presently constituted, the highway starts to descends to below grade. My opinion is that the boulevard should stay below grade and be decked over between High and Main Streets. Then, after passing under Main Street, the boulevard would return to grade at Market Street. It would then continue on across the Buckley Bridge, which would have the on and off ramps to 91 removed. On the East Hartford side, the Buckley would be connected back to Connecticut Boulevard.

I think that the best way to go about this plan would be to make the changes with 91/691 and the Charter Oak Bridge first. Then, when that is done, the Buckley Bridge would be taken off-line. This would be inconvienent, but the traffic that uses it to go to or from 91 could be rerouted through Hartford and the Founder's Bridge. Similarly, the traffic that uses it to go to or from 84 could also be rerouted through Hartford and the Charter Oak Bridge. Once the Buckley is off-line, then I think 84 should be removed going backward from the brige to the west. This way, commuters using 84 to enter the city will still be to use it up until each exit is removed.

In essence, that is the plan as I see it for dealing with 84 through Hartford. Anyway, I know this is a long post, but the more I think about it, the more I become convinced that this plan could actually work. What are everyone else's thoughts?

[mikel]

My suggestion would be to lower the highway, but make it a standard four lane highway used mainly for downtown traffic only. Make all traffic use half of the viaduct while one half is dismantled and lowered. Then open that new lowered section as the highway while the second half is dismantled and the land given back to the city. Direct through traffic from points west to I-691 to I-91 to I-84 east to Boston instead of the downtown highway. GPS's will adjust accordingly and Hartford can recover with, at least, a barrier of a much lower scale.

[Bill Mocarsky]

I've been thinking about this issue and have been meaning to revisit it.

As far as I know (perhaps Voice can help me out here), the various groups that are looking at the Aetna Viaduct still haven't come to a final determination about what to do.

[The Voice of Reason]

Here is the meeting info

The City of Hartford in cooperation with the Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) is currently conducting a planning study for the Hartford I-84 Viaduct. The goal of the study is to identify several preliminary alternatives to reconstruct, replace or remove this structure and evaluate their ability to serve the many transportation functions of the existing viaduct, improve quality of life and provide opportunities for economic growth in the Capitol Region.

Please join us for the first Public Workshop:

Thursday, November 19th

Open House* 3:00 PM - 5:30 PM

Public Workshop* 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM

Lyceum Resource Center

227 Lawrence Street, Hartford

Directions

Flyer

*The Open House will provide attendees the opportunity to view information boards and speak one-on-one with the project team and HUB Steering Committee members. The Workshop will include a presentation and group discussion.

Read the first newsletter to learn more about this study.

Join the mailing list or obtain more information on the project website http://www.crcog.org/viaduct.html

The Viaduct Study is only one project that The City of Hartford has taken an active role in to enhance the City. Learn more about other projects during the public information meeting series presenting “One City, One Plan” (POCD 2020), a guide to public and private development and policy decisions over the next 10 years. More information may be found in the program flyer and brochure.

Regards,

Karen F. Stewartson

Office Assistant

241 Main Street, 4th Floor

Hartford, CT 06106

860-522-2217 *210

860-724-1274 (f)

[email protected]

www.crcog.org

[Theophrastus Bombastus]

I believe the best plan is the no-build plan. Remove I-84 through Hartford. The End. But we need to get passenger rail running first.

[MichaelQReilly]

Anyone planning to attend the input session tonight? I wish I could go to present my plan , but I won't be getting out of work in time.