DOT at it again - I-84 patch job

[HartfordTycoon]

I am among those who don't see removing I-84 as a vital priority. Sorry, I just don't see the need to take on this issue now. I use 84 all the time to get in and out of Hartford or even from one side to the other. I don't know, I just can't get worked up about it. We have tons of undeveloped land in Hartford and I would be much more inclined to think this is a big deal if we were running out but we are not. This is just one guy's opinion though, so by all means do whatever you guys want to advocate for whatever you think would be the best for 84.

[The Voice of Reason]

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.

[mikel]

The fact that the viaduct is ending its useful life and is going to need major state work is enough to make this a priority. The DOT should be seriously listening to city residents, businesses, the greater Hartford community, and taking into account how the highway negatively affects the city and how other cities worldwide prosper without having massive highways cut through the heart of them. The only reason it shouldn't be a priority is all likelihood, the DOT will as usual do the wrong thing anyway so it probably is a waste of time.

[beerbeer]

Will removing the viaduct have a major impact on the economy or quality of life in Hartford? I would have to say no. But it does need to be replaced, so it be should done in a thoughtful way. But as far as having any real effect on the city, no one has made that case, most effects will be minimal.

[MichaelQReilly]

Will removing the viaduct have a major impact on the economy or quality of life in Hartford? I would have to say no. But it does need to be replaced, so it be should done in a thoughtful way. But as far as having any real effect on the city, no one has made that case, most effects will be minimal.

[MichaelQReilly]

Rick Green changed his tune pretty quickly. My link I'm looking forward to hearing some feedback from those who attended last night.

Edit: Here is WFSB's story on this from last night. Nothing much we don't already know.

[The Voice of Reason]

Rick Green changed his tune pretty quickly. My link I'm looking forward to hearing some feedback from those who attended last night.

[Bill Mocarsky]

I felt this meeting was the beginning of something positive for Connecticut. Actually, we've been laying the groundwork for this for what do you think, almost 10 years now.

If I am not mistaken, there seems to be a growing concensus (reinforced by VOR) that this is the heart of the city. And, we don't want to screw it up for our children.

When looking at some photos of the parking underneath the bridges behind Aetna, VOR brought up the point that this is the impression of Hartford that thousands of people (employees) get every day.

I've always thought that Hartford's Asylum Hill was kind of like (or should be more like) Boston's Back Bay. The Hartford and Aetna are like Pru and Hancock, expanding out from the traditional downtown and into the neighborhods.

While being blessed with these giant employment engines, Hartford should try to be attractive to young people.

[The Voice of Reason]

Well said. and thanks for reminding me of more of what was discussed at the early session.

To expound of what bill wrote above...

The thousands of people that work at Aetna and park under the highway see an incredibly stark city.

one woman who used to work at Aetna remembers arguing with her co-workers about meeting downtown for a drink or even walking to something further in town. those people parked under a highway, and had a terrible walk to the office (aesthetically) approaching the boilers, and or passing a parking garage, or maybe even taking a shuttle down Hawthorn street with a view of the train tracks and the Viaduct to your right and Laurel street to the left. for decades, this is the view literally thousads have had of Hartford.

Furthermore, anyone taking the train to or from Union Station have the same vista.

one woman spoke about here first time to hartford, and that exact view. she was disapointed. Even the consulting group working on this project mentioned the train stations position under the highway.

It is exciting to think that the state and city might listen to the people and get this one right

[MichaelQReilly]

The 84 Viaduct Study Committee released a powerpoint not long ago with overviews of the various scenarios they are considering. I figured I would post them here so we could discuss what we think of them.

Viaduct Rebuild:

Boulevard:

Tunnel/Viaduct Combo:

Tunnel (1):

Tunnel (2):

My take is that I like the Boulevard choice best. I think that it would probably be the cheapest option, which is an import consideration. I also really like the intersection that it would create with Asylum Street. I think in that scenario, the lot west of Union Station would become a tremendous location for a signature development. I also like that it would create more real estate with direct frontage on Bushnell Park. Those parcels would be ideal for residential development. If they ever got built, along with the stalled YMCA project and something on the Parkview Hilton site, we would have a great residential cluster around the park.

[The Voice of Reason]

I ultimately have a million things to say about these proposals, but the simplest bit is this.

the primary scope of this transportation project is in my opinion just slightly too small.

a critical barrier in this city that is at the norther end of this viaduct issue should also get some concideration.

take every example given and then ask yourself what I-84 does directly north of the study area.

it goes from a tunnel to a bridge. this is a huge vertical swing in the highway and it is also the most dangerous part of the raod, or at least it feels the least comfortable.

If we are building a tunnel in any of the last 3 examples, I ask, why dont we stay underground a little longer heading north and bring the highway under the rail lines.

this would free up as much or even more land for development thal all of the rest of the tunnel.

if that doesnt make sense I can post some drawings i made later, but i think that should make plenty of sense.

BACK TO WORK!

[MichaelQReilly]

I ultimately have a million things to say about these proposals, but the simplest bit is this.

the primary scope of this transportation project is in my opinion just slightly too small.

a critical barrier in this city that is at the norther end of this viaduct issue should also get some concideration.

take every example given and then ask yourself what I-84 does directly north of the study area.

it goes from a tunnel to a bridge. this is a huge vertical swing in the highway and it is also the most dangerous part of the raod, or at least it feels the least comfortable.

If we are building a tunnel in any of the last 3 examples, I ask, why dont we stay underground a little longer heading north and bring the highway under the rail lines.

this would free up as much or even more land for development thal all of the rest of the tunnel.

if that doesnt make sense I can post some drawings i made later, but i think that should make plenty of sense.

BACK TO WORK!

[mikel]

I prefer the boulevard as well. I don't think we want future generations to have to keep paying for a tunneling quagmire. Hartford really needs one highway going through it right now, not two. And the city will still be accessible from all points since I-84 will still bring people to the city center, just not through it anymore. The worst plan, though, is to redo the viaduct. Why repeat a mistake?

[Hiramicus]

I ultimately have a million things to say about these proposals, but the simplest bit is this.

the primary scope of this transportation project is in my opinion just slightly too small.

a critical barrier in this city that is at the norther end of this viaduct issue should also get some concideration.

take every example given and then ask yourself what I-84 does directly north of the study area.

it goes from a tunnel to a bridge. this is a huge vertical swing in the highway and it is also the most dangerous part of the raod, or at least it feels the least comfortable.

If we are building a tunnel in any of the last 3 examples, I ask, why dont we stay underground a little longer heading north and bring the highway under the rail lines.

this would free up as much or even more land for development thal all of the rest of the tunnel.

if that doesnt make sense I can post some drawings i made later, but i think that should make plenty of sense.

BACK TO WORK!

[Theophrastus Bombastus]

The poll question is 'What should be done?', not 'Which pipe dream is the best pipe dream?'.

http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-i-84-viaduct-open-house-pre-0325,0,7009018.story

[MadVlad]

The poll question is 'What should be done?', not 'Which pipe dream is the best pipe dream?'.

http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-i-84-viaduct-open-house-pre-0325,0,7009018.story

[The Voice of Reason]

I went to session II the other night. Saw Bill M again and also met MQReilly.

the format was the same as last time. they let you look around and comment on all of the ideas before it started. Then there was a good deal of presentation (more than needed I believe) then we were broken into groups (only 3 this time) and then the groups reported their findings.

All of the options I think are available on their web site, so i will only discuss them briefly.

all plans include a reworking of the sisson ave exit, so, no matter the plan, there will be massive improvements in that area, and also some potentially available land for development.

the status quo is replacing what we have but doing it a little better. the enhanced Viaduct would have less supports, and potentially make better use of the space under the viaduct. not a heck of a lot more than that other than the subjective element of asthetic improvement and noise mitigation (supposedly we make better viaducts these days)

then we have a Skyway. this is the same as a viaduct, but it is much more elevated and has quite a few less on and off ramps. while the presentation they made makes it look much lighter and airier, its still a huge hughway, it just is now up higher, and would block the domes of buildings from view. also less connected to the city, and therefore potentially damaging financially in the long run.

Next was the Boulevard. this is something that seemed appealing to many before actually seeing the studies and plans, and economic truth. A blvd would not be sleepy, nor picturesque. it would only handle about 26k cars a day compared to the 175k we have now!!!! this would destroy the city economically. also this blvd would be 3-4 lanes each way just to handle the 26k daily cars. one of the consultants added later on in my group that in order to handle anywhere near the number of cars as we get now, it would need at least 8 (eight) lanes each way. if you think the highway is a barrier now, imagine a blvd with 16 lanes!!! and a median. another negative is that this blvd will still follow the same path, and much of this path is highly unattractive (parking garages and physical plant of Aetna, back of state government physical plant, back of the courant etc...

in my group we determined its a fine idea, but not on this strech of I-84. we think 91 is the place for a BLVD.

or a blvd might work of there were a circulatory highway system in plas as was planned back in the day, or in conjunction with the tunnel plan, we could have a blvd on top.

one of the consultants said our best bet for a blvd is on broad street if we had tunnels or the skyway removing the highway.

Tunnel. everyone loves everything about this idea from what i heard. ok, not everything, price is the only problem. and price is significant. with say 1.5 billion as a possible baseline for the replaced improved viaduct, to 4 or so billion for the tunnel. this tunnel would start just north of union station, and finish at about the sission ave exit. it allows for maximum economic benefits, and socal too, but cost is obviously high.

hybrid tunnel. this is also pupular. it would be a tunnel from n of union station to somewhere behind Aetna, and would then be the hybrid viaduct plan to sisson. the cost would be less, and most of the positives would be the same. the part that would be the viaduct would avoid dealing with the river conduit as well as the rail lines.

so this would clean up all the spagetti on ramps near the park, and really help connect asylum hill back to the city, it would also fix sisson as all others do. this addresses most of the problems, but also tries to keep the costs down.

for my money the best 2 would be the last 2, but as they currently exist I am not sold.

one thing not taken into account in regards to cost is maintenance. cost just refers to construction cost. as much as the tunnel option might be the most expensive I would argue that its maintenance would be much cheaper than the viaduct, and especially the skyway.

also on cost a critical part we are missing is federal matching dollars etc. the government helps pay for Interstate highway projects, and often covers much of the cost (90% sometimes) how much funding would each plan be eligable for federally and what is the actual cost locally???

the boulevard would not get anywhere near the funding that the tunnel would, so it might cost CT and even hartford more money to build.

once those questions are answered I feel we can get better answers regarding cost benefits.

also none of the plans included moving the train tracks. sure its impossible to move the tracks higher or lower due to grade restrictions, but lateral changes can be made. if we were to move the tracks in some scenerios we might rid downtown of all its barriers.

thats all for now.

[MadVlad]

I'd love to go to one of those meetings, please let me know when the next one is. As far as the plans go, I'd imagine the Skyway is out. I've seen one in Seattle back in the day (I think), and that sucker was really high up, but it created basically the same barrier as the current viaduct, so what's the point? I really don't see an option other than the tunnels, the Blvd sounds horrible, and the enhanced viaduct is still a viaduct, thereby not removing the problem.

[Bill Mocarsky]

It was great to see VOR again. I briefly met MichaelQReilly. I think He left early.

VOR, I really like the recap you did with your group. I was impressed at the rapport you and the young lady seemed to have...........As if you worked together for years.

also none of the plans included moving the train tracks. sure its impossible to move the tracks higher or lower due to grade restrictions, but lateral changes can be made. if we were to move the tracks in some scenerios we might rid downtown of all its barriers.

[Hiramicus]

It was great to see VOR again. I briefly met MichaelQReilly. I think He left early.

VOR, I really like the recap you did with your group. I was impressed at the rapport you and the young lady seemed to have...........As if you worked together for years.

I believe if there is one thing we went home with.........it was if you can't move the railroad vertically, move it horizontally.

In the encounter between I-84 and the railroad corridor, the two criss-cross 3 times. Untangling the two would help simplify things. If the rail corridor stayed on the north side of the highway, it would be able to go under Asylum Street. The new alignment would be straighter and a little shorter.

It also means that the transportation center would need to span the highway. But, that is probably not a bad thing.

I took a few screen shots of a conceptual model in the works

The Golden Triangle

The revolving restaurant in the foreground is not as high as MadVlad's space needle. Nevertheless, the view would still be nice.

Frederick Law Olmsted East

Garden Street and Lower Garden Street

..................Bill M