Future of the Gardiner Expressway - Nanos Research

Future of the Gardiner ExpresswayEnvironmental Assessment and Urban Design StudyCase StudiesMarch 26, 2009Dillon Consulting Perkins+Will HR&A DRAFT # 1

(This page intentionally left blank.)

ContentsIIntroductionII Scale ComparisionsIII AlternativesIV Computive AnalysisV Case StudiesAlaskan Way Viaduct – Seattle, WAWest Side Highway – New York, NYBonaventure Expressway – Montreal, QURiverfront Parkway – Chattanooga, TNEmbarcadero Freeway – San Francisco, CACheonggyecheon Expressway – Seoul, KoreaSheridan Expressway – Bronx, NYA8ern8 – Zaanstadt, The NetherlandsViaduct des Arts – Paris, FranceEast River Esplanade – New York, NYBuffalo Skyway – Buffalo, NYWhitehurst Freeway – Washington, DCVI Teasers and Urban BoulevardsVII Summary MatrixVIII Sources

(This page intentionally left blank.)

(This page intentionally left blank.)

ScaleComparisonsSECTION II: Scale comparisons 3

Scale ComparisonsA8ern8• Zaanstadt, The Netherlands, 0.4 km (0.25 miles)Bonaventure Expressway• Montreal, QC, 1 km (0.6 mile)Whitehurst Freeway• Washington, DC, 1.2 km (0.75 miles)Buffalo Skyway• Buffalo, NY, 1.6 km (1 mile)Sheridan Expressway• Bronx, NY, 2 km (1.25 mile)Viaduct des Arts• Paris, France, 2 km (1.25 miles)Gardiner Expressway• Toronto, ON, 2.4 km (1.5 miles)Embarcadero Freeway• San Francisco, CA, 2.5 km (1.6 mile)Riverfront Parkway• Chattanooga, TN, 2.7 km (1.7 mile)East River Esplanade• New York, NY, 3.2 km (2 miles)Alaskan Way Viaduct• Seattle, WA, 3.2 km (2 miles)Cheonggyecheon Expressway• Seoul, Korea, 6.1 km (3.75 miles)West Side Highway• New York, NY, 8.2 km (5 miles)0 0.25 0.5 km0 0.25 0.5 mile4Future of the Gardiner Expressway

SECTION II: Scale comparisons 5

Scale ComparisonsGardiner Expressway – Toronto, ON• Year built: 1965; Length: 2.4 km; Vehicles per day: 120,000Viaduct des Arts – Paris, France – “Ameliorate”• Year built: 1850s; Length: 2 km; Vehicles per day: N / ABuffalo Skyway – Buffalo, NY – “Do Nothing”• Year built: 1966; Length: 1.6 km; Vehicles per day: 43,400East River Esplanade – New York, NY – “Ameliorate”• Year built: 1954; Length: 3.2 km; Vehicles per day: 175,000Whitehurst Freeway – Washington, D.C. – “Do Nothing”• Year built: 1949; Length: 1.2 km; Vehicles per day: 45,000A8ern8 – Zaanstadt, The Netherlands – “Ameliorate”• Year built: 1970s; Length: 0.4 km; Vehicles per day: N / A0 0.5 1 km0 0.5 1 mile6Future of the Gardiner Expressway

Alaskan Way Viaduct – Seattle, WA – “Replace”• Year built: 1959; Length: 3.2 km; Vehicles per day: 110,000West Side Highway – New York, NY – “Remove / Replace”• Year built: 1937; Length: 8.2 km; Vehicles per day: 140,0000 0.5 1 km0 0.5 1 mileSECTION II: Scale comparisons 7

Scale ComparisonsEmbarcadero Freeway – San Francisco, CA – “Remove”• Year built: 1957; Length: 2.5 km; Vehicles per day: 80,000Bonaventure Expressway – Montreal, QU – “Remove”• Year built: 1967; Length: 1 km; Vehicles per day: 55,000Sheridan Expressway – Bronx, NY – “Remove”• Year built: 1962; Length: 2 km; Vehicles per day: 40,0000 0.5 1 km0 0.5 1 mile8Future of the Gardiner Expressway

Cheonggyecheon Expressway – Seoul, Korea – “Remove”• Year built: 1958-76; Length: 6.1 km; Vehicles per day: 120,000Riverfront Parkway / 21st Century Waterfront – Chattanooga, TN – “Remove”• Year built: 1960s; Length: 2.7 km; Vehicles per day: 20,0000 0.5 1 km0 0.5 1 mileSECTION II: Scale comparisons 9

(This page intentionally left blank.)

AlternativesSECTION III: alternatives 11

The following describes additional alternativesillustrated by the 12 case studies. These casestudy alternatives may offer ideas for newunique alternatives or design variations on thefour initial alternatives.Rebuild• Highway removal studies have beeninitiated when elevated structures havebecome unsafe or damaged either bynatural disaster or reaching the end ofuseful life. This was the case, in particular,after earthquakes in San Francisco andSeattle.Infillsome case studies, however, the preferredalternative reduced traffic capacity.In Chattanooga, Tennessee, for example,studies showed that an existing parkwayhad excess capacity. A new boulevard,therefore, was designed to accommodatelower traffic volumes than the demolishedhighway.• Studies to remove waterfront elevatedstructures have considered the opportunityto modify the waterfront edge through infill.In these instances, alternatives toreconstruct and reestablish an elevatedhighway’s structural integrity wereconsidered. This alternative maintains the“status quo”.Remove Plus• In some case studies, highway removaloffered opportunities to create new largescalepublic amenities or reclaimed landfor redevelopment. In Seoul, Korea, forexample, the Cheonggyecheon Expresswaywas replaced with a 6-kilometer (3.75miles) linear park.An example is the Westway proposal forManhattan’s Hudson River waterfront. Itproposed replacing an elevated highwaywith a tunnel buried underneath infill –thereby adding 178 acres of new waterfrontland.Air-rights• New construction on elevated highway airrightshas also been considered. Studiesfor the East River Esplanade, for example,considered building new residential towersover F.D.R. Drive on Lower Manhattan’seast side.Reduce• A key issue in highway removal studiesis whether future scenarios shouldaccommodate traffic volumes (vehiclesper daily) at or above existing levels. InSECTION III: alternatives 13

(This page intentionally left blank.)

ComparativeAnalysisSECTION IV: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 15

Comparative AnalysisKEY CASE STUDY LESSONS• Solutions come in different shapesand sizes.• Transportation solutions should beseen through the lens of city-buildingand quality of life.• Transportation uses are continuallyevolving – changes in demographics,economics, and lifestyle effect trafficdemand.• Traffic demand can be managed.• Transportation infrastructure offersextraordinary opportunities for design,creativity, and new public realm.• Infrastructure does not have to besingle-purpose or boring.• The public sector must be strategic inorder to capture value of investmentsin infrastructure to serve both communityand development goals.• City-building projects of this magnituderequire vision and activecommitment at the highest levels ofleadership – mayors, governors, andcity councils. Moreover, the full rangeof stakeholder input, from support toopposition, must be understood andresponded to substantively.The Gardiner Expressway is 2.4 km long (1.5miles) elevated highway. Its construction wascompleted in 1966. The six-lane highway(three lanes in both directions) carries120,000 vehicles per day in the area betweenJarvis Street and Leslie Street.The Gardiner passes through mostly industrialland on the Lake Ontario waterfront. Thearea includes East Bay Front and LowerDon Lands, two precincts currently beingplanned by Waterfront Toronto. A railroadembankment forms a barrier between theseprecincts and three medium-density, mixeduseneighborhoods upland – St. Lawrence, theDistillery District, and West Don Lands.In terms of scale and urban context, theGardiner Expressway is most similar, amongthe case studies, to the Embarcadero Freewayin San Francisco; Bonaventure Expressway inMontreal; Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle; andF.D.R. Drive in New York City.The 12 case studies in this report wereanalyzed from the combined perspectives ofurban design, open space and public realm,transportation, and economic development.Applying these four lenses revealed overalllessons that may resonate for the currentGardiner study. These lessons follow.It is important to note that whereas about halfof the case studies are built, others are still inplanning and design stages. In this way, thecases offer both lessons from implementationand inspiration for design ideas.Solutions come in different shapesand sizes.The case studies reflect a diversity ofapproaches – which suggests there is nosingle strategy for addressing elevated highwayissues. Design and development strategiesundertaken by cities depend on physicalcontext, transportation needs, public realmgoals, and available resources, among otherfactors.New York City, for example, had over US $1billion in federal funds available to createa 8.3 km (5 mile) urban boulevard. Theboulevard is abundantly landscaped andincludes a bicycle greenway. In contrast, theAmsterdam suburb Zaanstadt took a moremodest approach. It choose to live with anelevated highway by improving the spaceunderneath with a grocery and recreationprograms. The project cost €2.7 million.Though these solutions have different scalesand costs, both became equally significantpublic gathering spaces for their respectivecity.Transportation solutions should beseen through the lens of city-buildingand quality of life.Elevated highway removal decisions areconventionally measured against transportationcriteria – level of service, travel time, etc.However, ambitious cities like San Franciscoand Montreal have viewed their highwaysfrom a different perspective. They have setgoals for waterfront access, public realm,transportation, sustainability, and development,then accessed how their highways will have tochange to achieve these greater urban goals.Transportation uses are continuallyevolving – changes in demographics,economics, and lifestyle effect trafficdemand.The highways of the mid-20th century,particularly in the United States, weredesigned with specific goals in mind. One keyplanning agenda was to connect downtownsto suburbs. Planners also sought to linkindustrial waterfronts to the new interstatehighway system.In some cases studied, city agencies foundthat these historic goals no longer apply.Moreover, while there is always concern abouturban highway congestion, sometimes trafficdemand actually decreases over time.In Chattanooga, for example, RiverfrontParkway no longer served as a though-routefor industrial trucking in the Tennessee River16Future of the Gardiner Expressway

Valley as it did in the 1960s. In fact, theparkway had excess capacity. Redesigningthe road as an at-grade boulevard did nottherefore produce congestion downtown.Traffic demand can be managed.The most successful highway reconfigurationprojects complement changes to expresswayfunctions with new transit infrastructureand policy. Traffic demand strategies rangefrom increased public transit to user fees forparking, from incentives for alternatives tocommuting by car to congestion pricing.Seoul, for example, complemented thedemolition of the CheonnggyecheonExpressway – which carried 120,000 vehiclesper day – with new bus rapid transit. Seattlewill add new light rail when the Alaskan WayViaduct is replaced with a tunnel. Theseimprovements not only encourage mode shift(from car to public transit, for example), butset the stage for reducing carbon emissions.Transportation infrastructure offersextraordinary opportunities for design,creativity, and new public realm.Highway reconfiguration provides rareopportunities for cities to strengthenwaterfront connections and create new publicrealm there. At the same time, some citieshave learned that they need not always turntheir back to infrastructure.New York City is developing a new publicesplanade under the elevated F.D.R. Drive inLower Manhattan. Through lighting, programdiversity, surface materials, and noiseattenuatingcladding, the space under thehighway will be transformed into an inviting,active space. Moreover, innovative designwill give the East River Esplanade a uniquecharacter, making it a one-of-a-kind publicspace in the city.Infrastructure does not have to besingle-purpose or boring.Cities are transforming both de-commissionedand active infrastructure into new civiclandmarks and unexpected spaces for urbanactivity. Paris closes the Georges PompidouExpressway in summer to create an urbanbeach along the banks of the Seine. BothParis and New York have re-imagined elevatedrailroads as linear parks. The design of theHigh Line in New York integrates landscapewith an iconic industrial-era elevated structure.The public sector must be strategicin order to capture value of investmentsin infrastructure to serve bothcommunity and development goals.Public investment in highway reconfigurationand removal creates benefits – fromdevelopment parcels to increased propertyvalues to improved quality of life. The publicsector must act strategically in order tocapture this value. In Montreal, for example,parcels created by removing the BonaventureExpressway will be sold to the privatesector for mixed-use development. Highwayremoval will also enhance the value of recentredevelopment in the neighboring CiteMultimedia.Conversely, opportunity costs accumulatewhen decision-making processes drag on.In Seattle, real estate speculators acquiredproperties along the Alaskan Way Viaductduring a decade of transportation studies. Thepublic sector lost the opportunity to acquirethese properties itself, then increase revenuethrough disposition.City-building projects of this magnituderequire vision and active commitmentat the highest levels of leadership– mayors, governors, and citycouncils. Moreover, the full range ofstakeholder input, from support toopposition, must be understood andresponded to substantively.City leaders need to support and advocate forintegrated approaches to infrastructure design.Their vision must embrace the full range ofurban design, public realm, transportation,and economic development opportunities.Visionary leadership is complemented by aninformed and engaged public that has anactive role in developing design solutions.The Gardiner Expressway and downtown Toronto viewed from the south-east.SECTION IV: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 17

(This page intentionally left blank.)

Case StudiesSECTION V: Case studies 19

Case StudiesReplaceAlaskan Way Viaduct, Seattle, WABackgroundThe Alaskan Way Viaduct is a 3.2 kilometer(2 mile) four-lane double-stacked elevatedhighway (two one-way lanes on each level)along Elliot Bay in downtown Seattle.Constructed in 1959, the viaduct approachesdowntown Seattle from the south. It createsa physical barrier between Seattle’s baseballand football stadiums and its port area. Theviaduct mostly serves local traffic, whichby-passes downtown on the way from Seattle’snorth and south neighborhoods. The viaductalso limits access to the Elliot Bay waterfrontfrom downtown.An earthquake in 2001 damaged thestructure’s joints and columns. Followingthe earthquake, the viaduct also settled,raising alarm that Seattle’s seawall sustaineddamage as well. It was determined after theearthquake that removing or replacing theviaduct would be more cost effective than aretrofit.Because the Washington State Department ofTransportation (WSDOT) owns the viaduct andthe City of Seattle owns the seawall, removaland replacement studies were jointly initiated.A range of alternatives – from an urbanboulevard to a cut-and-cover tunnel similar toportions of Boston’s Big Dig – were analyzed.Parking is a common use under the Viaduct.The Alaskan Way Viaduct separates downtown Seattlefrom the waterfront.Alaskan Way Viaduct Section – Before (Existing)20Future of the Gardiner Expressway

The Governor announced in early 2009that the viaduct will be replaced by deepbored tunnel under downtown Seattle. Thisalternative was not evaluated in the EIS. Costfor the bored tunnel is estimated at US $4.24billion.Urban DesignThe Alaskan Way Viaduct, in particularbecause it is a double-decker structure,is thought to reduce the quality of thedowntown environment and potential portareadevelopment value. Its visual impact onSteinbreuk Park is especially felt, since thisopen space is symbolically important to bothdowntown and the city.Most land in the downtown waterfront areais privately-owned. While some developmentparcels will be created, the City of Seattledoes not stand to significantly re-capturepublic investment value through landdisposition. Direct economic benefits to theCity would come through increased tourismand rising property values.The viaduct also poses a sharp environmentalchallenge to Seattle – maintaining currenttraffic volumes on the viaduct will likelyexceed state carbon reduction goals, some ofthe most ambitious in the U.S.The study’s urban design objectives weremostly related to existing waterfront land useplans. Pedestrian and bicycle access werekey goals, as well enhanced waterfront andmountain views. All alternatives studied howto create waterfront pedestrian realm andwhether bringing the viaduct to grade might,in fact, diminish existing pedestrian realm.The viaduct is an aging infrastructure. For thisreason, safety and design deficiencies – forexample, 3-meter-wide (10 feet) lanes – werekey concerns. Yet transportation strategiesrevolved around a key question. Shouldviaduct redesign accommodate existing trafficvolumes – 110,000 vehicles per day – orencourage mode shift?Existing condition under the Viaduct.Rendering of proposed condition.Alaskan Way Viaduct Section – After (Proposed)SECTION V: Case studies 21

Case StudiesAll alternatives were designed for multiplemodes, including light rail. However,alternatives posed markedly differentreplacement approaches. On the onehand, investment could be made in a largeinfrastructure solution. On the other, manysmaller street reconfigurations and transitprojects might fulfill the City’s needs.ProcessSix alternatives were studied: no build;“rebuild” – rebuild a section of the elevatedstructure and replace the rest with an urbanboulevard; “aerial” – rebuild the entireelevated structure; “tunnel” – two alternativeswith varying capacity; and “surface” – a newurban boulevard.These were combined and narrowed to twoalternatives: a tunnel with a four-lane at-gradeboulevard and an elevated structure with a sixlaneat-grade boulevard.Public dialogue about the Alaskan Way Viaductfocused primarily on congestion. In a 2008ballot initiative, the public rejected bothalternatives. Media suggested voters wereinfluenced by the specter of the Big Dig.Ultimately, decision-making authority lay withthe state. The deep bored tunnel is the mostexpensive alternative and has limited lanewidth and access ramps. However, it will allowfor minimal disruption during construction(as compared to cut-and-cover technology).The state will assume US $2.81 billion ofexpenses for the tunnel. The city and port willpay for seawall reconstruction. The project isestimated to create 10,000 jobs over 10 years.Throughout the eight-year process, the city lostopportunities to capture incremental value theproject would potentially create. Real estatespeculators began purchasing land within theviaduct corridor that might have come undercity-ownership.LESSONS of the alaskan way viaduct• Choice of technology played a key role in political decisionmaking.Yet while the deep bored tunnel and urban boulevard willenable significant urban design improvements, it requires massiveresource allocation and trade-offs – over US $4 billion.• Choice of technology also posed transportation trade-offs. Lanewidths are constrained and there are limited ramp connections.• All alternatives considered design implications for integratingmultiple transportation modes, including light rail, pedestrian, andbicycle.• Development and value capture opportunities were lost to the Citythroughout the prolonged study process.22Future of the Gardiner Expressway

West Side Highway, New York, NYReplace / RemoveBackgroundThe West Side Highway extends for 8.2kilometers (5 miles) from 58th Street toBattery Park along Manhattan’s Hudson Riverwaterfront.Construction of the West Side Highwaywas completed in 1937. The new elevatedhighway with an at-grade street below servicedriver piers and adjacent manufacturing anddistribution districts. A section of the highwaycollapsed in 1974, closing it to traffic andopening a twenty-year debate on the WestSide’s future.The Mayor, Governor, and other cityleaders shortly-thereafter advocated for theWestway. This massive project, designed byVenturi Scott Brown, proposed 220 acresof redevelopment, all funded with federaland state transportation grants. A tunnelunder 178 acres of landfill would replacethe highway. Open space and new housingwould be constructed on the fill. Legal battles,however, stalled the project until 1985,when the City diverted the funds to othertransportation projects.US $690 million remained for the West SideHighway’s reconstruction. In 1987, the Citydeveloped a new plan for an at-grade six-laneboulevard (three lanes in each direction),which was completed in 2001.Urban DesignThe Westway and final West Side HighwayReconstruction Project reflect two different,era-specific planning approaches. Whereasthe Westway is more aligned with largescaleurban renewal, the eventual West SideHighway reconstruction illustrates a moreView of West Side Highway facing north; circa 1940s. Hudson River waterfront shipping and industrial uses are seen on the left.SECTION V: Case studies 23

contextual approach. Even so, the Westwaywas conceptualized as a more contextsensitivedesign than 1960s-era highwayprojects that displaced neighborhoods.By the time of the collapse, the West SideHighway’s role had changed. The industrialHudson waterfront was in decline as anactive city economy sector. The highway’snarrow lanes and sharp turns also made thestructure technologically obsolete. Followingthe highway closure, the West Side was largelyperceived to be a haven for crime.The Westway would have created long-termreal estate opportunities for the City forland disposition. However, the cost – US$1.7 billion – was generally perceived to beexcessive for a new highway. The West SideHighway Reconstruction project created newdemand for adaptive reuse and infill along theWest Side. Former industrial buildings havebeen converted to residential, for example.Area property values increased by 20 percent,View of West Side Highway facing south after completion of restoration project in 2000s.West Side Highway Section – Before (1930s to 1970s)24Future of the Gardiner Expressway

totalling US $200 million of added value.The boulevard proposal EIS questionedwhether Manhattan even needed a limitedaccessarterial. The transportation studyanalyzed nearly all of Manhattan andconcluded that the West Side Highway actedmore as a collector-distributor road. Replacingthe highway with an at-grade boulevard,therefore, wouldn’t be a loss for most drivers.(Whereas the West Side Highway carried140,000 vehicles per day in the 1970s, todayit carries 95,000).The Department of City Planning authoredthe new boulevard plan. Design objectivesincluded creating a new multi-modal routeand pedestrian waterfront connections as wellas streetscape improvements. To this firstend, the design incorporates a segment of theManhattan Greenway bicycle and pedestrianpath. The plan also limits auto access andturning locations, and provides a raisedmedian in order to increase pedestrian safety.Landscape plays a significant role theboulevard’s overall visual quality. Barrier curbsand the median are designed to be 0.6- to0.85-meters-tall. These high curbs offer deepplanting beds, allowing for a variety of trees,shrubs, and flowers. The diverse plantingpalette gives the West Side Highway a parkwaycharacter.The West Side Highway is also integrated, interms of design, with surrounding planninginitiatives. Pedestrian crossing locations,for example, are coordinated with plannedentrances to Hudson River Park. Surfacematerials, paving, and exterior furnishingswere also aligned with design standardsfor Hudson River Park and the ManhattanGreenway.ProcessThe Westway was ultimately stalled in courton environmental grounds. The court uphelda lawsuit contending that the project EIS didnot properly consider impacts on striped bass.These migratory fish make habitat in the pilesof abandoned piers along the Hudson.The scale and ambition of both the Westwayand West Side Highway Reconstruction Projectwere surely enabled by the funding source.Because most funds were federal, the projectswere more politically palatable to local leadersand residents.The Manhattan Waterfront Greenway parallelsthe West Side Highway.LESSONS of the west side highway / westway• The West Side Highway Reconstruction Project did not leverageas much development as is likely to occur in Toronto. Instead, itprovided amenity access that encouraged substantial economicgrowth in upland neighborhoods.• The details of roadbed design provided the opportunity for a richerlandscape. The West Side Highway’s parkway character makesthe boulevard an appealing urban amenity and refers to the City’slegacy of constructing parkways.West Side Highway Section – After (Existing)SECTION V: Case studies 25

Case StudiesRemoveBonaventure Expressway, Montreal, QCBackgroundThe Bonaventure Expressway is a 1-kilometer(0.6 miles) elevated highway extendingeastward from downtown Montreal to theLachine Canal.Constructed in the 1967, the six-laneBonaventure Expressway parallels theCN Railroad viaduct, which terminates atBonaventure Place and Central Stationdowntown. The expressway opened shortlybefore Expo ‘67, a large-scale “world’s fair”event. Two three-lane one-way at-grade streets– Rue Duke and Rue Nazareth – are located oneither side of the elevated structure.The viaduct and highway separate twoneighborhoods. To the south, Griffintown ischaracterized by nineteenth-century industrialbuildings. To the north, the Cite Multimedia isa new mixed-use redevelopment area .The Societe du Havre de Montreal (SHM), aquasi-governmental organization establishedin 2002, proposed demolition of theBonaventure in 2005. As part of Montreal’soverall waterfront development strategy, RuesDuke and Nazareth would be expanded. Landreclaimed from the Bonaventure would beredeveloped as office, residential, and hotel.The development plan also includes improvedarea public transit and new waterfront openspace.The Bonaventure Expressway enters downtownMontreal from the east; Peel Basin andLachine Canal are in the foreground.Parking is a current use under theBonaventure Expressway.Bonaventure Expressway Section – Before (Existing)26Future of the Gardiner Expressway

The City is currently reviewing the projectand approval may come in spring 2009. Theproject cost is estimated at CA $90 million.Urban DesignFrom the perspective of SHM, removingthe Bonaventure Expressway posed keydevelopment opportunities – creating 4.25acres of new development parcels andincreasing the value of Cite Multimediaredevelopment efforts. The Bonaventure hadplayed a role in the area’s decline during the1970s and 80s. In addition, the structureblocked views and diminished pedestrianaccess to Peel Basin, a potential waterfrontamenity.Urban design objectives integratetransportation, open space, and developmentplanning. The new district would, first ofall, provide an entrance to the city and therecently redeveloped Cite Multimedia andQuartier International de Montreal. Though theplan proposes expanding Rues Duke andNarazeth from three to four lanes, improvedpublic transit is planned to reduce overalltraffic demand. Light rail is proposed to serveas a link within Montreal’s waterfront tramsystem.Other key objectives are pedestrian andbicycle realm improvements. In particular,the plan includes an underground pedestriannetwork connecting Montreal Metro stationswith new office and residential destinations.Rendering of proposed condition.Rendering of proposed condition.Removal of the Bonaventure Expressway willcreate parcels for new development.Bonaventure Expressway Section – After (Proposed)SECTION V: Case studies 27

Montreal already has an extensive networkof tunnels – known as La Ville Souterraine –which link transit stations and undergroundretail centers.The plan also incorporates the railroad viaductas a development site. Similar to the Viaductdes Arts in Paris, the plan proposes to carveretail spaces into the CN Railroad viaduct’svolume.The project is estimated to encourage$2.7 billion in private investment. Overall,employment created by the project would addmore than CA $2 billion to Quebec’s grossdomestic product. Jobs estimates range from25,700 to 41,400.ProcessSHM purposed an integrated designapproach with L’autoroute BonaventureVision 2025, specifically prioritizingsustainable development over mobility-basedplanning. The plan’s five key principlesemphasize quality of life, economic benefits,public transit, public realm, and an opendevelopment process. Accommodatingautomobile traffic was not the only projectdrivingpriority.lessons of the bonaventure expressway• Rather than evaluating the highway removal project only in termsof transportation planning, the implementing agency set ambitiousgoals for urban design, public realm, and development, then askedhow the highway would have to change to achieve the goals. SHMframed the project as the process of creating a new urban district.• Removal of the Bonaventure will reduce traffic capacity at thesame time that new development will increase demand. The planproposes a combination of increased public transit capacity, rushhourdemand management, and optimization of the local roadnetwork to reduce automobile traffic. These strategies are alignedwith Montreal’s transportation plan and the Kyoto Protocols.Rendering of proposed condition looking south on Rue Nazareth. New development is to the left; new retail in the ground-level of the rail roadembankment is to the right.28Future of the Gardiner Expressway

Riverfront Parkway, Chattanooga, TNRemoveBackgroundThe City of Chattanooga has since 2000increasing turned its attention to orientingrecent downtown investments toward theTennessee River. Doing so required replacingRiverfront Parkway with an urban boulevardand, subsequently, creating new waterfrontopen space.Riverfront Parkway followed the TennesseeRiver’s contour for 2.7 kilometers (1.7 mile)as it curved around downtown Chattanooga’snorthern edge. The four-lane parkway wasconstructed in the 1960s in order to speedregional industrial truck traffic throughChattanooga. It separated the medium densitydowntown from the river. Its median-dividersprevented pedestrians from crossing the roadto access the waterfront.The City constructed and renovated severalcultural amenities on both sides of theparkway during the 1980s and 90s. Theseincluded the Tennessee Aquarium, a baseballstadium, and a museum of American art.Following these investments, the City soughtto reconnect downtown to the river andinitiated efforts to remove Riverfront Parkway.A quasi-governmental organization, RiverCityCompany, hired Hargreaves Associatesin 2004 to develop the “21st CenturyRiverfront Parkway was reconfigured as an at-grade urban boulevard during the 2000s.SECTION V: Case studies 29

Case StudiesWaterfront”. The plan creates connectionsacross the new boulevard to 129 acres of newopen spaces and mixed-use districts along theTennessee River.The 21st Century Waterfront cost US $120million to construct (which excludes cost ofremoving Riverfront Parkway).Urban DesignThe parkway project and 21st CenturyWaterfront were implemented in parallel.Chattanooga’s downtown grid was integratedwith the boulevard, thereby creating waterfrontpedestrian connections and new developmentparcels. The new waterfront amenitiesenhanced their value.By the 1990s, Riverfront Parkway no longerserved its initial use. In fact, the parkwayhad excess capacity. Its redesign was not anissue of accommodating traffic, but rathercalibrating its dimensions for current volumes.Lanes were reduced to two, except fordowntown, where it has four. Two additionaldowntown intersections were added to dispersepotential congestion.The 21st Century Waterfront is composedof six open space and development districtson both sides of the river. Because there islittle developable land between the parkwayand river, most planned development hasoccurred just upland of the new roadway. Thedowntown side includes a reconstructed parkwith terraced public spaces leading to the riveredge and amphitheater there. Piers provideboat launches and river views.Hargreaves’ plan is characterized by stronglandforms and active shapes. These provideboth flood control as well as recreation space.The Riverfront Parkway streetscape today connects downtown to the Tennessee River.30Future of the Gardiner Expressway

A sweeping fly-over bridge connects a newdowntown public plaza to the arts district,located on a dramatic river bluff. The designtherefore gives downtown and the riverfront acontemporary character.ProcessRiverCity Company was established in the1980s to steward redevelopment alongChattanooga’s waterfront. The organizationfinanced the 21st Century Waterfront usingno Chattanooga general funds. Fifty percentof the development budget came from a hoteltax, the other fifty from private sources.The vision for the waterfront was alsoestablished by political and agency leadership.Both the Mayor and the city’s Planningand Design Studio strongly advocated foran innovative approach for downtown andthe river. Whether such vision will continuewas questioned in 2005. The mayoralelection in that year was won by a candidatewho specifically ran on an anti-downtowninvestment platform.The City of Chattanooga reports that itleveraged the US $120 million investment inthe waterfront for US $2 billion in new publicand private development. Before the parkwayremoval was complete, more than US $100million in new mixed-use and residentialdevelopment downtown had already beenconstructed or planned.The 21st Century Waterfront offers publicaccess to the river.lessons of riverfront parkway / 21st century waterfront• This project illustrates that to implement an innovative designvision, it must be supported and sought after by the highest levelsof leadership.• The City recognized that the role of the highway had shifted –from serving as a through-route for industrial trucking to providingaccess to cultural and natural amenities.• The roadway design is calibrated for current traffic volumes.Pedestrian connections across the River over views of the new watefront park.SECTION V: Case studies 31

Case StudiesRemoveEmbarcadero Freeway, San Francisco, CABackgroundThe Embarcadero Freeway was a 2.5 kilometer(1.6 mile) double-deck highway constructed in1957 in order to provide a connection betweenthe Bay Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge.The freeway wound through medium densityresidential neighborhoods, includingChinatown, Rincon Hill, and Transbay, as wellas San Francisco’s central business district.Public protest in the 1950s – the “freewayrevolt” – led to a reduction in scale of thenew highway. Even so, the Embarcadero was avisual and physical barrier between downtownand the bay.Following damage sustained during the 1989Loma Prieta earthquake, CALTRANS studiedreplacement strategies for the Embarcadero.Two years later, the Embarcadero wasdemolished and replaced with a six-laneWhen constructed in the 1950s, the Embarcadero separated downtown from theFerry Building and Bay.Embarcadero Freeway Section – Before (1950s to 1980s)32Future of the Gardiner Expressway

at-grade boulevard. The new boulevardwas developed along with a new waterfrontpromenade, pedestrian- and bicycle-ways, anda streetcar line.Fifty percent less cars use the boulevarddaily than the elevated structure, whichcarried 80,000 vehicles per day. There wasno significant increase in downtown trafficcongestion.Urban DesignThe 1989 earthquake and subsequent collapserevived in public imagination the potential forthe San Francisco to reestablish its historicrelationship to the bay. The Embarcadero wasperceived to be an urban eyesore and barrierto waterfront access. In addition, it marred thecity’s front door, separating the iconic FerryBuilding from the foot of Market Street.Urban boulevard and esplanade constructionwas guided by clear urban design principles,thereby creating new developmentopportunities. Design guidelines and a publicart program shaped the boulevard’s consistentand unique character. Pedestrian-amenabledesign made the boulevard a generous publicgathering space.Subsequently, 100 acres of land werereclaimed for new development. The FerryBuilding was reopened to the public as aregional food market. Two other waterfrontprojects – Pier 1 and the Embarcadero Center– attracted new retail and office development.Housing development also significantlyincreased. Over 7,000 new housing units wereplanned for former rights-of-way and rampsin Rincon Hill and Transbay. 2,000 unitswere developed in the south of Market area.Today, over 83 percent of residents in south ofMarket arrived after 1990.The redesign envisioned EmbarcaderoBoulevard as a multi-modal street integratedwith the surrounding urban grid. TransitView of the Ferry Building from the south-east.Removing the Embarcadero reclaimed over one mile of waterfront.Embarcadero Freeway Section – After (Existing)SECTION V: Case studies 33

improvements in the Embarcadero corridor,however, built upon existing efforts. SanFrancisco had implemented “transit first”policies since 1972. The city Board hadpassed highway demolition resolutions threetimes in the 1970s and 80s. In 1986, theissue was brought to public referendum, whichwas voted down.Concern over congestion increases downtowndid not materialize despite an immediate25 percent capacity reduction. Forty-twopercent of drivers found alternate routes withinsix weeks of the earthquake. Other driversreduced discretionary trips or opted for publictransit.ProcessCALTRANS studied three alternatives for thedamaged Embarcadero Freeway: seismologicalretrofit; a tunnel; and an at-grade urbanboulevard.The third alternative was selected primarilybased on cost. This alternative attractedsignificant public support, in particular fromanti-growth advocates. Almost immediatelyafter the earthquake, San Francisco’s Mayorannounced his support for demolishing theEmbarcadero.Yet there was also opposition. Chinatownmerchants argued removing the highway woulddecrease their customer base, which wasincreasingly shopping in suburban locations.lessons of embarcadero freeway• The Embarcadero Freeway removal signaled a shift in prioritiesamong municipal officials from mobility-based planning tosustainable urban development.• Values of property adjacent to the new Embarcadero Boulevardincreased by 300 percent; jobs in the area increased by 23percent.• Urban design has a key role to play in highway removal –boulevard design slowed traffic, thereby creating an environmentamenable to retail and residential development. In addition, landuse planning was intergrated with traffic engineering.The Ferry Building has becoming a gathering space for the city. Over 25,000 people visitit each weekend.34Future of the Gardiner Expressway

Cheonggyecheon Expressway, Seoul, KoreaRemoveBackgroundThe Cheonggyecheon Restoration Projecttransformed a 6.1-kilometer (3.75 miles)elevated expressway corridor in downtownSeoul into a linear park and reclaimed stream.Between 1958 and 1976, theCheonggyecheon stream was incrementallycovered by a ten-lane at-grade street. A fourlaneelevated highway was constructed above.The Cheonggye district, composed of officebuildings and retail markets, became amongSeoul’s most congested areas.business district eastward, day-light theburied stream, and create an open spaceamenity for the city. Highway removal wouldbe complemented by new bus rapid transit.In just 27 months, the highway had beenreplaced by pedestrian esplanades andgardens. Two-lane boulevards were locatedat-grade on either side of the open space,which, along with the stream, is two meters(6.5 feet) below-grade.The project cost was publicly reported as US$390 million, though the budget may havebeen as much as US $900 million.A new mayor initiated a plan in 2002 todemolish the highway from the centralThe Cheonggyecheon Expressway contributed to declining property values and populationloss in Seoul’s downtown before it was replaced by a linear park.SECTION V: Case studies 35

A esplanade offers public access to the daylightedcreek.Urban DesignThe Cheonggyecheon Restoration Projectsignaled a shift in municipal officials’priorities towards quality of life issues.Moreover, the new Mayor committed toremaking Seoul as a sustainable city. Not onlydid the Cheonggye area suffer from congestion,but also population and property valuedecline. The new open space would benefitthe 200,000 area merchants as well as Seoulresidents as a whole.Pedestrian access to the below-grade publicspace is provided at 5-minute-walk intervalsby terraced steps. New pedestrian bridgesconnect either side of Cheonggyecheon. Avariety of landscape types and water featurescharacterize different park segments. In theyear following its opening, the park attracted90,000 visitors daily. Thirty percent of visitorscame from outside Seoul’s metropolitan area.The elevated structure removal occurred atthe same time as significant upgrades toSeoul’s public transportation system. A busrapid transit route was introduced to absorbriders from at least 120,000 cars formerlyon the expressway. Bus rapid transit was alsoincreased on feeder routes. In the previousdecade, the City created incentive programs toencourage commuters to use transit and raiseduser fees for parking downtown.Combined, these transportation strategiesresulted in a nine percent decrease in trafficinto the central business district.Cheonggyecheon Highway Section – Before (1950s to 2000s)36Future of the Gardiner Expressway

Sustainability objectives guided the project aswell. The City recycled ninety-six percent ofdemolition debris for street paving material.Removal of the expressway appears to havelowered summer temperatures in the projectarea by seven degrees.The seasonal Cheonggyecheon stream, however,is not truly restored. Water is diverted from thenearby Han River to assure continuous waterflow in the 1-meter-deep (3 feet) streambed.ProcessMuch impetus behind the project was political.The Mayor had campaigned on quality of lifeissues, including the proposal to demolish theCheonggyecheon Expressway. Having madegood on his promise, he campaigned for andwon the Korean presidency.Values of property adjacent to theCheonggyecheon project are estimated tohave increased by 30 percent. Between US$8.5 and $25 billion of long-term economicbenefits are estimated as a result of theproject.lessons of cheonggyecheon restoration project• Highway removal was coordinated with system-wide transportationstrategies. New bus rapid transit, a form of congestion pricing, andparking user fees together helped to reduce traffic downtown afterthe Cheonggyecheon Expressway was demolished.• The Cheonggyecheon Restoration Project illustrates how the desireto remake the city’s image can drive large-scale infrastructureimprovements.• Implementation occurred in an incredibly short timeframe. Yetthe project followed a top-down, urban renewal planning model– thousands of street merchants, for example, were relocated outof the district. This planning approach is less feasible in NorthAmerica.Cheonggyecheon Highway Section – After (Existing)SECTION V: Case studies 37

Case StudiesRemoveSheridan Expressway, Bronx, NYBackgroundThe Sheridan Expressway is a 2 kilometer(1.25 mile) highway along the Bronx Riverin the Bronx. It connects the BrucknerExpressway to the Cross Bronx Expressway.The Sheridan was constructed in the 1960sas a minor link in the Bronx highway system.The Bronx has historically shared the heaviestproportion of New York City’s trucking traffic.The Sheridan separates a high densityresidential neighborhood of five- to six-storyapartment buildings from the Bronx River.Immediately to the south is Hunts PointMarket, the world’s largest wholesale fooddistribution center.The New York State Department ofTransportation (NYSDOT) undertook studiesin the late-1990s to improve access toHunts Point. Fulton Fish Market had justrelocated from Lower Manhattan to HuntsPoint. At the same time, a coalition of nonprofitorganizations – including South BronxWatershed Alliance and Sustainable SouthBronx – developed in 1999 a community plan.It proposed an at-grade boulevard to replacethe Sheridan, reclaiming 28 acres for openspace and housing.Though NYSDOT incorporated the communityplan into its alternative plan, the agency’srecommendation in 2007 was to retain theSheridan Expressway. Subsequently, NYSDOTannounced in 2008 that because the earlierrecommendation was determined to beinfeasible, the agency will continue to studytwo options – highway removal and retention –and will issue a new report in 2010.Urban DesignThe community plan argues the SheridanExpressway has excess capacity. Replacing itwith an at-grade boulevard would thereforeremove a waterfront barrier without increasingcongestion or travel times. The SheridanExpressway is also bound to historicenvironmental justice issues in the SouthBronx.Since the Bronx shares the largest volumeCyclists on Sheridan Expressway during bicycle event.38Future of the Gardiner Expressway

of truck traffic, its neighborhoods have highincidences of asthma and other air-qualityrelatedhealth issues. Construction of thehighway in the early-1960s was followed bytwo decades of neighborhood disinvestment.NYSDOT focused its study on access to HuntsPoint Market. It did not consider urban designissues.The community plan aligned highwayremoval with neighborhood and open spaceplanning goals. The plan includes 1,200affordable housing units, 120,000 SF ofretail, community, and manufacturing space,and a 10-acre park. The new waterfront openspace would provide a key link in the overallplan for the 37-kilometer (23 miles) BronxRiver watershed – which has gained two newopen spaces in the last five years. In addition,highway removal would reclaim land forhousing development.The Community plan estimates newdevelopment would create 700 new jobs.Similar waterfront park projects in NewYork City, such as Hudson River Park,have stimulated reinvestment in uplandneighborhoods.ProcessThree families of alternatives were considered:remove the Sheridan Expressway andreplace in an at-grade boulevard; reconstructexpressway ramps to improve Hunts Pointaccess; and reconstruct the ramps andprovide additional access from Port Morristo the south. Overall, 21 alternatives wereevaluated within the three families. NYSDOTrecommended two alternatives from family two.A multi-step process evaluated the alternativesagainst 14 objectives. First, through apublic process, the alternatives were scoredagainst the objectives. Second, quantitativemeasures were assigned to each objective andthe alternatives were scored again. In bothinstances, the scores were weighted based onpublic input.NYSDOT’s ramp improvement alternativesoutscored the highway removal alternatives. Infact, because public input preferred reducingtruck traffic on local streets as well as truckemissions, the highway removal alternativesquantitatively scored poorly.lessons of the sheridan expressway• The evaluation methodology was overly complicated. By focusingon transportation objectives, the evaluation obscured neighborhoodopen space and development goals.• The community plan reclaims land for development and increasesneighborhood value through new waterfront connections.The Bronx River Watershed Alliance proposes to create a 10-acre park and 1,200 housing units by removing the Sheridan Expressway.SECTION V: Case studies 39

Case StudiesAmeliorateA8ern8, Zaanstadt, The NetherlandsBackgroundThe City Council of this small suburb 16kilometers (10 miles) north of Amsterdamundertook in 2003 an initiative to createa new town square. The project sought toreactivate the space under A8, a 7-meter-tallelevated highway.A8 enters town from the east, just afterspanning the River Zaan. When constructed inthe 1970s, A8 formed a harsh physical barrierbetween the town’s two civic activity centers,the church and town hall. Residents of thelow-slung apartment blocks and townhousesin the surrounding neighborhood lost theirriver views and access. The effort to redesignA8 was advocated for primarily by residentsand private businesses. At the time of theCouncil’s initiative, A8’s underside was mostlyused for parking.NL Architects, the town’s design consultant,conceptualized the 40- by 400-meter areaas a long “civic arcade”. The introductionof new programs, cladding of the elevatedstructure, and surface treatments transformedA8 from a barrier into a gathering place. Inaddition, adjacent streetscape improvementsre-established visual and physical connectionsamong the town’s three public realms – theriver, church, and town hall.The project cost was €2.7 million. A8ernA wasawarded the European Prize for Urban PublicSpace in 2006.Urban DesignStakeholder input established the key projectobjective to create an open and simplemeeting place and public face for the town.This objective responded directly to A8’sA8ern8 Highway Section – Before (1970s to 2000s); an Albert Heijn grocery store opened under the highway along with otherneighborhood retail (above).40Future of the Gardiner Expressway

impact on the town fabric. A8 is a physicalbarrier between the north and south sidesof town and the River Zaan. Aesthetically, itdetracts from the surrounding architecture andnatural landscape. Lastly, it diminishes useof public spaces next to the church and townhall.Program is key to achieving the projectobjective. A variety of uses were introducedinto the site, appealing to a range of townresident needs and interests. For this reason,A8ernA attracts residents of all ages.The retail program includes an Albert Heijnsupermarket, a pet shop, and flower shop aswell as 120 parking spaces. Albert Heijn, inparticular, was attracted to the site becauseit offered a highway accessibility and a rareopportunity for a large floor plate in town.A skateboarding park, basketball courts, andping pong tables provide youth with recreationamenities. A graffiti gallery serves as a publicart component. A small marina with publicseating was constructed where A8 lifts overthe Zaan, opening up river views.Material selection and surface treatmentmakes A8’s understory inviting and attractive.Structural columns were clad in a variety ofmaterials, including herringbone-patternedtimber and reflective steel, into which backlitlettering is dye-cut. Similarly, groundtreatments – from timber decking to orangesurface paint – differentiate program spaces.ProcessThe A8ernA project was coordinated with alarger, city-wide planning effort to identifyredevelopment sites for 10 new squaresin Zaanstadt. Alternatives for at-grade ortunnel replacement of A8 were not seriouslyconsidered due to high costs.The Mayor and City Council, church officials,merchants, and residents participated in theplanning process. Stakeholder objectivesand desires guided the design process. NLArchitects incorporated nearly all communityprogram requests into the final design.The businesses under A8 have been incrediblysuccessful. Albert Heijn has expressed interestin expanding and bringing in additional in-lineretail.Cladding and lighting on the highway columnsmakes the space more inviting; the skate-parkgenerates amble activity.lessons of a8ern8• A8ernA shows it is possible to live with an elevated structure.This project adapts a visually repetitive space (concrete overhead,evenly space piers) with programmatic and visual diversity. Theprovision of a density of small programs and spaces with differentcharacters makes an unappealing environment attractive.• A8ernA is a small scale project guided by a highly participatoryplanning process. The process illustrates that a full rangeof stakeholder desires can be incorporated into projectimplementation without diminishing design quality or resorting tothe “lowest common denominator”.• The project was driven, in part, by private market interest inutilizing a unique retail site.A8ern8 Highway Section – After (Existing)SECTION V: Case studies 41

Case StudiesAmeliorateViaduct des Arts, Paris, FranceBackgroundThe Viaduct des Arts / Promenade Planteeis a 2-kilometer (1.25-mile) elevated railwaystructure in the 12th arrondissment of Paris.The viaduct runs parallel to Avenue Daumesnilwithin a dense residential neighborhood offive- to six-story buildings.The brick and masonry viaduct wasconstructed in the nineteenth century. Therailroad closed in 1969. From its closure tothe late-1990s, the viaduct’s large archwayswere episodically occupied by assortments ofantique shops, auto garages, used bookstores,and other uses.Atelier Parisien d’ Urbanisme (APUR), thecity’s urban design agency, developed in the1980s an historic restoration strategy for theviaduct. The plan proposed re-tenanting the64 archways with artists, craftspeople, andrestaurants. In addition, it included a newlinear park and gardens overhead, whichwere designed by Philippe Mathieu andJacques Vergely. APUR partnered with alocal development corporation to identify andmanage new tenants.Whereas there were studios and workshopsin the viaduct prior to renovation, the APURproject represented significant up-scaling ofboth the viaduct and Avenue Daumesnil.Urban DesignBy the 1980s the viaduct was considered anurban eyesore. Its shops did not contributepositively to neighborhood identity. In addition,the city had recently invested in the grandprojet, Opera Bastille. As such, the OperaBastille brought with it benefits for other arearedevelopment and public amenities. Theviaduct’s eventual restoration was intendedto enhance neighborhood retail, but also tocreate a contemporary Paris landmark.The viaduct and promenade designemphasizes the structure’s character andvisual connections to the city. The archwayrestoration, designed by Patrick Berger, isintended to minimally distract from thestructure’s historic character. Glass claddingover the archways is set back in order toaccentuate the masonry, which was restored inViews of the city below are a key element ofthe Promenade design.The archways under the viaduct provide space for artist studios, workshops, and restaurants.42Future of the Gardiner Expressway

the style of the Place des Vosges arcades. Thepromenade offers a range of gardens – someof which enclose visitors in landscape, othersframe city views.At street-level, a six-meter-wide (20-feet) treelinedsidewalk separates the viaduct from athree-lane one-way street.The project also addresses railroadembankment reuse, though less successfully.At the viaduct’s eastern end, the promenadecontinues on an embankment. The restorationincludes new retail constructed along theembankment. The architecture here, however,is far less appealing than the restored viaduct.ProcessThe decision to retain and renovate the viaductwas guided by both design considerationsand strategic coordination with other planninginitiatives. APUR studied two alternativesin the 1980s – demolish and redevelopreclaimed land, or restore and create anelevated linear park.The park alternative was an opportunity tobuild upon the recently completed grandproject, the Opera Bastille, by adding anothernew public amenity. At the same time, theviaduct’s north side orients towards backs ofexisting buildings. Demolishing the viaductwould create the difficult task of integratingthese revealed buildings, now visuallyprominent, into the streetscape.Most importantly, the park alternative alignedwith APUR’s new agency focus on “greeningthe city”.The Viaduct des Arts and PromenadePlantee were advanced as two separate, butinterconnected projects. The Paris parksdepartment manages the Promenade. A localdevelopment corporation manages the archwayspaces and adjacent developments under an18-year lease.The dual-management structure is faultedfor the viaduct’s limited economic impact.Because two organizations manage thestructure, a clear strategy has not be definedfor coordinating viaduct activities withneighborhood development and promoting itthroughout the city.lessons of viaduct des arts / promenade plantee• APUR advanced partnership with a local development corporationas a strategy for enhancing retail and residential development aswell as strengthening the neighborhood’s identity.• The Promenade Plantee illustrates how potentially incompatibleprograms – when distributed on different levels – might co-existin the same place. The tranquil elevated linear park is separatedfrom the bustle of the retail street below.• The Viaduct des Arts demonstrates a potential benefit to retainingexisting infrastructure. Containing new uses in an historicstructure creates a sense of connections between the past andpresent.• The Viaduct des Arts shows how existing infrastructure may besuccessfully integrated into the public realm.Some archways are left open to increasepedestrian connectivity within theneighborhood.The upper level of the viaduct is a a 4 kilometer (2.5 miles) linear park.SECTION V: Case studies 43

Case StudiesAmeliorateEast River Esplanade, New York, NYBackgroundThe East River Esplanade is a planned3.2-kilometer-long (2-mile) series of publicspaces along the Lower Manhattan waterfrontand below F.D.R. Drive, an elevated highway.The F.D.R. was constructed in 1954. Thehighway extends over more than 125 cityblocks from Battery Park, north along the EastRiver to Harlem. In Lower Manhattan, it formsa barrier between downtown neighborhoodsand the waterfront. The Esplanade planningarea includes six waterfront districts, fromthe Financial District to the Lower East Side.The area is characterized by high-densitydevelopment – office towers to the south,“towers-in-the-park” housing development tothe north.This project is one among many public realmand redevelopment efforts sponsored sinceSeptember 11th by the Lower ManhattanDevelopment Corporation, Department ofCity Planning, and Economic DevelopmentCorporation. Population in Lower Manhattanhas doubled – from 23,000 to 56,000 –in just eight years. The Esplanade is forthat reason linked to Lower Manhattan’stransformation into a residential neighborhoodand efforts to attract investment.SHoP and Ken Smith Landscape Architects,the City’s consultants, developed a planfor new programs, upland connections, andopen spaces on historic slips and piers. Newprogram pavilions under the F.D.R. andsurface treatments to its structure providea transition from Lower Manhattan to thewaterfront.The project is funded by US $150 millionfrom the Lower Manhattan DevelopmentCorporation.Urban DesignThe F.D.R. poses development barriers at bothneighborhood and city scales. Within LowerManhattan, it reduces access to inter-modaltransportation – ferry and helicopter – andretail on East River piers. Improved access willmost directly benefit new area residents. AtRendering by SHoP of cladding, surfaces, plantings, and pavilions under F.D.R. Drive.44Future of the Gardiner Expressway

the same time, the Esplanade is one amongseveral new open spaces in New York Harbor,including Governor’s Island. The Esplanade isthus also considered a city-scale developmentstrategy.The Esplanade creates benefits at bothneighborhood and city scales throughconnections, program, and public realm.The design includes a diverse, yet visuallycoordinated streetscape and exteriorfurnishings palette. New seating, planters,arbors, and landforms upland create publicspaces and mark pedestrian paths to the river.The environment under the F.D.R. is alsoimproved so as to provide continuity of urbanactivity from upland neighborhoods to the river.New glass pavilions – 1,500 to 8,000 SF insize – are proposed to accommodate a rangeof retail, food, and community-requestedprograms. The underside of the F.D.R. will beclad with a modular system of noise-abatingpanels and lighting. The design approachtreats the elevated structure as a “roof”,creating a safe and inviting environment.The plan also addresses, in contrast to theWestway, ecological impacts on aquatic life.Existing piers will be renovated to increasewater flow through piles. Reef-balls will beinstalled at pile bases to encourage fishhabitat formation.ProcessThe purpose of the project was primarilyesplanade design, and so highway removalalternatives were not considered in detail. TheEnvironmental Impact Statement proposed twoadditional alternatives.The first studied scenarios for building twoto six residential towers over the F.D.R.Construction feasibility and cost ruled out thisalternative. The second proposed replacing theF.D.R. with an at-grade boulevard.The F.D.R. has excess capacity in its LowerManhattan segment. However, accommodatingexisting capacity would require a six-laneat-grade boulevard – which would limitland available for the esplanade. There wastherefore a trade-off between the boulevardalternative and potential public space created.Though construction is publically funded, theEsplanade’s US $3.5 million operating budgethas a projected shortfall of 50 to 66 percent.lessons of the east river esplanade• The Esplanade design embraced the elevated structure and itsform as an opportunity, leading to innovative approaches to publicrealm creation and a visually distinguished urban space.• This public amenity is created in the context of an existingcommuter population of hundreds of thousands, growingresidential population, and public and private investments.• The continued presence of the F.D.R. increases development costsfor other waterfront sites. Construction costs for redevelopment ofSouth Street Seaport, for example, were increased due to presenceof the elevated highway.Views of F.D.R. along the East River facingsouth towards Lower Manhattan.Rendering by SHoP of Esplandade south of Brooklyn Bridge.SECTION V: Case studies 45

Case StudiesDo NothingBuffalo Skyway / Route 5, Buffalo, NYBackgroundOngoing improvement studies to Route 5, alimited access highway on Buffalo’s south side,have prompted city and state leaders to callfor removal of the Buffalo Skyway.The Buffalo Skyway was constructed in 1966.The elevated structure is 360 meters tall (110feet). It approaches downtown Buffalo fromthe south, crossing from the Outer Harborover the Buffalo River. Route 5 is a gradeseparatedhighway to the south and is the onlyhighway that connects to the Skyway. Route 5extends south 7 kilometers (4.3 miles) throughthe Outer Harbor, a manufacturing district onLake Erie.The New York State Department ofTransportation (NYSDOT) undertook studiesin 2006 to improve Outer Harbor access andpotentially replace Route 5 with a boulevard.The studies did not consider alternatives forthe Skyway. Yet because the Skyway is anextension of Route 5, its future is contingenton the EIS outcome.Buffalo’s Mayor and the local Congressmanboth support study of the Skyway’s demolition.They cite another NYSDOT “managementstudy” that shows long-term Skywaymaintenance – ranging from 50 to 75 years –would cost more than demolition. However,the Route 5 EIS recommends a design thatprovides no new bridges over the Buffalo River.Because the Skyway provides the onlyaccess from Route 5 into downtown, therecommended design for Route 5 rules outfuture removal of the Skyway.Urban DesignThe Skyway decreases access to a plannedwaterfront pedestrian and bicycle greenwayand places an urban eyesore on views of LakeErie and the Buffalo skyline. The Skywayis closed frequently due to snow and autoaccidents.Yet its most significant measure may beopportunity cost. Redevelopment of 25 acresof land reclaimed from Skyway demolitionThe Skyway is 360 meters (110 feet) tall.46Future of the Gardiner Expressway

would return US $47.5 million. Altogether,an at-grade configuration would open up77 acres to redevelopment, much of whichwould be sold by NYSDOT. In addition, theat-grade alternative makes redevelopment ofBuffalo’s Inner Harbor waterfront area complex.Similarly, Route 5, in its present configuration,reduces potential Outer Harbor development.The broad benefits from replacing Route 5and the Skyway with at-grade roads are publicwaterfront connections and new developmentopportunities. Urban design considerations,however, are for the most part absentfrom the NYSDOT EIS. The recommendedalternative, for example, leaves in place thehighway embankment, a significant physicaland visual barrier. The alternative alsorecommends expanding a parallel serviceroad – Furhmann Boulevard. Doing so usesland for infrastructure and offers minimal newwaterfront access.ProcessNYSDOT evaluated four alternatives forRoute 5: no action; modifying ramps andinterchanges; replacement with a six-laneboulevard; and a hybrid of the modify andboulevard alternatives.The selection of the second alternative –modify – appears most directly based on cost.All four alternatives scored roughly equalwhen evaluated against quantitative andqualitative objectives. These ranged from levelof-serviceand travel time to waterfront accessand neighborhood impact. Yet the secondalternative’s estimated cost was US $95.1million, whereas the boulevard’s was US $124million.Despite NYSDOT’s recommendation to retainthe Skyway and Route 5, several public andprivate waterfront developments are planned.The “Greenbelt” project will spend US $14million to improve 2 kilometers (1.25 miles)of Lake Erie Shoreline. A 12.5-acre, US $53million redevelopment project was recentlycompleted in Buffalo’s Inner Harbor. Another$100 million of other cultural and civicimprovements for the waterfront are alsoplanned.While the Mayor and Congressman supportfurther study for Skyway demolition, decisionmakingauthority rests with NYSDOT.LESSONS of the buffalo skyway• At-grade alternative offers opportunity for state to recapture valueof public infrastructure investment by selling land reclaimedthrough highway removal.• Current NYSDOT recommendation uses waterfront land forinfrastructure development and fragments existing developmentparcels.View of Skyway facing south.Route 5 is a significant barrier to the Outer Harbor.SECTION V: Case studies 47

Case StudiesDo NothingWhitehurst Freeway, Washington, D.C.BackgroundThe Whitehurst Freeway is a 1.2 kilometer(0.75 mile) four-lane elevated highway in theGeorgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C.The District Department of Transportation(DDOT) initiated in 2005 replacement studiesfor the Whitehurst, seven years followinga major renovation. The Mayor abruptlydiscontinued DDOT’s studies in 2007.Georgetown is a medium density mixed-useneighborhood northwest of downtown D.C.The Whitehurst Freeway was constructedin 1949 along the Potomac River, whichforms Georgetown’s southern edge. 45,000drivers use the highway daily, many of whichcommute downtown from northwest D.C.,Maryland, and Virginia. A significant linkexists at the Whitehurst’s western end whereit meets Francis Scott Key Bridge, whichconnects to Virginia.A 10-acre park, Georgetown Waterfront Park,was constructed by the National Park Servicein the mid-2000s along the Potomac River inthe area riverside of the Whitehurst Freeway.Urban DesignThe Whitehurst’s neighborhood impact isparticularly accentuated by the developmentof the new waterfront park. Whereas thesurrounding area was characterized bylumberyards and meat packing plants whenthe Whitehurst was constructed, todayGeorgetown is a gentrified, mixed-useneighborhood.The freeway poses a barrier for pedestrianconnections. Just a single transportationmode – automobile – is accommodated alongthe waterfront. Additionally, real estate valuesthat might benefit from the new park arediminished by the Whitehurst’s proximity.The DDOT study focused most specificallyon accommodating peak traffic volumes.Preserving river views and improvingpedestrian connections were project objectives,but urban design was not a significantconsideration. In fact, DDOT’s emphasison traffic appears to have focused publicattention on congestion, distracting dialoguefrom potential design benefits.The Whitehurst Freeway along the Potomac River.48Future of the Gardiner Expressway

ProcessThe Whitehurst Freeway was renovated in1998 at a cost of $35 million. The decisionto rehabilitate the freeway followed a studythat also considered demolition. Sincethen, the area experienced increasing highvaluedevelopment, including a Ritz-Carltonresidence and a movie theater. The case maderegarding the elevated freeway was that itsremoval will help to achieve the waterfront’sfull revitalization potential.DDOT studied four families of alternatives: nobuild; replacing the Whitehurst with a six-laneat-grade boulevard with connections to KeyBridge; a six-lane at-grade boulevard withoutconnections to Key Bridge; and replacingthe Whitehurst with a tunnel. Altogether, 19alternatives were developed within these fourfamilies.Design alternatives, however, dwelled onspecific minor changes rather than posingdistinct design concepts. The evaluationcriteria were similarly complicated. Eachalternative was scored against 28 criteria.Each criteria score was then weighted basedon a level of significance established throughpublic input.Ultimately, the five highest-scoring designsrepresented each of the three buildalternatives. The alternatives evaluationprocess did not therefore provide a cleardesign direction.Existing condition on K Street under theelevated structure.LESSONS of the whitehurst freeway• Public dialogue focused on congestion issues and perceivedpotential for project to contribute to further gentrification ofGeorgetown.• The case to remove the Whitehurst Freeway was weakened since$35 million had been invested in its rehabilitation in the lastdecade.• The Whitehurst Freeway serves a role in regional commutingpatterns. However, the study did not analyze regional impacts ofremoving the highway.New Georgetown Waterfront Park – Whitehurst Freeway is visible to the right, Francis Scott KeyBridge in the background.SECTION V: Case studies 49

(This page intentionally left blank.)

“Teasers” andBoulevardsSECTION VI: “teasers” and Boulevards 51

“Teasers”what is a “teaser”?The following precedents address thechallenges of urban highways andelevated structures in ambitious andinnovative ways.These projects combine landscapearchitecture, infrastructure design,pedestrian realm planning, anddevelopment to create unique anddramatic spaces in the city.Waterfront Park – Louisville, KY• This park designed by Hargreaves slopes under I-64, providing a new waterfront connection.Voie George Pompidou – Paris, France• In summer, the highway along the Seine riverbanks is closed, making way for “Paris plages” –temporary urban beaches.52Future of the Gardiner ExpresswayCarrasco Square – Amsterdam, The Netherlands• Surface materials activate the space under an eleavated rail in this project by West 8.

The High Line – New York, NY• A decommissioned evelated rail in Manhattan has been re-imagined by Field Operations as a linear park. The new Standard Hotel is partiallybuilt on air-rights over the High Line. Steven Holl’s 1981 conceptual project “Bridge of Houses” (left) proposed housing on the High Line.Slussen International Design Competition (2009) – Stockholm, Sweden• Jean Nouvel proposes to create a Ponte Vecchio-esque pedestrian bridge of shops and restaurants atop a 1950s-era highway in downtownStockholm.SECTION VI: “teasers” and Boulevards 53

“Teasers” and Urban Boulevardsstreets as civic spacesProminent urban boulevards often provideseparate spaces for pedestrians andbicyclists as well as generous landscapeand tree canopy.These precedents from around the worldoffer ideas for improving the streetscapequality in the Gardiner Expressway andLake Shore Boulevard area.Avinguda Diagonal – Barcelona, Spain• The Diagonal separates local and thru-traffic and provides bicycle and pedestrian realm.54Future of the Gardiner ExpresswayPacific Boulevard – Vancouver, British Columbia• Vancouver recently enhanced landscape, lighting, and sidewalks on Pacific Boulevard.

University Avenue – Toronto, ON• University Avenue serves as a significant civic space for the city.Eastern Parkway – Brooklyn, NY• A generous promenade is part on this Olmstead-designed boulevard.Octavia Boulevard – San Francisco, CA• This boulevard replaced the Central Freeway, an elevated highway.Shanghai Street Greening – Shanghai, China• Landscape planters enhance visual quality of elevated highways in Shanghai.SECTION VI: “teasers” and Boulevards 55

(This page intentionally left blank.)

Summary MatrixSECTION VII: SUMMARY MATRIX 57

Case Study Summary MatrixName Context Type Location Age SizeGardiner Expressway – – Toronto, Ontario 432.4 km(1.5 miles)Vehiclesper day120,000Alaskan Way Viaduct Replace Seattle, WA 503.2 km(2 mile)110,000West Side HighwayReconstruction Project /WestwayReplace /RemoveNew York, NY37(at timeofcollapsein 1974)8.2 km(5 miles)140,000Bonaventure ExpresswayRemoveMontreal,Quebec421 km(0.6 miles)55,000Riverfront Parkway /21st Century WaterfrontRemoveCattanooga, TN50+ (attime ofremoval)2.7 km(1.7 mile)20,000Embarcadero FreewayRemoveSan Francisco,CA32 (attime ofcollapse)2.5 km(1.6 mile)80,000CheonggyecheonRestoration ProjectRemoveSeoul, Korea24 (attime ofremoval)6.1 km(3.75miles)120,000Sheridan Expressway Remove Bronx, NY 472 km(1.25 mile)40,00058Future of the Gardiner Expressway

Urban Design Goals Open Space Goals Transportation Goals Economic Dev. Goals– – – –• Increase pedestrian access to thewaterfront.• Preserve and enhance views of waterfrontand mountains.• No significant open space goalsbeyond enhancing waterfrontaccess.• Replace elevated structure with deepbored tunnel and six-lane at-gradeboulevard.• Provide new light rail along Viaductroute.• Public dialogue about alternativesconsidered whether future scenarioshould accommodate current trafficvolumes or encourage mode-shift.• Increase downtown and waterfrontproperty values.• Grow tourism through new waterfrontamenities.• Most waterfront land is privatelyowned,so limited opportunity for Cityto recapture $4.24 billion publicinvestment in the bored tunnel.• Enhance pedestrian connections towaterfront.• Boulevard design coordinated withplans and design guidelines forHudson River Park and ManhattanGreenway.• Demolish elevated highway andreplace with six-lane at-gradeboulevard.• Limit access in order to reducecongestion on neighborhood streets,but enhance role as collectordistributionroad.• Whereas Westway was intendedto create long-term developmentopportunities on filled land, the WestSide Highway created demand foradaptive reuse and infill.• Reclaim 4.5 acres of developmentparcels for residential and office.• Enhance value of redevelopment in CiteMultimedia and Griffintown.• Create new entrance to the city.• Develop new retail under railroad viaduct.• Provide access to Peel Basin,waterfront park network, andwaterfront amenities.• Demolish elevated expressway andexpand two at-grade boulevards.• New light rail to reduce automobiledemand.• Create new underground pedestriannetwork with connections to transitstations.• Develop 12,500 new housing units.• Develop 900,000 square meters ofcommercial, and 1 million squaremeters of cultural and recreation space.• Integrate downtown street grid with newurban boulevard, thereby creating newdevelopment parcels.• Connect downtown cultural amenities tothe waterfront.• New and reconstructed waterfrontpark, amenities, and amphitheater.• New pedestrian connectionsacross Tennessee River.• Replace grade-separated parkway withat-grade boulevard.• Reduce excess road capacity to meetexisting demand.• Create a framework for newdevelopment downtown and on theTennessee River’s north shore.• 21st Century Waterfront is estimated tohave attracted US $2 billion in privateinvestment.• Complement new urban boulevard withwaterfront esplanade, public art, and newretail and housing development.• Reconnect downtown San Francisco tothe bay.• Restoration of the historic Ferry Buildingas a regional food market.• New waterfront esplanade andpedestrian and bicycle greenway.• Replace earthquake-damaged elevatedhighway with six-lane at-grade urbanboulevard.• Advance city’s “transit first” policiesby providing new waterfront streetcarroute.• Reclaim 100 acres for new housing,office, and public space.• Encourage development of over10,000 new housing units in adjacentneighborhoods.• Advance Mayor’s commitment tomaking Seoul a model for sustainabledevelopment.• Reverse property value and populationdecline in commercial and retail districtsfacing Cheonggyecheon Expressway.• Create new open space amenityfor entire city.• Day-light historic creek and createwaterfront esplanade.• Replace four-lane elevated expresswayand ten-lane at-grade highway withtwo two-lane boulevards.• Create new bus rapid transit serviceon Cheonggyecheon route.• Reduce traffic demand throughincentives for commuters to usetransit and increasing user fees.• Strengthen Seoul’s position as a globalfinancial center.• Government reported cost at US $390million, though may have been as highas US $900 million.•• Reclaim land for housing and waterfrontopen space.• Improve access to Hunts Point Market(wholesale food distribution center).• Connect to planned Bronx Riverwatershed greenway.• The purpose of the study was toimprove truck circulation into HuntsPoint Market. A community planproposed removing the highway. Whilethe NYSDOT included this optionin their study, it was ultimately notselected.• Provide 1,200 affordable housing unitsand 700 jobs.• Enhance upland neighborhood propertyvalues by improving waterfrontconnections.SECTION VII: SUMMARY MATRIX 59

Case Study Summary MatrixName Context Type Location Age SizeVehiclesper dayA8ern8AmeliorateZaanstadt,Netherlands30+400meters(0.25miles)N/AViaduct des Arts /Promenade PlanteeAmeliorate Paris, France 150+2 km(1.25miles)N/AEast River WaterfrontEsplanadeAmeliorate New York, NY 553.2 km(2 miles)175,000Buffalo Skyway / Route 5 Do Nothing Buffalo, NY 431.6 km(1 mile)43,400Whitehurst FreewayDo NothingWashington,D.C.601.2 km(0.75miles)45,00060Future of the Gardiner Expressway

Urban Design Goals Open Space Goals Transportation Goals Economic Dev. Goals• Create a new “civic arcade”.• Re-establish physical and visualconnections between town center andwaterfront.• Clad underside of elevated structure inorder to create inviting environment.• Develop new retail under elevatedstructure.• Provide a diversity of recreationprograms that appeal to range ofusers and age-groups (skateboardpark, basketball, and marina,among others).• This project made no changes toexisting highway configuration.• Supermarket tenant was attractedto site that offered opportunity forhighway accessibility and large floorplatein town.• Create a new Paris landmark throughhistoric restoration of 19th-centuryinfrastructure.• Strengthen role of Avenue Daumensilas a neighborhood cultural and retailcorridor.• Advance city agency goal for “greeningthe city”.• Develop new 2.5-mile-long linearpark on top of elevated rail viaduct.• Railroad viaduct closed in 1969.This project had no significanttransportation goals.• Re-tenant retail and cultural spaceswith up-scaled uses.• Develop new public spaces andprogrammed pavilions under elevatedhighway.• Clad underside of elevated structurein order to create inviting environment.Elevated highway treated as “roof” fornew public spaces.• Coordinate with and enhance other post-September 11th Lower Manhattan publicrealm and development initiatives.• Develop network of upland publicspaces, arbors, and planters thatconnect to waterfront esplanade.• Street section and parking underelevated highway reconfigured inorder to create pedestrian-friendlyenvironment.• Support overall post-September 11thplanning for Lower Manhattan toprovide new amenities for residentsand works.• Advance transformation of LowerManhattan into a residential district.• Route 5 study does not considersignificant urban design goals.• Improve access to plannedwaterfront pedestrian and bicyclegreenway.• Improve access to Outer Harbor(manufacturing district on Lake Erie).• At-grade option (not recommended byNYSDOT) would create value recaptureopportunities for the state.• Improve pedestrian access fromneighborhood to Potomac River.• Preserve and improve river views.• Connect to new waterfront park.• Provide alternative route for 45,000vehicles that use Whitehurst Freeway.• Build on previous decade ofincreased property values by removingimpediment to waterfront revitalization.• $35 million public investment inrehabilitating the freeway in 1998weakened argument for its removal.SECTION VII: SUMMARY MATRIX 61

(This page intentionally left blank.)

SourcesSECTION VIII: Sources 63

SourcesInternational CasesA8ern8 – Zaanstadt, NLBordas, David Bravo. 2006 “A8ernA.” JointWinner, European Prize for Urban PublicSpace, Centre for Cultura Contemporania deBarcelona.Municipality of Almere. 2005. Uniekvernieuwingsproject in Koog aan de Zaanmaakt van de nood een deugd. BoogaartJournal, Number 11. Almere, Netherlands.Municipality of Zaanstad. 2003 “A8ernA,Programma van eisen.” Planning Document.September. Zaanstad, Netherlands.Kirk, Donald. 2005. Seoul peels backconcrete to let a river run freely once again.The Christian Science Monitor, October 13.Lee, In-Keun. Undated. “Cheong Gye CheonRestoration Project,” White Paper, SeoulMetropolitan Government. Seoul, Korea.Park, Kil-Dong. Undated. “CheonggyecheonRestoration Project,” White Paper, SeoulMetropolitan Government. Seoul, Korea.Sang-Hun, Choi. 2005. Seoul’s mayor showshis green streak. International HeraldTribune, July 25.Seattle Department of Transportation. 2007.“Case Studies in Urban Freeway Removal,”Seattle Urban Mobility Plan. Seattle, WA.Washington State Department ofTransportation. June 2008. S. HolgateStreet to S. King Street ViaductReplacement Project EnvironmentalAssessment and Draft Section 4(f)Evaluation. City of Seattle.Schneider, Keith. 2006. A City’s Waterfront: APlace for People or Traffic? New York Times,October 25, Automobiles section.Bierman, Noah. 2008. As other cities considerremoving elevated highways, activists citeBoston as a reason not to go underground.Boston Globe, October 14.City of Seattle Mayor’s Communication Office.2009. Deep bored tunnel to replace AlaskanWay Viaduct. Press Release. January 13.Bonaventure Freeway – Montreal, QUGyulai, Linda. 2009. Bonaventure comesdown soon, Phase 1 of plan to extenddowntown to waterfront could start by spring.Montreal Gazette, February 4.Société du Havre de Montréal. October 2005.L’autoroute Bonaventure Vision 2025. Cityof Montreal, Canada.Société du Havre de Montréal. 2007.“Bonaventure Highway ReconfigurationProject, Executive Summary of the TechnicalPre-Feasibility Study.” April. City ofMontreal, Canada.Société du Havre de Montréal. Transformationof the Bonaventure Expressway at theDowntown Gateway, From Saint-JacquesStreet to Brennan Street, Summary of theProject Feasibility Studies. April. City ofMontreal, Canada.Cheonggyecheon Freeway –Seoul, KoreaHelfand, Duke. 2006. Seoul’s revitalizedwaterway is awash in ideas for L.A. LosAngeles Times, October 18.Viaduc des Arts / Promenade Plantee– Paris, FRMeade, Martin. 1996. Parisian promenade– viaduct refurbishment in Paris, France.Architectural Review, September.Cambell, Robert. 2002. A Paris Match?Boston can learn something about creatingnew civic space from the City of Light.Boston Globe, March 12.United States CasesAlaskan Way Viaduct (Seattle, WA)Interview with Jeffrey Tumlin, Principal,Nelson \ Nygaard. February 26, 2009.Washington State Department ofTransportation. March 2004. Alaskan WayViaduct and Seawall Replacement Draft EIS.City of Seattle.Washington State Department ofTransportation. July 2006. AlaskanWay Viaduct and Seawall ReplacementSupplemental Draft EIS. City of Seattle.McGann, Chris and Larry Lange. 2009.Viaduct choice: It’s a tunnel. Seattle PostIntelligencer, January 13.Buffalo Skyway – Buffalo, NYNew York State Department of Transportation.May 2006. South Towns Connector / BuffaloOuter Harbor Project. Final Design Report/ Final Environmental Impact Statement.Section 4(f) Evaluation. Erie County, NewYork.Gibson, Lucinda and Normal Marshall. 2007.Summary of Current NYSDOT Plans forBuffalo’s Waterfront. Memorandum. August21.New York State Department of Transportation.October 2008. New York State Route5 Buffalo Skyway Management Study,Executive Summary. City of Buffalo.New York State Department of Transportation.October 2008. New York State Route 5Buffalo Skyway Management Study, Report.City of Buffalo.Fink, James. 2008. Skyway to Stay, Most Say.Business First of Buffalo, July 11.64Future of the Gardiner Expressway

Office of Congressman Brian Higgins. 2008.Higgs Says New DOT Report ConfirmsEconomic Argument for Skyway Removal.Press Release. November 20.East River Waterfront – New York, NYLower Manhattan Development Corporation.2007. East River Waterfront FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement. November.New York, NY.Lower Manhattan Development Corporation.2007. East River Waterfront FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement, ExecutiveSummary. November. New York, NY.New York City Department of City Planning.2008. “Draft Text Amendment for East RiverWaterfront Park.” July 2. New York, NYNew York City Economic DevelopmentCorporation. 2006. Transforming the EastRiver Waterfront. New York, NY.Ouroussoff, Nicolai. 2005. Making the BrutalF.D.R. Unsentimentally Humane. New YorkTimes, June 28, Arts section.Embarcadero Freeway –San Francisco, CAInterview with Douglas Wright, Principal,Douglas Wright Consulting. February 27,2009.Cervero, Robert, et. al. December 2007.“From Elevated Freeways to SurfaceBoulevards: Neighborhood, Traffic, andHousing Price Impacts in San Francisco,”Working Paper prepared for University ofCalifornia Transportation Center. Berkeley,CA.Cervero, Robert. October 2006. “FreewayDeconstruction and Urban Regenerationin the United States,” Paper preparedfor the International Symposium for the1st Anniversary of the CheonggyecheonRestoration, Seoul, Korea. Berkeley, CA.Hastrup, Stefan. 2005. Battle for aNeighborhood. Places, 18.2, October.Newman, Morris. 2003. New Life for SanFrancisco’s Harbor. New York Times, June23, Real Estate section.21st Century Waterfront / RiverfrontParkway – Chattanooga, TNCity of Chattanooga Chamber of Commerce.2005. City Enjoys $2.1 Billion inInvestment since 2001. Press Release.February.Marshall, Alex. 2005. Chattanooga Crossroads:After completing an ambitious waterfrontinitiative the city recently changedleadership, raising the question: Is this theend of 20 years of urban enlightenment?,Metropolis, October 17.RiverCity Company. 2001. Transportationand Urban Design Plan for ChattanoogaRiverfront Parkway. Chattanooga, TN.RiverCity Company. 2002. The 21stCentury Waterfront, Executive Summary.Chattanooga, TN.Sheridan Expressway – Bronx, NYBurger, Danielle. 2003. A Community Planfor Moses’ ‘Highway to Nowhere’. GothamGazette, August 8.Interview with Melanie Bin Jung, South BronxRiver Watershed Analysis. March 3, 2009.New York State Department of Transportation.2003. “Alternatives: Long List.” New York,NY.New York State Department of Transportation.2004. “Alternatives: Modified Long List.”New York, NY.New York State Department of Transportation.2004. “Alternatives: Recommended forFurther Processing.” New York, NY.New York State Department of Transportation.2007. Alternatives Screening Report. NewYork, NY.New York State Department of Transportation.2008. Bruckner-Sheridan InterchangeReconstruction/Hunts Point PeninsulaAccess EIS Newsletter. Issue Six, Summer2008. New York, NY.O’Grady, Jim. 2001. Neighborhood Report:Bronx Up Close; Sheridan’s Fork in theRoad: Either Fix It or Kill It. New YorkTimes, November 11, City Weekly desk.South Bronx River Watershed Alliance. N / D“The New Community on Sheridan: A NewVision for the South Bronx.” Brochure.South Bronx River Watershed Alliance. N / D“Quick Facts about the Bruckner-SheridanInterchange Project and the CommunityPlan.” Brochure.Topousis, Tom. 2000. Boondoggle Highway,$420M face lift for ‘road to nowhere’. NewYork Post, October 2.West Side Highway – New York, NYGarvin, Alexander. 2002. The American City:What Works, What Doesn’t. New York:McGraw-Hill Companies.United States Department of TransportationFederal Highway Administration. 1997.Flexibility in Highway Design. Washington,DC.Whitehurst Freeway –Washington, DCDistrict Department of Transportation.2006. Whitehurst Freeway DeconstructionFeasibility Study Draft Evaluation ofAlternatives. Washington, DC.Lewis, Roger. 2007. Remove Whitehurst,and Behold the Potential – and Pitfalls.Washington Post, April 14, Columns section.Soloman, Victoria. 2007. Mayor FreezesStudy on Whitehurst Future. The NorthwestCurrent, July 4.SECTION VIII: Sources 65

Future of the Gardiner ExpresswayEnvironmental Assessment and Urban Design StudyCase Studies March 26, 2009Consistent with our commitment to sustainability,our printed materials contain recycled content andare 100% recyclable.