Future of the Gardiner Expressway - Nanos Research

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: Future of the Gardiner ExpresswayEn
Page 3 and 4: ContentsIIntroductionII Scale Compa
Page 6 and 7: (This page intentionally left blank
Page 8 and 9: Scale ComparisonsA8ern8• Zaanstad
Page 10 and 11: Scale ComparisonsGardiner Expresswa
Page 12 and 13: Scale ComparisonsEmbarcadero Freewa
Page 14 and 15: (This page intentionally left blank
Page 17 and 18: The following describes additional
Page 19 and 20: ComparativeAnalysisSECTION IV: COMP
Page 21 and 22: Valley as it did in the 1960s. In f
Page 23 and 24: Case StudiesSECTION V: Case studies
Page 25: The Governor announced in early 200
Page 29 and 30: totalling US $200 million of added
Page 31 and 32: The City is currently reviewing the
Page 33 and 34: Riverfront Parkway, Chattanooga, TN
Page 35 and 36: A sweeping fly-over bridge connects
Page 37 and 38: at-grade boulevard. The new bouleva
Page 39 and 40: Cheonggyecheon Expressway, Seoul, K
Page 41 and 42: Sustainability objectives guided th
Page 43 and 44: of truck traffic, its neighborhoods
Page 45 and 46: impact on the town fabric. A8 is a
Page 47 and 48: the style of the Place des Vosges a
Page 49 and 50: the same time, the Esplanade is one
Page 51 and 52: would return US $47.5 million. Alto
Page 53 and 54: ProcessThe Whitehurst Freeway was r
Page 55 and 56: “Teasers” andBoulevardsSECTION
Page 57 and 58: The High Line - New York, NY• A d
Page 59 and 60: University Avenue - Toronto, ON•
Page 61 and 62: Summary MatrixSECTION VII: SUMMARY
Page 63 and 64: Urban Design Goals Open Space Goals
Page 65 and 66: Urban Design Goals Open Space Goals
Page 67 and 68: SourcesSECTION VIII: Sources 63
Page 69 and 70: Office of Congressman Brian Higgins

Future of the Gardiner Expressway - Nanos Research

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?