Does anyone think there will be many freeway tunnels constructed in the future? And as a follow-up question, where would you like a tunnel to be constructed?
I'd like to see the Eastbank Freeway (I-5) buried under the Willamette and up to the Fremont Stack, as well as the Mt Hood Freeway built out to I-205.
Realistically, given the issues of the Big Dig and the Alaskan have and are dealing with, I imagine the US is going to avoid urban or long rural freeway tunnels at any cost. Certainly, the Big Dig and the Alaskan could theoretically impact any chance of the 710 gap from being built.
The Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement debacle has show that it's smarter to split up freeway tunnels into two smaller tunnels instead of going all-in. I would've preferred the temporary mess of a demolished viaduct and cut-and-cover construction instead of waiting on Bertha.
I'd love to see I-5 in Downtown Seattle get lowered a bit further (with tunneling some segments where necessary) where possible and fully covered with a terraced park lid.
The tunnels aren't very long, but in Milwaukee, WI, the Mitchell Interchange was reconstructed from a Directional T ramps to ramps with 3 tunnels. I have a satellite overview of the interchange, and you can streetview to look inside the tunnels. The interchange was reconstructed to have right exits only,( the old configuration had left exits) and tunnels were most likely chosen because there wasn't much room to construct flyover ramps from the right. I really like this configuration and it will be interesting to see if other DOTs will follow this design in the future.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9622844,-87.9332208,653m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
New freeway [motorway] tunnels in Sweden have been blasted and drilled out of rock under urban and suburban areas of Stockholm.
Norra länken (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norra_l%C3%A4nken)
Södra länken (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B6dra_l%C3%A4nken)
Quote from: Bickendan on September 15, 2015, 06:08:23 PM
Realistically, given the issues of the Big Dig and the Alaskan have and are dealing with, I imagine the US is going to avoid urban or long rural freeway tunnels at any cost. Certainly, the Big Dig and the Alaskan could theoretically impact any chance of the 710 gap from being built.
Also, American cities are not typically as space-constrained as cities on other continents are. Tunneling is expensive no matter what runs through it and is usually only the method of choice if building at or above ground level is impractical.
From the perspective of aesthetics it's nicer to put an urban freeway underground, but that alone rarely justifies the cost.
What I DO think we will see more of in the future is urban freeways simply being removed rather than rebuilt when they reach the end of their design life, because it's the cheapest option and also because it better fits the philosophy of trying to place more emphasis on other modes of transportation.
And speaking of I-5 lids...this got proposed today: http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2015/09/a-freeway-lid-in-push-for-hill-friendly-convention-center-expansion-thinking-too-small-how-about-a-45-acre-park-along-i-5/
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcrow.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F09%2FScreen-Shot-2015-09-14-at-4.19.44-PM.png&hash=d3ce9f0e9fed84aee6e9b10847fd9a46e847417c)
Quote from: Duke87 on September 15, 2015, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on September 15, 2015, 06:08:23 PM
Realistically, given the issues of the Big Dig and the Alaskan have and are dealing with, I imagine the US is going to avoid urban or long rural freeway tunnels at any cost. Certainly, the Big Dig and the Alaskan could theoretically impact any chance of the 710 gap from being built.
Also, American cities are not typically as space-constrained as cities on other continents are. Tunneling is expensive no matter what runs through it and is usually only the method of choice if building at or above ground level is impractical.
From the perspective of aesthetics it's nicer to put an urban freeway underground, but that alone rarely justifies the cost.
What I DO think we will see more of in the future is urban freeways simply being removed rather than rebuilt when they reach the end of their design life, because it's the cheapest option and also because it better fits the philosophy of trying to place more emphasis on other modes of transportation.
Other modes of transportation can't make up for a freeway. Lightly traveled freeways in economically depressed areas may be removed (Inner Loop in Rochester, NY), but in the vast majority of bigger cities the freeways are going to be rebuilt. If a freeway has between 80,000-120,00 VPD, no city street or mass transit can make up for that volume of traffic.
Quote from: peterj920 on September 15, 2015, 09:53:47 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 15, 2015, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on September 15, 2015, 06:08:23 PM
Realistically, given the issues of the Big Dig and the Alaskan have and are dealing with, I imagine the US is going to avoid urban or long rural freeway tunnels at any cost. Certainly, the Big Dig and the Alaskan could theoretically impact any chance of the 710 gap from being built.
Also, American cities are not typically as space-constrained as cities on other continents are. Tunneling is expensive no matter what runs through it and is usually only the method of choice if building at or above ground level is impractical.
From the perspective of aesthetics it's nicer to put an urban freeway underground, but that alone rarely justifies the cost.
What I DO think we will see more of in the future is urban freeways simply being removed rather than rebuilt when they reach the end of their design life, because it's the cheapest option and also because it better fits the philosophy of trying to place more emphasis on other modes of transportation.
Other modes of transportation can't make up for a freeway. Lightly traveled freeways in economically depressed areas may be removed (Inner Loop in Rochester, NY), but in the vast majority of bigger cities the freeways are going to be rebuilt. If a freeway has between 80,000-120,00 VPD, no city street or mass transit can make up for that volume of traffic.
I'm pretty sure that putting as many buses on the same freeway would make up for that volume of traffic. :P
But seriously, for urban areas there needs to be a balanced approach to transportation planning (which will need to be leaning towards transit until it can catch up to the amount of highway construction we've had in the last 60+ years). It's a lot easier to build light rail tunnels than it is to build highway tunnels (see Seattle: University Link's light rail tunnels are finishing under budget and 6 months ahead of schedule next year while Bertha is still not drilling and won't finish for another 3 years).
Quote from: Bruce on September 15, 2015, 10:29:11 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 15, 2015, 09:53:47 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 15, 2015, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on September 15, 2015, 06:08:23 PM
Realistically, given the issues of the Big Dig and the Alaskan have and are dealing with, I imagine the US is going to avoid urban or long rural freeway tunnels at any cost. Certainly, the Big Dig and the Alaskan could theoretically impact any chance of the 710 gap from being built.
Also, American cities are not typically as space-constrained as cities on other continents are. Tunneling is expensive no matter what runs through it and is usually only the method of choice if building at or above ground level is impractical.
From the perspective of aesthetics it's nicer to put an urban freeway underground, but that alone rarely justifies the cost.
What I DO think we will see more of in the future is urban freeways simply being removed rather than rebuilt when they reach the end of their design life, because it's the cheapest option and also because it better fits the philosophy of trying to place more emphasis on other modes of transportation.
Other modes of transportation can't make up for a freeway. Lightly traveled freeways in economically depressed areas may be removed (Inner Loop in Rochester, NY), but in the vast majority of bigger cities the freeways are going to be rebuilt. If a freeway has between 80,000-120,00 VPD, no city street or mass transit can make up for that volume of traffic.
I'm pretty sure that putting as many buses on the same freeway would make up for that volume of traffic. :P
But seriously, for urban areas there needs to be a balanced approach to transportation planning (which will need to be leaning towards transit until it can catch up to the amount of highway construction we've had in the last 60+ years). It's a lot easier to build light rail tunnels than it is to build highway tunnels (see Seattle: University Link's light rail tunnels are finishing under budget and 6 months ahead of schedule next year while Bertha is still not drilling and won't finish for another 3 years).
Light rail has been nothing but a white elephant in most cities. They are built way over budget, and ridership is never as high as projected. In dense cities such as Chicago and New York, the train systems carry a high volume and there is a central city that people want to go to. In most other cities, trains don't work and streetcars are an even bigger waste of money. I do agree that bus systems are needed, but the majority of people continue to drive because it is way more convenient to go directly from point A to point B. Despite that, some people still rely on buses and I support them because the only cost is the cost of the buses, there isn't any extra infrastructure other than roads that everyone else uses. With mass transit, there has to be a walk to a stop, then there may be a transfer or two, then there will be a stop a few blocks away from where someone needs to be. Fuel taxes pay for road work, so it's a user based system. Mass transit has to be subsidized by additional taxes because in almost all cases, the fares don't cover operating expenses. Sure, you can load freeways up with buses, but the reason why there aren't more is because there isn't enough demand.
Quote from: peterj920 on September 15, 2015, 09:53:47 PM
Other modes of transportation can't make up for a freeway. Lightly traveled freeways in economically depressed areas may be removed (Inner Loop in Rochester, NY), but in the vast majority of bigger cities the freeways are going to be rebuilt. If a freeway has between 80,000-120,00 VPD, no city street or mass transit can make up for that volume of traffic.
Oh I agree (in most cases). But the planning community at large seemingly does not. And given the increasingly broke nature of many states, don't be surprised if they at some point start downgrading freeways simply because it's all they can afford to do. Adding intersections to a freeway sucks but it's better than letting bridge structures fall apart and having nothing when they collapse.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 15, 2015, 11:20:33 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 15, 2015, 09:53:47 PM
Other modes of transportation can't make up for a freeway. Lightly traveled freeways in economically depressed areas may be removed (Inner Loop in Rochester, NY), but in the vast majority of bigger cities the freeways are going to be rebuilt. If a freeway has between 80,000-120,00 VPD, no city street or mass transit can make up for that volume of traffic.
Oh I agree (in most cases). But the planning community at large seemingly does not. And given the increasingly broke nature of many states, don't be surprised if they at some point start downgrading freeways simply because it's all they can afford to do. Adding intersections to a freeway sucks but it's better than letting bridge structures fall apart and having nothing when they collapse.
I don't see downgrades happening on freeways with decent VPD due to maintenance costs. The rationalizations are more about how elevated freeways are barriers in the communities they pass through and therefore must be lowered and made into a boulevard...which somehow is better.
Now, with freeways that are underutilized, I would not be surprised to see them get the Robert Moses Parkway treatment.
Quote from: Rothman on September 15, 2015, 11:37:52 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 15, 2015, 11:20:33 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 15, 2015, 09:53:47 PM
Other modes of transportation can't make up for a freeway. Lightly traveled freeways in economically depressed areas may be removed (Inner Loop in Rochester, NY), but in the vast majority of bigger cities the freeways are going to be rebuilt. If a freeway has between 80,000-120,00 VPD, no city street or mass transit can make up for that volume of traffic.
Oh I agree (in most cases). But the planning community at large seemingly does not. And given the increasingly broke nature of many states, don't be surprised if they at some point start downgrading freeways simply because it's all they can afford to do. Adding intersections to a freeway sucks but it's better than letting bridge structures fall apart and having nothing when they collapse.
I don't see downgrades happening on freeways with decent VPD due to maintenance costs. The rationalizations are more about how elevated freeways are barriers in the communities they pass through and therefore must be lowered and made into a boulevard...which somehow is better.
Now, with freeways that are underutilized, I would not be surprised to see them get the Robert Moses Parkway treatment.
I agree, but the downgrades would happen in economically depressed cities. Rochester, NY and Buffalo, NY are only a fraction of what they once were years ago, which is why downgrades are happening there. 2 other cities where downgrades could happen are Dayton and Youngstown, OH that have really shrunk. In Milwaukee, WI, Former Mayor Nordquist succeeded in tearing down a stub freeway that was supposed to be longer, promising economic development. 15 years later, most of the land remains vacant. He had another proposal to tear down I-794, which is an elevated freeway downtown, but was shot down because it carries 105,000 VPD, and there would be nowhere to put that kind of traffic. In the case of Rochester, NY where the inner loop is being torn down, I think it's an admission that Downtown Rochester is not as prosperous as it once was. If there was enough traffic that went downtown, the city would be more vibrant and more people would want to go Downtown. I don't buy the argument that urban freeways separate cities because they bring people into the city, and in a lot of cities people drive and they make it easier to access the inner city. For example in Milwaukee, the north side has no freeway access and that part of the city is economically depressed. There was a mall, Northridge, that closed down. On the south side, I-894 runs across it, and there is a mall, Southridge that was developed by the same group that developed Northridge, and it continues to stay open and attract economic development in the area. If freeways are so bad in urban areas, why is it that areas with freeway access attract development while areas without freeways attract less development or force businesses to relocate? And, can someone explain to me why in Milwaukee, the area of the city that does not have freeways is in worse shape than the areas that have easier freeway access?
Quote from: Bruce on September 15, 2015, 07:42:59 PM
The Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement debacle has show that it's smarter to split up freeway tunnels into two smaller tunnels instead of going all-in. I would've preferred the temporary mess of a demolished viaduct and cut-and-cover construction instead of waiting on Bertha.
I'd love to see I-5 in Downtown Seattle get lowered a bit further (with tunneling some segments where necessary) where possible and fully covered with a terraced park lid.
Any talk of them abandoning the n/b tunnel due to the budget issues and doing a surface routing?
I would love to see NJ 21 buried under Downtown Newark, however NJ is broke as they are having trouble keeping up with the existing road network that is so under capacity.
However, maybe using air rights like they did in Dallas, Texas and Phoenix creating parklands over the freeways. Just built a deck above the freeway, and voila you have your tunnel and the neighborhoods above reunited.
In a case like the Gowanus in NYC, that would need to be tunneled like the great dig, but I would love to see it (even though impossible from a financial standpoint). Turn 3rd Avenue into a boulevard and reunite the Brooklyn Bayfront with its interior as the highway seems to currently put a wall between the neighborhoods on both sides of I-278.
I'd love to see a cap on I-71 in downtown Cincinnati. Make the cap into a downtown Greenway. I-71 is already depressed so I-71 wouldn't have to be lowered as far as I know. Bridges would have to be redone though.
QuoteLight rail has been nothing but a white elephant in most cities. They are built way over budget, and ridership is never as high as projected.
While it is true that there are some "white elephant" LRT projects here and there (thinking mostly Norfolk here), there are plenty of very successful lines elsewhere, including North Jersey, Minneapolis, Houston, and Seattle. The Minneapolis LRT lines, in particular, have blown out their ridership projections...meeting ridership levels 15-some years sooner than forecast.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 16, 2015, 12:58:27 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 15, 2015, 07:42:59 PM
The Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement debacle has show that it's smarter to split up freeway tunnels into two smaller tunnels instead of going all-in. I would've preferred the temporary mess of a demolished viaduct and cut-and-cover construction instead of waiting on Bertha.
I'd love to see I-5 in Downtown Seattle get lowered a bit further (with tunneling some segments where necessary) where possible and fully covered with a terraced park lid.
Any talk of them abandoning the n/b tunnel due to the budget issues and doing a surface routing?
No, at least not publicly. Digging should resume soon and if there are no further major problems the project as a whole will be only a little over budget.
Love to see one built under Long Island Sound. Also, there's the matter of burying I-84 under the Aetna Viaduct in downtown Hartford.
Besides the greater cost of building tunnels or 'cut and cover' decks through urban areas, IMO, the asethetic advantages of burying freeways are more than offset by the additional costs and other resources required to operate and maintain them on a daily basis. There's also one important consideration that is rarely looked at beforehand - the movement of hazardous materials through the area once the feeway is put underground.
Quote from: peterj920 on September 16, 2015, 12:07:11 AM
I don't buy the argument that urban freeways separate cities because they bring people into the city, and in a lot of cities people drive and they make it easier to access the inner city.
But that is exactly the problem. The cities don't
want people to be "brought in" to "access" the inner city. They want people to
live there in a walking-first lifestyle. And pedestrians tend not to like to walk over or under things, regardless of whether it's actually easier to cross than a boulevard or not. The perception is there. Plus boulevards can have development immediately adjacent to them and midblock crosswalks.
As for only wanting to downgrade freeways that are sparsely used... tell that to the people who want to remove I-787 (AADT ~85k) and I-81 (AADT ~92k). Each freeway removal leads to more ambitious pushes to remove more.
Quote from: vdeane on September 16, 2015, 12:51:33 PM
As for only wanting to downgrade freeways that are sparsely used... tell that to the people who want to remove I-787 (AADT ~85k) and I-81 (AADT ~92k). Each freeway removal leads to more ambitious pushes to remove more.
Out of the two of those, I'd lay my bet on I-81 as more likely to become a boulevard.
Of course, both Albany and Syracuse have factions that want tunnels. :D
Quote from: vdeane on September 16, 2015, 12:51:33 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 16, 2015, 12:07:11 AM
I don't buy the argument that urban freeways separate cities because they bring people into the city, and in a lot of cities people drive and they make it easier to access the inner city.
But that is exactly the problem. The cities don't want people to be "brought in" to "access" the inner city. They want people to live there in a walking-first lifestyle. And pedestrians tend not to like to walk over or under things, regardless of whether it's actually easier to cross than a boulevard or not. The perception is there. Plus boulevards can have development immediately adjacent to them and midblock crosswalks.
As for only wanting to downgrade freeways that are sparsely used... tell that to the people who want to remove I-787 (AADT ~85k) and I-81 (AADT ~92k). Each freeway removal leads to more ambitious pushes to remove more.
I live in the Green Bay area and there is no freeway access to Downtown Green Bay. It should be set up perfectly like some urban planners want. Surface streets with pedestrian access. If it's so great, why is Downtown Green Bay struggling while the areas along the freeways are thriving and attracting development?
Interesting replies. I personally would favor tunnels replacing existing freeways that are considered barriers or eyesores to existing neighborhoods. Or to complete missing links in the freeway system like Interstate 710. Of course, there is always the matter of how much tunnels will cost, and those costs are quite steep. On the other hand, if it helps keep neighborhoods united, or reunites them, I think they may be worth it.
One item that gets overlooked regarding tunnel-type freeway systems that adds to the overall cost is the more intesified infrastructure associated w/such particularly ventilation. An elevated viaduct or even an at-grade freeway does not require a tunnel-like ventilation system.
Another item that gets overlooked is that the flexibility of adding, modifying or deleting a ramp over time (due to change in conditions or development) is completely out of the question; not without creating a more massive disruption to accomplish such.
Case and point: prior to the Big Dig circa the mid-to-late-1980s, a developer wanted to erect a high-rise (International Place) basically in the path of the original, curvy High St./Congress St. exit ramp (then Exit 23) off the Central Artery (I-93). As a result, a brand new straighter off-ramp replaced the original ramp (IIRC, the developer footed the cost); such was situated between I-93 and the new skyscraper.
Another example: In Philly near Penns Landing, circa 1991; PennDOT replaced a short off-ramp from I-95 north (that used to drop one off at Water & Morris Sts.) with a wider more elaborate ramp that connected to Columbus Blvd. (Exit 20).
Good luck trying to do either of the above with a tunnel system.
Quote from: roadman on September 16, 2015, 12:06:11 PMThere's also one important consideration that is rarely looked at beforehand - the movement of hazardous materials through the area once the feeway is put underground.
Another issue that
could discourage (not necessarily prohibit) more freeway tunnels being built is that such likely has more security-related issues and are greater targets for terrorists (sarin/nerve gas attack similar to what happened in a Japanese subway over 20 years ago). During the 2004 DNC Convention held in Boston; the newly-opened I-93/O'Neill Tunnel (that replaced the Artery) was closed to all traffic due to security reasons. IMHO, had the Artery still been present; it would've only had a smaller segment of it closed or it wouldn't have been closed at all.
I'm sure any new tunnel being proposed has to go through additional DHS scrutiny prior to approval.
As far as those advocating teardowns/downgrades, etc.; one needs to keep in mind that those highways don't just only serve commuters but such also serve as commerce conduits for all types of delivery vehicles. If those highways weren't there; it would take a lot longer for goods and services to get delivered to businesses and residences located in the city. Such would likely show up in the form of more expensive delivery charges.
Quote from: peterj920 on September 16, 2015, 02:15:17 PMI live in the Green Bay area and there is no freeway access to Downtown Green Bay. It should be set up perfectly like some urban planners want. Surface streets with pedestrian access. If it's so great, why is Downtown Green Bay struggling while the areas along the freeways are thriving and attracting development?
My older brother recently read about the history of Boston's Central Artery; how it came to be and what the areas were like prior to its existence. Long story short; had the Artery never been built, areas like the Financial District as it is today would have probably never come to fruition... at least not in Downtown Boston.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 16, 2015, 04:03:08 PM
My older brother recently read about the history of Boston's Central Artery; how it came to be and what the areas were like prior to its existence. Long story short; had the Artery never been built, areas like the Financial District as it is today would have probably never come to fruition... at least not in Downtown Boston.
What's the long story? It's no secret that urban freeways frequently were bulldozed through neighborhoods considered undesirable.
Quote from: Rothman on September 16, 2015, 04:48:20 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 16, 2015, 04:03:08 PM
My older brother recently read about the history of Boston's Central Artery; how it came to be and what the areas were like prior to its existence. Long story short; had the Artery never been built, areas like the Financial District as it is today would have probably never come to fruition... at least not in Downtown Boston.
What's the long story? It's no secret that urban freeways frequently were bulldozed through neighborhoods considered undesirable.
I'm not denying such; the story he read indeed even mentions that. The very reason for the Dewey Square/South Station Tunnel was a compromise alternative to an all-elevated structure.
Nonetheless, if an area becomes so inaccessible to vehicles that goods and services can't either reach/serve the area or pass through in an efficient manner; its long-term economic pulse is not going to bode too well.
Look at the results of what freeways do. In Orlando you can tell how I-4 effected that city as the interstate is a dividing line between residential and industrial between FL 408 and Michigan Street. Then in Downtown Orlando, east and west of I-4 you have totally different types of neighborhoods. You have the modern financial district to the east of I-4 and then a poor neighborhood to the west side of it with older urban buildings occupied by those who are under the poverty line.
Freeways whether above ground, below ground, and at grade separate and rearrange zoning and demographics. To hide them is the only way to save neighborhoods, thus by tunneling whether cut and cover or bore is the only way to save them.
The disadvantages Phlbos points out are true, however I still think some new tunnels will be built. Populations and driving in urban areas continues to increase. During the prime freeway building era of the 1950s-1960s, inner cities were mostly poor people too busy struggling with daily life to organize in opposition. Now, inner cities include some high-rent and middle class housing with people who do know how to fight back. Tunnels are a way to accommodate increased traffic without wrecking dense urban neighborhoods, so they will continue to be built.
Believe it or not, the original Central Artery actually saved the North End neighborhoods. Its barrier-like presence kept the newer-style development from encroaching. Such was probably one reason why most of the land where the Artery once stood is now the Rose Kennedy Greenway. The last thing many North End residents & businesses wanted was to have their neighborhoods trounced/invaded by mega-development once the Artery went away.
Quote from: kkt on September 16, 2015, 05:12:02 PMTunnels are a way to accommodate increased traffic without wrecking dense urban neighborhoods, so they will continue to be built.
The opening of the Big Dig tunnels in Boston was over a decade ago (hard to believe); could you cite me one example of a tunnel-like freeway opening in the U.S. since then?
No I cannot believe the Big Dig is over a decade old, but I also cannot name one project of similar nature since that time unless the Dallas tunnel was constructed since then.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 16, 2015, 05:16:21 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 16, 2015, 05:12:02 PMTunnels are a way to accommodate increased traffic without wrecking dense urban neighborhoods, so they will continue to be built.
The opening of the Big Dig tunnels in Boston was over a decade ago (hard to believe); could you cite me one example of a tunnel-like freeway opening in the U.S. since then?
US 101 through the Presidio in San Francisco for one mile/two tunnels, which opened a month ago!
In a more serious example, I-635's HOV lanes between I-35E and US 75 in Dallas are essentially underground aren't they?
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 16, 2015, 04:03:08 PM
During the 2004 DNC Convention held in Boston; the newly-opened I-93/O'Neill Tunnel (that replaced the Artery) was closed to all traffic due to security reasons. IMHO, had the Artery still been present; it would've only had a smaller segment of it closed or it wouldn't have been closed at all.
During the week of the DNC, the Zakim Bridge and O'Neill Tunnel were completely closed ONLY during those times when the convention was in session. The rationale for completely closing the tunnel for the full length was not because of a possible or perceived threat against the tunnel itself, but because establishing a roadway closure inside the northbound tunnel at the Government Center exit would have been impractical. Additionally, there would have been problems routing the northbound traffic around the 'exclusion zone' at the Fleece center (not TD Garden) on local streets once they left the tunnel. At the very least, I'm sure the North End folks would not have liked that.
And of course, all these impacts could have been avoided were it not for the arrogance of the DNC and the media, who decided that the then-newly opened convention center in South Boston was not an acceptable venue - despite the fact that the floor of Fleece Center had to be completely re-configured for the week - then put back into its original configuration.
I strongly suspect that, had the original elevated Artery still been in place at the time of the DNC, that northbound through traffic would have been detoured off in the vicinity of South Station, and that only traffic bound for the Callahan Tunnel would have been allowed north of there - due to the issues with traffic on local streets I described above. Southbound through traffic would have likely been detoured off at Sullivan Square, with southbound traffic for the Tobin Bridge allowed to continue down the Lower Deck.
Speaking of the tunnel in Boston, according to Googlemaps they are showing that the NB I-93 ramp to Storrow Drive goes directly beneath the former Boston Garden. Is that true or an inaccuracy by Googlemaps?
Quote from: roadman65 on September 16, 2015, 05:35:24 PM
Speaking of the tunnel in Boston, according to Googlemaps they are showing that the NB I-93 ramp to Storrow Drive goes directly beneath the former Boston Garden. Is that true or an inaccuracy by Googlemaps?
Although Googlemaps exaggerates the alignment somewhat, the ramp does indeed 'clip' the northeast corner of the TD Garden building.
And one correction - the TD Garden building (originally the Fleece - er - FleetCenter) was constructed behind the original Boston Garden. Where the Garden used to be is now a parking lot, although there's now plans to build a combined retail, office, and residential development - including a supermarket. Alas, however, there are no plans to include a direct connection from the commuter rail platforms to the Green Line/Orange Line subway station as part of the structure.
IIRC, there was once a plan to build a federal courthouse on a lid over I-5 in Downtown Seattle that was canceled because of security concerns.
Quote from: roadman on September 16, 2015, 05:57:33 PM
And one correction - the TD Garden building (originally the Fleece - er - FleetCenter) was constructed behind the original Boston Garden. Where the Garden used to be is now a parking lot, although there have been unfulfilled plans for decades now to build a combined retail, office, and residential development - including a supermarket. Alas, however, there are no plans to include a direct connection from the commuter rail platforms to the Green Line/Orange Line subway station as part of the structure.
FTFY. There was a new North Station public area required as part of any development there, but the MBTA, tired of waiting, traded that away for the dim compromise we have today.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 16, 2015, 05:16:21 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 16, 2015, 05:12:02 PMTunnels are a way to accommodate increased traffic without wrecking dense urban neighborhoods, so they will continue to be built.
The opening of the Big Dig tunnels in Boston was over a decade ago (hard to believe); could you cite me one example of a tunnel-like freeway opening in the U.S. since then?
Caldecott Tunnel 4th bore
http://www.dot.ca.gov/caldecott/ (http://www.dot.ca.gov/caldecott/)
Quoteon Saturday, November 16, 2013 the Caldecott Fourth Bore opened to traffic — on time, under budget, with little fanfare.
Quote from: peterj920 on September 16, 2015, 02:15:17 PM
I live in the Green Bay area and there is no freeway access to Downtown Green Bay. It should be set up perfectly like some urban planners want. Surface streets with pedestrian access. If it's so great, why is Downtown Green Bay struggling while the areas along the freeways are thriving and attracting development?
Lots of factors, not all of them road related. There's the matter of what
kind of development. Mixed use, compact development is generally desired these days, and typically doesn't develop on the interstates. Strip malls, neighborhoods of cookie cutter houses, and general sprawl aren't in fashion. Plus not every surface street is pedestrian friendly.
QuoteStrip malls, neighborhoods of cookie cutter houses, and general sprawl aren't in fashion.
...and also tend to be more expensive on a per-unit basis to provide infrastructure for. Sure, infrastructure in a dense area is expensive, but not on a per-capita level.
Quote from: kkt on September 16, 2015, 07:21:45 PMCaldecott Tunnel 4th bore
http://www.dot.ca.gov/caldecott/ (http://www.dot.ca.gov/caldecott/)
Quoteon Saturday, November 16, 2013 the Caldecott Fourth Bore opened to traffic on time, under budget, with little fanfare.
Good to know and an interesting read. However, there's a few items worth noting:
1. This particular tunnel was built as an expansion to an
existing parallel tunnel system; similar (in concept) to what Boston's Callahan Tunnel is to its older Sumner Tunnel companion. Prior to the Callahan opening in 1961; the Sumner was a 2-way tunnel paved with
cobblestone.
2. The listed length of the Fourth Bore Tunnel is 3,348 feet (just over 5/8 mile) which is much shorter than Boston's I-93/O'Neill Tunnel and has no interchanges located
inside the tunnel itself. In short, it's more of a traditional tunnel crossing (nothing wrong with that) vs. a tunneled highway; which, I believe, was the OP's premise for this particular thread.
3. It's not located
in a city.
4. Topography was the main reason why tunnels (the Fourth Bore and its older companions) were chosen for that area.
In hindsight, I should've quantified my earlier question regarding tunnels that have opened (or being constructed) since Boston's Big Dig and specified
tunneled freeways/expressways/networks as opposed to just tunnels (simple mountain/plaza/water crossings) in general.
That said, tunnels do have their place and purpose (I don't believe that anyone here is disputing such); but the notion that
every highway that goes through a major city can be tunneled is pure fantasy. Short stretches/segments of tunnels might be a more realistic outcome.
One needs to keep mind that long before Boston's Big Dig was even thought of; other areas explored the possibility of tunneled highway options but either dropped them or scaled back the tunnel portion due to cost reasons
even then. I-95 through Central Philadelphia is an example of such. A full-blown tunnel option was contemplated during the early 60s but was dropped in favor of the current
bathtub design (which made provisions for a future cap for the middle opening) due to cost reasons.
My favorite never-done-tunnel-proposal was US 9 under Washington Park in Albany, NY. It's a nice big freeway from where its stub hits where the portal was supposed to be up to Loudonville -- about a mile -- a nice big freeway that is now overbuilt for the traffic that's on it.
Good luck capping the Downtown Connector in Atlanta! It would have to be the most expensive project ever undertaken, given the highway's width (16 lanes) alone.
The Big Dig is a uniquely complicated tunnel with many exits and entrances and an interchange. I don't think there's been anything really comparable before or since. However, the original implication that no new freeway tunnels will be built just isn't the case. They are expensive and unusual always, and the era of rapid freeway building that we had from the 1950s to 1970s is over, but even so the Big Dig didn't keep Seattle from starting its tunnel project.
Quote from: Bruce on September 15, 2015, 07:42:59 PM
The Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement debacle has show that it's smarter to split up freeway tunnels into two smaller tunnels instead of going all-in. I would've preferred the temporary mess of a demolished viaduct and cut-and-cover construction instead of waiting on Bertha.
They were going to do the cut and cover first, albeit, two lanes each way, demolish the viaduct, build the additional 4 lanes. It would have solved the whole seawall mess as well.
As for I-5, I think if we simply get the roadway off of those bridges, and cut it into the hillside, then a simple hill cover would be a great thing, but with the current layout, it seems a bit messy, when it does come to replacing the roadway.
Quote from: Henry on September 17, 2015, 11:44:30 AM
Good luck capping the Downtown Connector in Atlanta! It would have to be the most expensive project ever undertaken, given the highway's width (16 lanes) alone.
They did it on I-696 near Detroit on its journey between 11 and 10 mile, without much difficulty (10 lanes). Add some supports in the Middle, and covering 8 at a time should be a cakewalk.
Quote from: kkt on September 17, 2015, 11:46:40 AM
The Big Dig is a uniquely complicated tunnel with many exits and entrances and an interchange. I don't think there's been anything really comparable before or since. However, the original implication that no new freeway tunnels will be built just isn't the case. They are expensive and unusual always, and the era of rapid freeway building that we had from the 1950s to 1970s is over, but even so the Big Dig didn't keep Seattle from starting its tunnel project.
Massachusetts just rejected the Olympics in part because we have a culture that doesn't seem to be able to control the number of hands dipping into the big pots of money in large projects. Ours might not be the best example to base future decisions upon solely.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 17, 2015, 06:26:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 17, 2015, 11:46:40 AM
The Big Dig is a uniquely complicated tunnel with many exits and entrances and an interchange. I don't think there's been anything really comparable before or since. However, the original implication that no new freeway tunnels will be built just isn't the case. They are expensive and unusual always, and the era of rapid freeway building that we had from the 1950s to 1970s is over, but even so the Big Dig didn't keep Seattle from starting its tunnel project.
Massachusetts just rejected the Olympics in part because we have a culture that doesn't seem to be able to control the number of hands dipping into the big pots of money in large projects. Ours might not be the best example to base future decisions upon solely.
I hope you're not advocating for Seattle to host an Olympics? :-P
Quote from: kkt on September 17, 2015, 06:29:13 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 17, 2015, 06:26:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 17, 2015, 11:46:40 AM
The Big Dig is a uniquely complicated tunnel with many exits and entrances and an interchange. I don't think there's been anything really comparable before or since. However, the original implication that no new freeway tunnels will be built just isn't the case. They are expensive and unusual always, and the era of rapid freeway building that we had from the 1950s to 1970s is over, but even so the Big Dig didn't keep Seattle from starting its tunnel project.
Massachusetts just rejected the Olympics in part because we have a culture that doesn't seem to be able to control the number of hands dipping into the big pots of money in large projects. Ours might not be the best example to base future decisions upon solely.
I hope you're not advocating for Seattle to host an Olympics? :-P
The last thing we need is an Olympics with tons of new and soon-to-be-underused venues. Give us a few World Cup group stage matches or a one-off Super Bowl and we'd probably be able to cope (with massive planning ahead of time).
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 17, 2015, 06:26:02 PMMassachusetts just rejected the Olympics in part because we have a culture that doesn't seem to be able to control the number of hands dipping into the big pots of money in large projects. Ours might not be the best example to base future decisions upon solely.
Not to hijack the thread here but one main reason why many in the Bay State strongly opposed the Olympics bid was because it was discovered early on that taxpayers were going to be footing much of the bill in terms of facility and related infrastructure improvements
despite promises of the contrary.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 16, 2015, 05:16:21 PM
The opening of the Big Dig tunnels in Boston was over a decade ago (hard to believe); could you cite me one example of a tunnel-like freeway opening in the U.S. since then?
If covering an existing trench counts, the Woodall Rodgers Freeway in Dallas was covered in 2012.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 17, 2015, 09:28:56 AM
In hindsight, I should've quantified my earlier question regarding tunnels that have opened (or being constructed) since Boston's Big Dig and specified tunneled freeways/expressways/networks as opposed to just tunnels (simple mountain/plaza/water crossings) in general.
If we're talking about tunnels about 1/2 mile in length:
In NJ, Rt. 29 into Trenton received a cut-and-cover tunnel. In Atlantic City, the Marina extension of the AC Expressway received a cut-and-cover tunnel as well.
For the 295/76/42 project, NJDOT is treating the new ramp from 295 South to 42 South as a tunnel, due to it's length and the manner as to how it's going to be built under the roadway. It will have provisions for ventilation and lane/road closure traffic lights similar to the Trenton Tunnel, even though it's only going to be approximately 600 feet long.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2015, 02:14:03 PMIn NJ, Rt. 29 into Trenton received a cut-and-cover tunnel.
That tunnel opened in 2002. According to Wiki, it was supposed to open a year earlier but was delayed due to the Army Corps of Engineers discovering several environmental violations with its construction.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2015, 02:14:03 PM
In Atlantic City, the Marina extension of the AC Expressway received a cut-and-cover tunnel as well.
If you're referring to the Atlantic City-Brigantine Connector Tunnel; that opened in 2001. If one reads the history behind this connector & tunnel; there was definitely some controversey involved.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2015, 02:14:03 PMFor the 295/76/42 project, NJDOT is treating the new ramp from 295 South to 42 South as a tunnel, due to it's length and the manner as to how it's going to be built under the roadway. It will have provisions for ventilation and lane/road closure traffic lights similar to the Trenton Tunnel, even though it's only going to be approximately 600 feet long.
Wow, I did not know that a short tunnel was being proposed for such. Based on your description, it sounds like an overglorified underpass.
Quote from: NE2 on September 18, 2015, 12:51:51 PMIf covering an existing trench counts, the Woodall Rodgers Freeway in Dallas was covered in 2012.
Such reminds me a little bit like I-84 through the Harford Civic Center and/or I-95 through the Penns Landing part of Philadelphia, should the final cap is ever placed on top of the
bathtub corridor.
Isn't I-5 through downtown Sacramento (the "boat" section which goes below sea level) slated to have a cap over it at some point?
Quote from: peterj920 on September 16, 2015, 02:15:17 PM
I live in the Green Bay area and there is no freeway access to Downtown Green Bay. It should be set up perfectly like some urban planners want. Surface streets with pedestrian access. If it's so great, why is Downtown Green Bay struggling while the areas along the freeways are thriving and attracting development?
Counterpoint:
Madison, WI.
Vibrant downtown and adjacent neighborhoods with no freeway access.
On topic; I think there will be a number of cities around the nation that will put lids on existing trenched freeways in the next 20 years. It's worth considering any place where a freeway trench separates a downtown from and up-and-coming neighborhood or a water body.
Isn't St. Louis trying to cap
I-70I-44 in front of the Arch?
I thought I remember reading a thread about covering I-70 for a few blocks in Denver.
I-71 in Cincy is a good one.
I wouldn't mind seeing the St. Paul commons of 35E/94 buried. At least for a couple blocks.
Portland could probably do something with part of I-405.
BBCode fix --sso
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 18, 2015, 09:44:37 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 16, 2015, 02:15:17 PM
I live in the Green Bay area and there is no freeway access to Downtown Green Bay. It should be set up perfectly like some urban planners want. Surface streets with pedestrian access. If it's so great, why is Downtown Green Bay struggling while the areas along the freeways are thriving and attracting development?
Counterpoint:
Madison, WI.
Vibrant downtown and adjacent neighborhoods with no freeway access.
On topic; I think there will be a number of cities around the nation that will put lids on existing trenched freeways in the next 20 years. It's worth considering any place where a freeway trench separates a downtown from and up-and-coming neighborhood or a water body.
Isn't St. Louis trying to cap I-70/s]I-44 in front of the Arch?
I thought I remember reading a thread about covering I-70 for a few blocks in Denver.
I-71 in Cincy is a good one.
I wouldn't mind seeing the St. Paul commons of 35E/94 buried. At least for a couple blocks.
Portland could probably do something with part of I-405.
Madison - large 'captive' audience of 40K or so students at the University of Wisconsin (as in 'Badgers') campus, plus however many more in other aspects of the basic governance of the State of Wisconsin.
And yes, there are major street spurs going into the Isthmus area that could have been built as freeways in other circumstances.
Don't forget, too, how John Nolen Dr (US 151) passes under Monona Terrace.
:nod:
Mike
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 18, 2015, 09:35:51 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 17, 2015, 06:26:02 PMMassachusetts just rejected the Olympics in part because we have a culture that doesn't seem to be able to control the number of hands dipping into the big pots of money in large projects. Ours might not be the best example to base future decisions upon solely.
Not to hijack the thread here but one main reason why many in the Bay State strongly opposed the Olympics bid was because it was discovered early on that taxpayers were going to be footing much of the bill in terms of facility and related infrastructure improvements despite promises of the contrary.
Most of what you really need to know about local opposition to the Olympics is that this region has the Big Dig in recent memory and a massive critical failure of local infrastructure operation in immediate memory. This colored every part of the debate. The former is a big part of why the irresponsibly unbuilt North-South Rail Link tunnel will likely not happen soon if ever.
A "can-do" campaign goes over poorly in a region heavy with "tried to do, and it went badly" regret.
Quote from: mgk920 on September 19, 2015, 11:03:40 AM
Madison - large 'captive' audience of 40K or so students at the University of Wisconsin (as in 'Badgers') campus, plus however many more in other aspects of the basic governance of the State of Wisconsin.
Sounds like a good argument for having built UWGB in town rather than out in the sticks.