I-84 Aetna Viaduct Replacement report

[Mergingtraffic]

A new report came out that has different alternatives on how to replace the I-84 Aetnes Viaduct in Hartford.

Everything is on there including a tunnel to the stupid boulevard idea.
What are your thoughts?

On Page 25 is the list of alternatives.

http://www.crcog.org/publications/TransportationDocs/Viaduct/20101001DraftReport.pdf

[iwishiwascanadian]

Isn't this the second (or third report) released by either CRCOG or ConnDOT?

The enhanced viaduct seems to only address the behemoth interchange at Sisson Avenue (Exit 46), and doesn't do anything else it seems like.

I like the first option (Tunnel/Viaduct) but the lack of access to Sigourney Street (Exit 47) will funnel all of the traffic onto Broad Street and into Downtown which is already bad enough.

Option 2 seems good as well, although it doesn't seem to address the problem of connecting the city, and I don't know how the rail line could be moved without impeding operations, also it doesn't seem to address the issue of the busway or the Park River.  I would prefer the highway to be sunken below-grade (like it is Downtown (Exits 49-51)) but you still have the problem of the Park River and AMTRAK.

I'm a huge fan of the third option which would be tunnelling the interstate although it would cost a arm, leg and first born.  I wonder if cut-cover would work or if a TBM would have to be deployed.

I could see the second option coming into fruition only if the access to Sigourney/Asylum would be looked at. 

[Alps]

Reading the text a bit, I think the boulevard idea was explored only because it has been used or explored in other situations (Embarcadero, Alaskan Way, Gardiner Expwy) - and West Side Highway in NYC wasn't even mentioned.  But they do say that given the highway volumes are so much higher on I-84, it's really not an option.  And of course the enhanced viaduct is the same as existing - that is their baseline or "No-Build" case (more of a Minimal Build).

[froggie]

Concept 2 (at-grade/tunnel hybrid) to me offers the most bang-for-the-buck.  An at-grade highway is both cheaper to build and cheaper to maintain than either a viaduct or a tunnel.  It also provides essentially the same functionality as Concept 3 (the tunnel option)...the only real difference being you wouldn't have development parcels over the road between Signourey and Laurel.

Personally, I'd eliminate the ramps at Signourey entirelly for all concepts.  First off, they're too close to the ramps at Assylum.  Second, concepts 2 and 3 (and to a more limited extent, concept 1) provide a new north-south "Park Blvd" between Capitol and Assylum that offers an alternative to Broad St, pulling trips off of Broad which would then allow Broad to absorb trips that now take Signourey.  There's also the new east-west street that channels trips between the eastbound ramps and Broad or the new "Park Blvd" without having to use Assylum or Capitol to access those ramps.

[Revive 755]

Few comments on the study:

* So the viaduct is somehow causing that large parcel near Forest Avenue not to be utilized?  I'm suspecting some other reason.

* Another study with a viaduct being a physical barrier stuff; someone please show me the wall or fence under some of the other viaducts that prevents one from simply walking underneath.  With the Alaska Way example, it looks more like a railroad or bad street grid is the real barrier, and it appears these may be the same for I-84 in Hartford.

* (Page 17, right column)  Again with the viaduct hurting pedestrian and bicyclists; there's some reason the streets under the viaduct can't have bike lanes added anyways?

* (Page 18) So having two ramps combined at one intersection seems to be  bad?  And I think that decayed building between the railroad and highway also has something to do with the "no mans land":
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=41.767943,-72.682891&spn=0.003041,0.0103&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.76796,-72.682979&panoid=IIfL0_TraF_RJLJww0kwnQ&cbp=12,221.06,,0,-13.14

* The challenge on Broad Avenue appears to be crappy sidewalk maintenance over a viaduct:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=41.766492,-72.686362&spn=0.00152,0.00515&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.766584,-72.686343&panoid=WTNmjNw6isP74A_cM6GlQw&cbp=12,119.38,,0,3.73

* So from the statements on Sigourney Street, pedestrians can only walk easily on a flat downtown street?  This section reads like it was written by architects wanting to build something that interests them.

* If I go from the way this report reads, Zion Hill Cemetery and all the other nearby green spaces are also underutilizing the land; let's sell those parcels and develop those too.

* I have doubts about the accuracy of the matrix on Page 25

* Seems the redesigned interchange for the West Boulevard area should more directly connect with said street, not require first using some new connector street. (but this report seems to be lacking on traffic issues enough already; why not skip justification for the new design?)

[Mergingtraffic]

Few comments on the study:

* So the viaduct is somehow causing that large parcel near Forest Avenue not to be utilized?  I'm suspecting some other reason.

* Another study with a viaduct being a physical barrier stuff; someone please show me the wall or fence under some of the other viaducts that prevents one from simply walking underneath.  With the Alaska Way example, it looks more like a railroad or bad street grid is the real barrier, and it appears these may be the same for I-84 in Hartford.

* (Page 17, right column)  Again with the viaduct hurting pedestrian and bicyclists; there's some reason the streets under the viaduct can't have bike lanes added anyways?

* (Page 18) So having two ramps combined at one intersection seems to be  bad?  And I think that decayed building between the railroad and highway also has something to do with the "no mans land":
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=41.767943,-72.682891&spn=0.003041,0.0103&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.76796,-72.682979&panoid=IIfL0_TraF_RJLJww0kwnQ&cbp=12,221.06,,0,-13.14

* The challenge on Broad Avenue appears to be crappy sidewalk maintenance over a viaduct:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=41.766492,-72.686362&spn=0.00152,0.00515&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.766584,-72.686343&panoid=WTNmjNw6isP74A_cM6GlQw&cbp=12,119.38,,0,3.73

* So from the statements on Sigourney Street, pedestrians can only walk easily on a flat downtown street?  This section reads like it was written by architects wanting to build something that interests them.

* If I go from the way this report reads, Zion Hill Cemetery and all the other nearby green spaces are also underutilizing the land; let's sell those parcels and develop those too.

* I have doubts about the accuracy of the matrix on Page 25

* Seems the redesigned interchange for the West Boulevard area should more directly connect with said street, not require first using some new connector street. (but this report seems to be lacking on traffic issues enough already; why not skip justification for the new design?)

Anything can be a barrier.  It seems like a "feel good" measure.  In today's world, unfortunately you can't just reallign a highway for motorists, you must also include pedestrians and bike!  The focus on the study seemed less about fixing I-84's kinks and more about politcal correctness and bikes and people. 

For example when CT-66 was widened from 2 to 4 lanes at the end of the I-691 expressway, the DOT wanted a jersey barrier in the middle, people freaked and thought the jersey barrier would make the road to big for the surrounding community.  So, the DOT took it out of the plans.   Now that the road is built, there should be one, I mean would one stinkin' cement barrier REALLY ruin the town!?!?!?  But people wanted it out as a "feel good" measure b/c they didn't want the road to be widened anyway.

I don't see why the negative stereotype of highways anyway.  Without highways to have no trucks delivering your goods!

[shadyjay]

Re:  CT 66

Yeah, I remember my relatives (who live in Middlefield) saying that traffic isn't that bad and that the road doesn't need to be widened.   HA!  Apparently they only drove it in the middle of the night!!!  I also remember the complaints from residents who live on School St who didn't want their road to dead-end at the reservoir.  Hmmm... your little country road is becoming a dead-end, no more thru traffic, and you're COMPLAINING?  Oh, because you have 2 extra minutes added to your commute - I get it now     And anyway, some sections of CT 66 in that area have a faux-median already... two sets of yellow lines seperated by (almost) an entire lane width for some of the section from I-691 to Jackson Hill in Middlefield.  And that 40 MPH speed limit is a joke!  Do that, and you'll cause an accident, backup, or worse. 

[Mergingtraffic]

Re:  CT 66

Yeah, I remember my relatives (who live in Middlefield) saying that traffic isn't that bad and that the road doesn't need to be widened.   HA!  Apparently they only drove it in the middle of the night!!!  I also remember the complaints from residents who live on School St who didn't want their road to dead-end at the reservoir.  Hmmm... your little country road is becoming a dead-end, no more thru traffic, and you're COMPLAINING?  Oh, because you have 2 extra minutes added to your commute - I get it now     And anyway, some sections of CT 66 in that area have a faux-median already... two sets of yellow lines seperated by (almost) an entire lane width for some of the section from I-691 to Jackson Hill in Middlefield.  And that 40 MPH speed limit is a joke!  Do that, and you'll cause an accident, backup, or worse. 

It's only a matter of time before there is a head-on condition..a bad one.  Because people go 55-60mph and the road is curvy. Then, thy will see we need a center barrier!

[shadyjay]

Head on collision or not.... unfortunately I don't think there will EVER be a center barrier.

Think of the state we're talking about here, and how much on borrowed time we are:
*   Suicide Six - US 6 between Bolton and Columbia... how many accidents there?  Oh yeah, they were SUPPOSED to build the expressway but THAT got axed.
*   CT 11 - all that traffic on CT 85 and something'll happen between Waterford and Salem.
*   CT 66 - let's see how fast we can go on this brand new road with a 40 mph speed limit.  I'm going 60 MPH and still getting passed!
*   CT 9 - 65 MPH (legal) to a dead stop in less than 1/2 mile... and that's just a few hundred feet from an at-grade intersection ON A LIMITED-ACCESS HIGHWAY...
     end the torture before someone gets lost because of it!   
*   Conn Tpke - be it poor maintenance or poor original construction, but the 1983 collapse of the Mianus River Bridge in Greenwich spearheaded a rehabilitation of state
     roads and bridges in the 1980s, into the 90s.  CT 3 and CT 9 were extended as well.

Which brings us back to the viaduct....

It will probably be YEARS before anything is done, and by then, we may be looking at restrictions because of its condition. 

[Mergingtraffic]

definitely years.....look at the I-84 EIS from Danbury to Waterbury...quietly canceled b/c of lack of funds.

A study of widening I-84 was done in 2000.  The EIS was supposed to start in 2003 according to local officials but was delayed time and time again.  It was finally started in 2009 after years of promising "it'll start at the end of the season..."  Then, of course the money was gone.   Danbury area officials are mad b/c it seems like the DOT dragged its feet.  Other states have built entirely new expressways during this time.

[iwishiwascanadian]

It will have to be done sooner than later because it has outlived its design.  The repairs that are being done have to be done.  I wouldn't be surprised (and hope) that it takes priority over other projects.