Birmingham

[Henry]

That's the cheeriest park-under-an-interchange I've ever seen.  Might as well make the homeless/vagrants that'll settle there comfortable.

My thoughts exactly!

[Rothman]

That's the cheeriest park-under-an-interchange I've ever seen.  Might as well make the homeless/vagrants that'll settle there comfortable.

My thoughts exactly!

Actually, just heard a story today about a construction site with a ramp that was to be walled in underneath.  Contractor started it, installed the walls, but didn't enclose it fully.  On top of that, some curing blankets were left in the "enclosure."  So, homeless people went in there and...promptly started a bonfire with the blankets and then ran away horrified when the deck of the ramp actually caught fire.

[Anthony_JK]

Another city that could use a trip to Lafayette, Louisiana, to see how redesigning elevated freeways to match their surrounding element can be done right. #coughlafayetteconnectordotcomcough

All smack aside, though....what about the proposal to reroute I-20/I-59 to the north of downtown instead of rerouting it around I-459 or building the BNB?

[Grzrd]

A response from the director of ALDOT:
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/01/aldot_director_plan_for_i-2059.html#incart_river_home

....what about the proposal to reroute I-20/I-59 to the north of downtown ... ?

Given current events in Lafayette, the ALDOT director's letter might provide discussion of a familiar problem:

ALDOT also explored two scenarios for re-routing I-59/20 along the Finley Boulevard Corridor, a "short" and "long" route. Both scenarios have challenges ....
under either scenario the re-route path is located in the Village Creek floodplain, portions of which contain hazardous materials and historical sites. This would require the re-routed interstate to be elevated similar to the current CBD bridges.
If pursued, the short plan would require the construction of an elevated interstate through the middle of minority and low-income neighborhoods at a total cost exceeding $1.5 billion. Even if this were feasible, it would require more than 20 years to complete. Since the width of this interstate would be wider than the current roadway, and must avoid the Burlington Northern Railroad Yard, the long route would force the demolition of nearly all the businesses along the existing Finley Corridor. This effort would take at least 28 years and cost over $2 billion.

Ah, those pesky hazardous materials .............

[froggie]

ALDOT didn't like a reroute to the north.  I don't believe a reroute to 459 was seriously considered.  The BNB would be 2-3 times the cost of the north-of-downtown reroutes.

[The Ghostbuster]

Are there any updates on what will happen to the US 280 corridor, or am I behind the times and any construction projects have already been completed?

[lordsutch]

ALDOT didn't like a reroute to the north.  I don't believe a reroute to 459 was seriously considered.  The BNB would be 2-3 times the cost of the north-of-downtown reroutes.

I can't imagine you could feasibly get rid of 20-59 with a route completely bypassing downtown like 459; a lot of that traffic would end up on the surface boulevard replacement anyway. And running a reroute along Finley would introduce a serious environmental justice issue, in addition to whatever Superfund sites are lurking along it.

What you could do, although it'd be horribly expensive (although probably cheaper than building X-1 west of I-65), is partially tunnel an eight-lane extension of I-22 down to existing I-20/59 southwest of the airport, and add the necessary movements at the I-22/65 interchange for access to/from the east. Do that you'd probably be able to pull down the downtown overhead with the appropriate redesignations for the through routes.

[Grzrd]

A response from the director of ALDOT:
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/01/aldot_director_plan_for_i-2059.html#incart_river_home

I don't believe a reroute to 459 was seriously considered.

I can't imagine you could feasibly get rid of 20-59 with a route completely bypassing downtown like 459

Although an I-459 rerouting has not been considered as a long-term solution, the above-linked ALDOT director's letter indicates that it is planned as an essential component of Phase Three of the I-20/59 project, i.e. when the mainline bridges will be taken down and replaced:

The work will be divided into three phases, the first of which is under construction. When Phase Two starts later this spring, contractors will begin constructing new ramps leading into and out of downtown Birmingham. In order to maintain access to the city during construction, all work on the new ramps will be completed before existing access points are closed. In Phase Three, the mainline bridges will be taken down and replaced, while through traffic on I-59/20 will be rerouted along I-459 and other routes until the new bridges are completed.

I suppose that the I-459 rerouting will be for a significant period of time.

I've waited all of these years for I-22 to be completed in order to give me a clear shot from Atlanta to Memphis, and now this ........................................ 

Oh, well, at least the I-459 to I-65 reroute will be all interstate.

[Alex]

Although an I-459 rerouting has not been considered as a long-term solution, the above-linked ALDOT director's letter indicates that it is planned as an essential component of Phase Three of the I-20/59 project, i.e. when the mainline bridges will be taken down and replaced:

The work will be divided into three phases, the first of which is under construction. When Phase Two starts later this spring, contractors will begin constructing new ramps leading into and out of downtown Birmingham. In order to maintain access to the city during construction, all work on the new ramps will be completed before existing access points are closed. In Phase Three, the mainline bridges will be taken down and replaced, while through traffic on I-59/20 will be rerouted along I-459 and other routes until the new bridges are completed.

I suppose that the I-459 rerouting will be for a significant period of time.

I've waited all of these years for I-22 to be completed in order to give me a clear shot from Atlanta to Memphis, and now this ........................................ 

Oh, well, at least the I-459 to I-65 reroute will be all interstate.

As you have pointed out with the often delayed completion of I-22, the question to ask is how long will the reroute be in place?

When the multi-year construction of the Wilmington Viaduct was reconstructed in northern Delaware, DelDOT applied to AASHTO to have I-95 renumbered along I-495 and for the two "spurs" into the city renumbered collectively as I-595, and then separately as I-195 and I-395. Ultimately I-895 was used for the temporary reroute. Such a scenario could play out in Birmingham, though I suspect such drastic renumbering and formal applications to AASHTO are not needed in this day and age.

[codyg1985]

What you could do, although it'd be horribly expensive (although probably cheaper than building X-1 west of I-65), is partially tunnel an eight-lane extension of I-22 down to existing I-20/59 southwest of the airport, and add the necessary movements at the I-22/65 interchange for access to/from the east. Do that you'd probably be able to pull down the downtown overhead with the appropriate redesignations for the through routes.

Depending on how much of an increase in traffic the I-22 corridor will receive when both ends are connected to the interstate system, a southeast extension to I-20/59 may need to be looked at.

However, such a rerouting would hamper access to US 31/280.

[froggie]

An extension of I-22 to I-20/59 was looked at about a decade ago, then dropped.  Too many Superfund sites in the way.

[freebrickproductions]

Here are some renderings of the interchanges with I-65 and US 31/280 will look like when the project is finished: http://abc3340.com/news/local/gallery/aldot-director-john-cooper-speaks-with-abc-3340

Man, they really seem to want to make that interchange confusing.

[codyg1985]

With those ramps added, rebuilding the interchange completely would be even more challenging. It would have been nice to get rid of those left entrances and exits, though.

[rcm195]

I don't know, the more I look at this project, the better I think it will be.

[codyg1985]

It will reduce a bit of the weaving that takes place as people merge from Malfunction Junction to get downtown, so that will help.

[froggie]

There's little doubt that it'll improve traffic flow (initally, at least).  The problem is whether that's worth the cost of further ripping up the urban fabric and creating an even bigger barrier between downtown, the convention center, and Oak Hill.

[rcm195]

Well, I'm not an engineer or urban planner. How does it create a barrier? All you have to do is drive under the interstate and 18th to 23rd streets look like they will still be open. They all connect the BJCC and Uptown to Downtown. By the way, Uptown is great. Anyone looking for some good eating, try out some of the restaurants.😀

[Tourian]

The current bridges are old tech and have a lot of pylons that block light and they used to allow parking under them for the BJCC. That sretch of space is a jungle of old concrete and not very inviting. I do not agree that it causes a barrier real, imagined or psychological or even economical but it definitely could look better. The new bridges will be higher, use less pylons be less noisy and let in more light. It also helps that they have put Uptown there which makes more people have a reason to want to go over there which is more important.

[codyg1985]

Some accent lighting of some sort would help a little at night, too.

[Grzrd]

I wonder if a cut-and-cover tunnel or depressing the interstate below grade was considered?

Here's an old thread on the possibility of doing so:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3148.msg69511#msg69511
This September 12, 2010 article that was linked in the above thread indicated that depressing the interstate was feasible, but had a price tag of $700 million:

More than a year ago, a feasibility study showed the plan was viable. The Alabama Department of Transportation has since made changes and agrees the plan to sink the interstate would work.
Now, New York-based engineering firm Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. must demonstrate through actual traffic simulation models that the promise of the design on paper will be fulfilled in reality ....
Chris Hatcher, vice president of planning at Operation New Birmingham.
"This next phase will analyze if the design truly works," Hatcher said ....
Hatcher said getting the Alabama Department of Transportation to deem the plan feasible was no easy task.
"ALDOT was very skeptical going into it," he said. "After we made some changes they pointed out, they agreed the engineering is sound and the plan would work."

I am a bit puzzled by this February 4, 2016 interview with ALDOT Director John Cooper by a local publisher, Mark Kelly, in which Cooper asserts that no one ever asked whether "burying the interstate" was feasible:

Cooper: If the city wanted an alternative, then at the time they put [the idea of burying the interstate] in their master plan, – about 2005 or '06 – they should have come to us, or to some engineering firm, and said, "Is it feasible?"

Kelly: Would it have been feasible?

Cooper: In my opinion, no.

Interestingly, the interviewer does not pursue this line of questioning because he "understands the problems there" in burying the interstate; he then immediately transitions to the idea of moving the interstate:

Kelly: I'm not talking about burying the interstate, because I understand the problems there. But in terms of moving it...

Cooper apparently contends that the studies from six or seven years ago that demonstrated the feasibility of "sinking" I-20/59 never happened, and that it is too late to do so now.  On the other hand, the interviewer was so wedded to the notion of "moving" I-20/59 that he did not press Cooper on the issue of "sinking" I-20/59.

I still contend that "sinking" I-20/59 would be a great compromise between the ALDOT and Move I-20/59 extremes.

edit

From bhamwiki:

The Civic Center interstate-lowering project was the subject of a preliminary traffic study performed by Parsons Brinckerhoff of New York. That study determined that the project could take four years to construct, at a cost greater than $600 million. It also predicted that the city would gain substantial benefits from the undertaking, which is similar to a completed project to lower Fort Washington Way in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) reviewed the preliminary engineering work and, with a few changes, accepted the basic design as feasible.
A request for $2 million for additional studies was made to the state's legislative delegation, to be included in the state's application for federal funding in the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham granted the project $20,000, which helped secure another $80,000 in federal grant money to continue preliminary studies. Parsons Brinckerhoff worked with graduate students in traffic engineering at UAB to create more detailed traffic models.
In 2012 ALDOT announced they wuld proceed with replacement of the existing bridge decks in early 2013. The $700 million estimated cost of lowering the interstate had been deemed "too expensive to pursue". ....
The deck replacement proposal was ultimately approved by ALDOT and budgeted at $420 million. Director John Cooper stated at the time that his department, "has received a lot of feedback from the community, and we believe we have addressed the key concerns while exploring the best pathway forward for this project."

Did ALDOT alone make the decision that "sinking" the route was too expensive, particularly in comparison to the $420 million?  If so, what non-construction factors, if any , did ALDOT consider in making that decision?
Yes, $700 million is more expensive than $420 million, but ........
If neither ALDOT nor Move I-20/59 is really interested in the "sinking" option, then I suppose that there are not many influential people left to make the argument that it would be worth the additional $280 million.

[Tourian]

Burying it was determined to be too expensive because of the water table and existing conduits. I do not draw the same conclusion that you do that Cooper was being evasive because there has been talk of doing that just that no one has the 1B or so it would take to do it. Nor do we have the time to wait to do it because the current bridges needed to be replaced years ago.

[Grzrd]

I am a bit puzzled by this February 4, 2016 interview with ALDOT Director John Cooper by a local publisher, Mark Kelly, in which Cooper asserts that no one ever asked whether "burying the interstate" was feasible

Burying it was determined to be too expensive because of the water table and existing conduits. I do not draw the same conclusion that you do that Cooper was being evasive because there has been talk of doing that just that no one has the 1B or so it would take to do it. Nor do we have the time to wait to do it because the current bridges needed to be replaced years ago.

If Cooper had simply stated that it was too expensive instead of saying that no one had ever asked if it were feasible, then I would not be puzzled by his comments.
That said, you have raised the critical element of time.  Despite Cooper's comments, Parsons Brinckerhoff did perform preliminary studies and I am not convinced, in light of those studies, that the "sinking" alternative would consume too much time.

The current project was initially presented as a $100 million emergency repair job. However, ALDOT "found" an extra $320 million and morphed the project into a $420 million improvement project (ALDOT could probably "find" an additional $280 million if they so desired).  By incurring the extra $320 million cost for the improvements, ALDOT made it more difficult to consider either the "sinking" improvement alternative or the "moving" improvement alternative in the future.  Had it remained a basic repair job, the Birmingham community would have had time to seriously discuss an optimal long-range solution.

The Birmingham community could well decide that ALDOT's current plan is the best plan.  However, given the long-term ramifications of the newly scoped project, the Birmingham community should have the opportunity to fully consider the "sinking" alternative.

[Tourian]

I'll have to go back and look on the projected cost but I believe another reason for not wanting to sink it was they could not make it any wider but I an not 100% on that. These bridges will allow for an additional lane on each side.

But to me the explanation given of it being too expensive was enough.

Edit: yeah, here it is...

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2014/01/interstate_2059_do_the_work_no.html

Rerouting or sinking would would cost between $1 billion and $2.5 billion and take 20 to 25 years to complete, he said.

[Grzrd]

yeah, here it is...
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2014/01/interstate_2059_do_the_work_no.html

Rerouting or sinking would would cost between $1 billion and $2.5 billion and take 20 to 25 years to complete, he said.

Tourian, thanks for the link. I would enjoy reading the ALDOT consultant's report; I assume that it is different than the Parsons Brinckerhoff report since it includes the "moving" alternative.  I would like to see the details of why it would take 20 to 25 years to "sink" the route.

edit

ALDOT responds to lawsuit seeking to halt I-20/59 bridge replacement: http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2016/01/highway_officials_respond_to_l.html

In responding to the lawsuit, ALDOT denies that it failed to analyze or consider a "sinking the route" alternative:

-   ALDOT denies that it failed to analyze or consider a "sinking the route" alternative to its plans for the continued elevated roadway ....

A response from the director of ALDOT:
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/01/aldot_director_plan_for_i-2059.html#incart_river_home

Interestingly, Director Cooper's letter does not address the "sinking the route" alternative.

Director Cooper's above-linked letter does set forth specific costs and time frames for the two "moving" alternatives:

In order to fully understand all options, and in keeping with the City's request, ALDOT also explored two scenarios for re-routing I-59/20 along the Finley Boulevard Corridor, a "short" and "long" route ....
If pursued, the short plan would require the construction of an elevated interstate through the middle of minority and low-income neighborhoods at a total cost exceeding $1.5 billion. Even if this were feasible, it would require more than 20 years to complete. Since the width of this interstate would be wider than the current roadway, and must avoid the Burlington Northern Railroad Yard, the long route would force the demolition of nearly all the businesses along the existing Finley Corridor. This effort would take at least 28 years and cost over $2 billion.

I simply wish that Director Cooper would have provided a similar discussion of the challenges presented by the "sinking" alternative.

Also, the above-linked article about the response to the lawsuit reports as follows:

The Federal Highway Administration denied in its response the allegation that the I-59/20 Improvement Project will cause "significant negative socioeconomic impacts." They also deny that ALDOT ignored any issue or violated any law, or that the project's Environmental Assessment (the EA) was "defective."

Here is a link to the June 2015 Environmental Assessment ("EA") Finding of No Significant Impact ("FONSI"):

http://rp.dot.state.al.us/I59_20/pdf/Prj%20No%20IM-I059(367)%20I-59%2020%20EA%20FONSI%20APPROVED%206-25-15%20COMPLETE.pdf

Two alternatives were carried through the process as follows (pp. 329-330/619 of pdf):


....


After an admittedly brief look at the EA, I could not find any meaningful analysis about either a "sinking" alternative or the two "moving" alternatives, other than comments from the public.  I now better understand the dissatisfaction of some members of the Birmingham community.

I suppose that the ALDOT consultant's report referenced in the January 2014 article linked by Tourian contains the analysis of the "sinking" and "moving" alternatives:

Cooper said other alternatives have drawbacks, according to a review ALDOT commissioned with a consultant ....
Sinking the interstate through downtown would require utility relocation, figuring out how to keep the roadway drained, embankments that would be too steep and interfere with foundations of nearby buildings, according to the review.

[Tourian]

I agree they do appear to be speaking out of both sides of their heads.

My guess is that Cooper asked his boys in engineering to throw out a number on sinking it or moving it and that's what they came up with. A guess, but an educated and informed guess but still a guess. I think he figured this would be enough to snow job all the people he feels are beneath him in intelligence i.e. (the Birmingham city council, the Jefferson co council, the citizens of Birmingham) etc etc. And it worked for some time but they kept pressing him. So when cornered he says no one has or really hasn't done the study.

Probably because they haven't. A real study would take time and money and he doesn't have or want to spend any on it and neither does Birmingham. To be fair he did come back later and say moving it to Finley would violate a federal ordinance that keeps interstates from being moved to impoverished minority neighborhoods but that didnt come out until later. He should have said it up front but my guess is he really didn't care or look in to it because he never expected so much resistance to rebuilding the bridges.

As you said, they originally were just going to redeck it.