HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2010, 5:08 AM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octavian View Post
Something else to keep in mind . . . the difficulty of securing ROW for high speed rail. Might some of the existing I-70 ROW be used for this purpose?
Maybe... but I think it's going to land too far behind any decision on I-70 to work. The I-70 west DEIS did not address connecting any proposed train to DIA. Pretty sure the proposal in there had it ending west of town (that's where their study area ended - they specifically said, beyond that is somebody else's business). Add to that the difficulty of convincing anybody it's worthwhile when you have two fastracks lines ending on the west side of town to connect into (nobody around here seems to think that a transfer is a very big deal). The only ones who'd care about that last segment would be folks looking at an overall system of Front Range and I-70 rail... but that feasibility study is a long long ways from implementation, and the coordination with other planning efforts (I-70) is completely missing for now. I don't know, but I just can't see who is going to be thinking rail ROW between downtown and DIA by the time I-70 starts to seriously move forward. Even something as simple as - who reserves the ROW? The city? (not even a participant) CDOT? (barely interested) RMRA? (broke)

I'm no oracle. But if we do get rail on I-70 and front range rail, it is all-too-easy for me to see phase 1 west rail ending at the Jeffco Govt Center light rail station, alongside a gargantuan park-n-ride for skier traffic (or a second stop at the existing park-n-rides, or just a stop there and a shuttle to the light rail station). And front range rail doing its thing, via union station. Without, at least at the beginning, a direct connection. And those who would want to travel from DIA to Vail having to transfer twice (Union Station and Golden). It's just too easy to see. It fits how we've been doing transit planning around here. Especially if we end up with a more traditional inter-city rail technology (nothing fancy) on at least one of the two corridors... Having dual lines between Golden and Downtown (and/or god forbid, all the way to DIA)... Going to be a very tough sell to build where we already have a line running, just to make it a one seat ride.

Sorry, wrong thread for that. But relevant to the idea of ROW preservation. A part of me has always thought, if we were serious about a DIA-Mtn Corridor rail connection, we needed to get that moving before Fastracks was done. Maybe run the mountain train as far as Ward Road and I am sure the Eagle P3 folks would be more than happy to oblige (someday) and get folks to DIA - maybe then we even get that elusive east-west through train (not sure if it's technically feasible, but I bet there'd be a way, I'll have to ask).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2010, 5:15 PM
docroc docroc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 279
surface boulevard and land use

spot on, bunt_q, regarding land use issues.

Yes, this has be more more than just what happens within the right-of-way of a new surface boulevard - but what happens adjacent to it as well - and the redevelopment potential.

While simply removing the overhead monstrosity of the elevated I-70 viaduct through Swansea and Elyria will do a lot to improve the livability and attractiveness of those neighborhoods almost immediately - more is needed on the land use side to reseam those neighborhoods back together and further restore and enhance them as vibrant in-town communities.

I can see a mix of "main street" types of development, with more intense nodes along E. 46th Avenue once again. There's not that much right-of-way were I-70 is currently elevated between about Steele Street and Brighton Blvd - so where there are homes right up against 46th Avenue, that'll likely continue to be residential use - but there would be opportunities for some mixed-use neighborhood nodes at Steele Street, definitely at York Street (that might become a TOD-like redevelopment opportunity, and then again at Brighton Blvd - which itself will be transformed to a more urban scale corridor per the River North subarea plan.

Along 48th Avenue in Northwest Denver - there will be much more opportunity. There, the current I-70 right-of-way is wider, plus you have the parallel service roads along most of the route - so the redevelopment options would be greater. I could see that the surface boulevard would only use a portion of the current CDOT right-of-way, with an opportunity to revert back to development. For example, there are already remnant commercial nodes at Pecos and Tejon (from pre I-70 days) that lend themselves well to becoming mixed-use, TOD-type development locations. Other areas further west, such as around Lowell would also provide such opportunities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2010, 6:52 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by docroc View Post
While simply removing the overhead monstrosity of the elevated I-70 viaduct through Swansea and Elyria will do a lot to improve the livability and attractiveness of those neighborhoods almost immediately
The only thing left will be the god awful dog food plant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2010, 9:22 PM
docroc docroc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 279
I-70 redevelopment

Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
The only thing left will be the god awful dog food plant.
I hear you, mister!

Talk about a situation where the separation of land uses was not applied as it should have been. Put that thing away from residential districts, please! I've notices that the Purina plant at the hometown location in St. Louis - down in its rail yards just west of the downtown - is a more attractive building and has the noxious odors much more self contained.

I can't believe that they're not violating a gazillion ambient air standards with that operation there. York and E. 46th would make for a nice gateway into the City Park neighborhood of the city if that Purina thing were to go away. Especially with the E. Corridor RTD line running just a few blocks south of there as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2010, 9:28 PM
docroc docroc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 279
reconstructing 46th Avenue as a boulevard

Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama View Post
Why not make a plan that considers what objectives are needed to really connect the separate sides along with how this affected by the existing embankments and remaining pieces of freeway? There might be situations where at some intersections, the overpasses would stay. Like, from Colorado Blvd to the east, its all industrial on either side and is on raised embankments, again, so it would be less work to leave it alone and renew the overpass sections. I dunno, other freeway removal projects in the past have dealt with viaducts mostly, right? Like the embarcadero and central freeways, and that one in Milwaukee. Have there been any projects that handled roads which run up and down on berms and into trenches? Its one thing to remove the old bridges but would it be difficult or costly to fill in and grade out all the dirt work that is there?
I agree, llamaorama - keeping 46th Avenue as a limited access roadway (but NOT interstate route) in the industrial area between Quebec Street and Colorado Boulevard could make sense - a bit like parts of Santa Fe Drive. Then start the boulevard treatment as you get west of Colorado Boulevard into the residential districts.

Some removals have been replacements of surface freeways - I'm recalling the old freeway along the west side of the Willamette River in Portland - which is now a broad riverside linear park. And that freeway was simply replaced with - well - a park. And modest traffic improvements on nearby existing streets.

I think you're also right about recycling some features, like the Colorado Boulevard overpass.

I also agree that some of the
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 12:41 AM
docroc docroc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 279
I-70 corridor and high speed rail right-of-way

Quote:
Originally Posted by Octavian View Post
Something else to keep in mind . . . the difficulty of securing ROW for high speed rail. Might some of the existing I-70 ROW be used for this purpose?
definitely something to think about - or likely some of the rail alignments just to the north through unincorporated Adams County . . .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2011, 7:53 PM
docroc docroc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 279
Saying Goodbye to Freeways

Follow the link for both a written article and audio piece available on taking out urban freeways - offers some points to consider regarding this thread and the future of Elevated I-70 through North Denver. docroc

The End Of The Road: Saying Goodbye To Freeways
by Dan Bobkoff, NPR All Things Considered
21 March 2011

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/21/134743...ye-to-freeways

Half a century after cities put up freeways, many of those roads are reaching the end of their useful lives. But instead of replacing them, a growing number of cities are thinking it makes more sense just to tear them down. . . .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2011, 10:17 PM
The Dirt The Dirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,212
Interesting article. Well, it seems that the trend is that "underutilized" freeways that are in need of repair are being removed to cut costs. While, I-70 is in disrepair, it has been repaired to last a good 10-15+ years in most sections east of I-25 last summer, and I don't think that anyone can argue that it's underutilized.

Unfortunately, I don't see a lot of support for my idea to convert I-70 east of I-25 to a surface boulevard and diverting through traffic to I-270/I-76. It seems more likely to see I-25 covered between Speer and 20th in our lifetimes, and I don't see that happening for at least 20 years. Just for fun, here's a list of thing that I'd love to see happen within the next 50 years:

- I-70 converted to surface boulevard from I-76/Wads to I-270/Quebec
- I-25 covered with a park between Speer and 20th; expanded to between 23rd and 38th/Park Ave eventually
- I-25/Colfax/Auraria ramps greatly reduced and the area around Mile High Station revitalized
- I-25 realigned to put it farther east of Platte River between Colfax and Alameda to create some riverfront development property
- Hwy 6 turned back into a surface street between Sheridan and I-25, greatly reducing the size of the ramps at I-25 and opening up some land

Of course, I have enough sense to realize that all of this has about a .0001% chance of happening.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2011, 6:56 PM
docroc docroc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 279
Interesting study from Seattle on urban freeway removal - possible lessons for I-70 in north Denver?

Case Studies in Urban Freeway Removal
source: Seattle Urban Mobility Plan
date: January 2008

http://www.seattle.gov/transportatio...%20removal.pdf

While there are a number of examples of urban freeway removals in North America, there are certainly no two that are exactly alike. While Seattle’s situation is unique, it can learn important lessons from other freeway removal projects including:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2011, 7:18 PM
docroc docroc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 279
removing a freeway

In addition to the link to the case studies conducted by Seattle in the previous post - here are a couple of articles relating to Long Beach.

Situations are not totally parallel to I-70 in Denver - but do offer food for thought on options to simply rebuilding a freeway in that corridor through some very impacted residential neighborhoods . . .

To Remove a Freeway in Long Beach
by Brian Ulasqewski
Long Beach Post
23 July 2010

http://www.lbpost.com/brian/10181

The Institute of Transportation and Development Policy, an international planning think tank, recently commissioned ten architects to create bold visions for the world’s cities, to imagine a planet no longer dominated by the automobile. . . .

To Remove a Freeway in Long Beach (Part 2): by the Numbers
by Brian Ulasqewski
Long Beach Post
24 April 2011

http://www.lbpost.com/life/brian

A few months ago, I wrote a post describing the potential benefits of removing a couple lengths of freeways in Long Beach. In the article, I focused on the possibility of reconfiguring the I-710 Freeway into a boulevard south of Seventh Street (after it crosses the Los Angeles River into downtown Long Beach) and removing the last mile of the Terminal Island Freeway (between Pacific Coast Highway and Willow Street) on the Westside. . . .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2011, 10:07 PM
EngiNerd's Avatar
EngiNerd EngiNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Englewood, CO
Posts: 1,998
I know Toronto has also had discussion about removing the highway that runs the length of their waterfront as well. However, Interstate 70 here will not be removed, it will just be relocated I thought?
__________________
"The engineer is the key figure in the material progress of the world. It is his engineering that makes a reality of the potential value of science by translating scientific knowledge into tools, resources, energy and labor to bring them into the service of man. To make contributions of this kind the engineer requires the imagination to visualize the need of society and to appreciate what is possible as well as the technological and broad social age understanding to bring his vision to reality."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2011, 10:55 PM
The Dirt The Dirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,212
There was a proposal to possibly move I-70 north to intersect with I-25 around where 56th is now. I'm not a huge fan of this plan, as it would still keep North Washington cut off from the rest of the city, and would need to gobble up tons of developed land. If you're going to move it that far north, then why not just go a bit farther and just have it follow I-270 and merge with I-76 where it currently merges with I-270. There's plenty of row to widen, most of the newer bridges are wide enough as it is, so it's all a matter of just adding 2-4 lanes of traffic on I-270 and creating a new interchange at I-270, I-25, I-76, and US-36.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2011, 2:46 AM
Wizened Variations's Avatar
Wizened Variations Wizened Variations is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,611
A very tough freeway to move. Makes me wonder how many freeways that have been removed were parallel or at least near another freeway. I think too that at least some that have been removed were those that went a couple of miles or so into a downtown district: something like had the 6th Avenue Freeway been extended as a freeway to Lincoln, and, that part would have been removed.

Between I-70, which runs fairly close to downtown, and I-225, is a fair amount of distance between east/west freeways (and we are lucky that some Robert Moses follower did not have a couple more built back in the '50s and '60s.)

The Dirt made as good an argument as any I have heard.
__________________
Good read on relationship between increasing number of freeway lanes and traffic

http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2011, 9:09 PM
docroc docroc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 279
another city considers freeway removal

Tear Down the Freeway, Or Fix It Up?
Posted by Tim Halbur
Planetizen
15 June 2011

http://www.planetizen.com/node/49842


That's the dilemma with Interstate 81 in Syracuse, NY, an elevated freeway that cuts through the center of the city. At the end of its life expectancy, planners are debating its fate.
The freeway shows a lot of wear and tear, but transportation folks say they can keep it going for a while longer. But Van Robinson, head of the Syracuse Common Council, has another idea: . . .

Note: this story is an overview of an NCPR report originally titled:
Syracuse stretch of I-81 nears expiration date
NCPR News, June 14, 2011
Audio download available by following link above

(06/15/11) Interstate 81 runs right through the heart of Syracuse. The elevated portion, built in the late '60s, is called "The Viaduct." It's coming to the end of its life expectancy, and is showing its years. . . .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2011, 10:06 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
In the grand scheme, we are lucky that we can remove/relocate a freeway, and all we have to do is add a couple miles of northerly detour.

West of I-25 it's too late, I suppose. North Washington is an industrial wasteland anyways, but I don't see any reason to move it through Berkeley, and re-constructing the Mousetrap seems like a terrible waste of money. So it's too late for poor Globeville. But with the Stock Show poised to move anyways, I am really not seeing much downside to a jaunt to the north, and a return to the current alignment around I-270/I-70. Minimal industrial land impacted, and we can save Elyria & Swansea.

Even with the relocation just east of Washington St., it'd take decades to rehabilitate those neighborhoods... it's just too late for most of that area, there's too much vacant land, polluted land, etc. for redevelopment to ever really happen, except for Elyria & Swansea, and the parcels south of the current I-70 that are held back by it today. There's a lot of industrial land in there that still needs freeway access too, unless we want to banish all industry out of the city. I think the Stock Show-to-Quebec relocation is a good middle ground.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2011, 7:22 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,143
when is the last time anybody went to E/S neighborhood? it's not very charming or dense nor does it have a great stock of housing (a few really cool buildings and churches though). my point is that pinning all of the hopes and dreams of the area's future on removing the highway is a bit naive.....it will tak much more than that to make this an attractive urban neighborhood (as discussed earlier regarding zoning)..what's really hilarious is that it will have TWO train stations, when our existing dense neighborhoods continue to slog along with zero....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2011, 7:25 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,143
oh, and i'd bet donuts that the neighbors will fight upzoning / new neighbors that add diversity, and then still complain that is is not served with enough walkable retail (see upzoning issue...)

Last edited by bcp; Jun 18, 2011 at 8:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2011, 1:09 AM
Wizened Variations's Avatar
Wizened Variations Wizened Variations is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,611
Talking

Why relocate I-70 at all? Sure, a big public works project on the order of TREX with inflated dollars would keep the highway construction industry going for a couple more years, but, why encourage more vehicles to get on the road?

Make the DIA line functional, and, try to get the DUS transportation interface to work well first. (And that, my peers, is what public transportation in an era of decreased wealth REALLY means. Hundreds of thousands of extra users per day)

We, as a Nation, need to think in terms of transportation alternatives on THAT scale.

I know this is "humor"...but, somebody needs to say it.
__________________
Good read on relationship between increasing number of freeway lanes and traffic

http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf

Last edited by Wizened Variations; Jun 21, 2011 at 9:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2011, 11:09 PM
docroc docroc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 279
replacing urban freeway

food for thought - perhaps 46th Avenue & 48th Avenue sometime in the future . . . I-70 replaced with green boulevards . . .


Go Down, Moses
Today cities are putting people before cars, replacing highways with green boulevards

by Katherine Fung
The Architect’s Newspaper
23 June 2011

http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=5476

Remember highways, those ribbons of concrete that in the 1940s and 50s looped together cities, states, and regions in much the same way as ocean liners connected America to Europe in the 20s and 30s? Once highways represented the country’s proudest infrastructure. Those days are over, as are the urban policies that allowed New York’s ultimate powerbroker Robert Moses, late in his heyday in the 60s, to ram roads (the bigger, the wider, the busier the better) through fragile communities, ripping the urban fabric to shreds for decades to come.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2011, 11:24 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,149
^So instead of I-70 cutting through an economically-depressed area of Denver we'll have a street with a grass median cutting through the same area?

Relocating I-70 still seems like a solution to a problem that goes WAY beyond a highway cutting through the neighborhood.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:45 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.