I-84 Viaduct Study Options for Replacing the I-84 Viaduct in Downtown Hartford

Fall 2010 Acknowledgements The I-84 Viaduct Study was funded by the City of Hartford, Federal Highway Administration and the Connecticut Department of Transportation. It was administered by the Capitol Region Council of Governments, with the technical assistance of Goody Clancy and its subconsultants.

The alternatives developed under this study are the result of a collaborative effort among local residents, stakeholders, local officials and regional and State planners. This effort was guided by the HUB of Hartford Committee. CRCOG would like to express its appreciation to the members of this Committee and others for contributing their time and valuable knowledge of local issues to the development of these recommendations.

Robert Painter HUB Chairman Tom Maziarz ConnDOT

Joseph Barber Frog Hollow NRZ; Hartford 2000 Jackie McKinney Asylum Hill Problem Solving Revitalization Association; ArtSpace Residents’ Association Carl Bard Metropolitan District Commission Bill Mocarsky Resident Linda Bayer Hartford 2000 Tomas Nenortas Hartford Preservation Alliance; SoDo NRZ Bob Benzinger The Hartford Roger O’Brien Director of Planning, City of Hartford Kevin Burnham Director of Public Works, City of Hartford David Panagore Chief Operating Officer and Jennifer Carrier Capitol Region Council of Governments Director of Development Services Julio Concepcion Metro Hartford Alliance Mary Rickel-Pelletier Park River Watershed Revitalization Initiative Richard Frieder Hartford Public Library Pedro Segarra Mayor, City of Hartford Julie Georges ConnDOT Sandra Sheehan Greater Hartford Transit District Toni Gold West End Civic Association Vicki Shotland Greater Hartford Transit District David Head ConnDOT Chris Stone Department of Environmental Protection Lia Huang Capitol Region Council of Governments Lyle Wray Capitol Region Council of Governments Hans Keck Hartford Courant Michael Zaleski Hartford Business Improvement District Peter Macher ConnDOT

Mike Marshall Aetna

Special thanks to the several hundred residents, commuters, stakeholders, and other community members who participated in this study. The consultant team was led by David Spillane of Goody Clancy and the subconsultant team of Wilbur Smith Associates, Fitzgerald & Halliday, and W-ZHA. I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 1 Table of Contents

OVERVIEW...... 2

PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY...... 6

STUDY PROCESS...... 7

I-84 TODAY...... 15 Traffic and Transportation...... 15 Urban Design...... 18 Economic Development...... 18

ALTERNATIVES...... 24 Preliminary Alternatives...... 25 Composite Alternatives...... 29 Baseline—Enhanced Viaduct...... 30 Alternative 1...... 34 Alternative 2...... 38 Alternative 3...... 42

COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES...... 46

Review and Endorsement of Study Findings / Next Steps...... 52 2 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford Overview

ike many similar highway structures of its era, Hartford’s I-84 Viaduct is near- Ling the end of its useful life. Today, communities across the nation are beginning to grapple with the challenge of how best to repair or replace these aging structures in ways that respond not only to transportation needs, but also to urban design and economic development imperatives. As it looks for solutions to replace or repair the I-84 Viaduct, Hartford has The Viaduct structure is nearing the end of its useful life and will need to be replaced. an historic opportunity to renew its transportation infrastructure and improve the cohesive- Viaduct that envisioned rehabilitation of the structure largely as ness and vitality of its center city. currently built. The mandate of this study is to explore a broader range of replacement options. This study is the result of a collaborative planning effort involving the City of Hartford, the Connecticut Department of Transporta- Built in 1965, the Viaduct is a ¾ mile long section of elevated tion (ConnDOT) and the Capital Region Council of Governments highway that extends from the Sisson Avenue interchange to (CRCOG) that begins the process of exploring replacement the Asylum and Capitol Avenue interchanges that serve Hart- options for the I-84 Viaduct. The study was advanced under the ford’s downtown, the Capitol, other major employment centers auspices of the HUB of Hartford Committee, a broadly repre- and surrounding neighborhoods. The highway accommodates sentative steering committee formed by the City of Hartford with trips to and from Hartford’s core, trips between local commu- representation from governmental, business, neighborhood and nities outside of the Hartford, and longer regional trips. This civic groups. The HUB Committee has its origins as a grassroots segment of highway is the state’s highest volume roadway citizens group formed in 2006 following an initial study of the I-84 with daily traffic volumes of approximately 175,000 vehicles. I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 3

The Viaduct also accounts for a significant amount of regional urban environment. HUB of Hartford Committee congestion. Major state transit initiatives involving new com- The highway forms a VISION STATEMENT muter rail service and bus rapid transit are currently being major barrier that di- This vision was developed by the Committee in actively advanced to improve transportation options in the area, vides Hartford’s core, advance of the I-84 Viaduct Study. and reduce automobile dependency. Transportation demand a “no man’s land” management (TDM) measures are also being used to man- separating neighbor- “The Hub of Hartford will be a lively and age peak hour congestion and reduce vehicle miles travelled hoods from each walkable, mixed-use, mixed-income urban (VMT). But even with full implementation of these initiatives, other and downtown. place, a regional crossroads centered on Union volumes on I-84 Viaduct will continue to be very high, reinforc- Much of the land Station, where business, government, community and recreational uses integrate seamlessly in a ing the importance of determining a replacement strategy for around and under historic context supplemented by compatible the aging structure. the highway remains new development. The buildings, trees and underutilized and un- landscaped areas will define public streets and While the Viaduct plays a critical transportation function, it has attractive, overshad- spaces that reconnect previously separated city long been viewed as a blighting influence on the surrounding owed by the presence precincts: the state government complex, the of the highway and Frog Hollow and Asylum Hill neighborhoods associated access and offices, the downtown, and Bushnell Park. Cyclists, walkers and transit riders share the road ramps. These factors comfortably with automobiles.” limit the economic vitality of the core and detract from the city’s cohesiveness and identity.

This study seeks to address transportation, urban design and economic development considerations in an integrated way and seeks solutions that work effectively from multiple perspectives at reasonable public cost. In an era when public budgets face many competing demands, creative and cost effective The Viaduct and its ramps divide the city—separating downtown solutions that address multiple goals are of critical importance. and the Capitol from surrounding neighborhoods, and each other. Much valuable land is wasted. 4 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford

I-84 today: the Viaduct and associated ramps. View looking west from downtown towards Asylum Hill.

Some of the alternatives considered offer potentially dramatic opportunities to enhance the city’s core and reconnect it to surrounding neighborhoods. I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 5

One especially significant conclusion of the study is the potential benefit of replacing the I-84 Viaduct combined with improving the study area’s rail corridor. I-84 replacement options that also involve realignment of portions of the rail line have the potential to substantially improve the cohesiveness of the city’s downtown while providing cost and operational efficiencies for development of rail and road infrastructure.

This study initially examined a very broad range of replacement concepts for the Viaduct structure and ultimately narrowed these to a smaller set of the most promising solutions.

Each of the alternatives reviewed in this study has the potential to offer significant public benefits over a baseline option, which would largely reconstruct the highway in its current form. Some of the alternatives considered offer potentially dramatic opportunities to enhance the city’s core and reconnect it to surrounding neighborhoods.

The alternatives discussed here represent a starting point in consideration of replacement options. Significant additional work will be needed, however, to address the highly complex design, environmental, engineering, construction phasing, and funding issues that are keys to advancing a successful project. 6 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford Purpose of this study

his study evaluates several options for replacement of the existing I-84 Viaduct in Hartford. These alter- Tnatives have been developed through a multi-phase study incorporating significant public input. The results of the study will be used by ConnDOT as a starting point for a more in depth assessment of replacement alternatives over the coming years. While the study identifies a number of promising options for further analysis, it is expressly not the intent of this study to recommend a single option as the preferred approach. Rather the analyses and findings described here are intended to provide the starting point for the more detailed work that must now follow. I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 7 Study process

he HUB of Hartford Committee served as a Steering Committee for the study effort. The HUB Committee Twas appointed by the City of Hartford. Chaired by Dr. Robert Painter, the Committee includes representation from a broad cross-section of project stakeholders. In addition to representation from the City of Hartford and ConnDOT, the Committee includes representatives of other governmental entities, business, neighborhoods, and civic organizations. The study was administered by CRCOG. CRCOG staff played the lead role in coordination of the study effort and related public outreach. The study consultant team was led by Goody Clancy, a Boston-based planning and design firm. The consultant team also included Wilbur Smith Associates, Fitzgerald & Halliday, and W-ZHA.

• Phase 2: Preliminary Alternatives This phase involved Work Phases development and assessment of a wide range of possible The study process involved three phases of work: replacement alternatives. This was a screening level as- • Phase I: The I-84 Viaduct Today This initial phase sessment to determine what kind of alternatives were most focused on the current condition of the I-84 Viaduct and the suitable for further analysis. role it plays in the city and the region. This assessment con- • Phase 3: Composite Alternatives This phase focused on sidered economic development, urban design and transpor- development and assessment of a second round of con- tation issues. During this initial phase, the consultant team cept alternatives and a largely qualitative evaluation of their conducted interviews with HUB Committee members and relative merits from economic development, urban design, other key project stakeholders. transportation and cost perspectives. 8 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford

Public Workshops/Meetings Each of the three study phases culminated in a major public forum or workshop to discuss study findings. • Phase I: I-84 Today • Phase II: Preliminary Alternatives • Phase III: Composite Alternatives

These meetings attracted significant public involvement and contributed key insights that were incorporated in subsequent study efforts. Additional information on these meetings is included in Appendix A.

Technical Workshops Over the course of the study, CRCOG coordinated a number of workshops to review key technical considerations and to share technical information and perspectives. These informal workshops included participation from the consultant team as well as CRCOG and ConnDOT staff. The technical workshops contributed to the identification of study alternatives and options.

Coordination with City Staff Over the course of the study, CRCOG coordinated meetings with City staff to review study progress and seek input. Meet- ings included representatives of planning, public works and economic development departments. I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 9

Coordination with the Connecticut the corridor, the service could provide a connection to Department of Transportation Bradley International Airport, multiple links to Amtrak Over the course of the study, the team coordinated its efforts with intercity service and a direct link to the existing Metro ConnDOT and sought input on key planning and policy questions. North and Shore Line East Commuter Rail in New Haven. Rail service will pass through the I-84 Corridor currently Planning Context crossing the highway at two locations within the Viaduct Several ongoing or completed planning efforts establish the study area. Hartford’s Union Station, located at the heart broad context and goals for the I-84 Viaduct Study: of the Viaduct study area, is a key rail station on this line.

• One City, One Plan. One City One Plan—POCD 2020 • Hartford/New Britain Busway. The Busway will be a is Hartford’s recently adopted Plan of Conservation and dedicated Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) facility along a 9.4-mile Development. This plan establishes the overall framework corridor between downtown New Britain and downtown for guiding development within the city and was endorsed by Hartford. Within the I-84 Viaduct area, the busway will the City Council in April 2010 and formally adopted by the generally run parallel to the active Amtrak rail line. Planning and Zoning Commission in June 2010. Buses using this corridor will have more competitive travel • New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail. times when compared with automobiles, since they will ConnDOT is advancing implementation of commuter rail bypass congestion on arterial streets and I-84. The facility service between New Haven, Hartford and Springfield, will permit bus access at intermediate points, so circulator Massachusetts. The corridor was identified as a key com- bus routes could readily serve surrounding neighborhoods ponent in meeting the goals of improving and sustaining and then use the busway, thus providing a one-seat ride. In regional economic viability and improving regional liv- addition, the busway will include express, shuttle, circulator, ability in CRCOG’s Regional Transit Strategy (RTS). This and connecting feeder bus service. A total of up to 11 transit was further recognized by the Connecticut Transportation stations will serve the users of the busway. Two busway sta- Strategy Board as an important first step in implementing tions are located within the I-84 Viaduct study area—one at a statewide strategic plan. Funding has been allocated to Hawthorn Street and the terminus at Union Station. undertake the implementation study. In addition to serving commuters traveling between the towns and cities along East Coast Greenway - Final Route

E ST T T SID

ST MORNING S

S EA

MORNINGSIDE ST WEST L

L RD L L W

A DO E E ST E

NAHU EAST EUCLID M N M D East CoN ast Greenway - Final Route

R EUCLID ST WEST

R R O O ST

ST BURNHAM C C EA BURNHAM ST B ROLD S T E AST HA C E R T O K HAROLD S L R

E E

N C Keney Park (Barbour) L B O E W A V Y T SIMP SON S V N A A E D O L R N R L N O T

D T S S R S R S T

P A

A D

I T Y

A L V M ST L N

A RH I

E DU L S W

D D

N M W W T E

T T

T S A N C N LTI D S A BA S

S L S A

A T

Y R

T L T T L S Y

N E S T T GSID IN R E

R S ORN S

T M I

S I S

A S A

E R R

T WES NINGSIDE S A

MOR A L

A L V U

E E D H R

F L L W I

B O

N D C

R R A E

E LID ST Y ME I

N C I E

A S U HU A EAST E

I N

M D N A F R T WEST F R C EUCLID S

L R R M D

A O O ST

ST BURNHAM C C EA S BURNHAM ST B ROLD S T K E ST AST HA OCK ST TEC R E DST ES O e A R MANCH WO SHFOR O D T T ST K HAROLD S T n L R S T E S E TO D W N R C Keney Park (Barbour) L e E S B R E I A V O E T W V D R E A O y V S Y G E W Y T SIMP SON S V S MO N T A N D S A N FOR L T A N S A D BR E T Y D O L A I P R R N N R L T L N O E R T E

D T S T S a S S R D B R V S T

P A

A U D L r T Y I A

A R M L V ST ST L N M L R

A R I RH INSTE k U M L S A W E D ST A

E W

D W D A

N W M T W E G C T T

T S A N C N LTI D ( S A W BA S

S L S W A

A T

Y R

T N L T T L S S Y N OVER

D R E R S AN S

R I I

A I

R a R

A A

A C V

O U

E E

H L F v E I

N C V C R

Y R I

I E E S e A L

I A F F A F R C I L N S M r D DHF T A R OMB S l AV M Y C y HOL S ST V O

D A ) T N T K T K ST S S R T C V TER S S DSTO TAY MANCHES OK ST WOO e LOR ASHFORD IL RO L DR T N ST E LE B T L N CO n L S T C E I TO H S O D C W O R I e E A S S R R E T I A V T H T V D T L R V O O E y S L Y G P E S T M W S ST T T N ON D S L R A R Y FO E E T N E S K D BRA RO M T Y E A B S I P EM R N M P U T E G T L A E L E R L O W T S S a V R E H DE B B V L U L r A A T A R F T M S S R L R INSTE T k I M S A S S N ST N A WE O TH W T A T MAS OMA H O ST H O G C E B T N ST ( F W T W R R Y I W N S Y ER ST L S K V ANDO E E S R Y N S a S S C R T O I T D S T T L N FIEL v E G N C PLAI U VE TO e L N O A E SFI T N A S r D R T HF B T B L R S l E OMB S AV M Y C y L S S L HO R T T A M ST V O H E D O T ) A A T N H A T C W T I S R N N S O B V S C TA OK ST I HE YLOR IL B O L D O E M E BR S R N N COL V T W L C L C E E E E I R O C H S O F A S TL S B I T Keney Park (Woodland) R T T TA T A S H I ON L N T R V R R O L B P E D HE T D S L Y ST T S S O T R LB Y OKE E E T W L GI EMBR RO S M E O M P U T E G C W D S K N A T L L O W A V V I S R E I H Y E LL T S A B Y LA E T A T S C F V M S T T N I T R S S R S S N TOON N TH I T OMSAHSAR OMAST H A TH O V JU E B N A N A STU IN D F R T S R Y E R O M O W B L IS M T T N Y A L N S K

K N E E E S S T T R Y L N S S S D S S S R O L T I T T S T T T N NFIELD N ST E E N S G O U LAI T R T N E W P LING D T O BUR T N O E L N S O A T AR T N T JE B B N L E E W I S EL T D N I N S S A S E L ST R ONT N S A M S C I O I H E T T F T N A A H C Y D L C W S G I K A D N N E O B ST E C A S L D I R R FIEL K HE B R R M GAR EN S R O V O V W C I D G E T C Y ER W E E E T S A F E S T B R N R T L R ST KeneD y Park (Woodland) E T A A I ON N L R O R I T E DR HEB D L A E Y V S S O B T T C T D L R I S W L GI R R D S C H O OC WOR S F D K N T N O SA D V R I A N C I Y Y LL T S N A Y E T S ST D A E FOLK ST C C I V M T R N O R S N R T ARON I L O F A SH V M T JU N R A A U A S IN D C IS R E N SO M E OOM O L B S M L L T T N M K A FN S E N EI T T R R EL T S S D S S L O L T T T ST E E D N TON R S S N E D S W LING T BUR T T C T L N A O A A P N N N T E S JE E W I ES T EL T N W D N N I T R S D A S S E AYM ONE T N S OND S C I I T F S T R N C Y T S D L A D S G K A E D ST E A S L D R L O W R IE K F M R R GAR EN D R R V O G I D RG E E C EN W FIELD Y S E ST T L A E A R S D E N R R D D E N L O E I E T D R E D A W G R S V I C T D R S I R S S R H D N OR C D

R F I O T T F SAN E D T R C

N Y N R E N C S ST D A E Y FOLK W C I I E NOR V T R T M E L O V F

R B A A ST R C IS I N M T L E O S T S L LO R M T E R F Y E D I R S S E T E L E S L S E T L D S S T S

T R X T T R T E CA E E A I P T N E F S O W . E E T N D T S ST R O T . S D A S U F E S R YMO T O ND A T S S R S M N T S T A D P E I T E V R S T S A O W T M N E D R A V V GR E E E I W H EN T S FIELD S L ST L L O A S D E E L N O D E L E S D G E R D A W S G O L R S K I M S A R D N Y B O H D R I T T U F L E D E T M A V W D R D E A N N C O B Y A R W I E V L R R T B E O G V R B D A T I R O A T L K S T N R O A T E R A S Y F Y D S O S E L R E S E L A M L M V A L S T I B

T R X R T E P . P E L E M I F I E T R O . N E T D A T S O . Y S E U F S R R O S . A T H S M A S T M N T A P E I T E V D R E S T R I T H A H S T C A T N E A V V E E R E I W S H S T T R L R L T O E E S L O V S I L S S E T R G A S O D T O L K N M S B E D A Y E B O H U P S L M D L N T A E R V V W D D A N K I O A R L A G S B R B O R D O L G T O R A N N I O K A F K Y T D A T S O L R T W A O L A M M I V S O S L A B R S O PL R . P M O E I E R T O N O Y B A E R T S D T . D M H H A A T D E S O W T T S I H L H R T T R C A E G R A T B E R S R S S T E S V S I T SNO T O N R U D T A DN S B T E G E P N S N F E R S L T C R V O D D K S I A D E R G S O E S R E D R L N E O Y I T E R T T MS R K T D T T S L T L O T O I W B N S k A S O R S G R S A S C O R r B A O E U E O T O B T D T N a 10 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaductH in Downtown Hartford E R H N D O B G C S O W MT S I L R T O P E A G A B E S N S S T I T N O N W E D C U A e D G A T D S N F V E R D C A O D d S D V S D E R O R E S i O E D R E I Y T E R T T MS s A L O R R T T ST O S I B S r H N I R G k L S A C S r B G E S A e C Y A U E N a S H R E B R T O G G C E v N B I M E S LD i E A T O E P A E S N N L N T T I IB ST W E M S D R C A S E e D D T V R D I A A d S A V T S R Y I S i O S H I S A LE T L s O R S Y T D r I D H S L T G LE T S I Y S R e C A S O ST RG BE v E S WLD A i E A T EN O NT T LI S T S B M S T R MAP LEGEND D T T E W I S R U W A T A S S Y I S D S H L T S L N E EY Y T D E L D L T I SS Y I T Z T A R T A B O S S T E E A S T M W Y O D T H T L S N E MAP LEGEND E S T W W T S U T W O A S R D H T S N L E T Y L O E N C I Y T U C T E Z S A O U A D L F T A B L S T East Coast Greenway E S IN T T K E S T W M O S R Y D L

H N S S L S N T E S T W E A T A T R T O G A N A R D I T H S A L T T S A L O N C I T T U R C S S C E O U D L F E A PLE L AS M East Coast Greenway S AN D IN T T S K T S S T W O R A S L S Y R N T N S T T A O L A T R G A N A D N A I T Final L T O S P A L O I I T S S T R C T N E P T W LE L AS M D S S ANT ST A S S Y R T A W W N E O L G A N Final L O V P H R O I T N I T N T W I L G TRUMBULL S T A S E S W A I W S E T R G Y T H L V N H R

N D V

V U I N Interim & Final F S E M I G TRUMBULL S T R N A E I M

R A S A S A T U

T Y V H L N N D G

U V

V U N Interim & Final

FE IL M H S D RN D E

S M A

A S S A N

T S V

I M

T G R R N O U R I GA D

L H N S D D E T

S R S N

T A A S T

T I M R

R R O T R GA D N

P S T

T T

R R S S R

T A A T S

K I

I R

S C R

S S MOR

P GAN S T T

T L H

R R S U

L T L S

K I I R

G G C O S E

C R S S MORG H AN SHT O L JE L U

T S T

E L

N T L

N N P

P R G

G T O C E

N W H O T

JE C L R L T S T A

N N P E P T

Y A A S

N W T

C T R L O A W A R E P T C

Y U A

T A L S L M S H M H T C

O E W A C O R P T L

N T L U A L O

M M M ST H M O H L C L L E R E T C A S O Y

N A R L O

I U M M N T E L T O S L I E R L S T C A Y S L

R N U I U N T T E S R T C N I S S

N R R T T T S R

I C

L N L

T P N R R T

I L L T L P N N G R N N L N U G R O H E N N U

O H E

H E E

Y Y E E I H L S

S Y

Y I L S N S N A E A E E E N B N B M M

A A

H H H

S S S S N T N T C O C O B M A

B Y M A T

T BASEMAP LEGEND

Y S M R

S S T

T BASEMAP LEGEND

M R

O S A S S P

U A O A T R P T U T A C E R

T T C

S S A E T T U L T

S R

S S S

N T T

A U S SY R T S L

A N

L A k U S T M Y E

A T R L

L S L I T k U T M E

C T r N R

L L D I S T S

T T E C E r N D I S I T S

O E E

E a T T

T K

I 9 I R

R N I S S E S O T N L

a T

T T E Road Classifications N K Y 1

O T Y I 9 S S R

R N

S U U S T S

P T

T N L Road Classifications I E N Y S 1 O T Y

S S T

S T S U

U S T

A A Y S Y

l PE P T

ARL ST

L S S

S T

V O W L l

T T A

T A A

S S E

A A

Y S N Y TO l PEARL S Local

G L T L

N N L

L I L

N S

S e T M O L

V l

R R

A R A T A

A E

F ON A Local

M T E M

G E

L L I N S N I n I S S N H S

M e R R R T V HIC A A T KS ST F A T T T

I T E W W

S h

M E M Collector

E S

E E S I S S I T n S S H O S

R O O JE T RV S s HIC A T W KS ST B L T T T E

I T T L L

L E

W A W S L X h Collector O S GE S T S E

S T u F S F O O F T 5 R

M O N G O JE R S Minor - Arterial A s W E B O L G E D S

T L L

N L B A L X E T C O O S A G I H T S V R L E

R u F S F D T F E V N L O T T K 5 M N G S R O R Minor - Arterial A D T E C O N O B G D Exit Ramp N U S F R B H N E T C O T E

A I S H S V R A L A O S R W D S D T P E V A N L O T T V P K S H S R O R U D E T S T L C N O M B Exit Ramp N U F R B I Principal Arterial - Other H R S V T O E T S A

O U A W M E S D S R A W P T V S P W S H T E P U R E U T L L S S S L M L Principal Arterial - Other Expressway T S A B I Principal Arterial - Other V ON A R S T V N S O O E Y ARR S S T T T

W L L U M C E T S R W

D P P C E

S T E W

A L U P P M ART E P Principal Arterial - Interstate R S I C L U R T S H

L K R K SS S O W T S ST L Principal Arterial - Other Expressway T L A V S T S A O A

O N T E R O R T V N S O E Y R S S S T AR F T LIN T

W D

A A L S L RU E N C D SS T P S T S

LV T R L P B P B Waterways T K

P S U P E P D E W E C T C E

A L P T K C T A Principal Arterial - Interstate E D R Y IN P M RC V T S I L U R G T H

S G S K R B K S O S C O S H W T T S A T S A L ES S T M N F O A O W T E Waterways

T R T R R C S V

S T T

K F T T A LI U T N

B S D

A A O A S C R L S E

T U N

N A S S S S T H P D O S R

V A T L

V P B P B Waterways B T K

P ES N T U

E M S

S S S

W O E

L L R C

R B

E R T K H E S H C T Railroad E W O A I

D A

E E Y N

A T N N V L A G E A S G B JA R

N C U O S H

T D H A L

T R

N R O O S A S E Z M D

T N E T F T T W W Waterways

C O T U

T U G R GR C T

M S

C C A E ND S E T T O

H U T C R Railroad K C T T

A A H U S

A N A

A B A

A S N L E A H E O C

L P L S

T L

L O

N A S

M S A H

W O E E E A

S S O

C S V N S B H S N T A

D E M

S S R S S

I W

B B T O T A K

L L R R B E

T O V T

H T T T R R S H E S O H W S Z Railroad W O A A T A Townline

S A K

Y E

I A E

V N N A T S E A V T S H A D JA R R

N D U I E D H L

T R

S R

N C N O O A N U E Z U D T T S E T T T W D

K L

O T

U C U E G G T W PA R H

M RK

C C A ST W E ND H O Townline T S E

U T T H T C R E Railroad C S

Y A H T A S

O N I

A A A

A N L E N H

S S L JO P

S L

L O

P R M T D V S A

E E W E O S S N C A S S H S

T Y Y O A A T E D R

I W B B N T T A K L E T O V T

H T P City of Hartford - Parks

T H H T R S YORK ST O R E O S Z W I D A T N A Townline

S K

T T Y T I C A A V T V S A Y T V T h L S O H U D

L T V

S R O O D K I t T H E A

S S N C R Q N A L N U E E S T U I

O City of Hartford - Parks R R u S U S I D O T S Y D K R L W T S W A E S W P H P

ARK ST W N O O o V W Y H S V Townline T

O L E T

T H E B E U ARD ST S A Y W T L

I H

D D O C I A O Y

S C

T N N

O S

S O

M W JO O

S U

V V T

P R V T D V S H

D y y B P V O k N A

W M r G r D A A G

T Y Y R r O L E A A T A L E

C S R

a a Y

N E O L N

t t S N S a S N P A

Y ST City of Hartford - Parks

H H N T SO C A ER I F I S Y JEF O R T O OR W C E

E K ST V E e I e V U I T N D E O O

P F T

T K E T H H C M C S A E V A Y T E

L m h m F L W O S U T N A S L V T

I S N O

O R e M H K e

t e T T E A V S R L T A A A G R Q N L E I S H T U

D V I

G O C

p C S Y City of Hartford - Parks

K E R R u T A STON S A I D R INGTO O T R N S S S Y W R T A N O E W L IS W D S K A o C MA S P

F B S T O O o N V W Y E S V E O R U L M T E R K A H B P TE WARD ST U L E A

K I H D D R E C A S B S

P O Y

S S C

T N O O

S O

M R W S O S U V T F V H A

T T D y y B P k T N V O I A

W M r

G r E M D A G S E K R S IBBE r L E ST A A T L OLN S R

C C S R

a a N LI Y N Park

E B L O T

t t S N S E a N A T S R Y N ST T S SO C L A ER I F D S N JEF I T H O W C E

E M O V e I T e V O IL U T U M U E O A O N T H P F K E H H A C T M S T E Y

S E

L m S S tary m O e F W S Cem IS T V N S A East Coast Greenway. E S R iQuilt. I • N The East Coast Greenway is an • The iQuilt initiative is an effort to knit together Hart-

R e M R T

e e T E O H V R N L M S M S T A A A G I H D V O

G C R p C S Y Y S K O O T LE N PL E E R S A AL E A STONINGTO P ST R B N S W T A E T N O E L DIS E Colt Park K F S o S C MA X E T B G T M E S E U R M T D K HPA TER K S A O A E ANE S T IN RBISON AV RK ST E C V A S E D B P T N S S L LDE R r S A R iveS A L S U ST F A O RNON T T C w E N initiativeE to link the major cities of the eastV T coast via a multi- ford’s cultural resources in support of economic growth and I LI GL T E M a E E V N S S y KIB DA NON S BE ST E W LE VER T A LN S R S V LINCO S Park B T L E T T L ST R M ON D H O ILT U AM U N T H T N ST ST A Y S S W Cemetary WO A IS AV T AR NNA E R V RME S D PL A OR WAWA T H use path extendingN from Maine to Florida. The alignment M S redevelopmentM within the Capitol District. S iQuilt is co-led by R T S O O O LE N PL Y E S AL S L P V E T E B E Colt Park A S X E E T G WIL D ST M S O T S N S E D D O T A K A KANE K N HARBISON AV BROWNELL AV TUC S T S T I W Y S C V R A T E N D L O P DE R r A L AL A ive A L R S P U P R NON ST LTA C w O B R for the Connecticut portion of the greenway travelsE through TheN Bushnell and the Greater Hartford Arts Council, with T E B V U L O T H D S IV NNER GLE COLTONIAL S S a W ST NDA S NON S y E L VER W E R T A V S E S S R T U E

N E S M T T N S N ST E N M OL B SCHO O S NARD ST T R A O AR S B I B N T I S A ARNOLD V ST T TO AN N L N V E W E W A Z A E Y A E R B N T M the I-84 ViaductE study area.D Many segments of this national involvementN S from a rangeR of state, city and private entities. S A A N T L P T AW B L O W LI W R D L L T E I

T T R S S A D I G E E N

O T S T E S IN L S ER V E H T R G CA E T O T S E A T S R D R TT T T W E S R I LS W N IO B K O o L T N R E D S A L

T A E K K O W S V ELL A C R E T ROWN U S B T S E T S Y R c T WZ N T D EN A N R C O P N trail areO moving forward, including a segment stretching from In considering replacement strategies for the I-84 Viaduct, E S A L B T A E M D R A S N A E k C ALL L S O R S P T S P A R R y T T T L K T B B ST U ON L ST E H D E A D NER COLONI R S S O W I ST S M S R IT T R H R T W E R U S K JU T S E

i E S N S S M T N d T S A Bolton to East Hartford. L T potentialT synergies may emerge with the iQuilt initiative. N ST ST S S E N M L I OL B g SCHO D OW U ST ON D S T A U O AV ROWN B NARD S MET U R A C O AR S H e I B B S S N U I C V P A ARNOLD ATB ST ST T TO L N L S N E F B IS E T Z E Y R R S B O T D E CU S N R N P S T E L T L T L B T S O AL W R LI R O D L T E L E I a RK T R ST A S D S A I NG B A G KI E E N r D O T D T INE S S ER E H k R T R G V CT A E S T O S T S T E S I R GH R TT M T U E I E R H W N IO B K o R L A EL X O W W S T Y D S WA R E OR T RIVE A S F T

E T V T T S D S c UN MO T L Z T N B N A E N M T RD T C N

O E

S S T E T S A L B

T T A N E M

S D R S R N T E E I k C S T

E LL S S

S A S D

A G

R O

S S

Y Y

N O O T I D T R IT E S DD E Y y

R D ID R

R R H T R H LA T O K V E F ST A D A E B A T A E

D K S E

N N C

C H R O ET R T K S

O N O I I N I BR KE MS R R S S R W TI

O I E

E E L T H R H F S A B

E W D

W W

K T R JU H I N H N S E i ST S

B L R

R S R EL S d N K L k SH T

D A

A U T A T L B L D L P r ST T STPIN ST S

I H

L H D A g R S D H W FO I C O F U N I N CL ST N O O D H U S a WN T B EA U T AV CRO ST ES M D C S R H e IS G T AN S S T P P IL U M O A C N B T R T P H A S

L S R F B IS V O T R S O R T Y A U D E N C N R P S L E N d Y T T L N T S S H B E L A O UR LL R R E T W E S a B W K P D

W IDGE n X T G ST OD BAR D V

L V O N B O A O S KI L O R I R C N a D r

F N N R D

A A T I E R

D E l O

O T T RP U V S I L I k E S A R R L

E V D T D D y S A N P M S

ES A H LA L L I GH L M AY M S I E T U E W T H I

D S H T E

IN S L P I

U I T X SEQ W N T Y A O D S W

A R E F

F P IV

T FO S R A T V S T UNT D O L V A E M

B A T M R R

T R T

I I E

S S T

T N P T

S R T E I T M

E S S T

A A S S

S S E T D

R A G

Y Y

O O S T I F D R IA ST F ITW T E S DD ON W S E Y

ANS E D ID R

R R H I H S LA O R V V A E T F A N T L D S A E B S G A T A H

K G S

N N C

C H S O A U ET DI R T

K O E E N S I I O N BR W D KE TAN S S R O R R I

O S E T E E L H W M F S L S A B T IV E ST D

R A

W W T

R H

H E H A H N I S IS C D N R B D L E N N M P T S N A TA S DS N I

B S L L R R R M L O S T U L E L K I N C K D L k H A G T S

S D L A

T A U T S R B S I L D H L B P N r V T S N N S I

O H T STI L T P C

H T H T T D D A Y S R S H G O I R I S I FF N C N I E N I L N H I N A L U C C E N O O L T L S a A T R D S W A T A M S D T S P O A ST E E S E C S W M R K B N S G R T N A D R TI P A E I M B L H O A E Y I N T T R R N S C N T G P X H E A E P T A I E S R H V R

D A E W O T I M A T L L S S H T Y W D T W A N S E E E V S I T D T V T R O T D D N d Y T B N R S H T A T B E R O I O R W S L S K R T L D L N U ST R R I B T E R S LT W E E S B E W P D N n N H V W B T E E X T SE D D G I O T D X I ID Y T U RO O

R V

E L V O N B O O N G O S D L L U O R S I ST R C S R N a D N H F S N R

A A T S S U T I L R E R

S E l O O

T S O M A T P U T LY T R L C V S I I P E E T E S A

R L T

E Y

D D D S S y A N U P M Y S Y H A A A L

L T L L T M Y A

M S A V T E W I T S

D S H T E E

E IN S P

V T L E I

U I T B T S L Q T T S N SE RE N S R V O S ME D R O E A O

E L N F F P S E M T A A N OW H IN T S C R L V Y R E A

P T

R R T

O R S I N I H

I P G IC L A H R V T M D O R S OO

A A

A G E U E T E E

T W S F

F W T N S O G T T W I S R G SONIA W E S G AN M D E N O I A S H R N V A T A N S T L H S I O S G T G S H G S S Y T A U N I T O D S E T T N E O A N W A D E T D E A M T R F E O T S S T E S M E S FR L LE W T S A O I Y T T T R V S C S S A E N R E T ST H A H S E S C D R H H I S A R R B C D L T N T N M P N A TA S M D D S N A I S L M M O S T U L L C K N I A D R A O H G T T T S S T L P M N S R E S M TO I H B L B U N V T V O T U S S B N G E O H S EM T F I L O C R T L T H T D H A A Y T A S S G R B S I S I N N R L N I E R I L I N A L C U E E N O O L S E T L T R A N W E R D B M S W A A R T M O A T S R A E E O S P C S E L W S M B T O K R N D R T A A A S D R O ON E H B I N T D H E Y T E T T N C S R S C N R T G N L I G S R A R X I P E E P T A G I S S T E N O H Y R T

D A T S W Goodwin Park A E T O I M S D U L A T L A S S T H E D T E N L W W D S E V E S V E S T R T S I T D S T V T R O T L D R B R D R T B T S A T E T R I T O W S Y O S K D D R A T

L N T ST R R I B S E S T T T S B Y S L EW N L N E S O V B T H E T C E T S SE E I O X T Y D I T U W RO E O E N R T O N G NT L D O U S O ST S M R S H S D T D S S R U O L R S IA O T R S M A T M ST O LY C A T S D P D T E HA E P IC D V S S ST T Y T Y U R L TE Y ST XE UE A A RA G E P D S T T O

M A V V S R E V T E

B T S L T T R S N E S R V OR S ME D R O E E L N S E M A T A N OW H D S IN T R D C FO R L

STAF Y R P S T O S N R H I G C I L A T H R V D O R OO E A G E U

E E

T W T G T N S S O S T G IN I TOL W TA R BRIS Y G N E G U M D O D N M O I A R A H N A S H R I O T G S W S Y T N T S TO T N A D WE A E T E M ST F E T S RION E S MA E V FR LE T S

I A O Y T R C S S E N EST R H R H S A R C T T

D M D A M

N A R O H T T S P M N E M LTO B U V T O U S B G E EM F O R L H H A A T A S B S N R L I R EL O S T E R N W E B M R T O A R E S C L S T O R D T A A S O ON N T D H T E C S R N L I G S R R I P G S T O N Y Goodwin Park ST A T O S D AU T E

N E L D V E S S T R S S T

L R B R

S T E T

Y A D ST T T S B Y S W L

S O C T ESE

T W E O T NT O MO S RD O RIA AM ST TO S DD HA P IC D ST V T TER L UE ST XE A PRA G E S O

V R

D ST S FOR D STAF S

T G TOL S T TAIN S BRIS Y UN MO D I A

W RION ST E MA V

D I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 11

Case Studies How do I-84 Traffic Volumes Compare The study team reviewed a wide range of comparable projects to Other Roads? from other communities to identify potential lessons that may NJ Turnpike, Newark, NJ 315,000 be relevant to the I-84 Viaduct project. This assessment uncov- George Washington Bridge, NY/NJ 300,000 ered a wide range of replacement strategies for urban highway I-95 Virginia/Washington DC 280,000 viaducts. Of particular interest were models that proposed alter- I-93/Big Dig, Boston, MA 190,000 native roadway formats such as boulevards and tunnels. I-84 Viaduct 175,000 Five projects that have either been completed, are currently I-195 Providence, RI 160,000 planned or are in the study phase are briefly reviewed here. Of Gardiner Expressway, Toronto, Ontario 120,000 these, only Boston’s I-93/Big Dig represents a project with traf- Alaskan Way Viaduct, Seattle, WA 100,000 fic volumes comparable to the I-84 Viaduct (see chart on this page for a comparison of volumes on the case study projects I-90 Mass Turnpike, Boston, MA 100,000 and other highways with the I-84 Viaduct). None of the high- I-291, Springfield, MA 80,000 ways reviewed integrates a rail corridor, which adds significant Syracuse I-81, NY 90,000 complexity to planning for the I-84 Viaduct, although Boston’s I-93, Concord, NH 70,000 Big Dig did consider including a rail corridor with the highway tunnel before eliminating rail for cost and technical reasons. Embarcadero Freeway, CA 60,000 Farmington Avenue, CT 15,000

Some general conclusions can be drawn from these projects: Note: daily traffic; all numbers are approximate; recorded years vary. Highways shaded above served as case studies. • Boulevard forms are most applicable to much lower volumes than the I-84 Viaduct. San Francisco’s Embar- cadero carried approximately 60,000 vehicles as a viaduct but only approximately 26,000 vehicles today as an attractive urban boulevard. Toronto is considering an 8-lane urban boulevard to replace portions of the Gardiner Expressway but even this roadway carries considerably less traffic than the I-84 Viaduct. 12 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford

• Tunnel models such as Boston’s Big Dig and Seattle’s proposed Alaskan Way Viaduct offer the potential for real San Francisco: Embarcadero transformations of surrounding urban environments. Tunnel • Served as a spur structures, however, typically involve order-of-magni- connecting to Bay Bridge tude higher costs than other alternatives. • Created barrier • For projects such as Syracuse’s, where replacement of between city and waterfront a viaduct with a surface boulevard is being consid- • Demolished in 1991 and replaced with an ered, the potential to transfer some current traffic to attractive surface boulevard other available highway corridors can be an impor- • Freeway carried tant consideration in determining feasibility. approximately 60,000 vehicles per day; replacement boulevard carries approximately 26,000 vehicles

Toronto: Gardiner Expressway

• Carries downtown traffic and some regional through traffic • Barrier between downtown and the waterfront • Approximately 120,000 vehicles per day • 8‐lane surface boulevard proposed as an alternative

Case studies provide valuable insights on potential replace- ments for the I-84 Viaduct. I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 13

Seattle: Alaskan Way Viaduct Syracuse: I-81

• Carries downtown and • Carries primarily regional through traffic through traffic; does not provide local access • Approximately 90,000 vehicles per day • Creates physical barrier between city and • Separates downtown waterfront from medical/ educational institutions • Approximately 100,000 vehicles per day • Onondaga Citizens League recently • Current proposal: supported concept of replace with a 4‐lane highway removal and bored tunnel that can replacement with a accommodate 80,000‐ surface boulevard 85,000 vehicles per day for approximately $4.2 • I‐481 seen as billion (state and local downtown bypass funds) option

Big Dig: Boston Central Artery • Like I‐84, carries regional through traffic and downtown traffic • I‐93 viaduct was long seen as a barrier between downtown, the waterfront and neighborhoods • Approximately 190,000 vehicles per day before project • Project increased roadway capacity through tunnel and surface boulevard • Highway in tunnel; surface boulevard carries local traffic • More than 20‐year construction period • Overall project cost $14.6 billion; state paid approximately $6 billion 14 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford

Upper Albany

Clay Arsenal

Asylum Hill

Asylum/Capitol Avenue I-84 Viaduct Interchange Study Area

Downtown West End

State Capitol

Sisson Avenue Frog Hollow Interchange

Parkville 91

84 I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 15 I-84 today he portion of I-84 that is the focus of this study extends 40‐50% of trips 5‐10% of trips for approximately ¾ mile near downtown Hartford, originate or end originate and end Tbetween the Asylum and Capitol Avenue interchange in Hartford in Hartford and the Sisson Avenue interchange. In 2006 ConnDOT com- missioned a detailed technical analysis of the condition of the I-84 Viaduct structure. This assessment identified the need for near term repair and a more comprehensive long term rehabili- THROUGH TRIPS tation strategy. HARTFORD Through Trips: 40‐50% Traffic and Transportation of trips pass through the • The I-84 Viaduct carries daily traffic volumes of 175,000 city but originate and end elsewhere. vehicles, making it Connecticut’s most heavily used highway. Approximately 45% of the vehicle trips on the Viaduct have origins or destinations in the City of Hartford; approximately • Eight ramps provide access to the highway in the study area 45% of the trips are regional with origins and destinations serving downtown Hartford, surrounding neighborhoods, the outside of the City of Hartford; approximately 10% of trips State Capitol complex, and major corporate campuses for have origins and destinations within Hartford. Of the regional Aetna, The Hartford, and other organizations. trips that pass through the city, approximately 2/3 are shorter • This section of I-84 is also one of the region’s most con- regional trips—for example a trip from East Hartford to West gested roadways. I-84 west of I-91 accounts for 53% of all Hartford; 1/3 of regional trips are longer trips. These longer delays on the region’s freeways. regional trips representing approximately 15% of overall • The Viaduct structure is in poor condition and requires traffic on the Viaduct are the most likely candidates for diver- frequent repairs involving significant expense. The state has sion to another highway corridor should such a strategy be initiated a repair program intended to stabilize the structure considered, and if necessary capacity is in place on other until a permanent replacement can be put in place. roadways. 16 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford

The Hartford 84

Church Street

Spring Street

ASYLUM Avenue Union Station

Farmington Avenue ASYLUM Street

Aetna

Bushnell park Aetna Sigourney Street Garage Courant

wthorn Street Ha

Broad Street Forest Street

Sisson Avenue Capitol Capitol Avenue

Russ Street

Hungerford Street

Laurel Street Capitol Avenue

84 I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 17 Other Key Factors and Constraints

• Regional transportation plans focus on major transit projects Busway is one lane between that will enhance access to Hartford’s core; regional initia- Sigourney 1 Track: ExistingExisting rail rail and Flower tives also focus on travel demand management (TDM) mea- (second track proposed)proposed) Union Station sures to reduce peak period congestion as well as vehicle

miles travelled (VMT). Several of these efforts are being Viaduct structure advanced collaboratively with major area employers. Even ends Viaduct with the success of those efforts, traffic volumes on the I-84 structure begins Viaduct will continue to be very high. begins • The Viaduct shares the corridor with a rail line providing Park River Conduit under EB section of Amtrak service and future proposed New Haven-Hartford- Viaduct Springfield commuter rail service. The rail line and the Other Key Factors and Constraints highway cross twice within the corridor, adding to the complexity of the design of the highway and associated access ramps. • The planned Hartford/New Britain Busway project will also be accommodated on a dedicated right of way through the I-84 corridor, located adjacent to the rail line. Two Busway stations are located within the corridor: the terminus at Union Station and a station adjacent to the Aetna campus on Haw- I-84 Viaduct at Park River ConduitOther Key Factors and C thorn Street. • Pedestrian and bicycle access through the I-84 Viaduct • Union Station, located within the I-84 Viaduct study area, study area is hindered by highway infrastructure that contrib- serves as a regional transportation hub for bus and Amtrak utes to hostile conditions for those modes. Pedestrian and intercity rail services. Union Station is envisioned as serving cycling options are key components of the emerging multi- an increasingly important role as a focus for transit-oriented modal network and should be prioritized accordingly. development (TOD) within the downtown area. • City streets provide access to I-84 and accommodate local • The Park River Conduit runs under a small section of the trips. Continued planning of these streets is essential to Eastbound I-84 Viaduct, approximately 700 feet east of achieve a balance between mobility and quality of life for the Sigourney Street. adjacent communities. These streets must accommodate the needs of all users and modes. 18 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford

Urban Design > Capitol Avenue, near the Sisson Avenue interchange, pass- • The Viaduct is widely considered to be a major barrier occupy- es below multiple highway ramps and the rail line, creating a ing a wide swath of land that divides Hartford, separating neigh- sharply defined barrier between surrounding neighborhoods borhoods from downtown and each other. The Viaduct crosses and downtown Hartford. major arterial roadways such as Capitol Avenue and the Farm- > The Sisson Avenue ramps occupy an excessively large ington Avenue/Asylum Avenue corridor, and other streets such land area, having originally been designed to connect with a as Sigourney Street, Broad Street and Laurel Street. future highway to the north that was never constructed. > At Asylum Avenue, viaduct structures for road and rail pass • The Viaduct structure and its environmental impacts including over the street. When combined with the three closely noise and air quality have created an unappealing urban envi- spaced highway ramps that connect to Asylum Avenue the ronment, that extends beyond the footprint of the highway. result is an unattractive “no man’s land” that has limited • Much of the land around the highway is underutilized, used appeal as a pedestrian environment. Consequently, the primarily for surface parking lots. highway creates a great divide between the major employ- • The Viaduct structure is visually unappealing and in a state of ment centers of Aetna and The Hartford with more than poor repair. 10,000 employees and the nearby downtown core, limiting Economic Development the potential synergies between these corporate campuses The success of the Hartford economic region is largely depen- and the downtown as a whole. dent on its access and relationship to the metro centers of Boston > At Broad Street, the Viaduct structure and associated ac- and New York. From an inter-regional perspective, I-84 is a cess ramps create an inhospitable pedestrian environment critical truck and auto corridor linking Hartford to the New York between the highway and Farmington Avenue, making a and Boston metro areas. From an intra-regional perspective, I-84 walk from Asylum Hill to downtown or Frog Hollow a chal- provides customer and employee access to downtown Hartford, lenging experience. St. Francis Hospital, and the corporate campuses of Aetna and > At Sigourney Street, crossing the highway as a pedestrian The Hartford. is more appealing than at Asylum or Broad streets, but the combination of the overhead Viaduct, an elevated street The Hartford region is challenged by negative perceptions of over the rail line, and two highway access ramps creates the downtown core. I-84 Viaduct contributes to the downtown’s its own challenges to establishing an appealing pedestrian economic challenges because it experience. I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 19

1) Separates major regional employers from the downtown, Market Access Criteria 2) Establishes a barrier between neighborhoods such as • Maintains or enhances inter-regional east/west vehicular Asylum Hill, Clay Arsenal, Frog Hollow and the downtown, flow, particularly trucks. 3) Inhibits vehicular, pedestrian and bike connections that • Maintains or enhances intra-regional east/west vehicular contribute to quality of life and real estate value, and flow to support commuters. 4) Compromises the development potential of parcels ad- • Provides convenient access to St. Francis Hospital, Aetna jacent to it, particularly around Union Station—Hartford’s and The Hartford employees. multi-modal transportation center. • Enhances the functionality and effectiveness of alternative transit systems like the busways, commuter rail and the A key regional economic development objective for the Metro downtown circulator. Region is to attract and retain young, highly skilled workers. A Real Estate Development Criteria vital core, strong urban neighborhoods, transportation choices, • Supports the evolution of Union Station as a regional multi- and quality places are important factors to the young, discerning modal transportation center. workforce. Because the Viaduct structure and associated ramps • Increases and enhances the development opportunities create an inhospitable pedestrian environment, they contribute to within walking distance of Union Station in order to fully capi- downtown’s negative image. talize on transit-oriented development potential. • Creates development parcels suitable for residential and With proper planning, the reconstruction of the Viaduct can cre- commercial development. ate an urban framework that successfully re-stitches the Asy- lum/Farmington area back into the downtown, unlocks transit- Community Development Criteria oriented development potential and revitalizes Downtown West. • Establishes vehicular, pedestrian and bike connections that create a quality environment, reduce vehicle dependency The study team reviewed recent economic development as- and foster economic activity. sessments and analyses of the Hartford region to establish a • Reduces I-84’s impact as a barrier between nearby neigh- context for assessment of the I-84 Viaduct corridor. Based on borhoods (Asylum Hill, Clay Arsenal, Frog Hollow) and this review, the following economic development criteria—re- downtown and fosters community development in these lated to market access, real estate development and commu- neighborhoods. nity development—were established for evaluation of potential viaduct replacement concepts: 20 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford

Sisson

The Sisson Avenue ramps occupy an excessively large land area, having originally been designed to provide connection to a future highway to the north that was never constructed.

Capitol Avenue, near the Sisson Avenue interchange, passes below multiple highway ramps and the rail line, creating a sharply defined barrier between surrounding neighborhoods and downtown Hartford. I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 21

Sigourney

At Sigourney Street, the combination of the overhead viaduct, an elevated street over the rail line, and two highway access ramps creates its own challenges to establishing an appealing pedestrian experience. 22 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford

FLower

The Viaduct structure and its environmental impacts including noise and air quality have created an unappealing urban environment. Much of the land around the highway is underutilized, used primarily for surface parking lots. I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 23

Asylum/broad

The highway creates a great divide between the major employment centers of Aetna and The Hartford and the nearby downtown core, limiting the potential synergies between these corporate campuses and the downtown as a whole.

At Broad Street, the Viaduct structure and as- At Asylum Avenue and on Broad Street, viaduct sociated access ramps create an inhospitable structures for road and rail pass over the street. pedestrian environment between the highway When combined with the three closely spaced and Farmington Avenue, making a walk from highway ramps that connect to Asylum Avenue Asylum Hill to downtown or Frog Hollow a chal- the result is an unattractive “no man’s land.” lenging experience. 24 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford Alternatives

he purpose of the alternatives assessment was to con- Goals sider broad approaches to replacement of the I-84 Via- • Maintain or enhance transportation function Tduct and to evaluate at a preliminary level the potential • Reduce the visual and environmental impacts of the suitability of these approaches. This assessment considers highway the comparative strengths and weaknesses of alterna- • Promote a walkable, bikeable environment that supports tive approaches from economic development, transpor- transit use and enhance transit access tation, urban design and cost perspectives. Significant • Reconnect the city across the highway additional analysis and evaluation of options will be • Strengthen the downtown core needed to identify a final approach. This analysis pro- • Foster transit-oriented development around the Union vides a starting point for further more detailed assess- Station transit hub ment of replacement options to be undertaken over the coming years. Assumptions—Fixed elements

The study has involved assessment of a wide range of replace- • The highway remains essentially within its existing corri- ment alternatives in two cycles of study: dor—any major change in alignment was not considered • Preliminary Alternatives were developed in the initial because of likely community impacts phase of analysis. Based on public review and discussion • The rail line cannot be dropped vertically throughout the of these alternatives a second cycle of alternatives were corridor to a below-grade alignment considered. • Composite Alternatives were developed and analyzed in the second phase of analysis. The primary focus of this section is on the review of this second cycle of alternatives. I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 25

Preliminary Alternatives RAIL LINE

A baseline and four additional alternatives were developed and THE HARTFORD Rail and busway pass ASYLUM AVENUE Existing eastbound evaluated by the study team and through public review and below I-84 Viaduct barrel passes over Asylum

UNION discussion. The following alternatives were evaluated: Replace existing STATION viaduct and ramps with FARMINGTON AVENUE ASYLUM STREET enhanced structure • Enhanced Viaduct—Baseline STREET SIGOURNEY AETNA DOWNTOWN Shrink the size of the HARTFORD • Skyway Viaduct Sisson ramps—reclaim land; improve function COURANT • Boulevard

CAPITOL BROAD STREET BROAD • Tunnel CAPITOL AVENUE • Composite—Tunnel/Viaduct RUSS STREET CAPITOL AVENUE

I-84

RAIL LINE

SISSON AVEUE SISSON The matrix on this page provides a summary assessment of these alternatives. Two Preliminary Alternatives were not rec- ENHANCED VIADUCT— BASELINE ommended for future study: the Skyway Viaduct and Boulevard PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES | MARCH 25, 2010 concepts. A summary description of each alternative and key Enhanced Viaduct—Baseline assessment findings from the study team and discussions at a March public meeting are provided on the following pages. Replaces the existing Viaduct with a more visually

Urban Trans- Economic attractive viaduct structure that is less costly to Alternative Design portation Development Cost maintain. Enhanced Fair Good Fair $$ Viaduct Conclusion/Comment: Did not fully meet study goals; does Skyway Viaduct Fair Fair Fair $$$ not address conditions at the Asylum Broad/Capitol interchange

Boulevard Fair Poor Fair $$

Tunnel Very Good Good Very Good $$$$$

Composite Good Good Good $$$ Tunnel/Viaduct 26 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford

Create alternative new skyway New street Transition from highway viaduct; increase vertical Reconfigure ramps provides access to surface boulevard Rail line and clearances below structure; RAIL LINE between Asylum and along corridor RAIL LINE Create mixed-use busway pass reconfigure ramps; enhance local Broad; create mixed- development along use development below boulevard street capacity THE HARTFORD THE HARTFORD Asylum frontage on land vacated by ASYLUM AVENUE ASYLUM AVENUE ramps; I-84 skyway passes over Asylum Rebuild rail viaduct and

UNION UNION provide pedestrian and Rail and busway STATION STATION vehicular access below

pass below skyway FARMINGTON AVENUE FARMINGTON AVENUE ASYLUM STREET ASYLUM STREET

SIGOURNEY STREET SIGOURNEY

AETNA AETNA Remove ramps to DOWNTOWN Future DOWNTOWN re-establish Sigourney HARTFORD development HARTFORD as city street Shrink size of Sisson COURANT along Capitol COURANT ramps; transition from highway to surface boulevard Create new street

CAPITOL CAPITOL linking Asylum

BROAD STREET BROAD BROAD STREET BROAD CAPITOL AVENUE CAPITOL AVENUE and Capitol

RUSS STREET RUSS STREET CAPITOL AVENUE I-84 CAPITOL AVENUE Eliminate existing Increase capacity Capitol Avenue ramps RAIL LINE SISSON AVEUE SISSON AVEUE SISSON of Capitol Avenue I-84 Boulevard becomes mini-viaduct to link downtown Shrink the size of the RAIL LINE to clear rail line and connect to and Sisson ramps Sisson ramps—reclaim elevated section of Sigourney land; improve function SKYWAY VIADUCT BOULEVARD PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES | MARCH 25, 2010 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES | MARCH 25, 2010

Skyway Viaduct Boulevard NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDY NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDY

Replaces the existing Viaduct with a more visually Replaces the Viaduct with a high volume tree-lined attractive “Skyway” Viaduct that carries through urban street. traffic. Many existing ramps are removed; access Conclusion/Comment: Very poor from multiple perspectives; to the core is provided by interchanges at the edge need to cross rail line and location behind existing structures of the area. The Skyway is elevated higher above limits potential to create an attractive urban boulevard ground than the existing Viaduct to reduce its presence as a barrier that divides the city.

Conclusion/Comment: Limited local access prioritizes the needs of regional through traffic but does not adequately address Hartford’s access needs I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 27

Viaduct structure Create new parkland Create parkland and UNION removed and highway RAIL LINE and development over Rail line and RAIL LINE development over STATION relocated to tunnel highway on either side busway pass highway on either side of Asylum—bridge below viaduct of Asylum—bridge THE HARTFORD the divide THE HARTFORD the divide ASYLUM AVENUE ASYLUM AVENUE Relocate eastbound Relocate eastbound I-84 barrel to I-84 barrel to Rail line underneath Asylum underneath Asylum and busway UNION UNION TUNNEL ALTERNATIVE WITH STATION Replace existing viaduct STATION DEVELOPMENT ON ASYLUM/ FARMINGTON AVENUE with enhanced structure FARMINGTON AVENUE BROAD STREET PARCEL ASYLUM STREET ASYLUM STREET

SIGOURNEY STREET SIGOURNEY STREET SIGOURNEY

AETNA Remove ramps to AETNA Viaduct DOWNTOWN re-establish Sigourney DOWNTOWN Capitol Avenue removed from HARTFORD as city street HARTFORD experience improved by Sigourney SEE INSET Connect Sigourney to COURANT removal of viaduct COURANT new Sisson interchange Rebuild rail viaduct and provide pedestrian and

CAPITOL CAPITOL vehicular access below

BROAD STREET BROAD BROAD STREET BROAD CAPITOL AVENUE CAPITOL AVENUE Establish new street connecting Capitol Establish new street and Asylum connecting Capitol RUSS STREET RUSS STREET CAPITOL AVENUE CAPITOL AVENUE and Asylum

I-84 I-84 New development New surface streets RAIL LINE created behind Aetna RAIL LINE SISSON AVEUE SISSON along Capitol Avenue AVEUE SISSON and state buildings Shrink the size of the Shrink the size of the Sisson ramps—reclaim Sisson ramps—create land; improve function transition to tunnel TUNNEL COMPOSITE—TUNNEL/VIADUCT PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES | MARCH 25, 2010 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES | MARCH 25, 2010

Tunnel Composite—Tunnel/Viaduct

Replaces the existing Viaduct with a tunnel between Incorporates new development over the highway, Sisson and Asylum. New development would linking downtown and Asylum Hill. An enhanced occur over the tunnel on land formerly occupied viaduct structure would replace the existing Viaduct by the Viaduct. Existing ramp locations could be in the remainder of the corridor. maintained. Conclusion/Comment: Good benefits at reasonable cost Conclusion/Comment: Great benefits at high cost 28 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford

A New Variable: How could relocation of the rail line help? Eliminating rail/highway crossings TheRail rail lineline andand the highway highway cross cross twice ….. Eliminating highway crossings in two locations... couldcould have have major major benefits... benefits…..

Existing rail Relocated rail alignment alignment

New idea suggested at Public Workshop #2!

new variable that was incorporated quickly eliminated from consideration. Relo- because of significant grade changes in into the analysis of Composite cation of the rail line to the north side of the Asylum Street, relocation of the rail to A Alternatives was relocation of the highway corridor offered potentially significant the north would allow rail to pass below rail line within the study area in order to avoid benefits and the study team incorporated this instead of above the street crossings of the highway and the rail cor- variable in two of the four options reviewed. • Removal of the rail viaduct from the edge ridor. Several participants in a March public Five potential benefits are particularly notable: of Bushnell Park workshop raised this possibility, and the study • Enhanced rail geometries that offer opera- • Potential replacement of the highway team committed to evaluate potential benefits. tional and safety improvements Viaduct with a surface roadway, offering Options that locate the rail line both north and • Elimination of the rail viaduct over Asylum potential construction cost and ongoing south of I-84 were initially considered. The Street removing vehicular clearance con- maintenance savings southside relocation offered limited benefits, cerns and also enhancing visual connec- • Simplification of highway access ramps to created significant new challenges and was tions between Asylum Hill and downtown; Capitol Avenue I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 29

Composite Alternatives The narrative and concept sketches on the following pages Following discussion and evaluation of the Preliminary Alterna- provide a description and assessment of each alternative tives, the study team developed four Composite Alternatives: from transportation, urban design, economic development, three alternative concepts and a baseline. and cost perspectives. Cost analysis is provided in terms of a “cost factor”. The baseline alternative is given a cost of 1.0 Two of the alternatives incorporate enhanced viaduct struc- and other alternatives are expressed in terms of costs rela- tures; one alternative involves a surface roadway; and one al- tive to the baseline. Additional discussion of cost is provided in ternative relocates the highway into a tunnel structure through- the section entitled Comparative Assessment of Alternatives. out the corridor.

The Composite Alternatives are as follows: • Baseline—Enhanced Viaduct: Highway replaced with enhanced viaduct structure • Alternative Concept 1: Highway replaced with enhanced viaduct structure; improved connections across highway • Alternative Concept 2: Viaduct replaced by surface roadway; rail line relocated to north side of I-84; city reconnected across highway • Alternative Concept 3: Viaduct replaced by tunnel; rail line relocated to north side of I-84; city reconnected across highway 30 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford Baseline—Enhanced Viaduct Highway replaced with enhanced viaduct structure

The Baseline Alternative would replace the existing structure with a new viaduct. The replacement structure would incorporate a more attractive, lower maintenance design. Other notable changes include a redesign of the Sisson Avenue interchange to a more compact format with better local street connections. West Boulevard would be extended across Sisson Avenue to connect to Hawthorn Street while also providing access to new highway ramps. The Asylum/Broad Street portion of the highway would be largely unchanged. I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 31

Baseline—Enhanced Viaduct Highway replaced with enhanced viaduct structure

SISSON/WEST BOULEVARD SIGOURNEY ASYLUM/BUSHNELL PARK • New more compact interchange replaces Sisson • Rebuilt I-84 Viaduct continues • Highway repaired/rebuilt in current configuration interchange to pass over Sigourney Street; • Streetscape improvements to enhance character • Some land freed for development around former Sigourney ramps rebuilt in of local streets interchange existing configuration • Enhanced local street connections • Highway function provided in rebuilt Viaduct structure • Capitol Avenue and Laurel Street pass under between Broad Street and I-84 Viaduct Sisson interchange • New West Boulevard extension connects to Hawthorn Street

RAIL LINE

Development opportunity THE HARTFORD SPRING STREET SPRING I-84 Transit-oriented development (TOD) opportunity

New/rebuilt local streets CHURCH STREET

UNION ASYLUM AVENUE STATION

ASYLUM STREET FARMINGTON AVENUE

SIGOURNEY STREET SIGOURNEY

AETNA DOWNTOWN HARTFORD BUSHNELL PARK

AETNA COURANT GARAGE

I-84

FOREST STREET

BROAD STREET CAPITOL

HAWTHORN STREET CAPITOL AVENUE N

SISSONAVEUE

E RUSS STREET S

LAURELSTREET

WEST BOULEVARD EXTENSION T

L E HUNGERFORD STREET V A R D / L A CAPITOL AVENUE U R E L CONNECTOR

Preliminary Concept for discussion only All highway, ramp, surface street and rail alignments as well as the type and location of all development are preliminary and subject to extensive additional review and analysis.

RAIL LINE BASELINEI-84 VIADUCT STUDY I-84 HIGHWAY REPLACED WITH ENHANCED VIADUCT STRUCTURE NOTE: All highway access ramp locations are preliminary and subject to extensive PRELIMINARY FOR DISCUSSION | SEPTEMBER 2010 additional interim review and analysis. 32 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford

Baseline—Enhanced Viaduct Highway replaced with enhanced viaduct structure

REBUILT VIADUCT BETWEEN BROAD AND SISSON

Farmington Asylum The Capitol Avenue Armory Aetna Avenue Avenue Hartford

State Bushnell Existing Rail Asylum Union Existing Capitol Park viaduct Street Station Viaduct I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 33

Baseline—Enhanced Viaduct Highway replaced with enhanced viaduct structure

Assessment Urban Design Transportation Economic Development Cost Description Assessment Assessment Assessment Factor Overview: Replaces the POOR GOOD FAIR 1.0 existing Viaduct with a more visually attractive More attractive, visually Enhanced Viaduct maintains Access to Markets viaduct structure that is appealing viaduct design. existing function of highway. • Inter-Regional Access – Good less costly to maintain. Redesign provides an opportunity to • Intra-Regional Access – Good Redesign of Sisson ramps modestly address some safety and operational • Convenient Access to Anchors – Good Sisson Avenue: Reduce size improves character of Capitol Avenue deficiencies. (except to the Capitol) of ramps. connection to downtown. • Enhances Functionality of Other Sigourney: Maintain existing As no significant changes are Forms of Transportation – Poor ramps to Sigourney Street. incorporated between Broad and Asylum, No major improvements to encourage (neighborhoods are cut-off resulting in this alternative does not reduce the multi-modal transportation, travel poor bike and ped access) Asylum: Maintain existing sense of a barrier between downtown, demand management, and/or a reduction ramps; improve sidewalks/ Real Estate Development Asylum Hill and the Farmington Avenue in overall vehicle miles travelled. • Union Station Multi-Modal streetscape on Asylum and corridor. Broad; I-84 and rail viaduct Functionality – Poor (Viaduct acts as remain in existing location over a barrier compromising bike and ped Asylum. connections) • TOD Potential – Poor (limited land available for transit-oriented development)

Community Development • Connections – Poor (unattractive pathways; highway cuts off Asylum Hill, Clay Arsenal, and Frog Hollow from each other and downtown) • Opportunities for Land Use Synergy – Poor (the Viaduct acts as a barrier that separates the activity north and south of the highway) 34 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford Alternative Concept 1 highway replaced with enhanced viaduct structure: improved connections across highway

Alternative Concept 1 would replace the existing struc- bring new life and vitality to the area, improving its pedestrian ture with a new viaduct. The replacement structure would character and strengthening linkages across the highway corri- incorporate a more attractive, lower maintenance design. dor. Approximately 350,000–500,000 square feet of mixed-use, transit-oriented development could be located here. This alternative would incorporate major changes to the Asy- lum Avenue and Broad Street areas. A new local street—the This alternative eliminates the Sigourney Street highway Asylum/Broad Connector—would link Broad Street and Asylum ramps, replacing these with access from a redesigned inter- Street adjacent to the existing rail viaduct. A New Connector change towards Sisson Avenue. Road would link this street below the rail viaduct to Capitol Avenue. The eastbound barrel of I-84 that currently passes Redesign of the former Sisson Avenue interchange would result over Asylum would be relocated to below street level, enhanc- in a more compact format with better local street connections. ing the visual continuity of the street. New development over West Boulevard would be extended across Sisson Avenue to the highway on the approximately 8-acre triangular parcel of connect to Hawthorn Street while also providing access to new land between Asylum/Broad Street and the rail viaduct would highway ramps. I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 35

highway replaced with enhanced viaduct structure: Alternative Concept 1 improved connections across highway

SISSON/WEST BOULEVARD SIGOURNEY ASYLUM/BUSHNELL PARK • New more compact interchange replaces Sisson • Rebuilt I-84 Viaduct continues • Asylum Street view corridor partially • New Connector Street connects interchange to pass over Sigourney Street; reopened by removal of I-84 overhead Capitol Avenue and Asylum Street • Some land freed for development around former Sigourney ramps removed— structure: I-84 eastbound barrel • New Connector Street links Broad interchange any closure of these ramps relocated to below Asylum Street; rail Street and Asylum Street would need to assure access viaduct continues to be a visual and • Enhanced local street connections to major employers physical barrier • Character of Asylum and Broad Streets enhanced as pedestrian • Capitol Avenue and Laurel Street pass under • Highway function provided • I-84 Highway access maintained—four I-84 Viaduct streets through new development in rebuilt Viaduct structure ramps provide EB/WB connections at streetedge and streetscape • New West Boulevard extension connects to between Broad Street and • 8 acres of new usable land created/ improvements Hawthorn Street Sisson interchange freed for development and open space

RAIL LINE Development opportunity THE Existing highway HARTFORD STREET SPRING I-84 Transit-oriented development I-84 passes exit to Asylum (TOD) opportunity under Asylum New air-rights development Existing rail viaduct New/rebuilt local streets CHURCH STREET

UNION ASYLUM AVENUE STATION Replacement I-84 New I-84 access highway viaduct ramp

ASYLUM STREET

Sigourney ramps FARMINGTON AVENUE R O removed; full interchange T SIGOURNEY STREET SIGOURNEY C at Sisson; any closure E N N of ramps would have to O C assure access to major D AETNA A O DOWNTOWN employers R /B M HARTFORD LU ASY NEW BUSHNELL PARK

AETNA COURANT GARAGE

I-84

FOREST STREET Potential for new development BROAD STREET CAPITOL

HAWTHORN STREET CAPITOL AVENUE NEW CONNECTOR STREET

New Broad Street

I-84 ramps N

SISSONAVEUE

E RUSS STREET S

LAURELSTREET

WEST BOULEVARD EXTENSION T

L E HUNGERFORD STREET V A Capitol Avenue R D connects below / New L A interchange reconstructed CAPITOL AVENUE U R E I-84 viaduct L CONNECTOR

Preliminary Concept for discussion only All highway, ramp, surface street and rail alignments as well as the type and location of all development areI-84 preliminar VIADUCTy and sub STUDYject to extensive additional review and analysis. RAIL LINE ALTERNATIVE 1

I-84 HIGHWAY REPLACED WITH ENHANCED VIADUCT STRUCTURE; IMPROVED CONNECTIONS ACROSS HIGHWAY NOTE: All highway access ramp locations are preliminary and subject to extensive PRELIMINARY FOR DISCUSSION | SEPTEMBER 2010 additional interim review and analysis. 36 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford

highway replaced with enhanced viaduct structure: Alternative Concept 1 improved connections across highway

REBUILT VIADUCT new MIXED USE BETWEEN BROAD development AND SISSON over highway

Farmington Asylum The Capitol Avenue Armory Aetna Avenue Avenue Hartford

State Bushnell Existing Rail Asylum Union Existing Capitol Park viaduct Street Station Viaduct

New connector road i-84 eastbound barrel adjacent to rail viaduct passes below Asylum I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 37

highway replaced with enhanced viaduct structure: Alternative Concept 1 improved connections across highway

Assessment Urban Design Transportation Economic Development Cost Description Assessment Assessment Assessment Factor Overview: Incorporates FAIR/GOOD GOOD GOOD 1.2 new development over the highway, linking New development over the Maintains existing highway Access to Markets downtown and Asylum highway at Asylum and Broad function. Redesign provides an • Inter-Regional Access – Good Hill. An enhanced viaduct brings new vitality to the area opportunity to addresses safety and • Intra-Regional Access – Good structure would replace and strengthens connections operational deficiencies. • Convenient Access to Anchors – Fair between Asylum Hill, Union (Sigourney ramps removed) New street connection between, Capitol the existing structure Station and downtown. Rail Viaduct • Enhances Functionality of Other in the remainder of the over Asylum and along Bushnell Park Avenue and Asylum Street/Union Station Forms of Transportation – Good (to corridor. continues to form a barrier between strengthens downtown street network. the extent that streets and paths can districts north and south of corridor. Better access to Union Station, be developed over the highway, the Sisson Avenue: Reduce size streetscape enhancements, and attractiveness of alternative modes will of ramps; strengthen local street Lower noise levels than existing highway be enhanced) in Asylum/Broad Street area. improved local connections encourage connections between ramps and multi-modal transportation, travel downtown/corporate campuses. Real Estate Development Redesign of Sisson ramps modestly demand management, and/or a reduction • Union Station Multi-Modal Sigourney: Remove Sigourney improves character of Capitol Avenue in overall vehicle miles travelled. Functionality – Good (Union Station connection to downtown. Street ramps; strengthen Note: Feasibility and adequacy of all is more visible from the north and connections between Sisson More attractive, visually appealing highway ramp locations will require will be better connected to the major ramps and downtown/corporate viaduct design. further analysis in subsequent phases employers to the north via infill campuses through new and of study. development on top of the depressed improved street connections. Elimination of Sigourney ramps improves highway) identity of street and pedestrian • TOD Potential – Good (increases the Asylum: Relocate eastbound environment. amount of developable land for transit- highway barrel under Asylum; oriented development near the station) create new street linking Asylum/ Union Station and Capitol. Rail Community Development Viaduct over Asylum remains • Connections – Good (development as is. on top of the highway at Asylum could connect the north and south side Capitol Avenue connects of the highway, which is very good; below the new highway viaduct. connections are not enhanced in the viaduct section of the highway • Opportunities for Land Use Synergy – Good (development on top of the highway at Asylum could connect the north and south side of the highway, which is excellent; land use synergy is not enhanced in the Viaduct section of the corridor) 38 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford Alternative Concept 2 viaduct replaced by surface roadway; rail line relocated to north side of I-84; city reconnected across highway

Alternative Concept 2 would replace the viaduct area as a whole. A New Street would link the boulevard to with an at-grade roadway through much of the cor- Broad Street and could include highway access ramps. ridor. This is made possible by relocation of the rail line to the north side of the I-84 corridor. Instead of crossing the New development and open space on the approximately 15- I-84 corridor twice within the study area, the rail line remains acre parcel of land of land between Asylum/Broad Street and on the north side of the highway throughout the corridor. the rail viaduct would bring new life and vitality to the area, Because of the existing steep gradient of Asylum Avenue, improve its pedestrian character, and dramatically strength- relocation of the rail line means it would now pass under en linkages across the highway corridor. Approximately Asylum, eliminating the rail viaduct as a physical and visual 1,000,000-1,500,000 square feet of mixed-use, transit-ori- obstruction to the Asylum Avenue corridor. The eastbound ented development could be located here. New open space barrel of I-84 that currently passes over Asylum would also within this area could accommodate a new pedestrian path be relocated to below street level further enhancing the visual from Asylum Hill to downtown and the Capitol complex. continuity of the street. A new rail annex to Union Station would be developed across Spruce Street from the station to Between Broad Street and the Sisson Avenue interchange, access the relocated rail line. the highway would be constructed at grade and would parallel the rail line. This alternative would incorporate major changes to the Asylum/Broad Street areas and along Bushnell Park. The rail Redesign of the former Sisson Avenue interchange would viaduct is removed from the edge of the park. A New Park result in a more compact format with better local street con- Boulevard would connect between Capitol Avenue and Asylum nections. West Boulevard would be extended over the high- Street bringing new activity that enlivens this edge of Bushnell way and link directly to Capitol Avenue while also providing Park allowing it to be far better integrated with the downtown access to new highway ramps. I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 39

Viaduct replaced with surface roadway; rail line relocated to north side of I-84; Alternative Concept 2 city reconnected across highway

SISSON/WEST BOULEVARD SIGOURNEY ASYLUM/BUSHNELL PARK • New more compact interchange replaces Sisson • Highway that currently • Asylum Street view corridor opened • Rail viaduct removed from Bushnell • New Street created linking Broad interchange passes over Sigourney Street by removal of overhead structures: Park edge; rail corridor relocated to Street and New Park Boulevard • Usable land freed for development or open space relocated to pass at grade I-84 eastbound barrel relocated to north side of I-84 • Character of Asylum and Broad including air-rights development over highway below elevated street; existing below Asylum Street; relocated rail line • Union Station annex developed Streets enhanced as pedestrian between Sigourney and Laurel Streets highway ramp access from passes below street opposite station to provide rail station streets through new development Sigourney maintained • Enhanced local street connections • I-84 Highway access maintained—four access; bus services remain in existing at streetedge and streetscape • Highway located at grade ramps provide EB/WB connections station improvements • Laurel Street passes over I-84 between Broad Street and • 15-20 acres of new usable land • New Park Boulevard strengthens local • Church Street connection below I-84 is • New West Boulevard extension created east of Sigourney; could be slightly created/freed for development and street grid, connects Capitol Avenue closed Sisson Avenue; this new street connects over I-84 depressed between Sigourney open space and Asylum Street and enhances and connects to downtown/Frog Hollow via Capitol and Laurel access to the Park Avenue

New/replacement New ramp passes Development opportunity I-84 access (exit) ramp THE over rail line Relocated rail line HARTFORD STREET SPRING Transit-oriented development (under Asylum) (TOD) opportunity New I-84 Union Station New/rebuilt local streets access ramps I-84 expansion CHURCH STREET

UNION ASYLUM AVENUE STATION Rail viaduct removed—opens Relocated rail line up visual connections between downtown/Asylum Hill/ Farmington Avenue ASYLUM STREET

FARMINGTON AVENUE

SIGOURNEY STREET SIGOURNEY

AETNA DOWNTOWN HARTFORD BUSHNELL Highway PARK alignment moved NEW STREET closer to rail line AETNA COURANT GARAGE

Potential Potential for new I-84 REPLACEMENT AT-GRADE FOREST STREET for new development development (former access BROAD STREET CAPITOL ramp location)

E NEW PARK BOULEVARD HAWTHORN STREET D CAPITOL AVENUE RA

-G N T

A E SISSONAVEUE T

W N I-84 passes under E W M Sigourney

E E

S C

T A

L B P RUSS STREET O E

LAURELSTREET U R New I-84 L E 4 V 8 access ramps WEST BOULEVARD EXTENSION A - R I D / L HUNGERFORD STREET A U R E L C O CAPITOL AVENUE NNECTOR New interchange New development including air-rights Preliminary Concept for discussion only Capitol Avenue All highway, ramp, surface street and rail alignments as well as the rerouted to connect to West Boulevard type and location of all development areI-84 preliminar VIADUCTy and sub STUDYject to extensive additional review and analysis. RAIL LINE ALTERNATIVE 2

I-84 VIADUCT REPLACED BY SURFACE ROADWAY; RAIL LINE RELOCATED TO NORTH SIDE OF I-84; CITY RECONNECTED ACROSS HIGHWAY NOTE: All highway access ramp locations are preliminary and subject to extensive PRELIMINARY FOR DISCUSSION | SEPTEMBER 2010 additional interim review and analysis. 40 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford

Viaduct replaced with surface roadway; rail line relocated to north side of I-84; Alternative Concept 2 city reconnected across highway

Rail line relocated to north of i-84 becomes i-84; passes below asylum at-grade roadway

Farmington Asylum The Capitol Avenue Armory Aetna Avenue Avenue Hartford

State Bushnell Asylum Union Capitol Park Street Station

New park boulevard new mixed-use Union Station i-84 eastbound links capitol Avenue to development and rail annex passes below Asylum Street parkland over Asylum highway connects city back together I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 41

Viaduct replaced with surface roadway; rail line relocated to north side of I-84; Alternative Concept 2 city reconnected across highway Assessment Urban Design Transportation Economic Development Cost Description Assessment Assessment Assessment Factor Overview: Incorporates GOOD/ GOOD VERY GOOD 1.0 new development over the highway, linking down- VERY GOOD town and Asylum Hill. An New development over the Maintains existing highway Access to Markets at-grade highway would highway at Asylum and Broad function. Redesign provides an • Inter-Regional Access – Good replace the viaduct in the brings new vitality to the area opportunity to addresses safety and • Intra-Regional Access – Very Good remainder of the corridor; and strengthens connections operational deficiencies. (more intelligible street grid and ramps system) between Asylum Hill, Union rail viaduct removed over New street connection between, Capitol • Convenient Access to Anchors – Good Station and downtown. Removal Asylum and along Bushnell Avenue and Asylum Street/Union Station • Enhances Functionality of Other of rail viaduct over Asylum and Forms of Transportation – Very Good strengthens downtown street network. Park and relocated to north along Bushnell Park significantly (to the extent that streets and paths of I-84. improves connections across At grade highway between Broad Street can be developed over the highway, the attractiveness of alternative modes highway and enhances access and Sisson Avenue results in lower cost Sisson Avenue: Reduce size will be enhanced) of ramps; strengthen local street and character of Bushnell Park. over viaduct alternative and also results connections between ramps and in reduced long term maintenance costs. Real Estate Development Lower noise levels than existing highway • Union Station Multi-Modal downtown/corporate campuse. in Asylum/Broad Street area and Better access to Union Station, Functionality – Very Good (Union Sigourney: Maintain Sigourney potentially between Sigourney Street streetscape enhancements, and Station is visible from the north Street ramp access; strengthen and Laurel Street where highway may be improved local connections encourage and will be better connected to the depressed. multi-modal transportation, travel major employers to the north via infill connections between Sisson development on top of the depressed demand management, and/or reduction ramps and downtown/corporate Redesign of Sisson ramps and highway) campuses through new and placement of Capitol Avenue over (not in overall vehicle miles travelled. • TOD Potential – Very Good (increases improved street connections. the amount of developable land near under) highway modestly improves Note: Feasibility and adequacy of all character of Capitol Avenue connection the station); removal of rail viaduct Asylum: Relocate eastbound highway ramp locations will require from edge of Bushnell Park enhances to downtown. highway barrel under Asylum; further analysis in subsequent phases development opportunities, with create new street linking Asylum/ Sigourney passes over (not under) of study. potential to activate park Union Station and Capitol. Rail highway resulting in modest Community Development viaduct is relocated to below Asy- improvement to identity of street and • Connections – Very Good lum and away from Bushnell Park. pedestrian environment. (development on top of the highway at Asylum could connect the north Capitol Avenue/West Bou- New at-grade I-84 roadway between and south side of the highway, which levard Extension: Capitol Broad Street and Sisson Avenue reduces is very good; connections are not Avenue extends from downtown, the visibility of the highway. The potential significantly enhanced in the at-grade passes over the highway and con- to slightly depress the highway between sections of the highway • Opportunities for Land Use Synergy nects to West Boulevard. Sigourney and Laurel could further – Good (development on top of the Union Station: Expansion/ reduce its visibility. highway at Asylum could connect the annex created to serve rail pas- north and south side of the highway, sengers. which is excellent; land use synergy is not significantly enhanced in the at-grade section of the highway) 42 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford Alternative Concept 3 viaduct replaced by tunnel; rail line relocated to north side of I-84; city reconnected across highway

Alternative Concept 3 would replace the viaduct with New development and open space on the approximately 15-acre a tunnel throughout the corridor. This alternative would in- parcel of land of land between Asylum/Broad Street and the rail clude relocation of the rail line to the north side of the I-84 corridor. viaduct would bring new life and vitality to the area, improve its Because of the existing steep gradient of Asylum Avenue, relo- pedestrian character, and dramatically strengthen linkages across cation of the rail line means it would now pass under the street, the highway corridor. Approximately 1,000,000-1,500,000 square eliminating the rail viaduct as a physical and visual obstruction to feet of mixed-use transit-oriented development could be located the Asylum Avenue corridor. The eastbound barrel of I-84 that cur- here and on adjacent land. New open space within this area could rently passes over Asylum would also be relocated to below street accommodate a new pedestrian path from Asylum Hill to down- level further enhancing the visual continuity of the street. A new rail town and the Capitol complex. annex to Union Station would be developed across Spruce Street from the station to access the relocated rail line. Between Asylum Between Broad Street and the Sisson Avenue interchange, the Street and Broad Street the rail line would be located below these highway would be accommodated in a tunnel and would parallel streets. West of Broad Street, the rail line would be located outside the rail line. Land over the tunnel could accommodate new devel- the tunnel and continue at grade, largely as it does today. opment or open space. Highway related noise would be significantly less than above grade highway alternatives. This alternative would incorporate major changes to the Asylum/ Broad Street areas and along Bushnell Park. A New Park Boule- Redesign of the former Sisson Avenue interchange would result in vard would connect between Capitol Avenue and Asylum Street a more compact design with better local street connections. West bringing new activity that enlivens this edge of Bushnell Park Boulevard would be extended over the highway and link directly allowing it to be far better integrated with the downtown area as a to Capitol Avenue while also providing access to new highway whole. A New Street would link the boulevard to Broad Street and ramps. could include highway access ramps. In this portion of the I-84 corridor, Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2. I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 43

viaduct replaced by tunnel; rail line relocated to north side of I-84; Alternative Concept 3 city reconnected across highway

SISSON/WEST BOULEVARD SIGOURNEY ASYLUM/BUSHNELL PARK • New more compact interchange replaces Sisson • Highway that currently • Asylum Street view corridor opened • Rail viaduct removed from Bushnell • New Street created linking Broad interchange passes over Sigourney Street by removal of overhead structures: park edge; rail corridor relocated to Street and New Park Boulevard relocated to covered tunnel; I-84 eastbound barrel relocated to north side of I-84 • Usable land freed for development or open space • Character of Asylum and Broad existing highway ramp access below Asylum Street; relocated rail line • Union Station annex developed Streets enhanced as pedestrian including air-rights development between Sigour- from Sigourney maintained passes below street ney Street and Laurel Street opposite station to provide rail station streets through new development • Highway located in covered • I-84 Highway access maintained—four access; bus services remain in existing at streetedge and streetscape • Enhanced local street connections tunnel between Broad Street ramps provide EB/WB connections station improvements • New West Boulevard extension created east of and Sisson interchange • 15-20 acres of new usable land • New Park Boulevard strengthens local • Church Street connection below I-84 is Sisson Avenue; this new street connects over I-84 created/freed for development and street grid, connects Capitol Avenue closed and connects to downtown/Frog Hollow via Capitol open space and Asylum Street and enhances Avenue access to the Park

New/replacement I-84 RAIL LINE Development opportunity access (exit) ramp New ramp THE passes HARTFORD STREET SPRING Transit-oriented development over rail line (TOD) opportunity Relocated rail line I-84 (under Asylum) New/rebuilt local streets Union Station CHURCH STREET expansion

UNION ASYLUM AVENUE STATION Rail viaduct removed—opens Potential for New I-84 access up visual connections between new air-rights ramps downtown/Asylum Hill/ development over Farmington Avenue highway tunnel ASYLUM STREET FARMINGTON AVENUE

SIGOURNEY STREET SIGOURNEY

AETNA DOWNTOWN HARTFORD BUSHNELL Rail line located PARK on surface (not EL NEW STREET NN in tunnel) TU N COURANT AETNA T I GARAGE EN M Potential for new CE development LA EP (former access FOREST STREET 4 R Potential -8

ramp location) I BROAD STREET for new CAPITOL development

HAWTHORN STREET NEW PARK BOULEVARD

CAPITOL AVENUE

SISSONAVEUE W

I-84 passes W

E under Sigourney New I-84 S

T access ramps

B RUSS STREET O

LAURELSTREET U L E WEST BOULEVARD EXTENSION V A R D / L HUNGERFORD STREET A U R New mixed-use E L development including C O CAPITOL AVENUE NNECTOR New open space over interchange highway Capitol Avenue rerouted to connect to West Preliminary Concept for discussion only Boulevard All highway, ramp, surface street and rail alignments as well as the type and location of all development areI-84 preliminar VIADUCTy and sub STUDYject to extensive additional review and analysis. RAIL LINE ALTERNATIVE 3

I-84 VIADUCT REPLACED BY TUNNEL; RAIL LINE RELOCATED TO NORTH SIDE OF I-84; CITY RECONNECTED ACROSS HIGHWAY NOTE: All highway access ramp locations are preliminary and subject to extensive PRELIMINARY FOR DISCUSSION | SEPTEMBER 2010 additional interim review and analysis. 44 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford

viaduct replaced by tunnel; rail line relocated to north side of I-84; Alternative Concept 3 city reconnected across highway

Rail line relocated to north of Parkland over i-84; passes below asylum I-84 tunnel

Farmington Asylum The Capitol Avenue Armory Aetna Avenue Avenue Hartford

State Bushnell Asylum Union Capitol Park Street Station

viaduct replaced by tunnel; rail line relocated to north side of I-84; Alternative Concept 3 city reconnected across highway

Assessment Urban Design Transportation Economic Development Cost Description Assessment Assessment Assessment Factor Overview: Replaces the VERY GOOD GOOD VERY GOOD 3.0 existing viaduct with a tunnel between Sisson and Asylum. New development Elimination of viaduct provides flexibility Tunnel maintains existing Access to Markets would occur over the tunnel to enhance surface street highway function. Redesign provides • Inter-Regional Access – Good on land formerly occupied network and strengthen the an opportunity to address safety and • Intra-Regional – Very Good (more by the viaduct. Existing character of all major corridors operational deficiencies. Below-grade intelligable street grid and ramp ramp locations could be accessing downtown. alignment provides the flexibility to system) accommodate expanded capacity • Convenient Access to Anchors – Good maintained. Rail viaduct is New development over the without compromising surrounding urban • Enhances Functionality of Other highway at Asylum and Broad removed over Asylum and environment. Forms of Transportation – Very Good brings new vitality to the area along Bushnell Park and (to the extent that streets and paths and strengthens connections relocated to north of I-84. New street connection between Capitol can be developed over the highway between Asylum Hill, Union Avenue and Asylum Street/Union Station the attractiveness of alternate modes Sisson Avenue: Reduce size Station and downtown. Removal strengthens downtown street network. will be enhanced) of ramps; transition from surface of rail viaduct over Asylum and Better access to Union Station, highway to tunnel. along Bushnell Park significantly Real Estate Development improves connections across streetscape enhancements, and • Union Station Multi-Modal Sigourney: Maintain Sigourney highway and enhances access improved local connections encourage Functionality – Very Good (Union Street ramp access, strengthen and character of Bushnell Park. multi-modal transportation, travel Station is visible from the north local network to provide demand management, and/or a reduction and will be better connected to the connections to Sisson/Asylum Elimination of viaduct at Sigourney Street in overall vehicle miles travelled. major employers to the north via infill and Capitol ramps. enhances the street and opens up a development on top of the depressed visual connection between downtown/ highway) Asylum: Relocate eastbound Frog Hollow and Asylum Hill. • TOD Potential – Very Good (increased highway barrel under Asylum; Note: Feasibility and adequacy of all amount of developable land near the create new street linking Asylum/ Elimination of viaduct strengthens highway ramp locations will require station); removal of rail viaduct from Union Station and Capitol. character of Capitol Avenue as further analysis in subsequent phases edge of Bushnell Park enhances Rail viaduct relocated to below a gateway to downtown; new of study. development opportunities, with Asylum. development along former highway potential to activate park) land along Capitol strengthens the Community Development Capitol Avenue/West connection. Boulevard Extension: • Connections – Very Good Capitol Avenue extends from Noise impacts from highway (development on top of the tunnel downtown, passes over the would be significantly reduced could connect the north and south side highway and connects to West when compared with above grade of the highway) Boulevard. highway structures. • Opportunities for Land Use Synergy – Very Good (development on top of Union Station: Expansion/ the tunnel could connect the north and annex created to serve rail south side of the highway) passengers. 46 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford Comparative Assessment of Alternatives

his study offers a preliminary comparison of the proaches that can be further evaluated as a more detailed Concept Alternatives in terms of urban design, evaluation of replacement options is prepared in subsequent Ttransportation, economic development and cost fac- study of replacement options. Cost factors compare each tors. The purpose of this study is expressly not to identify a Alternative with the Baseline. preferred alternative. A much more comprehensive analysis of options than is possible within the limited scope of this The analysis suggests that Alternative 3, the tunnel op- effort would be needed to address all the factors that are tion, offers the most benefits. The cost of this alternative, necessary to reach such a designation. however, is very high relative to other options. This is fully consistent with national experience with comparable urban The comparative assessment offered here can be useful, highway tunnel projects. however, in identifying promising opportunities and ap-

Economic Urban Design Transportation Development Cost Factor Baseline Poor Good Fair 1.0

Alternative 1 Fair/Good Good Good 1.2

Alternative 2 Good/Very Good Good Very Good 1.0

Alternative 3 Very Good Good Very Good 3.0 I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 47

Alternative 2 offers nearly the same level of benefit as the The Baseline option adequately addresses highway needs tunnel option but at a considerably lower cost. Alternative 2 but rates poorly in terms of urban design and only fair in costs are considered to be comparable to the Baseline op- terms of economic development. tion but the benefits are much greater. The favorable costs associated with Alternative 2 are closely linked to its use of an at-grade highway form rather than a viaduct structure. It is important to note that this option requires relocation of the rail line within a portion of the corridor in order to be feasible. While such a relocation appears to offer benefits for both rail and highway projects, it would likely require that both projects be undertaken simultaneously rather than independent- ly. The feasibility of this approach will require further detailed analysis but its promise is significant.

Alternative 1 offers more benefit than the Baseline but less than Alternatives 2 or 3. It is likely to be more costly than the Baseline as it incorporates most elements of the Base- line (including a viaduct form) but also includes significant changes to the key Asylum/Broad Street areas that are not addressed in the Baseline. 48 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford

Creating 15–20 acres of new urban land: comparing hartford to other communities

Examples of urban redevelopment projects of comparable size Hartford in other cities include the following: • Providence’s Capitol Center and Waterplace Park (constructed adjacent to the city’s relocated inter-city and commuter rail station) have become important urban destinations for the city and region. The rail line passes below an open space that provides a link through the development, connecting the state Capitol to downtown Providence. Capitol Center includes a mix of office, residential, retail, Providence restaurants and a destination open space. • Boston’s Prudential Center is built over interstate I-90 and passenger rail lines, occupying land that was once a rail yard. Highway ramp structures are integrated with the surrounding urban environment. The Prudential Center complex incorporates a mix of office, residential, shopping, open space and recreational uses. The development serves to link the city’s Back Bay and South End neighborhoods. Nearby Back Bay Station incorporates inter-city rail, com- Boston muter rail, subway and bus services. I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 49

Urban Design—Comparing Alternatives comparable in terms of highway operations—but cost and The Baseline option offers limited urban design benefits. Alterna- feasibility issues will be different depending on the choice of tive 1 provides noticeable improvements over the Baseline. New a viaduct, tunnel or at-grade model. development over the highway along Asylum and Broad Streets, This report presents a range of in conjunction with relocation of the highway Viaduct to below the The alternatives show variations in alternative concepts for con- street, would strengthen connections across the highway corridor. highway ramp locations, which in many sideration, but it could equally Approximately 350–500,000 square feet of development could be instances seek to broadly mirror current be seen as offering a “toolkit” accommodated. Alternatives 2 and 3 offer dramatic opportunities ramp sites, but no specific analysis has of options that could be mixed to reconnect the city across the highway, while opening up 15–20 been done at this point to determine the and matched. Thus, in moving acres of urban land in close proximity to the Union Station transit adequacy of these locations to address toward to define the configura- hub. Development potential in the 1–1.5 million square foot range current or future needs. As the next tion of I-84 through the City of in conjunction with new open space could be incorporated. Much level of traffic analysis is undertaken in Hartford, individual elements of this land is in public ownership. Some of this land is located future studies, it most likely will result presented here could be com- over the highway but much of it would not involve air-rights in a wider range of potential ramp and bined in a variety of ways. development. Removal of the highway and rail Viaducts from interchange locations. It will be criti- the Asylum corridor would fully open the view corridor across the cal, however, to explore ramp locations highway, further strengthening connections between Asylum Hill and geometries that reflect the urban characteristics of the and downtown. surrounding city, and are located and designed in ways that are well integrated with the local street network, supporting The diagrams on the previous page compare the land area avail- a better-connected and more pedestrian and bike friendly able for development in Hartford around the Asylum and Broad environment. Ramps must also be sited to provide efficient corridors with major urban redevelopment projects over highway access from the highway to the area’s large employment and rail infrastructure in Providence and Boston. centers.

Transportation—Comparing Alternatives Construction staging requirements will also be complex and A detailed technical assessment of the effectiveness of each quite different for each alternative. Such requirements are a alternative in addressing transportation needs goes well key factor in shaping project cost and will be of key impor- beyond the scope of this study. The alternatives are broadly tance in future study phases. 50 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford

Alternatives 2 and 3 involve relocation of a portion of the essential link in the ECG but also further enhance the acces- rail. This action has the potential to substantially improve the sibility of downtown Hartford and its connection to adjacent cohesiveness of the city’s downtown while providing cost neighborhoods and surrounding towns. and operational efficiencies for development of rail and road infrastructure. Highway noise impacts related to Alternative 3 are notably better than the other alternatives. Alternatives 1 and 2 also The local street network varies between alternatives. Gener- offer improvements over the Baseline. ally, Alternatives 2 and 3 are most successful in strengthening the local network. Alternative 1 provides a meaningful level of Economic Development—Comparing improvement over the Baseline. The Baseline offers almost no Alternatives improvement over the current condition and is rated as poor in Each of the alternatives successfully preserves inter-regional this respect. access by maintaining Interstate functionality. In terms of Intra- Regional access, Alternatives 2 and 3 offer a more intelligible

Alternatives 2 and 3 have the best potential to promote multi- street network than exists today. Alternatives 2 and 3 are also modal transportation use, transportation demand manage- superior to the Baseline and Alternative 1 in terms of enhancing ment, and measures to reduce vehicle miles travelled. Alter- the functionality of other forms of transportation. The new de- native 1 offers an improvement over the Baseline. velopment and open space at Asylum will significantly improve pedestrian and bike links across the highway.

Prior planning efforts have identified the I-84 Viaduct corridor between Bushnell Park and Forest Street as the alignment for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 offer real advantages to Union Station’s the East Coast Greenway in Hartford. As alternatives for the functionality and transit-oriented development potential. All Viaduct are developed further and a preferred approach iden- three concepts result in Union Station being better linked both tified, additional work will be needed to determine the best visibly and physically to the neighborhoods to the north. All approach to locating the Greenway. Key factors will include three concepts result in the creation of developable land adja- the ultimate form of the highway and its relationship to the rail cent to the Station. Alternatives 2 and 3 create the potential for line. Whichever approach is ultimately selected, incorpora- 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 square feet of new development near tion of the Greenway in this location will not only provide an the multi-modal station. I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford | 51

In terms of each alternative’s impact on re-connecting neigh- Based on this assessment, cost factors were established for the borhoods, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are an improvement com- other alternatives, reflecting their relative complexity and expense pared to the existing condition and Baseline Alternative. Alter- when compared with the Baseline. Alternative 1 is estimated as a natives 1, 2, and 3 improve connections at Asylum. Alternative factor of 1.2 times the baseline cost. Alternative 2 is estimated as 3 is the best for improving neighborhood connections and a factor of 1.0 times the baseline cost. Alternative 3 is estimated land use synergy as development on the tunnel could connect as a factor of 3.0 times the baseline cost. neighborhoods north and south of the Highway.

From an economic impact perspective, Alternatives 2 and 3 create very valuable land with significant development potential. One to one and a half million square feet of development in this part of the downtown would result in $12 to $18 million in annual City property tax revenue. Because it does not require the construction of a tunnel, Alternative 2 is superior from an investment return perspective. Alternative 1 with 350–500 thousand square feet of development would result in $4 to $6 million in annual City property tax revenue.

Cost Assessment Only a very limited assessment of project cost was possible within the scope of this study. However, as some relative assessment of the cost of various project alternatives was desirable, the study team used a preliminary ConnDOT engineering analysis prepared between 1993–95 that is comparable to the Baseline alternative to evaluate construction quantities and staging requirements. 52 | I-84 Viaduct Study | Options for replacing I-84 viaduct in Downtown Hartford Review and Endorsement of Study Findings/Next Steps

Review and Endorsements of Next Steps Study Findings • Continued discussion with the City of Hartford, ConnDOT, • The study concluded with a presentation and discussion and CRCOG on project advancement. of study findings and recommendations at a major public • Coordination of study findings with ongoing planning forum, a Community Summit, held in October 2010. and implementation efforts such as One City, One Plan • Subsequent to the Community Summit, the study findings (Hartford’s Plan of Conservation and Development), the and recommendations received the following endorsements: New Haven-Hartford-Springfield commuter rail initiative, the > Hartford Planning and Zoning Commission – November New Britain-Hartford Busway, and CRCOG’s Long Range 16, 2010 Transportation Plan. > Hartford City Council – December 13, 2010 • Development of an overall project implementation approach > CRCOG Policy Board – December 15, 2010 and associated timeline by ConnDOT and its study partners. Key near-term concerns will be identification of funding and scope of work for the next phase of project development, environmental assessments, and engineering analyses.

Prepared in cooperation with the City of Hartford, the Capitol Region Council of Governments, and the Connecticut Department of Transportation. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the Steering Committee that served on the project and do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Connecticut Department of Transportation and / or the U.S. Department of Transportation.

For more information contact CRCOG at (860) 522-2217 or to go CRCOG’s website at www.crcog.org.

Suggested Citation: Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG), 2010. I-84 Viaduct Study, Hartford Final Report. CRCOG 241 Main Street, Hartford, CT 06106. www.crcog.org.