Springfield Developments

[DominusNovus]

I haven't seen anything on this in particular, but I was browsing through Springfield's Wikipedia history page and found this proposal:

http://www3.springfield-ma.gov/plan...ringfield_TAP_Presentation_FINAL_diagrams.pdf

and this:

http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/v...#search="miracle mile springfield mill river"

Basically, the gist is that running I-91 through the heart of Springfield and cutting it off from the river was 'a bad idea.' Apparently, the original plan was to route I-91 up through present day route 5, on the other side of the river, but the city figured that they wanted a highway between their city and the (then polluted) Connecticut River.

Now, looking at a map, 5 has the advantage of being mostly a controlled access highway in the applicable area (from where it joins I-91 on the South End Bridge, up to where they intersect near the Holyoke/W. Springfield line). The only problem is that, for the last mile or so, route 5 is most certainly not controlled access, and has a very sizable shopping complex that has grown up around it.

I came up with a quick plan to mitigate that problem that involves re-directing I-91 back onto route 5. Basically, I consider the shopping area on route 5 two separate sections; southern and northern.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msi...&ll=42.139605,-72.626882&spn=0.01537,0.035191

The southern section has to make do with being cut in half. Many of the businesses are situated between Elm St. and Riverdale St. (Route 5), so it is a 'simple' reorientation of the district to face Elm instead of Riverdale. Several of the car dealerships are cut off completely though.

The northern section is where things get a bit more interesting. Right around where Elm St. merges with Riverdale, there's a ridge that separates the higher ground that the residential area is on and the lower ground where the commercial area is. Basically, I propose running I-91 along this ridge as best as possible, thus avoiding cutting the shopping centers to pieces. Several office parks (the kind of one story, unorganized, flotsam and jetsom that always seem to spring up behind dense suburban shopping areas) will probably feel the brunt of the bulldozer, as will several row apartments.

After that, I just re-labeled the bridge over the river to be I-391, and have it run up through Chicopee as it does presently. Everything south of the Chicopee Curve (that interchange where my re-lable stops) can be repurposed. Admittedly, I-391 does to Chicopee what I-91 does to Springfield, but thats a trickier battle.

I really quickly looked at the map and put a suggestion for a re-orientation of I-391 that might work. I'm sure that green space there in Chicopee is there for a reason, though. However, it would mitigate one of the key problems in the area: the 'Chicopee Curve' is somewhat notorious for accidents, being a bit too sharp a corner for interstate speeds.

I then included two basic alternatives for bringing I-91 back into Springfield. At the moment, I'm liking my 'alt 2' proposal as it allows Springfield to maintain some direct access to 91, cuts off very little of the river, hooks right up to the I-291 interchange, and leaves route 5 while its still controlled access, rather than demolishing a fairly busy commercial district in West Springfield.

 

[Nexis4jersey]

You can boulevard both I-91 and US 5....I don't think Traffic levels are above 60,000 which what an Average boulevard in NYC and other cities handle. 291 can be cut back to Exit 4..... 391 can be cut back to Chicopee....all 4 Highways have bridges that are collapsing and need to be replaced , it would be better just to boulevard the highways or turn them into Urban Parkways like the Pictures below.


Summer on the West Side Highway, Manhattan, NYC by bozer★, on Flickr


New York State Route 9A by Dougtone, on Flickr


Bronx River Parkway - Southbound by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr

 

[DominusNovus]

I-91 is a pretty major highway. I'm not inclined to think that downgrading it to a boulevard is a good idea. I also don't see any reason to cut back 291. Work with the interstate, not against it...

 

[Nexis4jersey]

I-91 is a pretty major highway. I'm not inclined to think that downgrading it to a boulevard is a good idea. I also don't see any reason to cut back 291. Work with the interstate, not against it...

Why not , alot of cities are getting rid of thier highways , The I-91 viaduct like I-84 viaduct is collapsing....why not demolish it like New York and parts of DC have done....? Busy highways converted to Urban Boulevards....and 291 and 391 take up too much space and blight areas of Chicopee and Holyoke....along with having rotting bridges which are expensive to replace.

 

[DominusNovus]

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msi...&ll=42.09835,-72.590103&spn=0.061521,0.140762

I've gone through and highlighted the existing rail possibilities for the Springfield. My rule was that I would not go over anything that was not already/formerly laid track. My goal was to connect to various tourism/educational institutions, as my thoughts were that those were locations that would most benefit from rail. I've mostly failed in that goal, due to my constriction.

Tourism Hits:
- Basketball Hall of Fame
- Eastern States Exposition
- Westover Airport/Base
- Bradley International Airport

Tourism Misses:
- Six Flags

I've managed to miss pretty much every major school in the area, as well. But I have come close! Get me a judge and a bulldozer, and I can extend my lines right to the various campi...

Anyway, a note on two of my spurs: the Westover and East Longmeadow Spurs are both fairly well torn up/built over. I do remember, as recently the 90s, trains occasionally running along the Westover spur. The way that particular spur connects in a northerly orientation instead of southerly is somewhat awkward, perhaps a short tunnel under 391 would solve that issue.

I'm trying to figure out how to best connect to Umass Amherst and Six Flags. UMass might be the easier to do. The Norwottuck rail trail could be reverted to a rail line, which brings the line right to Amherst College. A spur could follow 116 directly into UMass.

Six Flags is a bit more difficult. It is directly across the river from a Wildlife refuge. If it weren't for that, it would be fairly direct to just build a spur from the main N/S line across the river, and right into the Six Flags parking lot. Doesn't seem to be much other way to go about it, though.

My final note: Look at the route that the North-South rail takes through Holyoke. That must be so damn scenic, even as rundown as that area is.

 

[DominusNovus]

Why not , alot of cities are getting rid of thier highways , The I-91 viaduct like I-84 viaduct is collapsing....why not demolish it like New York and parts of DC have done....? Busy highways converted to Urban Boulevards....and 291 and 391 take up too much space and blight areas of Chicopee and Holyoke....along with having rotting bridges which are expensive to replace.

291 is the most convenient way to get to Springfield from points east. It doesn't blight any part of Chicopee, as it runs through the outskirts. Meanwhile, 391 doesn't blight any part of Holyoke because it stops pretty damn abruptly right after crossing the river. Unless, of course, the area right next to the sewer treatment plant is an undiscovered gem. As for Chicopee, 391 certainly has a negative impact on Chicopee Center. However, it fits very well north of the Chicopee River, where it follows the ridge of the Willamansett Heights, a geographical feature which divides Aldenville and Fairview from Willamansett, regardless of whether there's an interstate there.

But what are you suggesting be done with 91? Have it stop south of Springfield and then just start back up north of it? I agree it doesn't make much sense to cut off a major urban location from the river as it does, but I have to imagine there will be plenty of communities between the Canadian border and long island sound who would prefer for the interstate to remain intact.

 

[Nexis4jersey]

291 is the most convenient way to get to Springfield from points east. It doesn't blight any part of Chicopee. Meanwhile, 391 doesn't blight any part of Holyoke because it stops pretty damn abruptly right after crossing the river. Unless, of course, the area right next to the sewer treatment plant is an undiscovered gem.

But what are you suggesting be done with 91? Have it stop south of Springfield and then just start back up north of it? I agree it doesn't make much sense to cut off a major urban location from the river as it does, but I have to imagine there will be plenty of communities between the Canadian border and long island sound who would prefer for the interstate to remain intact.

Turn it into a boulevard , from Exit 3 to Exit 12 , you can keep I-391 although the Chicopee Viaduct is going to have issues down the road. I-291 takes up to much space as it nears Downtown....theres no reason to waste that much space in an Urban area. Cutting it back to Exit 3 or 4 isn't going to harm Downtown Access which will still be there. I understand your concerns about I-91 , but once the New Haven-Springfield-Brattleboro Corridor is fully up and running even less people will be using it...why not convert it then? Some Ridership projections put this line above 50,000 daily riders , or higher...which would make converting I-91 in Springfield easier due to the lesser traffic volumes...

 

[DominusNovus]

Turn it into a boulevard , from Exit 3 to Exit 12 , you can keep I-391 although the Chicopee Viaduct is going to have issues down the road. I-291 takes up to much space as it nears Downtown....theres no reason to waste that much space in an Urban area. Cutting it back to Exit 3 or 4 isn't going to harm Downtown Access which will still be there. I understand your concerns about I-91 , but once the New Haven-Springfield-Brattleboro Corridor is fully up and running even less people will be using it...why not convert it then? Some Ridership projections put this line above 50,000 daily riders , or higher...which would make converting I-91 in Springfield easier due to the lesser traffic volumes...

I get it, you love intercity rail. But that ain't gonna fly. You can't just chop an interstate in half on the assumption that everyone's gonna be taking the train. That just doesn't work. Truck drivers do not take passenger rail. Military convoys do not take passenger rail. And, unless both their place of business *and* your residence are conveniently located near passenger rail, commuters aren't going to take it either. Sure, people can park-and-ride to hop on the train, but this is not Boston, where there's a heavy concentration of employers right near the rail stations.

Rail lines need to work in concert with highways, not just try to replace them. And its particularly pointless to suggest getting rid of the highway completely, when there's a viable route that solves the problem entirely. Won't make much of a difference to West Springfield if its I-91 or route 5 thats running along their waterfront.

 

[Nexis4jersey]

My Knowledge Corridor Railway Proposals...

Springfield Divison

Western line -- 30 minutes during peak hour , Hourly off peak service
Pittsfield
Dalton
Westfield
West Springfield
Springfield Union
Indian Orchard
Palmer
Warren
East Brookfield-Spencer
Webster Sq
Worcester Union


Knowledge Corridor - Local -- Hourly Bi-Directional
Brattleboro
Greenfield
Deerfield
South Deerfield
Northampton
Holyoke
Willimansett
Chicopee
Springfield Riverfront
Longmeadow
Thompsonville
Enfield
Windsor Locks
Windsor
North End
Hartford Union
West Hartford
Newington
Berlin
Meriden
Wallingford
North Haven
Fair Haven
New Haven-State Street
New Haven-Union

Knowledge Corridor - Express --- Rush Hours only
Brattleboro
Greenfield
Northampton
Holyoke
Springfield Riverfront
Windsor Locks
Hartford Union
Berlin
Meriden
New Haven-State Street
New Haven-Union

New Haven-Springfield Commuter Rail -- Every 15 minutes during peak hours and 30 minutes off peak
Springfield Union
Springfield Riverfront
Longmeadow
Thompsonville
Enfield
Windsor Locks
Windsor
North End
Hartford Union
West Hartford
Newington
Berlin
Meriden
Wallingford
North Haven
Fair Haven
New Haven-State Street
New Haven-Union

Hartford Divison

Regional Link
Williamantic
Vernon
Manchester
Manchester - Interstate 84 Park & Ride
East Hartford
Hartford Union
West Hartford
Newington
New Britian
East Bristol
Bristol
Waterbury
Naugatuck
Beacon Falls
Seymour
Ansonia
Derby (Close it)
Great River
Milford West
Devon (Most Services Terminate here)
Bridgeport (Limited)
Stamford (Limited)

 

[Nexis4jersey]

I get it, you love intercity rail. But that ain't gonna fly. You can't just chop an interstate in half on the assumption that everyone's gonna be taking the train. That just doesn't work. Truck drivers do not take passenger rail. Military convoys do not take passenger rail. And, unless both their place of business *and* your residence are conveniently located near passenger rail, commuters aren't going to take it either. Sure, people can park-and-ride to hop on the train, but this is not Boston, where there's a heavy concentration of employers right near the rail stations.

Rail lines need to work in concert with highways, not just try to replace them. And its particularly pointless to suggest getting rid of the highway completely, when there's a viable route that solves the problem entirely. Won't make much of a difference to West Springfield if its I-91 or route 5 thats running along their waterfront.

But if its worked in other cities , why can't it work in Springfield. I-91 isn't as busy as the West Side Highway , or NJ 21 which were converted to Urban Boulevards in the dense areas... There are a slew of similar freeways and highways on the chopping block in California , Pennsylvania , New Jersey , New York.... I'm not completely eliminating I-91 i'm downgrading it to a boulevard.....I don't see the issue with that. Most Employers along the Knowledge Corridor are within the Downtown areas near the stations , only a few are outside the Downtown areas , but this line overtime like others have ,will pull them closer to the line. Rail lines don't need to always work in concert with Highways , sometimes the Rail line is the better choice.... There should be less trucks on the roads and more cargo shipped on freight , same with Military convos which they do out west. Most of the Regional Growth in New England and this part of New England is inward and not outward so getting people to ditch the car and ride the Rail isn't as hard as say in Texas or Florida...

 

[DominusNovus]

But if its worked in other cities , why can't it work in Springfield. I-91 isn't as busy as the West Side Highway , or NJ 21 which were converted to Urban Boulevards in the dense areas... There are a slew of similar freeways and highways on the chopping block in California , Pennsylvania , New Jersey , New York.... I'm not completely eliminating I-91 i'm downgrading it to a boulevard.....I don't see the issue with that. Most Employers along the Knowledge Corridor are within the Downtown areas near the stations , only a few are outside the Downtown areas , but this line overtime like others have ,will pull them closer to the line. Rail lines don't need to always work in concert with Highways , sometimes the Rail line is the better choice.... There should be less trucks on the roads and more cargo shipped on freight , same with Military convos which they do out west. Most of the Regional Growth in New England and this part of New England is inward and not outward so getting people to ditch the car and ride the Rail isn't as hard as say in Texas or Florida...

Oy...

First, the difference between downgrading a state route and an interstate should need no explanation. Interstates exist to provide highway connections between the states. You want to tear one down and turn it into a boulevard, you're going to have to have a conversation with the feds and explain to them why you want to start de-constructing a project they spent 40 years on.

Second, the major employers in the Springfield Metro area:
http://lmi2.detma.org/lmi/Top_employer_list.asp?gstfips=25&areatype=25&gCountyCode=078100
I'm looking, and most of those aren't going to be near your proposed train stations. And *many* are outside downtown areas. C&S, for example, is in the middle of friggin nowhere. So, are those employers going to be expected to provide shuttle services or something for these 50,000 daily riders you're projecting?

Third, the interstate system *exists* in the first place for the transportation of military convoys and cargo traffic, with commuter travel being an added bonus. The whole point is the ease of transport both locally and nationally. Simply put, trucks go places trains can't.

It really sounds to me like you want to just remake the entire transportation network into something rail-based. Reminds me of the planners from the 60s who wanted to remake the entire transportation network.

 

[Nexis4jersey]

Oy...

First, the difference between downgrading a state route and an interstate should need no explanation. Interstates exist to provide highway connections between the states. You want to tear one down and turn it into a boulevard, you're going to have to have a conversation with the feds and explain to them why you want to start de-constructing a project they spent 40 years on.

Second, the major employers in the Springfield Metro area:
http://lmi2.detma.org/lmi/Top_employer_list.asp?gstfips=25&areatype=25&gCountyCode=078100
I'm looking, and most of those aren't going to be near your proposed train stations. And *many* are outside downtown areas. C&S, for example, is in the middle of friggin nowhere. So, are those employers going to be expected to provide shuttle services or something for these 50,000 daily riders you're projecting?

Third, the interstate system *exists* in the first place for the transportation of military convoys and cargo traffic, with commuter travel being an added bonus. The whole point is the ease of transport both locally and nationally. Simply put, trucks go places trains can't.

It really sounds to me like you want to just remake the entire transportation network into something rail-based. Reminds me of the planners from the 60s who wanted to remake the entire transportation network.

1. There have been numerous highways , interstates removed or downgraded with 20 on the list in the Northeast alone , the feds don't seem to care as long as there's an Alt or plan in place. Highway downgrading isn't as expensive as Tunnel , my state plans on downgrading or boulevarding at least 40 miles worth over the next 15 years...most projects are between 40-150 million $$$ for a 4-6 Highway. The Highways that have been downgrading haven't really seen all that negative an impact and property values and investments near the Highway have gone up. Elevated Highways and Viaducts are starting to reach the end of their lifespan so many cities are looking to tear them down or bury them....

2. Shuttles , most of the Employers are within the half mile walking distance the average person is willing to walk. Also redo the bus network to feed into the stations and service the various large employers and popular tourist destinations that are outside the Downtown. This seems like a broken record , the 50,000 number is for the whole Knowledge Corridor which runs from Brattleboro to New Haven.....and is about 180 miles long with 25 stations full build. 50,000 might be a low number , once you factor in all the College Students and tourists who move up and down the Corridor each day....College students will be the first to switch over to train and then tourists if there Journey is near the line. So it could be as high as 80,000....and that's not far fetched.

3. The Military could really care less about the Interstate system , how many times a year do you see a convoy on 91 or any Interstate its rare outside the base towns and counties. Cargo traffic is slowly being shifted on Rail , where it should be.... there's really no need for Interstate Cargo , on Regional Cargo. All these trucks cause congestion , they can be put on trains or have the trains ship the cargo. Car Ownership is declining while Intercity Rail and Bus traffic is booming , hence why once this line is up even less cars will use 91.

4. I want Cities to have access to their Waterfronts , and for Regions big and small to have Muti-Modal Transportation.....that way when Fuel goes up like it has in the past and will continue you to. Your Region doesn't slow or collapse. The Cities that have Passenger and Freight have and will grow and outpace there Auto or Single mode counterparts in the Northeast. It also makes your city more attractive to the younger generation and companies looking to relocate...

Highway Removal , Urban Boulevard list

Maine
I-295 in Portland will be transformed into a boulevard through the bayside neighborhood

Rhode Island
I-95 through Pawtucket will have Park Lids along the Depressed stretches
I-95 through Downtown Providence will have all depressed areas covered with Park space and high rises
I-195 through East Providence will have all depressed areas covered with Park space , with busway stations at select streets.

Connecticut
I-91 through Downtown Hartford will be covered with a Park lid
I-84 through Downtown Hartford will rebuilt as an underground highway from Exit 51 to Exit 46 in Parkville and the famous unfinished exit 46 demolished
I-91 through the Mill River section of New Haven will either be transformed into a boulevard or tunneled....
I-95 in various parts of New Haven and East Haven will have Park lids over the depressed sections
Connecticut 34 through Downtown New Haven is being converted to an Urban Street.

New York
I-287 through White Plains will have various depressed areas covered with Park space , at select intersections there will be future bus rapid stations
I-895 will be removed in the Bronx section of New York City and transformed into Park space
I-287/87 through South Nyack will receive a Park lid surrounding the New Interchange and will have a future Regional Rail station/ Bus Terminal
I-278 will have all depressed areas covered with Park space in Cobble Hill-Brooklyn , New York City....
I-81 through Downtown Syracuse will be converted to an Urban Boulevard
NY 5/Buffalo Skyway will be demolished and converted to an Urban Boulevard
I-490/Inner Loop in Downtown Rochester will be removed and replaced with an Urban Boulevard

New Jersey
I-78 through the South Ward of Newark will see its depressed areas covered with Park space and housing , along with express bus stops at select streets
I-280 through The Oranges and North Ward of Newark will see its depressed areas covered with Park Space and Housing , with Bus Rapid Stations at select streets
NJ 20 through Paterson will be transformed into an Urban Boulevard with Bus lanes
NJ 29 through Trenton will be Transformed into an Urban Boulevard with Bus lanes
NJ 4 through Fair Lawn will be transformed into an Urban Boulevard with Bus Lanes
NJ 440 through Jersey City will be transformed into an Urban Boulevard with Light Rail running along the Western side
US-1 through Trenton will see its depressed areas covered with Park Space


Eastern Pennsylvania
I-676 will see the rest of its Downtown Philadelphia depressed sections covered with Park space and high rises
I-95 along Philadelphia waterfront for now will be covered , but long term goals are to demolish this highway

Delaware
I-95 through Wilmington will be covered with Park space and low rise buildings

Maryland
I-83 in Downtown Boulevard will be demolished and rebuilt as an Urban Boulevard
US-40 through in Baltimore is being replaced with an Urban boulevard with Light Rail tracks on the side

 

[DominusNovus]

I don't know why I keep bothering with you and your obsession with rail and your little crusade against highways.

1) Name one instance where a Federal Interstate Highway was downgraded without a replacement route at Interstate standards. I'll give you one: I-480. It got hit by an earthquake and they decided it wasn't worth the effort to rebuild it. But even that is a 3-digit interstate, not a main route.

2) If you're going to estimate numbers upward, provide some citation. For example, here's an article that cites the MassDOT saying that the Springfield stretch of I-91 alone gets 66,000 drivers during every weekday.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/10/big_dig-springfield_i-91_in_ci.html

3) The military absolutely does care about the interstate system. They just don't have to use it much here because nobody's invading Massachusetts, and we've dodged major natural disasters pretty well lately. Again, you're putting your own perception of where cargo 'should' be. Intermodal is great, for certain things, but it is not great for everything. Intermodal is much slower and less reliable for transportation than trucking is. Thats fine, when you're talking bulk commodities, like lumber or oil. But not so much for perishable goods.

Also, do you realize the logistical headache intermodal is?
-Product is loaded into an FEU container.
-Trucking company picks it up (unless you're going to suggest that everyone tear down their factories and build them along rail lines) and brings it to a freight yard.
- Container is loaded onto train, waits for rest of train to be filled. Train arrives as destination yard.
- Another trucking company picks up the cargo and brings it to its destination.
- Product is unloaded.

As opposed to:
- Product is loaded into truck.
- Truck drives to destination.
- Product is unloaded.

Oh, and every stage of that is a transfer of liability between different companies. So, you can choose between transferring liability twice or four times, in an ideal situation. Heaven help you if you have to clear customs for international travel, or if any of those transportation companies are using a freight forwarder to handle different stages of the trip.

However, I do get a chuckle out of your attitude. Commuters shouldn't be on the interstate. The military shouldn't be on the interstate. Cargo shouldn't be on the interstate. Apparently, nobody's supposed to be on it.

Oh, and I've got a sneaking suspicion that the car ownership numbers and miles traveled might just rebound a bit when the economy does. When you've got large numbers of people out of work (labor force participation rate is at the lowest its been in decades), you've got many fewer commuters.

4) You say you want cities to have multiple means of transportation, while advocating demolishing major highways. The irony is breathtaking. Myself, I would prefer for urban areas to be well served by both rail and interstate highways.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Dominus:

I like the general idea of rerouting 91 but it looks like the ROW along Rt 5 is too narrow and would require either filling in the riverbank or taking homes, neither of which would fly today.

Now if Rt 5 were to be upgraded just a bit, maybe not to interstate standards but certainly adding a 3rd lane, you could also boulevard what is now 91 running from the South End Bridge to 291 and not have to worry about traffic loads since you are basically just shifting the traffic from one side of the river to the other. A boulevard also has the ability, which an interstate freeway lacks, to revitalize an area by allowing development along the route.

None of that smacks of an anti-highway/pro-rail agenda to me since the interstate would just be resigned and trucks can still get to downtown Springfield via the boulevard.

 

[DominusNovus]

Dominus:

I like the general idea of rerouting 91 but it looks like the ROW along Rt 5 is too narrow and would require either filling in the riverbank or taking homes, neither of which would fly today.

Now if Rt 5 were to be upgraded just a bit, maybe not to interstate standards but certainly adding a 3rd lane, you could also boulevard what is now 91 running from the South End Bridge to 291 and not have to worry about traffic loads since you are basically just shifting the traffic from one side of the river to the other. A boulevard also has the ability, which an interstate freeway lacks, to revitalize an area by allowing development along the route.

None of that smacks of an anti-highway/pro-rail agenda to me since the interstate would just be resigned and trucks can still get to downtown Springfield via the boulevard.

I agree 90%. I don't agree with the idea proposed by Nexis of turning both route 5 *and* I-91 into boulevards. Somehow, the interstate is supposed to stop south of Springfield and start back up in West Springfield, under his proposal, totally contrary to the entire point of an *inter*state highway.

As for the RoW concerns, they're very valid. However, I don't see how it would be easier to increase the number of lanes on route-5 than it would be to bring it up to interstate standards.

If I-91 were brought up through route 5, there wouldn't be any concerns about the river or houses for the southern section, since it runs through some by vacant areas, as well as a dump, sewer treatment plant, and a power station. The only problem might be widening the curve in Agawam, where it runs by an isolated strip mall/warehouse area (the other side is residential, so thats a no-go). Its once you pass route 147 that things get tight. Which is why I'm thinking my second alternative, where right around that section, just north of the rail bridge, the highway is rerouted back across the river in a new bridge, and hooks up with the existing I-91 right where it joins with I-291.

 

[davem]

You can't "downgrade" a mainline through-route federal interstate. You just cant. No. It doesn't happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_standards The only cases where non compliance is allowed in cases where existing infrastructure is grandfathered in, or in new construction where it is logistically impossible to build to interstate standards (84 through Hartford or 93 through Franconia Notch). Never has an existing mainline interstate been taken out of compliance, unless it has been removed from the system completely.

You could move it and then demolish the previous ROW. If its a spur you can discontinue the highway and demolish the previous ROW. But you can't just strip out the middle of a through route interstate and turn it into a local road. Its against federal law. Don't think about doing it, don't talk about doing it, because you just cant.

What I think you could do would be to upgrade Route 5 to a four lane limited access highway and resign it as I-91. Then remove a lane from the existing I-91 through Springfield and resign it as I-291. (Beltways and bypasses have to be even numbered, spurs are odd. Since the existing 291 would no longer be connected to 91 it would be resigned as 390.). This way you actually have a net gain of one lane through the area and the bonus of removing through-traffic out of downtown Springfield.

Edit: Like this. I also cut off the I-390 spur (current 291) outside of the city center to discourage traffic from going through Springfield and instead using the other side of the river.

 

[underground]

Best case scenario in the near term:

1) Downgrade to 2 lanes and put the whole thing in a trench
2) Simplify the off-ramps and weaving
3) Build boulevard surface roads along the trench and build big right up to it.

And Eventually:

4) Cap the cut

Cincinnati more or less did all of that, and it's jump started (or at least been a big component of) a downtown boom.

 

[novitiate]

You can't "downgrade" a mainline through-route federal interstate. You just cant. No. It doesn't happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_standards The only cases where non compliance is allowed in cases where existing infrastructure is grandfathered in, or in new construction where it is logistically impossible to build to interstate standards (84 through Hartford or 93 through Franconia Notch). Never has an existing mainline interstate been taken out of compliance, unless it has been removed from the system completely.

You could move it and then demolish the previous ROW. If its a spur you can discontinue the highway and demolish the previous ROW. But you can't just strip out the middle of a through route interstate and turn it into a local road. Its against federal law. Don't think about doing it, don't talk about doing it, because you just cant.

Federal laws aren't forces of nature, they're forces of politics. It makes it a bigger factor to consider than if it wasn't a through-interstate we were talking about, sure, but if the political will is there then it can be overcome.

And of course, you're going to need plenty of political will just to get the funding for these rerouting plans anyway.

 

[acroterion]

There is no friggin way 91 would be boulevarded, unless you want to spend another 10 minutes passing through the city, and then you would have a delightful stretch of gridlock of heavy trucks cutting off the waterfront.

Almost certainly the viaduct will be repaired, burying the thing would be ideal but would require completely rebuilding the 291 interchange (and probably the south end bridge interchange), regrading a mile of the highway in each direction and dealing with the with cross streets and railroad tracks.

The topography is not conducive to rerouting the highway on the west side of the river, there is room along the flood control dike, but you would end up with two of the infamous "Chicopee Curve", and the associated overturned trucks.

The workable solution is to rebuild the viaduct in a much more permeable fashion and provide a circulator system connecting the riverfront with the downtown. This does not take into account the 6 lanes of high speed traffic on east and west columbus ave on each side of 91 which is a total clusterfuck. It is unlikely the riverfront will be a vibrant location in the forseeable future.

 

[acroterion]

My Knowledge Corridor Railway Proposals...

Springfield Divison

Western line -- 30 minutes during peak hour , Hourly off peak service
Pittsfield
Dalton
Westfield
West Springfield
Springfield Union
Indian Orchard
Palmer
Warren
East Brookfield-Spencer
Webster Sq
Worcester Union


QUOTE]

The bustling metropoli of Warren and Dalton. The replacement of the CSX bridge and associated regrading in downtown Westfield has pretty much ruined any chance of having a convenient staton there. I cannot envision any higher level of service west of Springfield other than an additional LSL.